Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Damn, I wish I cared so much about trivialities.

Everyone just shut up and go read the Project Rho: Atomic Rockets site. We will all save a lot of time and typing that way.

Then, I would prefer to make them easier to reload and save space, instead of the misty "potential in gas"

/facepalm? Anyone? Can I get a /facepalm?



EVE ships don't seem to carry reaction mass. If the AB or MWD isn't throwing something out the back end then it's not using Newtonian physics. If the ship isn't traveling via Newtonian physics, then there's no reason to assume a ship should remain in motion.


EVE ships bounce off of each other and off of objects instead of colliding catastrophically. If kinetic collisions don't do damage, then how does kinetic damage ammo work...?


Go read the chronicles, lore, and "science" articles: http://community.eveonline.com/backstory/chronicles/


Then come back and rage about the new deployables and drone omni nerf like a normal, well-adjusted, EVEO poster.

I think you need to go play some Kerbal Space Program and maybe pick up a book on Newtonian Physics. You have shown several times now that you have massive holes in your understanding of basic physics in space, and it makes your argument for realistic acceleration in EVE seem very weak. This is what your argument is about yes?

The main argument you give for needing to 'fix' acceleration in EVE is that we need to correct a mistake that EVE developers made years ago because.. they were wrong and so we need to make it right (You also give no proof that it was a mistake or an actual decision). That is not a valid reason to change a central mechanic to a Sci-fi game. You say that 'we can't have all physics fully accurate in a game, but this one thing needs to be fixed'. By that logic, we get to pick and choose subjectively what is important physics and what is not. Thus so far you have given no good reasons as to why this specific physics behavior is inherently important to the entertainment product that is EVE: Online.



P.S. This is an underwater corporate espionage simulator, I am not sure where you got the idea that physics were important here.

Just so. Or maybe just wet-navy in general - After all, a lot of the ships remain highly visible at all times.


High comedy, to be certain.

Because everyone knows it takes ignorance, and only ignorance, to create fictional video games based on fantasy instead of reality. All those game designers that made Halo, ignorant. Mass Effect, ignorant. Final Fantasy, ignorant.

Seriously though, it does take a certain degree of ignorance to make assumptions, especially when you don't really think what you're saying through. Nonsense like yours isn't new to the forums, and the developers have been aware for a long time of the unrealistic physics in this game (you really think they made it this way by accident, out of ignorance of physics, or did they make it this way on purpose because it's a game?), but to add your little jab at the developers' 'ignorance' with no qualifier makes your nonsense some of the most ignorant I've encountered on these forums so far.

This is called projection, because your grasp on physics is atrocious, very simple physics, whereas Tippia's is spot on. For example...



No apology needed, because you're wrong, based on your assumption that only objects in motion have inertia. Stationary objects have inertia as well, and require energy to get moving. The amount of energy required to get an object of x mass to y speed is the exact amount of energy required to slow that object of x mass to 0 from y speed, which means if the object is less than x mass, it will require even less energy.

I could go on, but I hate quote trains, and I've demonstrated well enough how your grasp of simple, 10th grade physics is appalling. Of course the game developers know more about physics than you, and I would bet more than three quarters of the game's player base knows more about physics than you do. They just don't apply in the science fantasy game realm.

Armor won't help with collisions given the masses and speeds involved. Shields are energy, why would they prevent collisions[1]? If you collide with an unshielded/unarmored asteroid and you have no armor or shields remaining, then why do you bounce instead of explode?

tl;dr I cast magic missile at the darkness.

[1] EVE shields cause ships to bounce off of objects. In the Empyrean Age, the Broker sabotages one of a station's shield generator thus allowing a titan to crash into the station and actually damage it.

Funnily enough, I understand people who complain about things like some planets' temperatures being below absolute zero, or the gravitational force not being right with the planet's mass/volume. Sure, if it's just a number in an info window somewhere, you might as well make it make sense. For example, this is the case of missile icons you mentioned.

But this doesn't work with gameplay mechanics: EVE is a game first, and a simulator second. (And so is KSP.) Gameplay comes before scientific accuracy. Sure, when you fire a laser at your ship it explodes, it doesn't turn into a space butterfly. But that's about as far as the realism goes. EVE owes nothing to any particular law of physics: the universe works with its own laws which are different from the laws of our universe.

1) You are basically complaining that ship models don't have thrusters facing forwards. Some games have them. EVE doesn't. They wouldn't fit with the graphics style of many EVE ships. To do that, every ship in EVE would have to be remodeled from scratch. Thanks, but I'd rather CCP spend money on things that actually affect gameplay. It's easier to imagine that EVE ships are propelled by some mechanism that doesn't exist in our universe, and that can apply thrust in any direction.

Alternatively you could have a more realistic model where a ship stops by turning around and burning retrograde. This would severely affect the maneuverability of both small ships (which need to change directions quickly) and large ships (which take a long time to turn around). Both would have very significant gameplay effects and would make some things nearly impossible (for example, parking your ship at exactly 2,000 m from a titan to be ready to use a jump bridge, without actually running into said titan).

2) Very simply, if it worked the way you want it to work, an interceptor chasing after a target would only have to pulse its MWD once, and then could maintain its top speed without using any cap for as long as he wants to burn in a straight line. Ships relying on speed to out-track enemy guns could do the same. This would again be a massive change to how the cap usage works.

3) In (1) we already established that EVE ships can apply thrust in any direction. Is it so hard to imagine an autopilot that would automatically want to use this to correct your position after you get bumped? Or, to reverse it, would it improve your enjoyment of the game in any way if you had to just hit ctrl+space every time someone runs into you?



Yes, but (sane) individuals understand the aspects of both science and fiction in sci-fi. EVE is not in any way "hard" sci-fi, and nobody ever claimed it was or wanted to make it so. EVE is a strategy/combat/economy/social game which happens to have spaceships in it, nobody is calling it a spaceship simulator.

A fictional universe only has to be consistent with itself, it doesn't have to be consistent with our universe. If you state "ships can go above the speed of light, but only up to warp 10", it's fine as long as you don't suddenly have ships going warp 11. If you state "you can't transport through shields", and then you have people transport through shields (and it's obvious it's not a case of using a different shield technology or a different transporter technology), that's an inconsistency.