Jump to content

Discussion about End-warp Obstacles and Ramming


Recommended Posts

Due to numerous reports of this happening, including pictures, lets talk about end of warp obstacles and ramming in general.

 

Here is an example of a net placed exactly in front of a warp exit. You have about 10-15 seconds to change direction right after end of warp, but most people won't pay attention and ram into whatever is in front of them.

 

evidence1.thumb.jpg.d88424547f997eea41431197a0ec870d.jpg

 

evidence2.thumb.jpg.4bd77f905de1dd6cb3b1502e5d5f0fa6.jpg

 

evidence3.jpg.0006f60e60ba3dc370ad745787c1fb91.jpg

 

This has been a thing for a while now, but we now have some reports of ship destruction due to warp destination constructs being purposefully placed in the way.

One way to get around it is of course to pay attention and maneuver the ship immediately after warp destination is reached. However, there is a lot of discussion to be had about warp obstruction and ramming in general.

 

For example:

 

1) disabling collisions between cores: this has already been done with trees so I imagine it can be disabled for static / dynamic cores, probably will increase server performance too, but also an effective way of getting rid of warp traps.

2) disable damage on collision with constructs: an alternative of the above, except collision will cause velocity changes as expected between collisions. We don't have bumper car physics, could be a bit strange, but this also gets rid of warp traps.

 

My personal favorite and very biased option:

3) reverse ramming logic (THE RIGHT LOGIC): it's really strange to consider that an L core going at 30,000km/h can be obliterated by a stationary xs core. It just doesn't make any sense from a logic perspective, although the reason for this implementation probably has roots in server performance considerations. I think collision damage should be shared between constructs and distributed according to mass and voxel logic. Added benefits are: COMPLETELY LAG FREE MARKETS... because naturally people will start ramming, hence a necessity for garages / safe parking facilities, opportunities for business, etc. I would go so far as to say that static cores should be rammable as well. This has huge ramifications for space stations... there will be a need for space mine fields or wreckage around stations to prevent people from completely destroying stations with ramming dynamic cores. Space stations will need engagement rules such as: if dynamic construct is going faster than X amount inside a certain radius around space station, fire all weapons at dynamic core. There are all sorts of interesting ramifications for this gameplay.

 

There is something important here I think: it is not ok to simply add a rule to the EULA saying warp traps are illegal. This is a sandbox, emergent gameplay will always happen, and a bunch of players can give a hell of beans about what the rules are. It's in poor taste when a game cannot / will not implement systems to prevent certain actions from happening but simply adds a "RULE" of conduct. In some cases it is certainly appropriate (abuse, discrimination, etc) but in this case, this is emergent gameplay and adding a RULE will not solve this issue. In this situation NQ actually has an opportunity to capitalize on the situation and create game mechanics to either solve this issue or enable ramming AND add mechanics in order to counter ramming.

 

On the other hand, warp traps such as these can be cancerous. This is a tactic used extensively in Eve, see here: 

 

 

Do you think warp traps are an acceptable emergent gameplay mechanic? What are your issues with it? What can be done to solve it? Again, to reiterate, simply adding a rule of conduct doesn't work here in my opinion. NQ should really capitalize on this opportunity... I think they failed in the district 15 drama, they could have done some epic stuff there... problems can be turned into opportunities, lets contribute to the discussion and find opportunities :)
 

Edit: After writing this post, I have received confirmation that players are "netted" both when:
1) player finishes warp, comes to a complete stop, then accelerates/or planet gravity pulls the player, and they end up in a strategically placed net
2) player finishes warp and gets damaged in net BEFORE coming to a complete stop from the warp

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Due to numerous reports of this happening, including pictures, lets talk about end of warp obstacles and ramming in general.   Here is an example of a net placed exactly in front of a warp e

NQ could solve this and create a prototype granular safety system at the same time.   1) Move all warps to planets to a single location around the planet (perhaps one Aphelia warp beacon per

I really don't want to see garbage PvP in DU. This is EvE cancer! 

Posted Images

hqdefault.jpg

That guy also found that it doesn't make sense from a logic perspective that his multi tons truck groing 50+km/h get completetly obliterated by that little piece of metal going 0km/h!


1) disabling collision between core, completly remove a lot of gameplay option, such as raming, good skill piloting, docking, landing on platform etc...
2) disable damage between constructs (so litteraly the same that your n1), would do the same thing, remove a lot of gameplay such as raming, piloting skills, soft docking, soft landing etc.
3) things can be improve in term on what take damage, and especially voxel damage should happen, but that would increase a lot of the load on the server!

