These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fixing Mines.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#21 - 2015-05-14 21:52:51 UTC
You all forget the big thing with mines and performance hits. Mines have to check distance to every single player every second.
Not simply when access is attempted.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#22 - 2015-05-14 22:18:30 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
You all forget the big thing with mines and performance hits. Mines have to check distance to every single player every second.
Not simply when access is attempted.



That and OP is thinking well I am putting them up in their system, whats the deal?

Its them all over the place that is the issue. Its them in many systems. This scales up real fast.

Cans and bubbles don't do these persistent range calcs when left out so ccp tolerates them more. Programming has it iirc on the ship's end to get the effects. Can just sits there...its the ships programming that says doh....too close to can, decloaking now. No ship in system that can just sits there.

Why CCP imo leaves them to the gentlemen's agreement I mentioned earlier. The occasional violation of too many cans petition process the lesser of 2 evils when the other evil is running code that scours every system in eve and monitors can numbers, per tick.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#23 - 2015-05-14 22:32:37 UTC
Cans also have a removal feature at DT based on time now. Because can clutter was getting too bad. So CCP haven't even left Cans to run free.
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#24 - 2015-05-14 22:41:28 UTC
Grorious Reader wrote:
Given the massive clouds of wrecks and other static objects I've seen in the game, I don't think mines would pose much of a technical problem for the server or the client so long as they don't move. Not only is a static object like a mine less demanding than a drone, it can be made with as few as 4 polygons (pyramid shaped). You can't use the "it'll kill EVE" argument on mines any more than you could say CCP should remove drones because if 200 people drop 5 drones each the game will die. Additionally, mines in a fleet fight would likely reduce the total number of objects in space, as they would be able to destroy multiple drones and small ships per mine, as well as wrecks.

The only hurdle is how long should they stay in space. And if you require a large enough spacing between them, your LOD could basically render most of them as a single player-facing poly or just an overlay marker, meaning thousands could be in space at once and it would not lag a modern video card at all.


As for the gameplay issues...

I imagine them working like stationary bombs with a proximity detonator. Once activated, the mine starts a timer and then detonates an AOE weapon (maybe not the same damage or radius, who knows) that also destroys the mine. Ideally, the timer checks for proximity one last time a few seconds before detonating, so the mine isn't easily tricked. The reason for the timer is so you have a chance to escape the area if you're paying attention. This also means players in fast ships could counter mine fields by triggering mines and escaping at the last second.

The difference between bombs and mines in space is the same as the difference in the real world. Bombs are used for force projection. Mines are used for area denial - something that is pretty scarce in EVE tactics. In other words, mines are a largely defensive measure, while bombs are offensive.


Contributions like this get things done.

Bravo.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#25 - 2015-05-14 23:08:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Deep Nine wrote:
A timer would prevent server clutter and lag, while allowing them to be used practically for ambush, defense, and gate camp. My proposal is to include a timer that, when it expires, self detonates the mines, I suggest 1 hour, though it could set for longer depending on the limited number that can be placed, they would also disappear at restart.

I like the idea of a 1-hour timer, although I would like to enhance this by simply disabling (as opposed to self-detonating) the mine. In addition, warping off-grid, docking or jumping through a Stargate would render any deployed mines inert as well. This means you have to stay on-grid (cloaked or uncloaked) and be actively playing.

In terms of limits, one active mine per ship should suffice. Probably a smaller AOE than bombs (10km?), and you should be able to remote trigger it if you remain within 20-30km.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#26 - 2015-05-15 00:29:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Deep Nine
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
A timer would prevent server clutter and lag, while allowing them to be used practically for ambush, defense, and gate camp. My proposal is to include a timer that, when it expires, self detonates the mines, I suggest 1 hour, though it could set for longer depending on the limited number that can be placed, they would also disappear at restart.

I like the idea of a 1-hour timer, although I would like to enhance this by simply disabling (as opposed to self-detonating) the mine. In addition, warping off-grid, docking or jumping through a Stargate would render any deployed mines inert as well. This means you have to stay on-grid (cloaked or uncloaked) and be actively playing.

In terms of limits, one active mine per ship should suffice. Probably a smaller AOE than bombs (10km?), and you should be able to remote trigger it if you remain within 20-30km.


I believe the one hour timer is sufficient as well and rendering the mine inert instead of self detonation is an interesting idea as well, but may possibly add too much to clutter, having them self det with a visible count down timer will help limit additional server lag while warning the pilot of time remaining to retrieve the mine, but it shouldn't be out of the question.

I do not however believe the mines should shut down upon the pilot docking or leaving system, as it is not tied to the ships system anymore then a warp bubble would shut down upon a pilot leaving. The mechanic could operate similar to a warp bubbles independent ability to stand alone without a ship tied to it to monitor and make sure it stays active. However, leaving the system, or being out of site of the mine runs the risk of it running out of time anyway and they should have a fair cost to them to prevent just throwing them away, once rendered inert, it should be able to be scooped up by another pilot. This provides incentive to stay close and would possibly add to clean up by providing a financial incentive for players to salvage/scoop them up if found abandoned.

I believe between 1 to 3 mines is moderate, but one, depending on the size, could suffice as well. That would be up to the Dev of course. The AOE shouldn't be larger then the spacing between the mines, as this would cause fragging of surrounding friendly mines.

Remote trigger is an awesome idea but needs a citation to explain how it would be possible to do so, which I am interested in.

Thank You for your contributions. You have very good ideas.
Grorious Reader
Mongorian Horde
#27 - 2015-05-15 01:59:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Grorious Reader
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
You all forget the big thing with mines and performance hits. Mines have to check distance to every single player every second.
Not simply when access is attempted.


Distance checks are not computationally intensive. The formula is:

Sqrt [ (X1 - X2)^2 + (Y1 - Y2)^2 + (Z1 - Z2)^2 ]


Even a low-end single core CPU can do this thousands of times per second without batting an eyelash. Game engines tend to be really good at calculating sphere intersections and this sort of thing because it's basically how collision detection works.
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#28 - 2015-05-15 07:35:43 UTC
yeah and it has been stated many times that during the BIG fleet fights, the ones where having a wing of minelayers might actually be fun that tuts into an ungodly number of checks...

250 guys times 249 guys is 62250 checks before we even add in bubbles, drones, etc ad naseum... Or you know, the other few hondered - few thousand guys on the enemies team...
Philpip
T.R.I.A.D
Ushra'Khan
#29 - 2015-05-15 09:44:38 UTC
I'd like to see an evolution towards a anchorable bubble / mine.

AoE damage, cycle / amount based on size, to all inside said bubble because, lets be realistic, mines to not discriminate between friend and foe.

This sorts the 'where' they can be placed and will not significantly change server loading.

No, you were not blobbed, you just didn't bring enough people to the fight!
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#30 - 2015-05-15 13:56:04 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
Once again, in this extreme circumstance.

News flash dude.
CCP has to code for the EXTREME because we the players ALWAYS find a way to place the client / server in EXTREME situations.

With all the restriction you have placed on these I do not see any real use for having them at all other than the "it would be cool" factor and that is a poor reason to have them.
Grorious Reader
Mongorian Horde
#31 - 2015-05-15 14:43:29 UTC
FireFrenzy wrote:
yeah and it has been stated many times that during the BIG fleet fights, the ones where having a wing of minelayers might actually be fun that tuts into an ungodly number of checks...

250 guys times 249 guys is 62250 checks before we even add in bubbles, drones, etc ad naseum... Or you know, the other few hondered - few thousand guys on the enemies team...

Actually you don't check every collider against every other collider. You partition the available space (the grid) and only check against objects in the relevant partition. It's highly unlikely that 500 players deploying mines would all be in the same small space. And if they are, not for long.
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#32 - 2015-05-15 15:11:35 UTC
I'm not technically adept but I have been in a fair few very large fleet fights in my time and the moment you jump into system the drones come out and missiles start to fly is the moment that the lag monster grabs you and EvE starts moving through molasses, modules cycle in minutes not seconds and controlling your ship becomes an act of endurance.

I'm going to take some real convincing (by someone with a Dev tag preferably) that mines aren't going to make that particular scenario happen more often and more quickly.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#33 - 2015-05-15 17:53:43 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
Once again, in this extreme circumstance.

News flash dude.
CCP has to code for the EXTREME because we the players ALWAYS find a way to place the client / server in EXTREME situations.

With all the restriction you have placed on these I do not see any real use for having them at all other than the "it would be cool" factor and that is a poor reason to have them.


This thread has already worked the mechanic of mines down to a foundation in which it can be applicable.

Please reread the entire thread.
Cassandra Opium
The Opium Sisters
#34 - 2015-05-15 21:30:01 UTC
I have done a lot of roaming on the forums and this is one of the few ideas that i actually like. It's amazing to me how many people just troll, feed misinformation, insult, and downright lie. This thread is full of them.

i support this idea and i would like to see more of them. me and my sister have already decided if they are approved we can use them to guard our gas fields while we are harvesting, we feel it would provide a measure of safety especially if they can be easily place in numbers.

