| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Andrue
   |
Posted - 2004.03.22 13:49:00 -
[1]
I'm confused by what these terms mean.
Looking at the icon on TT-Nexus and from chatting to a couple of people it would appear that "Optimal" is a mistake by the developers and that they meant "Maximum". Possibly this is only in the sense that outside of optimal range the damage done tails off rapidly (in which case "optimal" is not such a bad term after all).
"Accuracy fall-off" is really confusing though. Some beams (according to TT-Nexus) have a fall-off below their optimal range and others have a fall-off above their optimal range.
My understanding until today was that the two terms effectively delinate the weapon's usable range with the fall-off occurring when you got too close (for RP purposes call it a tracking issue) and that you should keep your ship between the two. From looking at TT-Nexus today this appears not to be the case - or else TT-Nexus is wrong.
So:What is the meaning of these two terms within the context of Eve?
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.03.22 13:51:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Avon on 22/03/2004 14:03:07
Optimal = best range ignoring tracking
Falloff = distance above optimal range your weapons will still hit at.
Max range = optimal + falloff
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Andrue
|
Posted - 2004.03.22 13:54:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Andrue on 22/03/2004 13:55:14
Ah ha! That actually makes a lot of sense.
One question:Presumably there is a drop off as you get closer then - any idea what kind of scale it follows? Linear?
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
StoreSlem
|
Posted - 2004.03.22 13:58:00 -
[4]
 Quote:
Edited by: Andrue on 22/03/2004 13:55:14
Ah ha! That actually makes a lot of sense.
One question:Presumably there is a drop off as you get closer then - any idea what kind of scale it follows? Linear?
If you get closer it's the tracking that'll kick in. If they move faster than your guns can track you will start getting misses.
|
Deloup Drakar
|
Posted - 2004.03.22 14:18:00 -
[5]
Quote:
Edited by: Avon on 22/03/2004 14:03:07
Optimal = best range ignoring tracking
Falloff = distance above optimal range your weapons will still hit at.
Max range = optimal + falloff
I always thought that each incriment of falloff will give you another penalty to hit and dmg. ex, optimal at 10k, falloff at 3k. so at 13k you take a penalty, at 16k you take another....and some set number of falloff ranges plus the optimal is your max range.
|
StealthNet
|
Posted - 2004.03.22 14:44:00 -
[6]
Edited by: StealthNet on 22/03/2004 14:45:41
*if the targeted ship's radial velocity is within your tracking speed:*
Optimal range:
The distance where your guns were designed for. So inside optimal, youll actually hit with the dmg designed with a really small percentage of misses
Fall off range:
from the optimal to the limit of the fall off, there is the range where your weapons loose accuracy. So, if you are outside your optimal, but inside your fall off, you will hit less frequently, until you reach the optimal + fall off range, that is actually your max range for that gun + ammo combo.
Basically:
|----optimal----|-----fall off------|
|-----------max range-------------|
if the ship's radial velocity is outside your tracking speed, you won't hit.
_______________________________________________
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.03.22 15:08:00 -
[7]
u use blasters that have a 2,5km optimal range, u orbit the target at 2,5km range, u hit good everytime!
now u train "sharpshooter" skill and then suddently ur optimal range on ur precious blasters is now 3,2km. If you orbit at 2,5km u will hit worse then u would without training "sharpshooter", and u cant really orbit at 3,2km couse it doesnt excist on the "menu".
CONCLUSION!
Dont train Sharpshooter skill when using Blasters!! 
 
"We brake for nobody"
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.03.22 16:05:00 -
[8]
Quote:
If you orbit at 2,5km u will hit worse then u would without training "sharpshooter",
Fairy tales always make me soooo sleeeepy.....
ZZzzzzzz...
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Silverlancer
|
Posted - 2004.03.22 17:17:00 -
[9]
Quote:
u use blasters that have a 2,5km optimal range, u orbit the target at 2,5km range, u hit good everytime!
now u train "sharpshooter" skill and then suddently ur optimal range on ur precious blasters is now 3,2km. If you orbit at 2,5km u will hit worse then u would without training "sharpshooter", and u cant really orbit at 3,2km couse it doesnt excist on the "menu".
CONCLUSION!
Dont train Sharpshooter skill when using Blasters!!
Not true. Minimum range depends completely on tracking--optimal affects only your maximum range.
|
Azure Skyclad
|
Posted - 2004.03.22 17:36:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Azure Skyclad on 22/03/2004 17:37:15
This keeps getting brought up every time but i'm still not convinced. Turret tracking speed actually does represent the ability of a weapon to track a target across it's arc? 2 stationary ships at any reasonable range say, 100 metres should hit eachother everytime. No matter what the gun or it's tracking speed. This isn't the case so, whats the story here?
Does it truly represent the ability of the turret to track a certain arc on a circle in a second or is it more arbitrary than that. It's a question i've asked on odd occasions since beta. I've not yet seen an explanation that fits my experience.
Someone any the wiser here?
La Maison de tous Les Plaisirs
Star Fraction
http://www.voodoorockers.co.uk/ |
LargeNuts
|
Posted - 2004.03.22 18:07:00 -
[11]
I can hit wrecking shots with Antimatter on a 425 Rail at 150KM. How in the world is that possible? I miss 9/10 times, but it seems that everytime I hit it is wrecking. Also, the other day I was hitting a Frig going 2km/sec across the nose of my ship at 10 km out for 300+ with my 1400's. The gunnery damage calculations are FUBAR.
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2004.03.22 18:13:00 -
[12]
Quote:
I can hit wrecking shots with Antimatter on a 425 Rail at 150KM. How in the world is that possible? I miss 9/10 times, but it seems that everytime I hit it is wrecking. Also, the other day I was hitting a Frig going 2km/sec across the nose of my ship at 10 km out for 300+ with my 1400's. The gunnery damage calculations are FUBAR.
I believe that the technical military term for this is "dumb luck."
|
blahh
|
Posted - 2004.03.22 19:09:00 -
[13]
Quote:
I can hit wrecking shots with Antimatter on a 425 Rail at 150KM. How in the world is that possible? I miss 9/10 times, but it seems that everytime I hit it is wrecking. Also, the other day I was hitting a Frig going 2km/sec across the nose of my ship at 10 km out for 300+ with my 1400's. The gunnery damage calculations are FUBAR.
I think thats because the chance for a "wrecking shot" is actually calculated before the to-hit chance. Ie when you fire a weapon it decides whether its wrecking or not, if it isnt it goes to the accuracy calculations and determines whether its a miss, a near-miss, a good hit, etc. However if its a wrecking hit it skips this completely and so will allways hit no matter what your shooting or where from.
If this is why then it could be solved by simply adding another, simpler version of the to-hit code on the "wrecking" branch that simply determines a miss or a hit, which would stop people getting wrecking hits when the targets moving extremely fast or is way out of their optimal range. I really dont see why they havent fixed this allready, unless im missing something it would really only take 5minutes to code, if that (would allmost be a copy-paste job lol).
|
Basileus
|
Posted - 2004.03.22 20:01:00 -
[14]
So, if you fit one of these tracking enhancement modules on your ship, it only affects the accuracy (or the damage inflicted) on the short range targeted vessels, since their radial speed would be higher? |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |