EVE Search - Improved tracking system

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Improved tracking system

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Jack Icegaard The Omega Project	Posted - 2009.04.23 16:28:00 - [1] Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 23/04/2009 16:33:07 As tracking works now, the movement of turrets are independent of the orientation of the ship. For example, if your ship spins 360 degrees your turrets will point in the same direction during the process. (not visible but this is how the game works) The consequence of this is that you cant gain a tracking advantage by maneuvering your ship, as tracking is a function of the transversal velocity which is the same for both you and your opponent. To rectify this, and to increase the impact of maneuvering in combat, i suggest this tracking bonus: Tracking bonus B = T*C T = Hit chance reduction due to tracking C = (1-(u●v)/\|v\|^2) u = velocity vector of your ship v = transversal velocity vector This bonus means that the more of the transversal velocity that is due to the velocity of your ship, the better you will track (not your opponent). Tracking will make more sense and it also means that how you maneuver in combat will be of greater importance. Flying small agile ships will also be more fun . I don't think this will create any extra lag (worth mentioning) as the formula is simple.
Avion Saberis Gallente Zodiac Guardians GARDIAN ALLIANCE	Posted - 2009.04.23 17:39:00 - [2] wow this looks interasting. who knows someone might pick it up and give it a whirl. i wouldn't mind testing it out to see if it would work better then the old system. ------------------------------------------- I like to hide, then when the right moment comes, i go pew, pew, pew, then i go back to hiding, :)
Jack Icegaard The Omega Project	Posted - 2009.04.23 18:12:00 - [3] Originally by: Avion Saberis wow this looks interasting. who knows someone might pick it up and give it a whirl. i wouldn't mind testing it out to see if it would work better then the old system. Thanks :) ehm.. after giving this some more thought though, what i suggested above might improve combat mechanics but it may not really make anymore sense from a physical point of view What bugs me with the current system though, is for example, that orbiting a static ship leads to tracking issues (AFAIK not other static objects). This does not really make sense to me. One probably have to look for a tracking system that depends more on the relative orientation of the ships hull, rather than transversal velocity. It would also be good if a static ship could use its agility to yaw, (spin) to aid its tracking (as an automatic mode, not micromanaging). hmm...
Arin Soon Gallente Crystalline INC Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2009.04.23 18:57:00 - [4] Thats a great Idea....and unfortunatly, Eve uses a space combat system that mimics early 90's tech. Just about every other space based game on the market uses true 3d movemt and lead tracking. All based on the players ability to manuver their ships. Eve is just a point and click game. deal with it or find a new game.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.04.23 21:44:00 - [5] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 23/04/2009 21:45:14 Originally by: Arin Soon Just about every other space based game on the market uses true 3d movemt and lead tracking. All based on the players ability to manuver their ships. Eve is just a point and click game. deal with it or find a new game. Nobody is talking about a FPS type spacegame here. OP is talking about the tracking formula, which means it remains a point-and-click game but takes a (hopefully) better simulation approach at calculating hits. This is a very valid idea, as there are currently some problems with short-ranged turrets, namely autocannons and blasters, that are not able to compete with medium-ranged pulse laser turrets properly in their preferred engagement zone against this weapon due to the tracking formula in place. Not convinced it is that easy, but definitely worth exploring.
xHomicide Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.24 00:45:00 - [6] Ideally all weapon calculations would simply be translated relative to the ship's orientation. Unfortunately, EVE does an incredibly horrid job of implementing physics; the server has no sense of a ship orientation - only position and velocity. The client extrapolates orientation based on velocity. The server does not extrapolate orientation like the client does. Nevertheless, I agree with the OP simply because ever since CCP nerfed movement EVE is a horrible game. Anything that encourages movement is a big plus. - While we are on the topic of tracking, weapons should have a linear 'inaccuracy' factor based on the signature radius of the target that is independent of tracking. --- Razor CEI
Jack Icegaard The Omega Project	Posted - 2009.04.24 03:41:00 - [7] Originally by: xHomicide Nevertheless, I agree with the OP simply because ever since CCP nerfed movement EVE is a horrible game. Anything that encourages movement is a big plus. Yes agree, the game would be more interesting if movement/maneuvering had a larger impact. Being static in an aligned position is a little bit too viable which encourage the big blob IMO. If a static ship had to enter a mode where it used agility to aid its tracking (using yaw, pitch and roll -axis to keep a broadside pointing at a maneuvering attacker) it could not get away as easily if things went pear-shaped as it would take time to lose the angular momentum and align. The maneuvering ship could gain a decisive tracking advantage if the static ship choose to stay aligned. I have also been toying with the idea to give projectile turrets a damage bonus depending on radial velocity. This would go very well with their skirmish type of combat. When merging (positive radial velocity) projectile should do more damage and the opposite when extending. A kinetic damage bonus would make sense. Maybe also for hybrid turrets but to a less extent, would help blaster ships. I want to promote attacking/maneuvering and having the initiative over sitting idle in the blob.
JadeMako Industrial Mite	Posted - 2009.04.24 13:55:00 - [8] Edited by: JadeMako on 24/04/2009 13:57:42 I think I understand this and feel it would definitely add a lot to the game. The tracking formula as it stands could do with a serious redesign however failing that a simple change like this could add another interesting dimension. So...bump. Edit: speeling
Wang Jing	Posted - 2009.04.24 14:06:00 - [9] From a logical point of view, this is so simple and yet would have a really big affect on gameplay. I hope its not too hard to implement, as I would love to see it in game.
Mohenna	Posted - 2009.04.24 15:08:00 - [10] Edited by: Mohenna on 24/04/2009 15:08:35 I agree PLUS The same should work for rockets and missiles: if it goes against a ship, and the ship goes towards it, the speed of the ship should raise the damage, rather than lower it. When the rocket/missile has to tail the ship, the current mechanics are fine. edit: clarification

Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.04.24 17:58:00 - [11] Originally by: Mohenna The same should work for rockets and missiles: if it goes against a ship, and the ship goes towards it, the speed of the ship should raise the damage, rather than lower it. When the rocket/missile has to tail the ship, the current mechanics are fine. Not so sure about the whole damage buff thing due to aspect really, but just my opinion. For missiles it is a bit difficult as they are independent from any tracking problems as far as the game is concerned, and working aspect ratio into the current mechanic could prove to be very difficult. Nonetheless, thats something I always wanted to see for missiles, always felt cheesy that maneuvering to avoid the missile is completely useless in eve, and you actually have to perform the worst possible maneuver (I know, RL comparison but bare with me) to reduce potential damage.
Jack Icegaard The Omega Project	Posted - 2009.04.24 19:31:00 - [12] My original formula does not work as intended. It breaks down whenever the velocity vector of one ship is a component of the velocity vector of the other. For instance, if two ships travel parallel to each other, (same direction) but one of them slightly faster, there will be a small transversal speed but \|u\| can be arbitrary large. So instead, one would have to compare the components of the velocity in the direction of the transversal velocity, and decide how the tracking bonus should be from there. New suggestion: Tracking bonus B = T*C T = Hit chance reduction due to tracking C = min(1,(u1●v)/(u2●v)) u1 = your opponents velocity vector u2 = your velocity vector v = transversal velocity vector
Mr Ignitious R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.24 21:38:00 - [13] Originally by: Jack Icegaard Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 24/04/2009 19:35:31 As tracking works now, the movement of turrets are independent of the orientation of the ship. For example, if your ship spins 360 degrees your turrets will point in the same direction during the process. (not visible but this is how the game works) The consequence of this is that you cant gain a tracking advantage by maneuvering your ship, as tracking is a function of the transversal velocity which is the same for both you and your opponent. not just that, its that it doesn't matter how far away your target is, its effective size. Think about it like when we see a car coming down the road from a long distance, it seems very small, but as it approaches it starts to appear larger. The tracking equation does not need orientation accommodation, but effective size. I read the forums assuming there are no trolls, only really stupid people. Originally by: CCP Zulupark WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?

CCP Tuxford	Posted - 2009.04.24 23:18:00 - [14] Note that the following I write as your fellow player. I'm no longer a game designer and am not taking these kind of decisions anymore. I wouldn't go so far to say I have no pull but these are just my personal opinion, and ones I have not discussed with game design. Wouldn't a consequence of that be that if you orbit a stationary object then your damage would not be be decreased. Similar to if you put out your arm and walk a circle around something your hand would always point towards that object. This all sounds well and good except it means that if one ship has a significant speed advantage over another ship then it will not have tracking penalty while the other one will have a significant drop in hit quality. We've had a pretty bad history with nano ships so in addition to them being able to choose when to enter and exit combat they would have significant tracking advantage over their opponent. I at least would recommend against it. I do agree however that combat in EVE is too much a function of range and too little of spatial factor. In general I think spatial awareness can be improved in EVE. _______________

Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.04.24 23:27:00 - [15] Originally by: CCP Tuxford Note that the following I write as your fellow player. I'm no longer a game designer and am not taking these kind of decisions anymore. I wouldn't go so far to say I have no pull but these are just my personal opinion, and ones I have not discussed with game design. Wouldn't a consequence of that be that if you orbit a stationary object then your damage would not be be decreased. Similar to if you put out your arm and walk a circle around something your hand would always point towards that object. This all sounds well and good except it means that if one ship has a significant speed advantage over another ship then it will not have tracking penalty while the other one will have a significant drop in hit quality. We've had a pretty bad history with nano ships so in addition to them being able to choose when to enter and exit combat they would have significant tracking advantage over their opponent. I at least would recommend against it. I do agree however that combat in EVE is too much a function of range and too little of spatial factor. In general I think spatial awareness can be improved in EVE. As far as I know, tracking was introduced in the game in order to make faster and smaller ships have a chance against larger and slower ships (which have more tank and more damage). It was never a design objective to use it to protect a battleship against frigs. This change would also greatly help small drones to track the smaller ships too. Which should be the correct counter for big ships to use against smaller ones. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Hellcore Minmatar Ex-Nihilo Fate Weavers	Posted - 2009.04.24 23:35:00 - [16] My only major beef with the tracking system, ie not static value tweaking, is the range = 0 nonsense that still persists where a target ends up with (near?) infinite transversal. Could you please make it that there is a minimum value for range in all calculations for tracking? Forgive me if I misunderstand but isn't this the reason why a ship 0 distance from the largest ingame object are unable to hit said object? --
chatgris Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2009.04.24 23:56:00 - [17] Originally by: Hellcore My only major beef with the tracking system, ie not static value tweaking, is the range = 0 nonsense that still persists where a target ends up with (near?) infinite transversal. Could you please make it that there is a minimum value for range in all calculations for tracking? Forgive me if I misunderstand but isn't this the reason why a ship 0 distance from the largest ingame object are unable to hit said object? I used to agree with you until I saw a friend of mine playing X3. There, he had a little ship against a massive ship, and he beat it by being so close that he actually flew between the turrets, much like star wars ships attacking the death star. They are so close that they get BETWEEN the turrets. If you were to do something like what you suggest, you'd still need to take the size of the ship into the equation. Because IMO, a little frig should be able to fly between the guns of a huge battleship, moving so fast they can't keep up. Unlike a BS on BS combat situation where it's like hitting the side of a barn. Though tbh, I kinda like the tracking system as it is now. BS + AB + TD actually has a chance against other BS's.
