Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 21:55:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Bronson Hughes on 22/01/2009 21:58:10 If you haven't already, go read over the CCP Tracking Guide so we're all on the same page.
Good, now that you've done that, let's begin.
As two objects in motion get closer to each other, their relative angular velocity increases if all other factors are held constant. As an example, watch someone walking down a hallway. For a long time, you can keep your head pointing towards them with virtually no motion, but as they get close to you and pass you you have to turn your head much more quickly to keep them in your field of view. This physical phenomena is modelled reasonably accurately in the tracking equation: angular velocity is calculated using range and transverse velocity so that as range drops to near zero the angular velocity involved goes up rather rapidly. This is how you speed-tank a turret-ship by orbiting them at such close range that their guns can no longer track you.
So why are so many people complaining, and rightfully so, about the tracking equation being broken?
The answer is signature. If you look at page 2 of the tracking guide, you'll see a very nice graphical depiction of how signature radius and signature resolution work in the tracking equation. What the signature portion of the tracking equation is looking at is essentially the shot pattern of your gun compared to the size of your target: the better the signature resolution of your guns compared to the signature radius of your target, the more likely you are to score a hit. This makes reasonably good sense until you realize something very important:
It's wrong.
In order to effectively model what CCP is trying to capture in the signature portion of the tracking equation, you must convert signature resolution and signature radius into angular units. Any experienced shooter will tell you that a rifle's precision (i.e. shot-to-shot grouping) is typically measured in angular units (Minutes of Angle or MoA for short). If you can expect to get a 1/2 inch pattern out of a given rifle at a given range, you certainly do not expect to get a 1/2 inch pattern at longer ranges. Your accuracy in MoA doesn't change at longer ranges, just the resulting shot pattern. Likewise, a person shooting a pistol may have a hard time hitting a target that is 100 yards away while it's almost impossible to miss the same target while its right in front of you.
But wait, you ask yourself, isn't range already account for with Optimal Range and Falloff?
Yes it is, but in my opinion it's not complete. It seems to take into account the properties of the projectile (or beam) in flight, but not the fact that targets appear larger at closer ranges. As far as the tracking equation is concerned, all potential targets are of a fixed angular size regardless of range and this I feel is the real crux of the problem.
Continued below.... |
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 21:56:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Bronson Hughes on 22/01/2009 21:59:44 Targets at closer range must 'appear' to get bigger and therefore be easier to hit.
How do you do this? I've already given you the answer; CCP must change the signature portion of the tracking equation to be angular and dynamic instead of linear and fixed. Right now, the signature portion of the tracking equation is very simple. it looks something like this:
(Signature Radius/Signature Resolution)
If your resolution is bigger than the radius of your target, you're more likely to hit. It's very simple but it's also constant so it doesn't take into account the angle covered by the target, only the target itself. What I would suggest changing it to is:
(Apparent Signature Radius/Angular Signature Resolution)
Apparent Signature Radius = 2xArcTan(Signature Radius/(2*Range)) (I can derive this value later if you like, it's a simple geometric conversion)
Angular Signature Resolution = ???
The Angular Signature Resolution is the tricky part. My gut tells me to use the same equation as the Apparent signature Radius substituting Optimal Range for target range, but I have a feeling that this will need to undergo a great deal of balance.
In a purely physical sense, I feel that this would produce a far more realistic model for turret-fire at all ranges. If it is implemented and balanced properly, it should go a long way towards making very-close range turrets viable at very close ranges while not necessarily making it harder to hit targets at long range.
There are some shortcomings of course. First and foremost being that there will be more things to balance now and adding more variables to any equation makes it harder to find a solution for, not easier. There is also the issue of computing power; this method will require more calculations in order to perform a to-hit test and that could adversely impact server performance.
So, in a perfect world I think this would be the ideal solution. But as we all know EvE is not a perfect world so even though this method would produce a more realistic model we may be better off sticking with the current system that is already in place.
Thoughts?
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 22:04:00 -
[3]
The tracking equation, as about EVERYTHING on eve, has no resemblence whatsover with reality. It exists exclusively to make sure bigger ships can't easily obliterate smaller ships and on this it works very well. So, no it does not need changing.
If we are going to make eve logic from a physics point of view we can as well start by detaching thrust from speed. THAT would be funny |
fkingfurious
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 22:04:00 -
[4]
There are so many things wrong with turret tracking it's hard to know where to start, and "Apparent Signature" not increasing as a target closes isn't one of them, which is not to say that it's a bad idea.
The fact that orbiting a target increaeses your own transversal despite the fact that you keep the same plane of your ship facing the target at all times (meaning your guns dont have to move) is clearly bollucks.
The fact that it is impossible to hit at 0M distance due to a divide by zero equation is clearly bollucks as well.
Add your point that at point blank range a target should be filling space from your point of view and therefore be exceedingly ****ing hard to miss and it all adds up to a ****ty formula.
We all accept it as obvious that a target gets easier to hit the further away it is (as long as it's still inside your optimal range), but a seconds thought should tell you that this is utter and complete ****e. Being a long way away from something does not make it easier to hit. It makes it appear smaller (not represented in Eve) and more consideration has to be gievn to it's movement as hitting it requires you to lead the target. The very opposite is true in eve. increased distance allows you to ignore its velocity.
It's utter ****e and really could do with being looked at, and funnily enough if targets did get easier to hit the closer they got 9which any sane reasoning tells you they should do) close range weapon systems , particularly blasters, would suddenly be competitive again.
Get it sorted CCP. |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 22:18:00 -
[5]
I'd love to see falloff turned into a multiplier on tracking, rather than a damage reducer. -- 249km locking? |
Mag's
MASS
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 22:22:00 -
[6]
/signed
Mag's
Originally by: Avernus One of these days, the realization that MASS is no longer significant will catch up with you. |
Kurt Gergard
Caldari Husarian Loyalists
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 22:24:00 -
[7]
And the end result would be that long range weapons would get better tracking and short range worse. This ofcourse would change a few things (making the long range weapons more effective in close combat) but that's all. Is it worth the whole forumla change ?
================================================ "No plan has ever survived the contact with the enemy" von Moltke |
Sarkiss
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 22:41:00 -
[8]
You either need to get laid, or just play the game, im counting on the first
|
Rifter Drifter
Minmatar You're Doing It Wrong
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 22:46:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Sarkiss You either need to get laid, or just play the game, im counting on the first
Lol, why does having an interest in a hobby suddenly make people assume they aren't getting any?
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 23:13:00 -
[10]
Gabriel Karade done a thing like this 4 Month ago during the Sissi testing for QR.
Linkage
Good idea but never got any kind of feedback from CCP or any kind of test on Sissi. What would have been actualy quite awsome, since we where on sissi at this time preaty much and wanted a real solution based on sissi testing instead we got 90% of the first QR edition on TQ, plus Missle Nerf and agility boost and minus MWD reactivation dealy in the end.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
|
Vabjekf
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 23:36:00 -
[11]
This thread makes me feel sad and want to fly a missile boat ;_; |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 00:14:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Goumindong on 23/01/2009 00:15:53
Originally by: James Lyrus I'd love to see falloff turned into a multiplier on tracking, rather than a damage reducer.
Think about that for a second before you repeat that idea James.
Originally by: Etho Demerzel The tracking equation, as about EVERYTHING on eve, has no resemblence whatsover with reality. It exists exclusively to make sure bigger ships can't easily obliterate smaller ships and on this it works very well. So, no it does not need changing
Also, it would totally negate the disadvantages of having low tracking. |
Washell Olivaw
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 01:36:00 -
[13]
If this was the Falcon or Lock-On forum, you'd be 100% correct. But then, those are simulators instead of games.
EVE is a game. Changes are done because, in no particular order, balance, fun and giving more options.
Your suggestion upsets one and adds nothing to the others. |
Aerin Cloudfayr
the evil ones Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 04:05:00 -
[14]
the function needs to be updated, that's for sure. Now with the Blade servers' capabilities, it's well within reach.
|
Cade Morrigan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 04:13:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Vabjekf This thread makes me feel sad and want to fly a missile boat ;_;
Because CCP's idea of missile combat is so ****ing realistic? ;) |
Gierling
Gallente Viper Squad
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 04:35:00 -
[16]
I was actually going to post something similar to this soon.
Frankly a sliding scale of signature vs range would allow one to balance some of the most frustrating portions of the Eve combat engine. |
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 15:42:00 -
[17]
Thanks for the replies:
Quote: The fact that orbiting a target increaeses your own transversal despite the fact that you keep the same plane of your ship facing the target at all times (meaning your guns dont have to move) is clearly bollucks.
The fact that it is impossible to hit at 0M distance due to a divide by zero equation is clearly bollucks as well.
While I agree with you in principle, I don't really have a problem with the first part. If you are in a stable enough orbit around something for this to be an issue, your target is pretty much immobile and you should be hitting them regardless. If your target is still moving with any significant speed you'll be maneuvering and your guns will need to track to keep their aim. The second bit we are pretty much stuck with as long as CCP bases distance calculations on collision polygons instead of object polygons.
Quote: You either need to get laid, or just play the game, im counting on the first
No and no. Want? Yes, Need? No. And I posted this from work so I couldn't have been playing anyways.
Quote: Gabriel Karade done a thing like this 4 Month ago during the Sissi testing for QR.
I read that thread and posted in it. I'm trying to accomplish the ame things here, just in a different manner that's uniform for all ranges and not just a patch to the system for close ranges. I also posted it here instead of the GDF hoping it would attract more attention.
Quote: Also, it would totally negate the disadvantages of having low tracking.
Not necessarily. Blasters and other short range weapons would likely end up with larger angular resolutions than long range weapons like railguns. As long as whatever they are shooting at is moving they'd still have a hard time hitting it at very short range, but it wouldn't be impossible like it is now.
Any other comments? -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 15:50:00 -
[18]
Love this idea. It makes turrets far less effective at range due to the calculation of apparent signature radius, which makes missiles all the more desirable at range.
It's not "real world" infesting eve either, it's simply drawing a parallel and showing a balanced solution to a serious problem in-game.
/signed
|
SecHaul
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 16:49:00 -
[19]
Another key misconception about the tracking formula is the gun resolution vs. sig radius, this modifier only applies if there is transversal. If there is no transversal, all of sudden your guns hit for 100% of dps, even if firing battleship guns against an interceptor. Strange how a "shot pattern" can hit with perfect accuracy at 100km if transversal is 0.
I would like to see a revision to the tracking formula, optimal / falloff is a poor concept to balance, tracking isn't modelled accurately as described in the posts above, and gun resolution is a failed formula as well. In fact, the tracking formula has three key parts that integrate: transversal vs. gun tracking, gun resolution vs. sig radius, and range; and all 3 individual sections are poorly modelled, and in combination they are even worse.
I understand Eve is a game, however I do believe finding balance in realism is easier than finding balance in la-la land where common sense doesn't apply. It also forces people to meta game with mechanics that are not logical. |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 17:47:00 -
[20]
Originally by: SecHaul I understand Eve is a game, however I do believe finding balance in realism is easier than finding balance in la-la land where common sense doesn't apply. It also forces people to meta game with mechanics that are not logical.
qft ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
|
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 18:11:00 -
[21]
Eve isn't realistic and your proposes wouldn't make the game any more enjoyable. |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 18:27:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 26/01/2009 18:29:18
Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 23/01/2009 00:15:53
Also, it would totally negate the disadvantages of having low tracking.
no ... think about it for a while in RL terms.
a sniper is basicaly immobile as to the gun (long and heavy) but at his range, he needs precision rather than speed of leading the target.
this means that the tracking formula would break down in 2 extremes:
1. bad precision (i.e. signature resolution) because the target is very close so it fills the view. high tracking speed, because the target is close so is moving faster through the field of view.
3. excelent precision because target is small and far away. bad tracking speed, because target is far away, thus moving very slow through the field of view.
under this new implementation, optimal range would actualy be the range where apparent signature = gun signature resolution and tracking speed is still good enought to lead the target.
it would also enable to do a finer grained tracking balancing between turret systems. and would not affect missiles, as apparent signature is not relevant to the missile warhead.
EDIT: removing the 0 range always miss issue would be a good start (it should be 100% hit at 0 range because you are sticking your guns into the other guys window). |
MC dragos
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 19:16:00 -
[23]
Edited by: MC dragos on 26/01/2009 19:16:43 have to consider that smaller ships frig - bc's will have allmost no chance againgst a bs at point blank range as the bs will do bout full dmg and frig - bc's allso have a shorter range and won't be able to do anything beeing at distance as they are out of theyr gun range , but in the bs range
than you need something like : beeing in a bs your large guns can't hit if the target is closer than 2km , bc / med guns - 1km , frig / small guns 500m ... so small ships won't be dead ... or whatever , you get the point :) ... so that beeing in a bigger ship dosen't mean you can kill everything thats under your lvl |
Ryuzaki Lawliet
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 20:32:00 -
[24]
Originally by: MC dragos Edited by: MC dragos on 26/01/2009 19:16:43 have to consider that smaller ships frig - bc's will have allmost no chance againgst a bs at point blank range as the bs will do bout full dmg and frig - bc's allso have a shorter range and won't be able to do anything beeing at distance as they are out of theyr gun range , but in the bs range
than you need something like : beeing in a bs your large guns can't hit if the target is closer than 2km , bc / med guns - 1km , frig / small guns 500m ... so small ships won't be dead ... or whatever , you get the point :) ... so that beeing in a bigger ship dosen't mean you can kill everything thats under your lvl
Problem with that thought is that then the frigate would be the ultimate ship because it could fly inside a larger ship's minimum range and constantly do damage without ever having to worry about being hit. |
Egenli
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 21:01:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Ryuzaki Lawliet
Problem with that thought is that then the frigate would be the ultimate ship because it could fly inside a larger ship's minimum range and constantly do damage without ever having to worry about being hit.
That is not a problem, that is a game design goal. It promotes teamwork, manuever to control range, secondary weapon systems etc. |
Faife
Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 21:03:00 -
[26]
tracking in eve is a game mechanic and not a physical modeling system.
deal with it. |
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 21:14:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Faife tracking in eve is a game mechanic and not a physical modeling system.
deal with it.
Who says it can't be both?
I'm not proposing that frigates or even cruisers not be able to avoid battleship-class turret fire by getting in close and out-pacing their tracking. I'm just trying to ensure that a battleship with blasters or autocannons can actually hit other battleships at the short ranges (~1-2km) that they were intended to engage at. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |