These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Make the 'Stop Ship' command actually do what it says on the tin
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Riieck
Perkone
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-06-19 04:36:30 UTC
I'm in favor of this. Stop should be cleared up to mean something specific.

In ships if you cut off the engine you will coast until a stop, the same should apply (and does) in Eve.

In ships you also have a change to reverse engines, water churns a bit and you stop faster. This should also apply in EVE.

I believe you mean change the feature name Stop to "Stop/Kill Engines" and also add an additional button called "Reverse Thrust". Only problem I see (and I realize these are internet spaceships but I like a bit of realism to hold in here) is that the ships in EVE do not seem to have but one way engines. Adding this feature, without breaking the models would have to:
- Cause the ships to turn around and apply the normal forward thrust in reverse direction of travel (a bit clumsy given the rotation/align mechanic will cause different ships to execute this command in varied ways). This mechanic would work like align but without the movement to any particular direction.
- Change the AB and MWD modules to add this feature. Why? Assume these modules to work by changing space around them (think a bit like how the ship in Futurama works) to aid to the engine's effort. Then, simply declare that the AB/MWD modules now toggle between assist (make the engine push space behind ship) and resist (make the engine pull space behind). Voila! The module will now grant the ship a faster stopping power.

- The expenses for the AB/MWD idea? Stopping power is based on strength of module (makes sense). If you want a ship to stop, you need the module and the cap to use it. Stopping (could/should?) also use more cap in order to dissipate and reverse engine output. This way a stopping manouver should be used a limited amount of times before pilot needs to calm down and let physics do its thing. Toggling reverse on the modules will have an extra button (one to activate, one to set direction). Default behaivour should be that the ship deactivated modules/engine on full stop but a reverse direction can be triggers (at more expensive cap usage) by restarting engines and modules while speed is less than 'x m/s'. The last penalty is to have the use of one less module since you need to equip the AB/MWD.

In any case, I am in favor of this change, whatever way it is implemented so long as the ships feel like they are acting out in a plausible way.
Donna Blitzenn
Comprehensive Logistics And Warfare Supply
#22 - 2012-06-19 06:03:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Donna Blitzenn
Riieck wrote:
I'm in favor of this. Stop should be cleared up to mean something specific.

...

Only problem I see (and I realize these are internet spaceships but I like a bit of realism to hold in here) is that the ships in EVE do not seem to have but one way engines.

...

In any case, I am in favor of this change, whatever way it is implemented so long as the ships feel like they are acting out in a plausible way.

In EVE, the ship models have nothing to do with the direction of thrust. All ships are capable of exerting full thrust in any direction. The model, however, is always oriented in the direction of travel - along your current velocity vector, rather than thrust vector.

For example, if you are flying toward object A at full speed and then use some navigation command that tells your ship to fly away from it (including a manual double-click in the opposite direction) your ship will begin exerting thrust in the new direction. Your velocity toward A will decrease and your engine glow will decrease until your velocity reaches a minimum (which may not be zero, if the new direction of thrust is not directly opposite the old). Until that point your ship will continue facing toward object A. Your ship model will spin around, sometimes rather quickly, as your velocity nears minimum and begins increasing in the new direction.

Another result is that if you switch from orbiting something at 50km to approaching, the new direction of thrust is at a 90 degree angle to the old - meaning your ship doesn't use your engines to cancel out your old velocity, resulting in it taking quite a while to make the turn. Although you'll start closing the distance fairly soon, you'll continue drifting to the side for a while as well, for a net velocity (and ship model) that is not directly toward the target. But if you were to manually navigate at an angle until you're no longer drifting and then switch to 'approach' you can kill off that sideways velocity much faster.

I would love it if the ship model always reoriented to match the direction of thrust, and would turn to match it relatively quickly when it changed. However, that would be an additional change to the game which would have only a visual effect and wouldn't impact the underlying navigation functionality. It's also possible that some people would be confused by the change to the way their ship would face while maneuvering. I would be satisfied with just the mechanics changes.
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2012-06-19 06:27:32 UTC
Donna Blitzenn wrote:
Edit: Please note that I am not suggesting that the existing command be removed! If you think I am, you haven't read the whole post. It should be renamed, and a new command added to perform the 'stop' function correctly.


Imagine for a moment that you're driving a car, but this particular model of car has no brakes. You have two options for reducing speed: Putting it in neutral and coasting, relying on drag to slow you down (would not work on a downhill slope, obviously), or use engine braking (the closest equivalent to how a spaceship in EVE would operate).

Now imagine that this was a drive-by-wire car, and that the designers for some reason chose to make your 'stop' command simply put it in neutral and coast. Stopping faster than that (or on a hill) was possible only by skilled manual gimmickry.

The Stop Ship command, as it currently exists, is mislabeled and/or misleading.

What the command actually does is to shut off your ship's engines and let it coast - as if you had put your car in neutral - as far and as long as its momentum will carry it, until the drag from EVE's funky 'space resistance' gradually brings you to a low enough speed that it might as well be zero (and in a heavy ship that can take quite a while).

It is possible - but tricky - to bring yourself to a halt much, MUCH faster by setting a course opposite the direction you are currently traveling (by looking backwards and double clicking in space), and then - if you can compensate for lag and time it right - use 'stop ship' when your speed is as close as possible to zero. This method can be difficult to pull off, especially in a faster ship, on a slower computer, or under high lag conditions. The result is that it can be unreliable and the level of success can vary widely, from a near-perfect stop to going nearly full-speed in the opposite direction, or even missing your intended stopping point by kilometers. It also has you looking away from your target or destination, and takes much more time to perform than a simple, easy keyboard shortcut like 'control-space'.

You should not have to mess around with gimmicky tricks like this just to perform such a basic and simple form of navigational control.

Please... Fix this command so that it does what it says it does, and what any halfway decent spaceship pilot should be able to do easily. Remember, we're not just 'halfway decent', we're capsuleers - we should be able to do this in our sleep!

If you, as a player, or as a developer at CCP, feel that you must have a command which makes a ship coast slowly to an approximate halt the way the current Stop Ship command does, then please, by all means, add a "Shut Off Engines" or "Coast" command for that purpose! But please don't try to use "players like the current behavior" as an excuse to not include brakes on our cars - sorry, I mean internet spaceships. Cool


On a closely related topic, other navigation commands could benefit from similar fixes. The 'keep at range' command should also apply thrust more intelligently, for example to avoid colliding with the target, or passing it / 'bouncing' off to the side if the target is moving transversely. And both that and the 'approach' command should make your ship compensate for your target's transverse velocity, and apply thrust correctly to create an intercept course. (Approach should, for obvious reasons, not reduce your closing speed toward the target.)

This stuff is not rocket science - well, I guess it supposedly is... Lol But you know what I mean: The calculations needed are well understood and not terribly complex. I can google keywords that tell me how to program this in a matter of minutes. Heck, I could give you a decent first draft of the necessary calculations off the top of my head. It doesn't need to do anything difficult like take into account the target's acceleration or try to predict the curvature of its flight path if it's orbiting something or approaching something that's moving; just base it on the target's current velocity and distance from your ship and the difference between your ship's and the target's velocities. (There has to be some room for the pilot of a maneuverable target to evade, after all.)

Edit to add a couple of examples in the form of demo applets I found online:
http://www.red3d.com/cwr/steer/PursueEvade.html - This is what "Approach" should do.
http://www.red3d.com/cwr/steer/Arrival.html - Combine this with the above and a distance offset for what "Keep at Range" should do. The result is similar to: http://www.red3d.com/cwr/steer/LeaderFollow.html


Drifted and got decloaked, did we?
Donna Blitzenn
Comprehensive Logistics And Warfare Supply
#24 - 2012-06-19 06:38:58 UTC
Feligast wrote:
Drifted and got decloaked, did we?

Actually I've never had that problem. I don't fly cloaky often, but when I do... I tend to keep my distance. (Ugh, I sound like the Dos Equis man... Big smile) I suppose it might help with it for people who like to fly dangerous though.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#25 - 2012-06-19 08:56:50 UTC
@Donna Blitzenn

Now you are just being rude ( for silly reasons I might add ). Congratulations and well done.
I was among the minority, who actually showed you the courtesy of reading your walls of text and spending a lot of time answering them ( something that is not that common on those forums you know ).
Next time I won't make that mistake.
Waste of time as it seems.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#26 - 2012-06-19 13:04:49 UTC
Read it, and it seems like a reasonable suggestion to me.

There's a lot of things in the game that require our computers to be stupid to keep it a game instead of a simulation, but basic maneuvers like "reverse engines to zero velocity" (which would actually be more useful to miners than to PvPers in my opinion) don't seem to me to fall into that category.

As long as they don't implement "approach orbit range at max traversal" and similar maneuvers, most people with manual piloting skills will continue to hold an advantage.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-06-19 16:39:55 UTC
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
@Donna Blitzenn

Now you are just being rude ( for silly reasons I might add ). Congratulations and well done.
I was among the minority, who actually showed you the courtesy of reading your walls of text and spending a lot of time answering them ( something that is not that common on those forums you know ).
Next time I won't make that mistake.
Waste of time as it seems.

I don't see what you have against Donna Blitzenn's wall of text. I would have said the same, but I can thank Donna for putting forth the effort and saving me the trouble. Donna's response was well thought out, and I might add, well researched too. (S)he has an extensive knowledge of the game mechanics of EVE, as do I. There's no shame in not being as much an expert, but you could learn a thing or two from us if you swallow your pride and listen.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#28 - 2012-06-19 17:46:32 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I don't see what you have against Donna Blitzenn's wall of text. I would have said the same, but I can thank Donna for putting forth the effort and saving me the trouble. Donna's response was well thought out, and I might add, well researched too. (S)he has an extensive knowledge of the game mechanics of EVE, as do I. There's no shame in not being as much an expert, but you could learn a thing or two from us if you swallow your pride and listen.


And where in my post did I say that I have something against it?
Maybe you missed it but I have read it all and responded to it with my own walls of text few times.
I actually appreciate this kind of threads.
And all was going good. We were discussing and presenting different points of view on that matter and then :

Donna Blitzenn wrote:

Do you have anything else to say about the suggestion that isn't 'oh noes, less skill'? If so, by all means, offer some constructive feedback. (Otherwise please refer to rule 1 of this forum.)


That is just being rude for no reason. It's like saying "just GTFO already, would you".
You have your opinion and I have mine, being rude about it shows severe lack of maturity.
Discussion forum is for 'discussion' and clash of opinions is to be expected. Quite shocking for some people apparently.

What kind of 'extensive knowledge' are you talking about actually?
The mechanics are extremely simple, there is no extensiveness involved here.
Donna Blitzenn
Comprehensive Logistics And Warfare Supply
#29 - 2012-06-21 21:23:31 UTC
Tomcio, it seemed like you were just saying the same thing repeatedly in slightly different ways. If my words seemed rude, I apologize - I do sometimes fail at being tactful, as much as I may try to avoid it. Big smile

As I was trying to say, the suggestion would by its nature reduce the necessity for one type of player skill (one which I do not believe should be heavily relied upon when playing EVE). Responding with (what seemed to me like) the utterly obvious, as well as the very exaggerated, 'but then doing this won't require skill' and 'but that means people won't need any skill at all' was... well, let's just say I was facepalming hard, and getting a bit frustrated.
Previous page12