| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Granth Roden
   |
Posted - 2006.08.26 10:21:00 -
[1]
Tracking is working totally wrong.
Tracking describes how fast the turrets are turning; a ship faster than they can turn will be able to keep away from the gunÆs mouths and not get hit.
That is fine and well, but the maths they use are bugged, and bugged HARD.
The error is simple: it doesnÆt count with own shipÆs turn.
What does this mean if corrected?
1 û Player ability becomes more important
2 û Greater speed and agility become far more important:
a û you are no longer harmed by your own orbit so being able to orbit gives a definite advantage.
(Note: until now orbiting only gave you an advantage if you had better effective tracking. If it was worse it might be better to sit tight and just shoot)
b û if orbited you can try to turn your ship to gain turning bonus and get a couple of good pops.
c û Keeping transversal is still vital, but your own turning ratio makes a difference. Compensating for the foeÆs own turning (sudden inversions) allows the better pilot to keep control of the fight.
3 û One of the disadvantages of gunnery compared to missiles is diminished.
4 û It becomes more possible to dogfight û turns and jinxes can be used to compensate tracking speed. Ability and situational awareness matters more.
5 û Fights become less certain û a well piloted inty/frig/AF will become deadlier, but one that is not piloted will be more vulnerable. A well piloted BS can suddenly get a full volley in good tracking conditions.
6 û Small ship fighting will become more neurotic
I posted this as a sop to my conscience and ôI told you soö bragging rights. Being a missile-spammer and not the best shoot-em-up artist around, if I really thought somebody would actually listen to this I would think twice about posting
Final note: I am not discussing a model of realistic space-flight, just eveÆs own so lets not go that way. Realistic space-flight would be boring and impossible for dogfight combat. Realism should only be used when it improves the game.
Why does this happen? Here comes the explanation.
Short:
Get on a canoe. Put a paddle on the bench pointing to the side. Now turn the cannoe. The paddle points to another place.
Bigger explanation:
A ship orbiting another, by definition, will always have the same ôfaceö turned to it. So as the ship turns, the guns ALSO turn and will stay pointed roughly at target. In fact even immobile guns (stuck to the hull, without turrets that can move) would be able to stay pointed at their target as long as the pilot rotates the ship (which would work like a really big turret)
Examine the next drawing.
^
|
X1-------------I - - - - - X2
Interceptor I is orbiting X1 at 5k, webbing him. There is another ship from X1Æs gang at 5k from X1. The inty is orbiting so he will pass between the two of them during the orbit.
(No nosses there mates.)
What happens?
1 û I wants to shoot X1
IÆs own transversal (converted to RAD/S, Transversal/(Radiusx2xPI)) is countered by his own speed of rotation (also in RAD/S, Tranversal/(Radiusx2xPI)) or something like that, which has a contrary sign. So in effect for his own shooting it is as if he is quiet.
2 û I wants to shoot X2
IÆs own transversal (converted to RAD/S, Transversal/(Radiusx2xPI)) is added to its own speed of rotation (also in RAD/S, Tranversal/(Radiusx2xPI)), which has an equal sign. So in effect for his own shooting it is as if his transversal is DOUBLE. HeÆll have a hell of a time to hit X2, because his turret must compensate for both his transversal and for the fact that the ship is rotating away from the target.
|
Jim McGregor
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 10:32:00 -
[2]
Its not bugged, its just very simplified. Not sure if its to minimize the calculations the cluster need to do...
---
Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
Toolivus
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 10:43:00 -
[3]
We all know it's wrong at the moment, we also all know that it's decently balanced. You want ot make it even harder to hit that damn inty? (He'll be going faster now he doesn't have to track) You want to make it harder to dodge the snipers? You want the server to have to keep track of which ships are pointing in which direction and which side is up?
It's hardly broken gameplay-wise, and it's not hard to get used to how it is.
|
Jenny Spitfire
Caldari
LoneStar Industries
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 10:49:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Jim McGregor
Its not bugged, its just very simplified. Not sure if its to minimize the calculations the cluster need to do...
Working as intended. Nobody simulates hardcore maths in a real time game environment. I am sure CCP will be interested in a better turret formula if you can suggest one that will work nicely and not taxing on the cluster.
---------
In the blindness, a streak fiery thread violently cuts the horizon. Bleeding golden mists, engulfing the blindness from within. Burning the darkness. The touch of dawn. |
inSpirAcy
Caldari
The Solopwnmobiles
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 10:56:00 -
[5]
In terms of realism, it sounds great.
But do you really want an interceptor orbiting you at 4km/s (or even 400m/s webbed) and hitting perfectly all the time? It'd make small ships utterly overpowered, imo...
|
Granth Roden
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 10:58:00 -
[6]
Its not hardcore maths, its just high-school vectors.
The turning value is already available because orbits are calculated all the time. Get this value and apply it to the tracking result.
And you totally missed the point, inty could become easier to hit if BS knew its **** and turned inside it - it'd be down to player skill.
The real weight on the server might actually come from people doing more maneuvers in combat.
You can see this bug in heavy drones; at times they can have more trouble shooting a stopped target than a moving one.
|
Nahia Senne
Fortunis Novum
Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 11:02:00 -
[7]
it might be more taxing on servers, but this is really good idea. having some skill will actually begin to matter.
/signed
|
inSpirAcy
Caldari
The Solopwnmobiles
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 11:04:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Granth Roden
And you totally missed the point, inty could become easier to hit if BS knew its **** and turned inside it - it'd be down to player skill.
Small ships have got the best tracking guns and, with these changes, the ability to dictate tracking to larger (and thus slower) ships. A webbed BS is going nowhere.
And now you want a BS with a "roll" ability so its guns can keep up with the target? 
|
Jenny Spitfire
Caldari
LoneStar Industries
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 11:04:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 26/08/2006 11:04:52
Originally by: Granth Roden
...
It can be high school vectors but the nodes need to sample data points in 3D space in every 100 - 500 msec, calculate results, buffer results, broadcast to clients, whatever. You arent the only person/thing the nodes are servicing.
---------
In the blindness, a streak fiery thread violently cuts the horizon. Bleeding golden mists, engulfing the blindness from within. Burning the darkness. The touch of dawn. |
Granth Roden
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 11:05:00 -
[10]
As is the inty already does that; you must use drones or nosf-web-neut to get the lil' bugger.
And I would like him to have cause to be afraid, because a sudden turn with BS could aid my tracking and bring his mwd-sized sig within position for a volley.
Player skill and attention would matter more.
As for the little frigs being overpowered - they are. But the problem there is different:
The game treats hit points like AD&D did. A machinegun throwing 10kg of bullets at tank will not snipe off HPs, the bullets will bounce off. A single 10kg cannon round will go in and blow it up.
|
inSpirAcy
Caldari
The Solopwnmobiles
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 11:09:00 -
[11]
It doesn't currently. Interceptors are limited to the transversal which their own guns can hit at. Which isn't infinite and generally forces them to sub-MWD speeds, making them easier to web and dispose.
I don't agree a battleship should be able to turn anywhere near as fast as a small ship can orbit. If it could it'd be able to accelerate just as fast, which would turn them all into giant stabbers.
(fun as that would be...  )
|
Granth Roden
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 11:09:00 -
[12]
You already roll, InSpire, when you turn. No need to change anything else.
Though you made me think of a nano-fiber BS that could really surprise an inty... (and be a duck to other BS. Thats life)
As for the server load - only the devs know how the calculations are made, but the ships turn and move and orbits are constantly recalculated, so the values are already all there. Just a matter of feeding them to the shooting routines.
|
Toolivus
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 11:15:00 -
[13]
You're not gonna make a battleship spin fast enough to track an inty without breaking other laws of physics.
|
Granth Roden
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 11:38:00 -
[14]
Better flying and pilot satisfaction. More and harder dogfights and player skill. That is what I would like to see.
No system is made for a single class of ships versus another, and the consequences do not stop here, so lets not fix on BS vs Inty.
I do not expect a BS to consistently track an inty - that is NOT the idea. Though while on the approach -"kiting", the zig-zag, things could get interesting. Use NOSF, Web and drones.
The bigger consequences would spread out, though. Ship speed and agility would mean a lot more.
Just as an example, you would see the appearance of dogfight intys and attack intys. Attack intys to tackle and shoot as usual, dogfight intys maximized for speed and agility to shoot fast frigs/inties.
No, no need to change any ships turn radius. You are forgetting, though, that shooting at a MWD target is the same as if no MWD according to formulae- cause the signature hike make it as easier to hit as the speed makes it harder.
However, there ARE a few points here. Flaws in other pieces of design (such as NOSF and Ecm, missiles, the signature hole) cause other difficulties.
The fact that a gun hits a small target best the farthest away it is becomes a great design problem, and one of the reasons the devs want to make fights longer, are trying to find ways around snipers and big blobs an such.
A real fix for combat needs to take several things into account, not just a single detail.
|
Nahia Senne
Fortunis Novum
Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 11:39:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Toolivus
You're not gonna make a battleship spin fast enough to track an inty without breaking other laws of physics.
BS can already spin fast enough, just not at full speed. i think that the majority of the problem here is that most people didnt actually understand the original post.
|
inSpirAcy
Caldari
The Solopwnmobiles
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 12:30:00 -
[16]
Edited by: inSpirAcy on 26/08/2006 12:31:54
Originally by: Nahia Senne
BS can already spin fast enough, just not at full speed. i think that the majority of the problem here is that most people didnt actually understand the original post.
No battleship rolls as fast as even a slow interceptor in orbit. Have you actually seen a Crusader orbiting as fast it can at 500m? It'd be like watching a battleship breakdancing. 
(which I have on occasion, due to an entertaining bug, and it looked ridiculous then  )
Edit: The reason I'm focusing on the small-vs-large issue is because it's always the major reason that this idea gets knocked down. It's not a new idea to make tracking realistic; it's as old as the hills. But unless there's something new to add, to fix issues like these (and others), then I'd just read over the old posts.
|
Verus Potestas
Caldari
Fiat Mort
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 12:31:00 -
[17]
Yeah, please fix this 
|
LWMaverick
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 12:57:00 -
[18]
<3
/Mav
<3  |
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 13:46:00 -
[19]
Originally by: inSpirAcy
In terms of realism, it sounds great.
But do you really want an interceptor orbiting you at 4km/s (or even 400m/s webbed) and hitting perfectly all the time? It'd make small ships utterly overpowered, imo...
Basically? Yep, that'd be the issue.
Granth, "Player skill and attention would matter more"
No, blind luck would. Ships are simply not that controlable.
"The game treats hit points like AD&D did. A machinegun throwing 10kg of bullets at tank will not snipe off HPs, the bullets will bounce off. A single 10kg cannon round will go in and blow it up."
Given the differences in ship size and weapon energy, small guns will still punch holes straight thorough latger ships, yes. I see you're just using this "change" as a platform for yet another nerf-frigates platform though. You're not after anything but dead small ships.
"Just as an example, you would see the appearance of dogfight intys and attack intys"
Asbolute rubbish. Transversal is transversal. There is very little actual difference EXCEPT for the frigates. Further, your ships own motion throws off the fixed poiting position of your OWN guns, which MUST be gyrostablised for accuracy!
|
Altariel Teleri
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 14:24:00 -
[20]
Well to be honest a such change should go along fine with the "nerf range on weapons" change that might come.
Also for it to work speed has to be changed. Battles should go on with from 0km to 50km MAX, and mwding interceptor should take time to cover that range. So reduce the MWD speed bonus so that a normal fast thing goes around 2 to 3 km/s. I really hate it when all you need to do is to get within large turrets optimal to kill it, should be more tactics instead of do that and win or else you lose.
Small ships goes too fast compared to everything else in EVE, from battleship and cruiser speed, the ranges battles rages on, small ships covers the long range area too fast.....
wtf im talking crap
Minmatar Freedom! |
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 14:29:00 -
[21]
Altariel Teleri, the entire POINT of making combat closer is ships are relatively quicker. If you adjust range AND speed...you've gone a long way to get nowhere.
|
Mr Peanut
The New Empire
R i s e
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 14:42:00 -
[22]
Well IMO the ship control would have to be revamped in order to add this "skill" into the equation, and the serv clusters would have to upgraded again to provide the lag-less environment that this would require, and next, you would have to calculate the ship's turret's actual relative position on the ship in order to achieve this realistic tracking effect. Oh boy! And with a turret actual relative position calculation, wouldn't ships want to roll so that their guns would line up in order to achieve better tracking? Now we need a better physics engine and a boatload of new calculations for the already-laggy server to run! Please stop trying to make an already complex game even more complex.
|
Altariel Teleri
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 15:01:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Altariel Teleri, the entire POINT of making combat closer is ships are relatively quicker. If you adjust range AND speed...you've gone a long way to get nowhere.
where is the balance when 40km lock range is normal and interceptor speed is 4km/s? the reason to adjust ranges and speed is to make combat more fun and tactical. i am only saying to alter mwd speed, not interceptors themselves, or, make it so when the mwd is activated you can only fly in a straight line, orbitting at 4km/s is just stupid.
Minmatar Freedom! |
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 15:21:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 26/08/2006 15:21:31
Sigh.
80km ranges, 4km/s
40km ranges, 2km/s
What's the difference? It takes coder time to switch from one to the other. That's IT.
"when the mwd is activated you can only fly in a straight line"
Aka, nerf frigates.
|
Altariel Teleri
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 15:30:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 26/08/2006 15:21:31
Sigh.
80km ranges, 4km/s
40km ranges, 2km/s
What's the difference? It takes coder time to switch from one to the other. That's IT.
Because its more practical? It has something to do with balance from warp ins and gate camps and so on.
Originally by: Maya Rkell
"when the mwd is activated you can only fly in a straight line"
Aka, nerf frigates.
Why would it nerf frigates?
OH NO I CANT ORBIT AT 4KM/S IM SCREWED I SUCK!
What kinda LARGE guns hits a frigate orbitting WITHIN frigate guns optimal range?
Minmatar Freedom! |
Andreask14
Sensus Numinis
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 15:36:00 -
[26]
There is no need to nerf frigs at all.
The tracking-system is the only reason why a friggy has a chance in hell of even consitently tackling a BS, and even now there are plenty of counter measures. Some light drones for example.
There is neither a valid reason for changing the tracking system nor for nerfing already very limited frigs.
This thread is a failure.
|
Karsus Maim
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 15:56:00 -
[27]
Quote:
Working as intended. Nobody simulates hardcore maths in a real time game environment. I am sure CCP will be interested in a better turret formula if you can suggest one that will work nicely and not taxing on the cluster.
I disagree here, I have played games better said as simulators such as Warbirds, Aces High, Target Rabual etc. which are World War 2 MMO's (not 16 on 16 or something like that but hundreds of players) flight sims which use high fidelity flight models and gunnery models to their sims and well as having more difficult graphics to render (ie. the ground, and extremely close combat 1000m or less). This has been going on now for easily 10 years. Online racing simulators such as Nascar 2003, rfactor, GTR etc model realistic physics models as well as having extremely detailed graphics (granted with a max of 40 or so people per session, but player hosted machines not dedicated servers like eve).
This is not too say Eve is doing it the wrong way, just different.
|
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 16:05:00 -
[28]
Altariel Teleri, nope, does nothing there whatsoever. Gate camps are closer, great. But your ability to close on them or escape them is ALSO nerfed. (Actually, halving speeds makes it far harder to escape them...)
"OH NO I CANT ORBIT AT 4KM/S IM SCREWED I SUCK!"
No, you can't CLOSE at that speed, and further MWD's become UTTERLY suicidal...you'd realise this is you had any concept of how MWD sig bloom worked.
"What kinda LARGE guns hits a frigate orbitting WITHIN frigate guns optimal range?"
The kind where the frigate charges straight at them.
Karsus Maim, and how many of those had 20,000 people online? Plus, those games use p2p models, not client-server and with security measures which are again very different. And yes, you have 40 CPU's to work on for 40 players. That's 1:1. Eve can't do 100:1 at busy times, let alone 1:1!
|
Karsus Maim
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 16:11:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Karsus Maim on 26/08/2006 16:14:49
Edited by: Karsus Maim on 26/08/2006 16:13:44
Edited by: Karsus Maim on 26/08/2006 16:12:20
maya
Sorry, but you are wrong they are not p to p as you stated. They are MMO's with up to hold a thousand players, and are client server, and have security. And they need to calculate drag, wind, gravity etc. It's also up 24/7 just like eve, with one constant server.
|
Dethis
Caldari
Eve University
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 16:13:00 -
[30]
Originally by: inSpirAcy
In terms of realism, it sounds great.
But do you really want an interceptor orbiting you at 4km/s (or even 400m/s webbed) and hitting perfectly all the time? It'd make small ships utterly overpowered, imo...
*cough* crow *cough*
--------
Kill em all and let god sort em out
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |