These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ship alignment : Add more realism and slightly reduce warp time
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2015-11-03 19:40:09 UTC
Wolf Lafisques wrote:
If you want to see why a ship has to be in motion to be aligned, bog down your bandwidth and warp around in your pod for a bit. Pod's have zero align time, so they pretty well warp instantly. If your latency is high enough, you can actually see this effect as your pod will often enter warp sideways. The game doesn't actually know which way your ship is facing at all times. If you're motionless, it has to guess.

If I'm not mistaken, this is because our "ships" are actually just spheres atop which a ship model sits. But the game doesn't take the ship model into account when warping, only the sphere that is your ship's actual entity. Meaning that your ship can warp before it is visually aligned, and the ship model will have to catch up. This is simple for a ship with zero align time. The game doesn't have to worry about figuring out which side is the "front" of your sphere because the "front" instantly faces the direction it needs to.

But for ships with align time, the game needs to know which direction is "front", otherwise everyone would be able to warp of in any direction instantly, regardless of which way they're flying, and align time wouldn't matter because the ship would never actually need to align. The only way for the game to tell which way is "front" and "back" on your ship is if you're in motion. Ships can't fly backwards, at least not in Eve, so if you're in motion, "front" can only be one way.



Computers dont guess very well.

The actual mechanic is very simple. Your ship is a dot in a 3D graph. Ship movement is effectively "chase the dot" If it was a sphere it would have volume information which the engine simply doesnt do. The only sphere your ship has is a visible collision sphere. I went into considerably more detail in another thread but I dont remember which one :/. TLDR spheres would be used to denote volume which could allow for orientation data but would cost considerably more resources than a simple positional dot. Hence no spheres. You are a dot. A dot that incidentally moves every 2 seconds if it happens to be moving.

In short regardless of what your ship LOOKS like.. it only ever has Speed, Vector, and Position. It will never have volume or orientation and it sure as hell doesn't have inertia. The game engine is brilliantly designed to collude that these things exist which is why you see posts like this on a semiregular basis.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#22 - 2015-11-03 19:52:33 UTC
Ben Zaye wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Ben Zaye wrote:
xttz wrote:
.........

keep your speed at 1m/s if you care so much about staying in-line with your next warp destination. You will still have to accelerate to 75% speed to initiate warp.



The technique you suggest me is useful during a fleet battle. It is not helpful when the vessel is completely stopped (example mining session).

And this is the reason I post this request for modification.



What they're trying to explain to you is that you're using a real-world definition of "aligned" and it doesn't apply in Eve. In Eve, "aligned" means "Prepared to warp". You are prepared to warp when your velocity reaches 75% of your maximum in the direction of your warp destination.

You literally cannot be prepared to warp while stationary, making your suggestion non-sensical.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Ben Zaye
Harakiri Cleaning services
#23 - 2015-11-04 03:22:27 UTC
Thanks for your replies.

I understand the mechanics behind, but let to CCP programmers the technical solution. Put your paradigms aside and Focus on the improvement request.

I am sure it is possible to improve the realism of the game without affecting its performance.

So the need is to maintain the alignment of the ship when it is stopped. And because the vessel is aligned, enhance from a few seconds the time it takes the ship to warp.
Wolf Lafisques
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2015-11-04 03:54:57 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
He dose understand that the direction his ship modle is facing has no effect on the direction it is aligned right?


I tried explaining it.
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2015-11-04 04:40:33 UTC
Ben Zaye wrote:
Thanks for your replies.

I understand the mechanics behind, but let to CCP programmers the technical solution. Put your paradigms aside and Focus on the improvement request.

I am sure it is possible to improve the realism of the game without affecting its performance.

So the need is to maintain the alignment of the ship when it is stopped. And because the vessel is aligned, enhance from a few seconds the time it takes the ship to warp.



No.. No you dont seem to grasp the most basic of concepts here. You cannot just magically add more data to an object without impacting performance. You also dont seem to read the parts where its a far far more complicated request than you think for literally zero reward to gameplay. The game was designed intentionally without doing what you describe because its a mindf*ckingly stupid waste of resources for a game like eve.

This is what the posters in this thread have been trying to tell you. EVE is NOT a space ship simulation game.. it is a CAPTAIN simulation game. Want realism? Ask for something like variable crew stats based on what you use your ship for. Something that at the very least sits near the realm of possible instead of off in fairyland.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#26 - 2015-11-04 04:43:22 UTC
Ben Zaye wrote:
Thanks for your replies.

I understand the mechanics behind, but let to CCP programmers the technical solution. Put your paradigms aside and Focus on the improvement request.

I am sure it is possible to improve the realism of the game without affecting its performance.

So the need is to maintain the alignment of the ship when it is stopped. And because the vessel is aligned, enhance from a few seconds the time it takes the ship to warp.


When you're stopped, the vessel is as "aligned" as it possibly could be in the absence of velocity.

Implementing a heading that persists without mobility would, in fact, only ever have a deleterious effect on your time-to-warp. So, be careful what you wish for.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Iain Cariaba
#27 - 2015-11-04 06:16:48 UTC
Ben Zaye wrote:
Thanks for your replies.

I understand the mechanics behind, blah blah blah

No, you really don't.

The orientation of your ship is 100% irrelevant to your align time.

Your suggestion, which has been brought up many times before, is nothing but fluff that is a true waste of dev time. It has zero positive impact on the game, and will quite likely cause a few issues from people mistakenly believing that being pointed at thier warp destination magically allows them to warp faster.

Orientation and aligning are not even close to the same thing, and really have nothing to do with each other. Anyone who's ever seen a webbed capital ship warp away sideways, or even backwards, knows this.
Sigras
Conglomo
#28 - 2015-11-04 07:59:36 UTC
Regardless of the OPs understanding of the way the game currently works, the question that needs to be answered is "what reason do we have to ask for this change?"

This is something that would most likely take a substantial amount of dev time as it changes something fundamental about the game and the way ships move.

What problem are we fixing to justify taking up so much of the dev's time?


Secondly, I dont think the OP has thought this request through all the way. Right now a ships "facing" is not taken into account when that ship is stationary. Ships accelerate perfectly in every direction from a stationary start. This means that they are effectively "aligned" everywhere The only "realistic" thing to do would be to add a turning radius to a stationary ship, slowing it down in every direction except the one it is currently facing.

This seems to be the opposite of what the OP is asking for.
Previous page12