Okay, the sip has a velocity and the velocity has a direction. It is possible to use the ship’s velocity’s direction to define the front of the ship for gameplay sake. Do you agree?
Then let’s move on from this silly discussion.
You can also use the x axis to define “the front”. It makes as much sense.
When people say that ship are sphere, they specifically refer to the fact, that ships DON’T have a front - because having a front requires to have a direction, which spheres don’t have.
It’s only silly because you both are making efforts to not understand what I exactly wrote.
Ships in Eve are spheres with speed vector. All is implied by that single sentence that you made efforts not to take into account.
It’s obvious that ships have a direction ; yet they don’t. Your game client is imagining a direction. The rules that manage the game are at server side, which does not know of a direction.
So a mechanism that relies on a ship’s direction is a nonsense to start with. This was very simple explained with “Your ship in Eve is a sphere”
You are also deliberately (I hope otherwise it’s sign of even worse idiocy) ignoring their points and what they have written.
You are arguing over meaningless terminology, which you keep shifting slightly, and not even bothering to give a full explanation when you do.
@Renly_Rohan The server sees your ship as a sphere with momentum (or none, whatever term someone wants to use here to be fussy). The client creates a visual for you using that momentum to give you things like ship facings. Your ship facing in any given direction is only true for your specific client. If a bunch of ships are all stationary, different clients will see them facing different ways, based on various elements of code magic that happen behind the scene.
This means that as soon as you are bumped, the momentum changes and the client will ‘turn’ your ship to match the new momentum based on that code magic. But the server does not see a ‘front’ to your ship. Only clients see that and it has no game mechanics meaning.
On the actual topic, the issue with bumping is that it takes away control from the player, it is a form of stun lock so to speak and thus is a highly fun killing mechanic.
If we were to address bumping I would suggest vastly reducing the impact it has on a persons movement and thus ability to control their ship, but in return creates a ‘warp disruption’ effect, perhaps of a new kind in order to maintain the ability to eventually warp while under the effect. This maintains the current ability to disrupt someone’s warping while using this, without the stun lock loss of control effect.
With regards to the initial Op, Everyone align, and then fleet warp once everyone is aligned at a time they aren’t bumping you. since they can’t delay their bump. Then you aren’t leaving people behind solo to be jumped on by a solo war target.
1 Like
No it isn’t. What you are saying SOUNDS LIKE the software is constantly processing all points that make that sphere for the sake of motion when in fact it pretty much has to account for only one or a few and then just generate the sphere around that point or points.
I suppose it would be possible to calculate motion based on one point in the center of the sphere and that would make the arcs ships make as they fly, and the visual model ship simply spins on that point aligning with the direction of motion. If that is the case then some of what I have been saying is wrong.
But that still leaves open the question of how direction is determined. There MUST be some means of noting the alignment of the ship because if its motionless or drifting and I simply hit accelerate the ship will proceed in the direction of the model’s nose and NOT in the last direction of movement of the sphere. That means there IS a means of detecting the nose of the model.
However it is true that the ship model, when bumped, will align to the direction of motion, which means my idea using the nose angle for avoiding a victim being bumped into another ship and getting flagged would not work as well as I thought but I do think would work well enough. I think the probability of making a chain reaction bump to get victims up to sufficient speed AND momentum AND hit on other ship with its nose is ridiculously improbable even if the victim is AFK and IMPOSSIBLE if the pilot is taking evasive action.
Please explain your testing methodology for this and what results you got. Because I’m thinking there are very very few edge cases you can create this from.
However I can promise you, there is no ‘nose’ as far as the server is concerned.
It is likely however that lacking a direction the fact the client has created an arbitrary direction for the ship hitting the accelerator results in the client simply adding that direction onto the movement call to the server, as if you had selected a direction.
100% promise you it is not impossible. Bumping ships far far outmanoeuvre their targets. And evasive action is a joke when we are talking about the sorts of ships people bother bumping.
Fly your ship with some object in your field of view. Stop your ship. Watch it drift. HIt accelerate. Note the object in your field of view. Repeat. You never select a direction but you accelerate in the dirction of the ship model nose.
