test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Enabling collisions: Solutions to the issues.

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Back in the "Engineering Report - March 03, 2010" thread, the following was stated.
dstahl wrote: »
We had damage from collission on in early development but it was extremely frustrating to hit things unintentionally and explode.

What do you think of the idea of collission damage being related to an individual difficulty slider?


Then recently in the "Hard To Port!" thread, the following was stated.
dstahl wrote: »
we had ship collision damage on during early alpha and it was more frustrating than fun. Some will claim it adds more realism... sure... but its not fun and it was decided we would not use it. When we need to use it as a game mechanic to make a story more interesting we can utilize this for flavor, but to just turn it on wholesale was decidedly not a good idea (not to mention caused some griefing)


I can't recall ever reading a post that objected to the implementation of collisions due to a player not personally liking the idea, but I have read many posts objecting to the idea due to technical issues or the possibility of griefing.

There are many players who would really like collisions to be implemented and I am one of them, so I have read all of the posts on the subject that I could find and have taken mental notes. I have now spent this entire day thinking of solutions to these issues.


Notable issues (with collisions enabled on all objects).

  1. Players accidently or intentionally causing grief by colliding their ships with other player ships or NPC ships, whether they be friendly, neutral or the enemy, within star systems or sector space.

  2. Players accidently or intentionally colliding into objects in Sector Space.

  3. Players accidently or intentionally colliding into a Starbase or a Space Station that is not intended to receive damage or be destroyed.

  4. Players accidently or intentionally colliding into planets.

  5. Players accidently colliding into objects that are out of view while the camera is locked onto the enemy.

  6. Players accidently colliding into objects due to lag.

  7. NPC ships AI not being able to recognise and avoid objects within star systems.


Solutions.
  1. Do not allow players to collide their ships into other player ships or NPC ships; in reality this prevens griefing. In game reasons being that accidental collisions wouldn't happen if a competent officer is at the helm and no Starfleet or KDF captain would order their helmsmen to collide with another without good cause, and if their is good cause, the player can use the 'Ramming Speed' power.

  2. Do not allow collisions in sector space, in reality this prevents griefing. In game reasons being that with astrometrics view enabled, sector space is a visual representation of the sector, and even with astrometrics view disabled, due to the unrealistic scaling of objects, sector space is still a representation.

  3. Do not allow collisions with any Starbase or any Space Station; in reality this prevents damage or destruction which is not intended. In game reasons being that accidental collisions wouldn't happen if a competent officer is at the helm and no Starfleet or KDF captain would order their helmsmen to collide with a Starbase or Space Station without good reason, but there will most likely never be a good reason for this in game.

  4. Do not allow collisions with any planet; in reality this prevents damage or destruction which is not intended. In game reasons being that accidental collisions wouldn't happen if a competent officer is at the helm and no Starfleet or KDF captain would order their helmsmen to collide with a planet.

  5. Allow collisions with asteroids as well as other debris, and allow players to target these objects as hazard targets* instead of friendly, neutral or enemy targets. This will allow players to use abilities on these objects (tractor beam for example) as well as fire upon them resulting in their destruction**, just like you can with the comet in the episode "Night of the Comet" and using the tech that recognises if a player ship is going to warp into a object, a SFX can be created to give a player a proximity alert if the player is on a collision course (preventing issue #5), which is a feature in the game Star Trek Bridge Commander; in reality this feature would bring a fun new element to the game, allowing players to use objects in space to their advantage. In game reasons being that although you may have a competent officer at the helm, objects floating around in space present a hazard and mistakes can happen (although this does contradict what I have said above). Also, we have seen canon evidence showing us that objects in space can be manipulated with tractor beams, we have seen objects such as asteroids being destroyed by weapons fire and we have seen collisions with asteroids.

  6. To prevent collisions with objects due to lag, a player can choose to either destroy** the objects before they get close or maneuver around the objects at a safe distance.

  7. If certain objects are enabled as hazard targets*, NPC ships AI can be coded to avoid these objects, just as player ships automatically avoid other player ships when on auto-pilot in sector space.

*Hazard targets: A new type of target in game that appears when within the 10km range and which both factions are able to target, fire upon or use abilities upon.

**Destruction of hazard targets; When a hazard target is destroyed, either by weapons fire, the use of a power or by collision, there is a percentage chance that a data sample will spawn for use in crafting at Memory Alpha or Qonos.
  • The UI showing Hazard Targets within the 10km range (image).

  • A Hazard Target being fired upon (image).

  • A Hazard Target being destroyed by weapons fire (image).
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I like this idea if it's limited to a few hazard object scattered throughout the level. I'd just like to point out that as a carrier captain it can be incredibly hard to navigate an asteroid field without colliding with anything. Well I shouldn't say that, if I go at 1/8th throttle and full power to engines I might be able to. It would have to deal utterly superficial levels of damage if it was happening all the time because often times in a carrier one of the best ways to get around a space rock is to run into it until you slide off the side.

    As long as it was limited to only a few things scattered around though I'd be happy, but this seems more like a feature to be added in a random weekly episode and not something that should be like "Season FOUR! Now with HAZARDOUS ROCKS!". It's just a bit of a small thing for that.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    You suggest "superficial levels of damage", I would suggest varying levels of damage depending upon the hazard objects size, but never enough damage to cause the players ship to go from 100% hull integrity to 0% hull integrity.

    Also, if this idea was implemented and you entered a system with many hazards in your flight path, you could simply destroy them before you entered a dangerous proximity.


    You suggest that "this seems more like a feature to be added in a random weekly episode", well in fact a similar feature to this feature has already appeared in the Deferi series and the Devidian series, but I would personally like the feature in the OP to become a standard feature through out the entire game.

    Oh this reminds me, if this feature were to be added, PvP should probably have hazard targets turned off as a default option, but there should be an option for players to turn hazard targets on for at least private matches. Although if the option could be enabled for standard matched, that would also be awesome.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Alecto wrote: »
    You suggest "superficial levels of damage", I would suggest varying levels of damage depending upon the hazard objects size, but never enough damage to cause the players ship to go from 100% hull integrity to 0% hull integrity.

    Also, if this idea was implemented and you entered a system with many hazards in your flight path, you could simply destroy them before you entered a dangerous proximity.


    You suggest that "this seems more like a feature to be added in a random weekly episode", well in fact a similar feature to this feature has already appeared in the Deferi series and the Devidian series, but I would personally like the feature in the OP to become a standard feature through out the entire game.

    Oh this reminds me, if this feature were to be added, PvP should probably have hazard targets turned off as a default option, but there should be an option for players to turn hazard targets on for at least private matches. Although if the option could be enabled for standard matched, that would also be awesome.

    For me if they were prevalent it would become an incredible nuisance to destroy every one in my flight path, and even if they only did something like 3%-8% hull damage that can easily rack up to "oh TRIBBLE I died because I hit two space rocks during this mission." levels of damage. I understand how it would be perfectly fine for an escort but I have a huge hitbox and a turn rate that only lets me make a full 360 every minute and a half. Constantly tab targeting to clear a debris field is sadly something I'm so put off by that if a new Klingon episode came out with this feature I would respec for a BoP just so I could play it.

    I really see where you're going with it and in principle I like the idea but with my class of ship I simply will not be able to avoid all the space rocks, and I won't feel inclined to clear a huge field especially if a battle has already started. Therefore they'd have to deal 1% damage or something similar so that I don't end up losing a battle because 20% of my hull got taken out by my gigantic space brick.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Thanks for your awesome feedback, here are some solutions that first spring to mind for your carrier class.

    If you do not wish to be spamming the spacebar to clear your path, try one of the following options.


    1. Set a course to maneuver around the asteroid / debris field to reach your destination.

    2. If your destination is within the asteroid / debris field, launch fighters or BoPs and order them to destroy the hazard targets in your path.

