Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
182
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:31:00 -
[121] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:It does mean they are incorrect and unreal. GǪexcept that they exist and work exactly like that. So what's incorrect and unreal about them? Quote:Why would a turret system exist that cancels out the natural turning of a hull. Because the hull turning is too imprecise and/or too violent and it's better and easier to just let the turret handle it all on its own. Quote:In real life the hull turning turrets + tracking speed > just tracking speed. GǪexcept when you're turning in the wrong direction, at which point tracking speed - hull turning < just tracking speed. At any point when you turn into the target's line of travel, you have reduced your tracking ability (but not his). This makes it far more preferable to always turn away from their line of travel, which makes you predictable, which makes you easy to hit. With a freely rotating turret, there's no telling where you're going nextGǪ First time in 10 years but have to concede you make pretty good argument and I can accept this as a pretty decent explanation for the orbit issue :) |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:19:00 -
[122] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Weiz'mir wrote:Thank you Tippia for your explaination. However I am still not convinced at all...
May I ask if there is anyone here who agrees with Tippia ? I do. People here trying to argue are considering the target is not moving at all. The reason turrets have tracking, is because they are not shooting a stationary target. When that target IS stationary, there is no tracking issue.
Murk Paradox wrote:
When that target IS stationary, there is no tracking issue.
Murk Paradox wrote:
When that target IS stationary, there is no tracking issue.
In Eve there are traking issues! If you orbit a still ship or even a celestial, you will face tracking issues.
That is why :
- Eve mechanics don't match with real physics ; - you are not agree with Tippia who considers that Eve mechanics match with real physics. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15634
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:24:00 -
[123] - Quote
Weiz'mir wrote:In Eve there are traking issues! If you orbit a still ship or even a celestial, you will face tracking issues.
That is why :
- Eve mechanics don't match with real physics ; GǪexcept that there is no conflict with real physics GÇö only with your assumptions about which reference frames apply for the different parts of the equation. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Riyal
Fluffles Inc. xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:46:00 -
[124] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:In real life the hull turning turrets + tracking speed > just tracking speed. GǪexcept when you're turning in the wrong direction, at which point tracking speed - hull turning < just tracking speed. At any point when you turn into the target's line of travel, you have reduced your tracking ability (but not his). This makes it far more preferable to always turn away from their line of travel, which makes you predictable, which makes you easy to hit. With a freely rotating turret, there's no telling where you're going nextGǪ
I was reading the thread and thinking of a reason why future space engineers would have fully stabilized turrets. I think this is a great is a great example.
Having turrets effected by the hull rotation would only(?) be useful in an orbiting situation, every(?) other type or ship movement would be detrimental to your tracking. Pilots would have to fly in a way that minimized the angular velocity between the hull movement and the enemy, which sounds like adding some crazy complications to me.
So there is a logical reason for the turrets to behave the way they do, and its not just a product of way objects are handled in Eve.
I think I got that right, it is hot and I am tired 'n all. |
Ciyrine
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:04:00 -
[125] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Tippia wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:It does mean they are incorrect and unreal. GǪexcept that they exist and work exactly like that. So what's incorrect and unreal about them? Quote:Why would a turret system exist that cancels out the natural turning of a hull. Because the hull turning is too imprecise and/or too violent and it's better and easier to just let the turret handle it all on its own. Quote:In real life the hull turning turrets + tracking speed > just tracking speed. GǪexcept when you're turning in the wrong direction, at which point tracking speed - hull turning < just tracking speed. At any point when you turn into the target's line of travel, you have reduced your tracking ability (but not his). This makes it far more preferable to always turn away from their line of travel, which makes you predictable, which makes you easy to hit. With a freely rotating turret, there's no telling where you're going nextGǪ First time in 10 years but have to concede you make pretty good argument and I can accept this as a pretty decent explanation for the orbit issue :)
The only time ud be turning in the wrong direction is when ur trying to escape from the fight at which point uve already decided u cant kill the target so the damage u could do is irrelevant. Whether fighting solo or in fleet given 2 ship designs. One where the ships hull assists tracking because turret is fixed to hull vs a turret that is actually hindered tracking the faster i orbit my target i would pick the firat option even if that means turret tracking is impossible if i turn away from the target
Currently turrets suffer tracking if ur going 5km/s orbiting around a BS and that is just poor ship design other than a game balance thing. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15634
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:15:00 -
[126] - Quote
Ciyrine wrote:The only time ud be turning in the wrong direction is when ur trying to escape from the fight GǪor when you're trying to close with the target because the current orbit is wrong for you. Or when you're trying to alter the orbiting plane. Or when you're trying to jink into a higher-angular movement (which would be especially effective if you had turrets that inherited the ship orientation). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Whitehound
1557
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:33:00 -
[127] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:That transversal =/= to radial, and that radial velocity matters in EVE and that transversal does not. You cannot have an angular velocity without a transversal speed and vice versa. Both values are closely related to one another and are dependent. They also behave similar. Therefore does it not matter unless you want to be precise.
Most people will understand what you are saying when you use one or the other. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Ciyrine
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:37:00 -
[128] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ciyrine wrote:The only time ud be turning in the wrong direction is when ur trying to escape from the fight GǪor when you're trying to close with the target because the current orbit is wrong for you. Or when you're trying to alter the orbiting plane. Or when you're trying to jink into a higher-angular movement (which would be especially effective if you had turrets that inherited the ship orientation).
None of those are turning in the wrong direction.
The only direction thats in the wrong direction is away from ur targets direction. Every other direction will assist ur turrets tracking speed. None of that matters though because what matters is that currently in eve any time ur ship is faster than the target its bad for ur turrets and thats bad ship design for pretend eve engineers.
I prefer my ship design where faster ship benefits from its speed than ur/eves design where faster ships are bad for their own turrets. Except for game balance. In which case i can deal with that. But lets call a cow for what it is and not pretend its the prefered engineering method in pretend spacw combat |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15652
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:47:00 -
[129] - Quote
Ciyrine wrote:None of those are turning in the wrong direction. Yes they are. You have to turn into the target's line of travel to get closer GÇö turning away brings you farther away. Changing the orbiting plane explicitly means you will no longer maintain a parallel orbit to him (i.e. turning away from his line of travel), so you have to turn into him. Jinking to increase tracking issues (for him) means turning into him because travelling away from him can only decrease it GÇö you're trying to GÇ£cross the TGÇ¥ as it were.
Quote:The only direction thats in the wrong direction is away from ur targets direction. Eh, no. That's the direction in which your ship's movements will help improve the tracking of a locked turret (turret rotation + ship rotation). In every other direction, it either makes no difference, or the turret's tracking has to move directly counter to the ship's rotation (turret rotation - ship rotation).
Quote:None of that matters though because what matters is that currently in eve any time ur ship is faster than the target its bad for ur turret No. It's just as bad when he's faster than you, and for exactly the same reason.
Quote:I prefer my ship design where faster ship benefits from its speed As luck would have it, EVE gives you just that. Faster ships dictate the positioning and range of the fight, and high speed often comes with high agility, which allows you to dictate a lot of the tracking as well.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
435
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:03:00 -
[130] - Quote
Ciyrine wrote:Tippia wrote:Ciyrine wrote:The only time ud be turning in the wrong direction is when ur trying to escape from the fight GǪor when you're trying to close with the target because the current orbit is wrong for you. Or when you're trying to alter the orbiting plane. Or when you're trying to jink into a higher-angular movement (which would be especially effective if you had turrets that inherited the ship orientation). None of those are turning in the wrong direction. The only direction thats in the wrong direction is away from ur targets direction. Every other direction will assist ur turrets tracking speed. None of that matters though because what matters is that currently in eve any time ur ship is faster than the target its bad for ur turrets and thats bad ship design for pretend eve engineers. I prefer my ship design where faster ship benefits from its speed than ur/eves design where faster ships are bad for their own turrets. Except for game balance. In which case i can deal with that. But lets call a cow for what it is and not pretend its the prefered engineering method in pretend spacw combat
If I'm being orbited by a fast ship in a clockwise rotation and I'm being outflown, I'm definitely going to try to reroute my current orbit to try to drive that attacker around where his speed is not so superior. Be it turning a different direction to get him to turn around and hope for a lucky hit as his speed slows way down in a u-turn, or to find a way to realign myself to either force him to bump into something or use my environment in any other way as a benefit.
This is just a couple of ways to slow down a ship that is far faster than your own. "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
|
Whitehound
1557
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:28:00 -
[131] - Quote
Weiz'mir wrote:In Eve there are traking issues! If you orbit a still ship or even a celestial, you will face tracking issues.
That is why :
- Eve mechanics don't match with real physics ; - you are not agree with Tippia who considers that Eve mechanics match with real physics. There is a difference between stationary targets and stationary ships in EVE. Ships have a speed attribute and one can see it on the overview. The same with their angular velocity and their transversal speed. Some targets however do not have a speed. Their speed is not just simply 0, but it does not exist as an attribute and neither do these have a transversal speed or an angular velocity. It is possible to lock onto these targets and shoot them, but without having tracking issues. And there are objects which can be shot at, but take no damage regardless if one is flying or standing still. There once was a bug or a feature that resulted in 0 damage when one was shooting from 0km distance until it was changed (when it also became known as a bug when before it was working as intended).
I think we should be glad about the fact that God is not a programmer and that real physics is not bugged sometimes. EVE physics is however the physics of another and entirely different universe. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 08:17:00 -
[132] - Quote
Whitehound wrote: There is a difference between stationary targets and stationary ships in EVE. Ships have a speed attribute and one can see it on the overview. The same with their angular velocity and their transversal speed. Some targets however do not have a speed. Their speed is not just simply 0, but it does not exist as an attribute and neither do these have a transversal speed or an angular velocity. It is possible to lock onto these targets and shoot them, but without having tracking issues.
It may confirm that the tracking issue with stationary ships is, from CCP point of view, a game mechanic to balance fights (and not a reproduction of real physics, otherwise the same issue would have existed with all targets). |
Whitehound
1557
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 08:35:00 -
[133] - Quote
Weiz'mir wrote:It may confirm that the tracking issue with stationary ships is, from CCP point of view, a game mechanic to balance fights (and not a reproduction of real physics, otherwise the same issue would have existed with all targets). The game started as a board game, so I have heard (might be a fact or might already be a myth).
The formula to the hit'n'miss-chance seems more like it originated from a statistics approach to PvP than being a physics approximation (though modern physics is not shy of using statistics). When you match the tracking speed with the angular velocity does it not result in a 100% hit as one would expect it for a physics simulation, but rather does it result in a perfect 50%, meaning, the player gets a fair chance (50:50-chance) to hit or to miss. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15657
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 10:40:00 -
[134] - Quote
Weiz'mir wrote:It may confirm that the tracking issue with stationary ships is, from CCP point of view, a game mechanic to balance fights (and not a reproduction of real physics, otherwise the same issue would have existed with all targets). GǪbut, again, there is nothing GÇ£unrealGÇ¥ about the physics involved in how turrets in EVE work. The only thing that's maybe a bit odd about them is the engineering decision GÇö effectively Infinity Ziona complaint GÇö but the rest is basic vector maths and overlapping reference frames.
Whitehound wrote:The formula to the hit'n'miss-chance seems more like it originated from a statistics approach to PvP than being a physics approximation (though modern physics is not shy of using statistics). When you match the tracking speed with the angular velocity does it not result in a 100% hit as one would expect it for a physics simulation, but rather does it result in a perfect 50%, meaning, the player gets a fair chance (50:50-chance) to hit or to miss. The hit formula is a statistic one, yes,which is pretty much the norm for RPGs, but the actual tracking is exactly you'd expect: the relative angular velocity of the target. And yes, that's maybe what trips people up: the assumption that the formula has anything to do with physics, when it's just a benchmark for a statistic based on simple trigonometry of relative motion. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
600
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 08:00:00 -
[135] - Quote
Weiz'mir wrote:Thank you Tippia for your explaination. However I am still not convinced at all...
May I ask if there is anyone here who agrees with Tippia ? Tippia is correct. All of you who say that the turret mechanics in EVE are unrealistic simply do not understand real-world physics as well as you think you do. For one, you have to abandon your petty notions of absolute frames of reference. There are no absolutes. Everything is relative.
Here's something I'd like some of you to try: get on a merry-go-round, sit near the edge, and get it spinning pretty fast. Now try to point your arm at the center. You may note that you must constantly keep adjusting your arm's angle as you revolve around the centerpiece. This is exactly what your turrets must do. It's because neither your arm nor your turrets are locked in place.
I think what a lot of you are doing is picturing your ship as an absolute reference point. When the ship moves through its orbit and turns accordingly to face the target, you think your guns don't have to move because they don't have to move relative to the ship. But the ship moved relative to the universe, and the guns tried to stay put. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
Whitehound
1563
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 08:19:00 -
[136] - Quote
Tippia wrote:The hit formula is a statistic one, yes,which is pretty much the norm for RPGs, but the actual tracking is exactly you'd expect: the relative angular velocity of the target. And yes, that's maybe what trips people up: the assumption that the formula has anything to do with physics, when it's just a benchmark for a statistic based on simple trigonometry of relative motion. I am not so sure about it as you are. It is all assumptions to me.
The whole idea of a weapon signature seems broken from a physics point of view. It is implemented as if the shots would scatter over the exact area regardless of the distance. You can find yourself sitting in a battleship with a signature radius of maybe 380m and your large guns will scatter their shots right at the muzzle over a 400m radius.
I am sure one can find some exotic distribution to explain this behaviour, but I doubt that the creator of the mechanic had thought about this. It is more likely a completely fictitious formula and only loosely related to real physics.
I am not complaining about it. I think it is good fun. I just would not want to be too serious about its meaning. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Blackpool Shale
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 09:36:00 -
[137] - Quote
Tippia wrote: GǪbut, again, there is nothing GǣunrealGǥ about the physics involved in how turrets in EVE work. .
There have been enough examples of real world situations than demonstrate you are incorrect. You have a very large misconception about how this works.
Fact is, an orbiting ships turrets would need to rotate much less than the stationary ships turrets to shoot them. I am not going to go into it in detail, there are many people in this thread who have explained it very well to you. CCP use this "unreal" physics to balance the game.
Source: A physics degree + teaching qualification. I use this example to discuss rotational frames of reference with students when making this exact point. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15674
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 09:54:00 -
[138] - Quote
Blackpool Shale wrote:There have been enough examples of real world situations than demonstrate you are incorrect. No. There have only been tons of examples that don't replicate how EVE turrets work, that's all.
Quote:Fact is, an orbiting ships turrets would need to rotate much less than the stationary ships turrets to shoot them. I am not going to go into it in detail, there are many people in this thread who have explained it very well to you. You're going to have to go into a quite a lot of detail to describe how something can traverse in a full circle without rotating through all 360-¦ of that circle. Please go ahead.
The actual fact is, an orbiting ship's turrets have to traverse 2-Ç radians in the orbit time in order to keep facing the target. Coincidentally, as you move around the target in a full, the target's turrets have to traverse 2-Ç radians in the same orbit time. So we have a case of 2-Ç/t-á=-á2-Ç/t, which explains why turrets on both sides see the same angular velocity in the opposite party. Your confusion (same as those who provided incorrect examples) is that you assume that the turret must absolutely, positively, inherit the ship's rotational frame, when no such absolute requirement exists.
Source: Algebra 101 and Mechanics 101.
Quote:CCP use this "unreal" physics to balance the game. GǪexcept that there is nothing unreal about it. Gimbals have been around for millennia; gyro-stabilisation for almost a century and a half. Disconnecting one body's rotation from that of another body is done on a daily basis GÇö possibly even in your own household.
Quote:Source: A physics degree + teaching qualification. Poor students. Oh, and no, you use a radically different example, which does not actually disprove my point. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
229
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 10:37:00 -
[139] - Quote
I think all three velocity are handy having in your overview.
Angular velocity to determine if I can hit it wit hit guns.
Velocity to determine if the dudes at warp speed before I decloak and engage. This also tells me how hard I will be DPS with missiles.
Traversal to work out instantly if he is burning at me or away from me when I land and whether we are about to sling shot in a fight. |
Whitehound
1575
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 10:38:00 -
[140] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:Fact is, an orbiting ships turrets would need to rotate much less than the stationary ships turrets to shoot them. I am not going to go into it in detail, there are many people in this thread who have explained it very well to you. You're going to have to go into a quite a lot of detail to describe how something can traverse in a full circle without rotating through all 360-¦ of that circle. Please go ahead. I believe his point is that when a ship orbits a (stationary) ship then the ship itself rotates around its own axis. This is also what one can see on the screen. An orbiting ship (almost) never points into the same direction. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
|
Ptraci
3 R Corporation The Irukandji
1368
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 11:05:00 -
[141] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:That transversal =/= to radial, and that radial velocity matters in EVE and that transversal does not.
Transversal velocity is PROPORTIONAL to radial velocity when the orbit is very small. Happy now? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15675
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 12:42:00 -
[142] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:I believe his point is that when a ship orbits a (stationary) ship then the ship itself rotates around its own axis. Yes, and my point is that the ship's rotation is irrelevant since the turrets don't inherit that rotation GÇö they are stabilised towards the GÇ£universalGÇ¥ frame of reference, not the ship's. As a result, your turrets will have to track their target at the same angular velocity as the target's turrets have to track you: because it's the same rotation over the same timeframe.
This is not GÇ£unrealGÇ¥ or GÇ£incorrectGÇ¥ since mechanisms that offer this kind of disconnection between an object and its carrier is something that's existed since antiquity. The only conceivable oddity is the matter of why the EVE ship engineers have chosen this particular solution, but I've already suggested a lore answer to that one. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Rain6638
Team Evil
560
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 13:01:00 -
[143] - Quote
if you don't know how to calculate formulas while preserving units, you're going to have a bad time.
just curious: who thinks it's a good idea to have transversal showing in overview. raise your hand [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Whitehound
1598
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 15:39:00 -
[144] - Quote
Tippia wrote:This is not GÇ£unrealGÇ¥ or GÇ£incorrectGÇ¥ since mechanisms that offer this kind of disconnection between an object and its carrier is something that's existed since antiquity. The only conceivable oddity is the matter of why the EVE ship engineers have chosen this particular solution, but I've already suggested a lore answer to that one. Even you have to admit that this is at least confusing if not annoying to anyone new to EVE or only new to the tracking formula, and not everyone cares for the lore.
I for one care little for EVE's lore and can very well sympathize with the problem. I do read a lot of SciFi and when stories become disconnected from today's science then it is not science fiction any longer, but it becomes fantasy and magic. Or as Arthur C. Clark said it "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." It also means that good science fiction needs to be distinguishable from magic or I might just start playing WoW. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15675
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 15:44:00 -
[145] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Even you have to admit that this is at least confusing if not annoying to anyone new to EVE or only new to the tracking formula, and not everyone cares for the lore. Oh, sure. It's kind of fun how in a game that's really more of a submarine simulator, this particular mechanic is of a distinctly non-naval persuasion. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Rain6638
Team Evil
560
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 15:45:00 -
[146] - Quote
confusing? more like a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a burrito! [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Ciyrine
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 16:20:00 -
[147] - Quote
I would prefer the full naval version of eve where the guns are cannons fixed to ship. If were going full blown advanced gyro stabilized guns loosely connected to hull then lets go full battlestar galactica where deceleration requires flipping ship around to use main thrusters. And turning off engines u coast indefinitely but cant turn |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
602
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 16:32:00 -
[148] - Quote
It would be nice of more of the EVE physics could be realistic. I've drafted up many ways a realistic inertia system could work, but apparently CCP (and almost everyone else in the industry) is happier forcing us through fluidic space where we might encounter the Undine.
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:Traversal to work out instantly if he is burning at me or away from me when I land and whether we are about to sling shot in a fight. You'll want radial velocity to tell how fast the target is moving toward or away from you. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
Rain6638
Team Evil
561
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 17:15:00 -
[149] - Quote
PVP IFR FTW [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Detarn
Wolves of the North
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 18:54:00 -
[150] - Quote
I think this thread has been very interesting. The specifics about the tracking and angular velocity issues in EVE are an important part in becoming a seasoned pilot.
There is no arguing that CCP has decided to make all ships "points in space" and require the turrets to be required to pivot on those points against the universal X/Y/Z frame of reference purely for balance issues. This is one of those decisions that are made to still make it a "Game" just like he fluid dynamics model that is used which allows us to stop without flipping our ships around
As far as the argument about how it would work in real life: I believe that Tippia is trying to defend the decision above (about the turrets) that CCP made by saying that it is actually applicable to 'real' space combat.
It's not.
Yes gyrostabilizers would be used in space but there is a very important point which has not new brought up and that's: delta...
In space, there is no universal frame of reference if you are considering a two competing-space ship-system. If you consider to identical ships that have come in contact with each other that have decided to fight its easy to see how it would work:
Any weapon system has to be connected to the ship via whatever pivot mechanism. The ONLY time that the pivot mechanism would have to move is when it's target has a velocity DELTA (meaning change in speed) relative to the ship in which it's connected. That velocity delta can be in any relative component (radial, angular, or transversal) as long as a delta exists, tracking is necessary.
So in space, if two identical ship and there computers have done velocity prediction and evasive maneuvering so that each is in a mutually centric orbit there gun's pivot mechanisms could stay stationary and they would blow each other out of the sky. It's only when a pilot attempts to jocky his position and change the components of his orbit or current velocity relative to the other ship that either ships guns would have to move.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |