EVE Search - [Proposal] Railgun Rebalancing

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] Railgun Rebalancing

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Red Raider Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.02.12 01:00:00 - [1] After reading the entire thread I agree with Tagami's proposal conditionally. As a mission runner myself I am curious as to how this would affect the PVE aspects of the game. Oddly enough I actually fly a Rohk most of the time because I like how it looks and tanks plus I haven't fired a missile since they removed missile AoE back in like 05. Casual gamer so I could care less about optimal income/time ratio's. Sometimes people forget that they are playing for fun and all. Anyways... Wouldn't this seriously impact the mission community in terms of the DPS output of Gallante battleship, BC, destroyer, and cruiser hulls? Not that seeing fewer Ravens would bother me but the unintended side effect of this could be even more farming. Wouldn't this push the Kronos in a league of its own while the other Marauders would get left behind? The Vargur already plays little role in the game at all though I enjoy flying it as well. The bonus's may need to be ship specific to avoid an unintended overpowering of ships used for different purposes. Excellent work so far though.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.02.12 18:59:00 - [2] Originally by: Tagami Wasp Edited by: Tagami Wasp on 12/02/2010 16:47:56 Quick answer: Golem does 900K dps (Siege) out to 45Km (drones included), Kronos does 760dps (425mm) @ 36+30 Km (drones included). So, a railgun damage increase by 15% will take Kronos to 875. I don't think that will make it the new FOTM. Golem will still be the best. Sounds reasonable enough to me. I would imagine the advantages even themselves out between defender missiles and tracking speed.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.02.12 20:50:00 - [3] Yeah but you really don't want to use a blaster fitted ship in missions since many ships will orbit outside the range of your guns. The disparity between the Marauders is another debate entirely and since I don't really pvp I don't really get involved with that side of the discussion. My main concern is that pvp centric players really only care about the ISK generated by mission runners and not the balancing issues that could greatly effect that economy by accident and create more threadnaughts whining about mission runners. Marauders are a tricky beast though since they seem to be built for PVE but can be employed with great effectiveness in PVP as well(if your willing to risk that kind of ISK). Most mission runners have moved or want to move into Marauders or Command BC's for obvious reasons and I don't see any issues with the rail boost for rail fit BC's of any type. They will still lag far behind the alternatives. Strategic cruisers are also making a big dent as I have been told the Caldari one is better at PVE than a Golem though I doubt that.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.02.15 20:22:00 - [4] Originally by: Tagami Wasp Originally by: Fille Balle Besides, no matter how much you twist it around, the rails still fall short. The tiny little bit of extra range just doesn't justify the massive drop in dps/tracking. Edit: all the other setups (apart from the rohk) are cap stable without the AB running. I am not twisting anything around. I say it straight as a ruler. Rails need 15% more damage and Caldari railboats need 10% more grid. I don't think Fille was trying to disparage your efforts but "no matter how you look at it" would probably have been better wording since twisting implies falsifying information. As for the setups listed I would not run any of them except in specific conditions. I have explained to mission runners many times that cap stable is overrated. Your tank simply needs to hold out long enough to kill everything else and since most runners use marauders to salvage missions then you generally just let everything get within tractor range. I don't see beams used that often either since you can still get really good ranges with pulses for taking out those turrets placed at ridiculous ranges. So the lack of ammo clogging up the hold furthers the ability of lasers to lead the pack IMHO. That's not even taking into consideration that the Kronos is the only Marauder that got resistance upgrades that were not in line with its tanking type. Vargur 35% increase to shield resistances, 18.125% increase to armor. Kronos 25% increase to shield resistances, 24.375% increase to armor. Paladin 20% increase to shield resistances, 29.375% increase to armor. Golem 27.5% increase to shield resistances, 23.125% increase to armor. So yeah I agree that a railgun boost as listed by the OP will have virtually no change at all other than to make existing railboats viable alternatives to the FOTM.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.02.18 22:24:00 - [5] Edited by: Red Raider on 18/02/2010 22:26:02 The range problem could be fixed differently by applying more logic to how hits are registered. Right now we have a system that doesn't make sense but is was easier to program. It probably reduces server load as well but it would fix long range ammo and weapons. For example, currently, if you have a ship that is stationary firing at another object that is stationary as long as you are inside optimal it doesn't make a bit of difference to your accuracy what range they are at. 100m is as good as 100km's as long as it's inside optimal. In reality the signature radius of a ship should be a base size at 0m which gets smaller from there depending on range. Then to hit that target further away you would need more accurate guns. Since the signature resolution on guns is by class and not by function the system is inherently broken before it even began. What should have been a system where range was irrelevant became a system where functional balance is impossible. As we all know in space these weapon systems would continue on until they struck something(for the most part). The trick to hitting a target isn't reaching it but tracking it and having a weapon that can accurately fire that distance. The system should be: [Sig Radius at 0m-(range X signature resolution)]x(optimal tracking speed - transversal)= chance to hit Or something like that. The idea being you can always hit your target even if it's orbiting you at a ridiculous speed but your chances might be extremely low based on your signature resolution(which would be low for blasters, pulse lasers, and ACs and high for rails, beams, and arty) and optimal tracking(which would be the opposite). But I digress...[edit: because it will never happen] Still like the change Tagami.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.02.19 20:08:00 - [6] Originally by: Tagami Wasp Originally by: Altaica Amur Quote: For example, currently, if you have a ship that is stationary firing at another object that is stationary as long as you are inside optimal it doesn't make a bit of difference to your accuracy what range they are at. 100m is as good as 100km's as long as it's inside optimal. In reality the signature radius of a ship should be a base size at 0m which gets smaller from there depending on range. Then to hit that target further away you would need more accurate guns. Since the signature resolution on guns is by class and not by function the system is inherently broken before it even began. Just to be clear I'm not particularly concerned with the quality of hits as at the very least those statistics affect all weapons systems more or less equally, seeing a more realistic simulation would certainly be nice but is not my primary concern with regards to balancing railguns. For rails it's a question of having a point where they get competitive raw damage to other weapons systems particularly in the longer ranges where they are in theory supposed to reign supreme. Even with another system in place, the damage potential of railguns is lacking. If you change uniformly how range affects all ships, you won't do anything to remedy the damage output disparity. By no means was I arguing for a change but yes you would alter the damage output by altering the chance to hit. However, using current mechanics I agree that railguns are underpowered and that range is largely irrelevant in their case since the only advantage they have is a narrow band of the engagement window(the last 12% of 250 km's) that isn't realistically operated in anyways. It would be very interesting to see the usage numbers on ammo by type because I suspect that for railguns Anti-matter and Iron are more or less the entire market for tier 1 ammo. Though interpreting that could be difficult since the rarity of mid range fighting and problems ammo switching are more of a deterrent than DPS.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.02.19 23:04:00 - [7] Originally by: Tagami Wasp Originally by: Red Raider It would be very interesting to see the usage numbers on ammo by type because I suspect that for railguns Anti-matter and Iron are more or less the entire market for tier 1 ammo. Actually the ammo most used are AM,Plutonium, Lead and Iridium, no-one uses Iron. Why would no one use the longest range ammo? I can understand the others in terms of balancing DPS vs Cap usage but if you are sniping Iron will far out range any of the alternatives.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.02.23 19:00:00 - [8] Edited by: Red Raider on 23/02/2010 19:05:04 Tracking isn't even remotely a problem for railguns IMHO. Blasters yes, arty yes(have they fixed arty yet haven't fired one in almost 6 months), railguns no. The problem here is that the damage output doesn't allow for railguns to outperform the other systems except at a range in which it's damage is so negligible that its largely irrelevant.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.03.25 21:55:00 - [9] Oh I can already see this getting toasted.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.03.25 22:46:00 - [10] Edited by: Red Raider on 25/03/2010 22:46:54 I would also think that EHP is only equal to DPS in one on one engagements in total value since primary tactics mean EHP is only needed as a buffer to keep you from being popped before remote repping kicks in. So total DPS output of the fleet is vastly more important than total EHP of the fleet. Not to mention the obvious preference in fleets for armor tanking that negate those fittings almost entirely.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.03.26 19:29:00 - [11] Everyone keeps talking about the flavor of rails needing to change and not the DPS so if my memory serves me correctly rails used to have a chance to bypass the first layer of defense and strike the second layer. That would make things interesting no doubt.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.03.29 17:02:00 - [12] Originally by: Ogogov Originally by: Red Raider Everyone keeps talking about the flavor of rails needing to change and not the DPS so if my memory serves me correctly rails used to have a chance to bypass the first layer of defense and strike the second layer. That would make things interesting no doubt. That's an interesting idea but can you imagine the ****storm from the Caldari whine squad if rails bypassed shields (for instance) to any degree? It wouldn't just bypass shields but armor as well depending upon what defense is still applicable. I believe thats how railguns were intended to function(and actually did) a long time ago. I think it was the difficulty in calculating the damage that resulted in it's demise since shields are never really at zero so any incoming railgun round took a much more complex calculation than the brute force approach of lasers and projectiles. There are many things that are in EVE that are relics from old design concepts that got trashed. The propulsion type of a tech 1 ship is irrelevant yet they are different from race to race. If I remember correctly ships used to also have some of all 4 types of sensors with a race based preference like they do now. Those sensors were based on the concept of functioning similar to their name. Gravimetric(Caldari) would be better at targeting and tracking ships with higher mass concurrent with heavy armor. Magnetometric(Gallante) would be better at targeting and tracking ships with higher EM output concurrent with heavy shielding. What they had planned with LADAR and RADAR are probably more balanced though the much higher resolution of LADAR could be responsible for the failings of projectiles for much of their life in EVE. In the end the grandiose concept was probably scrapped because of difficulty in calculating the information and server load caused by doing so. This mangled relic has led to the balancing problems facing EWA. Amongst other things like missiles having AoE once upon a time. If they had AoE now the Raven wouldn't be the preferred mission running ship and would be nearly unusable in highsec without significant alterations to how AoE agro mechanics work. Anyways just thought I would throw it out but don't see it happening thats for sure.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.04.13 16:03:00 - [13] Originally by: Tagami Wasp If they were OK, people would fly them. All that needs to be said is said right here.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.04.13 18:03:00 - [14] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Red Raider Originally by: Tagami Wasp If they were OK, people would fly them. All that needs to be said is said right here. This isn't true at all, actually. When I started playing in 2006, nobody flew the Drake in PVP - because everyone knew it sucked. I could seriously count the number of other PVP Drakes that I'd seen in space on one hand as late as maybe early 2008. HOWEVER, almost nothing has changed in BC balance (sans the unnecessary Myrm nerf) and somehow the Drake is considered the best BC these days. Well, speaking from experience... it was then too. -Liang So your basing the lack of popularity of the Rokh on the concept that it just isn't used correctly? The Drakes popularity took off when it became widely known for passive shield tanking which is something that only it can effectively do. You can passive fit a ton of ships and get a good tank but nothing like the overall effectiveness of a Drake. Those other ships are always better kitted some other way unless you are using it as a bait ship. So your basing your argument off of the concept that in all the years that have passed since the Rokhs release no one has figured out how to use it yet except for you and Guam...yeah right. There is more to the game than EFT warrioring and it's reflected by who fly's what in the end. From the Q4 2009 QER Drake 15,959 2.21% +1 Hulk 14,494 2.01% -1 Kestrel 11,893 1.65% - Rifter 11,690 1.62% - Zephyr 10,540 1.46% New Retriever 9,466 1.31% -1 Raven 8,835 1.22% -1 Catalyst 8,340 1.16% - Cormorant 7,957 1.10% +2 Dominix 7,273 1.01% -3 Rookie ships, shuttles and capsules 305,480 42.31% Other 310,019 42.94% Total: 721,946 Is the mega and apoc the better mission runner? Once upon a time it was(04'-05'). What happened? People figured out what was optimal and what wasn't and off to mission running obscurity they went. Why isn't the CNR, Golem, or Vargur up there? They are better mission runners than all those ships listed and after all mission runners like myself are raking in by most non-mission runners estimates 40-60m an hour. That's one solid weekend and you can buy a Marauder or two CNR's. The cost(both ISK and training time) and risk don't outweigh the benefit to most people. Same with the rail boats. The trend now is to train up to the Drake and then go either Amarr or Minmatar. Why continue past Drake as Caldari? There is zero benefit to spend another month and a half training to Caldari BS 5 just to get a Rokh that your alliance won't reimburse you for when you could train Minmatar, get use out of your shield and missile skills, and have plenty of good PVP ships to choose from in all classes. I myself went Minmatar though I did that even before the BC's even came out.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.04.13 18:33:00 - [15] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Red Raider So your basing the lack of popularity of the Rokh on the concept that it just isn't used correctly? The Drakes popularity took off when it became widely known for passive shield tanking which is something that only it can effectively do. You can passive fit a ton of ships and get a good tank but nothing like the overall effectiveness of a Drake. Those other ships are always better kitted some other way unless you are using it as a bait ship. You are wrong. The Drake's PVP popularity took off when it became known that you could be wildly successful by NOT passive tanking it (you also forget the Myrm's nuts passive tank -- which is better until BC5 incidentally). Hence... it is exactly the same situation - they weren't properly understanding the Drake, and nor are they currently properly understanding the Rokh. -Liang So you are saying the 200+ recharge per second on a buffer tanked Drake with active hardeners has zero effect on its popularity? The same set up on just about any other ship would result in half that passive recharge. The ship is just made for passive tanking even if that's not what you are trying to do with it. My active kitted Vargur with Marauder 4, shield skills maxed, and crystal's 1-4 nets me about 250 recharge per second counting passive recharge of about 21 HP/s. A buffer kitted gank Drake can get over 200. So really? Maybe we need to figure out what you mean by active tank because the hardeners being active is not what I consider an active tank yet most PVP'rs seem to float about this idea that a drake with two active hardeners is an active tank even though it has no shield booster. Mission runners like myself call that a passive tank. There is no real buffer in mission running of course. It's popularity took off for mission running long before PVP. 15k people are not flying them in PVP on a regular basis. They are easily to this day one of the most if not the most popular mission running ship now due to training requirements and cost. Anyways the drake isn't in need of railguns. Is that all you had a problem with?
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.04.13 19:07:00 - [16] Am I the only mission runner that keeps an eye on this? Now I am guessing here but I used to use a Rokh a lot in missions because it had a good tank and a lot of range. (I didn't salvage or loot so the range was a benefit but an AC Vargur just flat out beats it in everything but range and if I feel like looting and/or salvaging it is even better.) I believe you can fit a Drake to have quite a bit more DPS than any of these ships and still have over 60k EHP and be beyond web/jam range. Wouldn't that mean sniping as a whole would be obsolete if it were not for intangibles associated to it? I mean we are verging on the concept that a Raven is the best sniper and we all know that isn't true but everyone saying rails are fine is looking at EHP and DPS only. Yes cost has been discussed but there is a lot more than just cost that it involves. There is no GOOD pvp reason to train Caldari BS. The Rokh is hardly a good reason when you are better off getting a cheaper, comparable ship from Amarr or Minmatar that can perform other roles outside of a sniper. Even Gallante is better using Mega's/Hyperions in small gang warfare.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.04.13 19:23:00 - [17] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Red Raider A BUNCH OF UNRELATED PVE STUFF .... Mission runners like myself call that a passive tank. In case you didn't notice, this discussion is about PVP. I was referring to PVP Drakes - which did in fact only become wildly popular once people realized the huge host of advantages of flying them. But it took A LOT of convincing on the forums to make it happen. This discussion is about railguns not PVP and not drakes. Wildly popular to a .0 person and wildly popular to a high sec mission runner are two different worlds. Like I said, 15k people are not flying drakes in PVP but it is one of if not the most popular mission running ship now for a multitude of reasons. Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Red Raider There is no real buffer in mission running of course. This isn't necessarily true, but that's a discussion for another thread. Feel free to start one in Ships & Modules and I'll explain why buffer is important to a lot of good PVE ships. Run an AE 4 bonus room with an armor buffer and I will salvage your wreck. A shield buffer will still get a massive passive recharge unless you intentionally nerf it for no valuable reason at all. Lvl 5's are almost completely reliant on passive tanks as well due to the amount of cap drain in them. Buffer is handy and all but if you can't repair you can't finish most of the missions actually worth running. In the end dismissing my arguments because your a high and mighty .0 dweller is childish. Mission runners can be effected just as much as you do because though we like to pew pew NPC's not all mission runners drop our corp and run every time we get war decced. Which is why no one in my entire corp flies rail boats in PVP. In turn the weakness of rail boats makes Amarr, Minmatar, and Gallante drone/blaster boats much more appealing than anything Caldari or rail fitted. That directly effects our ability to defend ourselves and the training time required to adequately do so.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.04.13 20:03:00 - [18] Originally by: Liang Nuren You shouldn't be using either of those ships in small gang warfare. I would never consider it, and I have Gallente BS5. Statistics disagree with you on that. http://killboard.evekb.co.uk/?a=top20 Top 20 ShipsKills Hurricane 11,121 Drake 10,661 Harbinger 7,831 Megathron 5,902 Tempest 5,127 Zealot 4,980 Armageddon 4,508 Apocalypse 4,241 Rapier 4,083 Brutix 4,045 Vagabond 3,898 Dramiel 3,699 Cynabal 3,648 Cerberus 3,226 Abaddon 3,206 Manticore 3,172 Stiletto 3,021 Sabre 2,978 Myrmidon 2,973 Crow 2,939
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.04.13 21:19:00 - [19] Originally by: Bagehi Except the Megas are usually close range RR BS (fleets, not solo). They're pretty decent at this. Hence, they get a lot of kills. I never said anything about solo. RR gangs do use them and it's the preferred BS of the mercs I hire for affordability vs utility. If I need them to gank a bunch of hulks they use a bunch of mega's. It has a lot of uses. Thats the problem with Caldari BS's...they don't.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.04.13 22:11:00 - [20] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Red Raider I never said anything about solo. RR gangs do use them and it's the preferred BS of the mercs I hire for affordability vs utility. If I need them to gank a bunch of hulks they use a bunch of mega's. It has a lot of uses. Thats the problem with Caldari BS's...they don't. You're a damn fool if you think that Caldari BS's don't have a lot of uses. I'd aaaaallllmmoooosssttt reveal my Caldari alt to challenge you to a mega vs Raven fight. :) -Liang The Raven is great at PVE and the Rokh is great for insurance fraud. If they were so amazing they would make a list somewhere but they don't do they? They are much more limited in utility. They may have uses in PVP but its a hell of a lot less than the BS's of all the other races. I don't fly a mega I already told you I went minmatar, I can fly a mega I just don't when I have Minmatar BS 5 why use an inferior ship? Especially when my skill is at 3 and not 5 but its still better to fly a Minmitar ship. Not to mention this isn't about solo pvp its about rails and how they need a buff. Which is supported by hard data a dozen times over. If the Rohk was so great why isn't it on the list? The Hyperion even made the list which you also said you wouldn't use.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.04.14 16:53:00 - [21] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 13/04/2010 22:26:19 Originally by: Red Raider The Raven is great at PVE and the Rokh is great for insurance fraud. ... I already told you I went minmatar Hey, how about you stick to talking about something you know anything about? -Liang Ed: I find it hilarious that a guy that flies Minmatar and hardly knows the first thing about missioning is telling me that the Caldari BS's suck for PVP. The "I win" response. Awesome! Why are there no Caldari BS's on the list if they are soooooo good?
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.04.19 17:27:00 - [22] So the most commonly flown BS in the game is Caldari which means it's the most commonly trained BS skill in the game which is incentive to at least try and use them in PVP sometime in the last few years and yet in all this time the only two people who know the truth about the greatness of the Caldari BS fleet is you two trolls? LOL
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.05.04 18:06:00 - [23] Originally by: Goumindong 2)Insurance changes are unlikely to do anything of the sort. CCP is shooting for 100% insurance of tech 1 ships Wow you really don't have a clue what your talking about do you? LOL! Just so you know Goum the 100% payout is after you pay for the insurance which means the return is 100%-cost. CCP is aiming for zero insurance fraud and a player based market not 100%+ total return and a mineral floor like we have right now. This means that cheaper more useful ships will be even better after the insurance revamp and limited role ships will fall even further into obscurity.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.05.21 18:51:00 - [24] Would adjusting signature resolution of hybrids not make them more powerful yet unique and fit with their style of play? A long range weapon would generally be designed to be accurate at that range so a 10% or so reduction in signature resolution across the board combined with their traditionally crappy tracking would give them more powerful specialized roles based on a higher probability of getting better hits would it not?