    3. If your destination is within the asteroid / debris field, set full power to engines and auxiliary systems, then use abilities to increase your hull strength, polarise hull for example or use abilities to repair the damage caused by your ship ramming straight through the objects in your path (which to me sounds like it could be fun to watch the smaller rocks bounce off of your hull).

    LoL :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    There is one primary reason I say no to ANY collision damage: lag.

    All I need is to hit a lag spike on the way through one of STOs numerous asteroid fields and end up destroyed.

    I thought it was strange when I first started playing, but now I appreciate it. No to collision damage.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I support it in PvP and in missions when needed for the story. (since I was the one who brought it up begin with). I think if they did that, I would be satisfied.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Kasensal wrote:
    There is one primary reason I say no to ANY collision damage: lag.

    Hello, did you read this thread before you posted?

    I have provided solutions to that issue and if it really is such a big issue for you, will you be asking for many other elements of the game to be removed, like say general space combat, PvP and even little things like the mini game for scanning anomalies?

    Sorry about the sarcasm but I never see any positive or constructive posts from you, and without futher information, I couldn't possibly find a solution to your problem, but I'll try by starting with this below. :o


    Have you tried forwarding ports 7000-7500 to both your wireless router (if applicable) and / or firewall (if applicable)?

    Now coderanger specifically stated to me once that doing so makes no difference to performance, but I know and many other players know for a fact that it does increase connection performance.

    Have you attempted to use the nettest (click) program to check your connection speeds?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Good ideas, but I'm wondering if it's there isn't an easier way to deal with it.

    Add in deflector field as a damage type.

    http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Deflector_array

    http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Deflector_field

    Basically ships have deflector dishes is to deflect debris away from the ship, so definitely at warp (i.e. in sector space) collisions wouldn't really be a big deal.

    In all other areas, factor in size of the object and the speed you were going when you hit it, and that will figure into how much, if any damage you take.

    Basically, if I'm going full impulse into ESD, I'd imagine I would blow up (and Starfleet would probably be very angry with me) and if you can't swerve to avoid hitting a planet you deserve to blow up. But if I'm running around an asteroid field at half speed, my deflectors would negate most of the damage I would sustained.

    Larger asteroids could come through your deflector field and hit your regular shields, but it would take several of these to completely deplete your shields and might damage your hull. Careful flying would avoid that.

    Ships colliding with ships...that's a hard one to figure out how to handle. Larger ships plowing through smaller ships just because they can do it with minimal damage is the major factor to consider with that.

    That all being said, regarding NPC ships - I seriously doubt they can code them to avoid colliding with objects, or they probably would have done it already. BUT, we can dream can't we? :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Do you know how much freakin' server power it would take to make all those asteroids destroyable? There are like thousands on every map. It would bog down our machines and theirs. :P

    If you ever had lag fighting tons of Carriers spamming their spawns this would be 1000x worse. It's just not really feasible.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Wow, and you think the feedback about flying through the rings was bad? This would add a whole new level.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Considering a single torpedo is significantly more powerful than a nuke (just compact) I highly doubt running into these dirtballs would do much damage when your shields are up. Your ship might get dirty though. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Please make sure that you read the first post before posting and also please try to keep your posts positive and constructive. A post containing assumptions or speculations about how bad the feedback would be compared to feedback on another game mechanic is not helpful.


    Commadore_Bob; Did you read through the first post in this thread, if so what do you think and why would you only want this game mechanic to be used "in PvP and in missions when needed for the story"?


    Phenomenaut; Most of what you have posted has been covered in the first post, please read through the first post, for example I explained that the AI is already capable of auto-piloting the players ship to avoid another ship that can be targeted and I believe that is why the AI currently has trouble avoiding objects, because most are static, the current AI can not recognise the objects.


    USS Parallax; Interesting point in your first response, but I personally believe that if your graphics card and CPU can handle the present amount of debris (which can be modified in the video settings), then your system will be able to handle a large amount of hazard targets. Lastly, the fact that the players will be able to destroy the hazard targets means that they will dissapear, reducing system load and increasing performance.


    Please continue to provide civilised and constitutive posts, I'm off to bed, night all and thanks for posting.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Sounds interesting although I'm not entirely sure the significant computational, data & development overhead will be worth it. I understand, and respect, your beliefs in this area but there would be a performance impact as a result...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Alecto wrote: »
    Please make sure that you read the first post before posting and also please try to keep your posts positive and constructive. A post containing assumptions or speculations about how bad the feedback would be compared to feedback on another game mechanic is not helpful.
    .

    Yes it is. Why do you think it wouldn't?

    Bare bones, (like marketing), what would the reaction be?

    I don't care how "detailed" the suggestion is how do you overcome the base response?

    Edit. One last response. Why is it people think they post something they can dictate the responses? Rule one in forum posting, Unless you are a mod, you do not own, can not control, and can not dictate responses.

    Opening a thread does not make you the ruler of said thread. You post ideas, you get responses.

    Oh, you speculate that people will like it, I speculate a response. Like all QA problems, figure out how this won't be a problem.

    If your idea is thought out and dependable, you could explain away a simple "speculation", you haven't yet.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    wrong thread?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Heathen666 wrote: »
    Sounds interesting although I'm not entirely sure the significant computational, data & development overhead will be worth it. I understand, and respect, your beliefs in this area but there would be a performance impact as a result...

    Most of the tech required for the implementation of this suggestions is already in game on the Holodeck live server, or available for internal tests, but I believe the main development time would need to go into converting certain static objects in space, such as asteroids, into a hazard targets* which you as a player will be able to target.

    My guess would be that this could be achieved by Season 5, which considering Season 3 has been pushed back due to the STO teams efforts now concentrating on quality over quantity, should be around June, 2011.

    I can't give you any facts regarding how this suggestion would effect performance, but I have already stated my personal opinion on this subject above, but it is a good point.


    maina wrote: »
    Why do you think it wouldn't?

    A post containing assumptions or speculations about how bad the feedback would be (on a concept not in development) compared to feedback on another game mechanic (that is live and has received a patch update to solve the issues) is not helpful, because it is simply not relevant at this time.

    The Devidian series episode "Night of the Comet" was never tested on the Tribble test server, it was only tested internally, so that "bad" feedback was due to both a lack of experience controlling player ships as well as technical issues, which resulted in some players not able to view the rings around the star in the system.

    If this suggestion were to be implemented, it would be tested internally, and after QA approval, be pushed to the Tribble test server for public testing before it went to the Holodeck live server. So any positive or negative feedback posted would only benefit the new game mechanic before it went live.

    Any constructive posts that the suggestion receives now will benefit the implementation when the time comes and prevent "bad" feedback.


    maina wrote: »
    Oh, you speculate that people will like it, I speculate a response. Like all QA problems, figure out how this won't be a problem.

    If your idea is thought out and dependable, you could explain away a simple "speculation", you haven't yet.

    I did not "speculate that people will like it", I stated the following.
    Alecto wrote: »
    I can't recall ever reading a post that objected to the implementation of collisions due to a player not personally liking the idea, but I have read many posts objecting to the idea due to technical issues or the possibility of griefing.

    There are many players who would really like collisions to be implemented and I am one of them, so I have read all of the posts on the subject that I could find and have taken mental notes. I have now spent this entire day thinking of solutions to these issues.

    I posted links to the only two threads ever to have a developer talk about collisions since the launch of the game back in February and I have read all of the feedback on the subject.

    I have already presented all of the notable issues and presented solutions to those issues, if you would care to present a new problem that has not previously been mentioned, I would gladly attempt to find another solution to yet another issue, although I would appreciate it if I was not the only player attempting to do this.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I dislike the concept of collision damage.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Typical....a good thread, and everyone tries to find holes in it....:D

    I actually can relate to the Lag issue, but, again, if STO had some sort of pre-loading mech...or, alternatively, allowing single-player only missions to happen "off server", that would reduce lag.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Alecto wrote: »
    Commadore_Bob; Did you read through the first post in this thread, if so what do you think and why would you only want this game mechanic to be used "in PvP and in missions when needed for the story"?

    Yes. But as was discussed and decided in the thread I started two days ago on this very subject, in which Dan Stahl posted, I came to the conclusion that enabling it in PvP and in certain missions only is the best course of action.

    I'm not trying to come up with a system where everyone who warps into the Sol System can start ramming into one another and I'm not looking for a Zap Brannigan "course with some chest hair". I want a way where I can ram into people in PvP or PvE and cause damage to both ships REGARDLESS of what the health of my ship is.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Leviathan99; Any reasons why?


    Commadore_Bob; First of all, let's clear something up, which you have brought up twice now, it doesn't matter who asked the first question or who posted the first post or thread about collisions or any other subject. It was dstahl who anserwed my question back in the "Engineering Report - March 03, 2010" thread, but wingimar originally asked the question, but it doesn't matter.

    I'll also ask this question again, why would you only want this game mechanic to be used "in PvP and in missions when needed for the story"?

    If you had read my original post, you would know that I also did not "come up with a system where everyone who warps into the Sol System can start ramming into one another".

    So what you're saying is, you want the limitation on the ability 'Ramming Speed' to be taken away so you can use it at 100% hull integrity, correct? Which would allow you to do exactly what you just described in PvP.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Alecto wrote: »
    Leviathan99; Any reasons why?


    Commadore_Bob; First of all, let's clear something up, which you have brought up twice now, it doesn't matter who asked the first question or who posted the first post or thread about collisions or any other subject. It was dstahl who anserwed my question back in the "Engineering Report - March 03, 2010" thread, but wingimar originally asked the question, but it doesn't matter.

    I'll also ask this question again, why would you only want this game mechanic to be used "in PvP and in missions when needed for the story"?

    If you had read my original post, you would know that I also did not "come up with a system where everyone who warps into the Sol System can start ramming into one another".

    So what you're saying is, you want the limitation on the ability 'Ramming Speed' to be taken away so you can use it at 100% hull integrity, correct? Which would allow you to do exactly what you just described in PvP.

    I'm going to ignore the rest of that because it's clutter to what we are talking about. Just putting that up front.

    I don't want to have to use an ability to do what my ship does already. My ship flies around and runs into things. Why do I now have to hit a button to make that collision register damage when I'm in a battle? Leave Ramming Speed in; just make it count as a speed boost (speed + collision = damage). But in battle I shouldn't have to hit a button every time I want to run my ship into someone.

    I want to be in an Escort and make a suicide run at a Carrier. The problem now is if I am not below a certain amount of health, I'm not allowed to ram the carrier. I want that limitation gone.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    The last thing I want is to do a "Gather Samples" mission afraid to hit full impulse because of all the damn asteroids. I hate ship injuries as it is.

    Or doing an engagement having to worry about the stuff I can't see because my camera is tracking the enemy.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I speculate that any universal-collision damage system implemented into the game would cause more frustration and dissatisfaction than pleasure/fun for the majority of players.

    The only possibility I can think is that it would be enabled on advanced and/or elite difficulty.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I dislike it because it's an extra thing to think about. I feel pretty satisfied with the feel of space on the whole and don't really want or need a lot of added complexity there. I feel fairly stimulated now and collision damage would be overstimulation for me.

    You want to pack more in there, add more passive/pre-battle setup abilities and more choices of abilities. But thinking about collisions seems unfun and overstimulating, IMHO.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I don't want to have to use an ability to do what my ship does already. My ship flies around and runs into things. Why do I now have to hit a button to make that collision register damage when I'm in a battle? Leave Ramming Speed in; just make it count as a speed boost (speed + collision = damage). But in battle I shouldn't have to hit a button every time I want to run my ship into someone.

    The problem with allowing players to ram each other without activating a power (which is the same Captain Picard giving an order to ram another ship), is that it will allow players to cause grief to other players both accidentally and intentionally, but I don't see any reason why the limitations on the 'Ramming Speed' power can't be removed, or at least reduced, as the power does have a cooldown time, which should mean you can't respawn, then instantly get back into combat, then ram another ship.

    SP3CTREnyc wrote:
    The last thing I want is to do a "Gather Samples" mission afraid to hit full impulse because of all the damn asteroids. I hate ship injuries as it is.

    Or doing an engagement having to worry about the stuff I can't see because my camera is tracking the enemy.

    How many damn asteroids do you hit when you do a "Gather Samples" mission? I don't hit any as I hate getting stuck on them or sliding off of them, so I avoid them which is very easy to accomplish even with lag and I have stated that a collision should never reduce your ships hull integrity from 100% to 0%, which means no "injuries", unless you are playing on advance or elite and continue to purposely ram into each hazard target you see without activating any hull repair or hull defence powers.

    I also provided a simple solution to allow players to avoid colliding with hazard targets which are off screen, which is called a proximity alert and if you are really worried about colliding with a hazard target, destroy it before you enter a dangerous proximity.


    FizixManLeviathan99; You do realise that my suggestion is to only allow collisions with hazard targets, which would be asteroids and various other debris right?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Alecto wrote: »
    The problem with allowing players to ram each other without activating a power (which is the same a Captain Picard giving an order to ram another ship), is that it will allow players to cause grief to other players both accidentally and intentionally, but I don't see any reason why the limitations on the 'Ramming Speed' power can't be removed, or at least reduced, as the power does have a cooldown time, which should mean you can't respawn, then instantly get back into combat, then ram another ship.

    But that's why I limited that ability to combat and not social areas or sector space. I keep hearing this "griefing" excuse. But isn't the point of PvP massive griefing? I come into battle shooting everything in my path and running my ship into everyone. But my collisions do as much damage (percentage) to me as it does to them. So I can hardly call that griefing.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Commadore_Bob; What if you accidently ram into another ship, a friendly, enemy or NPC? What if everyone on a PvP team decides that they are going to do no fighting and just ram every enemy ship, provided that they miss their friendly ships in the process?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I understand you want collisions, Alecto, but it isn't practical. At all.

    This would be populating the map with more enemy targets, which means more entities for the server and your computer to keep track of. With Cryptic's habit of populating systems with large amounts of space debris, this is impossible without a huge load on your PC and Cryptic's server. It'd be like taking the performance hit from a Fleet Action everywhere you go.

    I'm running an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0 GHz, 4 GB DDR3 RAM, a Sapphire AMD Radeon HD 5850 1 GB, and a 600-watt power supply. Even I'm concerned about the performance hits. I got massive slowdown to ~8 FPS during the space portion of the Empok Nor mission in the Trivas system.

    Not only could this slow down PCs like mine, it'd cause hell for people with lower-end computers that barely chug along on bare minimum settings.

    In short, no. Don't implement this. Ever.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Really I'd like to see it implemented anywhere except sector space. In sector space you couls easily bump into a system especially if you're travelling a long way so get up to get a drink or take a leak (I know I'm not the only one who has done it). Further, such a collision could easily be millions of kilometers apart due to the scale of sector space. Lastly, any collision like that at warp would cause destruction of the ship, and then we're going to have shops exploding in sector space.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Alecto, I realize this. But in this case, players have to figure out and keep track of which objects are hazardous. I don't think it's a good idea to say, "These asteroids are bad, avoid them. But these asteroids are ok, don't worry about them." I've never been fond of teaching players a mechanic that only occurs some of the time.
Sign In or Register to comment.