Jump to content
Kuritho

Collision Damage: Do we REALLY need it?

Recommended Posts

a "few" years ago in a game named Jump Gate they had collisions, it was awesome.

 

Sure you lost things and rage a lot, but it also made things fun, like speed docking heavy freighters or created fun objects like "the roid of death" a tiny almost invisible rock between 2 gates.

 

so collisions ON and may the greates rammer win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is not optional, this is not a choice, this is a requirement. NQ said that there wouldn't be voxel recognition of ramming but that does not mean that you should take no damage. I think the idea that your ship's components take damage instead of the actual structure makes a lot more sense.

 

 

This a exactly what they should do. When you collide with any object, you components take damage and when they take too much damage, they fail or malfunction or disappear, giving the illusion of real damage. No collision/damage in a game like this would be ridiculous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved that game.

 

Oh and for now you can demand whatever you want but server stability and better core features of the game > "realism" like collision damage.

Yep this.

 

With their limited budget and small team its best they get the core features working first.

 

Also I think some might be merging collision with collision damage like they are the same exact thing. The game pretty sure will have collision, it just won't have damage from that collision. Not at first at least. We'll have guns and boarding at first, other features can wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

if flying is hard, then we shouldn't have collision damage, however if its super easy it might be nice. I would personly build a bulky ship and ram people to beat them in battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep this.

 

With their limited budget and small team its best they get the core features working first.

 

Also I think some might be merging collision with collision damage like they are the same exact thing. The game pretty sure will have collision, it just won't have damage from that collision. Not at first at least. We'll have guns and boarding at first, other features can wait.

 

I agree. Plus, collision damage is very intensive on the servers so it would make it more difficult for the servers to handle large congregations of people and ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Plus, collision damage is very intensive on the servers so it would make it more difficult for the servers to handle large congregations of people and ships.

Plus another concern is game balance, IMO. If ramming is more effective then using guns and turrets then ramming will be all anyone does and ship design will get boring with ships all being made for ramming. Should always have to damage with weapons then use collision to block and board I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should simply be like empyrion Galactic survival, realistic building so a structure has to have support holding it up. Same with collisions, it will only make the game better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should simply be like empyrion Galactic survival, realistic building so a structure has to have support holding it up. Same with collisions, it will only make the game better.

 

if flying is hard, then we shouldn't have collision damage, however if its super easy it might be nice. I would personly build a bulky ship and ram people to beat them in battle.

 

Alright. You need to understand that your argument needs to have valid vetting. We've already had this argument over thousands of words, so you need to understand.

 

I've skimmed through this specific topic, but most of it is memorized by heart due to the drama that went on about this in the fast.

 

So, let us get into the discussion about how the three main options that have been said by the community.

 

First: The Collision Argument

 

The collision argument revolves around the idea that collision adds realism, skill, and simple mechanics that feel in place in this sort of game. Many argue that having collision would make hitting objects a penalty and allow users to require the skill to avoid such. There however are a couple main problems with this.

 

First, many have said that collision would make the game fundamentally different, with things such as suicide attacks using smaller vessels to take out larger ones possible. This is a fundamental problem that is introduced when we add collision. Shields have been an argument against the possibility of suicide vessels, but this argument doesn't make any actual sense and in the end, doesn't line up with what we would expect. Secondly, an argument against collision has been the physical limitations of the game, such as the problem of counteracting collision and planet collision, due to the rotation of planets. This goes along with space stations and knocking them out of orbit with a suicide vessel, along with the idea of processing power. It is estimated that the processing power required to calculate collisions would cause major lag of the game. All in all, this is a negative option.

 

Second: No-collision

 

No-collision solves almost all of the problems stated. However, it's main downsides are that it doesn't inact realism or consequence.

 

Third: Component-collision

 

It has been argued that components could be able to explode when collided with. It seems reasonable and is a possibility. Most of the same downsides and upsides still apply, so take what you will with it.

 

Either way, none of these posts have effectively changed the argument and how the devs perceived it(as we could guess) this problem, but it was mostly valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No collision between constructs isn't a big deal to me. If you're that close to someone you may as well be shooting a hole in them anyways, or planning to board them in a suicide mission.

 

 

However, crashing into planets just doesn't feel right without some damage, either to the ship or to the terrain:

 

 

 

 

 

If anything, it would prevent all the massive ships from just parking all over the place without needing platforms to land on, or at least a large flat surface. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, the Devs can introduce collision damage without having to resort to voxel-to-voxel calculations. An Impulse mechanism can be added, that would also make both G-forces a thing, as well as explosions on collision also a thing, by virtue of mass ratios comparisons and exploding reactors / capacitors / accumulators.

