These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Collision Damage
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2013-12-18 14:24:46 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Let's argue about how badly you express yourself and not talk about this idea anymore.

No. I'm not making any kludges, I'm trying to give a useable form to this feature idea.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2013-12-18 14:40:33 UTC
Why ramming on armor only?
- The shield acts as a protective amorphous layer over the ship, so it makes sense it also gives some protection to bumping.
- Armor is a solid, hard, protective layer around the ship, so it makes sense being able to be use it for ramming.

Why the MWD for ramming mechanic? Why use if for aggression flagging?
- People already necessarily need to use it for bumping.
- It's very difficult to bullseye a random ship by accident simply by flying around with your MWD on and even if you do it's only an agression if both of you have the shields off (already in combat).

Isn't giving red safety to a propulsion module bad? What about high sec?
- It is. I'm a bad person. I don't know, I DON'T KNOW! *grabs a knife and runs to a corner*

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Pipa Porto
#43 - 2013-12-18 15:09:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Nag'o wrote:
Why ramming on armor only?
- The shield acts as a protective amorphous layer over the ship, so it makes sense it also gives some protection to bumping.
- Armor is a solid, hard, protective layer around the ship, so it makes sense being able to be use it for ramming.


So... a gameplay benefit?

Quote:
Why the MWD for ramming mechanic? Why use if for aggression flagging?
- People already necessarily need to use it for bumping.
- It's very difficult to bullseye a random ship by accident simply by flying around with your MWD on and even if you do it's only an agression if both of you have the shields off (already in combat).


Both of those "benefits" are simply fixing problems introduced by the proposal in the first place. And contribute to the whole "well, bumping will cause damage, but only if you squint just right and only on alternate Tuesdays" motif that these types of threads lead to.

Why is the kinetic energy provided by a prop mod magically different than the kinetic energy provided by normal engines?


We seem to be going in circles here.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#44 - 2013-12-18 15:29:59 UTC
frig bumps a larger ship? frig takes damage.. but NOOOOOOOOOO.. ccp likes to let people troll others with bumping :P

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#45 - 2013-12-18 15:56:11 UTC
surprised no one told the OP to use the search function lol.

so if its armour only, does that mean u now only have to gank a freighter's shields and then ram it with stabbers who have been EM smart bombed by their brosefs at a safe?

its a horrible mechanic, but i'd love to see it.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2013-12-18 16:21:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Nag'o
Pipa Porto wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
Why ramming on armor only?
- The shield acts as a protective amorphous layer over the ship, so it makes sense it also gives some protection to bumping.
- Armor is a solid, hard, protective layer around the ship, so it makes sense being able to be use it for ramming.


So... a gameplay benefit?

Being able to ram other ships is the benefit. A new tactic armor tankers can use to finish their foes. I picture a MWD Megathron burning from 30km away and wrecking a webbed Sacrilege. One can dream, can't he?

Pipa Porto wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
Why the MWD for ramming mechanic? Why use if for aggression flagging?
- People already necessarily need to use it for bumping.
- It's very difficult to bullseye a random ship by accident simply by flying around with your MWD on and even if you do it's only an agression if both of you have the shields off (already in combat).


Both of those "benefits" are simply fixing problems introduced by the proposal in the first place. And contribute to the whole "well, bumping will cause damage, but only if you squint just right and only on alternate Tuesdays" motif that these types of threads lead to.

Well, what do you propose instead?
Pipa Porto wrote:

Why is the kinetic energy provided by a prop mod magically different than the kinetic energy provided by normal engines?

It's not, it's just insanely greater, so maybe we can safely ignore the 0,0001 points of damage from paint scratching. Now why does a ship's signature gets 500% bigger when the MWD is on?

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2013-12-18 16:29:42 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
surprised no one told the OP to use the search function lol.

so if its armour only, does that mean u now only have to gank a freighter's shields and then ram it with stabbers who have been EM smart bombed by their brosefs at a safe?

its a horrible mechanic, but i'd love to see it.

Maybe the stabbers could get damaged too and not do as much damage due to the big mass difference.
But yeah, being able to ram a bigger ship must be a valid mechanic somehow.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Pipa Porto
#48 - 2013-12-18 16:50:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Nag'o wrote:
Being able to ram other ships is the benefit. A new tactic armor tankers can use to finish their foes. I picture a MWD Megathron burning from 30km away and wrecking a webbed Sacrilege. One can dream, can't he?


Once more, you misunderstand the question. What is the gameplay benefit* of limiting collision damage to only shieldless ships?
To put it another way, what gameplay* benefit is there in preventing my Typhoon from being able to burn in from 30km and wreck a webbed Eagle?

*Again, fixing problems caused by collision damage doesn't count as a benefit.

Quote:
Well, what do you propose instead?


Continue using Bumping as the incredibly effective tool it already is...? What is the pressing need for adding collision damage that makes it worth adding it in this awkwardly truncated manner?

I mean, have you seen the delicious rage posts that bumping garners? If collision damage were implemented in any coherent manner, I wouldn't be able to keep my girlish figure anymore.

Quote:
It's not, it's just insanely greater, so maybe we can safely ignore the 0,0001 points of damage from paint scratching. Now why does a ship's signature gets 500% bigger when the MWD is on?


An MWD Rifter has far less kinetic energy than a non-prop mod Battleship. Why would it deal damage on impact but not the battleship?


Nag'o wrote:
Maybe the stabbers could get damaged too and not do as much damage due to the big mass difference.
But yeah, being able to ram a bigger ship must be a valid mechanic somehow.


A bump stabber has several times more kinetic energy than a Freighter.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#49 - 2013-12-18 17:15:10 UTC
People will ram you into oblivion with MWD fitted cheap ships. CONCORD will not intervene.

Custom ship skins, character creator style "repaint". Bring it!
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2013-12-18 17:22:38 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
Being able to ram other ships is the benefit. A new tactic armor tankers can use to finish their foes. I picture a MWD Megathron burning from 30km away and wrecking a webbed Sacrilege. One can dream, can't he?


Once more, you misunderstand the question. What is the gameplay benefit* of limiting collision damage to only shieldless ships?
To put it another way, what gameplay* benefit is there in preventing my Typhoon from being able to burn in from 30km and wreck a webbed Eagle?

*Again, fixing problems caused by collision damage doesn't count as a benefit.

That's not a benefit, it's a feature attribute that I proposed wich incidentally also fixes a lot of problems a plain damage collision has.
Since this is a F&I thread we are (supposedly) allowed to be flexible. You can say something like: "hey, maybe an armor tanked ship can ram a shielded tanked one if their shields are bellow 15%!". And then I say something like: "hey, maybe! Why not? It's an idea!". Then this other dude will come and say: "This is a bad idea, because ponies...". And we will all think about ponies for a while.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2013-12-18 17:27:24 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:

Continue using Bumping as the incredibly effective tool it already is...? What is the pressing need for adding collision damage that makes it worth adding it in this awkwardly truncated manner?

I mean, have you seen the delicious rage posts that bumping garners? If collision damage were implemented in any coherent manner, I wouldn't be able to keep my girlish figure anymore.

There's no pressing need, this is just an idea thread, not a patch note.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Pipa Porto
#52 - 2013-12-18 17:36:26 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
That's not a benefit, it's a feature attribute that I proposed wich incidentally also fixes a lot of problems a plain damage collision has.


Ok, so, without referencing that it's fixing something broken about the basic idea for what gameplay reason is limiting collision damage to unshielded ships good?

Nag'o wrote:
There's no pressing need, this is just an idea thread, not a patch note.


So what makes it worth adding in this awkwardly truncated manner?

This is a thread for ideas about adding things to the game.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2013-12-18 17:38:44 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:

An MWD Rifter has far less kinetic energy than a non-prop mod Battleship. Why would it deal damage on impact but not the battleship?
Nag'o wrote:
Maybe the stabbers could get damaged too and not do as much damage due to the big mass difference.
But yeah, being able to ram a bigger ship must be a valid mechanic somehow.

A bump stabber has several times more kinetic energy than a Freighter.

About the MWD... again, what is the explanation for the signature radius increase? None! The ship does not get bigger, it's not magically attracting objects around it, so how come? You accept it the way it is so why making MWD activation a trigger to damage application such a terrible idea? Because it's a player idea?

If the damage dealt is related to the kinect energy then a stabber would receive a proportionally much bigger damage than the freigher... just as the rifter trying to ram a battleship.


Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2013-12-18 17:47:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Nag'o
Pipa Porto wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
That's not a benefit, it's a feature attribute that I proposed wich incidentally also fixes a lot of problems a plain damage collision has.


Ok, so, without referencing that it's fixing something broken about the basic idea for what gameplay reason is limiting collision damage to unshielded ships good?

To keep it possible to bump other ships without necessarily provoking or receiving damage.

Pipa Porto wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
There's no pressing need, this is just an idea thread, not a patch note.


So what makes it worth adding in this awkwardly truncated manner?

This is a thread for ideas about adding things to the game.

Post a single thread about a player idea that has been implemented exactly the way it was proposed and I will review the way I write them.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#55 - 2013-12-18 18:08:06 UTC
Really, people are still talking about this idea that has absolutely no chance at all of happening?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jason Itiner
Harmless People
#56 - 2013-12-18 18:09:00 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
If we have reasonable collision detection for ships, we should be able to apply damage accordingly. In the same vein that 'bumping' is a valid tactic, so should 'ramming'. Simply put: with enough mass and momentum, you should be able to severely damage or even destroy another ship. Shields would bear the initial brunt, followed by armor and hull (with no reduction for resistances). I'm not suggesting we extend this to asteroids, stations and similar objects - only ships.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLN36pgwS5o


If nothing else, kinetic resistance should be factored in. After all, this is pure kinetic damage we're talking about...
Pipa Porto
#57 - 2013-12-18 18:21:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Nag'o wrote:
About the MWD... again, what is the explanation for the signature radius increase? None! The ship does not get bigger, it's not magically attracting objects around it, so how come?


The SR-71 was designed to be a stealth aircraft. Stealthy design, radar absorbent coating, the works. Turns out the enormous, ridiculously hot plume of exhaust shooting out of its continuously afterburning (MWD in EVE terms, EVE's ABs are more akin to supercruise) engines makes for an enormous radar signature. Much bigger than that of like a 747.

Bigger radar signature: easier to hit.

Quote:
You accept it the way it is so why making MWD activation a trigger to damage application such a terrible idea? Because it's a player idea?

If the damage dealt is related to the kinect energy then a stabber would receive a proportionally much bigger damage than the freigher... just as the rifter trying to ram a battleship.


Because energy is energy and thrust is thrust. The source of it doesn't magically change the properties of these physical forces.
Look at these two situations with identical fits:
Machariel traveling at 1500m/s
vs
Machariel traveling at 1000m/s

Which one deals damage if it hits something?
It's the slower one, because he just turned on his MWD, while the faster one just finished turning his off and is coasting. The one with more than twice the kinetic energy is doing no damage at all because he turned a module off. That's why basing collision damage on a module activation is a bad idea. If collisions do damage, there's no reasonable reason for that to change based on what modules are active. Either hitting something hurts or it doesn't.

Why would the less energetic participant in a collision take less damage than the more energetic one? I'm pretty sure a bullet does more damage to a body than it takes.

If you want to say that "well the bullet is tougher" then we're either talking about damage based on EHP or Resistances, and several common bump ships can easily beat their targets on those measures.

Nag'o wrote:
To keep it possible to bump other ships without necessarily provoking or receiving damage.


If running into things hurts, why is it a good thing that sometimes it doesn't? Why are ships with shields unworthy of taking part in this mechanic?

Nag'o wrote:
Post a single thread about a player idea that has been implemented exactly the way it was proposed and I will review the way I write them.


Ah, yes, the "CCP will fix the giant holes in my idea so I don't need to address them" argument. Glad we're at this point in the thread.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#58 - 2013-12-18 19:17:32 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
About the MWD... again, what is the explanation for the signature radius increase? None! The ship does not get bigger, it's not magically attracting objects around it, so how come?


The SR-71 was designed to be a stealth aircraft. Stealthy design, radar absorbent coating, the works. Turns out the enormous, ridiculously hot plume of exhaust shooting out of its continuously afterburning (MWD in EVE terms, EVE's ABs are more akin to supercruise) engines makes for an enormous radar signature. Much bigger than that of like a 747.

Bigger radar signature: easier to hit.

MWD stands for Micro Warp Drive. So what you're saying is that something in the Warp Drive makes the ships easier to hit. Let me play make believe too and say this same thing is what causes the ramming damage.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2013-12-18 19:25:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Nag'o
Pipa Porto wrote:

Why would the less energetic participant in a collision take less damage than the more energetic one? I'm pretty sure a bullet does more damage to a body than it takes.

You're right about this. A bullet does more damage to a body because it has more density, so maybe density should be a factor on the damage calculation. Let's say a ship's density is it's mass/signature radius... oops, there's the MWD being factored again.

Pipa Porto wrote:

Nag'o wrote:
To keep it possible to bump other ships without necessarily provoking or receiving damage.


If running into things hurts, why is it a good thing that sometimes it doesn't? Why are ships with shields unworthy of taking part in this mechanic?

It shouldn't always hurt. Shields are soft amorphous thingies. I picture them as huge electron clouds held tightly together by a strong magnetic field.

Pipa Porto wrote:

Nag'o wrote:

Post a single thread about a player idea that has been implemented exactly the way it was proposed and I will review the way I write them.

Ah, yes, the "CCP will fix the giant holes in my idea so I don't need to address them" argument. Glad we're at this point in the thread.

It's not "CCP will fix it", it's "maybe CCP can figure something neat out of this mess".

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#60 - 2013-12-18 23:05:42 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
How do you account for security mechanics? If two ships in hisec (say, on the Jita undock) bump into each other, which one gets CONCORDed?

What's to stop me from MWDing a fleet of otherwise-unfit rifters into a freighter for virtually-free suicide ganks?

How do you determine how damage is applied? How does the ramming damage of various ships fit into the broader balance? If I see that I'm losing a fight, should I be able to just slam my ship into theirs and make it a draw?

What stops nullsec alliances from using titans and supercarriers in conjunction with warpins to bowl over smaller caps and subcapitals?

When writing this post, did you put any thought at all into how this would play out ingame, or are you just saying things?

All ships will be forced to have their collision avoidance systems on in high sec. Out of high sec, those systems may be turned off. Collisions are off while the ship is at zero of the station (eligible for docking). This means that nothing can collide with it as if it were a ghost, but it also means that it does not try to avoid collisions with other ships while the undock timer is active. Collidable ships will have their collision detection systems (on or not) avoiding collisions with "ghost" ships so that they can exit the station docking ring without immediate collisions.

Bowling would be an issue, but since damage goes to all ships, the bowlers may get popped too. But to prevent warp-in bowling, the warp-in point will always be set to the nearest point to the warp-in point which does not have a collision.

Also we could greatly lower the ehp (and cost) of supercaps.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein