Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zxenis
Caldari Gladiators of Rage Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 17:08:00 -
[1]
I'm lost about optimal and falloff. Assuming I have an optimal at 10,000 and falloff of 10,000 I am getting confusing details.
I thought between 0 - 10000 is the best place to be, but do I actually want to keep as close to 10000 as possible? Whats the damage/accuracy difference between say 1,000 and 10,000?
An then at 9,999 and 10,001?
I heard falloff is when I have chances of missing. Whats the damage/accuracy difference between 11,000 vs 19,000?
Don't need specifics as in hard numbers, hopefully just explanation of the mechanics determining what happens at these ranges.
Thanks alot.....Z
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527)
|
Karox Lominax
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 17:25:00 -
[2]
Theres a thread about this in the new players forum I just read earlier today, but as I cant be bothered to look:
If youre shooting between 0 distance and your falloff, you dont miss due to range. If youre shooting between your optimal + falloff, you have a linear chance to miss up to 50% of the time. If youre shooting between that and optimal+falloff x 2 your chance to hit moves linearly closer to 0. Above optimal + 2x falloff, you wont be in range.
This doesnt take into account possibly missing due to tracking issues, only purely range based chance to hit.
|
Test Subject10
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 17:28:00 -
[3]
.
|
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.13 15:16:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Karox Lominax If youre shooting between 0 distance and your falloff optimal, you dont miss due to range. If youre shooting between your optimal + falloff, you have a linear accelerating chance to miss up to 50% of the time. If youre shooting between that and optimal+falloff x 2 your chance to hit moves linearly closer to 0: 6.25% to be exact. Above optimal + 2x falloff, you wont be in range: with less than 6.25% chance to hit, it is not worth counting on those odds.
Fixed!
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services
|
Posted - 2009.07.13 15:45:00 -
[5]
Karox is referring to my reply here.
As Ki Tarra has pointed out, the relation of hit chance to distance is not linear and the hit chance at optimal + 2x falloff isn't 0 but close to 0. Both points I did not specify in my reply so as to not to confuse the New Citizens too much
FREE! jumpclone service: Forum thread|Podlog |
Teqtua
|
Posted - 2009.08.13 18:32:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Teqtua on 13/08/2009 18:33:36 Edited by: Teqtua on 13/08/2009 18:32:50 So just to be clear - is this then correct?
<image isn't working ... I'll fix in a bit> ....
and the 0% of Opt+FO2 is 'nearly 0%' actually.
|
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.14 14:46:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Teqtua So just to be clear - is this then correct?
Looks right. Originally by: Teqtua and the falloff ranges decrement to the number so 0% of Opt+FO2 is 'nearly 0%' or down to 6.25% then 15,000+ (in the example) would graph down to 0% chance.
If you want to fill in a bit more detail for your graph, <10km = 100%, 11km = 84%, 12km = 50%, 13km = 21%, 14km = 6.25%, 15km = 1%, 16km = 0%. Originally by: Teqtua So those ships that fly in close even under 1500 would still be in optimal range, just the other stats come into play (sig radius, speed, turrent tracking speed, etc....)
Correct: at shorter ranges tracking (which includes sig radius etc) is the dominate factor. Tracking is also a factor at longer ranges, but tends to be less significant. The effects of tracking and fall off are multiplied together.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |