open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Take a page or the whole book from Freelancer
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Nypheas Azurai
Posted - 2011.01.08 21:57:00 - [1]
 

Before EVE there was Freelancer, it along with Starlancer are without doubt the spritual and inspirational parents of the sandbox space MMO. I stumbled onto EVE in search of a successor, but it has been a nagging issue that despite the great successes of CCP through EVE, they still cannot capture the best of a 10 year-old game. There are the simple, little things, which we got right a decade ago that seem still neglected by EVE today. Here are only a few to draw example for the great:

> arbitrary queue-able waypoints INTRA-system and INTER-system
Waypoints could be added anywhere in space, queued, and traveled to; in contrast to EVE where a pilot can seemingly bookmark some things, including empty space, but only under odd and absurd conditions (there has to be an object near it, or you are in warp over it) but yet can scarcely manage to warp to other things.

Inter-system waypoints in Freelancer also didn't just leave you floating at a gate, but navigated you to the station you waypointed.

> ability to share waypoints with fleet members
Accepting missions displayed mission info and waypoints for all members in a fleet; arbitrary waypoints could be shared too.

> opt-in fleet formations
Members of a fleet could toggle formation mode, which would allow them to stay in formation with the fleet, warping where they warp, going where they go.

> proper & believable docking sequences
This is a major immersion shatter in EVE. Freelancer actually showed your ship being towed into a *physical* docking port, not just some ominous docking sphere that causes your ship to disappear. Of course we also have the larger problem of station games, which needs to be fixed first.

> proper and believable thrust vectors
Ships followed a physically believable motion of thrust, they went in the direction of thrust, with the ship model displaying this. None of what we have in EVE with this thrust vector =/= ship vector nonsense.

> engine stalling/drift mechanics
Players had the option of fine-grained control over their ships to the point where engine and acceleration could be shut off, and the ship left to "drift" in one direction while pointed in another, opening entire new words of combat and maneuvering strategy.

> proper weapon clipping
Simple: if your entire turret array was mounted on the top of your ship, then it did not fire at an enemy below you. Yet another must for immersion and a huge facet for combat strategy. Contrast to EVE, instead severely breaking immersion by mounting "dummy" turrets on every side of a ship.

> warp disruptors were actually missiles, countered by counter-measure launchers
There's nothing more intense than being alerted of an incoming warp scramble missile, while you frantically begin to pop counter-measures praying one of them works. Contrast this with EVE with an entirely uninspiring +/- system which CCP realizes must go (note the recent changes they made to ECM which was previously a +/- system, now chance-of-effect based).

> full ship control
Because double-clicking in space is a pathetic facsimile to actually being able to grab the reins of your ship and pilot it in full control.

> planets and structures actually clip
Nothing quite shatters immersion when you zip through the inside of a planet, which brings up the next point:

> tradelanes for common routes
Sure you *could* warp anywhere, but tradelanes not only solves the problem of clipping through objects, but also introduces entire new facets to gameplay when they can be disrupted by pirates. Even still, I'm willing to let this one slide, because the list goes on.

With few exceptions, just about anything you can find in Freelancer was done the right way. CCP please get your hands on a copy, play it, and bring some of that inspiration back to EVE

Brannor McThife
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2011.01.08 22:08:00 - [2]
 

I like you, moved to EvE because it seemed a natural progression from Freelancer.

Interestingly... Wormhole space in EvE has expanded greatly on the "other space" in Freelancer.

There are small things that might be done differently...but it's an MMO, and not a small-server multiplayer game...so some things can't be done because of server load.

If you're in a fleet in Eve, the fleet commander can warp everyone to somewhere, just not make them all jump through a gate, etc.

What I do like is the warp-disrupt missile idea...that's nice. Thread will likely move to ideas forum.

-G

Corcyrus Endymion
Caldari
Elder Tribes
Posted - 2011.01.08 22:08:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Critical wall of text


You do realize that what you are suggesting is currently impossible for EvE as is right? With EvE being an MMO and all those shenanigans.

Jill Xelitras
Xeltec services
Posted - 2011.01.08 22:38:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Jill Xelitras on 08/01/2011 22:46:18
Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
CCP please get your hands on a copy, play it, and bring some of that inspiration back to EVE


I'm pretty certain that CCP staff have played almost every spaceship game and seen a lot of space ship and other science fiction movies in existence. Unfortunately EVE was designed somewhere between 1998 and 2003, when a lot of things that are possible today were not available. It was also designed as an MMO. Almost all MMOs in the world use simplified controls. The few MMOs that allow FPS type gameplay have to limit the number of players able to be in the same "instance".

On the other hand: EVE has the best player-run economy I have come across in a space-ship strategy game.

J.

Kaptain Kruncher
Posted - 2011.01.08 22:44:00 - [5]
 

Before Freelancer there was Privateer, and before that: Frontiers First Encounters. The real grandaddy. Had a crazy map, missions, NPC, trade, storyline mission arcs, and......drum roll please

Planetary Interaction! You could fly from space to the planet surface and land.

Came on a floppy. Very nice.

To OP- Play yer old games and STFU!

Nypheas Azurai
Posted - 2011.01.08 22:46:00 - [6]
 

I really did enjoy the warp missile as well, it really gave the feeling of impending doom, especially as you watched the animation of your warp engine coming online (massive accumulation of light particles) then.. BOOM, it all fades out and you're left there hanging (conversely the same feeling when you manage to hit warp and watch the missile explode inches from you).

As for the MMO thing... we can't let EVE hide behind it. Single-instance servers capable of holding 100+ players was definitely "MMO" for a game in 1997 (and for decade-old technology, it rarely lagged). The definition grows with the technology, and I'm just not really seeing that in EVE when it comes to things such as clipping through planets, but not stations; firing through other ships is completely ok, but suddenly we need dummy turrets because firing thorugh our own ship would seem taboo? Just these little things that don't add up to what EVE should be capable if a 10-year old game could do it.

For example, if some of the ideas are server-intensive, move it client-side. Things like animation are traditionally client-side and can be made skippable anyways (like Freelancer's undocking animation, which IMO was just too cool to be skipped).

Goose99
Posted - 2011.01.08 23:03:00 - [7]
 

It's like this because space sim went out of style, and Eve has had no real competitors. Jumpgate Evolution feature most of those basic elements, and held some promise in forcing Eve to implement them as well. But it went on hiatus, and may never be released. Stagnation have destroyed many mmos before. I hope some other game come out to take a bite out of eve userbase, thus giving CCP a life-giving jolt, before Eve becomes completely antiquated someday.

TimMc
Brutal Deliverance
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2011.01.08 23:06:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: TimMc on 08/01/2011 23:09:00
I'm fairly sure Eve came out before Freelancer, and that Eve is the spiritual successor of Elite.

I mean I love freelancer but we are talking about 2 different games. One is a single player game where the server only had to deal with a few characters seeing eachother at once, the other is an MMO where you can have fleets of hundreds hitting in eachother constantly on a server maintaining tens of thousands.


Edit:

Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
I really did enjoy the warp missile as well, it really gave the feeling of impending doom, especially as you watched the animation of your warp engine coming online (massive accumulation of light particles) then.. BOOM, it all fades out and you're left there hanging (conversely the same feeling when you manage to hit warp and watch the missile explode inches from you).

As for the MMO thing... we can't let EVE hide behind it. Single-instance servers capable of holding 100+ players was definitely "MMO" for a game in 1997 (and for decade-old technology, it rarely lagged). The definition grows with the technology, and I'm just not really seeing that in EVE when it comes to things such as clipping through planets, but not stations; firing through other ships is completely ok, but suddenly we need dummy turrets because firing thorugh our own ship would seem taboo? Just these little things that don't add up to what EVE should be capable if a 10-year old game could do it.

For example, if some of the ideas are server-intensive, move it client-side. Things like animation are traditionally client-side and can be made skippable anyways (like Freelancer's undocking animation, which IMO was just too cool to be skipped).


Eve has plenty of impending doom moments.

Also, pretty much everything that can be done by client is. There are most things which cannot, however, because it would give access to exploitation by sending the server false messages to what you were actually doing.

Nypheas Azurai
Posted - 2011.01.09 00:46:00 - [9]
 

It sure does have lots of good moments, but as the user above you noted in a lot of places it just seems... antiquated. I think he's correct, it's from a lack of competition.

Almost all of the things mentioned for improvement do not add any strain on the server. Queued waypoints are entirely handled by the client, as is anything that requires the player to initiate movement (which would include staying in fleet formations). Beyond planet clipping none of the suggestions are going to tax the server, yet all of them were standard fare in space-sim games 10 years ago.

It's that extra polish you'd expect by now to see from EVE, and certainly before they already start moving on towards another platform/game.

Zaknussem
Everybody Loves Donuts
Posted - 2011.01.09 00:54:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Kaptain Kruncher
Before Freelancer there was Privateer, and before that: Frontiers First Encounters. The real grandaddy.


I laughed.

Before Frontier: First Encounters there was Starflight. And before Starflight there was Elite. Elite is the beginning, or "granddaddy" as you like to call it. Know thy gaming history. :)

To the OP: I agree that some of these features are lacking and would make EvE a better game if they were implemented. The problem is, as has been mentioned, getting them into the game. But some of these features you are very unlikely to see. For example, I'm ready to bet money that if any sort of "realistic" docking was to take place in EvE, it would be based on the docking sequence in Elite. The rage on the forums over that would be epic.

Tempest Starkitty
Gallente
I'm Charging My Lazor
Posted - 2011.01.09 03:26:00 - [11]
 

Im sure that Elite was the bigger insperation for EVE. I know that playing the old Frontire (Elite II) is what got me hooked so bad at the start, and when I found EVE for the first the first time I remember almost creaming my pants.

Corozan Aspinall
Perkone
Posted - 2011.01.09 03:51:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Before EVE there was Freelancer, it along with Starlancer are without doubt the spritual and inspirational parents of the sandbox space MMO.


Hehe kids today! The daddy was Frontier. And the spiritual and inspiration parent of EvE was Diaspora. Its almost a carbon copy. Obv much improved. Wink

Uzrial
Posted - 2011.01.09 05:49:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Uzrial on 09/01/2011 05:50:07
EVE and Freelancer both came out in 2003 but Freelancer came out a wee bit before. I know this because I was reading a PC Gamer magazine while sitting on the couch next to my Freelancer user manual reading an article about the new upcoming game 'EVE Online', when I read it it sounded cool but there was no way a 13 year old could afford to play, and mama and papa said NO! The teams likely knew of each other, but neither copied each other.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.01.09 06:29:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Tres Farmer on 09/01/2011 06:34:09

> arbitrary queue-able waypoints INTRA-system and INTER-system
CCP did lapse on this one (whole complex of intel/navigation needs an overhaul)

> ability to share waypoints with fleet members
CCP did lapse on this one (CSM did bring up corp-wide bookmarks afaik, maybe we'll see some movement on that one in the near future)

> opt-in fleet formations
CCP was talking about something like that at FF08 I think

> proper & believable docking sequences
CCP did lapse on this one.. we don't even have a handful of OTHER ships visible in dockingbay.. I mean, how is that for immersion breaking? Docking in Jita with 400 other people on the VERY SAME STATION, but still my docking cavern is completely empty. Yeah, right.

> proper and believable thrust vectors
Besides the submarine physics applied and our ships always flying upside-up I don't understand this complaint

> engine stalling/drift mechanics
Submarine physics, probably in place so the MMO server can handle more than 100 players on grid/1,500 in solar system (also mechanics of turret tracking makes this one obsolete)

> proper weapon clipping
Again, server load (collision/clipping detection cost cpu cycles) and I don't see a problem with the implementation CCP chose

> warp disruptors were actually missiles, countered by counter-measure launchers
Potato/Potato.. probably also a server-load thing

> full ship control
The space simulation runs AT 1 HERTZ.. that's 1 time per second, not 25 or 50 times per second. Sometimes even that isn't true for the single player if the server has to chew more than he's able to (server-lag).

> planets and structures actually clip
Warping I can accept that this is because of a 'warp-tunnel'. But in Subwarpspeed the ship really should at most be able to burn in the atmosphere.. server could handle that.
Also warps in a straight line are easier to compute than those along a spline (again server-load)

> tradelanes for common routes
We have those.. the camps are in Niarja, Sivala and Rancer


There are proposals for in place, support them:
better client side missile graphics
and
turret-effects hitting shield/armor/hull with miss/hit/wrecking shots.

Aiwha
Caldari
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.01.09 06:34:00 - [15]
 

You know...



I think I'm going to go dig out my old Freelancer disc...

Karn Velora
Posted - 2011.01.09 07:07:00 - [16]
 

Several valid points, but you should forget about any kind of full ship control, from direct user input like a joystick. It is for good reason, that the freelancers servers out there today (yes, they exist) still are limited to a depressingly small number of players. MMOs exist today purely on the foundation that direct control input simply doesn't exist except for in very special circumstances, like:

SWG space system: Nice joystick fun, but lags out with 20 ships in one system, or 50 in the entire universe. We do 2000 in one system.

Generic MMO running: It's the only part of your average fantasy mmo, like wow, that's direct input: running. It's also highly inaccurate, and in pvp you usually see enemies constantly facing away from you, or being several meters away - and still hitting you with melee weapons. Even with these severe limitations, you can't have a whole lot of players in one area, and the game is split into hundreds of servers to manage the load, each one handling only 5000 or so people online at the time. We have hit over 100,000, and we are not that far from having higher participation in a single space battle than wow can muster for an entire server.

It will be a very long time into the future before you can actually combine full simulator style control, combined with the sheer numbers that an mmo can support.

Jay Wareth
Posted - 2011.01.09 08:06:00 - [17]
 

> arbitrary queue-able waypoints INTRA-system and INTER-system
Pretty sure CCP has game mechanics reasons for not doing this (see repeated nerfing of deep safes)

> proper & believable docking sequences
The rage this would cause would undoubtedly be epic.

> proper and believable thrust vectors & engine stalling/drift mechanics
As TF said, the physics calculations for an MMO have to be more efficient than a single player game.

> full ship control
Once again, MMO scale physics engine doesn't mesh well with this, and the mechanics of EVE make it relatively useless.

> tradelanes for common routes
@TF: Freelancer trade lanes were intra-system routes that allowed you to travel faster than the standard warp speed. I don't see how this would fit in Eve. Freelancer had planets and stations all grouped within a few km of each other in a handful of hubs per system, not so much in Eve.

I think Tres Farmer's reply is a pretty good point by point breakdown. What it really comes down to is the difference between what an MMO could achieve in 2003 and what a stand alone game could achieve.


Anubis Xian
Ministry of War
Posted - 2011.01.09 08:12:00 - [18]
 

Freespace

I want my shield facings.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.01.09 08:42:00 - [19]
 

1. Having more control over what our ships do in terms of navigation would be great, but at the same time would ease AI macro use for those that don't care about the game's rules. Additionally, players are only active once they get back to their keyboard to dock up at whichever system their AP took them to, anyway, so waiting that extra minute or so once they get back to dock up should, in my opinion, still be a player-controlled event. If it weren't, you'd remove a very large aspect of current gameplay, which, while it is lame in its general execution, is still a valid aspect; namely suicide ganking of people AFK at gates. Think of that in terms of a guy that set autopilot for his ship then fell asleep while it was floating towards its destination. EVE does have sound and as such can notify you when you've reached your destination; it's not CCP's fault if players don't make use of that feature.

2. Sharing waypoints with fleet members would be great.

3. Fleet formations have been on the drawing board for years now, I think. I'm pretty sure I heard the devs talking about them in the videos for the last fanfest.

4. While this would be great, it would also anger a lot of people for a variety of reasons:
4.1 you would need to have a lot of docking ports or rings on all stations and congestion would happen
4.2 the entire system is reliant on a lot of server-side calculation to tell a ship where to go next, determine its progress along a route and then have it continue along the other steps of its docking procedure, any one of which other players would be able to interfere with by bumping, webbing or simply attacking those ships
4.3 as in 4.2, this could cause significant issues for those engaged in combat

That's not to say I don't think it wouldn't be cool, I just think it'd have too many issues for the current playerbase to find it appealing as a game mechanic, and that it might only cause more lag.

5. Inertia and mass. EVE doesn't have pivoting thrusters, I'll give you that. Fighters do, but normal ships are completely lacking in them. One could argue that some aspect of a ship's drive systems allows it to spin the ship on its center of gravity to face in the direction it needs to apply thrust against. I wouldn't know for sure on this as I haven't dug into EVE's backstory enough.

6. For this to matter our turrets would need to not have an effective 360 degrees of coverage the way they currently do, and there would need to be some valid reason why anyone would care to have such functionality. A reduction of ship signature radius by turning off the engines would be great, with a startup sequence required that would result in the ship coming to a halt due to the engine creating an artificial gravity well again until such a time as the engine is online.

7. Those aren't 'dummy turrets'. Turrets in EVE are mounted in pairs, always have been and always will be. What is important to note however is that only one out of every pair of turrets is ever active and firing; for backstory one can argue that this was a foreseen limitation of ship designs in terms of mechanical capability and that instead of opting for greater ship maneuverability to help align turrets, it was decided to mount opposing turrets but only ever install enough power and computer hardware to operate one of the two at a time, saving space and cost on ship design/manufacture.

8. I don't remember ECM ever being a +/- system, and I've been playing since 2005. I do agree however that warp disruption could do with being chance based instead of linear; it would open up a whole new world of PVP possibilities.

9. You must not understand how massive an impact this would have on the game's performance, nor be aware of how the current client/server interaction works.

10. There's backstory on how warp 'bubbles' in EVE work; you're not flying through the planet, your camera is only showing you your relative position in 'real space'.

11. Far too many potential issues.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.01.09 08:44:00 - [20]
 

Oh yeah, this is GD btw, not F&I. Might want to ask to have your thread moved.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.01.09 08:53:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Jay Wareth
> arbitrary queue-able waypoints INTRA-system and INTER-system
Pretty sure CCP has game mechanics reasons for not doing this (see repeated nerfing of deep safes)
*snip*

Deep-Safes were removed because there was and still is no mechanic in place for us to get anywhere in the solar system we want to go.
CCP never stated why they don't implement this.

we can warp to:
- celestials
- exploration sites
- mission sites
- bookmarks between all those points
- spots from re-loging into space (which enabled people to create those deep-safes in a trial-and-error mechanic in the past)

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.01.09 09:39:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Tres Farmer
Originally by: Jay Wareth
> arbitrary queue-able waypoints INTRA-system and INTER-system
Pretty sure CCP has game mechanics reasons for not doing this (see repeated nerfing of deep safes)
*snip*

Deep-Safes were removed because there was and still is no mechanic in place for us to get anywhere in the solar system we want to go.
CCP never stated why they don't implement this.

we can warp to:
- celestials
- exploration sites
- mission sites
- bookmarks between all those points
- spots from re-loging into space (which enabled people to create those deep-safes in a trial-and-error mechanic in the past)


Actually, as far as I know, back in the day you could place bookmarks wherever you wanted to, and the mechanic was removed.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.01.09 10:26:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Originally by: Tres Farmer
Originally by: Jay Wareth
> arbitrary queue-able waypoints INTRA-system and INTER-system
Pretty sure CCP has game mechanics reasons for not doing this (see repeated nerfing of deep safes)
*snip*

Deep-Safes were removed because there was and still is no mechanic in place for us to get anywhere in the solar system we want to go.
CCP never stated why they don't implement this.

we can warp to:
- celestials
- exploration sites
- mission sites
- bookmarks between all those points
- spots from re-loging into space (which enabled people to create those deep-safes in a trial-and-error mechanic in the past)

Actually, as far as I know, back in the day you could place bookmarks wherever you wanted to, and the mechanic was removed.

Yeah.. finding someone out there among the.. huh.. nothing was so possible with the intel tools (d-scan/probing), which are still in use today.

WTB Gamedesign Dev Blog just about anything every month.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.01.09 10:37:00 - [24]
 

Y'know, I've never liked having to do kids' homework for them.

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=218

CCP StevieSG

Posted - 2011.01.09 10:50:00 - [25]
 

Moved to Features and Ideas from EVE General.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2011.01.09 10:53:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
1. Having more control over what our ships do in terms of navigation would be great, but at the same time would ease AI macro use for those that don't care about the game's rules.


What makes you think macros would use autopilot? If the macro can press any buttons at all, why wouldn't it just warp to zero all the way? And dock automatically?

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
... you'd remove a very large aspect of current gameplay, which, while it is lame in its general execution, is still a valid aspect; namely suicide ganking of people AFK at gates.


The pilots with any cargo of value wouldn't be on autopilot anyway.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
EVE does have sound and as such can notify you when you've reached your destination; it's not CCP's fault if players don't make use of that feature.


The autopilot also tells you that it's warping to the gate, that it's approaching the gate, and that it's jumping. There's very little to distinguish "Waypoint reached. Autopilot disabled" from "Autopilot jumping" unless you're actually around to hear it and pay attention to what it's saying.

Now a docking pattern accompanied by, oh, let's pick something at random, "The Blue Danube" would let the pilot know that they have a minute or so to get to the computer.

This also provides adequate opportunity for lame suicide gankers who aren't smart enough to scan ships down in advance of their gate camps.

On the positive side, since it takes a minute for freighters to align, and they warp at a maximum speed of less than 1AU per second, having the autopilot do the docking automatically means the freighter pilot doesn't have to spend that extra couple of minutes at the keyboard - effectively reducing their expenses for deadhead runs.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.01.09 14:39:00 - [27]
 

Why do macro users do anything they do? How do macros macro users use work? What's the extent of their capabilities etc?

Without being a macro user one can only think of how any given game mechanic could help those using any kind of macro, and having an autopilot system that affords them fully automated navigation between stations would make, as an example, macro courier mission running bots mess up less, I imagine. It simply means there's less for an OCR using AI macro to have to worry about since a lot more is handled on its behalf. In a way one can think of it this way, a Macro is essentially a lazy, prone-to-make-mistakes, 'dumb' user, in terms of its operative capability. The same mistakes it could make and issues that exist for it can be made by and exist for that lazy, dumb player. So, remove those issues and make it more convenient for the lazy, dumb player, and you only make things easier for a macro engine.


You'd be surprised at how many people with valuable cargo are on autopilot... why do you think suicide ganking of haulers is such a popular sport?

Agreed, the voice prompts for autopilot navigation aren't the most informative, and could do with an update.

Overall, another massive issue with such a concept is the way it would affect courier missions, since it would essentially fully automate them. Any given player could time the sequence for their ship to travel from system x to system y then use a program that would likely be made by some players fairly quickly to have a button they can click for a predetermined route that has a timer on it and an audible alarm when the timer is completed.

This way they could accept the mission, take note of which system+station it is they're headed to and click the corresponding button in their program to set the timer, then they could completely ignore their client and possibly even amble about their rooms doing whatever else they want until that alarm goes off, double click the agent to start conversation with them, complete their mission, set destination back to it then click the corresponding timer again as they undock and set their autopilot on again.

Goose99
Posted - 2011.01.09 16:17:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Jay Wareth
> arbitrary queue-able waypoints INTRA-system and INTER-system
Pretty sure CCP has game mechanics reasons for not doing this (see repeated nerfing of deep safes)

> proper & believable docking sequences
The rage this would cause would undoubtedly be epic.

> proper and believable thrust vectors & engine stalling/drift mechanics
As TF said, the physics calculations for an MMO have to be more efficient than a single player game.

> full ship control
Once again, MMO scale physics engine doesn't mesh well with this, and the mechanics of EVE make it relatively useless.

> tradelanes for common routes
@TF: Freelancer trade lanes were intra-system routes that allowed you to travel faster than the standard warp speed. I don't see how this would fit in Eve. Freelancer had planets and stations all grouped within a few km of each other in a handful of hubs per system, not so much in Eve.

I think Tres Farmer's reply is a pretty good point by point breakdown. What it really comes down to is the difference between what an MMO could achieve in 2003 and what a stand alone game could achieve.




Those are features of Jumpgate Evolution, yes, even full ship control, which for some reason you don't think a MMO is supposed to be able to handle. This is exactly what I meant by antiquity and stagnation due to lack of competition. Not only the devs, but even you, the player, starts to confine your thoughts in a box and expect less. Just because Eve lags with 500 people doesn't mean it is the confines of 2010s technological level. It takes a competitor that can do better to show that this is not the case.

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2011.01.09 16:54:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Goose99
Those are features of Jumpgate Evolution, yes, even full ship control, which for some reason you don't think a MMO is supposed to be able to handle. This is exactly what I meant by antiquity and stagnation due to lack of competition. Not only the devs, but even you, the player, starts to confine your thoughts in a box and expect less. Just because Eve lags with 500 people doesn't mean it is the confines of 2010s technological level. It takes a competitor that can do better to show that this is not the case.


Even codemasters think JGE is vapourware, so it's not exactly a competitor yet. They want the above things, but it doesn't seem likely to happen.

Nypheas Azurai
Posted - 2011.01.09 21:44:00 - [30]
 

@TS:
to clarify the point about thrust vectors, if you watch a shuttle enter warp, it actually warps sideways for a while because the alignment of the thrust vector is not tied to the alignment of the ship (also why aligning at 0m/s is no different than if you were not aligned)

on ship control: initiating mvoement is a client-side thing and doesn't have much to do with the server, we already sort of have it in the form of double-click-in-space (if you wanted to you could zoom in really close and spam double-click and it would almost fly like an FPS space sim), it just needs to be presented in a much better and fluid manner.

@Ninja:
1.
I think I echo some of the other comments in that fine-grained control over where you go in space won't be used by macros since they prefer the least amount of actions required to move somewhere. It can only benefit the player.

In terms of reaching waypoints and being left at the gate, I don't see how being taken to the station instead wouldn't be a better implementation. Keep in mind, it's still not going to dock for you, so all the same pitfalls for going AFK still apply (and possibly even moreso now that you are at a station)

4.
Having the server track your position to a docking port would be highly desirable, but we can admit maybe taxing. Here I was suggesting just something as simple as a (skippable) client-side animation; so according to the server, you *poof* docked as soon as you were in range, but at least the client can take steps to repair immersion.
As for congestion... the docking entrance on most stations (especially caldari) are enormous!

During my first weeks it was such a stark immersion break I actually would manually pilot my ship towards one of the docking entrances before docking (I've long since given up on this and opt for the "la la la didn't happen" approach)

6. They're "dummy" because only one is active at any time (when the other one doesn't have a bead on the target). I cannot see a way they can be massaged into the story: if turrets can be paired and disabled on/off then a) suddenly CPU and power restraints become arbitrary and dummy turrets magically require neither? b) disabling/enabling turrets suddennly requires a huge capacitor when a pilot attempts this, but dummy turrets can do it several times a second!
These two requirements seem highly unreconcilable and shatter immersion (to me) more than had CCP just let turrets fire through ships (which already happens anyways!).

8. Although I was playing briefly in 2005 as well, I'm relying on several sources that ECM jamming did use to depend on +/- sensor strength system instead of chance-based. Maybe someone else can verify this for me, but in any case I think the point sells itself that there is much more gameplay element in an incoming missile/counter-measure chance system than the dull +/- system.

9. That's your own preconception. But as above we already have real-time arbitrary movement that has little to do with the server, it just needs a much better implementation. And to disillusion oneself into believing it is "server taxing" when it isn't, just because CCP uses it as their favourite scapegoat, is not helping them push boundaries. How many times have we been told X players is not possible on the server, only to see that limit raised by vast demand?

10. What bubbles? I don't see them, all I see is the clipped inside of a hollow planet. Having the sort of animations to back up the backstory isn't even expensive on the client, and almost expected by now. The client knows where the planet is, it can easily create a "warp tunnel" effect.


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