Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 14:40:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Alz Shado on 25/06/2008 14:50:09 If an object moves at a constant speed, the calculations to predict where it will be in a given time X are trivial. Therefore, the notion that guns can't "track" such an object is silly, as motion prediction algorithms should easily compensate for the gun's slow radius by simply picking a point where the target will be in X seconds and moving to that point ahead of time.
I propose that the variable used to calculate damage be based NOT on velocity, but acceleration. How's this? The location of a given target in space becomes predictable if constant radial velocity with no change in trajectory. However, if the object CHANGES it's angle of trajectory, the resulting change makes the future location of the ship much more difficult to predict.
What does this mean to EvE? Basically, that by orbiting a ship for a long enough time ( > 10 seconds), the advantage of speed should be negated by the ability of the ship's computer to compensate for the transversal velocity difference. This advantage can be maintained, however, if the ship is forced to make manual course corrections to "break" the calculation.
In other words, ships would have to be piloted with some degree of skill in order to maintain the advantage of speed.
//// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad)
"Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand |
Red Wid0w
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 14:50:00 -
[2]
Eve != Real life. Get out.
|
Faife
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:00:00 -
[3]
this is a great idea that will totally not have any unforseen balancing issues. the op absolutely covered all possible reprecussions, edge-cases, and side effects, and it's going in at the next downtime.
|
Phaige
Reaver Construction Services
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:01:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Phaige on 25/06/2008 15:01:58 Although it would effectivly put an end to harrasing corp mates in BSes with Rifters, I have to say I like this idea. It does make sense, could be easily explained (but perhaps not easily implementd. I'd admit that realativly speaking I'm a total dumbass when it comes to that side of things) by some Mega Corporation making an advancement, and would cure that rediculous spectical that is a nearly totally safe speedy boat totally locking down a big boat with a farily high degree of saftey for as long as he ( me! ) likes. -----------------------------------------------
You may be a King or a little Street Sweeper, but sooner or later you dance wi' de' Reaper! |
Corwain
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:02:00 -
[5]
Tracking is how fast the gun can move to keep up with the perfect computer prediction of where the target is, not how fast the computer can calculate targetting coordinates. -- Distortion| Distortion 2 Preview |
Ciaphas Khaine
Wreckless Abandon Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:04:00 -
[6]
Would be a great idea if the "ship control" interface in EVE wasnt so ****ty. thus, its a terrible idea as one can barely control one's ship as is
BOOST EVERYTHING THAT I FLY! NERF EVERYTHING I DONT! |
Xparky
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:05:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Xparky on 25/06/2008 15:05:23 So you want to add the requirement of double clicking in space once every 10 seconds then hitting orbit again to maintain speed advantage as it is now. Right. . |
Anisa Schardl
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:23:00 -
[8]
Completely inaccurate. Tracking is not a measure of how well your computer is able to predict the proper target lead (or lack thereof, in the case of instant weapons like lasers). Tracking is a measure of the maximum turning rate of the physical guns, measured in radians/second. Aka, if the target has too much transverse velocity, your guns simply cannot move fast enough to line up a shot.
Yet another nanowhine thread made by people who don't understand game mechanics.
|
Dihania
Mucho Dolor
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:25:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Corwain Tracking is how fast the gun can move to keep up with the perfect computer prediction of where the target is, not how fast the computer can calculate targetting coordinates.
this is the case computer calculates perfect, but little engines moving the gun can not do the job.
. EVE: "The Hand-holding Age". I need isk!Accepting donations. Renting sig space.Taking various jobs. |
Spectre3353
The Python Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:26:00 -
[10]
No he is right... Eve is already incredibly realistic, why not go a little farther and fix this as well? Oh wait a second, you mean when I turn my engines off in the vacuum of space my ship would NOT actually stop in real life? What??? In real life, planets ORBIT around the stars and don't just sit there in the same spot???? ASTEROID BELTS DON'T RESPAWN EVERY NIGHT IN REAL LIFE?????? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooo............ ----- http://evenewb.blogspot.com/
|
|
Haakelen
Force d'action navale
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:27:00 -
[11]
Alz, you do realize that this would turn Eve into a twitch game, yeah? And CCP has said they want nothing of that?
|
Dihania
Mucho Dolor
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:30:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Haakelen Alz, you do realize that this would turn Eve into a twitch game, yeah? And CCP has said they want nothing of that?
nano counter strike MWaHahaHAhhaha . EVE: "The Hand-holding Age". I need isk!Accepting donations. Renting sig space.Taking various jobs. |
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:37:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Faife this is a great idea that will totally not have any unforseen balancing issues. the op absolutely covered all possible reprecussions, edge-cases, and side effects, and it's going in at the next downtime.
Such as? I have considered the ramifications, and because the intention of the variables are similar (calculate % to hit based on dV/dT rather than just v). If you can come up with a scenario that would be radically unbalanced by such a change, please share with the group.
Originally by: Corwain Tracking is how fast the gun can move to keep up with the perfect computer prediction of where the target is, not how fast the computer can calculate targetting coordinates.
Tracking now consists of keeping up with a target by trying to match it's radial velocity; the instant-hit nature of projectiles/lasers in EvE means that it doesn't have to maintain a lead on the target. What accounting for acceleration does is widen the gap between where the turret has to be to hit the target. If I know the target will be at a specific coordinate at a specific time, the tracking computer should be able to adjust the turret's position independent of where the ship is *now*, thereby negating the advantage of speed.
A quarterback in the NFL doesn't aim for where is receive *is*, he puts the ball where the receiver *will be*.
Originally by: Ciaphas Khaine Would be a great idea if the "ship control" interface in EVE wasnt so ****ty. thus, its a terrible idea as one can barely control one's ship as is
Originally by: Xparky So you want to add the requirement of double clicking in space once every 10 seconds then hitting orbit again to maintain speed advantage as it is now. Right.
Do these comments negate one another?
a.) Ship control in Eve is as simple as double-clicking in space. Yes, it's not the fine-tuned steering of Tie Fighter (which, incidently, also had a lead reticule that let you aim in a manner very similar to this system) but changing a ship's direction is borderline trivial. The key is to *remember* to do so while in the heat of combat, while simultaneously issuing commands and activating modules. Thus it's not a nerf on speed, but on laziness.
b.) Compared to the other alternatives for changing how speed impacts combat, I think this is the least intrusive yet most effective way. It also carries the benefit of making EvE somewhat more realistic (forum trolls be damned) while making it more important to train up "Pilot Skill V" rather than "EFT Warrior V" Perhaps the single change that would be required to the interface to accommodate the new mechanics would be a "Velocity Lock" button, so that your speed doesn't change when you alter your heading (double-clicking in the void).
Originally by: Phaige nice things
It won't necessarily put an end to harassing teammates -- it just makes doing so more interesting.
//// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad)
"Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand |
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:46:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Haakelen Alz, you do realize that this would turn Eve into a twitch game, yeah? And CCP has said they want nothing of that?
Because it's velocity over *time*, CCP can negate the twitch factor by changing just how big a difference that time has to be. If the motion prediction calculation is carried out every 10-15 seconds, then that's a long enough lead to account for lag while maintaining the requirement that fast ships be piloted somewhat un-AFKingly.
Nanoships in larger engagements will have to weigh the risk of using their ships where commands aren't processed by the server for minutes at a time; but then again, so does everyone else on the battlefield.
//// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad)
"Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand |
Radix Salvilines
ShockTroopers
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:47:00 -
[15]
/signed
I totally support the op.
And if anyone says big guns wouldnt be able to keep up with fast moving target because they turn slow... well they dont have to. They may either sit tight and wait for the target to appear before their noses (with only a slight correction) or slowly turn in the other direction the target is orbitting which would make the gun fire a bit more often. Onboard computes should with ease be able to asses the right moment for the gun to make a shot.
This idea would entirely change the face of small ship warfare as they would finally be only usuable as a first wave and tackling purposes (no more a frig would be able to kill a cruiser or bc set up for long range/bog targets) - just for a while so that the rest of the fleet my warp in and engage. The frigate pilot would have to engage some evasive manuevers that could compromise its tackling capabilities.
Perhaps a new skill could be added to navigation or the "evasive manuevering" skill modified to make the ship orit its target in a more chaotic fashion.
Im always up to make eve more realistic and less based on stats. After all this game is famous for not being "im playing 2 years longer than u and have xxx level and xx stuff and will kill u no matter what with one blow" but being "even thou im playng 1year im more experienced in pvp and will blow up any 3yrs carebear (in most cases)". This is why i play this game.
"Eve != real life. Get out" guy... Get out play WOW. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥-☻BPINC☺-♥ ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ |
Tamia Clant
New Dawn Corp New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:47:00 -
[16]
While this isn't a bad idea at all, won't this result in more complicated calculations server-side? Fleet battles are lagged enough as they are now.
Looking for queue-free research slots? Click here!
|
Tamia Clant
New Dawn Corp New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:49:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Radix Salvilines Perhaps a new skill could be added to navigation or the "evasive manuevering" skill modified to make the ship orit its target in a more chaotic fashion.
A lot of people have trained that skill for the agility bonus. Though I guess they could change its name and add a new skill called Evasive Maneuvering that does the chaotic orbitting thingy.
Looking for queue-free research slots? Click here!
|
Anisa Schardl
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 15:55:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Alz Shado
Tracking now consists of keeping up with a target by trying to match it's radial velocity; the instant-hit nature of projectiles/lasers in EvE means that it doesn't have to maintain a lead on the target. What accounting for acceleration does is widen the gap between where the turret has to be to hit the target. If I know the target will be at a specific coordinate at a specific time, the tracking computer should be able to adjust the turret's position independent of where the ship is *now*, thereby negating the advantage of speed.
Ok, fine. If you want to calculate a lead and get the guns there in time, assuming a static orbit path and constant speed, that's fine. But you seem to be forgetting that you'll only be able to fire every 30 seconds or so, instead of every 5. You'd have to calculate a point sufficiently far enough in front of the target that your guns actually have time to get there before the ship does, resulting in drastically lowered firing rate.
But I'm fine with that. If you want to be able to fire one effective shot every thirty seconds or so, instead of actually learning how to deal with fast ships, be my guest.
|
Reiisha
Splint Eye Probabilities Inc. Dawn of Transcendence
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:03:00 -
[19]
Motion prediction is based on being able to predict where an object will be in the future.
Sadly, you can change directions in this game, making it only useful in limited situations.
EVE History Wiki
|
Spoony
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:05:00 -
[20]
Travelling in a circle (orbiting) requires acceleration towards the centre of that circle... change it to acceleration and orbiting will still yield the same results :P
|
|
Ehranavaar
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:18:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Tamia Clant While this isn't a bad idea at all, won't this result in more complicated calculations server-side? Fleet battles are lagged enough as they are now.
looking at the bright side of this the calculations get simpler as the lightweights either get blown up or flee the field of battle.
eve is more than a bit silly in how the classes of ships work. a battleship has awful locking times compared to frigates despite having much more powerful sensors than the frigate and the notion that a frigate could be much of a threat to a bs in a fight is pretty dopey given the weapons loadout. it's like having a guy in a jeep circling a leopard 2 tank and destroying it (eventually) with his assault rifle.
|
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:24:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Alz Shado on 25/06/2008 16:25:06
Originally by: Tamia Clant While this isn't a bad idea at all, won't this result in more complicated calculations server-side? Fleet battles are lagged enough as they are now.
Transversal velocity is already a rather complicated vector-math process. All this does is add an "Acceleration over last few seconds". Since Acceleration is simply a running sum of changes, and since TV already accounts for direction, it can be easily approximated thusly:
(at start of engagement (target lock), TVcurr = Current TV, TVold = TVcurr, TVDelta = 0, Acc=TVcurr, X=polling rate)
TVdelta += TVcurr - TVold If X seconds have elapsed then Acc = Acc + TVdelta; TVdelta = 0 (current % hit calculations, replacing TVcurr with Acc) TVold = TVcurr
//// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad)
"Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand |
Grim Mercy
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:26:00 -
[23]
In order to make that work, the ammo that is being shot would need a speed value as well. As it is instant hit/miss once it leaves the barrel, the whole acceleration thing doesn't really make sense. And as someone else said, the tracking speed values represent how fast the turret can move, not how far it leads the target.
I realize this is an anti-nano thread, and as such have no sympathy. If you want to negate someone else's speed, fly faster.
|
Dingi223
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:28:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Dingi223 on 25/06/2008 16:31:27 EVE combat is abstract, because trying to make the game twitch based will not work in a non-sharded environment.
Hell, if we want some realism, then we need to drop the whole concept of optimal and falloff. A bullet fired in space flies forever. Using your logic, if targetting computers are that advanced, unless someone manually flies it will hit it's target over infinite distance.
The purpose of the abstract mechanic is to provide an alternative 'tanking' mechanism, i.e. speed tanking which are affected by sig radius and angular velocity. It's an abstract calculation to abstractly depict a twitch based battle.
EDIT: In addition, if this was implemented, I would argue that my ship computer is smart enough to implement evasive action, i.e. it would keep the orbit however continuously change the direction of orbit every 'x' seconds, which would totally negate your logic. EVE combat is abstract, if your guns auto track, then my ship can auto evade. In the end, we end up in the exact same place.
|
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:34:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Dingi223 EVE combat is abstract, because trying to make the game twitch based will not work in a non-sharded environment.
Hell, if we want some realism, then we need to drop the whole concept of optimal and falloff. A bullet fired in space flies forever. Using your logic, if targetting computers are that advanced, unless someone manually flies it will hit it's target over infinite distance.
The purpose of the abstract mechanic is to provide an alternative 'tanking' mechanism, i.e. speed tanking which are affected by sig radius and angular velocity. It's an abstract calculation to abstractly depict a twitch based battle.
It's understood that combat in EvE is abstracted, and that things like bullets travelling infinately fast over a limited ray and then *vanishing* (no colliding with undetonated ordinance!) are taken for granted.
Think of acceleration more as a resistance modifier for a speed tank. Instead of relying on a fitted module, the "resistance" of a fast ship depends on it's pilot's situational awareness. It's NOT twitch based because there's still a polling delay (think ammo changes) and a smart pilot would activate resistance mods (change header) as necessary.
//// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad)
"Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand |
Bo Bojangles
Spartan Industrial Manufacturing SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:34:00 -
[26]
Sweet,.. I totally support this idea.
Just as soon as I can fly with my joystick.
|
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:37:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Dingi223 Edited by: Dingi223 on 25/06/2008 16:31:27 EVE combat is abstract, because trying to make the game twitch based will not work in a non-sharded environment.
Hell, if we want some realism, then we need to drop the whole concept of optimal and falloff. A bullet fired in space flies forever. Using your logic, if targetting computers are that advanced, unless someone manually flies it will hit it's target over infinite distance.
The purpose of the abstract mechanic is to provide an alternative 'tanking' mechanism, i.e. speed tanking which are affected by sig radius and angular velocity. It's an abstract calculation to abstractly depict a twitch based battle.
EDIT: In addition, if this was implemented, I would argue that my ship computer is smart enough to implement evasive action, i.e. it would keep the orbit however continuously change the direction of orbit every 'x' seconds, which would totally negate your logic. EVE combat is abstract, if your guns auto track, then my ship can auto evade. In the end, we end up in the exact same place.
Bingo
|
Dingi223
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:38:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Dingi223 on 25/06/2008 16:43:54
Originally by: Alz Shado It's understood that combat in EvE is abstracted, and that things like bullets travelling infinately fast over a limited ray and then *vanishing* (no colliding with undetonated ordinance!) are taken for granted.
Think of acceleration more as a resistance modifier for a speed tank. Instead of relying on a fitted module, the "resistance" of a fast ship depends on it's pilot's situational awareness. It's NOT twitch based because there's still a polling delay (think ammo changes) and a smart pilot would activate resistance mods (change header) as necessary.
I disagree. I would argue that my ship's computer would simply adjust my orbit by a fraction of a degree, randomly, while maintaining the same orbit - acceleration has nothing to do with that. I don't need to change speed or orbit, I simply need to fractionally shift my orbit on the horizontal axis to ruin target prediction.
Tracking speed is the ability of the guns to match that change.
You are arguing that guns should be able to predict change. I argue that ships should be able to randomly change direction based upon simple evasive formula. In the end you want to increase realism of the gun, I will then want to increase the realism of the ship computer, and we *end up in the exact same place*
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I would love a twitch based flying game.
However, imagine this was a twitch based game. You are in a battleship manning a gun with slow tracking. A player is outside, randomly changing direction, orbit and speed flying twitched based. Think you could ever *predict* where to fire? Never, you would have to be exceptionally lucky for him to fly through your crosshairs. Obviously, in real life, you would use flak to get area damage. Oh wait, now we have another solution to the problem, variable fuses. Make the shell explode. Technology from WW2...
|
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 17:00:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Alz Shado on 25/06/2008 17:01:36
Originally by: Dingi223 You are arguing that guns should be able to predict change. I argue that ships should be able to randomly change direction based upon simple evasive formula. In the end you want to increase realism of the gun, I will then want to increase the realism of the ship computer, and we *end up in the exact same place*
Except that orbiting in the current game mechanics causes you to follow a circular path on a 2D plane along an angle in 3d space. I would respond that any automatic "evasive maneuvers" that would change the trajectory of the orbit would be non-trivial and thus require the intervention of the pilot.
//// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad)
"Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand |
Thargat
North Star Networks Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 17:10:00 -
[30]
Radial velocity... calculated but not used? Does anyone know why?
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |