|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Gabriel Karade
Gallente
Celtic Anarchy
   |
Posted - 2009.10.26 17:18:00 -
[1]
Hello,
Blaster tracking per se isn't that bad. It's the gash tracking formula that goes wrong at close ranges. Meaning that, even though you have this nice close-range weapon... you really don't want to be 'up close' as everything under the sun can get under your guns... even if it is virtually blotting out the Sun.
That and, going solo in medium and in particular, large Blasterboats is tantamount to suicide with the changes to the game over the last 2-2.5 years.
Shame really.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Gabriel Karade
Gallente
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 06:29:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Vyktor Abyss
Just wanted to say that CCP claimed to have fixed the zero error on the tracking formula.
They claimed that the centre of the ball-like object is now being used as the zero point meaning the "size" of your ships ball radius means you'll never actually have a 0km target, because it will really be the ball radius as minimum range - even though it may display 0m on the overview.
Proof that "ball size" does indeed matter. Though no matter how big your balls, blasters still need a stiff examining. 
The zero error and the 'gash tracking formula' I referred to are separate. The latter comprises the inability of the current formula to account for changing target aspect - a Megathron at 1km distance for example, would fill half your view - which causes huge issues in the range Blasters are supposed to operate at. This has been discussed at length in the past along with possible modifications.
Though, now we know the size of ones balls count, there may be other potential modifications.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Gabriel Karade
Gallente
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 06:23:00 -
[3]
Originally by: ropnes
The tracking formula already accounts for 'relative signature radius' - your chance to hit decreases with range. At optimal you will hit a ship with the signature the gun was intended for assuming it's moving at a trackable speed. You won't hit it any better inside optimal because you can already hit it perfectly.
That's a rather naive view, firstly because the formula isn't that linear; you have a basic 50% hit chance at optimal if you're target is moving at a track-able speed (where angular velocity = gun tracking speed). Secondly, the formula simulates the effect of decreasing target size at long range with "falloff", but it fails to do the opposite up close. The closer you get, the larger the target, and "falloff" should be adding a positive multiplier to the hit chance.
Or in simple terms, even if you are shooting at say, a Cruiser with a Battleship gun ("signature" of 125m vs. "signature resolution" of 400m); eventually if you get close enough to the thing, it will still blot out the sun...
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Gabriel Karade
Gallente
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 17:20:00 -
[4]
Originally by: ropnes
Edited by: ropnes on 28/10/2009 08:08:29
I see what you're saying, but no
You shouldn't motivate changes to the tracking formula with realism
If realism were the only goal, I'd bin the whole thing and start from scratch; bin 'tracking as is, bin falloff, have accuracy in terms of angle of arc determining hits vs target size e.t.c e.t.c...
I still maintain close-range weapons (i.e. Blasters and Autocannons) are not hitting well enough inside their optimals (of the order 5km for Large blasters for example). I don't believe you should see any damage reduction (i.e. misses) against BS/BC sized targets considering the size of the targets and the maximum transversal velocities involved in BS vs BS, or BS vs BC engagments, and I see tweaking the tracking formula to work better "up close" as being one of the more desirable ways to go about it.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
|
|
| |
|