EVE Search - Results of extensive damage/hit testing on Entropy (1618)

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Game Development Forum

Results of extensive damage/hit testing on Entropy (1618)

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page

Author	Topic
Sewell	Posted - 2004.08.02 22:40:00 - [121] Quote: Estarriol P. S.: Please call off your lapdogs. That is, those who have nothing to add except 'I have no understanding of the details of this discussion, but i think TornSoul is a swell guy who does great work so he must be right.' I may not be qualifed to judge which one of you are correct with regards to the facts (no math degree here ). But I do know one thing: you, Estarriol, is extraordinary rude, and is acting like a total idiot. I really don't wan't this to turn into a flame-fest, because I enjoy reading about stuff like this, game mechanichs, nubers etc. But the way you make your case and the way you have replyed to TornSould is totally uncalled for. If you have a diverging opinion, please state it in a clear and concise manner, instead of insulting someone else, it is just lame, and makes you look like a fool.
Sewell	Posted - 2004.08.02 22:40:00 - [122] Quote: Estarriol P. S.: Please call off your lapdogs. That is, those who have nothing to add except 'I have no understanding of the details of this discussion, but i think TornSoul is a swell guy who does great work so he must be right.' I may not be qualifed to judge which one of you are correct with regards to the facts (no math degree here ). But I do know one thing: you, Estarriol, is extraordinary rude, and is acting like a total idiot. I really don't wan't this to turn into a flame-fest, because I enjoy reading about stuff like this, game mechanichs, nubers etc. But the way you make your case and the way you have replyed to TornSould is totally uncalled for. If you have a diverging opinion, please state it in a clear and concise manner, instead of insulting someone else, it is just lame, and makes you look like a fool. That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange µons, even death may die.
Sewell	Posted - 2004.08.02 22:40:00 - [123] Quote: Estarriol P. S.: Please call off your lapdogs. That is, those who have nothing to add except 'I have no understanding of the details of this discussion, but i think TornSoul is a swell guy who does great work so he must be right.' I may not be qualifed to judge which one of you are correct with regards to the facts (no math degree here ). But I do know one thing: you, Estarriol, is extraordinary rude, and is acting like a total idiot. I really don't wan't this to turn into a flame-fest, because I enjoy reading about stuff like this, game mechanichs, nubers etc. But the way you make your case and the way you have replyed to TornSould is totally uncalled for. If you have a diverging opinion, please state it in a clear and concise manner, instead of insulting someone else, it is just lame, and makes you look like a fool.
DeFood	Posted - 2004.08.02 23:48:00 - [124] Originally by: TornSoul This is ofc my subjective view, but to me its very perceptible, and it's always bugged me.... Ah, Damage is what happens when you hit the target. The randomness of it really doesnt bother me. What bothers me are more the incongruities of the "to hit" model. Which is, I think where you started when you posted the... uh, exponential dropoff curve - your damage degrade curve. That curve, really defines, in the ideal case, how both of us would like the to-hit chance to be calculated. But the roll for damage is really a seperate issue. There is no reason to expect that striking targets dead center does more damage than striking them near the edge. Its possibly just as likley that critical components are near the edge of a ship as to the center. So its best to do two rolls. One roll determines if the target is hit or not. Then, if the target IS hit, THEN you roll for damage, using a different distribution to model the chances of the shell hitting a sharply angled surface and glancing off, or hitting some face surface dead on and penetrating for maximum damage. As it goes, I dont like the fact that: 1. the it becomes 4x harder to hit at double the distance isnt implemted. 2. The guns dont have an accuracy in radians quoted. 3. The speed of the projectile isn't a factor. Shooting at a fast frigate 80km away - scre the "optimal distance" calculation, at great ranges, moving (well, we have predictive computers, so dynamically accellerating targets) should be hard to hit! 4. It bothers me that a lasers damage is not proportional to the power grid or capacitor draw of the weapon. It is energy that does damage, and lasers are simply way of taking an output from a power supply - in megawatts, storing it in a capacitor, and then delivering the accumulated number of joules of energy into a small area on the targets hull. thats what bugs me. The flatness vs the gausianness of the damage distribution? small fries compared to the big glaring lack of rigorous physics issues :P
DeFood	Posted - 2004.08.02 23:48:00 - [125] Originally by: TornSoul This is ofc my subjective view, but to me its very perceptible, and it's always bugged me.... Ah, Damage is what happens when you hit the target. The randomness of it really doesnt bother me. What bothers me are more the incongruities of the "to hit" model. Which is, I think where you started when you posted the... uh, exponential dropoff curve - your damage degrade curve. That curve, really defines, in the ideal case, how both of us would like the to-hit chance to be calculated. But the roll for damage is really a seperate issue. There is no reason to expect that striking targets dead center does more damage than striking them near the edge. Its possibly just as likley that critical components are near the edge of a ship as to the center. So its best to do two rolls. One roll determines if the target is hit or not. Then, if the target IS hit, THEN you roll for damage, using a different distribution to model the chances of the shell hitting a sharply angled surface and glancing off, or hitting some face surface dead on and penetrating for maximum damage. As it goes, I dont like the fact that: 1. the it becomes 4x harder to hit at double the distance isnt implemted. 2. The guns dont have an accuracy in radians quoted. 3. The speed of the projectile isn't a factor. Shooting at a fast frigate 80km away - scre the "optimal distance" calculation, at great ranges, moving (well, we have predictive computers, so dynamically accellerating targets) should be hard to hit! 4. It bothers me that a lasers damage is not proportional to the power grid or capacitor draw of the weapon. It is energy that does damage, and lasers are simply way of taking an output from a power supply - in megawatts, storing it in a capacitor, and then delivering the accumulated number of joules of energy into a small area on the targets hull. thats what bugs me. The flatness vs the gausianness of the damage distribution? small fries compared to the big glaring lack of rigorous physics issues :P
DeFood	Posted - 2004.08.02 23:48:00 - [126] Originally by: TornSoul This is ofc my subjective view, but to me its very perceptible, and it's always bugged me.... Ah, Damage is what happens when you hit the target. The randomness of it really doesnt bother me. What bothers me are more the incongruities of the "to hit" model. Which is, I think where you started when you posted the... uh, exponential dropoff curve - your damage degrade curve. That curve, really defines, in the ideal case, how both of us would like the to-hit chance to be calculated. But the roll for damage is really a seperate issue. There is no reason to expect that striking targets dead center does more damage than striking them near the edge. Its possibly just as likley that critical components are near the edge of a ship as to the center. So its best to do two rolls. One roll determines if the target is hit or not. Then, if the target IS hit, THEN you roll for damage, using a different distribution to model the chances of the shell hitting a sharply angled surface and glancing off, or hitting some face surface dead on and penetrating for maximum damage. As it goes, I dont like the fact that: 1. the it becomes 4x harder to hit at double the distance isnt implemted. 2. The guns dont have an accuracy in radians quoted. 3. The speed of the projectile isn't a factor. Shooting at a fast frigate 80km away - scre the "optimal distance" calculation, at great ranges, moving (well, we have predictive computers, so dynamically accellerating targets) should be hard to hit! 4. It bothers me that a lasers damage is not proportional to the power grid or capacitor draw of the weapon. It is energy that does damage, and lasers are simply way of taking an output from a power supply - in megawatts, storing it in a capacitor, and then delivering the accumulated number of joules of energy into a small area on the targets hull. thats what bugs me. The flatness vs the gausianness of the damage distribution? small fries compared to the big glaring lack of rigorous physics issues :P
Selim	Posted - 2004.08.03 03:29:00 - [127] Edited by: Selim on 03/08/2004 03:31:26 Originally by: dalman Originally by: Selim Edited by: Selim on 02/08/2004 02:09:57 The best thing for CCP to do right now would to be give TomB a 'vacation' and hire someone who tries to add content instead of taking away options. Every patch for the past few months has been for taking away options instead of adding content. And even though he is trying to balance ships, he doesnt know a damn thing about what he's doing. Guns are screwed up, cruisers are useless, cruiser guns are useless, most battleship guns are, too, and projectiles were hurt the most. Only missiles are good now. People use frigate neutron blasters on cruisers now, because they are better damage over time than even the best cruiser guns. I dont think they are even listening to this thread... Sigh, Selim, stop it. Plz tell me ONE battleship gun which is useless. Because there is none. Unlike prior to the patches, where there were some useless guns. And no, small guns does NOT perform better on cruisers than medium guns, except against frigates if you don't have a webbifier fitted (but without one you'll not hit a frigate anyway). And CCP are working on cruisers. (like the 2:nd bonus for example). Nevermind. Projectiles are just pathetic nowdays. If they werent, why do you see so many more Ravens and Apocs around now? I'm just a bit ****ed off at all the nerfs, thats all. The game needs content and actual fixing, not nerfs...
Selim	Posted - 2004.08.03 03:29:00 - [128] Edited by: Selim on 03/08/2004 03:31:26 Originally by: dalman Originally by: Selim Edited by: Selim on 02/08/2004 02:09:57 The best thing for CCP to do right now would to be give TomB a 'vacation' and hire someone who tries to add content instead of taking away options. Every patch for the past few months has been for taking away options instead of adding content. And even though he is trying to balance ships, he doesnt know a damn thing about what he's doing. Guns are screwed up, cruisers are useless, cruiser guns are useless, most battleship guns are, too, and projectiles were hurt the most. Only missiles are good now. People use frigate neutron blasters on cruisers now, because they are better damage over time than even the best cruiser guns. I dont think they are even listening to this thread... Sigh, Selim, stop it. Plz tell me ONE battleship gun which is useless. Because there is none. Unlike prior to the patches, where there were some useless guns. And no, small guns does NOT perform better on cruisers than medium guns, except against frigates if you don't have a webbifier fitted (but without one you'll not hit a frigate anyway). And CCP are working on cruisers. (like the 2:nd bonus for example). Nevermind. Projectiles are just pathetic nowdays. If they werent, why do you see so many more Ravens and Apocs around now? I'm just a bit ****ed off at all the nerfs, thats all. The game needs content and actual fixing, not nerfs...
Selim	Posted - 2004.08.03 03:29:00 - [129] Edited by: Selim on 03/08/2004 03:31:26 Originally by: dalman Originally by: Selim Edited by: Selim on 02/08/2004 02:09:57 The best thing for CCP to do right now would to be give TomB a 'vacation' and hire someone who tries to add content instead of taking away options. Every patch for the past few months has been for taking away options instead of adding content. And even though he is trying to balance ships, he doesnt know a damn thing about what he's doing. Guns are screwed up, cruisers are useless, cruiser guns are useless, most battleship guns are, too, and projectiles were hurt the most. Only missiles are good now. People use frigate neutron blasters on cruisers now, because they are better damage over time than even the best cruiser guns. I dont think they are even listening to this thread... Sigh, Selim, stop it. Plz tell me ONE battleship gun which is useless. Because there is none. Unlike prior to the patches, where there were some useless guns. And no, small guns does NOT perform better on cruisers than medium guns, except against frigates if you don't have a webbifier fitted (but without one you'll not hit a frigate anyway). And CCP are working on cruisers. (like the 2:nd bonus for example). Nevermind. Projectiles are just pathetic nowdays. If they werent, why do you see so many more Ravens and Apocs around now? I'm just a bit ****ed off at all the nerfs, thats all. The game needs content and actual fixing, not nerfs...
Soren	Posted - 2004.08.03 05:14:00 - [130] Got your mail to be a BH yet torn? Excellent work. _________________________________________________________

Soren	Posted - 2004.08.03 05:14:00 - [131] Got your mail to be a BH yet torn? Excellent work. _________________________________________________________
Soren	Posted - 2004.08.03 05:14:00 - [132] Got your mail to be a BH yet torn? Excellent work. ________________________________________________ Inappropriate signature. --Jorauk pfft.. all pictures were off the CCP website =\ --Soren
GardenerOfEden	Posted - 2004.08.04 00:59:00 - [133] Fascinating Let me see if I would expect the same statistical data working with the concepts involved as follows à DAMAGE: The damage potential of a projectile is independent of range û explosive energy of warhead remains constant throughout trajectory and while the shell is imbued with additional kinetic energy when fired, that energy is not reduced over distance travelled by atmospheric friction or significant gravitational forces in space. Before continuing I need to make two points at this juncture. Firstly, an energy weapon would do less damage at range û on the basis that it consumes its own payload over distance. This can also be contrasted with missiles that like projectiles also have a static payload but which, unlike projectiles, can alter their kinetic energy as a consequence using propulsion to manoeuvre onto the target (one way to conceptualise cruise missiles) and by using propulsion to rapidly accelerate towards target (one way to conceptualise torpedoes). Secondly, effective damage can be scaled up by hitting a vulnerable part of the target in a David vs Goliath ômagic bulletö sense. However, this is really a matter that concerns the target itself and where it is hit. While range influences accuracy, which in turn influences where the target is hit, it does not change the damage of the shot as such; accuracy merely changes the consequences of that inherent damage. GAME MECHANICS: The Mechanism What I would have done in terms of combat mechanics at this point is to process each shot by taking a snap shot of the targetÆs range and transversal velocity at the time the weapon is fired and calculate what amount of tracking would be necessary to hit the target. Note target size is irrelevant in this context as that merely influences the ease with which those parameters can be obtained with scanning sensors albeit that one would expect smaller frigate like targets to be faster moving i.e. higher transversal velocity potential. If the tracking that was required is within the parameters of the weapon adjusted by the effect of tracking modules and the Motion Prediction skill then treat the shot as a hit and process damage, which may at that point involve considering the randomised chance of inflicting special/critical damage (note this is the only time a random number would be utilised) and would be influenced by the Surgical Strike skill. In order to add a bit more realism, and lessen the harsh extremes of an all or nothing hit or miss, what I would do is check in the case of miss if the miss was within a slightly enhanced range of tracking (e.g. the weaponÆs adjusted parameters plus a percentage increase influenced by the targetÆs actual physical size) and if so award a ôconsolation prizeö of the damage reduced in proportion to the extent of the miss to simulate a partial hit / glancing blow / proximity detonation (e.g. the weaponÆs parameters + 5% = ¢ damage though this does not have to be linear and actually should not be linear from a realism perspective). There would be no chance of doing inflicting special/critical damage with this consolation damage. Note when calculating damage it would also be possible to adjust it for weapon / ammunition type (e.g. an explosive shell might still do a lot of consolation damage in contrast to an energy weapon that really needs to actually hit in order to damage) and range (e.g. if it is accepted that an energy weapon consumes its own payload then damage should be reduced in proportion to distance of target from weapon). GAME MECHANICS: The Problem A problem exists at this point with determining whether a shot hits or misses at the time it is fired as the shell still needs to travel along its trajectory and impact the target. Being able to align the weapon at the point fired at is only part of the equation. The other part is the target behaving as predicted so as to actually be at the point aimed for at the exact time the shell arrives such that the shell impacts the target. This is harder to do with a more agile target, which gives it more potential to act unexpectedly, and harder to do if the target is at a greater distance, which gives it more time to act unexpectedly. Hence some form of adjustment is required for the sake of realism and because otherwise a ship with a weapon that does a lot of damage that can positioned at a distance so that it is easier to track targets but which hits the target instanteously might be too powerful û oops anybody who isnÆt a Tempest captain with 1400mm howitzers would have used the word ôwouldö instead of ômightö sorry EVE is a massive social experiment of human interaction facilitated by computer technology
GardenerOfEden	Posted - 2004.08.04 00:59:00 - [134] Fascinating Let me see if I would expect the same statistical data working with the concepts involved as follows à DAMAGE: The damage potential of a projectile is independent of range û explosive energy of warhead remains constant throughout trajectory and while the shell is imbued with additional kinetic energy when fired, that energy is not reduced over distance travelled by atmospheric friction or significant gravitational forces in space. Before continuing I need to make two points at this juncture. Firstly, an energy weapon would do less damage at range û on the basis that it consumes its own payload over distance. This can also be contrasted with missiles that like projectiles also have a static payload but which, unlike projectiles, can alter their kinetic energy as a consequence using propulsion to manoeuvre onto the target (one way to conceptualise cruise missiles) and by using propulsion to rapidly accelerate towards target (one way to conceptualise torpedoes). Secondly, effective damage can be scaled up by hitting a vulnerable part of the target in a David vs Goliath ômagic bulletö sense. However, this is really a matter that concerns the target itself and where it is hit. While range influences accuracy, which in turn influences where the target is hit, it does not change the damage of the shot as such; accuracy merely changes the consequences of that inherent damage. GAME MECHANICS: The Mechanism What I would have done in terms of combat mechanics at this point is to process each shot by taking a snap shot of the targetÆs range and transversal velocity at the time the weapon is fired and calculate what amount of tracking would be necessary to hit the target. Note target size is irrelevant in this context as that merely influences the ease with which those parameters can be obtained with scanning sensors albeit that one would expect smaller frigate like targets to be faster moving i.e. higher transversal velocity potential. If the tracking that was required is within the parameters of the weapon adjusted by the effect of tracking modules and the Motion Prediction skill then treat the shot as a hit and process damage, which may at that point involve considering the randomised chance of inflicting special/critical damage (note this is the only time a random number would be utilised) and would be influenced by the Surgical Strike skill. In order to add a bit more realism, and lessen the harsh extremes of an all or nothing hit or miss, what I would do is check in the case of miss if the miss was within a slightly enhanced range of tracking (e.g. the weaponÆs adjusted parameters plus a percentage increase influenced by the targetÆs actual physical size) and if so award a ôconsolation prizeö of the damage reduced in proportion to the extent of the miss to simulate a partial hit / glancing blow / proximity detonation (e.g. the weaponÆs parameters + 5% = ¢ damage though this does not have to be linear and actually should not be linear from a realism perspective). There would be no chance of doing inflicting special/critical damage with this consolation damage. Note when calculating damage it would also be possible to adjust it for weapon / ammunition type (e.g. an explosive shell might still do a lot of consolation damage in contrast to an energy weapon that really needs to actually hit in order to damage) and range (e.g. if it is accepted that an energy weapon consumes its own payload then damage should be reduced in proportion to distance of target from weapon). GAME MECHANICS: The Problem A problem exists at this point with determining whether a shot hits or misses at the time it is fired as the shell still needs to travel along its trajectory and impact the target. Being able to align the weapon at the point fired at is only part of the equation. The other part is the target behaving as predicted so as to actually be at the point aimed for at the exact time the shell arrives such that the shell impacts the target. This is harder to do with a more agile target, which gives it more potential to act unexpectedly, and harder to do if the target is at a greater distance, which gives it more time to act unexpectedly. Hence some form of adjustment is required for the sake of realism and because otherwise a ship with a weapon that does a lot of damage that can positioned at a distance so that it is easier to track targets but which hits the target instanteously might be too powerful û oops anybody who isnÆt a Tempest captain with 1400mm howitzers would have used the word ôwouldö instead of ômightö sorry EVE is a massive social experiment of human interaction facilitated by computer technology
GardenerOfEden	Posted - 2004.08.04 00:59:00 - [135] Fascinating Let me see if I would expect the same statistical data working with the concepts involved as follows à DAMAGE: The damage potential of a projectile is independent of range û explosive energy of warhead remains constant throughout trajectory and while the shell is imbued with additional kinetic energy when fired, that energy is not reduced over distance travelled by atmospheric friction or significant gravitational forces in space. Before continuing I need to make two points at this juncture. Firstly, an energy weapon would do less damage at range û on the basis that it consumes its own payload over distance. This can also be contrasted with missiles that like projectiles also have a static payload but which, unlike projectiles, can alter their kinetic energy as a consequence using propulsion to manoeuvre onto the target (one way to conceptualise cruise missiles) and by using propulsion to rapidly accelerate towards target (one way to conceptualise torpedoes). Secondly, effective damage can be scaled up by hitting a vulnerable part of the target in a David vs Goliath ômagic bulletö sense. However, this is really a matter that concerns the target itself and where it is hit. While range influences accuracy, which in turn influences where the target is hit, it does not change the damage of the shot as such; accuracy merely changes the consequences of that inherent damage. GAME MECHANICS: The Mechanism What I would have done in terms of combat mechanics at this point is to process each shot by taking a snap shot of the targetÆs range and transversal velocity at the time the weapon is fired and calculate what amount of tracking would be necessary to hit the target. Note target size is irrelevant in this context as that merely influences the ease with which those parameters can be obtained with scanning sensors albeit that one would expect smaller frigate like targets to be faster moving i.e. higher transversal velocity potential. If the tracking that was required is within the parameters of the weapon adjusted by the effect of tracking modules and the Motion Prediction skill then treat the shot as a hit and process damage, which may at that point involve considering the randomised chance of inflicting special/critical damage (note this is the only time a random number would be utilised) and would be influenced by the Surgical Strike skill. In order to add a bit more realism, and lessen the harsh extremes of an all or nothing hit or miss, what I would do is check in the case of miss if the miss was within a slightly enhanced range of tracking (e.g. the weaponÆs adjusted parameters plus a percentage increase influenced by the targetÆs actual physical size) and if so award a ôconsolation prizeö of the damage reduced in proportion to the extent of the miss to simulate a partial hit / glancing blow / proximity detonation (e.g. the weaponÆs parameters + 5% = + damage though this does not have to be linear and actually should not be linear from a realism perspective). There would be no chance of doing inflicting special/critical damage with this consolation damage. Note when calculating damage it would also be possible to adjust it for weapon / ammunition type (e.g. an explosive shell might still do a lot of consolation damage in contrast to an energy weapon that really needs to actually hit in order to damage) and range (e.g. if it is accepted that an energy weapon consumes its own payload then damage should be reduced in proportion to distance of target from weapon). GAME MECHANICS: The Problem A problem exists at this point with determining whether a shot hits or misses at the time it is fired as the shell still needs to travel along its trajectory and impact the target. Being able to align the weapon at the point fired at is only part of the equation. The other part is the target behaving as predicted so as to actually be at the point aimed for at the exact time the shell arrives such that the shell impacts the target. This is harder to do with a more agile target, which gives it more potential to act unexpectedly, and harder to do if the target is at a greater distance, which gives it more time to act unexpectedly. Hence some form of adjustment is required for the sake of realism and because otherwise a ship with a weapon that does a lot of damage that can positioned at a distance so that it is easier to track targets but which hits the target instanteously might be too powerful û oops anybody who isnÆt a Tempest captain with 1400mm howitzers would have used the word ôwouldö instead of ômightö sorry EVE is a massive social experiment of human interaction facilitated by computer technology
GardenerOfEden	Posted - 2004.08.04 01:00:00 - [136] Edited by: GardenerOfEden on 04/08/2004 01:02:48 CCP used to make this adjustment through the use of optimum range and falloff range û once the target got passed optimum then damage was scaled by the proportion of falloff that remained e.g. go 20% into falloff and do 80% damage, go to the end of range at optimum + falloff and do 0 damage. What this means is that you could position your sniper ship at long distance where it could hit but the reduced damage compromises the tactic. The ôsniperö therefore has to come closer where it is harder to track the target and where the likelihood of the target getting the better of the sniper is increased i.e. game balance is restored. If the damage from your test scenario was plotted on a graph at this point then all that that statistical data should do is confirm constant damage to optimal range and then the linear reduction in damage as range moves outwards to optimal + falloff if special/critical damage of wrecking shots is disregarded as a statistical outlier or the 1/100 chance of such damage occurring if it is included. Note the damage is constant because there are no misses as no tracking is involved with a stationery weapon and stationery target. There would be a lot of players who would be very happy these mechanics; however, I would not be one of them. This is because of the amount of damage dealt reduces over distance, which is physically incorrect as I outlined initially and totally contrary to the conceptualisation of a howitzer, which pulverises its targets at long range. GAME MECHANICS: The Solutions There are four options that use the above mechanics but make an adjustment for the above problem and they all involve resolving the problem by reducing tracking accuracy over distance in contrast to reducing damage over distance: 1. Model Reality û in theory the projectile shell could be placed in the 3D game environment and moved along its trajectory to determine if a hit actually occurs just like a missile, which would also allow contact with other intervening ships and obstacles like asteroids, to be addressed. However, CCP has obviously decided that it is not practical to calculate a trajectory for the shell and process its straight line flight path in a MMORPG so this option must be rejected and there is no need to consider how it would look on a graph; 2. Reduce Tracking Linearly û this keeps things simple by still using the adjusted tracking parameter of the weapon but reducing it as the distance to target extends beyond optimal into falloff such that at maximum range of optimal plus falloff you have zero tracking and you can only hit stationery targets and targets that come straight at you i.e. n00bs and NPCs, which have already been flagged for AI enhancement. This is the solution I personally favour for what it is worth. If this mechanic was used and the damage from your test scenario was plotted on a graph then the damage would remain constant over all ranges simply because damage would be independent to range and all shots would hit with stationery targets û the only deviation would be special/critical damage occurring 1/100 shots but again independently to range; 3. Apply a Formula û this is the same as the second option only instead of a linear reduction in accuracy a formula using optimal and falloff ranges and some form of constant value is applied to it to determine effective accuracy. I do not like this for three reasons: 3.1 the best tracking would be at the optimal range, which means that tracking would be penalised as the target moves closer û this is unrealistic as the weapon still has the same basic ability to move and the target has less time to react unpredictably (i.e. the reverse of what we are trying to adjust for from a realism perspective) and is effectively a double penalty because the closer target is likely to have a higher transversal velocity, which means it is harder to track/hit/damage anyway; 3.2 it destroys game play because it means that there will be sweet spots for weapons that would be impossible to achieve in a dogfight and because the change in accuracy would not be linear (i.e. plotted graph of tracking accuracy over distance changes gradient), it would not be intuitive how adjusting range by the same increment of, say, 500m would affect accuracy/hits/damage as it all depends upon the range you are at to begin with; and 3.3 it destroys game balance because given the first two points why would a player choose to (use a ship optimised for) projectile weapons over (a ship optimised for) missiles which are not subject to such vagaries? EVE is a massive social experiment of human interaction facilitated by computer technology
GardenerOfEden	Posted - 2004.08.04 01:00:00 - [137] If this mechanic was used and the damage from your test scenario was plotted on a graph then the damage would also remain constant for the same reasons û the graph would only look different to the linear graph for a non-stationery target when the differences in tracking/hits/damage became apparent; 4. Apply a Probability û tracking could be adjusted by applying probability distribution i.e. a variable factor whereby you have close to 100% of the weapons adjusted tracking at optimal range. This is equivalent to rolling a d20 hit die and needing to roll 19 or less to get good tracking at optimal range but needing to roll 2 or less to get good tracking at max range. The three problems with this type of approach are: 4.1 nonsensical results are achieved such missing a stationery target with a stationery weapon (assuming no outside interference which is the only real way to rationalise such a miss); 4.2 outcomes to do not conform with probabilities e.g. in a short fight using a weapon with a low rate of fire it is unlikely that the actual damage would equate to the probable damage so a statistically improbable outcome can eventuate and the existence of such anomalies is not conducive to game balance and therefore is harmful to game play; and 4.3 randomising hits is usually done to approximate the reality of not always hitting and not always missing, however, given the game mechanics I have outlined above there is no need to do this because you can determine the accuracy of the hits directly ûsimulating accuracy with the equivalent of a dice throw is redundant and when using those mechanics would act as a double penalty. If this mechanic was used and the damage from your test scenario was plotted on a graph then the damage would not be constant at any range simply because the accuracy of the weapon is not constant to begin with. However, the amount of damage would correlate to the probability distribution applied to the accuracy of the weapon, which is what I understand your statistical data to not only prove but to also identify. Furthermore, what your statistical analysis also illustrates is how woeful damage becomes at distance i.e. the end result of the mechanics that CCP is actually using is that poor accuracy tracking over longer distances is severely penalised beyond what is realistic. In conclusion, I consider your statistical analysis to support my conceptual analysis that CCP is using flawed game mechanics to determine accuracy/hits/damage of turrets. I consider my preferred game mechanic outlined above to be superior however I retain an open mind to anyone convincing me otherwise. EVE is a massive social experiment of human interaction facilitated by computer technology
GardenerOfEden	Posted - 2004.08.04 01:00:00 - [138] If this mechanic was used and the damage from your test scenario was plotted on a graph then the damage would also remain constant for the same reasons û the graph would only look different to the linear graph for a non-stationery target when the differences in tracking/hits/damage became apparent; 4. Apply a Probability û tracking could be adjusted by applying probability distribution i.e. a variable factor whereby you have close to 100% of the weapons adjusted tracking at optimal range. This is equivalent to rolling a d20 hit die and needing to roll 19 or less to get good tracking at optimal range but needing to roll 2 or less to get good tracking at max range. The three problems with this type of approach are: 4.1 nonsensical results are achieved such missing a stationery target with a stationery weapon (assuming no outside interference which is the only real way to rationalise such a miss); 4.2 outcomes to do not conform with probabilities e.g. in a short fight using a weapon with a low rate of fire it is unlikely that the actual damage would equate to the probable damage so a statistically improbable outcome can eventuate and the existence of such anomalies is not conducive to game balance and therefore is harmful to game play; and 4.3 randomising hits is usually done to approximate the reality of not always hitting and not always missing, however, given the game mechanics I have outlined above there is no need to do this because you can determine the accuracy of the hits directly ûsimulating accuracy with the equivalent of a dice throw is redundant and when using those mechanics would act as a double penalty. If this mechanic was used and the damage from your test scenario was plotted on a graph then the damage would not be constant at any range simply because the accuracy of the weapon is not constant to begin with. However, the amount of damage would correlate to the probability distribution applied to the accuracy of the weapon, which is what I understand your statistical data to not only prove but to also identify. Furthermore, what your statistical analysis also illustrates is how woeful damage becomes at distance i.e. the end result of the mechanics that CCP is actually using is that poor accuracy tracking over longer distances is severely penalised beyond what is realistic. In conclusion, I consider your statistical analysis to support my conceptual analysis that CCP is using flawed game mechanics to determine accuracy/hits/damage of turrets. I consider my preferred game mechanic outlined above to be superior however I retain an open mind to anyone convincing me otherwise. EVE is a massive social experiment of human interaction facilitated by computer technology
GardenerOfEden	Posted - 2004.08.04 01:00:00 - [139] Edited by: GardenerOfEden on 04/08/2004 01:02:48 CCP used to make this adjustment through the use of optimum range and falloff range û once the target got passed optimum then damage was scaled by the proportion of falloff that remained e.g. go 20% into falloff and do 80% damage, go to the end of range at optimum + falloff and do 0 damage. What this means is that you could position your sniper ship at long distance where it could hit but the reduced damage compromises the tactic. The ôsniperö therefore has to come closer where it is harder to track the target and where the likelihood of the target getting the better of the sniper is increased i.e. game balance is restored. If the damage from your test scenario was plotted on a graph at this point then all that that statistical data should do is confirm constant damage to optimal range and then the linear reduction in damage as range moves outwards to optimal + falloff if special/critical damage of wrecking shots is disregarded as a statistical outlier or the 1/100 chance of such damage occurring if it is included. Note the damage is constant because there are no misses as no tracking is involved with a stationery weapon and stationery target. There would be a lot of players who would be very happy these mechanics; however, I would not be one of them. This is because of the amount of damage dealt reduces over distance, which is physically incorrect as I outlined initially and totally contrary to the conceptualisation of a howitzer, which pulverises its targets at long range. GAME MECHANICS: The Solutions There are four options that use the above mechanics but make an adjustment for the above problem and they all involve resolving the problem by reducing tracking accuracy over distance in contrast to reducing damage over distance: 1. Model Reality û in theory the projectile shell could be placed in the 3D game environment and moved along its trajectory to determine if a hit actually occurs just like a missile, which would also allow contact with other intervening ships and obstacles like asteroids, to be addressed. However, CCP has obviously decided that it is not practical to calculate a trajectory for the shell and process its straight line flight path in a MMORPG so this option must be rejected and there is no need to consider how it would look on a graph; 2. Reduce Tracking Linearly û this keeps things simple by still using the adjusted tracking parameter of the weapon but reducing it as the distance to target extends beyond optimal into falloff such that at maximum range of optimal plus falloff you have zero tracking and you can only hit stationery targets and targets that come straight at you i.e. n00bs and NPCs, which have already been flagged for AI enhancement. This is the solution I personally favour for what it is worth. If this mechanic was used and the damage from your test scenario was plotted on a graph then the damage would remain constant over all ranges simply because damage would be independent to range and all shots would hit with stationery targets û the only deviation would be special/critical damage occurring 1/100 shots but again independently to range; 3. Apply a Formula û this is the same as the second option only instead of a linear reduction in accuracy a formula using optimal and falloff ranges and some form of constant value is applied to it to determine effective accuracy. I do not like this for three reasons: 3.1 the best tracking would be at the optimal range, which means that tracking would be penalised as the target moves closer û this is unrealistic as the weapon still has the same basic ability to move and the target has less time to react unpredictably (i.e. the reverse of what we are trying to adjust for from a realism perspective) and is effectively a double penalty because the closer target is likely to have a higher transversal velocity, which means it is harder to track/hit/damage anyway; 3.2 it destroys game play because it means that there will be sweet spots for weapons that would be impossible to achieve in a dogfight and because the change in accuracy would not be linear (i.e. plotted graph of tracking accuracy over distance changes gradient), it would not be intuitive how adjusting range by the same increment of, say, 500m would affect accuracy/hits/damage as it all depends upon the range you are at to begin with; and 3.3 it destroys game balance because given the first two points why would a player choose to (use a ship optimised for) projectile weapons over (a ship optimised for) missiles which are not subject to such vagaries? EVE is a massive social experiment of human interaction facilitated by computer technology
GardenerOfEden	Posted - 2004.08.04 01:00:00 - [140] Edited by: GardenerOfEden on 04/08/2004 01:02:48 CCP used to make this adjustment through the use of optimum range and falloff range û once the target got passed optimum then damage was scaled by the proportion of falloff that remained e.g. go 20% into falloff and do 80% damage, go to the end of range at optimum + falloff and do 0 damage. What this means is that you could position your sniper ship at long distance where it could hit but the reduced damage compromises the tactic. The ôsniperö therefore has to come closer where it is harder to track the target and where the likelihood of the target getting the better of the sniper is increased i.e. game balance is restored. If the damage from your test scenario was plotted on a graph at this point then all that that statistical data should do is confirm constant damage to optimal range and then the linear reduction in damage as range moves outwards to optimal + falloff if special/critical damage of wrecking shots is disregarded as a statistical outlier or the 1/100 chance of such damage occurring if it is included. Note the damage is constant because there are no misses as no tracking is involved with a stationery weapon and stationery target. There would be a lot of players who would be very happy these mechanics; however, I would not be one of them. This is because of the amount of damage dealt reduces over distance, which is physically incorrect as I outlined initially and totally contrary to the conceptualisation of a howitzer, which pulverises its targets at long range. GAME MECHANICS: The Solutions There are four options that use the above mechanics but make an adjustment for the above problem and they all involve resolving the problem by reducing tracking accuracy over distance in contrast to reducing damage over distance: 1. Model Reality û in theory the projectile shell could be placed in the 3D game environment and moved along its trajectory to determine if a hit actually occurs just like a missile, which would also allow contact with other intervening ships and obstacles like asteroids, to be addressed. However, CCP has obviously decided that it is not practical to calculate a trajectory for the shell and process its straight line flight path in a MMORPG so this option must be rejected and there is no need to consider how it would look on a graph; 2. Reduce Tracking Linearly û this keeps things simple by still using the adjusted tracking parameter of the weapon but reducing it as the distance to target extends beyond optimal into falloff such that at maximum range of optimal plus falloff you have zero tracking and you can only hit stationery targets and targets that come straight at you i.e. n00bs and NPCs, which have already been flagged for AI enhancement. This is the solution I personally favour for what it is worth. If this mechanic was used and the damage from your test scenario was plotted on a graph then the damage would remain constant over all ranges simply because damage would be independent to range and all shots would hit with stationery targets û the only deviation would be special/critical damage occurring 1/100 shots but again independently to range; 3. Apply a Formula û this is the same as the second option only instead of a linear reduction in accuracy a formula using optimal and falloff ranges and some form of constant value is applied to it to determine effective accuracy. I do not like this for three reasons: 3.1 the best tracking would be at the optimal range, which means that tracking would be penalised as the target moves closer û this is unrealistic as the weapon still has the same basic ability to move and the target has less time to react unpredictably (i.e. the reverse of what we are trying to adjust for from a realism perspective) and is effectively a double penalty because the closer target is likely to have a higher transversal velocity, which means it is harder to track/hit/damage anyway; 3.2 it destroys game play because it means that there will be sweet spots for weapons that would be impossible to achieve in a dogfight and because the change in accuracy would not be linear (i.e. plotted graph of tracking accuracy over distance changes gradient), it would not be intuitive how adjusting range by the same increment of, say, 500m would affect accuracy/hits/damage as it all depends upon the range you are at to begin with; and 3.3 it destroys game balance because given the first two points why would a player choose to (use a ship optimised for) projectile weapons over (a ship optimised for) missiles which are not subject to such vagaries? EVE is a massive social experiment of human interaction facilitated by computer technology

GardenerOfEden	Posted - 2004.08.04 01:00:00 - [141] If this mechanic was used and the damage from your test scenario was plotted on a graph then the damage would also remain constant for the same reasons û the graph would only look different to the linear graph for a non-stationery target when the differences in tracking/hits/damage became apparent; 4. Apply a Probability û tracking could be adjusted by applying probability distribution i.e. a variable factor whereby you have close to 100% of the weapons adjusted tracking at optimal range. This is equivalent to rolling a d20 hit die and needing to roll 19 or less to get good tracking at optimal range but needing to roll 2 or less to get good tracking at max range. The three problems with this type of approach are: 4.1 nonsensical results are achieved such missing a stationery target with a stationery weapon (assuming no outside interference which is the only real way to rationalise such a miss); 4.2 outcomes to do not conform with probabilities e.g. in a short fight using a weapon with a low rate of fire it is unlikely that the actual damage would equate to the probable damage so a statistically improbable outcome can eventuate and the existence of such anomalies is not conducive to game balance and therefore is harmful to game play; and 4.3 randomising hits is usually done to approximate the reality of not always hitting and not always missing, however, given the game mechanics I have outlined above there is no need to do this because you can determine the accuracy of the hits directly ûsimulating accuracy with the equivalent of a dice throw is redundant and when using those mechanics would act as a double penalty. If this mechanic was used and the damage from your test scenario was plotted on a graph then the damage would not be constant at any range simply because the accuracy of the weapon is not constant to begin with. However, the amount of damage would correlate to the probability distribution applied to the accuracy of the weapon, which is what I understand your statistical data to not only prove but to also identify. Furthermore, what your statistical analysis also illustrates is how woeful damage becomes at distance i.e. the end result of the mechanics that CCP is actually using is that poor accuracy tracking over longer distances is severely penalised beyond what is realistic. In conclusion, I consider your statistical analysis to support my conceptual analysis that CCP is using flawed game mechanics to determine accuracy/hits/damage of turrets. I consider my preferred game mechanic outlined above to be superior however I retain an open mind to anyone convincing me otherwise. EVE is a massive social experiment of human interaction facilitated by computer technology
Selim	Posted - 2004.08.04 04:28:00 - [142] Edited by: Selim on 04/08/2004 04:32:49 Wow Gardener. I hope the devs read that... As for being harder to hit up close, I completely agree this is flawed, at least against ships of the same size or one down. A gun would still be able to anticipate where a ship is going. In fact, much, much more so at close range. The ship itself is far larger a target up close so its alot easier to it. Against a ship of the same size its literally like taking a shot at the broad side of a barn.. As for projectiles having unlimited range - that would be pretty unbalanced... unless of course their accuracy at longer ranges was very poor, while medium and short range it was good.
Selim	Posted - 2004.08.04 04:28:00 - [143] Edited by: Selim on 04/08/2004 04:32:49 Wow Gardener. I hope the devs read that... As for being harder to hit up close, I completely agree this is flawed, at least against ships of the same size or one down. A gun would still be able to anticipate where a ship is going. In fact, much, much more so at close range. The ship itself is far larger a target up close so its alot easier to it. Against a ship of the same size its literally like taking a shot at the broad side of a barn.. As for projectiles having unlimited range - that would be pretty unbalanced... unless of course their accuracy at longer ranges was very poor, while medium and short range it was good.
Selim	Posted - 2004.08.04 04:28:00 - [144] Edited by: Selim on 04/08/2004 04:32:49 Wow Gardener. I hope the devs read that... As for being harder to hit up close, I completely agree this is flawed, at least against ships of the same size or one down. A gun would still be able to anticipate where a ship is going. In fact, much, much more so at close range. The ship itself is far larger a target up close so its alot easier to it. Against a ship of the same size its literally like taking a shot at the broad side of a barn.. As for projectiles having unlimited range - that would be pretty unbalanced... unless of course their accuracy at longer ranges was very poor, while medium and short range it was good.
DeFood	Posted - 2004.08.04 07:47:00 - [145] Selim, Infinite range projectiles would not be a problem as long as two things were modelled: 1. Projectile velocity meaning that, one fired there is significant latency before the shot lands up 100km away. Well, lasers dont have this problem I suppose, with a projectile velocity of 300,000 km/s they wouldnt have a problem getting to great range particularly fast. 2. A 4X decreased chance to hit each time the distance to the target doubles.
DeFood	Posted - 2004.08.04 07:47:00 - [146] Selim, Infinite range projectiles would not be a problem as long as two things were modelled: 1. Projectile velocity meaning that, one fired there is significant latency before the shot lands up 100km away. Well, lasers dont have this problem I suppose, with a projectile velocity of 300,000 km/s they wouldnt have a problem getting to great range particularly fast. 2. A 4X decreased chance to hit each time the distance to the target doubles.
DeFood	Posted - 2004.08.04 07:47:00 - [147] Selim, Infinite range projectiles would not be a problem as long as two things were modelled: 1. Projectile velocity meaning that, one fired there is significant latency before the shot lands up 100km away. Well, lasers dont have this problem I suppose, with a projectile velocity of 300,000 km/s they wouldnt have a problem getting to great range particularly fast. 2. A 4X decreased chance to hit each time the distance to the target doubles.
Selim	Posted - 2004.08.04 10:02:00 - [148] Edited by: Selim on 04/08/2004 10:05:28 But it would make all ammos besides EMP, phased plasma, and fusion obsolete. Although they could just have the ammos do variations with the different damage types... They'd have to make the tracking alot better on the projectile guns, though, so they could hit really good at medium ranges. But what about autocannons? They'd have to have a bigger penalty for range. But I do think the idea sounds good... but it would be pretty hard to implement. Regardless, projjies need some love(tm) It would be a great idea also, because anything that diversifies the different weapons is good in my book. Projectiles having your proposed new system, being good at short and medium but can hit at extreme range, but poor accuracy. hybrids staying the way they are, lasers staying the way they are. And missiles of course are different enough.
Selim	Posted - 2004.08.04 10:02:00 - [149] Edited by: Selim on 04/08/2004 10:05:28 But it would make all ammos besides EMP, phased plasma, and fusion obsolete. Although they could just have the ammos do variations with the different damage types... They'd have to make the tracking alot better on the projectile guns, though, so they could hit really good at medium ranges. But what about autocannons? They'd have to have a bigger penalty for range. But I do think the idea sounds good... but it would be pretty hard to implement. Regardless, projjies need some love(tm) It would be a great idea also, because anything that diversifies the different weapons is good in my book. Projectiles having your proposed new system, being good at short and medium but can hit at extreme range, but poor accuracy. hybrids staying the way they are, lasers staying the way they are. And missiles of course are different enough.
Selim	Posted - 2004.08.04 10:02:00 - [150] Edited by: Selim on 04/08/2004 10:05:28 But it would make all ammos besides EMP, phased plasma, and fusion obsolete. Although they could just have the ammos do variations with the different damage types... They'd have to make the tracking alot better on the projectile guns, though, so they could hit really good at medium ranges. But what about autocannons? They'd have to have a bigger penalty for range. But I do think the idea sounds good... but it would be pretty hard to implement. Regardless, projjies need some love(tm) It would be a great idea also, because anything that diversifies the different weapons is good in my book. Projectiles having your proposed new system, being good at short and medium but can hit at extreme range, but poor accuracy. hybrids staying the way they are, lasers staying the way they are. And missiles of course are different enough.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.