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.05.21 23:18:00 - [25] Edited by: Red Raider on 21/05/2010 23:22:54 Edited by: Red Raider on 21/05/2010 23:21:02 Edited by: Red Raider on 21/05/2010 23:19:38 Edited by: Red Raider on 21/05/2010 23:19:03 Originally by: Ninetails o'Cat Originally by: Red Raider Would adjusting signature resolution of hybrids not make them more powerful yet unique and fit with their style of play? A long range weapon would generally be designed to be accurate at that range so a 10% or so reduction in signature resolution across the board combined with their traditionally crappy tracking would give them more powerful specialized roles based on a higher probability of getting better hits would it not? A signature resolution bonus is a tracking boost. There is no difference between the two. Thats not exactly accurate. Signature radius vs signature resolution is a much simplified version of weapons accuracy(there was a dev post on this but I can't find it). If you take a regular rifle and bench mount it the ammo will not hit the exact same spot every time its fired. This is EVE's signature resolution. If you have a 1 foot diameter round target the closer you are to that target the easier it is to hit it as long as its not moving. Get close enough and you are very likely to strike dead center very often. Move it out 100 yards and if the rifle has a signature resolution of 1.25 feet @100 yards then it will miss the 1 foot diameter target 1/5 of the time regardless of the target moving or not. If I find the dev blog I will post it but it actually gave the above example showing shot patterns on round targets. This is partially why the theorized formula for gun tracking doesn't seem to work properly at long ranges. I would say this is a good guess as (limited) testing shows it to not function accurately but its on the EVE wiki and I am not opposed to being wrong on this as it was a long time ago. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ ((((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)^2) IE within optimal a Rohk shooting at a frigate with zero transversal has the same chance to hit the frigate at 10 km's and 100km's. That same frigate moving at a speed that would out track the guns at 10 km's but not at 100km's would still be incredibly difficult to hit at 100km's despite the tracking numbers being present to do so in theory anyways. The reason why is that the dominant figure is transversal speed, range to target, and turret tracking. These generate a sum that largely dominates the result of the equation while signature resolution / sig radius is occasionally lopsided before the shot was even fired(Armageddon, Tempest, and Typhoon all have sub 400m sigs not to mention everything smaller). A 10% boost to signature resolution would result in a tracking boost so minuscule as to be irrelevant but better shot quality. The idea being that the likelyhood of hitting would remain virtually unchanged because the values that are dominant would remain unchanged but the resulting number when measured against the randomly generated X value would be higher when it does hit. In reality what they need to do is completely redesign combat so that weapons like beams, hybrids, and projectiles continue on indefinitely(to 250km's anyways) but highlight tracking and signature resolution(accuracy) as important traits that separate rails from the others but that's not going to happen. I digress(after causing a dev to have a nightmare). Freaking automatic spell correction.*
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.05.24 18:11:00 - [26] Originally by: Goumindong ]No. It would not. Turret hit quality is entirely determined by the hit chance and the only thing that signature resolution does is provide the baseline for a linear modification of the targets speed to be plugged into the tracking formula based on target signature radius. Actually I don't think anyone truly knows how its all calculated so saying I am wrong and the wiki is wrong and you are right for a calculation that done by a server is idiotic because you don't know that either. In fact your calculation makes little sense because it crosses check sums for no logical reason. The Wiki calculation makes sense because the check sums determine: 1)if your turrets can track the target 2)once it's determined wether you can even track the target a hit quality is generated based on sig radius vs sig resolution 3)applies range(optimal, falloff) to damage output ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ ((((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)^2) You calculation simply adds turret resolution when there isn't anything to support that resolution is part of the initial tracking check sum at all. If this were the case then a frigate shooting at a nano'd BS would likely still hit but that doesn't happen. In fact your formula would result in small guns have a massive damage boost against larger ships due to really high hit quality. As for the rest I don't know since you didn't actually post a formula. Your formula checks stuff for no reason. Why would the tracking check include signature radius and resolution at all? It doesn't(shouldn't) make your guns move faster or slower so adding that to the formula is pointless and actually counter productive as it can be gamed and makes balance extremely difficult. You track or you don't track first. That number determines the rest of the formula and for good reason. In fact the whole concept that it's considered is kinda ridiculous from a logical standpoint alone. Feel free to post a link to the dev that spilled your formula though. Though knowing CCP something so stupid as to include signature into tracking wouldn't be a shock at all.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.05.24 20:31:00 - [27] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Red Raider Actually I don't think anyone truly knows how its all calculated so saying I am wrong and the wiki is wrong and you are right for a calculation that done by a server is idiotic because you don't know that either. In fact your calculation makes little sense because it crosses check sums for no logical reason. The formula was derived from exhaustive testing by a great many people. I've personally tested its predictive powers, and they averaged correctly every time. I'd say that it may not be exactly how its calculated, but its accurate within .1% or so. And really, all of your other concerns are easily optimized away. -Liang Which formula the Wiki one I posted or the tracking formula Guam posted? I think the wiki one is pretty accurate myself which is why I was saying a sig res boost would bring up the DPS of hybrids within a nitch that makes them good as a sniper role or at bombarding slow moving or stationary targets but still suck at tracking. Originally by: Bagehi Possible. I seem to recall one of big nerfs to drones was messing with weapons signature resolution, thus preventing medium/heavy drones from ripping apart smaller ships. However, the bulk of the targets sniper ships are shooting are as large as or larger than the sniper ship. This is usually the very reason they are at sniper range. While true it would still make rails more likely to have higher quality shots than other weapons. Another side effect is they would be slightly better at fighting smaller ships.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.05.24 23:07:00 - [28] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Red Raider Which formula the Wiki one I posted or the tracking formula Guam posted? I think the wiki one is pretty accurate myself which is why I was saying a sig res boost would bring up the DPS of hybrids within a nitch that makes them good as a sniper role or at bombarding slow moving or stationary targets but still suck at tracking. In your post, you only referenced half of the dps formula - the chance to hit. The quality of those hits is determined solely by the percent chance to hit. At 50% chance to hit you will deal (IIRC) 39.505% of your EFT DPS. At 100% chance to hit you will deal 103% of your EFT DPS (due to wrecking shots). Yes, but tracking and accuracy are indeed separate. The change might affect chance to hit a little but tracking would still be a primary player and you could tune it downwards a little to keep chance to hit the same. Imagine it like alpha on arty except hybrid users want to slow things down or stop them to bring their accuracy to full effect(or just get a hell of a long ways away). Hybrids would suffer from a sharper hit quality curve than other weapons this way. It would give them a definite flavor and tactical role that is fitting IMHO since the close up support for both Gallante and Caldari is done via missiles/drones.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2010.05.25 17:17:00 - [29] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 25/05/2010 00:38:26 Originally by: Red Raider Yes, but tracking and accuracy are indeed separate. Not REALLY. Let's take a look at the formula: GRRR Looking at it you're right. God I hate this broken system. If it was broken into check separate check sums not only could you lower server load but you could make a more realistic system that would give hybrids an accuracy nitch like I was thinking. Instead of the current equations have something like: ChanceToHit1 = (Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking)) ChanceToHit2 = ((Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius) If it's a hit then: Damage = ((Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius) + ((Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff) Misses wouldn't do as much calculation. I guess this is a simplified version of what I would prefer though as I would prefer no range(up to 250km) where sig res and radius are calculated properly based on distance rather than an object being the same size regardless of how far or close it is. Then gunnery would have an additional primary mechanic to balance the three separate systems with. Each system with strengths and weaknesses but adding accuracy as a strength to Hybrids(rails at least) would make them more viable while the others could be weaker in this catagory. Lasers the weakest because they are pretty much the best weapon system in the game and because from a story standpoint the Minmatar were once renowned for the quality of their machinery. Anyways, that ain't gonna happen.

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.