Jump to content
Aesir

Raming ship

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Vellnn said:

Well “collision” as in checking “are these two things touching? If they are, make them bounce off of eachother based on mass” is already done, as you can see in some of their videos with ships.

 

What Nyz was talking about was “where exactly are these two things touching down to the voxel, and having every voxel have it’s own health, and dynamically breaking the voxels off when their health hits 0, modifying the physical shape of the construct”, which would take up a lot more reaources, and probably wouldn’t be realistic to implement by the time the game releases.

Actually physical calculations take much more resources than subtracting from a variable until it's zero and then deleting it.

 

and i don't think there will be too much ramming ever, because space is big even now and i heard they are making planets much bigger than they are in the prototype. The chances of eve encountering anyone point blank is pretty slim and i think collisions will only happen in either atmospheric fights(where a collision is almost certain death) or between fighters and their carriers.

 

The only complication i see in collision damage is that it would look really lame between two bigger ships and totally not look like some star wars collision between star destroyers. But fighters scracthing the surface of a destroyer are way more cooler.

 

So in the end i think collision warfare would limit itself but if it turns out to be  a problem they can still limit the damage of one collision forcefully. I don't see a problem with implementing collision damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lethys said:

Which we're arguing the whole time, thus it's NOT implemented as you suggested cause that what you mean hasby NOTHING to do with colliding ships that take damage (which is the while point of this thread)

As Vorengard said earlier

On 10/27/2017 at 4:09 PM, Vorengard said:

Collision with the environment works, but not with other constructs. 

Which isn't true, because collision against the environment and constructs work in exactly the same way.

Clearly we arn't talking about 'voxel to voxel collision' and 'dynamic modification of voxels on collision' here.

Even if Vorengard meant to say that 'voxel to voxel collision is occurring against the environment but not against other constructs', that also isn't true; not only did Nyz say that they wern't doing that, but there's no evidence to support that that's how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2017 at 2:56 PM, Vorengard said:

 

Thank you, Namco, for that wonderfully condescending explanation. It's good to know that you're a better developer than the people over at NovaQuark. Maybe you should apply for one of their open positions so you'll be able to teach them how real game design is done. /s

 

Ok, seriously, "the server load is too great" isn't our personal opinion, it's the official position of NovaQuark, as told to us by JC himself. He's the Founder and CEO by the way, in case you didn't know. Next time, how about you keep your self-righteous opinions to yourself until you've actually had time to read a thing or two about the game, like just about everyone else in this thread.

what i posted about servers and technology is fact. not my fault you cannot comprehend it, maybe read a book before you make a stupid argument like "the devs know more than you". that's just small minded and absolutely hilarious. 

developers don't always have the answers, just like I may not have all the answers. you can google my facts, just like bit coin, physics calculations finish a lot faster and are more efficient when running on a GPU vs a CPU. If they have say 40 servers to handle the load index they described where servers will load certain zones to keep the game running well and have 1000's in the same node, they could put a gpu or a few of them, and code their stuff to run all physics calculations on the gpu instead of cpu, increasing the overall physics performance server side no issue. IGNORING that means you simply can't handle the truth.

I UNDERSTAND the NQ said they weren't going to work on ship collision because they don't want people ramming ships. they are going for "tab targeting" which makes ramming ships pretty much useless anyway. its not a twitch shooter when in ship cockpit.

HOWEVER, my facts about physics can work for more things than just ship collision mechanics, it can also be used for water, and land based vehicles.

The biggest reason Indy (independent) developers seem to be doing things other mainstream developers are not, is because they have the mindset of "IT CAN BE DONE" as apposed to the typical mind of "it can't be done.... don't even try". There is a reason why mainstream games have gone downhill in overall quality. the similar "it can't be done, its too much work, its too much time" etc. That negativity is ruining gaming.

Technology has far surpassed what we currently use in games. I don't mean player side where some games barely get 60fps at 4k. I am talking about the game itself and the technology in it. We can do so much more, but people like you, say no, lets just keep doing what we are doing because everything is impossible.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 7:38 AM, Vellnn said:

Which isn't true, because collision against the environment and constructs work in exactly the same way.

I can't properly refute your argument without breaking the NDA, so this conversation is over.

 

On 10/29/2017 at 6:13 PM, namco said:

maybe read a book before you make a stupid argument like "the devs know more than you".

Did you actually read the link I sent, or are you just being nasty for the sake of nastiness? Nyzaltar specifically said that they are avoiding making construct collision damage other constructs because the technology isn't good enough yet. I am absolutely certain that the Devs know more about what is possible with their own tech than you do, and to suggest otherwise is monumentally arrogant. Your argument simply doesn't have a leg to stand on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love the fact that NQ already does groundbreaking stuff with their technology which was never used before.....and still some people are like "yo dawg, you could do that too, but I'm no programmer, I ain't know shit".

 

Hilarious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lethys said:

I just love the fact that NQ already does groundbreaking stuff with their technology which was never used before.....and still some people are like "yo dawg, you could do that too, but I'm no programmer, I ain't know shit".

 

Hilarious

Do you mean we shouldn't write down our suggestions? And what makes you think that the only programmers in the whole DU community are the developers? I for one never worked on a project so big but i learnt programming, networking and some shit about hardware. And even if i'm not as qualified as the developers of the game my ideas can give them ideas even if it might seem that they are unable to implement it for some reason let them worry about it if they don't like and idea or think it's not possible they won't care about it.

 

And the other thing is that Zero-G physcis and voxel based damage are not groundbreaking at all as they have been used in numerous other games already. You always cry about how the server can't handle this kind of calculations but as you already said NQ already made a server tech just to maximise the effectiveness of these calculations.

 

Very Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gyurka66 said:

Do you mean we shouldn't write down our suggestions? And what makes you think that the only programmers in the whole DU community are the developers? I for one never worked on a project so big but i learnt programming, networking and some shit about hardware. And even if i'm not as qualified as the developers of the game my ideas can give them ideas even if it might seem that they are unable to implement it for some reason let them worry about it if they don't like and idea or think it's not possible they won't care about it.

 

And the other thing is that Zero-G physcis and voxel based damage are not groundbreaking at all as they have been used in numerous other games already. You always cry about how the server can't handle this kind of calculations but as you already said NQ already made a server tech just to maximise the effectiveness of these calculations.

 

Very Sad.

Ah kk, if it's not groundbreaking then please point me to a game that is single shard + zero-g + voxel based damage.

 

There aren't any? hmmmm, guess it's not that easy to do? especially not with "just slap on some GPUs here and there! it's done in bitcoin mining it works here too!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vorengard said:

I can't properly refute your argument without breaking the NDA, so I'll just say that -redacted-

Well technically just saying that (the part I redacted in the quote) is breaking the NDA so you may want to remove that.

 

Send me a DM if you need to tell me something regarding the pre-alpha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lethys said:

I just love the fact that NQ already does groundbreaking stuff with their technology which was never used before.....and still some people are like "yo dawg, you could do that too, but I'm no programmer, I ain't know shit".

 

Hilarious

1. I am a programmer and I've made a collision system from scratch before, I understand the process.


2. Adding simple collision damage (as in just a health bar for the ship and do damage just based on speed and mass) would be easy to implement, but what Nyz was talking about was calculated damage and destruction to specific parts of the construct, depending on exactly how the construct was hit. You're completely mis-representing him and using what he said incorrectly. If we're talking about what Nyz said, yeah we don't have the tech for that yet. Give it another 10 years.

If we're talking about implementing "ship health" and dealing damage based on speed and mass only, that's something that's realistic to achieve. Personally, like I said earlier, I don't think we should have collision damage anyway. I think it should be "bump collision" like in Eve, which is even easier to implement but still requires basic collision detection between constructs, which as I've pointed out several times, appears to already be implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vellnn said:

1. I am a programmer and I've made a collision system from scratch before, I understand the process.


2. Adding simple collision damage (as in just a health bar for the ship and do damage just based on speed and mass) would be easy to implement, but what Nyz was talking about was calculated damage and destruction to specific parts of the construct, depending on exactly how the construct was hit. You're completely mis-representing him and using what he said incorrectly. If we're talking about what Nyz said, yeah we don't have the tech for that yet. Give it another 10 years.

If we're talking about implementing "ship health" and dealing damage based on speed and mass only, that's something that's realistic to achieve. Personally, like I said earlier, I don't think we should have collision damage anyway. I think it should be "bump collision" like in Eve, which is even easier to implement but still requires basic collision detection between constructs, which as I've pointed out several times, appears to already be implemented.

I obviously didn't mean you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Vorengard said:

Did you actually read the link I sent, or are you just being nasty for the sake of nastiness? Nyzaltar specifically said that they are avoiding making construct collision damage other constructs because the technology isn't good enough yet. I am absolutely certain that the Devs know more about what is possible with their own tech than you do, and to suggest otherwise is monumentally arrogant. Your argument simply doesn't have a leg to stand on. 

You didn't send any link, nor have you commented one.... so. great job? I have no messages in my inbox nor have seen a link anywhere in this thread leading to another webpage.... fail.

Like I said, its fine that NQ said "no" to ship ramming, but saying it cannot be done, is absolutely laughable. As someone else already pointed out, it seemed impossible to have 1000's of people in one small area without lag, NQ used AI based technology to solve it. Rather or not it works in actual practice vs tests, who knows. But saying something cannot be done IS laughable. I have a whole basic AI system for NPC's that, if done correctly, would shave off production time for any company that uses it. It uses a tagging system where each tag has values and strings that allow each individual NPC to behave a certain way with other tags to tie multiple strings together. For example an RPG. The tag "fisherman" has everything inside it for an NPC that would go fishing. It would have other tags to know which boat at the dock is that NPC's. There would be other "personality" trait tags like "drunk" or "early riser". When designing an NPC, its a matter of plugging in the generic AI using a control panel, and then selecting the empty control aspects (like the fishing ship ownership) to the tag system. Then once done, you can literally watch a fisherman NPC wake up really early (slightly before sun rise) eat some bread, go down to the docks and hop on his boat, go fishing for the day. The game using the same AI would make the same "calculations" for "was the fish caught yes/no" and so on with quality of fish. The fisherman would then sell his fish to a local seller NPC, then use most of the money he just made to go to the pub for the rest of the night, until he waddles home and passes out in bed, to redo the whole task over again the next day. SIMPLE AI.

Computers were originally made to work for us. We wanted to simplify the things we do so that we can "do more". Game development has hit a rough patch the last few years where developers, instead of doing "smart work" and letting the pc handle the load, they take the load on themselves to program every little individual thing. This NPC, all his traits, scripted NPC by NPC one at a time, without any helpers. So we end up with NPC's that aren't all that dynamic unless they are a part of the story. Using a very basic AI infrastructure, you can literally do all the coding on the back end (which seems like it might take longer) but then every game after that is now quicker to build because base technology makes it faster. Its the same principle as randomly generating a planet. Why sit there and design every little aspect by hand, when you can have the computer DO THE WORK FOR YOU.

Once again, its fine that NQ doesn't want to have ship collision, I accept it, but I still say its possible irregardless if its going to be done or not. There are two types of people in this world, can do's and can't do's.... clearly, you are a can't doer. Not being rude, just pointing out a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, namco said:

You didn't send any link, nor have you commented one.... so. great job? I have no messages in my inbox nor have seen a link anywhere in this thread leading to another webpage.... fail.

Like I said, its fine that NQ said "no" to ship ramming, but saying it cannot be done, is absolutely laughable. As someone else already pointed out, it seemed impossible to have 1000's of people in one small area without lag, NQ used AI based technology to solve it. Rather or not it works in actual practice vs tests, who knows. But saying something cannot be done IS laughable. I have a whole basic AI system for NPC's that, if done correctly, would shave off production time for any company that uses it. It uses a tagging system where each tag has values and strings that allow each individual NPC to behave a certain way with other tags to tie multiple strings together. For example an RPG. The tag "fisherman" has everything inside it for an NPC that would go fishing. It would have other tags to know which boat at the dock is that NPC's. There would be other "personality" trait tags like "drunk" or "early riser". When designing an NPC, its a matter of plugging in the generic AI using a control panel, and then selecting the empty control aspects (like the fishing ship ownership) to the tag system. Then once done, you can literally watch a fisherman NPC wake up really early (slightly before sun rise) eat some bread, go down to the docks and hop on his boat, go fishing for the day. The game using the same AI would make the same "calculations" for "was the fish caught yes/no" and so on with quality of fish. The fisherman would then sell his fish to a local seller NPC, then use most of the money he just made to go to the pub for the rest of the night, until he waddles home and passes out in bed, to redo the whole task over again the next day. SIMPLE AI.

Computers were originally made to work for us. We wanted to simplify the things we do so that we can "do more". Game development has hit a rough patch the last few years where developers, instead of doing "smart work" and letting the pc handle the load, they take the load on themselves to program every little individual thing. This NPC, all his traits, scripted NPC by NPC one at a time, without any helpers. So we end up with NPC's that aren't all that dynamic unless they are a part of the story. Using a very basic AI infrastructure, you can literally do all the coding on the back end (which seems like it might take longer) but then every game after that is now quicker to build because base technology makes it faster. Its the same principle as randomly generating a planet. Why sit there and design every little aspect by hand, when you can have the computer DO THE WORK FOR YOU.

Once again, its fine that NQ doesn't want to have ship collision, I accept it, but I still say its possible irregardless if its going to be done or not. There are two types of people in this world, can do's and can't do's.... clearly, you are a can't doer. Not being rude, just pointing out a fact.

So.......You're a millionaire? Sounds like you invented THE best system for npcs which nobody ever even thought of! 

NQ could buy that finished product of yours.....oh. wait. DU is not about npcs.

 

I like you. You ramble some random bs how you would do it and how it's done in bitcoin mining, but you said you have no clue of programming. That's awesome, keep it coming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if it would be able to ram the ship non-destructively. Correct me if I am wrong, but the way weapons work is they cause damage to the voxels to the point where they completely destroy them. So, could some ship be knife-shaped, have tons of weapons in front and fire a hole into another ship, through which it will insert its tip (for some reason, this sounds dirty to me, sorry) into the created entrance, "locking" the two ships together. Then the ramming ship could influence the movement of both constructs (just like Hammerhead corvette did in Rogue One).

Imagine ton of small ships swarming huge one, creating holes in its hull, entering through them and through coordination of players operating those ships, moving the huge ship into any location, as if they were its own thrusters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, namco said:

You didn't send any link, nor have you commented one.... so. great job? I have no messages in my inbox nor have seen a link anywhere in this thread leading to another webpage

 

Boom, proof. (Just in case you don't know how these work, you have to click on the link, which will take you to the relevant post, where you'll see the bold and underlined text that leads to the post by Nyz).

 

Learn to read before you decide to talk about things you don't understand. 

 

P.s. the appropriate response here isn't another 500 word post about how amazing you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2017 at 8:53 AM, Vorengard said:

 

Boom, proof. (Just in case you don't know how these work, you have to click on the link, which will take you to the relevant post, where you'll see the bold and underlined text that leads to the post by Nyz).

 

Learn to read before you decide to talk about things you don't understand. 

 

P.s. the appropriate response here isn't another 500 word post about how amazing you are.

funny, I couldn't see the link, I had to put my face directly against my monitor to see it.... you're still a cunt like lethys. tiny little brains that cannot comprehend anything more than their basic understanding of nothing. and i don't even car if im banned for saying it. its dbags like you that ruin gaming because of your know it all attitude and negativity. "it can't be done" bullshit. ill happily fuck off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, namco said:

funny, I couldn't see the link, I had to put my face directly against my monitor to see it.... you're still a cunt like lethys. tiny little brains that cannot comprehend anything more than their basic understanding of nothing. and i don't even car if im banned for saying it. its dbags like you that ruin gaming because of your know it all attitude and negativity. "it can't be done" bullshit. ill happily fuck off.

Hm, I instantly found it - maybe you need glases?

 

I really don't know your problem mate. NQ (the DEVELOPERS of this game) said that it's too server heavy and can't be done (maybe later, who knows but NOT NOW). And you come in here and write wall of texts about bitcoin mining and "your" program of an easy to implement AI (though you admitted that you're NO programmer) and basically insult the devs for not knowing what they're talking about - and when ppl point that out to you you run like a little girl. Yeah. Trolls are trolls.

Take care mate o/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--scan log Fri. 2017-10-3 EST --

TARGET:

 

 

Domain: board.dualthegame.com

 

--scanning--

 

RESULTS:Salt:60%

TREND:Rising

 

--end of log--

 

In all seriousness, thread lock please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@namco, I know it's hard to do for you, but would you please stop imagining yourself as having more knowledge on the subject than the devs that made said subject in the first place. You just outright don't, so please do either the above, and accept that you are wrong so that everyone doesn't gave to keep replying to this thread, or if you won't accept that, just shut up and stop trying to fight your point on this thread. Either way, this thread is over as the debate has already been settled as to who is right, so please just close the salt gates already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

umm...

On 2017. 11. 02. at 10:50 PM, namco said:

funny, I couldn't see the link, I had to put my face directly against my monitor to see it.... you're still a cunt like lethys. tiny little brains that cannot comprehend anything more than their basic understanding of nothing. and i don't even car if im banned for saying it. its dbags like you that ruin gaming because of your know it all attitude and negativity. "it can't be done" bullshit. ill happily fuck off.

For some degree i agree with what you are saying in that the "it can't be done" attitude is not productive

 

BUT this is no place for personal insults and those won't help in making the other person believe what you are saying.

 

I don't agree with Lethys either but i respect his opnion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,


@namco:
As you are new to the forum, This is the first warning.
As you are supposed to have read the forum rules before posting, please respect them.
If you don't know where to find them, here is the topic.
Insulting other community members is not ok. 
In the case you would insist in this behavior, it could result in a ban.
Thank you for your understanding.

 

@gyurka66, @Aesir & @namco:

 

Regarding "ramming ships", it's not planned to implement such mechanics, for two reasons (and not just one):

1) This is not properly scalable (at least with current hardware tech & bandwith standards).
2) This would cause game balance issues.

 

To keep it simple:
We will only implement mechanics that are scalable and that can be balanced properly.

  • We won't implement anything that couldn't be scalable when applied to thousands of constructs and/or people concentrated in a small area. Unfortunately, Physics applied to voxels are among the things that enter this category. So no ramming ships.
     
  • We won't implement anything that could be abused for griefing or unbalanced gameplay. Even if the technical obstacle mentioned above is solved, it's already well known that some people will install some engines on some big rocks and will use it as cheap mass destruction weapons with little to no solution to protect against, with no risk taken for the aggressor. We won't implement game mechanics that unbalance the "risk vs reward" concept. So no ramming ships.

About the "why cpu is used, why not gpu?".
Yes a lot of things are calculated by gpus nowadays, physics included... when it's related to 3D meshes.
However, everything related to voxels are still (mostly) calculated with the cpu, and this includes physics applied to voxels. That's why it's necessary to have a decent cpu, with AVX support. If new generations of gpus start to be more "voxel friendly" then it might change some aspects of the problem, but for now it's just wishful thinking.

 

Also keep in mind that servers have a cost, and the servers we need are not cheap. 

Some games can be hosted on servers that aren't really expensive. Unfortunately Dual Universe doesn't enter in this category.

Even if adding gpus was a viable solution, the cost should remain reasonable if players don't want to see the monthly subscription rise accordingly. 

 

As this idea has been discussed several times, with the same answer, this thread is going to be locked.

 

Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...