| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lansfear
   |
Posted - 2004.02.14 03:36:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Lansfear on 14/02/2004 03:38:30
 Quote:
TomB, just wondering, is the accuracy falloff in railguns fudged a bit so that the gun performs lower than normal when outside it's optimal? I mean the gun simply never hits outside it's optimal ever, I'm talking 2km outside.
Agreed. I can be right at optimal or just under and get hits like in my sig. How can I hit for less damage than the ammo even states, without counting the damage modifier? This has always confused me.
Edit: Forgot to mention this is with antimater.
|
INkog
|
Posted - 2004.02.14 04:38:00 -
[32]
Edited by: INkog on 14/02/2004 04:39:51
Quote:
The more outside your optimal range you are, the less chance you have to hit. Fall off is added to optimal range as extra range, when you leave optimal range + fall off range, your chances of hitting will be less than 1%.
Fall Off looks like this:
snip
Nice, thanks. Although it completly disproves my theories 
I bet you got all kinds of perdy graphs that we would love to see. Care to share some more?
|
Rasith
|
Posted - 2004.02.15 05:06:00 -
[33]
Given my limited understanding of the definitions, I'd think radial speed would be used, not transversal. Then again, I have only a vague idea of what radial speed is, and not even that about transversal. Can anyone reply with the differences, as EVE uses them? And I know transversal speed basically means sideways movement. But how does that differ from radial speed? I don't go to college, and my high school math was a long time ago...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an ally, considerations of house, clan, planet, race are insignificant beside two prime questions, which are:
1. Can he shoot?
2. Will he aim at your enemy?
-Excerpted from Cantra yos'Phelium's Log Book |
dalman
|
Posted - 2004.02.15 05:15:00 -
[34]
Edited by: dalman on 15/02/2004 05:16:53
Quote:
Given my limited understanding of the definitions, I'd think radial speed would be used, not transversal. Then again, I have only a vague idea of what radial speed is, and not even that about transversal. Can anyone reply with the differences, as EVE uses them? And I know transversal speed basically means sideways movement. But how does that differ from radial speed? I don't go to college, and my high school math was a long time ago...
......................^
......................|
......................t
......................|
X <-----r-----> Y
X=you
Y=target
Y's speed in r-direction = radial
Y's speed in t-direction = transversal
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
Rasith
|
Posted - 2004.02.15 05:18:00 -
[35]
So, radial is how fast target is closing/separating, and transversal is it's counterpart? I retract my statement about radial speed being more appropriate then.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an ally, considerations of house, clan, planet, race are insignificant beside two prime questions, which are:
1. Can he shoot?
2. Will he aim at your enemy?
-Excerpted from Cantra yos'Phelium's Log Book |
Etharion
|
Posted - 2004.02.15 06:45:00 -
[36]
what we can see on graph :
Optimal range is not a unique value, it's a range.
So what's the length of this "optimal range" range ?
There's still no answer for what is going on above optimal range.
And something is just puzzling me :
considering not moving target and shooter, why should a gun do more damage at optimal than below ?
|
Dokk
|
Posted - 2004.02.15 10:07:00 -
[37]
It would make sense that the ammo can do the same damage at below optimal range as it can at optimal. I think the reason you cannot hit as well is simply because your turrets cannot track the target as well and so the hits are not as accurate. If an object was flying directly at you and was closing way within your optimal range, you would still be doing optimal damage.
|
Etharion
|
Posted - 2004.02.15 10:11:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Etharion on 15/02/2004 10:12:04
Quote:
considering not moving target and shooter, why should a gun do more damage at optimal than below ?
Question is when both sides aren't moving, no tracking needed here
|
dalman
|
Posted - 2004.02.15 10:21:00 -
[39]
Quote:
Edited by: Etharion on 15/02/2004 10:12:04
Quote:
considering not moving target and shooter, why should a gun do more damage at optimal than below ?
Question is when both sides aren't moving, no tracking needed here
And then you also hit as good at closerange as at optimal range. Simple as that.
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
Luc Boye
|
Posted - 2004.02.15 10:42:00 -
[40]
Would be cool to see the same graph for 425 rails.
--
2004.12.29 23:33:40combatMining Pollution Cloud hits you, doing 140.0 damage. |
Dokk
|
Posted - 2004.02.15 10:49:00 -
[41]
I would think it should be the same for optimal and below so i have no idea.
|
Dirus
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 06:21:00 -
[42]
Dont forget the random factor when calculating damage. just because target is in optimal range, and not moving, doesnt mean every hit will do good damage, just that the average is a lot higher.
**********
Everyone deserves to die.
You go first.
|
Stue
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 08:24:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Stue on 26/02/2004 08:27:52
Okay, like someone concluded before: the optimal range is not a unique value but a range of values reaching from 0 to optimal range value.
However, its still not clear how the rest of the graph can be interpreted.
Well so here is my interpretation.
As we can see there isnt only 1 graph, there are 2. The one starting at the top and falling down after optimal range. The other starting at 0, havings its peak at optimal range value and then falling down as well.
The second graph can be interpreted as the "chance to hit", meaning the probability that a "hit" is being rolled. At 0km range the probability is 0 or close to 0. At a certain range (maybe 5km or something) this graph goes up until its finding its peak at the optimal range value (maybe 20km). This would equal to what has been said and concluded before, moving towards your optimal range your hit rolls get better and after the optimal range fall down again, down to a value ABOVE 0 at optimal+falloff. So even after optimal+falloff there is still a chance to hit (as TomB said: abour 1%).
The first graph can be interpreted as the potential damage. Reaching from 0 to optimal range value, there is a constant maximum damage potential. (Note that the chance to hit (2nd graph) does affect if this potential is actually released.) After optimal range value the damage potential does down to a value ABOVE 0 as well. So there is still a little damage potential even after optimal+falloff.
(Im a not sure what the colored area between the 2 graphs should be interpreted as)
So the conclusion:
- From 0km <-> optimal range: there is always 100% damage potential.
- From 0km <-> optimal range: "chance to hit" goes up.
- At optimal range: "chance to hit" is optimal.
- From optimal range <-> optimal+falloff: damage potential and "chance to hit" fall down.
- After optimal+falloff: there is still a very small "chance to hit" and damage potential.
|
dalman
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 12:58:00 -
[44]
Edited by: dalman on 27/02/2004 14:35:59
I assume that the colors are "average damagemod", the X-axis are range and the Y-axis are tracking.
The graph becomes very complicated though, as "tracking" depends on 3 variables: rad/sec on the gun, range to the target, and transversal speed of the target.
I assume the Y axis shows ((rad/sec) / ("transversal speed" / range)) in the interval from 0 to 1, and with a fixed value of (rad/sec) for the gun you're using.
And that you find your average damagemod by picking the transversal speed of the target as well as the range to the target.
The black lines in the graph would then represent transversal speed and range.
By following one of the "horizontal" black lines you see how good you will hit a target with that speed at different ranges.
By following one of the vertical black lines you see how good you will hit a target at that range, depending on what his speed is.
That's my thought on that graph.
Though it makes no sence how the graph is drawn in the fallof range (the colors are correct, but it should continue to go upwards on the y-axis)
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |