Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lurk
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 01:18:00 -
[31]
TomB would you mind checking the Stacking Thread, "Iridina" made a good suggestion there about the formula.
The Stacking Thread (it's the first post on the page)
|
Kalki Nibiru
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 01:47:00 -
[32]
Quote: TomB, you have to keep in mind that the Maller has no drone bay, and not much recources to power an Medium Smartbomb wich is now needed to kill the new Drones... Thorax has same Turrets, and now 8 "Medium Frigates" as escort!
Thorax vs Maller is now, well, "one sided"...
Here is a little secret the NPC's use on me..........they target the drones and blast them into tiny atoms.
I would hardly say that heavy combat drones are frigates, they die very fast. All you need to do is aim your weapons at them, and believe me, once they are gone, any Gallente pilot might want to find the nearest station/gate/dead space.
Taken from the May 29th 2003 Devchat at EveGate . <Muaddid> Q: When will sentry gun and station and similar construction pods be introduced on the market? <Hellmar> we have various player owned entities already implemented. Sentry guns, power/shield generators, field repair mini-stations, mobile refineries. We are still working out the last tidbits of how they can be over taken, what is the penalty of having a sentry gun kill a n00b etc. and we have been a bit busy with plugging the holes that people have found.I would say that you'd start to see these items on the market in about 2-3 weeks, very expensive to begin with |
Chucky
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 02:22:00 -
[33]
Thanks Tomb
... you will see more and more marketing which in turn will bring you more players to torture. |
mr quik
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 02:32:00 -
[34]
with smart bombs will they be able or are they know able to deflect missiles. If not will this become a add on in futrue pathes? power money respect |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 02:34:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 11/09/2003 02:50:16 Ok, my BS has now a more realistic accelleration - 0 -> 2km/s takes around 27 secs now.
But the problem with the duck dance remains. It's now more of a derby car problem.
At narrow orbits: Imagine a derby car on a narrow circular track. But the derby car has not enough steering to actually be able to manage the "eternal curve" with it's speed. The result is some kind of "pong". It will hit then outer wall of the track, is reflected to the other side, hit's the inner wall, is reflected,... The result may have a slightly similar effect like a real orbit, but for SURE doesn't looks like one. At least we would need some pretty complicated gravity force setup for it
The main problem is another one, though. If I have a pretty high speed when arriving at my orbit I still get the same effect as before. I hit the "inner wall" of my orbit, get "reflected", hit the "outer wall", get "reflected", and so on. The ship *is* slowing slowly that way and finally entering a pretty stable orbit - but it takes 1-2 minutes. And during this time I won't "move" for the turrets of my target at all, I just would approach and withdraw repentantly to/from it with minimal "horizontal" movement. Meaning - a sitting (more appropriate: dancing) duck.
The simple approach to the wished orbiting distance isn't very good, too, since you are a sitting duck during that time as well.
The effect is not as bad with a moving target (tested with a can and a BS moving with 180 ms, but still a problem.
Needed: - some way of "smoothing" narrow orbits to decrease the derby effect - a slowly narrowing orbit instead of the current approach - bonga-bonga-bonga - orbit
free speech not allowed here |
The Wretch
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 02:49:00 -
[36]
Edited by: The Wretch on 11/09/2003 02:49:46
For once I like all these changes.
edit: *golf clap*
The Wretch Cyberdyne Systems CEO
|
Gan Howorth
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 05:34:00 -
[37]
TomB
Quote: About the nanofiber modules, they are giving straight bonus to the agility but are suposed to be giving a multiplier. Agility boosters are affecting battleships much greater than frigates because of this.
Will be updating Chaos today with this, Frigates then will need testing with the nanofiber modules, they might get the same problem
Hmm, I was under the impression that agility was an arbitrary multiplier from 0.0 to 1.0. Which worked with "mass" to give acc/dec and turning. Thus getting this figure to 0 from 1 will give you the best agility.
People have reported that hull mods increase agility by reducing this figure. However reducing it beyond a certain point (zero?) causes agility to get worse again.
This is a bug.
I am also concerned that spaceship command and evasive maneovuring skill is not having ANY effect on agility (i.e. they are broken). Once agility is less of a black box attribute maybe this will become clearer.
|
Athule Snanm
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 10:20:00 -
[38]
Personally I'd rather not have ships using MWD being able to orbit effectively (if at all) at close ranges. I have QuadLif on all my battleships and with that and my high nav and agility skills I can really get some speed going on TQ. Whilst it would be a bit of fun, it'd be very silly to be able to stick a couple of nanos on and orbit some poor frigate at close range.
_______________________________
Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene! |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 10:49:00 -
[39]
Noone would use that vs frigs (or even cruisers) - but as a shortrange vs a longrange BS it whould be possible.
free speech not allowed here |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 13:33:00 -
[40]
"Whilst it would be a bit of fun, it'd be very silly to be able to stick a couple of nanos on and orbit some poor frigate at close range."
... Yup; it's more than just silly, actually... aside from the cost, about the only advantages of the smaller ships are their higher speed and agility. When you can make the battleship move 2-3 times faster and be more agile than any frigate, due to lower 'base' agility of the battleship and larger number of low slots... what's the point of small ships, really?..
|
|
Keo Morigan
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 14:04:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Keo Morigan on 11/09/2003 14:05:24 soo, drones are already good enough in PvP, they eat any cruiser avalible alive atm. And when you take avay the ability to destroy them with torpedos/Cruise missiles, how to kill them? Target 6+ drones manually and shoot them down while the droner is shooting at me? Just want to know how you do so the thorax won't get overpowered (Only cruiser you fear when in a cruiser yourself, cause it's no idea to jam it..)
edit: oh, right, smartbombs... They never worked against drones before, dunno now.
If your not a part of the solution, then you'r probably a part of the problem. |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 14:18:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 11/09/2003 14:20:51 Don't forget, the nanofiber bug has been fixed. Those rediculous frigate agility of a nanoed BS is no longer possible.
In fact it seems that TomB has (yet again) hit them full force with the nerfbat instead of balancing them - because they have now *no* effect at all besides their speedbonus.
Megathron with quad lif, max speed 1491 - accelleration time to 90% of max speed (1342) - 32 seconds
Megathron with 3 21m/s overdrives (alpha hull mod) + quad lif, max speed 2309 - accelleration time to 90% of max speed (2078) - 32 seconds
Megathron with 3 21m/s nanofibers (local hull conversion I) + quad lif, max speed 2309 - accelleration time to 90% of max speed (2078) - 32 seconds
Nanos have a lower speed bonus that overdrives in exchange for a higher agility bonus - but it seems that bonus has switched from too big to not existant.
I'm not asking for a BS having the agility of a frig, but if it is using nanodrives it should be able to outmaneuver a BS without them.
free speech not allowed here |
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 15:39:00 -
[43]
As I stated, Nanofibers have more effect on smaller ships. The effect is not that much for acceleration from min to max speed, but you can notice the effect more of the nanofibers when you go to orbiting, the ships will keep more speed when taking turns.
"Where is my hat?" |
Acuna Traos
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 15:52:00 -
[44]
Quote: Megathron with quad lif, max speed 1491 - accelleration time to 90% of max speed (1342) - 32 seconds
Megathron with 3 21m/s overdrives (alpha hull mod) + quad lif, max speed 2309 - accelleration time to 90% of max speed (2078) - 32 seconds
I'd like to point out that that is actualy a reasonable increas in acceleration. You should be measuring the time to the SAME speed ie for;
Megathron with 3 21m/s overdrives (alpha hull mod) + quad lif
accelleration time to 1342 (same as 1st accel test) - ~21 seconds (calculated)
thats a 11 second boost not bad realy, and you can surpass this speed and go faster. Why do you think cars have a 0-60mph value rather than a 0-60% value! percentages are pointless for measuring acceleration, its how fast you accelerate to a given speed that is the point.
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 16:17:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 11/09/2003 17:36:07 @ Acuna Traos: You miss the point.
First, you are wrong about the accelleration. You cannot calculate it that way because accelleration isn't a linear in eve. It accellerates faster at the start and slowly ebbs out at the end. Because of this it's only practical to compare speeds of the same percentage of the max speed.
Second it's not about a ship without overdrives/nanos and one with, but about a ship with nanos and one with overdrives.
As said before, overdrives have a bigger speed bonus than nanos (30 vs 21 with the better overdrives/nanos), but the nanos have a better agility bonus - basically a ship with nanos should be more agile, while a ship with overdrives should be faster.
@ TomB - will test it with different ship classes/outfits and edit the reports in here.
1.) Megathron with 3 local hull nanos + quad lif MWD command: orbiting fight club 2 station at 20km result: after 1-2 minutes having problems getting into stable orbit (bonga-bonga-bonga) it orbits the station with 1400-1600 speed (falling and ebbing between these two values). At 25 km, btw, and not 20 km.
Megathron with 3 alpha hull mod overdrives + quad lif MWD command: orbiting fight club 2 station at 20km result: as before, after 1-2 minutes having problems it's orbiting the station with 1400-1600 speed, falling and ebbing. Here too at 25 km instead of 20 km.
-> Overdrives gave the BS exactly the same orbiting speed as the nanos. Note that the overdrives I used gave the same speed bonus as the nanos.
Last megathron test with overdrives of them same quality as the nanos - local hull conversion - which give 32 m/s instead of the 21 m/s as the nanos.
Conditions same as before. Result: After problems stable orbit at 25km (instead of the ordered 20 km) with 1800-1900 ms.
Conclusion with BS: Nanos do not help at all - you get higher orbiting speeds with overdrives of the same quality.
2.) Now testing it with a cruiser.
A moa, three 21 ms local hull nanos, 1 quad lif. After 60% of it'cap cap was spend it went finally out of the bonga-bonga-phase into a stable orbit at 15 km (ordered a orbit of 10 km), orbiting speed 1100-1400.
Same setup, but with 3 21 ms alpha hull mod overdrives: Orbiting range 15 instead of the choosen 10km, bonga-bonga-problems, orbiting speed finally 1100-1400.
With 3 32ms overdrives now (local hull; as before - same quility/rarity than the nanos used)- Exactly the same result as before, just this time with an orbiting speed of 1600-1800.
-> The agility bonus of nanofibers have the same effect to cruisers as to BS's - none.
3.) Now picking a frigate.
Ok, a tristan with 3 lif AB. And 3 21 ms nanos (local hull). Using a can to orbit it at 5 km (this time it actually orbits it at 5 km and not at 7.5 or 10). Bonga-bonga happens here, too, but only for ~10 secs. Orbiting speed is pretty stable at 1020-1030.
With 3 21 ms overdrives: Exactly the same results. Speed is a little more unstable, veries between 1015 and 1035.
Wth 3 32 ms overdrives: Exactly the same results, exept a orbiting speed of 1090-1120.
-> No noticable agility bonus for frigs with the nanos, too.
Does this prove my point of the agility bonus of nanos not working atm?
free speech not allowed here |
Acuna Traos
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 16:28:00 -
[46]
I don't want to get into a flame war here, I know my values will not be accurate as I did it in a linear way and accel isn't. BUT it should still be tested to the same speed as that is the only way to get standard to look at. I'll refer back to cars in the real world. They have all different acceleration curves yet are tested alot from 0 to 60mph as its your ability to reach a desired speed in a set amount of time. The fact some cars can go faster is a bonus, and in some cases a faster car may even have slower acceleration.
Thats all I'm going to say on the point and if you still dissagree then so be it.
Though I would like to mention something someone else said somewhere. An option to spiral or zig zag towards a target would be good. Especialy for frigs closing down larger ships.
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 16:48:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 11/09/2003 16:54:46
Quote: I don't want to get into a flame war here, BUT it should still be tested to the same speed as that is the only way to get standard to look at. I'll refer back to cars in the real world. They have all different acceleration curves yet are tested alot from 0 to 60mph as its your ability to reach a desired speed in a set amount of time...
I don't want a flamewar, too, but I don't want to waste my time with you, because, as said, you are missing the point. My example with the overdrives and the nanos HAD the same speed, but the same acelleration, too. Which shouldn't be the case. The example with the ship without neither was just as comparsion to the overdrive - don't fixate of that, but on the ship with nanos and that with overdrives.
To use your car example:
Take car1 with a carbon frame and a slightly weaker engine (nanos; they have a weaker speedbonus than overdrives of the same qulity, but a lighter mass (-> bigger agility bonus)) and car2, which is just the same as car2, exept that it has a heavy iron frame, but a stronger engine (Overdrives, they give only a very light agility bonus, but a bigger speedbonus).
Car1 will have a lower endspeed, but will reach it's endspeed faster than car2, because it has a weaker engine (lower endspeed), but a lower mass (aka better agility -> higher accleration because it has less inertia).
That is not the case in Eve - both cars/ships reach their max speed *at exactly the same time*.
-----
And why you are wrong with the nano/overdriveless ship and the ship with overdrives.
Assume the ship with th overdrive has a better engine, but the same mass as th ship without nanos/overdrives - OF COURCE the ship with overdrives will acellerate faster - it has a better engine after all.
BUT - it will reach it's max speed *at the same time* as the ship with the weaker engine - since it has the same mass/inertia.
It isn't the acelleration SPEED which is important, but the acelleration TIME.
free speech not allowed here |
Troezar
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 17:07:00 -
[48]
Ok so 0-60 in 5 secs is the same as 0-100 in 5 secs, nope I think not. To find the real difference do as car mags do and measure 0-30 0-40 0-50 etc. then do 50-70 30-80 etc. If you want to do 0-max speed then you have eto use the same max speed value or all comparisons are meaningless. I'd be well please if my car did 0-100 in the same time as it does 0-60 currently 10 secs I'd ahve a real beast on my hands!!!
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 17:17:00 -
[49]
If that was in response to my posting, please reread them, because you don't understand it either.
free speech not allowed here |
Acuna Traos
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 17:24:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Acuna Traos on 11/09/2003 17:25:27 I'm sorry the way I went about arguing my point emphisised the wrong thing. I mearly don't like the fact you used a percentage as a stop point, and I have to admit I missed one set of stats. Duh me! (I do admit mistakes )
You do have a good point in there though, and I noticed we also said the same thing in two different ways in our second posts (of which I do have some totaly unrelated points about but will refrain from saying as its pointless and has detracted from the original point of your post for which I am sorry, I'm just having one of those days).
|
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 17:38:00 -
[51]
Sorry, too, because my speech wasn't really polite either way. I have those days atm, too. (Especially since I originally wanted to do some work ATM and not having to argue about things).
free speech not allowed here |
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.11 21:31:00 -
[52]
Thank you alot for the feedback Ana, I have a few questions about your testings:
The Bonga-Bonga: Do they happen all the time or just when the ship is trying to adjust itself for orbiting? We know ships with low Inertia (mass * agility) are having a little trouble adjusting for orbit, but when they have started orbiting for real they don't have this problem anymore, was this the same case with your testing or did this also happen after the orbit had started for real?
Orbit Ranges: As I understand the further out you went in orbit ranges the more bonga-bonga you had while trying to get into orbit, that true?
If this is only a case with ships adjusting itself for orbit then I can proudly say it is being fixed, ships will have easier time to adjust themselves into the orbit sequence.
Bonga-Bonga! Hakuna Matata!
"Where is my hat?" |
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.09.12 00:08:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 12/09/2003 00:11:50 Mhh.. seems I must stop to use such silly terms, it sound somewhat childish when someone other is using them
The..er.. bouncing only happens when ship ship "hits" his orbit, not before and not after it finally achieves a stable orbit. It has a longer duration on stationary targets that moving ones (up to two minutes bouncing on stationary targets, 30-60 sec bouncing on a ship moving 180 ms I tested it on).
No bouncing after the ship manages to stop it at starts orbiting for real. A narrow orbit (5 km or less) of low-agi ship looks somewhat strange, though, since it hits the "walls" of hits orbit tube. It still can orbit halfway effeciently, but I would hand out stomach sickness bags to all passengers.
The distance to the orbit has only a limited effect of the time the ships keep bouncing. The important factor is the speed - which is linked to the distance. But different ships can have different speeds after a certain distance.
Will test it rrrright away.
Edit: ...er..tomorrow. Forgot that I deleted my eve-chaos install topday because I needed some space. Must clean it up a little.
free speech not allowed here |
ULTIMA TREX
|
Posted - 2003.09.12 08:35:00 -
[54]
TomB, is the ranges of targetting fixed for drones, the small problem they cant attack further than 20km?
|
Dianabolic
|
Posted - 2003.09.12 12:23:00 -
[55]
Quote: TomB, is the ranges of targetting fixed for drones, the small problem they cant attack further than 20km?
Desperately needed.
|
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.12 14:47:00 -
[56]
Thanks again for your feedback, we will try all we can to get a smooth orbit adjustment for the patch
The reason for the distance of target always being longer than the orbit menu gives you for orbiting is because of the orbit range is set from the edge of the collision radius sphere of your ship and the radius sphere of the object you are orbiting. But the target distance is always shown from the center of the object and the center of your ship. So if you are orbiting a station with a large collision radius sphere, the distance will show as greater than the orbiting is told to be at. This is something that will be looked at later, not high priority at the moment.
"Where is my hat?" |
Fritz Ionar
|
Posted - 2003.09.12 17:04:00 -
[57]
Quote:
The reason for the distance of target always being longer than the orbit menu gives you for orbiting is because of the orbit range is set from the edge of the collision radius sphere of your ship and the radius sphere of the object you are orbiting. But the target distance is always shown from the center of the object and the center of your ship. So if you are orbiting a station with a large collision radius sphere, the distance will show as greater than the orbiting is told to be at. This is something that will be looked at later, not high priority at the moment.
I think it makes most sens to have it this way so don't bother looking at it Ofcour others might disagrea... |
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.12 17:44:00 -
[58]
We just fixed the distance, it will now always show distance from collision radius from object to your ship's collision radius... changed it just for you Fritz. Will come on Chaos on next update.
"Where is my hat?" |
Hematic
|
Posted - 2003.09.12 19:45:00 -
[59]
Quote: We just fixed the distance, it will now always show distance from collision radius from object to your ship's collision radius...
How does this affect optimal ranges? Has turret range always used center to center, or coll rad. to coll rad. in its equations?
When targetting large objects (giant asteroids/stations) will this change essentially give a targetting range bonus? Or will your targetting range still be limited to center to center?
How will this affect scramblers and other fixed range equipment? Will they begin to use these new calculations when determining if they will fire?
Thx.
|
TomB
|
Posted - 2003.09.13 15:21:00 -
[60]
Woops, we will change the the bracket and target distances back and rather add the collision radius to the orbit ranges.
Was too hasty here that I forgot that docking and stargate jumping is calculated from the center of the objects.
"Where is my hat?" |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |