These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why a plane in a 3D space game? - A choice between 1st and 3rd person view

Author
Whitehound
#1 - 2012-04-17 09:35:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Why is that the game always puts me on a plane when it is a 3D space game? My ships always roll so that they stand vertically on the plane of the solar system. Why do we need this again?

Can we get rid of it?

Edit (selling point and suggestion):

CCP should ask themselves: does a game sell better when a player can choose between 1st and 3rd person view?

The game's current default view is one, which resembles the 3rd person view in many other games. CCP shall implemented an alternative view, which resembles a 1st person view. The camera shall rotate the space around the ship so that the ship always points into the same direction. It supports a play style, which focuses more on the player's ship and less on the environment without losing sight of the events around it. It should be an option in the game's settings (i.e. under the camera settings) or, better, a choice in the right-click menu when in space with a keyboard short-cut.

Why is this fun? Because now one can switch between two views and can get a better immersion of the game. When you want to be the hero pilot, the lonesome wolf or the pirat can you switch to a self-centred 1st person view. When you want to be the fleet commander, the strategist or overlord then you can switch to the current 3rd person view. It is the player's choice.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Beat General
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-04-17 09:53:14 UTC
I try not to think of it... It bothers me too .
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#3 - 2012-04-17 10:03:13 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Why is that the game always puts me on a plane when it is a 3D space game? My ships always roll so that they stand vertically on the plane of the solar system. Why do we need this again?

Can we get rid of it?

I think they added some RP rubbish a while back about it being an "agreed upon conformity of space travel".

But basically because having everyone upside down and at funny angles to one other would be extremely odd.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Beat General
Doomheim
#4 - 2012-04-17 10:05:29 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Why is that the game always puts me on a plane when it is a 3D space game? My ships always roll so that they stand vertically on the plane of the solar system. Why do we need this again?

Can we get rid of it?

I think they added some RP rubbish a while back about it being an "agreed upon conformity of space travel".

But basically because having everyone upside down and at funny angles to one other would be extremely odd.



Didn't they recently make stargates face random directions instead of all being level?


Why not just do the same with the ships?

If ya wana face the same way... align to something lol.


It doesn't really change anything, besides the fact that the game will be a bit more realistic.
Whitehound
#5 - 2012-04-17 10:06:41 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
I think they added some RP rubbish a while back about it being an "agreed upon conformity of space travel".

But basically because having everyone upside down and at funny angles to one other would be extremely odd.

It is not more than another challenge for your brain and one you would expect to see when you play a space game.

Of course, if you are drunk and hung-over then it could make you throw up, which is a suspicion I have for why the CCP developers think of it as a bad idea.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#6 - 2012-04-17 10:07:55 UTC
Beat General wrote:
It doesn't really change anything, besides the fact that the game will be a bit more realistic.

Hehe, true. It would certainly make comms more interesting.

"He's 300k above the gate."

"Wait, which way is up?."

"YOU'RE WARPING TO THE WRONG BM"

"Oh shi...."

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Beat General
Doomheim
#7 - 2012-04-17 10:22:14 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Beat General wrote:
It doesn't really change anything, besides the fact that the game will be a bit more realistic.

Hehe, true. It would certainly make comms more interesting.

"He's 300k above the gate."

"Wait, which way is up?."

"YOU'RE WARPING TO THE WRONG BM"

"Oh shi...."


I see what you are saying...

But the ships will not will change their "bank"

Only their "pitch" would be affected... To keep people from becoming confused.


Refer to this picture for example: http://ministryoftype.co.uk/images/files/pitch-yaw-bank-iphone.jpg
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#8 - 2012-04-17 10:23:58 UTC
Beat General wrote:
I see what you are saying...

But the ships will not will change their "bank"

Only their "pitch" would be affected... To keep people from becoming confused.


Refer to this picture for example: http://ministryoftype.co.uk/images/files/pitch-yaw-bank-iphone.jpg

Ahh, now that makes a bit more sense Lol

Hehe, I wouldn't be against that, if only because for me Eve doesn't really have ships. It's just a battle of the purple squares versus the red squares.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Nnamuachs
Kiith Paktu
Reeloaded.
#9 - 2012-04-17 10:27:57 UTC
Beat General wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Why is that the game always puts me on a plane when it is a 3D space game? My ships always roll so that they stand vertically on the plane of the solar system. Why do we need this again?

Can we get rid of it?

I think they added some RP rubbish a while back about it being an "agreed upon conformity of space travel".

But basically because having everyone upside down and at funny angles to one other would be extremely odd.



Didn't they recently make stargates face random directions instead of all being level?


Why not just do the same with the ships?

If ya wana face the same way... align to something lol.


It doesn't really change anything, besides the fact that the game will be a bit more realistic.


The gates are pointed in the direction of their destination system, it isn't actually random.
Mark Androcius
#10 - 2012-04-17 11:12:06 UTC
In space, there is no up or down, however, when in a cube, there is a top, a bottom and 4 sides and games like this are made in a "cube", making a completely new game engine, that replicates actual space and it's physics, is next to impossible, quite expensive and very time consuming, probably even something that would require lots of gigabytes to install on your pc.
Whitehound
#11 - 2012-04-17 11:30:38 UTC
Mark Androcius wrote:
In space, there is no up or down, however, when in a cube, there is a top, a bottom and 4 sides and games like this are made in a "cube", making a completely new game engine, that replicates actual space and it's physics, is next to impossible, quite expensive and very time consuming, probably even something that would require lots of gigabytes to install on your pc.

I really should not respond to you, but I will do out of kindness.

No one here wants a new physics engine or a new game engine. It is not needed for getting rid of the restrictions we have in place.

For example, we can spin our ships in stations, but we cannot do it in space. It is another one of those training wheels CCP has screwed onto the game for us not to fall into the black void.

The most likely explanation for why we have it is because it supports cinematic screenshots and video scenes.

I would like for space itself to flip upside down, not just the ship. The ship can stay vertical, but the rest should be able to rotate. This alone could be implemented with a simple setting. When people with TWIN view and Xinerama can shift their view point to the left and right so it fits on two screens then it is not too much to ask to add this as well.

If we can have an additional change in the game's manoeuvring of ships then this would be super awesome, but it would also be only a small change compared to having the view tilt and rotate instead of the ship.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Mark Androcius
#12 - 2012-04-17 13:07:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Androcius
Whitehound wrote:
I really should not respond to you, but I will do out of kindness

No one here wants a new physics engine or a new game engine. It is not needed for getting rid of the restrictions we have in place

For example, we can spin our ships in stations, but we cannot do it in space. It is another one of those training wheels CCP has screwed onto the game for us not to fall into the black void

The most likely explanation for why we have it is because it supports cinematic screenshots and video scenes

I would like for space itself to flip upside down, not just the ship. The ship can stay vertical, but the rest should be able to rotate. This alone could be implemented with a simple setting. When people with TWIN view and Xinerama can shift their view point to the left and right so it fits on two screens then it is not too much to ask to add this as well

If we can have an additional change in the game's manoeuvring of ships then this would be super awesome, but it would also be only a small change compared to having the view tilt and rotate instead of the ship.


Uhu, you do realize that captains quarters and the ship spinning with that, is based on a different game engine then the one when in space right
I mean, it's the same development platform in many ways, but it's completely different in many others

Implementing the captains quarters alone, was about 500 MB ( ish ) imagine the whole universe being made up like that

Don't forget, you'd be having a lot more data attached to every single object in space
For example, if a station only has it's position and type stored in the database right now, it would also have to have data about north-south angle, east-west angle and pitch ( among other things ) added.

And if that's not enough, imagine the following

You'd have to create a specific undocking procedure for every station, since you fly out of the station in a straight line, which would then be at an angle, which requires calculation, which costs processor power

Trust me, I'm a programmer and i haven't even learned all that much, but there's a lot more then meets the eye, to making seemingly small changes
Whitehound
#13 - 2012-04-17 14:11:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Mark Androcius wrote:
Trust me, I'm a programmer and i haven't even learned all that much, but there's a lot more then meets the eye, to making seemingly small changes

Fly around in space and simply rotate the camera to make your ship stay vertical and to be pointing away from you. This is how easy it is. You trust me, I am a software engineer for over 20 years now. Your way of thinking is caused by those training wheels that CCP has put onto the view.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Mark Androcius
#14 - 2012-04-17 14:29:00 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Fly around in space and simply rotate the camera to make your ship stay vertical and to be pointing away from you. This is how easy it is. You trust me, I am a software engineer for over 20 years now. Your way of thinking is caused by those training wheels that CCP has put onto the view.


I wonder why so many people claim to be a software engineer, every time stating something like that, might come in handy.......

Anyway, the camera is limited to the cube i was talking about, to change that, you'd have to rework the entire engine, as i said before.

But if you can do it ( seeing as you supposedly are a software engineer, for over 20 years ) why not apply for a job at CCP?
Whitehound
#15 - 2012-04-17 14:46:55 UTC
Mark Androcius wrote:
I wonder why so many people claim to be a software engineer, every time stating something like that, might come in handy.......

Anyway, the camera is limited to the cube i was talking about, to change that, you'd have to rework the entire engine, as i said before.

But if you can do it ( seeing as you supposedly are a software engineer, for over 20 years ) why not apply for a job at CCP?

No. Shut up now and listen carefully. You go into the game now and take your ship and undock. Fly around and rotate the camera with the mouse and keep your ship pointing into the same direction. Once you have done that come back and tell me again that it cannot be done.

You lack imagination and no amount of ranting will fix this for you.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Mark Androcius
#16 - 2012-04-17 14:59:58 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
No. Shut up now and listen carefully. You go into the game now and take your ship and undock. Fly around and rotate the camera with the mouse and keep your ship pointing into the same direction. Once you have done that come back and tell me again that it cannot be done.

You lack imagination and no amount of ranting will fix this for you.


So.... all this time, what you actually meant was, that you wanted your camera pointed at a fixed spot on your ship, with the rest of the universe revolving around it.

Or am i still missing the point and are you making something very simple look very hard?

Cause if that is what you are talking about, then i don't understand your reference to "ship spinning", cause that has nothing to do with it.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#17 - 2012-04-17 15:02:19 UTC
*sigh* OP, you're not helping your case. You're showing a clear lack of understanding of the way that reference planes and coordinate systems work.

The reason that you can line up your camera behind your ship is that the camera is tied to a spherical coordinate system tied to your ship, meaning that everything is relative to the ship.

However, objects in space are tied to a XYZ coordinate system relative to the system. What you're proposing would involve pretty much giving each ship its own coordinate system centered on the ship and would be obscenely painful to handle the math of.

The current XYZ coordinate system that ships base off of right now makes things simpler for both the devs and the players (many of whom would likely be disconcerted by having individual reference frames for each ship), add to that the fact that having an 'up' makes communication and coordination much less painful. It just simply outweighs the slight 'benefit' of being more realistic to have no 'up' in space, which can easily be explained away by a bit of lore about everyone agreeing to keep their ships right-side up.

tl;dr: The coding, lack-of-disorientation, and coordination reasons for the current system vastly outweigh the slight realism benefit that independent axises might provide.
Whitehound
#18 - 2012-04-17 15:07:07 UTC
Mark Androcius wrote:
So.... all this time, what you actually meant was, that you wanted your camera pointed at a fixed spot on your ship, with the rest of the universe revolving around it...

Now you get it. Was not too hard, was it?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Whitehound
#19 - 2012-04-17 15:08:04 UTC
mxzf wrote:
... tl;dr: The coding, lack-of-disorientation, and coordination reasons for the current system vastly outweigh the slight realism benefit that independent axises might provide.

I have helped one kid to get it. You go empty.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#20 - 2012-04-17 15:09:12 UTC
Training wheels, I like that analogy.

The truth, I believe, is that real space combat lacks enough structure for people to be comfortable with. Arbitrary things, like your ship leveling itself to a plane.
Add to that anything that defies logic, but is put in for gameplay effect, like chat channels.

Ever see a believable space movie where such a structure existed? Ships move as dictated by thrust and inertia, modified by gravity wells, not imaginary planes.
Communication is something not automatic, certainly not forced onto ships not wanting to participate.
Most efforts to talk required effort on at least one party, who was in a minimum range to another party or at least a relay device.

The enterprise, millenium falcon, asgard ships in SG1, none of these employ chat channels, yet we expect it.

All of these are training wheels, to make it easier to focus on the equally structured combat system.

Good, bad, whatever, EVE really is the best out there right now for MMO space combat.

I agree with you, I think some of these arbitrary structures are not needed, and in fact take from the game.
But would gameplay be better or worse for the changes?
123Next page