EVE Search - point blank range

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

point blank range

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2005.07.15 10:20:00 - [31] Originally by: Matthew There are also certain ships that will shoot through themsevles to get at a target in certain positions Kick ASS! Which ship does that, I wanna buy one! ___________________________________________ ^^^*---All things serve the Beam---*^^^ GDBT is recruiting!
Matthew	Posted - 2005.07.15 10:39:00 - [32] Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari Originally by: Matthew There are also certain ships that will shoot through themsevles to get at a target in certain positions Kick ASS! Which ship does that, I wanna buy one! There are quite a few that will do it under certain conditions. The one I remember off-hand is the apoc, but that has a very small window - it has to be a small target very close directly in front or behind. The side-mounted lasers will then shave the front of the ship on the way to the target. I'm sure I've seen others doing similar things, but I can't remember which ones. Generally look where the turrets are, and look for the deadzones - get anything in that deadzone and the ship will shoot through itself. Of course, there is also the occasional glitch where the client picks the turret on the "wrong" side of the ship to fire, which usually produces the more spectacular shoot-throughs.
Branco	Posted - 2005.07.15 11:38:00 - [33] Well... are those buildings really motionless? They could be orbiting something, so they move. Don't know enough about physics and astronomy to know if this makes sense tough I do agree that what it would make more sense would be to hit them harder as you get closer but... "Before you kill the enemy, you must know who he is"
Vaaliant	Posted - 2005.07.15 12:41:00 - [34] Originally by: Branco Well... are those buildings really motionless? They could be orbiting something, so they move. Don't know enough about physics and astronomy to know if this makes sense tough I do agree that what it would make more sense would be to hit them harder as you get closer but... So now we're reduced to trying to explain away OBVIOUS flaws/bugs in the coding system where by logic that barely makes sense even when we involve coding? SHEESH maybe I should just go back to Starcraft. Zerg Rush 4teh win!
ErrorS	Posted - 2005.07.15 12:56:00 - [35] Originally by: jonus Rath yes, the bigger the gun the slower it moves. thats how it is in RL so should it be in the game. But as in real life, if a tank was right next to another tank or a mile away (the tank would have to be an M1A2, cuz there the best) the bullet, if it hits would still pack the same punch. it wont lose much speed of the short amount of time its flying (4-5 seconds). i wasn't clear, sorry.. but that's not what I mean I've been playing BF2 and I noticed that a lot of times I have to reposition tanks to hit my target because it wont aim down far enough or wont aim up far enough. On these guns not only can they not move in one direction (towards the ship) no matter what, but they have to worry about parts of the ship obstructing their view. I know it doesnt explain everything.. but i guess it might help some. Still, CCP, damnit, let us hit 100% of the time for 0 transverse objects. Let us do 100% damage to all objects that aren't moving.. please.. ________ I'm strict Caldari "The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think? -ErrorS
Nyphur	Posted - 2005.07.15 14:59:00 - [36] You shouldn't need tracking mods to hit a building if it's stationary. It ssig radius is ridiculously small, try bug reporting it and see if they change it. It might be that they never intended it.
Kraythe	Posted - 2005.07.15 15:20:00 - [37] Originally by: Vel Kyri nope.. we wont come up with anything.. personally i think that if a ship-target system remains stationary (0 transverse or radial velocity) then the effective tracking of a gun should increase (ie, you are pointing straight at it - aiming any yeah, a torp vs building... should get full damage. Hmm ya, that would probably be a decent idea but I think it should also depend on the size and whether you are moving as well. A building shouldnt be missable really.
Zdragva	Posted - 2005.07.16 10:24:00 - [38] Not hitting a building with your gun is like puting an egg in the barrel of a tanks main gun and missing it. You are 0m away from a building. You would have to be TRYING REALLY HARD to miss it. Such as pointing your gun 90 degrees away... Iv always considered this utterly stupid. Youv got a shell 1.4m in diameter, that means you need to be aiming 0.7m wide of the edge of your target to miss it. Your target is a stationary building 0m away. Oh wait, its for balance, right makes perfect sense now. Eve rules.
Fester Addams	Posted - 2005.07.16 11:21:00 - [39] Want to have fun? Go do a lev 1/10 drone complex, the HUGE thing at the end has a size problem that is as big as kink-kongs big brother. So I am picking upp the cans and am anoyed that the structure is in the way, from experience I know its killable and can be killed fairly quickly... but Im 0m away and again from experience I know I cant hit anything from that distance so I start pounding it with my one launcher, pick upp all the cans and decide Im going to kill it on principle. Thus I hit the keep at range button and start heading out towards my optimal range. out out out I fly and Im still 0m away, I even pass a small asetroid colony that was somthing like 20km out when I picked upp the cans, I not only pass it I fly past it by another 30km before I get to my optimal range of 1500m. Now this feels odd, I have an astroid colony about half way to the large structure that is 1500m away and that colony is 30km away... The implications boggles the mind :)
Rawthorm	Posted - 2005.07.16 14:10:00 - [40] IMO structures just need to suffer full damage in any situation. Problem solved.
Lo3d3R	Posted - 2005.07.16 14:31:00 - [41] Originally by: Uncle George I think it's something to do with "balance" but don't quote me. I'm sure the role-play nerds have some scientific explaination.....
Solarfury	Posted - 2005.07.16 17:36:00 - [42] Why is there a need to balance the structures in mission/complex? If anything that is not moving, then it should be hit with full damage by any and everything save resistance. The balance should comes in when target is moving not when it is holding still. A tank don't have to use guns to kill a rabbit that 0m away. All it needs to do is do a 90 degree turn. Unless that rabbit moves away, otherwise you will just see bones and some fur left.
Nyphur	Posted - 2005.07.16 19:02:00 - [43] Missing point-blank is a programming problem. The answer is to add one metre onto the distance being sent to the damage equation. That way you'd never miss just because you were 0m away. Putting a 0 anywhere in an equation tends to reduce everyhting else to either 0 or infinity. In this case, you get a chance to hit of 0%.
jonus Rath	Posted - 2005.07.18 22:39:00 - [44] i dont think its a programing prob. i think the devs just need to make 100% damage on a target thats not moving. If they did that it would have to do the same thing to you. like you couldnt just sit around when doing a mission and take the damage. you would need to move a bit to not get 100% damage on yourself. hope that makes sence.
10 Bears	Posted - 2005.07.18 22:56:00 - [45] Originally by: jonus Rath God damn it, i know that my stupid guns are not intended to hit at close range. I know that i need god damned tracking mods to hit a building thats not moving, and i know that people are going to say well just go to the right distance. What i hate is the fact that it is like it is. I dont really care about Ship to Ship combat, im doing fine in that location. I just think that you should do more damage the closer you get to a target that is not moving. like i said, IT WONT DODGE THE BULLET. It's official... EVE no longer make one bit of sense... Your 280mm Howitzer Artillery II perfectly strikes Serpentis Defender, wrecking for 230.4 damage.
10 Bears	Posted - 2005.07.18 22:59:00 - [46] QUESTION: "Why are we making excuses for what it an abysmal system for determining damage?" What was wrong with the linear velocity / tracking speed model that worked fine before all this silly rubbish about signatures and explosive radii? nuttin... Your 280mm Howitzer Artillery II perfectly strikes Serpentis Defender, wrecking for 230.4 damage.
10 Bears	Posted - 2005.07.18 23:00:00 - [47] Originally by: Branco Well... are those buildings really motionless? They could be orbiting something, so they move. Don't know enough about physics and astronomy to know if this makes sense tough It's doesn't Your 280mm Howitzer Artillery II perfectly strikes Serpentis Defender, wrecking for 230.4 damage.
10 Bears	Posted - 2005.07.18 23:03:00 - [48] And CCP = Please do something about my forum portrait... Like fix your server Your 280mm Howitzer Artillery II perfectly strikes Serpentis Defender, wrecking for 230.4 damage.
CmdrRat	Posted - 2005.07.18 23:32:00 - [49] I'd bet money that they have an equasion to messure dmg and the closer to infinite you get to zero rounding messses things up. LIke wise a massive range woule do the same thing but you can't lock at extream range anyway. _ ____ _______ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________
theRaptor	Posted - 2005.07.18 23:33:00 - [50] Just accept that its a programming hack ffs. Its not as bad as a hack as missiles, but its still a hack. It has to be a hack because otherwise the server would frigging melt. And yes if you are in a perfectly circular orbit your guns wouldn't need to track. But seriously just slow down and give it some distance. There is no reason you need to be shooting a structure at speed and close in. That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die. -- Ancient "Dirt" Religious figure.
Carter83	Posted - 2005.07.19 01:11:00 - [51] I cant understand that its taken 2 pages for... some people to agree that its a programming fault. I accepted the fact that i cant hit a building in eve that is 4 times bigger than my ship. I also accept that containers are actually bigger on the inside than the outside but cant fit a shuttle nor can i scoop up a shuttle that i already jetted out of in the same ship. Being able to take stuff out of someones jetcan but not being able to place anything in it because your not part of their "gang" or "corp" dont really surprise me either. Its a game i dont try and understand it, just play it :)
Marcus Grisbius	Posted - 2005.07.19 01:21:00 - [52] When you are right on top of another object, you may be zero meters away from it. When you get that close the server doesnt recognise that you hit the object, mainly cuz it thinks that you're on the other side of the object firing away from it. If you move back even 250m many times you can see the difference automatically. I dont think this situation has to do with tracking rather with the target distance. You're probably just so close the system thinks you're on top of it shooting the other way. Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn
Hydroponica	Posted - 2005.07.19 01:22:00 - [53] Originally by: jonus Rath Edited by: jonus Rath on 15/07/2005 07:45:06 Edited by: jonus Rath on 15/07/2005 07:26:40 Edited by: jonus Rath on 15/07/2005 07:11:02 k, I read the post about the torps/cruse's not hitting buildings and I agree. they should do full damage. I AM ABOUT TO BIT<H ABOUT STUFF. YOU HAVE BEEN WORNED But I have a question of my own, Y the hell can I not hit a building with my guns from about 30m's away. IÆm right on top of the damn thing (and its bigger then my damned dominix) and I cant even dent the ****. Same thing with a ship that pulls up along side of you, ITS NOT MOVING but I cant hit it. (thatÆs never happened to me but if it did IÆm sure I wouldnÆt be able to do crap) The thing I really donÆt like is this: its not that hard to hit a moving target, even in space. Actually its easer to hit a moving target in space. You donÆt have to account for wind or gravity unless youÆre planning to hit some1 from the other side of the system. ItÆs so easy that you could plot the cores in a matter a seconds with the right software even using a normal household PC. Now think, these ships "have" computers far more advanced then ours but cant hit a building, let alone a ship what the hell? Quote: null, what the hells that? What kind of guns? I fly a Tempest and although my 1400's can't hit close up, my close range auto cannon's (OMG Short Range Guns?) blew up quite nicely, close up. ******************************* Silly Rabbit, **s are for Chicks
Kahn Moquil	Posted - 2005.07.19 01:38:00 - [54] If you can't hit a structure from close up, why not just move out a bit? Or is that too complicated. And for all those that argue for 100% damage every shot on stationary objects, I suppose you never held a capturable station or a pos...
Aitrus	Posted - 2005.07.19 03:26:00 - [55] I'm not sure if this is what the OP is talking about, but things get wacky at 0 distance. I.E. you get so close to an object that you're inside it as far as the server is concerned. (Server thinks everything is a sphere btw) I believe being 0m away from something mucks up the tracking calculations because you'll miss CONSTANTLY. Probably a divide by 0 error somewhere. Simple really.
Thyristor Phibes	Posted - 2005.07.19 07:20:00 - [56] Edited by: Thyristor Phibes on 19/07/2005 07:21:30 Flying buildings that dodge bullets at 30 meters, exploding ammo, squirrels, tanks, tracking mods to track buildings, what game are you guys playing? Alien Squirrel Nut Zipper Buildings from Hell? The bottom line is that the current method that CCP has implemented doesn't work to well for stationary objects at very close ranges. Case closed. some people are such fan boys. nothing to see here, move along...
William Hartas	Posted - 2005.07.19 07:57:00 - [57] Edited by: William Hartas on 19/07/2005 07:58:59 Can anyone explain why a 1400mm artillery shell can "glance" off a frigate at point blank range?
Matthew	Posted - 2005.07.19 08:20:00 - [58] Originally by: Nyphur Missing point-blank is a programming problem. The answer is to add one metre onto the distance being sent to the damage equation. That way you'd never miss just because you were 0m away. Putting a 0 anywhere in an equation tends to reduce everyhting else to either 0 or infinity. In this case, you get a chance to hit of 0%. Adding 1m really wouldn't make that much difference. Lets say you have a nice tracking of 0.25rad/s (about equal to a gatling pulse). At 1m, that equates to a transverse velocity of 0.25m/s, which won't be a huge help. There's also another reason why such short ranges may be mucking up tracking. The tracking figures for the guns are their 50%-accurate figures. There's a curve off to either side of that point. Push the 50% point right up against an extreme, and you leave very little room for that transition curve to fit into. Depending on exactly how it's implemented, that could lead to the transition being compressed into a step change (and you may never get to the step if it's at true-zero), the transition simply being truncated, so 100% accuracy can never be reached, or various other strangeness. Originally by: Aitrus I believe being 0m away from something mucks up the tracking calculations because you'll miss CONSTANTLY. Probably a divide by 0 error somewhere. It's not really an error, it's exactly what the tracking equation should do in that situation - getting that close to something should mean any transverse velocity makes it very hard to track. The trouble is that target size doesn't get scaled the same way, so you don't get the intuitive "point-blank" effect. If it did, then you'd get the two singularities near zero cancelling each other out and some sane result (assuming you could cope with it numerically). Originally by: William Hartas Can anyone explain why a 1400mm artillery shell can "glance" off a frigate? The same reason that damage in a car crash varies depending on the angle of impact. If the cars smack fully head-on, you end up with a pile of scrap metal (wrecking hit). If they just clip the edge of each other's bumpers, you'll end up with a dent and some scratched paintwork (discounting any damage when they spin off and hit other things of course, as there's generally nothing much else to smack into in space, and no collision damage in eve anyway!). Players Ego resistances. EM 0%, Therm 0%, Kin 0%, Exp 0%, reality 100%.
William Hartas	Posted - 2005.07.19 08:30:00 - [59] At point blank range though a big hefty chunk with a thermos full of plasma in it of metal with a thermos full of plasma in it of about 1.5m in diameter travelling at a zillion m/s is going to do some damage regardless of angle, surely.
Matthew	Posted - 2005.07.19 08:33:00 - [60] Originally by: William Hartas At point blank range though a big hefty chunk with a thermos full of plasma in it of metal with a thermos full of plasma in it of about 1.5m in diameter travelling at a zillion m/s is going to do some damage regardless of angle, surely. At point-blank range, sure. But at any other range, aiming accuracy means you could be off slightly and just graze the target instead of smacking into it. And as I've already pointed out, the current combat system doesn't take into account the apparent size of the target, so you don't get any point-blank effects. Players Ego resistances. EM 0%, Therm 0%, Kin 0%, Exp 0%, reality 100%.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.