Gonna subscribe, thanks.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#35 - 2015-05-15 22:04:13 UTC
Grorious Reader wrote:

Actually you don't check every collider against every other collider. You partition the available space (the grid) and only check against objects in the relevant partition. It's highly unlikely that 500 players deploying mines would all be in the same small space. And if they are, not for long.

The grid IS the partition. You can't partition the grid or you end up with invisible walls inside the grid also.

Additionally with the restrictions some people are trying to lay on mines, it's obvious that they are broken. If you have to heavily restrict something to make it work some of the time (and still kill the hamsters) you have a broken system.
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#36 - 2015-05-15 22:14:47 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Grorious Reader wrote:

Actually you don't check every collider against every other collider. You partition the available space (the grid) and only check against objects in the relevant partition. It's highly unlikely that 500 players deploying mines would all be in the same small space. And if they are, not for long.

The grid IS the partition. You can't partition the grid or you end up with invisible walls inside the grid also.

Additionally with the restrictions some people are trying to lay on mines, it's obvious that they are broken. If you have to heavily restrict something to make it work some of the time (and still kill the hamsters) you have a broken system.


We unrestricted them and made this useable again with this thread. The current mechanic is broken and non-useable. We have provided a means to enable the use of mines again, a departure from the current shattered game mechanic, while providing purpose and proper dynamics.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2015-05-15 22:16:54 UTC
Mines are a glorious idea.

It'll never work, but they're glorious regardless.

However, my gut feel is this nails the issue:

Samillian wrote:
More seriously my main objection is that I really believe that if you want to destroy someones ship you should at least have the decency to be on grid and actively making the attempt, rather than covering an area in mines and siting in a bar in another system sipping mojitos and sniggering as the killmails come in.




I STRONGLY suspect /hamster_handwave was an excuse to remove remote killing. And for all they're hilarious, rightly so.
Cassandra Opium
The Opium Sisters
#38 - 2015-05-15 22:27:04 UTC
another feature of mines should be a different type that would also neutralize capacitor energy. in places like wh space and lowsec this would help against single pirates trying to fly in and mess up your operation, and if they hit a few energy neut mines it may provide a way to escape from them if their warp disruption module shut off or lost a cycle.

just a thought.
The Boogieman
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2015-05-15 22:29:33 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Mines are a glorious idea.

It'll never work, but they're glorious regardless.

However, my gut feel is this nails the issue:

Samillian wrote:
More seriously my main objection is that I really believe that if you want to destroy someones ship you should at least have the decency to be on grid and actively making the attempt, rather than covering an area in mines and siting in a bar in another system sipping mojitos and sniggering as the killmails come in.




I STRONGLY suspect /hamster_handwave was an excuse to remove remote killing. And for all they're hilarious, rightly so.


I like this idea; say it wont work, don't explain way, and have no alternatives.

Brilliant man, brilliant. Most everyone else here had the same idea though.

So cash.
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#40 - 2015-05-16 00:33:23 UTC
Cassandra Opium wrote:
another feature of mines should be a different type that would also neutralize capacitor energy. in places like wh space and lowsec this would help against single pirates trying to fly in and mess up your operation, and if they hit a few energy neut mines it may provide a way to escape from them if their warp disruption module shut off or lost a cycle.

just a thought.


Quite a thought. If I may elaborate further on your idea because you are onto something

Mines that would have energy neutralization capability coupled with AOE have the capacity to profoundly change the dynamic of warfare in EvE. If they were to have the right power behind them and have varying size for varying degrees of warfare, they would potentially become even more valuable for PvP, or other ops, then the original mines conceived. These, of course, would fall into the category of electronic warfare but would otherwise be listed as a deployable like plane mines.

Depending on the size of the mine placed, they could be used against everything from frigates to battleship class, with varying degrees of effectiveness in energy neutralization. Using these types of mines could knock out everything from warp disrupters, ECM, to weaponry itself, and beyond depending on the ship, giving an immediate strategic edge before a fight even begins.

Lets say for example a Raven that has a standard capacitor size of 5,500 GJ were to warp directly into a warp disruption field and activated 3 large energy neutralization mines, whipping out half of its capacitor and immediately destabilizing it, lets say the same Raven has active shields on it that would further drains its cap if they were not shut off. It would devastate its ability to defend itself, or escape, much less retaliate in any sufficient manner. Even with sufficient training and a way to compensate for this, it would still half the pilots cap before he fires a shot. Also, these certain mines and the size could even be activated based on signature radius, offering a somewhat dynamic way of dealing with and even bypassing certain mines without setting them off.

This was a thoughtful suggestion. If you have anymore, feel free to share, as these types of contributions are what further and ultimately validate threads meant to progress the game into better and more dynamic gameplay.

Thank You for your suggestion.