Hellcore Minmatar Ex-Nihilo Fate Weavers	Posted - 2009.04.25 00:03:00 - [18] Originally by: chatgris I used to agree with you until I saw a friend of mine playing X3. There, he had a little ship against a massive ship, and he beat it by being so close that he actually flew between the turrets, much like star wars ships attacking the death star. They are so close that they get BETWEEN the turrets. If you were to do something like what you suggest, you'd still need to take the size of the ship into the equation. Because IMO, a little frig should be able to fly between the guns of a huge battleship, moving so fast they can't keep up. Unlike a BS on BS combat situation where it's like hitting the side of a barn. Though tbh, I kinda like the tracking system as it is now. BS + AB + TD actually has a chance against other BS's. <- X-Universe fan reporting in! I totally agree that large signature weapons should not be able to hit small signature targets in all but the most dire situations (ie usually the result of pilot error) but the current situation means that capitals deployed in siege (ie stationary) are not able to hit a stationary target at 0 range, regardless of signature. That is what I would like fixed. --
Jack Icegaard The Omega Project	Posted - 2009.04.27 01:32:00 - [19] Originally by: CCP Tuxford Note that the following I write as your fellow player. I'm no longer a game designer and am not taking these kind of decisions anymore. I wouldn't go so far to say I have no pull but these are just my personal opinion, and ones I have not discussed with game design. Wouldn't a consequence of that be that if you orbit a stationary object then your damage would not be be decreased. Similar to if you put out your arm and walk a circle around something your hand would always point towards that object. This all sounds well and good except it means that if one ship has a significant speed advantage over another ship then it will not have tracking penalty while the other one will have a significant drop in hit quality. We've had a pretty bad history with nano ships so in addition to them being able to choose when to enter and exit combat they would have significant tracking advantage over their opponent. I at least would recommend against it. I do agree however that combat in EVE is too much a function of range and too little of spatial factor. In general I think spatial awareness can be improved in EVE. With the proposed bonus, no one will track worse than today. My new suggestion is that this bonus only applies when someone enter orbiting mode (bonus would only work against the ship being orbited). One could also add some more orbiting modes to make it more interesting. <Attempt to orbit yaw-axis>, <Attempt to orbit pitch-axis> etc. I think the present system works pretty well between ships of battleship and frigate class. The difference in tracking ability is sufficiently large (mainly due to sig radius/target res) that the frigate does not have to give up much DPS and can still stay well out of the tracking ability of the BS. When two ships are closer in size it does not work that well IMO. The MO for blaster ships for example, seem to be very much about using superior DPS and hope the opponent run out of EHP first. To prolong the fight, (assuming same class of ships) by orbiting and thereby giving up DPS, is not always viable. That's the main thing, i don't think you should have to give up DPS if you attempt to orbit in this situation. For the other ship not to be in a tracking disadvantage, it could have an option to respond by either entering a defensive spin-mode (using rotation of the hull to aid its tracking), or also attempt to orbit. One could also have game mechanics that makes it harder to hit in long distances if your ship is rotating, or having any angular velocity. Maybe then, it would be a viable tactic to have close range ships to try to disrupt an enemy formation. As they can keep moving (and still dish out very good DPS) they have better survivability. If the enemy group choose to deal with them by using defensive spin, they would not be ready to respond to an attack from long range, as they now are in disarray, rotating, orbiting etc. As you see I'm just tossing out some ideas here. Anything to move away some from the static focus fire-die in seconds-toggle new target -type of fleet engagement.
Jack Icegaard The Omega Project	Posted - 2009.04.27 01:49:00 - [20] Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 27/04/2009 01:54:13 Originally by: Mr Ignitious Originally by: Jack Icegaard Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 24/04/2009 19:35:31 As tracking works now, the movement of turrets are independent of the orientation of the ship. For example, if your ship spins 360 degrees your turrets will point in the same direction during the process. (not visible but this is how the game works) The consequence of this is that you cant gain a tracking advantage by maneuvering your ship, as tracking is a function of the transversal velocity which is the same for both you and your opponent. not just that, its that it doesn't matter how far away your target is, its effective size. Yes, that is an interesting point. When being very close to a huge battleship, you still get high angular velocity from a tiny transversal and cant hit.



Pages: [1] :: 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.