Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 07:18:00 -
[121] - Quote
Bohneik Itohn wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:
Your argument is ignorant and wrong. Once again,
My proposal changes literally nothing about how damage is applied, so it makes no difference in game balance.
I'm sure you enjoy saying it, but it doesn't make it true. Skills, modules, and implants will have an entirely different effect on the new tracking value, and since no skill, module, or implant has any effect on turret sig res that expands their efficacy. Changing their values will change how they scale, which will necessarily require other things like ship signature radius to scale with them. Now that that's changed, what about how missiles interact with sig radius? Oops... Back to the grindstone, guys, we've got more work to do...
An obscure branch of mathematics known as "algebra" says you're wrong and I'm right. I believe wikipedia has a page on it. |
Doggy Dogwoofwoof
The Eleusinian The Imicus Contract
36
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 08:43:00 -
[122] - Quote
Bohneik Itohn wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:
Your argument is ignorant and wrong. Once again,
My proposal changes literally nothing about how damage is applied, so it makes no difference in game balance.
I'm sure you enjoy saying it, but it doesn't make it true. Skills, modules, and implants will have an entirely different effect on the new tracking value, and since no skill, module, or implant has any effect on turret sig res that expands their efficacy. Changing their values will change how they scale, which will necessarily require other things like ship signature radius to scale with them. Now that that's changed, what about how missiles interact with sig radius? Oops... Back to the grindstone, guys, we've got more work to do... He wants to Normalize The Sig Res of the guns. The OP is just TERRIBLY worded about it. The only real Diffrence between this and the current formula is what your guns Tracking speed is only shows the True value vs cruisers, Frigs would be about a 3rd of it and BSs 3 times it. |
Sigras
Conglomo
816
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 10:28:00 -
[123] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:Sigras wrote:The only issue I see with this is it causes un-intuitive things to happen in game.
Say we normalize gun sig radii to 100 m^2 so the tracking speed on my Rokh's Neutron Blaster Cannons goes down to .01778 rad/s
We would still need to explain to new players why you can hit a battleship that is orbiting you faster than that, or why you cant hit an interceptor going around you at exactly that speed.
I understand it wouldnt change the game balance, but it would increase confusion for new players not decrease it. Bigger ships are easier to hit than smaller ships. Seems pretty intuitive to me. it would be... except for the fact that people use transversal on their overviews...
See as it is right now, guns shooting at a target more or less their size (medium guns shooting at a cruiser, or large guns shooting at a battleship) track around their listed transversal, but with your proposal, you could have a battleship shooting at another battleship with 3x the transversal as is listed on the gun and still hit them perfectly...
This would require explanation... |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
985
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 10:38:00 -
[124] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:Sigras wrote:The only issue I see with this is it causes un-intuitive things to happen in game.
Say we normalize gun sig radii to 100 m^2 so the tracking speed on my Rokh's Neutron Blaster Cannons goes down to .01778 rad/s
We would still need to explain to new players why you can hit a battleship that is orbiting you faster than that, or why you cant hit an interceptor going around you at exactly that speed.
I understand it wouldnt change the game balance, but it would increase confusion for new players not decrease it. Bigger ships are easier to hit than smaller ships. Seems pretty intuitive to me. it would be... except for the fact that people use transversal on their overviews... See as it is right now, guns shooting at a target more or less their size (medium guns shooting at a cruiser, or large guns shooting at a battleship) track around their listed transversal, but with your proposal, you could have a battleship shooting at another battleship with 3x the transversal as is listed on the gun and still hit them perfectly... This would require explanation... To be fair, you could also argue that there are so many things affecting sig radius that 'angular velocity vs. tracking speed' is rarely an accurate hit quality predictor. Range will always be much more straightforward.
Still, I agree with you. It's easier for me to think:
. Guns larger than target --> need to stay far away, severly slow down the dude, paint him . Guns smaller than target --> tracking isn't an issue anymore . Target has unbonused MWD --> \o/ easier to hit . Target is passive shield tanked --> \o/ easier to hit
...while still using angular velocity as shown on overview as a reference point. |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 14:53:00 -
[125] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:Sigras wrote:The only issue I see with this is it causes un-intuitive things to happen in game.
Say we normalize gun sig radii to 100 m^2 so the tracking speed on my Rokh's Neutron Blaster Cannons goes down to .01778 rad/s
We would still need to explain to new players why you can hit a battleship that is orbiting you faster than that, or why you cant hit an interceptor going around you at exactly that speed.
I understand it wouldnt change the game balance, but it would increase confusion for new players not decrease it. Bigger ships are easier to hit than smaller ships. Seems pretty intuitive to me. it would be... except for the fact that people use transversal on their overviews... See as it is right now, guns shooting at a target more or less their size (medium guns shooting at a cruiser, or large guns shooting at a battleship) track around their listed transversal, but with your proposal, you could have a battleship shooting at another battleship with 3x the transversal as is listed on the gun and still hit them perfectly... This would require explanation...
I think I've explained it like 5 times in this thread.
Bigger targets are easier to hit.
Not that hard. |
Linkxsc162534
Traps 'R' Us Advanced Amateurs
83
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 18:06:00 -
[126] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:
I think I've explained it like 5 times in this thread.
Bigger targets are easier to hit.
Not that hard.
But it is. You want to put everything into tracking so noobs have an easier time understanding... but if my gun cant physically track the target, how the hell are we hitting him??
Its like this. Rite nao. A frigate shooting a frigate, if your able to track him, you know that you should be hitting him. post change, youll need to have a tracking more than 2x their angular to score about 50% of shots. This is because the sig will be the defining factor because the gun sig is too high.
To a newbie with a lack of understanding of the mechanics how is it more understandable that even though they "should" be tracking a target they cant hit it?
|
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 19:00:00 -
[127] - Quote
The same problem exists right now, even worse. A frigate can track a battleship whose angular velocity is 10x the tracking speed of their guns? How do you explain that?
If anything, my proposal alleviates the problem (though does not solve it entirely). |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1232
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 19:01:00 -
[128] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:Sigras wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:Sigras wrote:The only issue I see with this is it causes un-intuitive things to happen in game.
Say we normalize gun sig radii to 100 m^2 so the tracking speed on my Rokh's Neutron Blaster Cannons goes down to .01778 rad/s
We would still need to explain to new players why you can hit a battleship that is orbiting you faster than that, or why you cant hit an interceptor going around you at exactly that speed.
I understand it wouldnt change the game balance, but it would increase confusion for new players not decrease it. Bigger ships are easier to hit than smaller ships. Seems pretty intuitive to me. it would be... except for the fact that people use transversal on their overviews... See as it is right now, guns shooting at a target more or less their size (medium guns shooting at a cruiser, or large guns shooting at a battleship) track around their listed transversal, but with your proposal, you could have a battleship shooting at another battleship with 3x the transversal as is listed on the gun and still hit them perfectly... This would require explanation... I think I've explained it like 5 times in this thread. Bigger targets are easier to hit. Not that hard. That same trait comes over in the current system as well. A weapon hits what it's made to hit as well as it states and has issues with things smaller while hitting bigger things better. What your arguing is that it makes sense to abstract the tracking on a gun from it's "intended" targets in favor of some arbitrary focal point. |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 19:06:00 -
[129] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:Sigras wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:Sigras wrote:The only issue I see with this is it causes un-intuitive things to happen in game.
Say we normalize gun sig radii to 100 m^2 so the tracking speed on my Rokh's Neutron Blaster Cannons goes down to .01778 rad/s
We would still need to explain to new players why you can hit a battleship that is orbiting you faster than that, or why you cant hit an interceptor going around you at exactly that speed.
I understand it wouldnt change the game balance, but it would increase confusion for new players not decrease it. Bigger ships are easier to hit than smaller ships. Seems pretty intuitive to me. it would be... except for the fact that people use transversal on their overviews... See as it is right now, guns shooting at a target more or less their size (medium guns shooting at a cruiser, or large guns shooting at a battleship) track around their listed transversal, but with your proposal, you could have a battleship shooting at another battleship with 3x the transversal as is listed on the gun and still hit them perfectly... This would require explanation... I think I've explained it like 5 times in this thread. Bigger targets are easier to hit. Not that hard. That same trait comes over in the current system as well. A weapon hits what it's made to hit as well as it states and has issues with things smaller while hitting bigger things better. What your arguing is that it makes sense to abstract the tracking on a gun from it's "intended" targets in favor of some arbitrary focal point.
True. Because I think having "0.1" mean the same thing as "0.1" when you're looking at tracking makes more sense then "well you can probably track things roughly the same size as you..."
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
284
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 19:14:00 -
[130] - Quote
There is no need for any change. The current method makes perfect sense and isn't too difficult to understand at all. No point in dumbing things down just for the sake of it. |
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
284
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 19:15:00 -
[131] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:True. Because I think having "0.1" mean the same thing as "0.1" when you're looking at tracking makes more sense then "well you can probably track things roughly the same size as you..."
Nothing complicated. If you see a target which is twice times less than the sig of your turret then you simply half the tracking like most people do at the moment. |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 19:19:00 -
[132] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:There is no need for any change. The current method makes perfect sense and isn't too difficult to understand at all. No point in dumbing things down just for the sake of it.
7 pages of people who don't understand it in this thread argues otherwise. |
Sigras
Conglomo
816
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 19:55:00 -
[133] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:Sigras wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:Sigras wrote:The only issue I see with this is it causes un-intuitive things to happen in game.
Say we normalize gun sig radii to 100 m^2 so the tracking speed on my Rokh's Neutron Blaster Cannons goes down to .01778 rad/s
We would still need to explain to new players why you can hit a battleship that is orbiting you faster than that, or why you cant hit an interceptor going around you at exactly that speed.
I understand it wouldnt change the game balance, but it would increase confusion for new players not decrease it. Bigger ships are easier to hit than smaller ships. Seems pretty intuitive to me. it would be... except for the fact that people use transversal on their overviews... See as it is right now, guns shooting at a target more or less their size (medium guns shooting at a cruiser, or large guns shooting at a battleship) track around their listed transversal, but with your proposal, you could have a battleship shooting at another battleship with 3x the transversal as is listed on the gun and still hit them perfectly... This would require explanation... I think I've explained it like 5 times in this thread. Bigger targets are easier to hit. Not that hard. I understand the concept... that doesnt make it less confusing when explained to a noob |
Kaerakh
Surprisingly Deep Hole
361
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 21:58:00 -
[134] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:There is no need for any change. The current method makes perfect sense and isn't too difficult to understand at all. No point in dumbing things down just for the sake of it. 7 pages of people who don't understand it in this thread argues otherwise.
You should retake some public school classes if you're having trouble understanding functions. Schrodinger's Hot Dropper - The Fate of Forum Alts - Click me! Click me! |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF
205
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 00:12:00 -
[135] - Quote
arguably one of the worst idea's I've ever heard.
How does the OP not understand that signature resolution is an entirely seperate mechanic from tracking speed.
This entire thread is disgusting.
There is literally no way to do away with one and not absolutely destroy the other. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1245
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 00:46:00 -
[136] - Quote
Phaade wrote:arguably one of the worst idea's I've ever heard.
How does the OP not understand that signature resolution is an entirely seperate mechanic from tracking speed.
Please explain further.
|
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 04:42:00 -
[137] - Quote
Phaade wrote:arguably one of the worst idea's I've ever heard.
How does the OP not understand that signature resolution is an entirely seperate mechanic from tracking speed.
This entire thread is disgusting.
There is literally no way to do away with one and not absolutely destroy the other.
Arguably one of the worst responses in this thread.
How does Phaade not understand that signature resolution is indistinguishable from tracking speed.
This response is disgusting.
There is literally no way to separate the effects of signature resolution and tracking speed. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1643
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 05:51:00 -
[138] - Quote
Ignore the masses of posts from people who don't get the math. I get it.
I feel like whether it's done your way or not, people are largely not going to understand it. So I think either way, we just need a tutorial that explains it well. Not like the currently-existing tutorials, mind you, but something that's actually good. Something that engages the player in seeing differences and watching how they directly affect combat.
But I like the current system better. To someone who isn't a math whiz (99% of most games' playerbase, 95% of EVE's playerbase), it can be summed up as follows:
- Frigate guns track frigates at approximately the listed rate, cruiser guns track cruisers at approximately the listed rate, etc.
