Jump to content
TheRealBeowulf

Collision damage - workaround suggestions

Recommended Posts

@falstaf:

That's why I suggested that there should be a lower (speed-) limit for collision damage, maybe around 10m/s - so below that a collision wouldn't do anything.

This would make it possible to land or dock without taking damage :)

Right, right.

 

Well despite me not being a fan of torpedo ships I would say if you want it you will have to convince the devs that it will bring more meaning to the game.

 

We all have our own little wishes, so lets see where this one goes. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@falstaf:

The idea on how to use that for collision basically the following:

 

JC said, that the damage-AoE will be generated around a point (-> coordinate) that the gun is aiming at.

 

A collision point is basically also just a point (coordinate)

So why shouldn't they be able to generate the AoE there?

 

The only difference is, that instead of using weapon stats and player skills to define the amount of damage that the AoE can deal, you could use construct speed and mass.

This means that a heavier or faster ship would deal more damage on impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, right.

 

Well despite me not being a fan of torpedo ships I would say if you want it you will have to convince the devs that it will bring more meaning to the game.

 

We all have our own little wishes, so lets see where this one goes. ;)

I'll keep on trying ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for it. Just like fall damage, collision damage is an essential part of an immersive experience.

 

To the naysayers: without knowing full details of their implementation, you can't say whether their system can or cannot handle the overhead, or whether they can or cannot come up with workarounds for apparent dead-ends.

 

Take the whole single-shard model for instance. If I told you we could make a game like that before you knew about the model created by NQ, you'd have called me an idiot. 

 

I shall reserve judgement until we get further details and perhaps more dialogue with NQ. I urge you to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it was technically possible, JC has flat out said he doesnt want the game end up being about ramming ships.

 

It might change but he seemed pretty firm in his answer wich was; no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@falstaf:

If they would use the weapon damage system, this could be easily balanced, because you would also be able to have shields against that.

 

Maybe they have some kind of kinetic damage weapon type, then this could also be used as damage type for collisions.

Shields that are effective against kinetic weapon damage would then also be effective against collisions.

 

I really don't think this system would lead to amounts of ramming ships that are really worth mentioning, because if you put the same effort and resources into building a standard ship with moderate weapons, you would most likely have something much more effective.

 

As I said, since JC mentioned that resources will be a crucial part of the game, I think that ramming would cause too much damage to your own ship (repair costs), so most people won't go for this.

A turret can deal damage without taking damage itself, that doesn't work for collisions.

 

If I didn't get JC completely wrong, the main reason for saying no was, that a realistic collision damage model is not yet doable in such a large MMO for technical reasons.

Being asked about this again, Novaquark said that they know it's not the best in terms of immersion and that they remain open for workaround suggestions (which is what this topic is about ;) )

 

I get your point / JC's point, that you don't want to have everyone ramming ships into each other, but I actually think that a balanced collision damage model is a way to do that.

 

Think about it that way: the game already does collision checks, so if there's no damage, people might very often collide with buildings and other ships (cause there's no real downside to this) - so the engine could be very busy with collisions.

If there's a risk of damaging your own ship, you would have a good reason to avoid collisions.

 

@lurknautili:

Glad to see another one on the pro-collision-damage side :)

I already was worrying I could be pretty much alone with my hopes for at least a very basic collision damage model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@falstaf:

No need to apologize at all :)

 

I'm just trying to explain my point.

It's just that a lot of the "technically not possible"- posts seem to refer to more realistic models, maybe even some kind of almost physically correct, simulation-like collision model, which NQ has already said will not be in the game at any time soon after release.

 

I'm just looking for a more basic workaround which would (in my opinion) add some features to gameplay - in the first place reasons to avoid collisions, for example hard crashs on a planet's surface.

 

About the gameplay reasons:

 

Disclaimer first: the following examples are not about a realistic collision damage model, just about collision damage in general ;)

 

One reason, why I think ramming is such a thing in other space games like SE, is that it's relatively easy to get the necessary resources for ship building. Even larger ships just take you up a few hours to collect materials and fuel once you have a basic mining vessel.

If you would need some days or even weeks / months to build (or repair...) a larger ship, you would most likely think twice before you crash it into anything.

 

Another point is, that most player made torpedo / missile designs, that you can find in for example in SE, are complicated to handle, mostly unguided and only effective as long as they are fired at immobile objects without proper defensive weapons.

If you try to use them in pvp, you'll most likely not hit anything - and get yourself killed by ships with more standard weaponry, while you're still trying to line up to your target and fire your torpedoes...

So, they may be fun to mess around with a few friends in creative mode, but no real option if you have to use your rare resources for them.

 

There may be some exceptions, like the guided missiles of whiplash141, but this very well designed system also requires some effort to correctly set up, and some resources to build.

Also, it would most likely be a lot more difficult to use something like that in DU, because of the less frequent updates for distant objects.

 

Sorry for another rather long explanation... :)

 

To sum it up:

 

- I think there might be some way for a workaround that is already technically possible,

 

- I don't think we would actually see a lot of people ramming their ships into each other, because of the economical consequences

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@falstaf:

No need to apologize at all :)

 

I'm just trying to explain my point.

It's just that a lot of the "technically not possible"- posts seem to refer to more realistic models, maybe even some kind of almost physically correct, simulation-like collision model, which NQ has already said will not be in the game at any time soon after release.

 

I'm just looking for a more basic workaround which would (in my opinion) add some features to gameplay - in the first place reasons to avoid collisions, for example hard crashs on a planet's surface.

 

About the gameplay reasons:

 

Disclaimer first: the following examples are not about a realistic collision damage model, just about collision damage in general ;)

 

One reason, why I think ramming is such a thing in other space games like SE, is that it's relatively easy to get the necessary resources for ship building. Even larger ships just take you up a few hours to collect materials and fuel once you have a basic mining vessel.

If you would need some days or even weeks / months to build (or repair...) a larger ship, you would most likely think twice before you crash it into anything.

 

Another point is, that most player made torpedo / missile designs, that you can find in for example in SE, are complicated to handle, mostly unguided and only effective as long as they are fired at immobile objects without proper defensive weapons.

If you try to use them in pvp, you'll most likely not hit anything - and get yourself killed by ships with more standard weaponry, while you're still trying to line up to your target and fire your torpedoes...

So, they may be fun to mess around with a few friends in creative mode, but no real option if you have to use your rare resources for them.

 

There may be some exceptions, like the guided missiles of whiplash141, but this very well designed system also requires some effort to correctly set up, and some resources to build.

Also, it would most likely be a lot more difficult to use something like that in DU, because of the less frequent updates for distant objects.

 

Sorry for another rather long explanation... :)

 

To sum it up:

 

- I think there might be some way for a workaround that is already technically possible,

 

- I don't think we would actually see a lot of people ramming their ships into each other, because of the economical consequences

There is another problem with collision damage which you may not have considered, which is how crashes will affect zones with rules regarding PVP.

 

For one, without any collision damage mechanics (AKA how the devs intend), any aggressive action a player take will have to be intentional. Damage will require weapons fire, not the kind of thing a player can accidentally do. Damage as it stands right now, is a mechanic that will only be implemented and tested in the context of weapons. Where the damage occurs, how much damage, whether or not you even hit will involve your characters skills and the stats of the weapon.

 

-If ramming bypasses some of those rules, ramming would potentially be more precise that firing a weapon, which seems odd in a sci-fi world.

-In a save zone, collision damage would have to be turned off.

-In an area where PVP has  consequences, wouldn't this also apply to anyone who accidentally collides? could a player who crashes their ship into a monument be banned for griefing? if not, couldn't ramming be a tool for griefers to use and just "claim" it was accidental?

-If a law enforcement script is running to put a bounty on players who attack a base, and a player accidentally crashes into the base, wouldn't that trip the law enforcement script and put a bounty on the unlucky player?

-If ramming was not a viable combat strategy, wouldn't collision damage just be a nuisance to players? and if so, WHY build a damage system outside of the mechanics for ship on ship combat (which is a stretch goal as it is, not a launch feature) that will simply be a nuisance to players? for emmersion?

 

When you delay the development of a game and inconvenience the playerbase at large for an inconsequential mechanic that will simply be a nuisance, that would be a mistake. When you implement a consequential mechanic that gives griefers the tools to wreak havoc, you do not promote the game's slogan/goal (rebuilding civilizaton).

 

You are welcome to play games in the physics simulation genre, but this is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree with wizardoftrash. The difference between intentional ramming and accidental collisions would be impossible to determine in a gameplay perspective. Not only that, but it would seem to create more gameplay issues than the one (immersion) that it solves. I would say just stick with the collisions, but no damage.

 

Sure, there could be simplistic technical workarounds if collision damage was desired. I've thought of one right now while reading this thread. But the greater implication of collision damage would be what consequences result from it. It is the gameplay issues that are preventing collision damage from being implemented, not strictly technical limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sualtrev:

 

I agree on that one.

 

@wizardoftrash:

 

I understand your point and I respect your opinion, but I don't agree.

 

Damage that is caused by weapons is not necessarily caused with intention.

What if, for example, you have an auto defense script running on your ship that shoots at basically everything, and you forget to turn it of while entering the territory of another org?

Would be hard to explain...

 

On the other hand, if you accidentally crash into someone's construct and cause damage, then you should stay to clarify things and pay for the damage, or at least contact the owner.

Otherwise it would be absolutely understandable if you end up on the wanted list.

If you run from an accident that you have caused in real life, you would also get real big problems with the police...

 

I also don't get your point with collision damage being more precise than weapon damage. If you don't hit your opponent in a ramming maneuver, you won't cause damage, if you hit - you hit. Basically the same with weapons, the only difference is, that weapon damage hit probability would depend on stats, while ramming damage depends on piloting skill.

There's still a high chance not to hit, at least for moving objects. And also the higher risk for yourself...

 

Most of your points also apply to weapon damage, so I don't see why it should be that much more of a problem for collisions.

I also don't get the point, why it should be the weapon of choice for griefers, because if they would use the same mechanic as for weapons, safe zones and bubble shields would also be safe - basically, collision damage would only be possible where weapon damage is also possible. (weapon damage not being possible everywhere could also be called inconsequent, but you don't seem to see a problem with that)

 

I already said that for me personally, the main reason to hope for a basic collision damage model is not so much the combat aspect. For me it's more the immersion and engineering side. I would really appreciate it, if a well designed ship with proper thruster distribution had a serious advantage against other less well designed constructs, because it would be able to land safely.

 

Last but not least: I'll say it again: the whole idea of this topic was NOT to invent a new and complicated system for collision damage, but to use already existing (planned) mechanics as a workaround, so they don't use much additional resources in terms of computing power and development time.

 

I totally agree that it should not be implemented if it is game breaking, but from what I've heard so far, I just don't think that a simple workaround necessarily is - neither from the technical, nor from the gameplay side.

 

@velenka:

 

I understand that your worries about the problems that collision damage could potentially cause, but I think that with CvsC combat it is basically the same - both just have to be balanced - and nobody complains about the possible issues with CvsC.

 

If you have an idea for a simple workaround, would you like to share it? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another problem with collision damage which you may not have considered, which is how crashes will affect zones with rules regarding PVP.

 

For one, without any collision damage mechanics (AKA how the devs intend), any aggressive action a player take will have to be intentional. Damage will require weapons fire, not the kind of thing a player can accidentally do. Damage as it stands right now, is a mechanic that will only be implemented and tested in the context of weapons. Where the damage occurs, how much damage, whether or not you even hit will involve your characters skills and the stats of the weapon.

 

-If ramming bypasses some of those rules, ramming would potentially be more precise that firing a weapon, which seems odd in a sci-fi world.

-In a save zone, collision damage would have to be turned off.

-In an area where PVP has  consequences, wouldn't this also apply to anyone who accidentally collides? could a player who crashes their ship into a monument be banned for griefing? if not, couldn't ramming be a tool for griefers to use and just "claim" it was accidental?

-If a law enforcement script is running to put a bounty on players who attack a base, and a player accidentally crashes into the base, wouldn't that trip the law enforcement script and put a bounty on the unlucky player?

-If ramming was not a viable combat strategy, wouldn't collision damage just be a nuisance to players? and if so, WHY build a damage system outside of the mechanics for ship on ship combat (which is a stretch goal as it is, not a launch feature) that will simply be a nuisance to players? for emmersion?

 

When you delay the development of a game and inconvenience the playerbase at large for an inconsequential mechanic that will simply be a nuisance, that would be a mistake. When you implement a consequential mechanic that gives griefers the tools to wreak havoc, you do not promote the game's slogan/goal (rebuilding civilizaton).

 

You are welcome to play games in the physics simulation genre, but this is not one of them.

You raise some valid concerns regarding safe zones and unintentional collisions.

 

Potential solutions (again, all of this is assuming we can come up with some simple heuristic model that's not computationally infeasible):

 

1. Limit collision damage to collisions between ships and planets, or ships and static buildings (maybe only do damage to the ships). This would solve the "flying recklessly with no recourse" problem. This would require constructs to carry information of what kind of construct they are.

 

2. Alternatively, one could have collisions be a different type of damage, in terms of repercussions (oh, I have a looong list of thoughts about how to implement things like ownership, law enforcement and so on, but that's way too long a tangent for this). So that when you collide to another player's construct, you're liable to pay for the damage you cause, instead of being gunned down by turrets. Maybe you'd have black boxes and investigation boards to figure out whose fault a collision was or something like that. There's a range of options you could go for, depending on how much you'd want to automate and such. At its simplest, you could have it such that if a pilot is involved, they have to pay. E.g. A is piloted, B is building, they collide, A pays. Or: A is piloted, B is piloted, they split 50/50 or just mutually agree to drop it. And so on.

 

As for the mechanic being inconsequential and wasting dev time, I disagree. For me at least it would be immersion breaking to be allowed to fly like a lunatic without any regard for safety or consequences. That said, it's not a #1 priority so I wouldn't place it first on the development agenda. Not everything has to be 0 or 1, black or white. We can arrive at some optimal middle ground solutions in most situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You raise some valid concerns regarding safe zones and unintentional collisions.

 

Potential solutions (again, all of this is assuming we can come up with some simple heuristic model that's not computationally infeasible):

 

1. Limit collision damage to collisions between ships and planets, or ships and static buildings (maybe only do damage to the ships). This would solve the "flying recklessly with no recourse" problem. This would require constructs to carry information of what kind of construct they are.

 

2. Alternatively, one could have collisions be a different type of damage, in terms of repercussions (oh, I have a looong list of thoughts about how to implement things like ownership, law enforcement and so on, but that's way too long a tangent for this). So that when you collide to another player's construct, you're liable to pay for the damage you cause, instead of being gunned down by turrets. Maybe you'd have black boxes and investigation boards to figure out whose fault a collision was or something like that. There's a range of options you could go for, depending on how much you'd want to automate and such. At its simplest, you could have it such that if a pilot is involved, they have to pay. E.g. A is piloted, B is building, they collide, A pays. Or: A is piloted, B is piloted, they split 50/50 or just mutually agree to drop it. And so on.

 

As for the mechanic being inconsequential and wasting dev time, I disagree. For me at least it would be immersion breaking to be allowed to fly like a lunatic without any regard for safety or consequences. That said, it's not a #1 priority so I wouldn't place it first on the development agenda. Not everything has to be 0 or 1, black or white. We can arrive at some optimal middle ground solutions in most situations.

So you think it is a problem then for the game to assume that your character in the game is a skilled enough pilot to avoid crashing. The game does not expect you as the player to know anything about how to refine ore into materials, nor does the game expect you as the player to know how to build a jet engine from parts. However you think the game should expect the player to be an expert pilot to avoid crashing?

 

This seems a bit silly to me for the game to potentially aim for you, but not avoid crashing for you. I'd be happy to see this compromise from the prospective of "one of the many things the game assumes you character is smart enough to do", mainly fly without crashing.

 

Also, have we considered not crashing as a potential extension of shield systems? It it impossible to imagine a science fiction universe where tech is advanced enough that no one crashes accidentally? or is this still a covert scheme to get ramming into the game as a griefer tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think it is a problem then for the game to assume that your character in the game is a skilled enough pilot to avoid crashing. The game does not expect you as the player to know anything about how to refine ore into materials, nor does the game expect you as the player to know how to build a jet engine from parts. However you think the game should expect the player to be an expert pilot to avoid crashing?

 

This seems a bit silly to me for the game to potentially aim for you, but not avoid crashing for you. I'd be happy to see this compromise from the prospective of "one of the many things the game assumes you character is smart enough to do", mainly fly without crashing.

 

Also, have we considered not crashing as a potential extension of shield systems? It it impossible to imagine a science fiction universe where tech is advanced enough that no one crashes accidentally? or is this still a covert scheme to get ramming into the game as a griefer tactic.

 

Technical solutions to technical problems... If you give me thrusters, gyros, distance sensors and the like, I can build you a vessel that you cannot crash even if you try -- if that's the sort of digital life you wish to lead. Personally I'm like the dying breed of present day car owners, desperately clinging to the sense of danger and independence afforded by a car that doesn't drive itself.

 

Oh and on the topic of lock-target combat for avatar vs. avatar, I'm really not happy about that, and am constantly trying to come up with some alternative that would allow me to keep my immersive FPS type combat that I've grown accustomed to. But that's a conversation for another thread.

 

Also, I can assure you, I don't want griefing in this game any more than you do ( I mean do you *really* think I'm backing a game, posting on the forums, trying to improve the game, all for some sort of elaborate plan with the ultimate agenda of griefing people for some lulz? I assume that remark was tongue-in-cheek), and I am quite happy with missiles being VFX and stats based things with no corporeal form. This is purely a matter of immersion for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technical solutions to technical problems... If you give me thrusters, gyros, distance sensors and the like, I can build you a vessel that you cannot crash even if you try -- if that's the sort of digital life you wish to lead. Personally I'm like the dying breed of present day car owners, desperately clinging to the sense of danger and independence afforded by a car that doesn't drive itself.

 

Oh and on the topic of lock-target combat for avatar vs. avatar, I'm really not happy about that, and am constantly trying to come up with some alternative that would allow me to keep my immersive FPS type combat that I've grown accustomed to. But that's a conversation for another thread.

 

Also, I can assure you, I don't want griefing in this game any more than you do ( I mean do you *really* think I'm backing a game, posting on the forums, trying to improve the game, all for some sort of elaborate plan with the ultimate agenda of griefing people for some lulz? I assume that remark was tongue-in-cheek), and I am quite happy with missiles being VFX and stats based things with no corporeal form. This is purely a matter of immersion for me.

On the note of griefing, have you seen the posts about characters suggesting an imprisonment system like DayZ, or anything CaptainTwerk posts?  ;)  But I do believe that "rust" style players would back this game for some of the similarities, because they see "sandbox" and immediately think anarchy death carnival of fun.

 

This is an MMO. Immersion is not a high priority, not as high as smooth multiplayer, the sandbox functions, etc. FPS shooting, tracked projectiles, collision mechanics, these are the kinds of features that make multiplayer impossible to code in a way that plays consistently and smoothly. Desynch will happen, and you won't want a hiccup in an otherwise solid internet connection to cause you to crash your ship. Don't get me wrong, I do love Space Engineers, but that game can barely handle 8 players little lone 8,000. Even minecraft, one of the simplest sandbox games, took years to keep Boats from desynching in servers that had as few as 30 players, and Boats were only tracked on a 2D plane, and could only destroy themselves when they crashed.

 

No one in this thread REALLY has any idea of how fragile multiplayer mechanics are. Without collision damage, a bug simply causes you to fly strangely or boot you for a minute. With collision damage, a server hiccup could cost you your ship, someone's base, your inventory, possibly skill points, and a huge police bounty. just for Emerson, that is not worth it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think it is a problem then for the game to assume that your character in the game is a skilled enough pilot to avoid crashing. The game does not expect you as the player to know anything about how to refine ore into materials, nor does the game expect you as the player to know how to build a jet engine from parts. However you think the game should expect the player to be an expert pilot to avoid crashing?

 

This seems a bit silly to me for the game to potentially aim for you, but not avoid crashing for you. I'd be happy to see this compromise from the prospective of "one of the many things the game assumes you character is smart enough to do", mainly fly without crashing.

 

Also, have we considered not crashing as a potential extension of shield systems? It it impossible to imagine a science fiction universe where tech is advanced enough that no one crashes accidentally? or is this still a covert scheme to get ramming into the game as a griefer tactic.

I'm sorry to say, but your argumentation seems a bit pointless to me...

 

Look at racing games for example:

Does Need for Speed expect you to know how an engine works? Not really - still you are able to tune it. Does any Formula 1 game expect you to be able to drive a F1 race car in real life? I would also say no. But do they expect you to stay on the track and avoid collisions? Definitely yes! Why? Because those are games about racecars.

 

So why should a game about scifi civilization and spaceships not expect you to learn how to properly fly a spaceship?

 

DU also expects you to be able to build a spaceship, even to place the engines on your constructs in the right configuration.

Why give all that freedom and possibilities to the player, if an A.I. babysitter magically keeps you away from collisions?

If the A.I. and shields are so advanced, why allow combat at all?

 

This is a player driven game, so if nearly everything is up to the player base, you'll have to learn the basics for every profession. So why shouldn't you learn how to fly if you want to be a pilot?

 

And why on earth should this be a griefer tactic? I mean, we could basically just take a big gun if we wanted to annoy you, so why should we even put effort in this topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw: Server hiccups in battle can also lead to some hits not being counted, leading to ships that would usually already have been destroyed still firing at you, and so on.

In a MMO of this scale you can't expect everything to be perfectly fair at any time.

 

Edit: In an MMO, that is nearly completely player driven without too much story, I would say that immersion is a top priority - immersion is what keeps you going further, explore, build, create new content - I would not underestimate the immersion factor as fuel for players and emergent story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balancing won't solve the issue of intentions. A computer cannot determine the intentions of a player in a collision. And I do mean accidents, not incompetence. Consider also what might happen for a player who gets disconnected while moving toward a space station. Their ship crashes into the station, likely ending with the ship destroyed and the station missing big chunks.

 

Speaking of balancing, that sounds nice and all, but I don't believe it's possible. Those who are victims of an accident will claim "too much collision damage" while those who weaponize collisions will say "too little collision damage."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@velenka:

You are making a good point, but I think if they would use the weapon damage model, there would be a limit to the possible size of the damaged area. Otherwise it would take too much calculation power to do all the voxel damage. This workaround has it's limits, and the possible max. amount of damage is one.

 

If there are shields against collision damage, you would be able to avoid getting damaged even if you collide - It's just that this would take some effort.

 

Also, if you are disconnected, I would assume that the ship control unit would just stop your ship if not piloted.

If you didn't have enough stopping force before the disconnect, you would have crashed anyways.

Edit: Autopilots have already been mentioned by NQ - if the autopilot can't avoid the collision, the ship wouldn't have been able to do so in the first place, whether or not you are on board.

 

If you get a disconnect during battle, you would most likely also loose your ship - so disconnects are a problem anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@therealbeowulf first of all, i didnt read everything from when you quoted me, hopefully i'll not repeat something has already been said.

yes you can aim to a voxel, like you can when you dig the ground (just tink about minecraft). In this situation you aim directly a specific voxel that generates an aoe around it. It's an hitscan, there's nothing traveling, no collisions at all.

A collision is a single point of contact but needs to be calculated, it's not the same thing.

The first case is simple selection, the second is intersection between 3d elements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@shynras:

 

But the game engine already does the collision calculation, that's nothing I want to add, It's already there.

Without collision checks you couldn't land or walk on anything...

 

My idea was to just combine the weapon damage with the collision checks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@shynras:

But the game engine already does the collision calculation, that's nothing I want to add, It's already there.

Without collision checks you couldn't land or walk on anything...

My idea was to just combine the weapon damage with the collision checks.

I dont think it works that way, im not an expert though. A collision box denies an entity from entering its region of space (so you dont fall through the ground),it's just a domain. Collision damage would need to do the same thing, then calculate the intersection between the 2 entities to identify the specific block that got hit, then apply the aoe on it. The intersection part, should be the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@shynras:

 

Okay don't know how exactly that works too, but if it's a voxel construct, I would assume that the collision box would have to be pretty much the same shape.

I don't know how they could use predefined collision boxes with custom built voxel constructs.

 

So, if the engine knows that for example a wingtip, or a landing gear touches a surface, that would be a pretty precise point - at least precise enough to generate an area of effect - or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to say, but your argumentation seems a bit pointless to me...

 

Look at racing games for example:

Does Need for Speed expect you to know how an engine works? Not really - still you are able to tune it. Does any Formula 1 game expect you to be able to drive a F1 race car in real life? I would also say no. But do they expect you to stay on the track and avoid collisions? Definitely yes! Why? Because those are games about racecars.

 

So why should a game about scifi civilization and spaceships not expect you to learn how to properly fly a spaceship?

 

DU also expects you to be able to build a spaceship, even to place the engines on your constructs in the right configuration.

Why give all that freedom and possibilities to the player, if an A.I. babysitter magically keeps you away from collisions?

If the A.I. and shields are so advanced, why allow combat at all?

 

This is a player driven game, so if nearly everything is up to the player base, you'll have to learn the basics for every profession. So why shouldn't you learn how to fly if you want to be a pilot?

 

And why on earth should this be a griefer tactic? I mean, we could basically just take a big gun if we wanted to annoy you, so why should we even put effort in this topic?

Let me pull you back to Genre here, because this is an MMO. Which MMO's expect you to know how to fight with a sword IRL? Which MMO's expect you to be able to cast spells IRL? Which MMO's expect you to really have the skill that your character has? Most Racing games are also effectively part of the Simulator Grenre, and this is not part of that genre. The games that expect the player to posses the same skillset as their "character" are the exception, not the rule.

 

Yes the game expects you to know how to build, except oh wait, it doesn't. A player can just collect enough resources to build the in-game default blueprints until they earn enough spacebux to buy either complete constructs or blueprint copies. Building is this game's focus, Building and miltiplayer stability are the two areas where the devs will spend most of their time, and collision damage threatens both of those play aspects.

 

oh and nice slippery slope argument with "why allow combat at all". I don't even need to answer that  ;)

 

The player on player interactions in this game will make it immersive enough. We don't need crash our ship and die for this to be an immersive game. We especially don't need to crash our ship and die because a structure didn't load properly, or because landing gears are buggy (look up the Space Engineers landing gear bug).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...