These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Collisions and the Conservation of Momentum equations (Physics)

First post First post
Author
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-12-19 23:09:07 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Eterne
The Conservation of Momentum says that if you collide with an object 1,000 times your own mass, that the change in your velocity will be 1,000 times the change in the other objects velocity.

So a frigate with 1,000 kg mass and 2,000 m/s hitting head on a carrier with 1,000,000 kg mass at 100 m/s will only slow the carrier by 2 m/s if the collision brings the frigate to a complete stop. You read that right. The carrier only slows by 2 m/s.

Now there is a problem with MWD because it inherently draws on warp technology, it greatly increases the mass and velocity during a micro warp, and thus really messes up many other foundational laws of Physics (don't get me started about viscous space creating a speed limit, the subject of a separate thread). MWD appears to violate the Conservation of Momentum, but since it utilizes the warping of space, it is safe to ignore any collisions since it is traveling through warped space on a micro level.

The only topic of this thread is to change the mechanics so that this equation, foundational to all physics, is honored in Eve Online. I would gladly cover honoring the other foundational laws of physics in other threads, but not this one.

*removed discussion of moderation* - CCP Eterne

I intentionally focused it away from that aspect (damage) and toward the Conservation of Momentum which was still completely in line with the thread title. I ask the rest of you to save discussion of those other effects for their respective threads and focus only on momentum and MWD's affect on momentum and collisions.

Answer to question on previous locked thread: To answer Pipa's question on the effect of velocity on the mass of an object mass only begins to increase as the object approaches fractions of the speed of light. The speed of light (c) is 3,000,000 m/s so an object would need to near 300,000 m/s (1/10 of c) before any substantial increase in mass occurred. Pipa claims that an SFI can hit 14,000 m/s and a Rifter can hit 10 km/s and while I want to verify those figures for myself, they are not even remotely close to 300,000 m/s. Either way, the micro warp technology combined with these incredible increases to mass and velocity provide strong reasons that there should be no collisions when MWD is on.

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

Paranoid Loyd
#2 - 2013-12-19 23:11:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
It's a GAME, it needs to be fun, science gets in the way of that.

Why do you take so much time arguing irrelevant points? Roll

FFS, go play the game instead of over analyzing it.

Also, INB4 lock for opening another duplicate thread and discussing forum moderation.

Also also, where is the feature and or idea?

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

Sigras
Conglomo
#3 - 2013-12-19 23:36:04 UTC
You have to think about the possible game breaking interactions this would create.

Picture this, a plated abaddon ABs into a stationary stiletto at 100 m/s

The abaddon is in the neighborhood of 150 times more massive than a stiletto, and if we're following the laws of physics (assuming negligible loss to thermal energy and crushing parts of the ship) the stiletto should immediately accelerate to 15,000 m/s or 15 km/s and never slow down unless it wants to. This would allow it to cross 150 km in 10s and tackle a sniper fleet, and would be relatively simple to execute. You could even get the abaddon up to 150 m/s and accelerate the frigate to 22.5 km/s

I too am annoyed by the fact that ships bank in space, and their max velocity and various other physics issues, but the game is not a physics simulator it is a social political and economic simulator.

Above all, gameplay is greater than physics which is why we have FTL travel and dont have to wait decades to travel between star systems.

@the poster above me
science does not get in the way of fun, it CAN but it doesnt have to.
Have you never played the game? it encourages you to over analyze it; that's why its spreadsheets in space, just because you dont have fun using your brain doesnt mean other people dont.
This is not a duplicate thread
he is suggesting changing the bump mechanic to be more in line with physics IE something much smaller should not be able to noticeably bump something so much bigger.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2013-12-19 23:39:49 UTC
You cannot apply real world physics to a game in which we pilot submarines through jelly. Seriously.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#5 - 2013-12-19 23:45:19 UTC
I agree with all the others.


I'm all for realism... until it starts becomig tedious, nitpicky about details, and makes things less fun for no good reason other than "because it's more realistic!"

At the end of the day, playability and game balance trumps "realism."

Some good examples of this would include, but are not limited to...
- the insurance system (it's a mechanic to encourage people to PvP... a REAL insurance system would discourage war altogether!)
- the "fluid" that ships move around in (it's more intuitive for most people).
- stargates (creates "focus points" for conflict between players)
- the relatively slow speeds that everything in the game moves at (there are artificial satellites orbiting around our planet faster than most frigates MWDing in the game).
- non-moving planets (makes it easier for players visiting the same places to get their bearings)
- NPCs "appearing" out of nowhere (this applies especially to CONCORD... realistically they would never arrive at a gank site in a timely fashion
- Asteroid belts respawning every day (realistically belts would deplete and there would be nothing left for anyone to mine in high-sec)

I could go on.
fudface
ACME-INC
#6 - 2013-12-19 23:57:32 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
You cannot apply real world physics to a game in which we pilot submarines through jelly. Seriously.


its not jelly its just really really thick dark matter which is present in this universe.

my 2 isk worth

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2013-12-20 00:05:30 UTC
fudface wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
You cannot apply real world physics to a game in which we pilot submarines through jelly. Seriously.


its not jelly its just really really thick dark matter which is present in this universe.


Does it taste like black currant jam?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#8 - 2013-12-20 00:14:13 UTC
My ship remains perfectly still at all times, it's the rest of the universe that moves around.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#9 - 2013-12-20 00:19:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
It's a GAME, it needs to be fun, science gets in the way of that.

Why do you take so much time arguing irrelevant points? Roll

FFS, go play the game instead of over analyzing it.

Also, INB4 lock for opening another duplicate thread and discussing forum moderation.

Also also, where is the feature and or idea?

You are wrong. Physics makes the game fun. So does Sci Fi. When these are aligned, the game is that much more fun.

Momentum is never irrelevant. Without momentum, Eve collapses. With correct momentum, Eve shines.

If ISD is right and the other thread was a duplicate on damage, then this thread is not a duplicate. If the ISD was wrong, then he needs to reopen the previous thread. Claims of duplicates should not be used to prevent discussion on subjects which are NOT being discussed, like momentum, in this case. Also, I was not discussing moderation. I was discussing the subjects of a similar thread and why it was locked. Anyone who followed the link which I provided would have read exactly the same thing that I summarized about the reason given. So calm down and let discussion on subjects which you may not support continue.

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

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#10 - 2013-12-20 00:22:58 UTC
fudface wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
You cannot apply real world physics to a game in which we pilot submarines through jelly. Seriously.


its not jelly its just really really thick dark matter which is present in this universe.

Dark matter is undetectable, except by its gravitational effects. That means that it does not slow anything down, except through long range gravity against the expansion of the universe.

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

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#11 - 2013-12-20 00:33:12 UTC
Sigras wrote:
You have to think about the possible game breaking interactions this would create.

Picture this, a plated abaddon ABs into a stationary stiletto at 100 m/s

The abaddon is in the neighborhood of 150 times more massive than a stiletto, and if we're following the laws of physics (assuming negligible loss to thermal energy and crushing parts of the ship) the stiletto should immediately accelerate to 15,000 m/s or 15 km/s and never slow down unless it wants to. This would allow it to cross 150 km in 10s and tackle a sniper fleet, and would be relatively simple to execute. You could even get the abaddon up to 150 m/s and accelerate the frigate to 22.5 km/s

I too am annoyed by the fact that ships bank in space, and their max velocity and various other physics issues, but the game is not a physics simulator it is a social political and economic simulator.

Above all, gameplay is greater than physics which is why we have FTL travel and dont have to wait decades to travel between star systems.

@the poster above me
science does not get in the way of fun, it CAN but it doesnt have to.
Have you never played the game? it encourages you to over analyze it; that's why its spreadsheets in space, just because you dont have fun using your brain doesnt mean other people dont.
This is not a duplicate thread
he is suggesting changing the bump mechanic to be more in line with physics IE something much smaller should not be able to noticeably bump something so much bigger.

That's exactly how I feel .. for the most part.

We all love the social and political aspects of the game. So let's add physics to the list. Obviously, any attempt to delve into Sci Fi will strain the reality of physics in the game, but it is not too hard to at least hold on most of the core laws of physics.

I also support an FTL drive or hyper drive idea, but I am content to give creative license to wormhole travel. I see no issue with momentum or bumping there.

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

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#12 - 2013-12-20 00:34:52 UTC
I just want to see frigates explode when attempting to bump capitals...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#13 - 2013-12-20 00:48:58 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I just want to see frigates explode when attempting to bump capitals...


Some people just want to see Asakai burn.
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#14 - 2013-12-20 01:32:46 UTC
Reopening of locked topics is prohibited. Forum moderation discussions are also banned.

Forum rule 25. Re-opening locked topics is prohibited.
Forum rule 11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL

CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#15 - 2013-12-23 19:43:20 UTC
I am unlocking the topic and have moderated the original post to remove discussion of moderation. Though the topics are similar to an already-existent thread, this one is different enough to be useful to have open.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#16 - 2013-12-24 01:20:38 UTC
The rule of momentum is that size and speed give the right of way. Momentum equations render a significant advantage for being the biggest guy on the block. Sheer size and mass become respected as the small ships collide with much less effect against the more massive ones. Players develop a sense of awe regarding the magnitudes of difference between the smaller ships and the larger ones and mechanics become much more balanced, intuitive, and in line with the virtual physical properties of the ships.

The two primary issues that I am seeing with true momentum calculations applied is the MWD being overpowered due to increasing the mass by 50% and the velocity to 600% for a momentum increase of about 900%. The afterburner also has the same issue of increasing the mass and therefore increases the momentum to about 353% We can limit overpowering momentum with the MWD and AB in order to ensure proper balance (all sides benefit equally and fairly from the mechanic of momentum).

Two limitations to rebalance MWD after momentum is correctly calculated are: 1) No collisions while MWD is active, 2) Only considering the base mass for collisions calculations.

The easiest solution to balance MWD with momentum is to turn collisions off while the MWD is active. The warp scrambler is the fastest and easiest counter to enable collisions again on the target ship. Since the MWD is similar to the warp, the lack of collisions makes sense. It is hard to justify turning collisions off for AB because its technology does not follow warp technology. Since, the AB bonus to momentum is much less than the MWD, the issue is much less severe and less noticed.

Using the base mass for a momentum calculation upon collision for both the MWD and AB reduces the issue of small ships gaining unusually high and physically unjustified momentum compared to larger ships. Calculations using base mass (as if the prop mod was off) are easy enough to do as well.

Please feel free to suggest other limitations and to provide feedback on these limitations.

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

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2013-12-24 02:19:33 UTC
The concept is decent, but trying to ingnore MWD and AB is just dumb.

A baisc rifter with a t2 MWD on weighs about 1.500.000, and goes about 3000m/s for a total momentum of 4.500.000.000
A thanatos weighs about 1.100.000.000 and goes about 94m/s for a total momentum of 103.400.000.000

Given how 2 objects colliding would work, the rifter would exert about 4.35% of the total energy between the two ships back on the thanatos, which would exert the other 95.65% back on the rifter.

This would cause the thanatos to travel at a speed of 130m/s backwards and the rifter to travel about 2959m/s backwards.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#18 - 2013-12-24 03:24:13 UTC
CCP Eterne wrote:
I am unlocking the topic and have moderated the original post to remove discussion of moderation. Though the topics are similar to an already-existent thread, this one is different enough to be useful to have open.


The hood has it right:

WHERE ART THOU PHYSICS NAO, SWINE?
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#19 - 2013-12-24 06:17:28 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
The concept is decent, but trying to ingnore MWD and AB is just dumb.

A baisc rifter with a t2 MWD on weighs about 1.500.000, and goes about 3000m/s for a total momentum of 4.500.000.000
A thanatos weighs about 1.100.000.000 and goes about 94m/s for a total momentum of 103.400.000.000

Given how 2 objects colliding would work, the rifter would exert about 4.35% of the total energy between the two ships back on the thanatos, which would exert the other 95.65% back on the rifter.

This would cause the thanatos to travel at a speed of 130m/s backwards and the rifter to travel about 2959m/s backwards.

This illustrates a third issue regarding whether the collisions should be elastic or inelastic. If there is no damage, then the natural reaction is to say that it was an elastic collision; which follows assuming that the collision is with the shields.

Your example does not accurately model an elastic collision, because the more massive object dominates the momentum and therefore experiences little change in velocity. The corrected numbers are that the frigate bounces back at 3180 m/s while the Thanatos continues forward at 86 m/s. You can verify this here. This is all assuming that full mass changes from prop mods are considered.

If damage occurs, some of the energy is released into other forms and therefore the resulting velocities will be less. Since we are reserving the damage discussion for the thread which seems currently fixed on the "ram" module, it is safe to say that real physics calculated damage will not be consider for a while. But we may be able to get an exception if the damage calculations are vital to the momentum calculations.

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

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#20 - 2013-12-24 06:20:56 UTC
This is a fluid universe fantasy space submarine game. Your points are invalid.





Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

123Next pageLast page