 

The real problem is voxel-to-voxel calculations for collision. Comparing masses is not even remotely as heavy as voxel-to-voxel calculations are. It's just mass comparison, with some caveat of solving in regards transversal acceleratiorn.

As planets are constructs in the eyes of the game engine, a collision of a ship on a planet, would mean ALWAYS that a ship would explodde on impact of 500+ m/s2 for example, while the planet's normal G attraction of 10 m/s2 would not pp any ship-- which is something the devs just have to fine tune as of a mechanism, to guarantee ships won't blow up on landing ala Space Engineers.

 

That way also, covercrafts or speeders or w/e, are in risk of blowing up if they were to collide on a cannyon wall, at very high speeds, as the same principle applies of impulse - brutal deceleration => exploding power supply => make-shift collision HP bar.

 

And there's no such thing as "torpedo" ships that way. A battleship can't really accelerate to the point it would pop a power generator - because physics - at least, not in the time frame of an actual battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there's no such thing as "torpedo" ships that way. A battleship can't really accelerate to the point it would pop a power generator - because physics - at least, not in the time frame of an actual battle.

 

are you in alpha? how do you know about ingame physics :)

 

It would actually be fun if you could overload reactors equipment and weapons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you in alpha? how do you know about ingame physics :)

 

It would actually be fun if you could overload reactors equipment and weapons

Well, the Devs seem to have kept their word on Center of Mass (latest update video).

 

A batttleship, is a massive object. It's meant to take a lot of punishment and return the favor. The way I suggest collisions to work, is simply a mass comparison. And to be honest ,if the devs add "fall damage" to constructs, we will have shisp exploding if they wwere to lose propulsions while in flight on a planet, as well as massive ships roadkilling smaller crafts on their path when colliding. The game engine doesn't treat planets and constructs differently, and they have said so many times ( the Devs that is).

 

So, a starfighter hitting a battleship at 1000 m/s = starfighter explodes, battleship feels nothing or maybe a minor "bump" to its "fall damage" meter.

 

Two battleships collide at full speed? RIP both ships.

 

But this model takes into account transversal speeds, AKA impulse and all that. I don't know, maybe the Devs will do it this way, which makes sure the server doesn't calculate dmaage on a voxel-by-voxel basis, but in a more macro way, like mass comparisons, after calculating mass = force / acceleration, which is what I call an "impulse comparison" between two colliding constructs.

 

If it's done this way, it would be excellent. It makes sure than a ship's driver has to keep in mind that beyond a certain speed, even the slightest collision with another ship or two may be the end of them - and since more mass needs more propulsion, a torpedo ship is pretty much impractical.

 

 

As for the overloading of capacitors, yes, sure. But don't expect it to take a minute. A capacitor is meant to overload a 1400% capacity. Its rate of "loading" energy, is based on the ampage of the energy generators. So you have to hack TWO parts of a ship to realyl overload as a boarding party, but the captain has access to both of those things. So, there's that little possibility, of a 100 GJ capacitor, exploding at the output of 1.4 Tera Joules of an explosion. That's a really devastaing explosion. Scuttling a boat and quite probably, anything wtihin its blast radius (except if the Devs do a very tricky "multiple spheres of damage" model for the game's explosions). And hey, as I said, capacitors overloading are a good idea for people to avoid collisions, wouldn't you agree?

 

As for overloading turrets and all that, I believe every single EVE player, knows the rule of combat : "You can always repair blown modules after overheating them too much, you can't really repair a blown ship."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'm against collision damage. Making a complex game mechanic that then needs to have elements added and balanced to make it happen is just not a useful investment by the dev team in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'm against collision damage. Making a complex game mechanic that then needs to have elements added and balanced to make it happen is just not a useful investment by the dev team in my eyes.

Hi, the devs already made the game complex when they went the EVE gemotery based hit-chance formula way.

 

Also, JC Baillie has stated the game is about being complex in a way that's challenging. And they already got center of mass and inertia figured out for the game's physics grid. Collision would only take advantage of what they got already figured out.

 

What's next? I guess no fuel, because you can't bother to stop and check if you got any before trying to travel 250 Light Years orth ofo distance? Or perhaps no ammunition required, because you can't bother buying more ammo? Or no item los perhaps?

 

Collision is needed, otherwise the game will be a joke when battleships land point first and bounce on a planet like balloons, not to mention, their physics grid and center of mass is WASTED, let alone any need for clever ship designs is just a bad joke in the game. Why make arrow shaped ships that can mitigate collisions when they - eventually - happen? Build ships like Enterpise, because why bother, it's not even gonna suffer from such a terrible design whatsoever.

 

As you see, the solution for collisions, is something that has ALREADY assets the devs created. Just link decceleration to capacitors overcharging and have it be linked to the ship's center of mass - you know? That thing in the last update video (january)? Center of mass? YOu got to put thrusters near it to give the ship a better push? Yeah, that same thing can be used for collisions that overload a capacitor via a formula. Sure, some ships may not even pop on one collision, but it's certainly a good incentive to avoid collisions with any craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, the devs already made the game complex when they went the EVE gemotery based hit-chance formula way.

 

Also, JC Baillie has stated the game is about being complex in a way that's challenging. And they already got center of mass and inertia figured out for the game's physics grid. Collision would only take advantage of what they got already figured out.

 

What's next? I guess no fuel, because you can't bother to stop and check if you got any before trying to travel 250 Light Years orth ofo distance? Or perhaps no ammunition required, because you can't bother buying more ammo? Or no item los perhaps?

 

Collision is needed, otherwise the game will be a joke when battleships land point first and bounce on a planet like balloons, not to mention, their physics grid and center of mass is WASTED, let alone any need for clever ship designs is just a bad joke in the game. Why make arrow shaped ships that can mitigate collisions when they - eventually - happen? Build ships like Enterpise, because why bother, it's not even gonna suffer from such a terrible design whatsoever.

 

As you see, the solution for collisions, is something that has ALREADY assets the devs created. Just link decceleration to capacitors overcharging and have it be linked to the ship's center of mass - you know? That thing in the last update video (january)? Center of mass? YOu got to put thrusters near it to give the ship a better push? Yeah, that same thing can be used for collisions that overload a capacitor via a formula. Sure, some ships may not even pop on one collision, but it's certainly a good incentive to avoid collisions with any craft.

I would say that making some thing complex doesn't mean everything is complex.  Combat is typically a system people want complexity with. Walking forward is something that that people want to be very simple. I feel like collision is something that should be enforced by the game. Not a mechanic that involves resource management and elements.

 

Ultimately i think you are vastly underestimating the effort of adding a new damage/damage type and a new way to mitigate that damage. That is a high degree of difficulty to integrate into the current ideas for combat including armor types and shields etc.  I was under the impression they are very against collision as a form of combat. I guess if this system is exclusively to handle landing on a planets it can work. If you add ship to ship collision damage that is a large change from both what the devs have said and the direction the combat system may take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that making some thing complex doesn't mean everything is complex.  Combat is typically a system people want complexity with. Walking forward is something that that people want to be very simple. I feel like collision is something that should be enforced by the game. Not a mechanic that involves resource management and elements.

 

Ultimately i think you are vastly underestimating the effort of adding a new damage/damage type and a new way to mitigate that damage. That is a high degree of difficulty to integrate into the current ideas for combat including armor types and shields etc.  I was under the impression they are very against collision as a form of combat. I guess if this system is exclusively to handle landing on a planets it can work. If you add ship to ship collision damage that is a large change from both what the devs have said and the direction the combat system may take.

Hey, you must be indeed an EVE player.

 

Armor = voxel type combination. 1600mm armor plate? 10 voxels thick armor. That means 5 layers of materials that can be aded in that armor.

 

Shield = who knows, that's not stated yet how it will work.

 

The Devs are against Voxel-to-Voxel defomration on collision, as it would invovle en masse on demand voxel editing. THAT is what they do not want. 

 

What I suggest, is only to have ships have their capacitors overloading on via the same F = m * a formula, used to get a ship's intertia, when ships decellerate over a short period - aka, an impulse tolerance on the capacitors of a ship, possibly linking that with the nanofield lore and how they fields can "absorb kinetic energy" to a point the capacitors just pop and you get a sweet sweet 'splosion that would make Michael Bay tear up.

 

That, is in fact, NOT taxing on the server.

 

Sure, does this mean a powered off ship would be sent off a ship's path? Yeah, but the ship that "Rammed" it, would get damaged, as its cpacitors woulds overload due to the aforementioned F = m * a formula.

 

Also, large battleships, do not move fast. They can't, so, their masses will be relative to each other in frames of ship classes. Could one battleshi push another ship by slowlly but surely applying pressure on its offset of the center of mass ala Rogue One - oops, spoiler I guess?. 

 

Yeah, it could do that. But we are talking here about a mechanism, that ensures, anythign colliding with a planet at a planet's critical velocity, is toast, as planets are more massive than any ship could possibly be - as well as the mnot having capacitors, so no trolls, you can't explode a planet :P - but also, the SAME mechanism can be used to deter starfighters from bouncing off of battleships and pilots feel good for being skilled enough on avoiding death, or tricking someone else on slamming onto another friendly target, or, you know, FLEETS REQURING ACTUAL FORMATIONS and stuff like that.

 

As I said, the Devs have the tools for the mechanism. It's as simple, as having fall damage for players. If they implement it like that, it would be amazing and it would actually make many many people happy. As I said, voxel editing en-masse is the problem, not collisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, you must be indeed an EVE player.

 

Armor = voxel type combination. 1600mm armor plate? 10 voxels thick armor. That means 5 layers of materials that can be aded in that armor.

 

Shield = who knows, that's not stated yet how it will work.

 

The Devs are against Voxel-to-Voxel defomration on collision, as it would invovle en masse on demand voxel editing. THAT is what they do not want. 

 

What I suggest, is only to have ships have their capacitors overloading on via the same F = m * a formula, used to get a ship's intertia, when ships decellerate over a short period - aka, an impulse tolerance on the capacitors of a ship, possibly linking that with the nanofield lore and how they fields can "absorb kinetic energy" to a point the capacitors just pop and you get a sweet sweet 'splosion that would make Michael Bay tear up.

 

That, is in fact, NOT taxing on the server.

 

Sure, does this mean a powered off ship would be sent off a ship's path? Yeah, but the ship that "Rammed" it, would get damaged, as its cpacitors woulds overload due to the aforementioned F = m * a formula.

 

Also, large battleships, do not move fast. They can't, so, their masses will be relative to each other in frames of ship classes. Could one battleshi push another ship by slowlly but surely applying pressure on its offset of the center of mass ala Rogue One - oops, spoiler I guess?. 

 

Yeah, it could do that. But we are talking here about a mechanism, that ensures, anythign colliding with a planet at a planet's critical velocity, is toast, as planets are more massive than any ship could possibly be - as well as the mnot having capacitors, so no trolls, you can't explode a planet :P - but also, the SAME mechanism can be used to deter starfighters from bouncing off of battleships and pilots feel good for being skilled enough on avoiding death, or tricking someone else on slamming onto another friendly target, or, you know, FLEETS REQURING ACTUAL FORMATIONS and stuff like that.

 

As I said, the Devs have the tools for the mechanism. It's as simple, as having fall damage for players. If they implement it like that, it would be amazing and it would actually make many many people happy. As I said, voxel editing en-masse is the problem, not collisions.

Nope, never really got that into eve, played it a bit.

 

I don't know what your statements about armor is supposed to mean, not sure what purpose they have. You just stated armor is voxels. My comment has to do with balancing armor and other combat systems with a new form of combat that would be ramming.

 

I like the topics you bring up but honestly you have such a condescending attitude and never really seem to discuss other peoples points so I guess this just isn't worth trying to discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, never really got that into eve, played it a bit.

 

I don't know what your statements about armor is supposed to mean, not sure what purpose they have. You just stated armor is voxels. My comment has to do with balancing armor and other combat systems with a new form of combat that would be ramming.

 

I like the topics you bring up but honestly you have such a condescending attitude and never really seem to discuss other peoples points so I guess this just isn't worth trying to discuss.

Stronger armor = heavier material = more difficult to accelerate but in my suggestive model, also means the construct can take much more collisions as inertia = less acceleration / decceleration on collisions.

 

 

I know, most people confuse my facetious attitude for condescension. :P Don't be alarmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the devs stated they weren't going to do collision damage I took it as meaning they wouldn't do the sort of deformation based damaged that occurs in space engineers.

 

Since I am assuming we are not going to have a game where we can fly our ships through other ships and buildings there will be collision detection, and since ship versus ship combat will be a thing (eventually) ships will be damageable with weapons.

 

Knowing a bit about programming and physics engines detecting when and where a collision occurs should not be a hard thing to do, every physics engine has this as an event you can capture, the damage that is taken could be very simple it could be as basic as hit points, but I would suggest just removing a certain number of voxels in a sphere around the contact point based on the amount of energy dissipated in the impact. You could have different amounts based on the material so denser materials absorb more damage and mean fewer voxels "destroyed"

 

This still leaves the gameplay problem of ramming, I would suggest making the proportion of damage energy distributed to each party based on how fast they were going relative to each other. So if one person is stationary (or a building) they take no damage and the other takes all damage, but if they are equally traveling at the same speed directly at each other they share the damage 50/50.

 

This isn't very realistic, obviously, but it makes ramming as a strategy impossible but still add some risks for reckless flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...