Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 11:05:00 -
[1]
Idea There is a thread in general discussion that caught my eye. Primarily it's about getting rid of bumping to prevent warping. I sort of agree with the original poster there, and also with a couple of replies that state that bumping is generally immersion-breaking and dumb to look at. These are spaceships that will break apart when shot at, not inherently indestructible scooter cars.
Introducing collision damage should not introduce much (if any) computational overhead, since collisions are detected quantitatively anyway - they determine how far you are bounced back when flying at speed v and own mass m against a target of mass M and speed V.
The straight forward way of introducing collision damage between arbitrary space objects is to calculate the impact they make on each other, damage should be proportional to that. I say impact, the associated physical quantity is transfer of kinetic energy into inner energy after an inelastic collision.
To actually calculate damage done when two, say, ships run into each other at a certain angle, you can always change into a center of mass system, where the collision will be central. Yadda yadda, this is probably implemented already anyway to determine direction and magnitude of bounce-off upon collision as it works right now.
What effects would a mechanic like this have on game play? Could people abuse shuttle or frigate squads to ram capital ships to death?
Let's look at some ships, the first number is the maximum kinetic energy they can achieve, ie. when used to ram, which is just
E_kin = 1/2 x mass x max velocity^2.
The second number is their total HP (shield + armor + hull). Both max. energy and HP are taken with zero skills, no afterburners or mass altering modules. MWDs and so on will be considered later. Units of energy is in megatons * (m/s)^2.
Shuttle 200 446 Rifter 56 930 Thorax 194 5040 Raven 727 20782 Thanatos 2974 375000 Avatar 3038 975000
The energy given here corresponds to a ship flying at max speed into a resting target of infinite mass. This approximation is fairly good when a small and fast target hits a large slow moving target. Ship classes tend to have about 10 times the mass of the next smaller class, so when using frigates to ram webbed (almost resting) battle ships, we're pretty exact.
An obvious problem is the kinetic energy of a shuttle, because its mass is higher than a frigate, and because of its superior speed it actually surpasses a Thorax. This could be easily mitigated by lowering shuttle mass to maye a tenth of frigate mass. But then, if you're ramming someone, you'll intuitively do so with an MWD and some heavy armor tacked on, which a shuttle can't do.
An MWD increases ship mass by about 50% (a hack to prevent faster warping, I believe) and gives a 500% velocity bonus. This translates into a 37.5-fold increase in kinetic energy. Now we're talking about ramming. Capital ships will not benefit significantly from fitting undersized MWDs, since mass addition will be about 5% and the speed increase is also low. Let's estimate generously they get a twofold increase. Capital ships are prohibitively expensive, and the lack of 1GN MWDs makes them useless for ramming compared to more readily available BS. Shuttles also start losing big time compared to frigates with MWD, so I will only consider frig, cruiser and BS from here on.
Relevant skills for hitting power are Navigation (+up to 25% base speed), Acceleration Control (+25% AB/MWD speed bonus) and ship command skills for some Minmatar ships (+25% base speed). The maximum additional factor in ramming energy is then
F = (1.25 * 1.25 * 1.25)^2 = 3.81
I'm not quite sure how inertia stabs and nanofiber internal structure work right now with regards to achievable max speed and mass, so I'll ignore them for now. If somebody could outline that, I'd be grateful.
Skills and MWD give you something like a 143-fold increase in ramming energy. ______________ Join the Family |
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 11:05:00 -
[2]
(continued) On the defensive side, the maximum HPs of a ship can be boosted by 25% (hull, armor and shield each 25%).
The adjusted values for ramming energy and total HP then read like this (assume all were Minnie ships with speed bonuses, I'm too lazy to dig up more mass/speed pairs):
Rifter 8008 1162 Thorax 27742 6300 Raven 103961 25978
If ramming energy is distributed 50/50 on projectile and target (to keep it simple) and calculated 1:1 in these units, no ship could survive a head-on-MWD-max-skills-collision with a resting target. Nor should it.
Working under the assumptions as above, a single frigate could not 1-hit kill a resting cruiser, and a cruiser could not 1-hit kill a resting BS. You would need roughly 7-8 simultaneous BS impacts to sink a Thanatos.
These number don't look too wrong to me, although it is a bit troublesome that a gang of say 5 frigates could definitely kill a cruiser, and a gang of 8-10 frigs could sink a BS. Then again, if these frigates were fitted for fighting, their targets wouldn't really stand much of a chance either.
One could start to argue that impact damage should be something like a mix of explosive and kinetic damage, and resistances should be factored in. To get back to a reasonable (fairly low) survival rate of actively ramming ships, the damage done by an impact could be adjusted by a factor to be determined (3-5 maybe?). This would lead to single small projectile ships being absorbed fairly well by large ships' shields, since shields have naturally high explosive and kinetic resistances.
To compare the relative effectivity of ramming and fighting, one has to compare "how long would it take to deal the ramming damage through conventional means" to "how long does it take to reach ramming speed, and how high is the chance of hitting an evading target".
What DPS can a good Rifter pilot achieve? I assumed he had 4 turrets and was firing T2 200mm autocannons with Barrage S and got about 100 raw DPS with perfect skills. The Rifter pilot would then need roughly 40 seconds to deal the 4000 HP raw damage he could inflict by ramming (and effectively self destroying his ship).
In terms of effectivity, ramming is not superior to normal fighting under the assumptions used here, because even if the Rifter pilot had a Carrier nearby supplying an endless stream of free Rifters, it would surely take him something like 40 seconds from impact to get to the carrier, board a new Rifter and accelerate back towards his targets. ______________ Join the Family |
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 11:11:00 -
[3]
I'd be grateful for good arguments for and against this idea. ______________ Join the Family |
Leneerra
Minmatar Trinity Nova
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 14:04:00 -
[4]
what are you trying to get here?
The ability to use a nanoed bs to desintegrate a undocking cruiser or less without even locking it?
A new way to suicide gank people? where you do not have to pay for a complete setup and that deals damage for many more secconds then it would have lasted against concord?
Physical undocking interdiction?
Introducing Cans as a minefield?
|
Riddick Valer
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 14:29:00 -
[5]
So an accidental bumping would cause damage, and result in someone being concorded? Which of the two would be the aggressor?
|
Angelus Xenotov
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 14:35:00 -
[6]
I can see it now.
Jita 4-4, hundreds of vessels undocking....minor scrapes and then, OH NOES! A FRIEGHTER! Hundreds of ships pop, Concord gank the frieghter but then... THE WRECK! hundreds more pour into the scrapheap, people are dying left and right. Risk takers move in and out, scooping billions in isk as they plunder the wrecks, pods die, clones die, skill points are lost.
And all because someone wanted ramming damage.
|
shady trader
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 14:38:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Rid**** Valer So an accidental bumping would cause damage, and result in someone being concorded? Which of the two would be the aggressor?
Yes, taken to the extreme the ultimate weapon for cost/damage would be a noob ship parked at the exit to a station. Even if its the ship thats moving the is concorded it does not effect the cost.
Unless player can direclty control the direct and speed of their ship in real time you cannot provent bumping given the current control system
|
morifeine
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 14:46:00 -
[8]
@OP : You should stop calculating things and start thinking about gameplay ;)
|
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 11:45:00 -
[9]
My main concern is in fact game play and the immersion-breaking effects of soft bumping. These calculations only illustrate that, yes, it is possible to include ramming damage without completely unbalancing combat. Also, the current practice of bumping ships off warp alignment would be fixed in the sense that you can't bump ships repeatedly, since your own ship is likely to blow up.
I was fully aware of issues with undocking, more good points were raised (can mine fields, flagging issues, accidental bumping).
Undocking and associated congestion This is annoying even without bump damage. Maybe this could be changed so that ships do not all end up at one point at the end of the "undocking ramp", but are instead spread out over a segment of solid angle and distance from the station.
Accidental bumping and flagging Biggest issue, in my opinion. One would want to make high-sec suicide ganks impossible, or at least include appropriate concord/flagging reactions, but how to determine the hostile intent of the (maybe) attacker? Flagging everybody who scratched your ship (maybe accidentally) opens the door to abuse widely, since flagging would have to go both ways.
What about flagging only persons contributing with more than a certain percentage of their max speed radially, ie. they have to be heading pretty directly towards you, and fast as well? This takes care of accidental bumping in situations where several ships approach the same point from a similar direction, like a number of ships heading to a station/gate. Autopilot warp-in spots for gates should also be spread out, like the station undocking.
Can mine fields First of all, only anchored cans should be collidable. Cans can't be anchored a) too close to stations/gates and b) to each other. They also can't be anchored in very high sec at all, so newb griefing is automatically avoided, at least via cans.
Please, if you can think of more abuse scenarios, let me know. I know there still are loop holes in the suggestions I made, but I think this can be fixed. One more point is, if everybody knows bumping causes damage, they adapt to it and approach stations/other ships more carefully. ______________ Join the Family |
Angelus Xenotov
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 11:53:00 -
[10]
If you got a Covops into position 20-30 km from a Capital ship, then had a frieghter warp in to 15 on the Covops, wouldn't the resulting 1000km/s impact immediately destroy both frieghter and cap ship?
|
|
William Hamilton
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 12:37:00 -
[11]
You need a way to prevent small ships for raping large ships.
Find what ship has less total base hit points, if they are the same both ships take 100% of the ramming damage.
If they are different the weaker of the two takes 100% of the ramming damage while the larger of the two takes an percent of the ramming damage we will call 'd'.
'd' = ( Weaker ship base HP / Stronger ship base HP ) * 100%
There, now your shuttles are doing pathetic damage to battleships and it's only really a decent idea to ram in ships of the approximate same hit points.
|
Tanaka Nari
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 18:20:00 -
[12]
Another option would be, that the damage maxes out so that the weaker ship is just killed, ie. a ship with 1000 HP can't do more than 1000 damage.
|
EadTaes
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 18:39:00 -
[13]
I'll copy paste teh same reply i gave in an otehr tread even thou some things have changed since then But it is still viable.
real collision would be alot better then the current bumbs. However in teh current state ofve the game ramming would become an exploit the isntant it is put in. Also the coding sfor alot ofve things would have to be rewriten to avoid accidental collisions. And inaly to alow for colisios to be made a combat move ships need to be slowed down. And to avoid exploit as much as possible the ship performing the ramming manover should have his pod instantly destroyed. And the ship being rammed have his pod eject normaly. Frigates should do little damage when ramming a BS. But a BS raming a BS result int he destruction ofve both ships. But once again lots and lots ofve calibartions need to eb made to avoind thsi from beign exploited.
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Frontier Trade League
|
Posted - 2007.04.01 07:11:00 -
[14]
Collision would be nice but CCP would have to recode undocking so that two ships would not occupy the same space.
Rather than making collision damage general perhaps add a new ship module/weapon. Rams.
Greek Trireme's and other navies used them for centuries.
The Ram could be a low slot module ( as it is really a hull change like cargo expanders, nanos etc.).
Ramming would be a function of the navigation skill.
Ships undocking could be given a 1 minute timer to be immune to ramming just like you can't immediately target them.
I guess you could do the Ram as a Rig as well. It would increase ship mass and decrease agility.
Anyway ramming is a good idea, not so sure about general collision, not sure the game could handle it like the worst case scenario someone posted of Jita....
Galactic Express Recruitment Post Thoughts expressed are mine and |
ENERGIZED
Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.04.01 17:41:00 -
[15]
The game is supposed to look as much as real like as it is.But yet a very small ship like a pod or shuttle can make a titan or raven move? Wow powerful ship but yet a torpedo kills it.Now where is the problem there?Don,t bigger ones make smaller one move? atleast thats what happens where I live.Ships that bounce of stations should have a certain damage on them, or a fine or something to make them realize(players) to move forward abit more to either warp or other.Therefor having less bump and stale in the game,cause when 10 ships undock and a little shutle undocked before and is bouncing off the station to warp,will make everyone bump everywhere on eachother. If we lock and unload on a station in safe space concord and sentries will open fire right? Why dont they do it when we bump into them? or the station? or get even the slightest warning? Make it more realistic if only cars here could do that,it would cost less to fix:)
Remember nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent |
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 09:57:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Kakita Jalaan on 05/04/2007 10:02:06 With regards to the flagging issue, also consider this thread from general discussion. In an empire war, non decced neutrals bump ships of one side around in engagements to help the other side.
This is imho an abuse of game mechanics (maybe not in the strict petitionable sense), and such things should be prevented in some way. Making ships take damage and go boom after some bumping action would probably go a long way in this regard.
Of course, the hard thing is to make flagging upon ramming fair (did A ram B or vice versa?) and as non-abusable as possible.
Hm... what if the "approach" command would only let you approach your target to a sphere of 1000m (sufficient for looting/jumping)? This would require early deceleration, depending on speed/distance. The same code could also be used for "keep at range", which at the moment is a bit strange as well.
The easier and slightly unrealistic way would be to give all space entities a second (larger) hit box that repels you before the ships touch graphically if you "approach".
"Docking" at a station is a different command, and "ramming" could be yet another one (that is flagged as an offense). The more I think about it, the more I think just seperating approaching and ramming by making them different commands is a good idea. The very very basic version could be to just turn off collision detection if you are not ramming but approaching. ______________ Join the Family |
raven415
Caldari Special Projects Corp
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 10:07:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Angelus Xenotov I can see it now.
Jita 4-4, hundreds of vessels undocking....minor scrapes and then, OH NOES! A FRIEGHTER! Hundreds of ships pop, Concord gank the frieghter but then... THE WRECK! hundreds more pour into the scrapheap, people are dying left and right. Risk takers move in and out, scooping billions in isk as they plunder the wrecks, pods die, clones die, skill points are lost.
And all because someone wanted ramming damage.
roflmao very good
|
Kassidus
Gallente Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 10:16:00 -
[18]
Its a great idea and would be awesome if it would work, but sadly it wont, I still feel you should be comended for your effort :) to bad it opens so many loopholes.
|
Kassidus
Gallente Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 10:16:00 -
[19]
Its a great idea and would be awesome if it would work, but sadly it wont, I still feel you should be comended for your effort :) to bad it opens so many loopholes.
|
Emylissan
Gallente European Science Armada
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 10:30:00 -
[20]
For undocking at stations it could work when you have to request undock permission before you actually undock. The player who left station before you has to leave the area in front of the station before anyone else can enter it from inside (undocking) or from outside (docking).
But then there must be a timer set in place after undocking that you have to leave that area as fast as possible with sublight drives and not already set a "warp to destination" while blocking the docking area.
That could cause of cause a long waittime at stations with massiv traffic but, thats it, like in real life. In big cities there are long lines of cars at the traffic lights and you have to wait along time even when the light jumps to green for you.
Exceeding the "leave the docking area counter" could cost the pilot a fee or he becomes moved by tractor beam of the station away to a random free position after a full minute of "blocking" the area.
|
|
Emylissan
Gallente European Science Armada
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 10:30:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Emylissan on 05/04/2007 10:29:55 For undocking at stations it could work when you have to request undock permission before you actually undock. The player who left station before you has to leave the area in front of the station before anyone else can enter it from inside (undocking) or from outside (docking).
But then there must be a timer set in place after undocking that you have to leave that area as fast as possible with sublight drives and not already set a "warp to destination" while blocking the docking area.
That could cause of cause a long waittime at stations with massiv traffic but, thats it, like in real life. In big cities there are long lines of cars at the traffic lights and you have to wait along time even when the light jumps to green for you.
Exceeding the "leave the docking area counter" could cost the pilot a fee or he becomes moved by tractor beam of the station away to a random free position after a full minute of "blocking" the area.
But i see alot more problems in warping. You know how far distances you warp through the systems with immense speed that its impossible to say how many ships would pop while warping in opposite direction or only crossing the path somewhere. Than every warpjump is like playing lotto with the difference that the chance to win is acutally higher than to loose.^^
|
Eric Black
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 10:48:00 -
[22]
Soon as I saw the ops post I thought of this to :) Can you even imagine the carnage? And Concord cleaning up anyone who survives the bumps? Id be sitting a little out of range of the undock point and workin thoose salvagers overtime lol.
Lots of space here for greif play, needs work but could be fun.
Originally by: Angelus Xenotov I can see it now.
Jita 4-4, hundreds of vessels undocking....minor scrapes and then, OH NOES! A FRIEGHTER! Hundreds of ships pop, Concord gank the frieghter but then... THE WRECK! hundreds more pour into the scrapheap, people are dying left and right. Risk takers move in and out, scooping billions in isk as they plunder the wrecks, pods die, clones die, skill points are lost.
And all because someone wanted ramming damage.
|
Valandril
Caldari Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 11:00:00 -
[23]
Hmm eve + carmagedon == i need my grief hauler to steal from jita 4-4 :P --------
Mass murderer, pure pvper and starcraft player =D |
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 13:40:00 -
[24]
Top post updated. ______________ Join the Family |
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.04.08 15:41:00 -
[25]
Also note this topic in general discussion: multiple exit points from stations. ______________ Join the Family |
Kakita Jalaan
Viriette Commerce and Holding
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 07:52:00 -
[26]
I just wanted to bring this topic back to the front page, since discussions on ramming corvettes, kamikaze drones and otherwise ramming related stuff crops up at least once a week. I think many people would like something along those lines, this thread is meant as a discussion forum for possible mechanics to implement ramming. ______________ Join the Family |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |