These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Asking for directions

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zyrbalax III
Goldcrest Enterprises
#81 - 2011-11-17 16:24:30 UTC
Chicken Pizza wrote:
TorTorden wrote:
Just have to say it since it's a huge pet bear of mine,,

Moving planets...


Bad idea. It would completely remove the whole "safe spots on the warp vector" thing. You need to think ideas through before you say them. Because first we'll have moving planets(that includes moons, so no more bookmarking POS towers, etc), then moving stargates because that wouldn't make sense either, then we'll have moons revolving around the planets on top of that. I can only imagine what would follow.



I don't think this is necessarily as difficult / gamebreaking as some people are making out. I think you'd just need to classify bookmarks into what they're bookmarked "relative to". Currently everything's position is fixed relative to (presumably) the sun. Just allow people to make BM's relative to any celestial or anchorable structure. So a gate BM would be relative to the gate. Safe spots relative to the sun. POS towers relative to the POS etc.

Then as the POS moves around the moon and the moon around the planet etc, your BM moves with it - it's always "POS position +a on the X-axis, +b on the Y-axis, +c on the Z-axis.

There would be the very rare possibility that as a planet orbits it moves periodically on top of someone's safe spot. Would need a mechanism to avoid people warping inside a planet (or not Twisted).

I don't think it's beyond the bounds of lore that our ship computers are capable of dealing with "relative to" BMs. And I would *love* to see proper orbital motion in EVE.

While we're at it, why do we have single "warp-to" spots for celestials? Given the size of a star, it's a bit ridiculous that two people warping to zero land right next to each other doncha think?
Maxwell Albritten
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2011-11-17 16:29:40 UTC
lachrymus wrote:
Draahk Chimera wrote:
This is great. Immersion for the win. Now for your next project can you make it so ships dont rotate to an imaginary plane when not moving? Partly for immersion reasons partly for tactics it has annoyed me for six years now that if you align to an object above you then stop (passive align) your ship will turn itself to the "plane" when there is no force that would make that natural.

This +1


I always imagined that this was done to make sure everyone had the same sense of direction in a fleet. Not sure how big of a real problem this would be, but could happen.

As for realism, I also told myself that it was the ship's internal computer "synching" with stargate/other ships stationary plane.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#83 - 2011-11-17 16:34:31 UTC
lachrymus wrote:
Draahk Chimera wrote:
This is great. Immersion for the win. Now for your next project can you make it so ships dont rotate to an imaginary plane when not moving? Partly for immersion reasons partly for tactics it has annoyed me for six years now that if you align to an object above you then stop (passive align) your ship will turn itself to the "plane" when there is no force that would make that natural.

This +1


Oddly, this would be a client side only change. How you see ships oriented is local to you. For example when a cap warps in you may noticeit is not pointed in the flight direction right away. But the pilot of said cap does see it oriented to the flight direction. Your client controls how you see the orientation.

The eve physics model has all ships move as balls in a viscous liquid.

(That said, CCP, maybe the client should initialize a ship to be oriented along its velocity vector?)

CCP could add a check box to make it so ships do not "relax" their orientation back to the ecliptic. Call it "Do not level stationary ships".

They could also add a check box to have ships point in the direction they are accelerating, rather than the direction they are moving.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Maul555
Xen Investments
#84 - 2011-11-17 16:41:59 UTC
Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming. Big smile

Thank you CCP, now is there any word on visualizing the nebulae on the star map sometime in the future?
Sneaky Neko
Invalid Input
#85 - 2011-11-17 16:45:16 UTC
I've got to say, I'm probably more excited for this patch then any other since I started playing EVE. Don't get me wrong, new content is nice, but I've seen more then one MMORPG die a slow painful death because the only development focus was on new content and all of the old bugs and unfinished features were left as-is. It's wonderfully reassuring to see CCP put forward such a effort on repairing old content and improving quality of life.

Thank you, and keep up the good work!
Callic Veratar
#86 - 2011-11-17 16:50:25 UTC
With the orientation change, some of the gate models could use refreshing. There are several that appear to have a top and bottom that look jarring when they're floating sideways. (Particularly the Minmatar inter-region gates).
Mjana
Switzerland EVE Corp.
#87 - 2011-11-17 16:52:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mjana
Vincent Athena wrote:
lachrymus wrote:
Draahk Chimera wrote:
This is great. Immersion for the win. Now for your next project can you make it so ships dont rotate to an imaginary plane when not moving? Partly for immersion reasons partly for tactics it has annoyed me for six years now that if you align to an object above you then stop (passive align) your ship will turn itself to the "plane" when there is no force that would make that natural.

This +1


Oddly, this would be a client side only change. How you see ships oriented is local to you. For example when a cap warps in you may noticeit is not pointed in the flight direction right away. But the pilot of said cap does see it oriented to the flight direction. Your client controls how you see the orientation.

The eve physics model has all ships move as balls in a viscous liquid.

(That said, CCP, maybe the client should initialize a ship to be oriented along its velocity vector?)

CCP could add a check box to make it so ships do not "relax" their orientation back to the ecliptic. Call it "Do not level stationary ships".

They could also add a check box to have ships point in the direction they are accelerating, rather than the direction they are moving.

Hm, so if all ships are just moving "balls" with no "forward" point, that means that there is no time needed to "turn around" a ship when accelerating to the opposite direction from stillstand?
This does explain why turning around a freighter takes aaaaages when it's moving but doing a 180 after jumping is pretty much instant (i guess the client just smoothes out the animation).
Oh, and that also explains the sideways warping of freighters.


About x/y-plane orientation:
I guess all systems in EVE share the same orientation of x/y-plane (which is where most planets tend to circling around on).
This is unrealistic on one side (different solar systems can easily have different orientations), but it makes navigating a lot easier, so I guess there's no need to fix it.

Just immagine jumping to a system in the west of your current orientation, then after landing there, the primary plane (where most planets are circling around) would change and "north" now would be "east" relative to the previous solar system. Now that would just completely mess up our senses of direction! Big smile (but with the addition of new nebulaes, you still had some reference points at least)


EDIT: As for the re-orientation of stargates: Good work! Love it!
Metis Laxon
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2011-11-17 16:53:15 UTC
Draahk Chimera wrote:
This is great. Immersion for the win. Now for your next project can you make it so ships dont rotate to an imaginary plane when not moving? Partly for immersion reasons partly for tactics it has annoyed me for six years now that if you align to an object above you then stop (passive align) your ship will turn itself to the "plane" when there is no force that would make that natural.


I'd actually really like to see that as well.
Aarin Wrath
Dominion Strategic
#89 - 2011-11-17 16:56:19 UTC
Wow very cool CCP! You guys are on one heck of a role these days!

Keep it up! :)
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#90 - 2011-11-17 16:59:20 UTC
Awesome stuff

I love all of it!


And please, work on adding more interactions OUTSIDE your solar system through this system.


Top of my head ideas :

Space Analysis - the ability to analyze what solar system is in space :

Constellation Connections - Seeing Connections between those stars to some degree in space

Statistics Data - The ability to view a systems statistics (Such as Pilots in Space) for those stars and highlight them and interact with them

Setting autopilot and such.


If you can do that you WILL WIN EVE. lol This is stuff I never even dreamed of.


Where I am.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#91 - 2011-11-17 17:01:00 UTC
Zyrbalax III wrote:
TorTorden wrote:
Just have to say it since it's a huge pet bear of mine,,

Moving planets...

I don't think this is necessarily as difficult / gamebreaking as some people are making out. I think you'd just need to classify bookmarks into what they're bookmarked "relative to". Currently everything's position is fixed relative to (presumably) the sun. Just allow people to make BM's relative to any celestial or anchorable structure. So a gate BM would be relative to the gate. Safe spots relative to the sun. POS towers relative to the POS etc.

Then as the POS moves around the moon and the moon around the planet etc, your BM moves with it - it's always "POS position +a on the X-axis, +b on the Y-axis, +c on the Z-axis.

There would be the very rare possibility that as a planet orbits it moves periodically on top of someone's safe spot. Would need a mechanism to avoid people warping inside a planet (or not Twisted).

I don't think it's beyond the bounds of lore that our ship computers are capable of dealing with "relative to" BMs. And I would *love* to see proper orbital motion in EVE.

While we're at it, why do we have single "warp-to" spots for celestials? Given the size of a star, it's a bit ridiculous that two people warping to zero land right next to each other doncha think?

Ive thought about moving celestials and ran into the BM issue too. Having the player pick what the BM is "stuck" to seems like a good solution. CCP could add a list to the BM window of possibilities, listed closest to farthest, the closest being the default. For example if you are close to a POS:

Caldari control tower
Moon V-2
Planet V
Sun

Also, everything would have to be moved at down time. Having stuff actually move in real time would cause all sorts of additional issues, as planets more at 50,000 m/sec and faster. Saying "have all movement be relative to the closest object" works fine until someone flies away from it, crosses some sort of software boundary and is going 50,000 m/sec.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#92 - 2011-11-17 17:08:22 UTC
i think the new nebulae look fantastic.

great work guys!
NaturalBeast
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#93 - 2011-11-17 17:21:54 UTC
Awesome idea. I love it.

Not sure if this could work but if you take the current grid where each stargate is located and then adjust space around it so the new stargate location is on the same coords that might make this a more painless transition?

Anyway, keep this stuff up. Some smart ideas being tossed around. Keep them coming!
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#94 - 2011-11-17 17:36:29 UTC
Jason Edwards wrote:
In space, all directions are up.


"The enemy gate is down"

The Drake is a Lie
Illectroculus Defined
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#95 - 2011-11-17 17:59:43 UTC
I'm really happy to see this in there, we made a bit of noise about it and the devs delivered.

The only bookmarks that might get broken are those that are less than zero on the gate, if you have a BM that you use to drop bubbles centered on the gate then you might find that the rotated model now blocks this position. if you're got bookmarks hundreds of km off the gate then you don't need to worry.
Chicken Pizza
One-man Armada
#96 - 2011-11-17 18:02:27 UTC
Zyrbalax III wrote:
Chicken Pizza wrote:
TorTorden wrote:
stuff you said
stuff i said
omitted for post length


That would involve a great deal of re-coding. I take it you aren't familiar with programming. It may seem easy to you, but that's only because you aren't going to be the one wading through piles upon piles of lines.

Yes, this would be potentially game breaking. It changes the tactics of PvP and certain PvE aspects quite drastically. If all celestial objects in a solar system are constantly changing position, there are many, MANY game mechanics that will have to be redesigned in the ensuing chain reaction.

1. Warp disruption bubbles will no longer be viable on warp vectors because the vectors will be constantly changing. That will have to be rectified. Bubbles are a crucial part of nullsec PvP in many circumstances.

2. The distance to an anomaly upon entering through a stargate will never be predictable ever again. Some planets have a 30-40AU radius in their orbit around the sun. Some are even larger than that.

3. The element of surprise when a stealth bomber enters a system and tries to dscan an area normally close to the stargate loses said element because the anomaly is now 25AU away, and he couldn't find out until he jumped into the system.

4. CCP would have to figure out orbit paths for literally hundreds of thousands of celestial objects that take different amounts of time to revolve because it wouldn't "make sense" to people like you if they all had the same exact orbit duration.

5. What if a player is afk at a POS? Does he move with the POS? And what if he's orbiting the POS? I hope you're going to be writing the code for this so CCP doesn't have to.

6. Warping to different areas around a celestial would completely eliminate any risk factor whatsoever in bouncing planets for the already agile ships like Cynabals. There are other effects, but that was the most prominent one in my mind.

Fact is, CCP is already making a lot of coding changes, gameplay changes, aesthetic changes, etc. Why load their plate with more crap that just makes PvP harder for those of us who actually run ops and PvP? You should PvP more. It teaches you how the game should and should not be changed.
Woo Glin
State War Academy
Caldari State
#97 - 2011-11-17 18:05:35 UTC
what the **** is this
Woo Glin
State War Academy
Caldari State
#98 - 2011-11-17 18:05:46 UTC
:dogstare:
Oberine Noriepa
#99 - 2011-11-17 18:06:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Oberine Noriepa
Just an FYI, some Gallente stargates aren't properly aligned to their destination star. I submitted a bug report for this. (ID#: 118728)

Here's a screenshot of the misalignment: Clicky

∃
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#100 - 2011-11-17 18:07:35 UTC
Arkady Sadik wrote:

To repeat a concern: It is currently possible to "warp to zero" to some star gates and either land too far away (e.g. when you are in a pod), landing outside of activation range, or "too close" (e.g. when you are in a freighter), bouncing off the gate if you don't hit "jump" real quick. It would be good to adjust the spheres of the gates to make this less likely. Would also make most of the "WTZ bookmarks" unnecessary :-)


Since the "jump" button on Singularity now warps you to the gate at zero and automatically jumps you through the gate, you'll have a much lower chance of being bounced.