- Bigger sig radius means guns track it faster, smaller sig radius means guns track it slower
- A cruiser would have to go a lot faster than a frigate to evade guns just as well
With your system, it would be:
- All guns track (x ship size) by the listed rate
- Bigger sig radius means guns track it faster, smaller sig radius means guns track it slower
- Large guns track way slower and so are only useful against large ships, while small guns track way faster and can hit small ships
It's essentially the same learning curve when presented in this fashion, but the first style allows the learned pilot to easily estimate how fast a turret will track a similar-size target due to the listed tracking value being close to the actual tracking value--with a minor adjustment for difference between sig radius and sig resolution, a good estimate can be obtained by someone lousy at math. Also pilots who do not understand it at all can still read the tracking value and expect it to be basically right against the right size class of ships.
Your version would be more convoluted to the casual player even though it would make it easier for mathematically-oriented people to gain an intrinsic understanding of it. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1643
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 06:30:00 -
[139] - Quote
Deerin wrote:I believe there is an easier fix to make things more "readable":
Right now the angular velocity and tracking values are in rad/sec which is a hard to understand term. Change it to deg/s and suddenly it wil become much clearer for people. You miss the point of applying radians: If you are orbiting Aebe Amraen's Eagle in your Vagabond and trying to outmaneuver his 250mm Railguns, that you have to be able to travel 0.01011 radians per second around him to outmaneuver, adjusted a bit by his Motion Prediction skill and any difference in your Vagabond's signature radius from 125 meters.
How does this make the math easier? Simple. You travel 1 radian around him when you travel a distance in the orbit equal to the distance from him to you. Say he is 14,216 meters away from you, well punch into a calculator 14,216 x 0.012 (adjusting upwards for tracking skill and shield extenders) and you get 170.6 meters per second you should be traveling to match his tracking. Since at this range you might even make 340m/s without afterburner, you should be able to lazily drift around him without getting hit, provided he doesn't do any fancy maneuvering. But he's a pretty sharp guy so I'm sure he won't give in that easily. Still, being able to make such an estimation quickly on the fly is important for judging your opponent's abilities.
Also, this thread is proof TEST is better at math than the rest of EVE. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk |
Sodabro
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
80
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 06:40:00 -
[140] - Quote
Ko'Ahi wrote: I think you're a NERD. that, and that OP got it all wrong. so very wrong.
signature resolution for turrets is for comparing with the target's SIZE. it has nothing to do with speed if you only consider that specific factor. |
|
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
70
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 01:04:00 -
[141] - Quote
Sodabro wrote:Ko'Ahi wrote: I think you're a NERD. that, and that OP got it all wrong. so very wrong. signature resolution for turrets is for comparing with the target's SIZE. it has nothing to do with speed if you only consider that specific factor.
Oh look, another person who doesn't understand signature resolution or basic algebraic manipulations. |
Deerin
Federal Navy Special Forces
260
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 05:37:00 -
[142] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Deerin wrote:I believe there is an easier fix to make things more "readable":
Right now the angular velocity and tracking values are in rad/sec which is a hard to understand term. Change it to deg/s and suddenly it wil become much clearer for people. You miss the point of applying radians: If you are orbiting Aebe Amraen's Eagle in your Vagabond and trying to outmaneuver his 250mm Railguns, that you have to be able to travel 0.01011 radians per second around him to outmaneuver, adjusted a bit by his Motion Prediction skill and any difference in your Vagabond's signature radius from 125 meters. How does this make the math easier? Simple. You travel 1 radian around him when you travel a distance in the orbit equal to the distance from him to you. Say he is 14,216 meters away from you, well punch into a calculator 14,216 x 0.012 (adjusting upwards for tracking skill and shield extenders) and you get 170.6 meters per second you should be traveling to match his tracking. Since at this range you might even make 340m/s without afterburner, you should be able to lazily drift around him without getting hit, provided he doesn't do any fancy maneuvering. But he's a pretty sharp guy so I'm sure he won't give in that easily. Still, being able to make such an estimation quickly on the fly is important for judging your opponent's abilities. Also, this thread is proof TEST is better at math than the rest of EVE.
Although Eve IS spreadsheets in space, I really do not use a calculator when flying.
As far as math side goes, rad/s and deg/s are essentailly same thing modified by a constant (180/pi). Deg/s uses a bigger number, thus it is easier to read on screen. Someone here proposed a milliradians/s, which is also fine. Why would I need to read 0.012 if I can just read 12. Unnecessary digits add an unnecessary level of complexity, which is what CCP is trying to avoid. You don't see 14,216 meters on your overview. You see 14.2km.
Back to OP topic, I believe a better method of explaing tracking "in-game" is needed. It is disappointing how many people got it wrong.
Again, OP math is right. Turret signature is a value in turrets properities and has absolutely nothing to do with missile damage or lock times or chance of being probed out. The only thing it affects in game is the tracking formula. It is a constant denominator in one of the terms. The OP wishes to merge it with another constant(tracking speed) and make the equation simpler to understand. The math is ok. |
Joe Zevin
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 21:26:00 -
[143] - Quote
This is the most embarrassing thread i have seen in a while, before you post, read the the OP's post in it's entirety. If you still have somehow come to the conclusion that op wants to change tracking, or Sig, you need to brush up reading comprehension and math. This changes nothing to the tracking formula and is intended to simplify things. Soldier on OP. It's not dumbing eve down, it's streamlining, and that is a good thing in my opinion. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
103
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 21:35:00 -
[144] - Quote
I've read the OP and it doesn't seem like he's simplifying anything. But neither implementation seems superior to the other. Both implementations are a bit mysterious to a new player. Both implementations require maths and a bit of game experience to understand. Gameplay is exactly the same in both implementations. Meaning that no change should happen. If a change isn't beneficial there's no point having a change. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
28
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 21:41:00 -
[145] - Quote
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:I've read the OP and it doesn't seem like he's simplifying anything. But neither implementation seems superior to the other. Both implementations are a bit mysterious to a new player. Both implementations require maths and a bit of game experience to understand. Gameplay is exactly the same in both implementations. Meaning that no change should happen. If a change isn't beneficial there's no point having a change.
The Op's post might not change the way thing actually work but it might make it easier to understand as currently this thread proves that currently the system is not understood by many. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1234
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 21:53:00 -
[146] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Hakaari Inkuran wrote:I've read the OP and it doesn't seem like he's simplifying anything. But neither implementation seems superior to the other. Both implementations are a bit mysterious to a new player. Both implementations require maths and a bit of game experience to understand. Gameplay is exactly the same in both implementations. Meaning that no change should happen. If a change isn't beneficial there's no point having a change. The Op's post might not change the way thing actually work but it might make it easier to understand as currently this thread proves that currently the system is not understood by many. As you stated it doesn't change the system, so I'm not sure how it gets better understood. Also, the most common misconceptions regarding the relation ship of signature and tracking aren't resolved with this. If anything it seems they would be strengthened since those who don't understand now still likely won't and thus the "sig res:sig rad is a separate chance to hit" crowd will just go on citing gun sizes as the reason rather than having the sig res itself to point at.
TL;DR: Changing a number to a constant won't suddenly make people understand math or bother to learn the formula in the first place any more than now. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
1667
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 11:15:00 -
[147] - Quote
Let me sum up 75% of the responses:
"I don't understand how the math works. Therefore, when the OP claims he wants to simplify the math without changing in-game effects, I am going to claim his math is wrong as if I think I have a sufficient grasp to make such claims."
Speaking of EVE being spreadsheets in space, why don't we have the ability to pull up pre-made spreadsheets in the actual game interface to look at these relations? Turret tracking in relation to ships of specified size, distance, and velocity should be something we can graph up with in-game tools. That way you don't have to be a number genius to get it, you could be any kind of genius and get it. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk |
Arla Sarain
34
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 11:33:00 -
[148] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:With your system, it would be:
- All guns track (x ship size) by the listed rate
- Bigger sig radius means guns track it faster, smaller sig radius means guns track it slower
- Large guns track way slower and so are only useful against large ships, while small guns track way faster and can hit small ships
1) Fair enough 2) And against what would compare sig radius?? And how would you know when and by how much is reducing sig radius enough to drop you below a certain threshold? You wouldn't. Currently the ratio between Turret Scan res and target sig radius IS what describes whether your guns track at the listed rate, or less, or more. Remove the turret scan res and then sig radius just becomes an odd number, for which people would need another relative number to receive any useful information. 3) This just repeats 2), and is the cornerstone behind Turret Scan res. That's what the so called arbitrary number describes - how well it tracks in regards to the size of the target.
The whole equation is just 2 ratios, one of which is likely to be constant in a fight all together.
By removing Turret Scan res and absorbing its value into another variable, tracking in this case, cos its the only one available, you'd remove a sense of scale between tracking and angular velocity.
About the only useful change in this thread so far was the change from radians to degrees in order to up the magnitude of numbers on the overview as it can be confusing. If anything else, flatout display the ratio between your tracking to your enemy's angular velocity. Both values are available as is and this would save the assailant another step.
|
De'Veldrin
Black Serpent Technologies The Unthinkables
2494
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 13:00:00 -
[149] - Quote
I skimmed the thread following the OPs proposal and the tl;dr is basically "Let's change a very complex formula to make it appear less complex."
If there's literally no functional difference (and I haven't actually bothered to take the time to check) between the outcomes of the two forumlas, why are we touching code just for the sake of appearance? Honestly, I'm not concerned if people don't understand the formula intuitively. As has been proved by this thread, those who want the advantage WILL take the time, which is very much in keeping with the Eve Online culture. Additionally, those people who aren't interested will not (in all probability) suddenly become interested if the formula is rewritten, so there is literally no gain from making this change, but there is substantial risk given CCP's track record when it comes to making changes to old code that underlies vast portions of the game engine.
tl;dr: Leave it be. There is literally no reason to change it that overcomes the risks inherent in doing so. MAMBA is recruiting. -áWhen other folks are whining about a lack of content, we go out and create it. The case of Shrodinger's Hotdropper |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
129
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 17:03:00 -
[150] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:You're wrong. Rather than spending a bunch of time explaining why you're wrong, I will simply refer you back to the first three pages of this thread where a half dozen other people were wrong in the same way as you.
This is, as I said then, further evidence that most people do not understand the turret sig resolution stat. Removing the turret sig resolution stat in the way I suggested will literally change nothing about any gun's ability to hit small or large, fast or slow targets. All it will do is make the mechanic easier to understand, so that hopefully we will have fewer people being wrong.
Turret signature resolution is not just a multiplier in an equation, it's a way to balance different classes of turrets and prevent extreme tracking scenarios.
Everything that I've seen in favor of your idea would have every gun get a new, re-balanced tracking stat, ignore the turret signature resolution while keeping the target's signature radius, and apply the same tracking equally to all targets. (If I'm incorrect here, please tell me so.) On paper, and at first glance, you are correct. Nothing seems to change.
There are two very key things you overlooked.
First, under the current system, only part of the tracking term is subject to effects from things like tracking computers, ammo type, tracking disruptors, etc. While the signature radius of the target can obviously be modified (target painters, MWDs, warfare links, etc.), there is currently no way to modify the signature resolution of a turret. It's static. It's constant. It's a buffer of sorts to keep their stats from going completely out of whack. Which leads me to my next point.
Second, turret signature resolution is way of saying that no, that 425mm railgun should not be able to hit that moving frigate quite so easily at 100km, even if my tracking says I should be able to while still ensuring that my light electron blaster will hit that battleship that I'm orbiting at 250m. At close to zero ranges, tracking needs to go up exponentially in order to have any chance to hit. Since giving them that much tracking would grossly overpower them at longer ranges, there needs to be another way to do it. CCP has acknowledged that tracking does not scale well, with either range or turret size. Trying to balance tracking so that close range weapons can track well enough to hit while not allowing long range weapons to over-track at long ranges is non-trivial. The signature resolution of a turret play a key role in maintaining that balance. Try applying some of your re-balancing to to more extreme ranges (near zero, 100km+) and I guarantee you that you'll see unusual behavior.
Regardless of whether this is a good idea or not, it produces demonstrably different results than the current mechanic when you consider tracking bonuses/penalties, and would likely lead to broken performance at extremes of range and/or tracking. This means that your underlying assumption (that turret performance wouldn't change) is flawed.
Ergo, this idea is flawed and should not be implemented.
QED. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |