open All Channels
seplocked EVE Fiction
blankseplocked I reject your lore
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Gashblight
Posted - 2010.09.29 17:04:00 - [1]
 

No matter how hard I try, I can't bring myself around to the idea that I'm flying around the universe in a goo filled pod. Not only that, but I'm alone in my village sized ship?

Sorry. I think the art people also struggle around this as most of the lager ships show multiple decks with windows. Why would someone need access to the rest of the ship if they are contained in their goo tank?

The idea of one person to a ship strikes me as tragic and lonely. I can't help but imagine a crew in there, preforming roles you might find on any navy vessel in real life. Are we also to assume the only people in stations are the mission agents. It's a civilization that spans the known Eve universe but were are the people?

I'm really just putting this here in an effort to avoid real work and by no means expect or demand that everyone else find fault with living alone in a goo ball. Razz

Myxx
Atropos Group
Posted - 2010.09.29 17:16:00 - [2]
 

first off

ships have crews

yes, even pod pilot ships have crews.

its been stated hundreds of times.

secondly,

I REJECT YOUR LONELY SHIP IDEA, AND SUBSTITUTE IT WITH MY OWN CREW!

CCP Zymurgist


Gallente
C C P
Posted - 2010.09.29 17:31:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Gashblight
No matter how hard I try, I can't bring myself around to the idea that I'm flying around the universe in a goo filled pod. Not only that, but I'm alone in my village sized ship?


You are alone only in frigates. They are small and simple enough to not need a crew. Larger ships have decent sized crews.

Originally by: Gashblight

Sorry. I think the art people also struggle around this as most of the lager ships show multiple decks with windows. Why would someone need access to the rest of the ship if they are contained in their goo tank?


The ships you pilot were originally designed to be flown by mere mortals. Pod technology came a long later plus these ships are still being used by non-pod pilot crews.

Originally by: Gashblight

The idea of one person to a ship strikes me as tragic and lonely. I can't help but imagine a crew in there, preforming roles you might find on any navy vessel in real life. Are we also to assume the only people in stations are the mission agents. It's a civilization that spans the known Eve universe but were are the people?


Your idea of having a crew is pretty accurate. However I prefer thinking of them as nothing more than symbiotic parasites my ship has Twisted Evil

Originally by: Gashblight

I'm really just putting this here in an effort to avoid real work and by no means expect or demand that everyone else find fault with living alone in a goo ball. Razz


Avoiding work is fun! Maybe I shouldn't say that while at work.....

Gashblight
Posted - 2010.09.29 18:54:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Gashblight on 29/09/2010 18:56:11
The crew of the Ugly Duck thanks you both for your clarification and are grateful to be pod free.

I now embrace the lore. Laughing

MuerteDio
Posted - 2010.09.30 03:03:00 - [5]
 

+1 for awesome ship name. It always pleases me to see pilots take just the bit of effort to name their ship other then 'Name's Ship type'.

Fly Safe.

~M

Nathan Jameson
Talocan Vanguard
Talocan United
Posted - 2010.09.30 09:05:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: MuerteDio
+1 for awesome ship name. It always pleases me to see pilots take just the bit of effort to name their ship other then 'Name's Ship type'.

Fly Safe.

~M


I name all of my ships "PVP Bait." It makes people wonder if I'm serious or not...

And as for ships and their crews, the following two chronicles are by far my favorites, simply because they deal exclusively with the mechanics of crewed ships run by capsuleers:

All These Lives Are Fit to Ruin

Prosopagnosia

Connie Focal
The Red Circle Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.30 12:29:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
Your idea of having a crew is pretty accurate. However I prefer thinking of them as nothing more than symbiotic parasites my ship has Twisted Evil


If anything, you are parasitising them Twisted Evil

Eojek
Amarr
Starlight Molly
Posted - 2010.09.30 17:56:00 - [8]
 

I'm looking forward to inspecting my ship while it's docked in station, and meeting the crew.... why can't we hire a crew, or locate better crew ? Maybe some people would value their ships more and do whatever to keep them from getting blown up. Maybe not.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.10.01 14:00:00 - [9]
 


Welll ...


First off ... the only thing separating the Capsuleers from "mere mortals" is that the capsuleers have clones.

Next, if a capsuleer required a goo filled pod - rather than "inertial dampeners" to keep them from being smeared against the bulkheads ... so would anyone else aboard those ships. You can't have part of the crew in pods and part of it outside of them. Ship design just doesn't work that way. Either everyone is in pods - in which case ... just what is it that the rest of the "crew" are doing(?) or no one is. If one person is in a pod (to keep them from getting smeared against the bulkheads) - and the rest of the crew aren't - then they'd all be bloody smears the first time the ship maneuvered. For people without clones ... this would tend to cut down on your ability to recruit crews - much less - crew retention.

Pod technology would presuppose links to the mind of the person running the ship - making the ship an extension of their mind (since they can't bloody well do anything with their body). If that's so - then the ships AI, computers and bots are going to be the ones running the ship. I suppose you could have certain functionality divided amongst several people but ... I'm not all that sure of the need for it. Any kind of a mental interface is going to be a "ship - do this" type of interface and the ship's hardware and software carries out the commanders intent.

If, based on the logic above, the crew (however many there are in it) is all in pods - then - there would be no need for viewing ports. Thus - ship design wouldn't have them. View ports - are a point of failure - which with no practical use - would not be included in a design.

Of course ... the asymmetrical design of the thrusters on most of these ships wouldn't work either. These oddly placed, different sized thrusters - along with the view ports - are in fact merely artists whimsy.

