| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rodj Blake
   |
Posted - 2003.12.19 14:14:00 -
[31]
Battleships generally have a larger targetting range.
Therefore, their sensors are scanning a larger volume of space to get a lock.
And that is why they have longer targetting times.
Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori |
Marcus Grisbius
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 14:41:00 -
[32]
You're right Rodj, it's volume not area. I was still thinking 2-d.  But that in turn makes the difference a lot greater still. Thanks for the correction.
Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn |
Replicant Amara
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 14:49:00 -
[33]
Ok for those that say the target of a BS should be faster...
If you have your BS with all your "fictional computer and sensors that you wanna think it has" what will be easier for your super sensors to target a frigate or a BS  I guess your sensor will pick faster the BS than the frigate right? well I guess you don't need your sensor to fire at a BS cause is so big is hard to miss... but the “same sensors” in your BS should take a little longer to target a fly (frigate) cause is so small and fast... and is you are a in frigate with a few and poor "sensors and computers" (cause they are in your imagination not in the game...) if I have to target the huge BS even with out sensor you can shot at it cause is so big you don't need them... is better to try to miss specially at the distance a Frigate is able to target... (most of them 20 km away)
And at the end what is your stupid problem? you are frustrated cause your BS can destroy little frigates as before...? you can’t deal with the fact of not been able to get small frigates with your ship? and you start crying like a baby and cursing cause is not your way... go play Super Mario Bross... or atari space invaders...
|
Hardin
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 15:06:00 -
[34]
I am an ebil Battleship driver.
I specifically trained my skills to make me a frigate killer.
I only use small turrets because I want to kill frigates. That is my role in our fleet.
This makes me weak against other battleships. That was my choice. It gave an extra dimension to our military operations.
If CCP wanted to strengthen frigates then they should have played with the TRACKING and not the TARGETING.
As other people have pointed out there is no logical reason why a battleship's targeting should work any slower than a frigate's. A battleship is a state of the art piece of equipment with plenty of space for the ncessary computers and targeting systems.
What should have been done was making LARGE turrets slower to TRACK their targets and therefore have a harder time shooting fast moving frigates.
However there should be no reason why someone like me using SMALL turrets with fast tracking should not be able to kill frigs.
The problem now is frigs can get in range before I can target them and jam me making my small guns pointless! My choice has been taken away.
I am happy that Frigates can kill battleships set up in the usual long range battleship vs battleship setup - BECAUSE THEIR BIG LONG RANGE GUNS CANNOT TRACK THE FRIGS but if the battleship pilot has taken a tactical decision to fit small turrets (therefore making them weaker against other BS) they should at least have the opportunity of using them.
As it is if I want to continue by anti-frig role I am going to have to go for a smartbomb setup that doesnt require targetting.
|
Gauguin
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 15:07:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Gauguin on 19/12/2003 16:41:00
The longer locking times for larger ships is an approximation for the sake of balance and playability. The playability concerns in a world simulation game don't allow for a complete simulation of a detailed and believable (from a RL standpoint) environment, so some compromises are made (note that in a game that simulates a very specific aspect of a world the approximation can be greatly reduced, for example - any realistic flight simulator).
In EVE, the longer lock time for a BS represents a certain behavior of smaller ships that is difficult to represent because of the game engine and playability concerns.
Let's take a frigate during combat:
Do you really thing that a best ingress into a hostile situation is flying in a straight line? No, a frigate closing on it's target is performing evasive maneuvers like jinking, jamming the hostile sensors, dropping decoys to confuse the enemy's tracking efforts. The additional jamming modules simply amplify the ship's ability to perform those tasks. Smaller geometrical and energy signatures allow a smaller ship to be more efficient at evading; consequently, it is harder to lock down.
Simulating all of this (and possibly more) in a game like EVE would place a very heavy burden on both the player and the game engine, so one way out is the approximation that we are seeing.
|
Pychian Vanervi
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 15:21:00 -
[36]
 Quote:
I am an ebil Battleship driver.
I specifically trained my skills to make me a frigate killer.
I only use small turrets because I want to kill frigates. That is my role in our fleet.
This makes me weak against other battleships. That was my choice. It gave an extra dimension to our military operations.
If CCP wanted to strengthen frigates then they should have played with the TRACKING and not the TARGETING.
As other people have pointed out there is no logical reason why a battleship's targeting should work any slower than a frigate's. A battleship is a state of the art piece of equipment with plenty of space for the ncessary computers and targeting systems.
What should have been done was making LARGE turrets slower to TRACK their targets and therefore have a harder time shooting fast moving frigates.
However there should be no reason why someone like me using SMALL turrets with fast tracking should not be able to kill frigs.
The problem now is frigs can get in range before I can target them and jam me making my small guns pointless! My choice has been taken away.
I am happy that Frigates can kill battleships set up in the usual long range battleship vs battleship setup - BECAUSE THEIR BIG LONG RANGE GUNS CANNOT TRACK THE FRIGS but if the battleship pilot has taken a tactical decision to fit small turrets (therefore making them weaker against other BS) they should at least have the opportunity of using them.
As it is if I want to continue by anti-frig role I am going to have to go for a smartbomb setup that doesnt require targetting.
I don't understand this post?
You think its unfair that you can't use your small turrets and think you are being hard done by on the targeting. Yet you have come up with an alternative to your own problem? 
You are half way adapting which is all that is required to cope with the new changes.
-----------------------------
It's all about the fortune and glory, fortune and glory!
|
Maud Dib
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 15:30:00 -
[37]
ack This is just like Star Trek dorks arguing science that doesn't exist. Since noby knows the science behind it(if any) the whole discussion is moot.
Maybe in EVE god hates battleships.
Maybe the Hobnob at the center of the universe wants it that way.
Maybe it's all a plot by Viceroy to sell more cookies.
This is like Romans talking about why they can't microwave tin foil.
|
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 15:50:00 -
[38]
Quote:
Quote:
Eve's universe has to adapt
 Why is this? (In detail, please...not just a "because otherwise the game mechanics break down")
what more detail could you possibly want with that? "game mechanics breakdown" is the mmog-debate equivalent of "nuclear war." In debate, you show that the other guy's path leads to nuclear war. In a game, it's a mechanics breakdown ,-).
The problem is that the older, entrenched players essentially WANT this breakdown. The general trend is to want to be largely unassailable due to time, effort, and money (isk and real) invested. A real government or faction wants this too, but there's really no way to let this happen in the game unless you're planning on shutting it off in a year, because unlike the real world the unwashed helpless masses will quit if there's no real way to advance or potential to succeed. 
I mean ffs people in battleships camping gates are locking cruiser and other battleships in 3-5 seconds, what more do you want? The "bg sensor nerf" that had people compaining a scorp would take 3 days to lock an indy ... never happened. JIP ganking proceeds apace. What's the problem?
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Pychian Vanervi
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 15:50:00 -
[39]
Quote:
ack This is just like Star Trek dorks arguing science that doesn't exist. Since noby knows the science behind it(if any) the whole discussion is moot.
Maybe in EVE god hates battleships.
Maybe the Hobnob at the center of the universe wants it that way.
Maybe it's all a plot by Viceroy to sell more cookies.
This is like Romans talking about why they can't microwave tin foil.
Why can't they microwave tin foil?
-----------------------------
It's all about the fortune and glory, fortune and glory!
|
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 15:58:00 -
[40]
Quote:
Battleships takes longer to lock target because there larger sensor computers and machinery make excellent homes for space cats, which tend to raise their litters inside the processing unit, causing the efficiency of battleship sensors to be damaged.
...and causing them to suffer deadly radiation contamination, killing off all the human crew but one idiot and evolving the cats over a million years into cool muthawatchyo'mouths...
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
DREAMWORKS
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 16:06:00 -
[41]
Sensors are electronic devices, what dazzles me is that a scorpion, the master in electronics takes the longest time to track down other ships... While minmatar bs ships who are less evolved, target fairly faster than a scorpion does.
Doesnt make sense.
__________________________
http://www.nin.com/visuals/thtf_hi.html |
Ichabod Dirange
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 16:23:00 -
[42]
Fitting only one smartbomb would solve this.
|
John Blackthorn
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 16:24:00 -
[43]
This threat is just too silly...
In actual usage in this day and age you can lock an size object down to near inches/centemeters withing nano-seconds. All ships should get instant locks if within sensor range. A b.s. would have a longer range, and other smalelr ships woudl have longer ranges if equiped with enhased modules.
But this isn't in real life, it's a game. and to make it so that the smaller ships have some advantange or some hope of surviving they have implemented the current setup. Good or bad, i don't know yet.
-BT
|
John Blackthorn
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 16:26:00 -
[44]
But even if you don't have a sensor lock i should be able to visually target ships and fire on them.. I don't need any lock for me to pick up a gun and shoot a target.
Obvilys this can't be implemented tho
|
Gauguin
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 16:31:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Gauguin on 19/12/2003 16:39:04
Quote:
This threat is just too silly...
In actual usage in this day and age you can lock an size object down to near inches/centemeters withing nano-secondsąą
-BT
Unless that object is ACTIVELY engaged in trying to avoid being locked. The game's mechanics premise is that avoiding being locked is easier for smaller objects (ships).
Too farfetched for you?
|
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 18:51:00 -
[46]
Quote:
I am an ebil Battleship driver.
I specifically trained my skills to make me a frigate killer.
we've all make skill choices that were "wrong" based on the way the game was actually going, rather than how CCP intended. However, all you really need to do if you're designed to smash more poor innocent freedom-loving Rifters, is continue to invest in targeting speed skills and modules as well. Tracking computer, sensor booster, sig analysis...
At the "new improved" jump ins by gates battleships piloted by "all around" fighters, i.e. they are prepared to gank mining battleships as well as overladen industrials ,-), i hear reports of lock times around or less than 10 seconds.
If you specialize in quick locks on frigates surely you can reduce that further; but, like many of the rest of us on SO many other things, you will always be just one more person set up to accommplish what CCP didn't want you to but let get away with until now... line starts in the back...
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Raucus
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 19:34:00 -
[47]
Quote:
This threat is just too silly...
In actual usage in this day and age you can lock an size object down to near inches/centemeters withing nano-seconds. All ships should get instant locks if within sensor range. A b.s. would have a longer range, and other smalelr ships woudl have longer ranges if equiped with enhased modules.
But this isn't in real life, it's a game. and to make it so that the smaller ships have some advantange or some hope of surviving they have implemented the current setup. Good or bad, i don't know yet.
-BT
Yeah I agree... .and because we are BS's the targets personnel should automatically keel over with mass cardiac arrest and we capture their ships intact..... and all their corp belonging..... sorry..... as everyone was talking SH|T I thought I would. Bigger arrays do not mean better, faster or anything else, as for locking something down to inches and centimeters.... not sure which planet you actually originate from but we sure as hell cant do that in nano seconds down here on earth.... real life... pah...... go find a book!
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 19:39:00 -
[48]
Quote:
Quote:
Battleships takes longer to lock target because there larger sensor computers and machinery make excellent homes for space cats, which tend to raise their litters inside the processing unit, causing the efficiency of battleship sensors to be damaged.
...and causing them to suffer deadly radiation contamination, killing off all the human crew but one idiot and evolving the cats over a million years into cool muthawatchyo'mouths...
Are we talking about a commonplace type of star with a low heat output and below-average diamter here?
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 19:39:00 -
[49]
Quote:
Quote:
This threat is just too silly...
In actual usage in this day and age you can lock an size object down to near inches/centemeters withing nano-seconds. All ships should get instant locks if within sensor range. A b.s. would have a longer range, and other smalelr ships woudl have longer ranges if equiped with enhased modules.
But this isn't in real life, it's a game. and to make it so that the smaller ships have some advantange or some hope of surviving they have implemented the current setup. Good or bad, i don't know yet.
-BT
Yeah I agree... .and because we are BS's the targets personnel should automatically keel over with mass cardiac arrest and we capture their ships intact..... and all their corp belonging..... sorry..... as everyone was talking SH|T I thought I would. Bigger arrays do not mean better, faster or anything else, as for locking something down to inches and centimeters.... not sure which planet you actually originate from but we sure as hell cant do that in nano seconds down here on earth.... real life... pah...... go find a book!
Depending on the search pattern, scan range and movement of the target in question I believe it can take up to 5 minutes for an F-16's radar to even notice that another plane is there. Course once the target appears on the F-16's radar in search mode, the pilot can lock the target in about 4 seconds.
That's real life.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 20:07:00 -
[50]
Jash, is there anything at all that you don't know?
Apart from the answer to this question, of course 
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Eltigre
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:51:00 -
[51]
Makes perfect sense IFF a BS has a really tiny sensor array as compared with the mass of the ship... dumb way to build a ship but other than that... makes no sense ! 
SWEET routinely sells BPC's in Sing Laison and Essence Regions. |
Ris Dnalor
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 01:55:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Ris Dnalor on 20/12/2003 01:56:11
Quote:
ack This is just like Star Trek dorks arguing science that doesn't exist. Since noby knows the science behind it(if any) the whole discussion is moot.
Maybe in EVE god hates battleships.
Maybe the Hobnob at the center of the universe wants it that way.
Maybe it's all a plot by Viceroy to sell more cookies.
This is like Romans talking about why they can't microwave tin foil.
lol
--
Jump Drive Operation / Rank 5 / SP: 1280000 of 1280000
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |