These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

How "science proof" is EVE?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hoshi
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#61 - 2015-03-15 11:56:23 UTC
Nyzam wrote:
It's not in the slightest. One of the worst violations to me is how there is a maximum speed on space ships. In reality they can go any speed until the speed of light (and it of course gets harder the more you approach it).

Another one is the sounds in space. There is no medium for sound to travel through in space.

Also, POSes with storage volumes bigger than their own volume, and the warping and jumping mechanism. There are many many things.

The sound one is explained. Quote from the Jovian Wet Grave Chronicle:

"As you know there is no sound in space, but when we were developing the capsules we found that people wanted to use as many of their senses as possible, thus we added the sound. By letting a computer create three dimensional sound we also add to the awareness you have while in battles, for instance."

"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
Memphis Baas
#62 - 2015-03-15 12:18:03 UTC
Sophie Mahler wrote:
What most people, in my opinion, did not understand is that I didn't mean to ask if eve was realistic overall.
[...]
I was wondering about whether or not there were some underlying scientific basis and if there were, what they were.


Well of course there is some scientific basis, what kind of a question is that? It's in space, you see stars, planets, spaceships, there are no elves, there is no magic; the "scientific basis" is obvious.

You should read the entire EVE lore site, but they made the effort to separate the scientific articles from the rest of the lore stories, for ease of googling. Enjoy.
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#63 - 2015-03-15 14:04:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Delt0r Garsk
Sophie Mahler wrote:
Ka'Narlist wrote:
Sophie Mahler wrote:

1. so how "realistic" is this game, is it "up to date" with modern, 2015 science regarding time & space travel?

If it would be, Eve would be a game playing on earth and not in space wouldn't it?





well for example, the movie "interstellar" is science fiction, but with a more "solid" scientific ground than Sci Fi flicks of the 60s

in EVE, we got wormholes, that's something already down in theory and not that far fetched from what science has discovered rather recently.

And yet it is still totally awful.

Most is. I love well written hard SciFi... and there is almost none of if out there, so i have to put up with interstellar quality scifi far too often.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Kuga
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#64 - 2015-03-15 23:05:11 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
Our "brightest scientists" think there's a copy (or two or three) of themselves somewhere else, doing exactly what they're doing here...where ever? whatever THAT may be. Only, they can't say exactly where....or what.... SO... "scientist?" I'm not impressed. "Scientist" is beginning to sound like "The High Priest" says....

EVE physics is as real as it can be and have a playable game that doesn't have players quitting,
climbing the walls or face-rolling it. I should think someone could figure this part out if they've
set their course for a planet, and an hour later they haven't "gotten there yet." Physics, of course,
would have you smash into the surface - gravity and all that. Did you miss the "clone" part, perhaps?

So, how many "is the physics of EVE scientifically comparable" posts is this so far this year? (And, it's still March.)

PS I have to say I AM impressed that "science" has finally decided to accept the fact that consciousness does indeed exist. I know it's not apparent to everyone, (especially the brain dead.) Good to see they're coming around...or coming to, whichever applies.



I'm not sure what 'science' you've been reading, but I suggest you find a new source. Copies of organisms our size would likely only exist in a universe of sufficient size (of which ours is not). The issue of 'multiverse' is rather one of philosophy than of science since we can neither prove nor disprove the concept.

As regards to EVE science, I think I shall take a very electronic age stance stance and address it with 'just LOL'.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#65 - 2015-03-16 05:11:35 UTC
eve makes more sense if you assume everything is happening under water. Also explains why planets are not moving.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Chopper Rollins
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#66 - 2015-03-16 05:39:46 UTC
Whoa no mention of damage types yet?


Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#67 - 2015-03-16 10:30:24 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
Sophie Mahler wrote:
I was not asking for additional features, rather wondering (I'm not even close to a scientist myself) how much, if any, real life science did CCP put in EVE.


2) Graphically, EVE's images of natural phenomena (nebulas and planets) are largely inspired by actual photographs of such things, although in real life they'd be far less dramatic to see.


Yeah, Eve is over the top dramatic here, at the cost of visibility and functionality in some regions.

Less is more.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#68 - 2015-03-16 11:13:32 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Darwin
War Kitten wrote:
Yeah, Eve is over the top dramatic here, at the cost of visibility and functionality in some regions.

Less is more.

If you'd like to offer feedback on EVE artwork, I recommend making a post in either a relevant dev blog's comment thread, the Features and Ideas Discussion forum, or the Test Server Feedback forum. Also, please be specific about what you'd like to see done differently.

CCP Darwin  •  Senior Software Engineer, Art & Graphics, EVE Online  •  @mark_wilkins
Sylveria Relden
#69 - 2015-03-17 02:22:41 UTC
"Bouncing" off celestials and objects... yeah... 'nuff said.

I'd love to see the introduction of gravity, electromagnetics and other primal forces into the EVE universe. Then let's see how many "cowboys" we have.

TL;DR If you didn't read the entire post perhaps you're probably ADHD. (seek help)
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2015-03-17 15:16:01 UTC
Jade Blackwind wrote:
Eve Online is about as scientifically accurate as Asteroids.


actually Asteroids has full Newtonian physics,..... there's that


Quote:
<--- Kerbal Space Program is that-away


We don't do science here in the land of space-gravy.


this
Less Miserable
Feral Solutions Inc
#71 - 2015-03-17 17:19:29 UTC
Nyzam wrote:

Also, POSes with storage volumes bigger than their own volume, and the warping and jumping mechanism. There are many many things.


Simple. That's Time Lord tech.

It's bigger on the inside.
Balthasar Dorian
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#72 - 2015-03-18 06:05:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Balthasar Dorian
Science realism is a very low priority for EVE unfortunately. Pretty much all attention goes to game balancing.

Even the item descriptions are almost completely lacking in any scientific details. There are some lore stories that cover the science of stargates and clone jumping but they are lacking in many details.

EVE takes place extremely far into the future so much of what is known in this time period is way beyond what we can imagine. So it would not be easy to both balance the game and fully develop the techno mythos.