It's like ... I'm sure all this stuff just kind of evolved along with the game ... but there are real problems with doing that when it comes to continuity. There are simply a lot of things in the back story ... that are hard to credit. The amount of influence wielded by giant corporations being one of them ... I mean ... you can just make something up and justify anything - but that is what you're doing - however much work you put into it. Just don't expect everyone to believe it.



Now none of the above means that I don't applaud CCP for trying to create a back story. I like that as it gives the game a richness and depth where - if you want - you can imagine yourself in this Sci Fi world. It just means ... that in the real world ... there are problems that come from tacking the back story on after the fact rather than having the game design evolve out of it.


Of course ... trying to make a game based on something else, a movie or a series of books ... has it's own set of problems. All the Star Wars games have the fundamental problem of the fact that everyone is going to want to be a Jedi - but virtually no one could be - and have any relationship with the cannon of the story the game is based on.


*shrug*







Sequoia Starimp
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2010.10.01 17:52:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

First off ... the only thing separating the Capsuleers from "mere mortals" is that the capsuleers have clones.


No, it's not.
Cloning technology is also available to non-cpasuleers.
The difference between mere mortal humans and capsuleers is the capsule and the human-machine interface that comes with it.
Cloning is another technology that allows capsuleers much more risky behaviors and ventures, but capsule technology allows then to fly ships in a way that traditionally manned ships would never be able to due to delays in response times, further delays from the analog human-machine interfacing, different ship equipments (Traditional ships have to use more space for their larger crew contingents - working space, living space, mess halls, larger life support systems. Capsuleered ships on the other hand can use the saved space for better equipment, giving them large advantages on the field.)

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

Next, if a capsuleer required a goo filled pod - rather than "inertial dampeners" to keep them from being smeared against the bulkheads ... so would anyone else aboard those ships. You can't have part of the crew in pods and part of it outside of them. Ship design just doesn't work that way. Either everyone is in pods - in which case ... just what is it that the rest of the "crew" are doing(?) or no one is. If one person is in a pod (to keep them from getting smeared against the bulkheads) - and the rest of the crew aren't - then they'd all be bloody smears the first time the ship maneuvered. For people without clones ... this would tend to cut down on your ability to recruit crews - much less - crew retention.


You assume the pod goo is there to counter-act inertia. While that may be one of the uses, it's not the main use AFAIK.
It's a amniotic fluid, a nourishing and protecting liquid that helps the capsuleer survive.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

Pod technology would presuppose links to the mind of the person running the ship - making the ship an extension of their mind (since they can't bloody well do anything with their body). If that's so - then the ships AI, computers and bots are going to be the ones running the ship. I suppose you could have certain functionality divided amongst several people but ... I'm not all that sure of the need for it. Any kind of a mental interface is going to be a "ship - do this" type of interface and the ship's hardware and software carries out the commanders intent.


Machines can only do so much.
A capsuleer posses inhuman abilities when it comes to making machines do his bidding, resulting in response times, manueverability and skills ships of the same type but manned traditionally have no way of matching.
But machines break and then you'll need a human crew to step in and fix things and in the same way there's thousands of other tasks where a human body and mind is superior to a machine.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

If, based on the logic above, the crew (however many there are in it) is all in pods - then - there would be no need for viewing ports. Thus - ship design wouldn't have them. View ports - are a point of failure - which with no practical use - would not be included in a design.


They're not.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

Of course ... the asymmetrical design of the thrusters on most of these ships wouldn't work either. These oddly placed, different sized thrusters - along with the view ports - are in fact merely artists whimsy.


Eve is a game. Games are meant to be fun. Game play mechanics and design take precedence of realistic behavior otherwise you wouldn't have any kind of combat in the first place and moving ships around even between planets would be a painfully slow process.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

It's like ... I'm sure all this stuff just kind of evolved along with the game ... but there are real problems with doing that when it comes to continuity. There are simply a lot of things in the b

Shaalira D'arc
Posted - 2010.10.01 17:53:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Toshiro Greyhawk
snip


[disclaimer] This is my own speculation [/disclaimer]

Pods are a ship in their own right - they're capable of inserting into and leaving other ships nearly instantaneously. It is this process of insertion, integration, and escape that would normally leave the pilot 'smeared against the bulkheads.' Without the gel, the pilot would be crushed by the inertia of shooting out of an exploding ship. Pod technology allows the pilot to escape that vessel and 'reship,' a valuable tactic that more traditional command crews cannot replicate. Since the ship's non-capsuleer crew does not do any of this, they do not have to be in pods.

Aside: Capsuleer frigates do not require non-capsuleer crews because of their simplicity. This may also allow capsuleer frigates more capacity for agility and extreme speeds than their non-capsuleer counterparts. Tight maneuvers performed by capsuleer 'skirmisher' pilots would be a death sentence to a traditional crew flying a frigate. Larger ships fitted to fly at speeds comparable to a frigate could have the room to sport inertal dampeners for the non-capsuleer crews and, in any case, do not have the agility to change vector as dramatically as a frigate.


Why use Pod Pilots? And why use regular crews alongside Pod Pilots?

Aside from the advantages of survivability and adaptability outlined above, pod pilots can replace the command center of a ship. Instead of a bridge module where you have a ship captain coordinating various officers, listening to reports, delegating authority, and making decisions, you have a single literal nervous center. The benefits in efficieny and response-time (though perhaps not judgment) are obvious.

On larger ships, a bridge module is insufficient for controlling all of the ship's functions. The crew hierarchy continues to exist in these vessels, except the pod pilot replaces the higher-level officers on the top of the pyramid. The pod pilot directly controls functions that require immediate response time, such as fight path, desired speed, module activations, and targeting solutions. The rest of the crew receive the orders as they would from a traditional bridge and calibrate the ship systems to provide the desired output.

Because these lesser roles can be made as reliable as automation through redundancy, training, and AI backups, it's not necessary to have a pod pilot perform these functions. A traditional human crew is used because it's more cost-efficient.

Pod pilots require many years of training and expensive implants. Some pilots may also be psychologically or genetically incompatible with the process of becoming a pod pilot, further limiting the number of candidates. Therefore, a traditional human crew is used for the rote functions. Given the countless billions which comprise empire populations, there is a near-endless pool of qualified technicians willing to work on the high-risk jobs in a capsuleer vessel.


What's Next?

It's possible that further efficiency gains may be made by using several pods in a hierarchy instead of a pod commanding a traditional crew. With the proliferation of the larger (and expensive) ship types, it may be cost-effective to have several pod pilots operating the vessel, instead of one pilot atop a pyramid of thousands and thousands of individual crew members.

The limits of what a pod pilot can directly control illustrate the limits of the human brain, however improved through state-of-the-art implants and training. Experiments may be underway to genetically engineer better brains, or fuse several brains into a multiple processor core setup.

Continuing evolution of rogue drones, some the size of battleships, may eventually provide a purely AI-based competitor to the pod pilot.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.10.02 07:18:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Sequoia Starimp


Explanations that satisfy Sequoia but don't satisfy me ... which I had to delete in order to post anything at all.




1) If everyone can have clones and everyone can be put in a capsule - then there is no difference.

2) There is no other explanation for the goo but anti-inertia.

3) If the crew left their pods to fix the ship they would die if it maneuvered - the bots wouldn't. If they could survive without the pods - the pods wouldn't be needed. So - either everyone is in pods or no one is. Yes - you could have the design based on the assumption that repairs would only be conducted outside of combat at human safe maneuvering levels - but in combat is when you need repairs the most. No one would design a ship that way.

4) If you had ships that were designed around crews walking about out of pods - thus not needing them because they did not maneuver the ship in a manner that would require them - that ship would be designed to stand the level of stress it was going to inflict on the crew. Metal ships are inherently more sturdy than flesh and bone - but not by that much. To really get anything out of a pod the ship itself would have to have been designed to handle greater structural stress. So - you don't have ships that were designed for non-pod crews being used by crews in pods - unless you're really cheap or really stupid. That's just not how that works. War Craft of whatever type - are designed to function as they would in combat - under their maximum stress loads. If you tried to retrofit ships not designed for more strenuous maneuvers for a more intense level - they would be universally defective. The idea that everyone would do that - is a non-starter. So - you would not have ships designed for out of pod operation that were converted to operation with pods or vice versa. It is expensive to put anything on a ship - so people don't do that unless they have to.

5) Designing functional space ships does not detract from the fun of the game - it adds to it. Because it is a game - and a fairly good one - people will over look what are in fact a number of glaring flaws in the logic to the back story ... as while it's nice and I like it - it really isn't necessary.

6) As I said before - you can just make something up and explain away ANYTHING - but doing that(which is what we have here) detracts from the game. It's a good game - but it would be a better game with more believable ship designs. Of course this is a case where - the more you know - the more trouble you're going to have with sloppy game design - but the average person may not have enough understanding of the issues to even be aware that they exist.








Sequoia Starimp
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2010.10.02 19:14:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

1) If everyone can have clones and everyone can be put in a capsule - then there is no difference.


Not everyone can get into a capsule.
Capsuleer technology isn't 100% compatible with every human. Some are incompatible on a genetic level, others aren't able to withstand the psychological stresses associated with being submerged into a "wetgrave" and switching from human experience into cybernetic organism on a ship-sized scale.
Additionally both cloning and capsule technology are prohibitively expensive, making them inaccessible to the majority of mankind.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

2) There is no other explanation for the goo but anti-inertia.


You think being submerged into a goo-like substance for extended periods of time while your body is linked with various tubes, cables and other hardware doesn't require a highly advanced medium to sustain, nourish and heal the biological elements of the capsuleer? Come on.



Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

3) If the crew left their pods to fix the ship they would die if it maneuvered - the bots wouldn't. If they could survive without the pods - the pods wouldn't be needed. So - either everyone is in pods or no one is. Yes - you could have the design based on the assumption that repairs would only be conducted outside of combat at human safe maneuvering levels - but in combat is when you need repairs the most. No one would design a ship that way.


No. Capsuleers are a minority in numbers. Regular ship crews are just that - regular humans living, working and -most likely - dying in a ship.
Ships have the technology to counteract inertia and pod goo isn't this answer as you seem to assume. Pod goo has inertia dampening effects, but it's neither it's main purpose nor the only method.
If you don't believe me explain how ships were flown before capsule technology.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

4) If you had ships that were designed around crews walking about out of pods - thus not needing them because they did not maneuver the ship in a manner that would require them - that ship would be designed to stand the level of stress it was going to inflict on the crew. Metal ships are inherently more sturdy than flesh and bone - but not by that much. To really get anything out of a pod the ship itself would have to have been designed to handle greater structural stress. So - you don't have ships that were designed for non-pod crews being used by crews in pods - unless you're really cheap or really stupid. That's just not how that works. War Craft of whatever type - are designed to function as they would in combat - under their maximum stress loads. If you tried to retrofit ships not designed for more strenuous maneuvers for a more intense level - they would be universally defective. The idea that everyone would do that - is a non-starter. So - you would not have ships designed for out of pod operation that were converted to operation with pods or vice versa. It is expensive to put anything on a ship - so people don't do that unless they have to.


Apparently they do. You're the first person I know who seems to disagree on this subject.
Additionally your argument seems somewhat flawed to me.
"Metal ships are inherently more sturdy than flesh and bone - but not by that much."
1. Really? Even the most basic metals are able to withstand a lot more stress the humans.
2. The "metals" eve uses aren't the ones you and me are familiar with. We're talking about a universe where nano-technology is commonly used to repair armor, it's very reasonable to assume the same or similar technology is used to structurally design alloys that far surpass anything we know. Otherwise how do you explain eve's accelleration rates?
Considering this refitting commonly used and battle-tested ship designs into improved capsuleer versions seems like a smart way to do business.

Sequoia Starimp
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2010.10.02 19:17:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

5) Designing functional space ships does not detract from the fun of the game - it adds to it. Because it is a game - and a fairly good one - people will over look what are in fact a number of glaring flaws in the logic to the back story ... as while it's nice and I like it - it really isn't necessary.


Eve uses physics that are imaginary. Wormholes used for travel, giant stargates linking systems etc.?
Realism dropped out a long time ago. If you want realistic starships, then I suggest a game or simulation designed by NASA or another space agency.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

6) As I said before - you can just make something up and explain away ANYTHING - but doing that(which is what we have here) detracts from the game. It's a good game - but it would be a better game with more believable ship designs. Of course this is a case where - the more you know - the more trouble you're going to have with sloppy game design - but the average person may not have enough understanding of the issues to even be aware that they exist.


According to you. The majority of eve players just seem fine the way it's designed.
Those simple folks you refer to seem to have one advantage over you: they are able to differentiate between a game and reality. In case you weren't aware of it up to this point - games employ a concept commonly referred to suspension of disbelief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief).

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.10.04 01:41:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 04/10/2010 01:49:33

Sequoia, thanks for living up to my expectations - this was exactly the type of reply I thought I'd get.

Also - note how you have demonstrated my thesis that all you have to do to explain anything is simply make something up.

Most of the people playing EVE - though certainly not all - don't really have any kind of engineering back ground or experience with such things as large complex systems IRL. Here, ignorance truly is bliss - for they aren't aware of the flaws in the game design which grate on people who do have some experience, even if not really a lot - with such things.

I'm also pleased to see I was able to anticipate some of your arguments but then that's not all that rare, especially for conversations like this one. The prime example here is the idea that most people couldn't physically be a pod pilot. That's not really true though - for such systems as they do in fact have today that resemble this technology. Of course - you're probably going to have some people who can't do something for age or health reasons ... but most people could do most of the things they have today, at least on some level.

The point is - that what CCP did - was to design a game - and then try to create a back story after wards to explain all the incongruous behavior of the ships in their game - and it shows to anyone willing to take an objective look at it. I am glad they've made the effort to explain it - I just would have preferred ... not having to resort to such things - or having better explanations.


You site Suspension of Disbelief as if it's the players responsibility - when it is not. It is up to the creator of the thing in question (movie, game, novel - whatever) to create that suspension of disbelief and maintain it. It is the failure of such things as believable ship design that lead to the loss of ones suspension of disbelief - and the reason authors/programmers/etc should care about realism.

No - of course it isn't real - but it has to seem real. While most people don't actually have any back ground in space ship design they've seen enough Sci-Fi and news footage to have some idea of the various principles used. Thus - most Sci Fi space ships have some degree of symmetry to them - and do not use several different thruster sizes on their ships. Simply because, for one thing - it is cheaper to manufacture a set of thrusters that are all the same size.

In any case, arguments like this, while fun on a certain level - are pretty much like "Could Superman beat up The Hulk?", where there isn't any real, concrete - confirm-able answer. We are arguing about systems which don't really exist.

Lastly of course - there is the question of whether or not your arguments have been documented by CCP as part of the EVE cannon - or if this is something which you - rather than they - simply made up.

I'll take your word for it if you say you've got CCP sources for what you've said - as I'm not going to bother checking.



Just as you reject my arguments - I reject yours (I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about) and stand by everything I've said. But it doesn't really matter. EVE's a good game and I enjoy playing it - as I said - I just think it could have been better - and - more to the point - though I have some back ground in writing - I would have difficulty coming up with EVE Fiction because of the differences I have with the way CCP has set up it's back story. It is much more the writing of EVE Fiction that is the problem here - rather than playing the game. Most games, especially online games - have a lot of absurdities to them - so I'm pretty much used to that.

*shrug*


Caspardian
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2010.10.04 03:44:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Caspardian on 04/10/2010 03:56:49
Edited by: Caspardian on 04/10/2010 03:54:10
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
Edited by: Toshiro GreyHawk on 04/10/2010 01:49:33

(everything GreyHawk said in his last post)



You are playing a game where ships get past lightspeed on a regular basis (light takes about 8 minutes to travel 1 AU, and we usually travel at around 3 AU per second. Right there, defying physics). Not only that, but we get to those speeds in only seconds, acceleration which SHOULD crush the ship.
Talk about engineering experience, would you?

Here, where we can build and fly ships that are 17 kilometers long (and that's just on one axis, not including horizontal angles--this is a floating city), and we can get THOSE ships up to superlight speeds fairly quickly, and not only that, but we can slap jump drives on them and get them to travel across solar systems in mere seconds, without external assistance (and the light from many of the stars we see in our earthly skies is more than a decade old).

We regularly find wormholes that toss us to the far, unknown reaches of space without delay.
we are able to control the movement of a ship with our minds. Sure, we can do stuff like that on a super small scale ("Oh look! I can make the fingers on this mechanical arm twitch!") but that is FAR different from flying a spaceship, twisting and turning it, firing its guns and pulling it into and out of warp.
More recently, we have gained the ability to nearly instantaneously set up production facilities on planets.

This game was "unrealistic" from the start. If it wasn't unrealistic it couldn't work.
According to our current scientific laws, 99% of what happens in this game is completely impossible. Do want to get mad at Halo, Star Wars, Star Trek, Alien, Mass Effect, etc., too?

As for the usefulness of pods, they allow us to control ships instantly, without the delays that a bridge-command scenario involves. Re-read the rest of the topic. It explains.

CCP can say whatever they want, because the game already defies physics in a massive way. Just have fun playing the game.

Thgil Goldcore
Amarr
Robonia
Posted - 2010.10.04 07:10:00 - [17]
 

If we knew all the physics behind super magic spaceships it wouldn't be science fiction... it would be science... and we would have super magic spaceships.

Least eve, like any good science fiction series, has reasons why their ships are magic that are well thought out. Would they work? no... but who cares...

Besides, if you study your quantum physics and like the concept of parallel universe, as long as its possible for subatomic particles to do, it can happen on a large scale (however unlikely) and if you have infinite universes to choose from, you will find one that looks alot like New Eden, even if it doesn't actually work under normal circumstances.

So enjoy the game already!

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2010.10.05 14:58:00 - [18]
 

Although cloning is available to "everyone" (albeit expensive), the instant transfer process is what requires the physical pod. Non-capsuleers will have a clone produced to replace their worn out, old body, then go to the clinic for their transfer appointment, where they are hooked up with all the gubbins and the transfer happens.

For a capsuleer, its different. There is no appointment time. The pod detects when a transfer should take place. The Pod is there to facilitate the clone transfer and also provides the necessary ship control links.

With the extra senses being forced on the pilot, dropping them into what is effectively a sensory deprivation tank will help minimize conflicting inputs and may keep the pilot sane.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.10.05 23:09:00 - [19]
 

Yes ... more of the same.

People see the word realism in regards to a computer game ... and from there on - you're just fighting the noise. They go into transmit only mode and ignore anything you've said.


For those who were transmitting to fast to actually comprehend what I said - I'll repeat it.


It is not that important for a computer game BE real - it is important for it to SEEM real.

A show of hands from those who understand that concept? That Being Real and Seeming Real - are NOT the same thing?


Look at Star Wars - Star Wars - isn't even Sci Fi, it's Future Fantasy - but - because it was one of the first movies to introduce "grit" it seemed more real than other movies. The ships showed wear. Things got dirty. This salute to realism in what is in fact utter fantasy - made the movie so believable that audiences were widely willing to "suspend their disbelief", sit back - and enjoy the show.


We, mostly, are familiar with certain things - either from our own times or from all the Sci Fi we've watched. How thrusters work is one of them. There's an old aircraft saying that goes something like "if it looks right - it'll fly right". This is what is important about the thruster designs depicted in the game. We are used to seeing symmetrical thrusters (for good engineering reasons) - so - looking at a ship with asymmetrical thrusters - it simply looks wrong.

Now - if you wanted - you could make up some fantasy explanation about why the thrusters are asymmetrical. You could say ... that they had all these old, big thrusters in stock so they decided to use them. Here - the explanation is that even though they are physically bigger than the other thrusters they are actually producing the same amount of thrust because the smaller ones are newer and produce more in comparison. OR - you could say that there were different fuel stocks available and they wanted to use them up - so the big thrusters use one fuel type and the smaller ones another. Or - anything else you'd like.

The same thing can be done with pods. I could just say - "Oh ... anyone who isn't brain dead - can fly a space ship in this game - because the pod makes up for anything the person is lacking" and that would make just as much sense as "Oh ... only certain people can be pod pilots" - since it's a fictional piece of technology. However - today - quadriplegic people can play EVE using their brain waves. They have sensors hooked up to the guys head - and hooked up to a computer. These sensors detect specific brain waves - and cause certain actions. Once a person is trained on how to generate the brain waves they need to they can operate a computer with a great deal of skill. The person doesn't think about creating a specific brain wave - they think about making the mouse pointer move - and when they do generate the right brain wave - the pointer will move. This is very much the way we learn as infants to move our fingers and toes as well as speak. It takes some effort - but - people TODAY can do that. Thus - if people TODAY can fly a fictional space ship in EVE with their brains - why couldn't they fly a real one at some future date?

Oh ... and ... there is no POD required to control the ship that way. People today do it laying in bed. The only reason that makes sense for a POD to exist - is for inertia control.


Again - what hurts here - is having knowledge of how things work in the real world. It doesn't matter that the space ships are fictional - it does matter that they SEEM real.

And yet again - AS I SAID - I'm used to this lack of realism in computer games - that isn't really the problem. I can ignore it and just enjoy the game - but - when it comes to writing EVE fiction ... I wouldn't care to make my story conform to lore that I find objectionable.

If someone else - enjoys the EVE back story lore and writing to it - hey, that's great. But for me - and evidently others ... it puts us off.

*shrug*



Roga Dracor
Caldari
Mental Disorders Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.06 00:22:00 - [20]
 

We all pay to play this game for different reasons. A good, solid, believable simulation or a truely fun game, or some other less glaring purpose, Eve isn't a simulation, it's a speculative reality mmorpg, and arguably one of the best in the world, but, the fact remains it is still a game..

Personally, I don't write into the backstory of Eve. You can't. Some paid writer can go a different way or the devs can push the storyline to fit a game mechanic they wish to incorporate. Why bother?

I write of possibilities and could have beens and forget canon fiction, unless they are willing to open the "eve bible" for you, and put you on the payroll, you will fail eventually.

When I write it is because I like to write. I gave up along time ago trying to please people on forums. That old quote about "some of the people" and "all of the people" is as certain as the detrimental effects of prolonged exposure to intense solar radiation.

My best response to your query is to lighten up, try to be less demanding, you will be disappointed less, and possibly happier. Cool It's a game, games are supposed to be fun.

Eris Davion
Posted - 2010.10.06 02:13:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Eris Davion on 06/10/2010 02:46:37
Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

I'm also pleased to see I was able to anticipate some of your arguments but then that's not all that rare, especially for conversations like this one. The prime example here is the idea that most people couldn't physically be a pod pilot. That's not really true though - for such systems as they do in fact have today that resemble this technology. Of course - you're probably going to have some people who can't do something for age or health reasons ... but most people could do most of the things they have today, at least on some level.


To be perfectly blunt, there isn't anything today that remotely resembles Pod technology. Some ideas that may, someday, lead to something similar (or possibly dead-end or veer elsewhere before getting there,) but that's not quite the same thing.

Unless you have access to highly classified, experimental technology which anyone outside of that particular lab isn't likely to see in their lifetime, in which case you probably shouldn't be talking about it anyway.

Pods and FTL travel are purely speculative concepts. The science behind such is impossible according to modern scientific knowledge. Thus, any fictional setting (game, movie or novel) which utilizes such ideas must presume that what we (think we) know today is wrong on some level.

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

Lastly of course - there is the question of whether or not your arguments have been documented by CCP as part of the EVE cannon - or if this is something which you - rather than they - simply made up.


Regarding pod accessibility, it's canon. Starting from the official short-story The Jovian Wetgrave, and influencing pretty much all official fiction involving capsuleers.

Eris Davion
Posted - 2010.10.06 02:44:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

Oh ... and ... there is no POD required to control the ship that way. People today do it laying in bed. The only reason that makes sense for a POD to exist - is for inertia control.


Feh. Comparing that tech to the POD is like comparing an abacus to a modern-day server-cluster. (Well, apart from the former being a comparison of the real to the speculative while the latter is a comparison of an actual evolution.)

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk

And yet again - AS I SAID - I'm used to this lack of realism in computer games - that isn't really the problem. I can ignore it and just enjoy the game - but - when it comes to writing EVE fiction ... I wouldn't care to make my story conform to lore that I find objectionable.


As far as I can see from your above comparison, you're objecting more to a strawman replacement of the lore.

Now, it's fine if you're not interested in picking apart all the actual details of the official lore. But when you come thundering in saying "it's all BS, as anyone with actual knowledge can tell you" based on only partial knowledge of what you're dissing... well, that's something else entirely.

And a bit insulting towards those who have bothered to reconcile the differences between what exists today and what the actual lore claims.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.10.06 09:25:00 - [23]
 

Roga, yes, by all means - write whatever you want. Our stories are mostly for our own enjoyment. I can see however how people reading an EVE story might expect adherence to canon ... which is why I don't do it.



One of the things I've found in my years of internet forum posting - is that most people come to a thread with a lot of preconceived ideas about what the other person is going to say. Then you have people talking at each other rather than actually reading what the other person has written.

And ... Eris ... unfortunately ... you've spent most of your post replying to things I didn't say.

I never said we had pods today - just man machine interfaces that use brain waves.

I then said - that if we could do that today - that in the future, with a more advanced interface - it would be reasonable to believe that anyone could do it.

Now - thanks for the link - I'm not at all surprised to find that CCP has taken the elitist route with their canon. The player is supposed to feel like they are some kind of demi-god - it says so in the intro - which I suppose is designed to appeal to people who would get off on feeling "special". *shrug* Which is fine. Each of us play for our own reasons. I just like a challenging, complex, interesting game.

Of course - if you read that story - the only things that are required to be a pod pilot - are an implant and "years of intense training" - which apparently could be given to anyone they chose.

The thing is - they just made up that mind lock business. There isn't any real purpose to that ... except to maybe make some players feel "special" ... There's also no mention of that or the "years of intense training" in game.

And - of course - there's the "cold, harsh, EVE ending" where an individual is betrayed and destroyed as a human being by the powers that be ... which ... is another load of crap ... but another thread unto itself so ... I'll not comment further on that.

All this is a case though where I simply reject EVE Cannon (and having rejected it - choose not to write to it). As I said - if someone else wants to accept that - that's fine - but I do think a lot of it is Bull ****. Here though - this is merely my opinion - as I said, like comparing The Hulk and Superman. It's all just personal preference.

Now - I didn't say that I thought that all EVE Cannon was Bull **** - because I'm not familiar with all of it and don't presume to be. So - again - what we have here is your not reading what I actually said - but taking a simplistic view of it. Much as in a straw man argument ...


As to pods - that story doesn't make any mention of the pod as having any anti inertial value ... which just makes it all the more stupid to me. Any space ship that's going to maneuver at high G's ... is going to have to have some anti-inertia design or the ship will kill anyone in it. If EVE cannon doesn't have the pods serving that purpose ... then there is no purpose to the goo ... and it's just stupid - as stupid as not having an anti-inertia mechanism. If CCP want's to have pods so they can have some kind of odd, gross man machine interface - specifically for the purpose of it's being odd and gross - they can do that - but it's lame. Of course - it being lame - is not going to get it replaced with something I'd prefer. This is CCP's game ... and I just play it ... so along with being able to shoot through things I can't fly through is just one more thing I'll have to ignore.



Now - the purpose I see this thread serving - is to make CCP aware that not everyone accepts their lore. I didn't start the thread - but I've got some real problems with their back story and chose to comment here to express some of those problems. Their problem - is that once you canonize something ... you're pretty much stuck with it and ... can't do much more than compound your stupidity by piling more stupidity on top of it trying to explain away the original stupidity.

But whatever ... *shrug*



Gashblight
Posted - 2010.10.06 15:50:00 - [24]
 

I'm to jaded as a forum poster to put as much effort into my posts as some of you but I agree with Toshiro. When you have something like asymmetrical thruster design—or ship design for that matter—it trips up your immersion into the story/game. I'm able to overlook a lot of that because I really don't know how those designs would work in a vacuum so I can assume—if I don't think to hard about it—that they would work.

I have no idea how inertia works in space and there is a good chance I never will but I assume for the sake of immersion, that my captain and crew are able to withstand ship maneuvers. The idea that my captain is in a pod while my crew isn't is as far fetched to me as when I was under the impression that the captain was alone in his ship.

In summation: I am able to overlook some things but pod lore still blows and I just can't bridge that gap. I still reject that portion of the lore.

TL;DR pod lore sucks.

Caspardian
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2010.10.06 21:48:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
(all that stuff that was said)


Tosh-o, I don't see your issue anymore. It seems to me like you're randomly choosing to have problems with some unrealistic things, but being fine with others.

First, I'm going to paraphrase something that people who write stories say very often:
It is my universe, and the universe is already bizarre. How can you be upset with this, but not with this? ugh

It is their story, not yours. It is not up to you to say what is and isn't okay.

For example, asymmetrical thrusters. Why can't one thruster be more powerful than another? Why is that bullcrap, but not ships moving at many times the speed of light? Is it because otherwise the game would be boring?
Then why is shooting through rocks stupid? We would miss almost every time if we weren't able to, because rocks and other things would be in the way. Plus, friendly fire would occur more often than not, effectively ruining large fleet fights (and ruining some of the fun of the game)

It's like telling someone,
"Oh, you're just assuming that stars are bright burning balls of fire caused by nuclear fusion because you need a way to explain it. It's really just bullcrap, that can't be true," or,
"Oh, your just saying that England colonized some parts of the Americas because you need to explain why so many Americans speak English. It's a ridiculous idea, it makes no sense."

You seem to me to just be rejecting random things here and there. The entire game is technically impossible, if you're going to have a problem with pods and who is allowed to fly pods, you can't NOT have a problem with all of the other weird things.

This is CCP's universe. If they're allowed to make spaceships that turn on a dime, they're allowed to say that pod pilot selection is, well, selective.
If they're allowed to not only push, but break, the laws of physics relating to speed, they can say that there's some kind of magical technology that allows a pod ship's crew members not to get crushed at high G's.

Maybe NPC's can't move as fast because a standard bridge command system wouldn't be able to coordinate those speeds quickly enough, not because the G's pulled would kill them. Sure it would be bull, but it's bull injected into an already imaginary world, so it's fine.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.10.07 00:55:00 - [26]
 

Caspard-o ...


People have continued to bring up my acceptance of faster than light travel as an indication of inconsistency. This is stupid.

We're playing a space ship game - and FTL is pretty much required for us to have a game to play.

FTL is also a staple of Sci Fi space drama's.

Asymmetric engine mountings are not.

ONCE MORE - WITH FEELING(!!!!) >>>=====[>>> This is NOT about what is real and what isn't real.

This is about what seems real and what doesn't seem real.

The next person to fail at that concept - gets a lump of coal for Chrismas (or what ever Holiday they celebrate on or about the Winter Solstice).


There are a number of different ways of handling FTL. CCP has chosen 2, Warp Drives and Jump Gates. Warp drives are well established Sci Fi devices - as are Jump Gates.

THESE game mechanics are fine. They work to make game play possible - and their back story doesn't cause me a problem. Remember - I said above that I didn't think ALL of EVE's back story was Bull **** - just some (if not most) of it.

This is fine with me because it fits established Sci Fi plot devices and ... is well done.

JUST BECAUSE I REJECT PART OF CCP's BACK STORY AND GAME MECHANICS DOES NOT REQUIRE ME TO REJECT ALL OF IT.

That part of it which is well done and fits with general Sci Fi devices is fine.

Asymmetric Engines - aren't fine. They were an artists whim. The artist who did the art work - liked creating asymmetrical ships - so they did.

Yes - this is CCP's game and they CAN do anything they want. I just don't have to like it.

I can however dislike some of it and find other parts perfectly acceptable.



Now ... a lesson for the ignorant on thrusters.

A device has a center of mass. If you use, such as a port bow thruster to push the nose of the ship to starboard, around that center of mass (and often accompanied by the use of a starboard stern thruster pushing the stern of the ship to port) this will turn the ship. You also have thrusters that push the nose and or stern up and down. That's the simple version - it can be more complicated. But - in each case - these thrusters are acting against the center of mass and moving the ship about that point.

If you have a set of main propulsion thrusters at the stern of the ship - and one of them is bigger than the others - it will tend to push the ship the other way as it acts on the ships center of mass.

These thruster relationships are real world, current day technology - which anyone who's watched any amount of rocket launches or space dockings might be familiar with.

To NOT have symmetrical thrusters is going to cause you problems as it WILL make your ship yaw. You could have other devices - I explained some last time - to make up for that - but Why the hell would you do that? Why create a needless engineering complication to a space ship design - which is going to be inherently complicated enough as it is?


Now - Thrusters are not the only means of propulsion. There are warp drives and Gravity drives that can make a ship work much differently than thrusters do. Though a great deal of thought and comment has been devoted to either - both are currently fictional. So - you can do a lot of things - and get away with them - if you are using some alternate method of propulsion to thrusters - which - the ships Warp Drives - undoubtedly are. The thing is - those alternate forms of propulsion don't have a great big sheet of flame shooting out the back of them - but thrusters do. CCP - for aesthetic reasons - may have wanted to have lots of flames shooting out the back of their ships when underway ... *shrug* ... but doing so - makes them appear to be thrusters - whether they are actually intended to be thrusters or not.


As to shooting through rocks and having friendly fire incidents - I come from Planetside ... where we couldn't shoot through the rocks or buildings - and we did have friendly fire.

[OOT]

Thgil Goldcore
Amarr
Robonia
Posted - 2010.10.07 01:06:00 - [27]
 

//satire//

Lets just make our ships all giant spheres! I mean, its the only large shape that makes any sense at all as a ship.

You can weigh less since you minimized your serface area and thus less armor.
Its internal structure would the most resiliant to any attack, afterall any blow would be slightly diminished by its angle.
It would be easier to protect critical hardpoints since it would have multiple layers of protection.

Its the only thing that would seem realistic to me. Many many giant spheres. Some big ones and some small ones. I accept nothing less than giant spheres. You should fire your art team beacause who needs them to make spheres... god spheres is fun to say

Caspardian
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2010.10.07 03:42:00 - [28]
 

You come from planetside... where you can aim your guns.

I'm sure in DUST 514 and such, there will be friendly fire and we will not be able to shoot through buildings, but that's simply not viable in EVE. There's no way to efficiently maneuver your ship and you can't actively aim your guns, they aim for you. Solution: shoot through objects. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to avoid friendly fire in a large fleet.

As for thrusters, I think I see what you're saying--since EVE's ships aren't 100% generic, they can't be used. I understand now.
This game is supposed to be fun, and it's a lot more fun when you have ships that actually look interesting. That means that we don't just have a shape mirrored and fused.
And if you don't like asymmetrical ships, they have symmetrical ones: There's the Dominix, Abaddon, Apocalypse, Rifter, Vigil, Hyperion, and Macharial, just off the top of my head. Why not grant CCP some artistic license?

The game becomes more interesting when we have interesting looking ships. CCP shouldn't need to explain why the ships work. If workings in EVE can do the amazing things they can, we should be able to skip past a ship not veering crazily off left/right/up/down.

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2010.10.07 10:55:00 - [29]
 


And yes children - here you have two examples of the Straw Man argument. You take your opponents position and twist it into something so ridiculous that anyone would object to it. Straw Man arguments are of course an invalid form of argumentation since they don't actually try to get at the facts of the issue but merely obfuscate them with bull ****.


Of course ... there actually is a lot to be said (as mentioned) for spheres ... but then again there's a lot to be said against them, mainly, depending on the nature of your weapons, from focusing your fire.


CCP could have chosen to have objects block fire, asteroids could be destroyed by weapons fire and friendly ships could be hit - if they had wanted to do that. This would require fleets to use some discipline in their formations so that they didn't mask the fire of other ships on their sides - and - combat in asteroid belts could have been a lot different, in that smaller more maneuverable ships could use the asteroids as defensive mechanisms in combat with large less maneuverable ships. They simply chose not to do that. That was the point of citing Planetside - in that it showed a game where those things had been done. I just couldn't say that as I was Out Of Text.

Whether your ships computers aimed and fired for you or you aimed the weapons manually ... doesn't matter. They could have done it if they'd wanted to - it simply would have required a different user interface.

Flying your ship using mouse movements, arrow keys or through the use of a joy stick is also a change that could have been made. Double clicking in the general direction you want to go is a terribly imprecise method.

CCP - for whatever reasons - simply chose to do things the way they did them. I can point out the negative aspects of what they've done but - not having been involved in the play testing - can't say what their reasons might have been.

Another thing they did was to choose to have the planets remain static in space instead of orbiting about their star. Here - they have said that they did this because the calculations involved simply weren't worth the trouble in terms of rewards in game play.

And yet another thing - is that you must have a book mark somewhere in order to warp there. This puts large swaths of each solar system out of the reach of players. You pretty much have to rely on some event, such as the creation of mission space or an exploration site to get to some places, then warp between them droppping book marks. That is patently absurd. There should be a way of selecting an arbitrary point in space, anywhere in a solar system - and then warping to the spot you selected - rather than rely on the creation of some random event. This is simply a horrible method of controlling where you can warp too. Players come up with various techniques to get their ships out away from the planets - and what does CCP do? They took those techniques away and limited them to within certain distances - for no good reason. They weren't applying their sand box theme - they were forcing the players to play within boundaries THEY set. Yes - what was being done could easily be termed exploits in that they mis-used flaws in the game to create distant book marks - BUT - if the players had had a decent way of warping about the solar systems - then they wouldn't have had to do that.



Now ... while it is common place in arguments (and this is just an argument ... none of my opponents here is going to credit me with anything) to have things polarize where people take ever more extreme positions. That's not what I'm doing though. My criticisms of this game are long standing - and not something I alone have noticed.

None of which means that EVE isn't a good game. It just means - that like Planetside and WWII Online (the other two Online games I've played) it - isn't perfect. I enjoy the game for what it is - and ignore a lot of it's flaws - but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Gashblight
Posted - 2010.10.07 16:24:00 - [30]
 

Quote:
This game is supposed to be fun, and it's a lot more fun when you have ships that actually look interesting. That means that we don't just have a shape mirrored and fused.


To imply that you can't have interesting looking symmetrical ships is a horrible argument.

Here's an exercise. Think of all the fish on this planet and then weed out all of the asymmetrical varieties. (I can think of at least one) Now out of the thousands left, can you pick out some interesting types.

Next lets try birds, cars, planes, mammals, bridges, ect . . .

Face it. The natural order strives for symmetry so when artists deviate from that it creates a believability stumbling block. It can break the immersion in an otherwise great game long enough to say WTF is that? For me, the Tempest is so stupid looking they couldn't make it worse if the put wagon wheels on it.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only