These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

[Gameplay] Removing direction in space

Author
wopolusa
Anti-Nub Incorporated
Centipede Caliphate.
#1 - 2014-07-01 12:35:58 UTC
So firstly, before any jimmies get rustled, EVE may work like it does purely due to engine limitations and if that is the case then so be it.

Problem(though it's more of a missed opportunity than a problem)
So currently everything about EVE is created to give a sense of up and down. stations, acceleration gates and even your ships are positioned to give us a sense of direction as we play. But as you know space is quite the opposite to our Earth-based assumptions that everything must have an up and down. And it's not that it doesn't work like it is. But I feel there's that lack of immersion and confusion that space brings. Everything can feel a bit flattened out at times. At least for me.

Solution:
-Hence I'd suggesting, for a start, removing the camera limitations. The camera should be able to be flipped and spun beyond the 180 degree (or more like 175) arc that it currently can in any 'direction'.
-And Beyond that Changing a lot of the entities like stations to not all sit in this 'correct' vertical position would add to give a bit less of a sense of direction to players.
-Finally, and the most controversial of all would be to give ships pitch and roll, beyond their automatic settings as they are now. Even if it was as basic as automatically associating the top of the ship to face the direction you are turning.

QuestionsQuestion? ImprovementsIdea? HateEvil? Am I missing something awfully obviousRoll?
Lets hear it
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#2 - 2014-07-01 12:39:34 UTC
Grobalobobob Bob
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2014-07-01 12:41:06 UTC
+1 makes sense.. Space has no up, nor down.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#4 - 2014-07-01 12:44:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Yes, yes, yes, SHIP ROLL!

This will fix most of it, even if the camera stays the same.

Sorry for caps, was too excited - need to clean the desk now Roll.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Why?


The beauty of space and things within ? A pinch of realism and feeling of real space ? The awe of drifting in space ? And even if you only see it as a visual improvement for filmmakers, I love those clips ... don't you ?
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#5 - 2014-07-01 13:12:54 UTC
Grobalobobob Bob wrote:
+1 makes sense.. Space has no up, nor down.


'Science fiction space' does have an up and down. EVE has an up and down because disorienting your video game players would be a stupid business decision lol. EVE is a game, but not a simulation.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2014-07-01 13:22:10 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
'Science fiction space' does have an up and down.

Only if there's an enemy gate.
Jenn aSide wrote:
EVE has an up and down because disorienting your video game players would be a stupid business decision lol.

Disorienting? Wha? I have to question as to whether you've ever played a space sim game.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#7 - 2014-07-01 13:27:47 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
'Science fiction space' does have an up and down. EVE has an up and down because disorienting your video game players would be a stupid business decision lol. EVE is a game, but not a simulation.
=False, it is what you make of it. One day it might even be simulating space correctly, your objections won't and luckily, so far, there are none.

There is no need for up and down besides the tactical and the internal orientation, where does it say the player gets disoriented, spinning eternally 360 on the xy plane is already possible, why not in the 3rd dimension. Rolling a ship into the opposite direction is less dizzying then station spinning with 3600rpm. It takes nothign and adds a lot.

From teh roleplaying aspect, Id love to roll the 'undamaged' side into the fire, protecting the burned one while trying to escape or tank with my hull trying to get my opponent first.

I really do not understand your reservations.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#8 - 2014-07-01 13:35:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Bohneik Itohn
Simple compromise to make everyone happy: Make it so it can be toggled.

Add another button to the camera radial menu that unlocks the camera and removes the ship's desire to orient itself to zero point alignment.

Everyone is happy, no significant mechanics changes need to be made.

Edit:

Jenn aSide wrote:
Grobalobobob Bob wrote:
+1 makes sense.. Space has no up, nor down.


'Science fiction space' does have an up and down. EVE has an up and down because disorienting your video game players would be a stupid business decision lol. EVE is a game, but not a simulation.


Really? So Eve isn't disorienting now?

Get in a fight with an interceptor, flying an interceptor, with no webs, and forget to turn the tracking camera off. Try not to concuss yourself against the wall, desk and floor as you attempt to figure out wtf is going on and turn that damn tracking camera off before you vomit.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

wopolusa
Anti-Nub Incorporated
Centipede Caliphate.
#9 - 2014-07-01 13:53:39 UTC
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Simple compromise to make everyone happy: Make it so it can be toggled.

Add another button to the camera radial menu that unlocks the camera and removes the ship's desire to orient itself to zero point alignment.

Everyone is happy, no significant mechanics changes need to be made.


This is definitely an option that could work. After all it wont make any major changes to a fight or to pve/mining you name it. The only situation I can see it being limiting is that full rotation would be quicker in situations where currently if you try 'somersault' your ship it tries to make your ship roll and then continue dropping the nose rather than flipping entirely.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#10 - 2014-07-01 14:04:39 UTC
The only thing it changes is that you would be able to align to an object and stop your ship while still being aligned when you start moving again. This is something that has needed to be done for a very, very long time because having to fly towards an object to maintain alignment is just stupid, and causes a lot of awkward moments in fleets.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

Lan Wang
African Atomic.
Dreadnought Diplomacy.
#11 - 2014-07-01 14:06:07 UTC
Grobalobobob Bob wrote:
+1 makes sense.. Space has no up, nor down.


Space has no pirates and jump portals either

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

wopolusa
Anti-Nub Incorporated
Centipede Caliphate.
#12 - 2014-07-01 14:08:05 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Grobalobobob Bob wrote:
+1 makes sense.. Space has no up, nor down.


Space has no pirates and jump portals either


Yet ;)
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#13 - 2014-07-01 14:14:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Lan Wang wrote:
Grobalobobob Bob wrote:
+1 makes sense.. Space has no up, nor down.


Space has no pirates and jump portals either

As you are aware of Shocked

Scientists and believers alike all over the world are waiting for your all knowing, cosmic scale like insights.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#14 - 2014-07-01 14:28:56 UTC
it would actuall look cool if the stations "down" would face the planet/ moon it is circling and not the side that is down on the system map.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.

Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#15 - 2014-07-01 14:36:22 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
it would actuall look cool if the stations "down" would face the planet/ moon it is circling and not the side that is down on the system map.


This has always bothered me. The stations should be oriented by the relation of their center of mass to the body they are orbiting, unless they are located within a Lagrangian point in which case it would make sense from an engineering standpoint to orient the dock towards the stargate with the heaviest amount of traffic for convenience and safety.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#16 - 2014-07-01 14:39:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Debora Tsung wrote:
it would actuall look cool if the stations "down" would face the planet/ moon it is circling and not the side that is down on the system map.

There is not particular reason for why a station should have a down (besides that some models look like it like some Gallente and others don't like Amarr) and if or if it is not oriented to the center of the planetoid. I believe they can orient themselves however they want or rather what makes engineeringly sense.
They are not extensions of the planetoid like space elevators, they just 'orbit'. And in regards to other object, they usually orbit or cricle with their top or side (depending on how menauvering and propulsion works) I have never witnessed (reality and scifi) such thing with the 'aft' or 'belly' towards the orbited object.

Just saying, they can, they do not have to.
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#17 - 2014-07-01 14:56:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tchulen
seriously? With all the things that could be fixed and/or added you want the devs to spend the time to unpick the code just so you can spin your ship in the third axis and reposition all space based structures so they either have "down" pointing at the nearest gravity well or just have everything randomly positioned?

Really?

Jees. I'm just glad you have next to no input into what CCP actually do for their customers.

It's a "nice" idea in theory but would give almost no practical use. Every time this has been discussed in the past the conclusion has been that it's way too much old code unscrambling and that at some point, when they have other more useful reasons to unpick the code, this would eventually get done but hell, purposing devs purely to do this would just be plain dumb.

The list of things that are more productive for CCP to do for the game is a very long list indeed.

That said, don't let me stop you discussing how cool it would be.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#18 - 2014-07-01 14:58:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Bohneik Itohn
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Debora Tsung wrote:
it would actuall look cool if the stations "down" would face the planet/ moon it is circling and not the side that is down on the system map.

There is not particular reason for why a station should have a down (besides that some models look like it like some Gallente and others don't like Amarr) and if or if it is not oriented to the center of the planetoid. I believe they can orient themselves however they want or rather what makes engineeringly sense.
They are not extensions of the planetoid like space elevators, they just 'orbit'. And in regards to other object, they usually orbit or cricle with their top or side (depending on how menauvering and propulsion works) I have never witnessed (reality and scifi) such thing with the 'aft' or 'belly' towards the orbited object.

Just saying, they can, they do not have to.


They can, but in order to maintain an orientation against the gravitational bias of the station extra equipment would be needed and the ability to fuel or propel the equipment.

Equipment fails and causes problems, and problems are bad enough when they aren't in space. Fuel costs add up over time and it quickly becomes more expensive to keep the station oriented against the gravitational bias than it does to originally place it or move it to a gravitationally neutral position

Tchulen wrote:

*Ranty Snip*


Yep, really.

OP has been deemed a useful suggestion, and would be pretty damn easy from a coding standpoint. So don't try to act like it's a waste of time.

The rest of this is born out of the fact that there is no discussion to be had on what the OP suggested. It just needs to be done. If you don't have enough of a neckbeard to contribute to the discussion of station orientation feel free to not contribute in any way at all. The rest of us would appreciate it.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

wopolusa
Anti-Nub Incorporated
Centipede Caliphate.
#19 - 2014-07-01 15:10:13 UTC
Tchulen, you know fair enough. While I'm sure a lot of players will notice/use this. There's more important things that can be implemented quicker and by all means they should take priority but at some point this could become a feature worth implementation.

What I enjoy in this game is authenticity and growing trust among other players, other's are interested in competitiveness, making the most isk or just outright trolling others.

So it seems silly to you. But to me something like this is kind of a big deal, though that's not to say you can't argue it's stupid. One to their own.
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#20 - 2014-07-01 15:16:16 UTC
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
OP has been deemed a useful suggestion, and would be pretty damn easy from a coding standpoint. So don't try to act like it's a waste of time.

Seeing as how you have no idea what their code looks like you simply can't state that it's "pretty damned easy". As I said, from all the discussions in the past, with plenty of coders taking part in the discussions, the conclusions have generally been that this was probably badly coded in the first place and they don't want to touch it as it's probably a mine field. If it were "pretty damned easy" they would have already done it, n'est-ce pas? Also, you have deemed the OP's suggestion as useful. I don't. Matter of opinion. Personally, because I actually play the game and understand the concept of limited resources I don't consider this as any form of priority. That doesn't stop you from discussing it.

Bohneik Itohn wrote:
The rest of this is born out of the fact that there is no discussion to be had on what the OP suggested. It just needs to be done. If you don't have enough of a neckbeard to contribute to the discussion of station orientation feel free to not contribute in any way at all. The rest of us would appreciate it.

Actually I've got an enormous neck beard. As I said, don't let me stop you discussing it. I'm just amazed that people think this should be a priority. I'm not stopping you discussing it in any way. You've posted your opinion on the subject, I've posted mine. You have no more right to post than I do. For future reference, if you don't want someone to post on a topic, don't answer their posts. I would have just moved on if I'd not been replied to but hell, if I get a rise.
12Next page