4) make it simpler, warp end point can be randomised, making those traps harder to plan, It would remove some gameplay option in pvp (traps!) but while warping is into a safezone, it shouldn't really remove such gameplay as it is not a pvp area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, UbioZur said:

That guy also found that it doesn't make sense from a logic perspective that his multi tons truck groing 50+km/h get completetly obliterated by that little piece of metal going 0km/h!

In space this wouldn't make sense still... of course we're talking physics and that's hardly something that can be talked about in a game... warp speed, even sub-light, basically increases mass of an object, so even a stationary pole here would not be effective.

In terms of randomization... how about remove that whole warping to planet mechanic completely and you're only allowed to warp to beacons? :) 

I don't like the idea of randomized warp exits.

Or warp along vector to X distance. Gives some cool gameplay opportunities... like bumping people into pvp zone :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, IvanGrozniy said:

In space this wouldn't make sense still... of course we're talking physics and that's hardly something that can be talked about in a game... warp speed, even sub-light, basically increases mass of an object, so even a stationary pole here would not be effective.

In space ... planets are moving around a star, and we are talking more about relative velocity than velocity ... so I agree with you, game is not reality, it shoudl be designed for gameplay and not realistic behaviour.
The core problem come from the fact that there is no voxel damage/physics... Space Engineer have voxel damage/physics, you will never be able to run a server of a 10's of DU current size on it! especially that every voxel are small blocks and can be different shapes!

Not all planets should have no warping, long term, the game should have a bigger safe area (for non pvp players) but also a massive non safe area (that include planets), for pvp and player inpact in the world.

Warp along vectors, it is almost already the case, as it is in Eve. From one planet to the other. they difficult things is about balancing pvp gameplay and non pvp gameplay, they can't make it too hard for pvper to set traps (else it's boring for them), but they can't make it too easy for them to set traps (it kills experience for non pvper).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Especially in the safe zone Triangle NQ created this problem by removing any options for us as players to deal with these ourselves. And as there has not been a word on this from NQ there is nothing to give us a sense that hey will take ownership of this issue or that they even considered this when they made their choice regarding te safezone.

 

Not that either of these two should come as a surprise since both are pretty much a pattern with NQ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NQ could solve this and create a prototype granular safety system at the same time.

 

1) Move all warps to planets to a single location around the planet (perhaps one Aphelia warp beacon per planet)
2) Disable space construct deployment in their immediate vicinity.

3) Have some of these beacons outside the PvP zone, some inside and differing distances from the planet/safe zone.

 

This would create what's essentially "gates" in Eve, which function as choke points people find players to fight with. Perhaps interstellar gates or asteroid belts will function this way, but I doubt many solar systems will be created soon and most of the traffic will happen across planets. Moreover, varying distances to the safe zone would create "hisec", "lowsec", "nullsec" type of risk variations without needing NPC enforcement like Eve does. Planets can be safer to warp, but less rewarding to mine; and vice versa.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Olmeca_Gold said:

NQ could solve this and create a prototype granular safety system at the same time.

 

1) Move all warps to planets to a single location around the planet (perhaps one Aphelia warp beacon per planet)
2) Disable space construct deployment in their immediate vicinity.

3) Have some of these beacons outside the PvP zone, some inside and differing distances from the planet/safe zone.

 

This would create what's essentially "gates" in Eve, which function as choke points people find players to fight with. Perhaps interstellar gates or asteroid belts will function this way, but I doubt many solar systems will be created soon and most of the traffic will happen across planets. Moreover, varying distances to the safe zone would create "hisec", "lowsec", "nullsec" type of risk variations without needing NPC enforcement like Eve does. Planets can be safer to warp, but less rewarding to mine; and vice versa.

Despite all of the suggestions so far this seems like a simpler solution

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

Not that either of these two should come as a surprise since both are pretty much a pattern with NQ.

To be honest this would be a great opportunity to respond to the community and develop mechanics around this issue, several great solutions have been proposed already... another solution might be just to disable damage after end of warp for n number of seconds, that seems to be the easiest to implement and pretty fast but... how long did it take for NQ to finally say anything about docking other people's constructs on owned territories? .... :( 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, elizaroff said:

Why make EVE-Online from DU? These are two different games. The jump must be in the direction of travel.

The player must control movement in the star system. EVE abstract game with 2.5 D

 

Both games are single shard sandbox MMOs. Ofc they are mechanically different. But there are very basic principles that makes this genre interesting. One of them is the risk/reward balance across alternative activities. Another is PvP possibility and emphasis. Both of these are inherent to my suggestions. So yes, in these regards DU should be like Eve. Else there is really no point in playing altogether in the same universe. We could just make constructs on our local computers, mine planets or fight with our constructs on LAN or in 60 people server instances like SC or Battlefield.


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Olmeca_Gold said:

 

Both games are single shard sandbox MMOs. Ofc they are mechanically different. But there are very basic principles that makes this genre interesting. One of them is the risk/reward balance across alternative activities. Another is PvP possibility and emphasis. Both of these are inherent to my suggestions. So yes, in these regards DU should be like Eve. Else there is really no point in playing altogether in the same universe. We could just make constructs on our local computers, mine planets or fight with our constructs on LAN or in 60 people server instances like SC or Battlefield.


 

I am against some mechanics who spoil EvE-online. Many things in EvE leave no chance for the victim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Creating a single landing zone for warp end points would IMO not be a good idea. Besides the requirement of gates due to the server structure in EVE, you also have a session change timer of a minute during which you are invulnerable and invisible when you use a gate and arrive at the destination. When warping to a gate you also have the option to scan for presence of other players from a long way away and unless NQ implements a similar mechanic to allow for arrivals to orientate and observe the surrounding area this would only end in disaster and a gank fest.

 

I believe DU needs to keep it's open world form and so no single landing zone locations. NQ choose to not remove the safe zone around Alioth, Madis and Thades so they will now need to bring in a mechanic to either deal with griefing traps or give us a mechanic to do so ourselves.

 

Personally I'd like to see NQ accommodate a mechanic where reported trap owners have their invulnerable status removed  and can be hunted in safe zones as well as see their constructs be attackable. Easy solution, provides gameplay and will deter many from even trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

Personally I'd like to see NQ accommodate a mechanic where reported trap owners have their invulnerable status removed  and can be hunted in safe zones as well as see their constructs be attackable. Easy solution, provides gameplay and will deter many from even trying.

Too good to be ever implemented by NQ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I have crashed into one of these "fly traps" or warp traps. 

Btw, I have seen them at Jago, Ion, Alioth, and Madis....from the same person, and I know its the same person in the above screen shots. 

Some of the warp traps are several L long, and it becomes impossible to actually get out of the way, especially when you get grabbed by the Planet's Gravity and you are trying to slow down. 

SUGGESTION FOR FIX: 

NO SPACE STATIONS IN PLANETARY SAFE ZONES PERIOD. 

So that 2.5 SU safe zone around all planets. Nope, no Space Stations allowed at all. Current space stations are all moved to right outside of the safe zone. 

The other issue is slow boating between planets. There are already issue with people putting stations in the way as well. At this point there does need to be something done. We need some what safe travel, and space stations also need to take some damage from objects hitting them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is really a good example of something where NQ seems to ignore the discussion, where we bring up what I'd consider serious concerns, as far as communicating. It may be something they noticed and are working on internally but because they do not engage with us on it nor communicate anything on it, at least the appearance is they are ignoring this.

 

For many I feel that is the most concerning issue regarding NQ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Creating an invulnerable timer when exiting from warp for say a minute would probably resolve this issue as well, it would make most traps pointless and allow you to navigate around a station which is in the way.

 

I would also kind of expect the game can determine your landing position and so know if there is any obstacles. From there an evasive vector could be inserted (automatically)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

Creating an invulnerable timer when exiting from warp for say a minute would probably resolve this issue as well, it would make most traps pointless and allow you to navigate around a station which is in the way.

 

I would also kind of expect the game can determine your landing position and so know if there is any obstacles. From there an evasive vector could be inserted (automatically)

 

 

in EvE you can find another way around the Rancer, Tama, HED-GP...  The end-warp point must be chosen by the player. At one point there will be a permanent "gate-camp".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

Which is why I do not think having a central landing zone for warp is a good idea. It would pretty much be what NQ does best though, work around the symptom instead of fix the issue.

You talked about the "invulnerable timer" this is about the gate and about the game where there are many gates. The game has only one system in which you can launch a comet that contains 1kk of plutonium, which is only found in comets.This will be enough for people to start killing. Do not copy completely eve-online. )))

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...