Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ah, ok, definite misunderstanding. I don't consider it silly in itself, just that people are getting overly excited about this as though it's all important to the game. If CCP had unlimited resources I would consider it an improvement (as long as there were methods to artificially create a horizon for those with orientation issues).

I respect that you've got an opinion and also, believe it or not, what you want to get out of the game. I obviously came across harsher than I intended. EVE needs more people like you, if I'm honest.

So yeah, I've voiced my opinion regarding priorities so as long as I don't need to answer any more posts directed at me I'll leave you guys to your discussion.

For your sake, I do hope CCP manages to unpick their code and do this at some point.... just not till all the other glaring issues get fixed

Well lets see. I'll concede that I don't know jack about coding, and that I haven't tried to mod Eve. Yet. However, basic knowledge tells me that most source codes all have the same basic functions for making the code work and one of those is an omission function:

Typically standard or repetitive actions done by objects in a program are controlled by a smaller script that executes within the engine. When the requirements are met the script is activated, it plays out it's role, and then is deactivated.

Let's say you drop out of warp. Once you do so the script for warping, when it finishes, points the executable to the script for deceleration which then starts and continues until it is either interrupted (you change direction and set a velocity, say by double clicking) or the script finishes. At the end of the deceleration script the executable would find another pointer directing it to the idle orientation script/function as the next step in that process, and begin it's execution.

Now, I'm not saying it's this easy because I've never been paid a dime to code anything in my life, but from my very basic understanding derived from simple modding of various games I've done over the years for personal amusement, the change needed to prevent the orientation script could possibly be something as simple as what I've done many times in the past.

You write a simple script attached to a function (the new button in the camera radial menu) that injects a modification in the other script, so that at the beginning of the pointer that would redirect the executable to the orientation script an omission marker is placed, meaning that that part of the script is ignored and the executable moves on to the next step.

So something like this: (Had to change this from a decent example to something unrecognizable, because the forum thought I was trying to include HTML in my post?... I have no idea what's going on)

48. %include (orient.ccp)

Becomes:

48. !%include (orient.ccp)

Again. I haven't bothered to try and mod Eve yet, because in order to do so I'd have to set up a server in order to get the full capability of doing so and that's a righteous pain in the ass that could take weeks, not a bit of rollicky fun which best describes what I usually do. But even if it isn't as simple as that, it isn't far removed, because the injection of changes and omission marks are fundamental and necessary parts of any piece of code.

How do you know that for a fact?

Technical limitations are an intrinsic part of the ideas/features discussion. I'm not saying that people shouldn't discuss low priority or impossible things however. People are free to discuss what they're like and input what opinions they feel like submitting.


This is the most pertinant part of your post. I've tried to think of a way of saying that which couldn't be taken as an offence and I can't think of one. I'm not trying to be offensive though.


I'm pretty sure (yet can't be bothered to check) that modding the EVE client is massively against CCP's rules and carries a potential ban if you're caught doing it.

I suspect CCP won't give you the server code to mess with anyway.

Caught modifying the way my client communicates with the server? Banned. Caught sniffing data that isn't communicated to the player via the interface? Likely ban. And there are a few other obvious things, but otherwise there are plenty of mods/3rd party programs out there for Eve that are 100% acceptable because they don't monkey with the code in any way important or advantageous to the player.

The server code is available, it's just an outdated clusterf*ck of nonsense. It's not illegal to use it, it's just illegal to apply it in a way that CCP loses income or you gain income.

GNU Public License makes this possible.

It's the twits that abuse the concept of that license to try and slip under the radar that CCP is worried about.



What you're describing is the delay between visualization and what the server calculates. Your alignment changes as you sit in space, or else what I described a couple posts ago, being able to align to an object and not have to re-align, would already be possible. It isn't.

A sphere still has an alignment, btw.

Always remember, the art team doesn't fix sov warfare.

That's for the other guys in the team. ^^

Technically, as long as you are in a solar system, THERE IS an "up and down", in that their is a solar plane planets revolve around, they dont all just fly in random directions. this mostly-flat plane can be called "level" or "ground" for the system, meaning for navigation and coordinates functions on a map, there becomes an "up" and a "down".

Any species that wanted to truly LIVE in space, would use this plane, since it allows for ease of transition and positioning between entities.

For people who easily get motion sick I can agree entirely, and making this optional would be necessary. But I think for most other players this would be more of a matter of getting used to than 'hindering' the experience. I think one fault in pvp is that a lot of players, especially new, treat pvp like the 'tabletop' 2D sort of experience you get in most games, particularly first person shooters.

I posted this aerlier in the general Features & Ideas Discussion and Fer'isam K'ahn was kind enough to point me here so here goes:

This has been on my mind for quite sometime, so I finally thought "why not make a suggestion to ccp about it".

This is just an "artistic" personal opinion, or suggestion if you like, about how i see the stations in orbit moving closer to the moon or planet they orbit around. I always thought that in real life orbit radius is not as wide as it seems to be in game. I think the result is more impressive, but then again that's just me.
Please find attached three images I made quickly in Photoshop.
Also note than like this, you will have different view of tha planet depending on from which direction you apporach to dock. It can be above, below or on the side. That will give interesting variation. Maybe the station "down" verical axis (Z axis if you like) can always be pointing to the planet's core to keep things consistent and simple. (This is not always the case in my images but I was trying different things).
Comments and opinions are welcome.

G.A.P.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/64xketbzg1qh0xv/test01.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/iigd4x8mc3ddnvu/test02.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/49yj8rux4wag3vg/test03.jpg

Should the game just go back to shitcan 2003 graphics forever because graphics don't actually improve the gaming experience?

You should contact Sony about their PS4, as well as essentially every video game and hardware developer from the last decade. They're all living in some fantasy world where they're convinced that nice graphics and heavy immersion actually makes for a better game. Imagine that.



Are you claiming that CCP has already thought up every idea we could possibly post on the forums, and have either already implemented them or already discarded them because they are too difficult or impossible?

Welp, **** me then. Time we pack up these suggestion forums for good, boys. Turns out CCP already thought of everything!



I've done a large amount of coding, and I would say that it isn't likely as easy as you're implying.

Working through old code can be difficult. In a perfect world it would be easy.

But a lot of old code is made from inexperienced people who had no foresight. What made sense at the time turns out to be very limiting now. I once saw a person make a GUI for a quest system that was PERFECT. Three years later, someone realized there was basically no way to make it so the GUI could include quests that happened "in steps" -- everyone had just been making "step" quests function like 5 independent mini-quests where the first 4 yielded no rewards.

I can't say for certain this would be easy, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

Players shouldn't be making ANY assumptions that this is too easy OR too hard. We should just simply be coming up with ideas, discussing their pros and cons, and then forwarding them.

The reason Tchulen's argument fails is because it's entirely based on speculation on CCP. He said he actually likes the idea -- he should have simply thumbs'ed it up, said "Low priority," and moved on. Later, CCP could have reviewed the suggestion and decided for themselves: "this will take too much time and is too low of a priority" or "this is impossible because of our terrible coding foundation."

We shouldn't be dismissing potentially good ideas just because they *might* not fall within CCP's prerogative or priorities. We should be telling CCP what we want, so they can factor it into their priorities and their possibilities.



Actually, assuming no gigantic "old code" burden, this should be very possible and not even that hard.

Dock up and go to the hangar. Right click and you can spin your camera around 500 times to look in any direction you want, including straight up.

On WoW, you can bind keys to "pitch up" and "pitch down" and fly literally upside down in the air. That game's camera system was also made pre-2003.

It isn't even hard. The only reason it would be "hard" is if CCP's camera controls were, as some people said, a shitstorm. Even at that, I have doubts as to how "shitstormy" they can be, as I would think that camera controls would be their own separate class/system and not interfere with anything.

But again, I can't know. There's a good chance the camera controls just bleed into neocom and bleed into windows and bleed into the browser and bleed into overview and bleed into the radial menu, etc. In that case, someone did a terrible TERRIBLE job of properly partitioning their coding, and we're going to have to suffer the consequences forever.