They would not be able to get the timing and positioning right for a chain reaction on any target ship to do all that needs to be done to get the target ship to achieve the required velocity AND momentum AND hit a separate bumpee ship with the target’s nose IF the target ship is trying to maneuver…not even if the agressor’s intended bumpee ship was doing its damnest to be in the just right point in space for that to happen.
MAYBE if they take several minutes positioning AFTER weeks of training AND the target ship is completely not moving. Even then it seems really unlikely they could be remotely consistent. You are talking about setting up a billiards trick shot in 3D space with no fixed points. Forget about it!
That’s nice. I will believe it when I see it and not before.
I have seen plenty of evidence that people die when jumping off cliffs.
All I have seen to evidence your claims here is your meandering and poor explanations combined with plenty of insulting condescension and willful misinterpretation of what I have said.
Of course. But on what basis was it set? Obviously the client can tell the front end from the back end, you just don’t want to accept it.
but you have not seen the case of you dying.
It’s not poor ; it’s the actual exact one. It’s totally correct, minimal so your brain does not fry over the amount of information and I don’t waste my time explaining thing to someone to idiot to understand it. Seem like it was already too much, you are a willingful ignorant of reality.
No, it does not TELL it, it IMAGINES it.
Just because the client imagines it, does not mean it actually exists.
That’s the basics of Eve mechanisms, if you don’t know that then you are just ignorant of the topic.
Yes, you literally are.
You say that there is a direction just because you see one.
That’s wrong.
Nope. You are ignoring posts. Talk to the hand. 
Yes.
You wrote that there is obviously a direction . While there is no direction.
This post makes no sense to start with, and is just insults.
Ok now that you realized you were wrong to start with, and that your initial idea was bad for the sole reason of your ignorance, your post lost any meaning. What a nice example of cognitive dissonance.
You wrote that there is obviously a direction . While there is no direction. You were wrong to assume that something you see actually exists.
Thanks, you too.
1 Like
Am I correct in thinking that proficient bumpers align using steering shorcuts for up, down, left and right? I personally tried that, but the lag between hitting the key and course correction was horrific and I gave up.
Or do they use the drop down menu to select “approach” when bumping?
Or approach with last minute course corrections using hotkeys?
Try manual steering by doubleclicking in space. That’s what I use when I for example I bump ships off tether and it seems to work pretty well.
Turn your camera to look at the enemy ship from your ship, align in their direction, turn on propmod and if they for example move down a little, doubleclick under their ship to adjust.
It helps to have that setting turned on where you can see ship velocity vectors.
1 Like
It’s not my word.
It’s CCP’s dev’s.
The sub-warp physic model is not actually ships in space. It’s not even submarines in space.
Now you don’t trust my memory, yeah I got it. You don’t want to believe something that goes against your goal.
You keep repeating strawmen. What the hell is wrong with you? Nobody is saying they are actually ships in space. Nobody. If you cannot or will not address things people actually said, then why the hell are you still posting?
So you say with no proof. Get the info by telepathic link?
And I did not say you said that.
I am talking about the model : what the eve servers are actually managing, and how.
The model used for Eve is NOT describing ships in space. It is not adequate for, it is not enough to, it’s not aimed at.
Likewise !
Funny thing that you place communication at the same level as telepathy. Talks about you.
And you keep repeating that, AS IF anyone said it was false at least recently in this thread. Put a sock in it already.
Well your word is not adequate proof. Get lost.
False. You expect us to take your word against all the evidence we have that contradicts your claims. Its not going to happen. If you can’t put up a link to some evidence, or post something we can test for ourselves we are not buying your story. Deal with it.
You don’t have evidence.
All you have, is ignorance.
More nonsense.
I repeat that, because you assume it is. If you were not, you would not be asking for proofs about it is not.
Actually I can. I just won’t, because you are a dick.
I don’t want to search for the discussions where a CCP dev says you are wrong. That’s YOUR job, as a dick.
Since you can’t understand something as simple as “they are spheres” there is no point in telling you a protocole, that I already used, and proved you are wrong. You just lack the ability to understand it.