Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1726
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 05:45:50 -
[181] - Quote
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:the idea of giving carriers 4 flights 3 light 1 support would also work and i think this would be fine but it would detract from a way to more define the carriers. Giving pilots a reason to train more than one Unless they get a huge bonus to their type of support fighter and one of them proves to be very overpowered, that won't determine what carrier gets used or which ones people will train. The slot layout and other hull bonuses are far more important. For example, if you're in an armor fleet and want to live, you're going to pick an Archon regardless of other bonuses. Same for Chimera in a shield fleet. If you don't care about survival, you'll pick the Nidhoggur for that extra speed//range and damage. Having a bigger bonus to the racial support fighters wouldn't be enough to significantly sway that decision unless it's very powerful, which I only see happening for the neut or ECM fighters, and those two carriers will be overused already. The only balanced way I can see of making the racial support fighter bonus a big enough to influence the carrier choice would be if they unlocked a special fourth ability only usable by that carrier. That would probably only give the Archon and Chimera an even bigger advantage though since neuts and ECM seem more abusable than point or web.
not true a moderate bonus would not make them all that powerful like i said probably less than 5% per level the only carrier i see losing out on this is the than do to the points being well almost pointless but that is the same as now.
the web fighters play very well into the new nid design and they would make it a viable option
nuets and ecm would ofc be attractive as well
the idea that a shield fleet will almost always take a chimera and and armor fleet will almost always take an archon is flawed unless in large fleets. in small ones the smaller fighter bays and lack of survivability bonuses will make these carriers vulnerable their tank means nothing if they can no longer field fighters.
and while again i see little issue in giving carriers another flight so they can field these w/o the loss of dps it would not provide another point of incentive to fly one over the other (btw i dont mean this will be the reason to chose one over the other just that it would be a small factor). It also takes a choice away as to what set up i'm fielding atm it will always be 3 lights 1 support where as now there is a choice as to weather i want 3 lights or 1 support
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
44
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 05:58:06 -
[182] - Quote
Fair enough, but in what situations would it be worth dropping a squad of lights to use a support squad? The only thing I can think of is if you really need webs because somebody messed up the fit and/or fleet composition. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1726
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 06:41:56 -
[183] - Quote
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:Fair enough, but in what situations would it be worth dropping a squad of lights to use a support squad? The only thing I can think of is if you really need webs because somebody messed up the fit and/or fleet composition.
while there are plenty of reasons to use the web fighters besides some one screwed up (such as only shortly to catch something till your fleets tackle can get there) the cap and ecm ones i can only see right now being used as a last minute crap i need to break tackle and the disruption one is just a joke in a popper fleet.
maybe giving the fighters a limited 3rd ability
the two i like the most with this are
a short duration 5-10s powerful paint for the minmatar ones (this will allow for a timed fleet alpha if coordinated right)
and a short duration scram 10-20 for the gal (this will help your tackle catch a ship using an mwd but cant hold it on their own)
the amarr and caldari ones are harder as i cant really find a way to give them a fleet oriented ability
for amarr a high alpha nuet maybe?
caldari an ECM burst or perhaps a very strong ecm blast with a long cool down?
these would all have a limited number of uses b4 heading back to the carrier 3-5
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
45
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 06:46:30 -
[184] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:Fair enough, but in what situations would it be worth dropping a squad of lights to use a support squad? The only thing I can think of is if you really need webs because somebody messed up the fit and/or fleet composition. while there are plenty of reasons to use the web fighters besides some one screwed up (such as only shortly to catch something till your fleets tackle can get there) the cap and ecm ones i can only see right now being used as a last minute crap i need to break tackle and the disruption one is just a joke in a popper fleet. maybe giving the fighters a limited 3rd ability the two i like the most with this are a short duration 5-10s powerful paint for the minmatar ones (this will allow for a timed fleet alpha if coordinated right) and a short duration scram 10-20 for the gal (this will help your tackle catch a ship using an mwd but cant hold it on their own) the amarr and caldari ones are harder as i cant really find a way to give them a fleet oriented ability for amarr a high alpha nuet maybe? caldari an ECM burst or perhaps a very strong ecm blast with a long cool down? these would all have a limited number of uses b4 heading back to the carrier 3-5 The short burst web and scram are interesting ideas. The scram probably wouldn't be fair though since it could be used to cancel an MJD every time. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1726
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 07:05:53 -
[185] - Quote
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:Fair enough, but in what situations would it be worth dropping a squad of lights to use a support squad? The only thing I can think of is if you really need webs because somebody messed up the fit and/or fleet composition. while there are plenty of reasons to use the web fighters besides some one screwed up (such as only shortly to catch something till your fleets tackle can get there) the cap and ecm ones i can only see right now being used as a last minute crap i need to break tackle and the disruption one is just a joke in a popper fleet. maybe giving the fighters a limited 3rd ability the two i like the most with this are a short duration 5-10s powerful paint for the minmatar ones (this will allow for a timed fleet alpha if coordinated right) and a short duration scram 10-20 for the gal (this will help your tackle catch a ship using an mwd but cant hold it on their own) the amarr and caldari ones are harder as i cant really find a way to give them a fleet oriented ability for amarr a high alpha nuet maybe? caldari an ECM burst or perhaps a very strong ecm blast with a long cool down? these would all have a limited number of uses b4 heading back to the carrier 3-5 The short burst web and scram are interesting ideas. The scram probably wouldn't be fair though since it could be used to cancel an MJD every time.
only if they were close enough to it to do that limiting the range to 1/2 that the current disrupter uses may help there.
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1727
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 07:46:43 -
[186] - Quote
currently all the differant fighters have different icons in the fighter bays any chance we can get these moved onto the overview
back when this was tried with drones it made seance not to do it do to the vast numbers and similar uses but as a carrier pilot being able to see at a glance if the fighter group coming this way is a flight of heavy bombers or space supremacist fighters is going to be vary important
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Luscius Uta
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
204
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 07:58:26 -
[187] - Quote
Yesterday I warped to CA1 in a heavily tanked Phobos, and got popped almost instantly by a GTFO doomsday. My pod was destroyed as well. Broken much?
Workarounds are not bugfixes.
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
706
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 19:16:20 -
[188] - Quote
Hey all,
Endless thanks for all the great feedback so far. We've been working as hard as we can to get all the features implemented and smash some through the outstanding bugs. so apologies for the lack of hard stats or responses to design questions in this thread. Rest assured, all your feedback is being read and considered, even if we don't have the time to reply. For now I just want to summarise whats landed on Singularity in the last few days and whats been fixed!
New Things/Fixes
- All T1 & T2 new and updated capital modules should now be seeded on the market. This includes but is not limited to: Superweapons, Armor Plates, Shield Extenders, Skills, Prop Mods, Capital Weapons, Fighters & Ammo. Go forth and see what you can find!
- Fighters should now deal with being abandoned appropriately (They will go inert after a cycle if their controller disappears).
- Fighters will now warp back to you if you recall them from another location in a system
- The stats for all capital related items are still being iterated upon. Full feedback threads for these will be coming soon!
- Fighters will now obey the safety settings of their controller (And their UI should reflect this)
- Fighters now honour skill requirements in all cases
- Fight navigation lines go red when the squadron is engaging the target.
- Fixed various text errors
- Removed drone bays from Carriers and Supercarriers
- The Fighter navigation UI now doesn't draw vertical lines while the Tac Overlay is off
- Fighter show info windows now include skill requirements (And they are correct in all cases)
- Force Aux wrecks now have appropriate hit points
- Capital Shield Extenders now give more than a measly 94 hp bonus
- Fighter abilities now stop flashing green when deactivated.
That's all for now! Many more things will be fixed and implemented in the coming days, so stay tuned for more info! For now, to allow a bit more flexibility in what you can test, I'm providing an additional 8 injectors for every Singularity pilot, check your redeeming queues!
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
180
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 19:47:55 -
[189] - Quote
I am on SISI, and don't see HAW for Phoenix. is it still WIP at moment? |
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
45
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 19:56:35 -
[190] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Hey all, Endless thanks for all the great feedback so far. We've been working as hard as we can to get all the features implemented and smash some through the outstanding bugs. so apologies for the lack of hard stats or responses to design questions in this thread. Rest assured, all your feedback is being read and considered, even if we don't have the time to reply. For now I just want to summarise whats landed on Singularity in the last few days and whats been fixed! New Things/Fixes- All T1 & T2 new and updated capital modules should now be seeded on the market. This includes but is not limited to: Superweapons, Armor Plates, Shield Extenders, Skills, Prop Mods, Capital Weapons, Fighters & Ammo. Go forth and see what you can find!
- Fighters should now deal with being abandoned appropriately (They will go inert after a cycle if their controller disappears).
- Fighters will now warp back to you if you recall them from another location in a system
- The stats for all capital related items are still being iterated upon. Full feedback threads for these will be coming soon!
- Fighters will now obey the safety settings of their controller (And their UI should reflect this)
- Fighters now honour skill requirements in all cases
- Fight navigation lines go red when the squadron is engaging the target.
- Fixed various text errors
- Removed drone bays from Carriers and Supercarriers
- The Fighter navigation UI now doesn't draw vertical lines while the Tac Overlay is off
- Fighter show info windows now include skill requirements (And they are correct in all cases)
- Force Aux wrecks now have appropriate hit points
- Capital Shield Extenders now give more than a measly 94 hp bonus
- Fighter abilities now stop flashing green when deactivated.
That's all for now! Many more things will be fixed and implemented in the coming days, so stay tuned for more info! For now, to allow a bit more flexibility in what you can test, I'm providing an additional 8 injectors for every Singularity pilot, check your redeeming queues! Great, now if only the market worked so we could buy this seeded stuff...
On another note, the camera feels incredibly slow when docked in a citadel. It's not too bad horizontally, but adjusting the camera vertically can easily require moving the cursor more than the height of the screen. The fact that vertical adjustment requires moving the cursor twice as far for the same angle as horizontal adjustment is bad enough, but combined with most screens not being as tall as they are wide and the slow movement in citadels, it's a chore to look up or down. |
|
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
73
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 20:05:09 -
[191] - Quote
The issue (apples to apples comparison):
Due to the 8th low slot, Drone Damage Units, and current 7.5% hull damage bonuses, the Aeon will have significantly more HP than Nyx's -and- deal more damage! DDUs and the new need for armor plates changed the old dynamic where Nyx's did 25% more damage in all cases giving the pilot a choice of damage or tank.
The fit: 2 Plates, 3 Active Hardners, 2 EANMs. The difference being the Aeon gets the 20% resistance hull bonus, higher base armor, and the 8th low slot to put on a 20+% drone damage unit, meaning they have higher HP and deal 7.5+% more damage than nyx's! Or, if the Aeon chooses to add an additional damage control instead of a DDU, they have even more EHP and only deal 12.5% less damage. If the Nyx chose to use DDUs in lieu of EANM, they lose 2 million EHP which is a non starter. In all cases, the Aeon is clearly the winner.
Best solution:
Keep current hull bonuses but give the Nyx the ability to use a 4th squad of heavies/lights while limiting the tank classes to 3. I find this idea interesting, and would preserve the nyx as the pure damage choice unless the aeon goes multiple DDUs which would sacrifice its tank advantage.
Other possible solutions:
Revert to 10% hull damage bonus for Nyx or reduce aeon (and wyvern) fighter damage bonus to 2.5%. Unfortunately this doesn't fix the issue because while Nyx's will do more damage than an Aeon with above fit and DDU, it's only 5% more damage while having significantly less HP (and less than 5% dmg with faction DDU). Aeons still win in this scenario.
Add mid slot drone damage mods. The downside is this will affect all ship classes and could lead to balance issues.
Nyx gets -1 mid/+1 low. This goes against tradition of slot layouts for Gallente vs Amarr.
|
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
73
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 20:09:48 -
[192] - Quote
And I applaud you guys as well for the great progress and your reaction to player feedback. It's been awesome to see the improvements go in. |
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
45
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 20:18:34 -
[193] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:The issue (apples to apples comparison):
Due to the 8th low slot, Drone Damage Units, and current 7.5% hull damage bonuses, the Aeon will have significantly more HP than Nyx's -and- deal more damage! DDUs and the new need for armor plates changed the old dynamic where Nyx's did 25% more damage in all cases giving the pilot a choice of damage or tank.
The fit: 2 Plates, 3 Active Hardners, 2 EANMs. The difference being the Aeon gets the 20% resistance hull bonus, higher base armor, and the 8th low slot to put on a 20+% drone damage unit, meaning they have higher HP and deal 7.5+% more damage than nyx's! Or, if the Aeon chooses to add an additional damage control instead of a DDU, they have even more EHP and only deal 12.5% less damage. If the Nyx chose to use DDUs in lieu of EANM, they lose 2 million EHP which is a non starter. In all cases, the Aeon is clearly the winner.
Best solution:
Keep current hull bonuses but give the Nyx the ability to use a 4th squad of heavies/lights while limiting the tank classes to 3. I find this idea interesting, and would preserve the nyx as the pure damage choice unless the aeon goes multiple DDUs which would sacrifice its tank advantage.
Other possible solutions:
Revert to 10% hull damage bonus for Nyx or reduce aeon (and wyvern) fighter damage bonus to 2.5%. Unfortunately this doesn't fix the issue because while Nyx's will do more damage than an Aeon with above fit and DDU, it's only 5% more damage while having significantly less HP (and less than 5% dmg with faction DDU). Aeons still win in this scenario.
Add mid slot drone damage mods. The downside is this will affect all ship classes and could lead to balance issues.
Nyx gets -1 mid/+1 low. This goes against tradition of slot layouts for Gallente vs Amarr.
You forgot one other option which is to give the Nyx back its larger damage bonus. Obviously it might affect balance a bit, but doing 10% more damage (137.5% / 125%) is laughable compared to 25% more tank (20% resistance = 80% damage taken = 125% EHP and repping ability). |
Grookshank
Jump Drive Appreciation Society
75
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 20:34:54 -
[194] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Hey all, Endless thanks for all the great feedback so far. We've been working as hard as we can to get all the features implemented and smash some through the outstanding bugs. so apologies for the lack of hard stats or responses to design questions in this thread. Rest assured, all your feedback is being read and considered, even if we don't have the time to reply. For now I just want to summarise whats landed on Singularity in the last few days and whats been fixed! New Things/Fixes- Most T1 & T2 new and updated capital modules should now be seeded on the market. This includes but is not limited to: Superweapons, Armor Plates, Shield Extenders, Skills, Prop Mods, Capital Weapons, Fighters & Ammo. Go forth and see what you can find!
- Fighters should now deal with being abandoned appropriately (They will go inert after a cycle if their controller disappears).
- Fighters will now warp back to you if you recall them from another location in a system
- The stats for all capital related items are still being iterated upon. Full feedback threads for these will be coming soon!
- Fighters will now obey the safety settings of their controller (And their UI should reflect this)
- Fighters now honour skill requirements in all cases
- Fight navigation lines go red when the squadron is engaging the target.
- Fixed various text errors
- Removed drone bays from Carriers and Supercarriers
- The Fighter navigation UI now doesn't draw vertical lines while the Tac Overlay is off
- Fighter show info windows now include skill requirements (And they are correct in all cases)
- Force Aux wrecks now have appropriate hit points
- Capital Shield Extenders now give more than a measly 94 hp bonus
- Fighter abilities now stop flashing green when deactivated.
That's all for now! Many more things will be fixed and implemented in the coming days, so stay tuned for more info! For now, to allow a bit more flexibility in what you can test, I'm providing an additional 8 injectors for every Singularity pilot, check your redeeming queues!
|
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
73
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 20:36:35 -
[195] - Quote
I included that option (under other possibilities).
The problem is having a 25% nyx damage bonus gets mostly counteracted by a single 20+% drone damage mod in the 8th aeon low slot. |
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
45
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 20:37:59 -
[196] - Quote
Did you perhaps for get to type something? |
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
73
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 21:50:58 -
[197] - Quote
Current fighter usability issues:
1) Please allow the fighter special abilities to auto repeat. The endless clicking on multiple squadron abilities after each cycle is tedious, especially on short duration abilities like heavy missiles. Ammo management should be the key here, not who remembers to click more often.
2) if heavies keep the MJD, please give a visual indication of their range on grid so I know approximately where they will land. Right now it's hope and pray they land somewhere close to where I would like them.
Other suggestion:
Increase fighter refuel/rearm time to 20 seconds. The near instant refuel/reload/relaunch is bad when I can recall my fighters, then deploy them and fire special abilities on a close range target without delay. Think Battle of Midway. Ties in with Ammo management from issue number 1. |
Pellmen
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 22:59:00 -
[198] - Quote
You need level 5 light and support fighters skills to use t2 variants? Are you kidding? I thought it was smith like specialisation skills for t2 guns... All hail skill injectors... |
Demolishar
United Aggression
1082
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 23:39:24 -
[199] - Quote
Do Titans really still need to be limited to three locked targets? That was originally a band-aid for the tracking Titan 'problem' which was solved by other means - sig based damage reduction - long ago. |
Tribal Trogdor
Trauma Ward
15
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 00:34:53 -
[200] - Quote
Quad 3500mm Siege Artillery I is an Arty
Quad 3500mm Siege Artillery II labeled as, and looks like an Auto, but has stats of an Arty
Oops much? |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1731
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 03:10:19 -
[201] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote: Other suggestion:
Increase fighter refuel/rearm time to 20 seconds. The near instant refuel/reload/relaunch is bad when I can recall my fighters, then deploy them and fire special abilities on a close range target without delay. Think Battle of Midway. Ties in with Ammo management from issue number 1.
issue i see with this is it limits a carriers already short range
better option is 5-8 seconds and not to engage a carrier in close range combat
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1731
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 03:30:32 -
[202] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Fighter show info windows now include skill requirements (And they are correct in all cases)
What is the reasoning behind making carriers take so much longer than any other ship to train? their hulls are already higher than dreads and now they need 2 x12 skills just to use T2 weapons and 4x12 and 1x14 to be at peak effectiveness
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Rock Brackenshield
Bearded BattleBears I N F A M O U S
17
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 03:39:45 -
[203] - Quote
One thing, I was wondering if it would be possible to increase the docking range of the Wyvern for the squadrons it launches, if possible?
When I recall squadrons, the Wyvern I'm in actually gets bumped by the squadrons as they're being recalled |
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
47
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 03:41:40 -
[204] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:
Fighter show info windows now include skill requirements (And they are correct in all cases) What is the reasoning behind making carriers take so much longer than any other ship to train? their hulls are already higher than dreads and now they need 2 x12 skills just to use T2 weapons and 4x12 and 1x14 to be at peak effectiveness To be fair, one of the 12x skills only applies to supers. Still a ridiculously long train though. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1731
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 04:33:48 -
[205] - Quote
Rock Brackenshield wrote:One thing, I was wondering if it would be possible to increase the docking range of the Wyvern for the squadrons it launches, if possible?
When I recall squadrons, the Wyvern I'm in actually gets bumped by the squadrons as they're being recalled
This is not just the wyvern it happens to the nid and chimera
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1731
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 04:36:56 -
[206] - Quote
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:
Fighter show info windows now include skill requirements (And they are correct in all cases) What is the reasoning behind making carriers take so much longer than any other ship to train? their hulls are already higher than dreads and now they need 2 x12 skills just to use T2 weapons and 4x12 and 1x14 to be at peak effectiveness To be fair, one of the 12x skills only applies to supers. Still a ridiculously long train though.
True But it's still much longer than a dread
Or also means once you hit t2 you have no where to go unlike all other weapon systems where those who really want to squeeze a few extra % out can if they want to put the time in
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
249
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 04:48:58 -
[207] - Quote
Eeeeh. 40km sig resolution and insane radials feel kinda weird.
I understand the underlying math, but IMHO it would be better to do this in more familiar units - that is, scale down the resolution to 400m and adjust the radial accordingly for antisubcapital guns.
It would both reflect the intended use for the antisubcap guns and put the stats in a familiar context where they can be easily compared to other antisubcap-capable weapons without resorting to a calculator or decimal shifts. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1731
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 05:16:55 -
[208] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Eeeeh. 40km sig resolution and insane radials feel kinda weird.
I understand the underlying math, but IMHO it would be better to do this in more familiar units - that is, scale down the resolution to 400m and adjust the radial accordingly for antisubcapital guns.
It would both reflect the intended use for the antisubcap guns and put the stats in a familiar context where they can be easily compared to other antisubcap-capable weapons without resorting to a calculator or decimal shifts.
except sig a res and tracking don't translate they are used for different parts of the equation. if a ship is not moving faster than your tracking or it is not in fall off then scan res means nothing it has no effect so changing the stats like you propose changes how these will be used
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
249
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 05:41:24 -
[209] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: except sig a res and tracking don't translate they are used for different parts of the equation. if a ship is not moving faster than your tracking or it is not in fall off then scan res means nothing it has no effect so changing the stats like you propose changes how these will be used
This statement is factually wrong. The only part in the turret damage calculation where direct comparsion is used is the range calculation part. The tracking part is purely multiplicative. Your way of thinking is correct for themissile application, but turrets are much more straightforward. http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/w/images/8/86/TurretHitChance1.png The formula was out there on the official wiki until it burned down, and it de-facto has (Turret Resolution)/(Turet Tracking) in it without any specific thresold checks. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1731
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 05:55:22 -
[210] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: except sig a res and tracking don't translate they are used for different parts of the equation. if a ship is not moving faster than your tracking or it is not in fall off then scan res means nothing it has no effect so changing the stats like you propose changes how these will be used
This statement is factually wrong. The only part in the turret damage calculation where direct comparsion is used is the range calculation part. The tracking part is purely multiplicative. Your way of thinking is correct for themissile application, but turrets are much more straightforward. http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/w/images/8/86/TurretHitChance1.pngThe formula was out there on the official wiki until it burned down, and it de-facto has (Turret Resolution)/(Turet Tracking) in it without any specific thresold checks.
thats not at all how missiles work missiles sig is always calculated
if sig was also always calculated no matter the trans flying straight at a BB in a frig would not be suicide nor would holding still
if you want to see when sig is always calculated try hitting a non moving frig with a torp
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |