Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 19/08/2008 16:45:38
Quick summary and links to detailed posts with numbers, will add to as I find them:

Comparison of effective tracking of different turrets, courtesy Gabriel, post #308

EFT plot of DPS for different Battleships post patch, courtesy Bellum, post #345. Hit chance, Megathron vs Ishtar courtesy Liang, post #356

Different Battleships DPS vs same target, courtesy Markas, post #368

Live fire test, zero-fit stabber vs Megathron, courtesy Gabriel, post #424 and 428

TQ vs Sisi distance vs time curves for a Megathron, courtesy Marn, post #453, plus afterburner bonus to blasterships numbers, Gabriel, post #456. Maple plots of hit quality for Megathron, Tempest and Armageddon, courtesy Grytok, post #471 and 477

Plots of hit quality on same scale, courtesy Grytok. post #487. Signature resolution reduction for short range turrets to mimic size vs distance, courtesy Gabriel, post #498

Page detailed to modification of tracking formula to account for size vs. distance, including linear and log variations with hit % numbers, post #511, 513, 525, 531, 536, 537, courtesy of Liang/Gabriel

Detailed plots of modifcation using variations of falloff + optimal, courtesy Liang, post #452

p.s I think the tracking modification is superb, it makes 'falloff' work at both ends of the scale.

p.p.s Devs, how is it possible to say 'no' to this face?...

---

Originally by: lebrata

---

Edited by: lebrata on 13/10/2008 15:04:48


I am a little confused to why the orbital range and speed of a cruiser or any other small ship vs a BS in regards to tanking is significant considering that 1 v 1 is massively rare and that in a gang fight a ship can hardly be at close range(under the tracking so to speak) of ALL of the hostile ships?.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

No blue for the wicked?

Come on, we know you guys are up to *something*, you don't accidentally break the tracking formula by playing with the missile damage formula....

---

Want to bet money on that?

-Liang

---

Originally by: Kalintos Tyl

---

blasters dont need buff, large autconaons need a bit improvement, and large arty their alpha back.

---

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer

---

Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 23/10/2008 21:45:34
Why not list some of my calculations that show how exaggerated and faulty all that data is? It's basically propaganda. CCP is not falling for it you know, they can actually do their own calculations and get real and accurate results instead.

---

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer

---

Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer

---

Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 23/10/2008 21:45:34
Why not list some of my calculations that show how exaggerated and faulty all that data is? It's basically propaganda. CCP is not falling for it you know, they can actually do their own calculations and get real and accurate results instead.

---

Show me where it's faulty. There is nothing exaggerated about the live fire test, there is nothing exaggerated about the hit chance plots (they use the formula the game engine uses), there is nothing exaggerated about the flaw in the tracking formula. There is nothing exaggerated about the closing of the DPS gap between Blasters/Torps/Pulses.

In short put up or shut up.

---

I'll quote myself from the other thread:

"Blaster mega/Pulse geddon (both using t1 short range ammo)

Sig rad: 400/400
Optimal: 4500/15000
Fall off: 12500/10000
Tracking: 0.07442/0.04219

Target is a Abing BC
265 sig
400m/s speed

Result is:

1. The maximum hit chance occurs at 11.45km range for the blaster and is 57%.
2. The maximum hit chance occurs at 18.36km range for the pulse and is 61%
3. As you can clearly see the max hit chance on a weapon that has high fall off occurs much farther away from its optimal.
4. Now if you look at the graph and apply your faulty logic by comparing the hit chances in respective optimal, ie 4500m for the blaster and 15000m for the pulse, you can obviously see why this gives a totally wrong picture of the blaster performance.
5. Also take into consideration that a BC will have to have a slower transversal in a tighter orbit wich will favor the graph towards the blaster. Wich means approximately that they have the same max performance according to their range and are range_vs_tracking balanced."


Another quote on why alot of your graphs and comparisons are faulty:

"Don't make a fool out of yourself. Maximum hit chance (wich is what is important) for a certain target with a certain transversal is NOT at optimal. It is somewhere betweem optimal and optimal+fall off.

If you have a [insert any gun ship] firing at a [insert any ship] with a certain transversal your hitchance as a function of distance will have a maximum BETWEEN your guns optimal range and optimal+fall off. Why? Because the hit chance reduction past optimal is only slight to begin with, wich means that you benefit more from the reduced angular velocity of your target then you lose tracking by being in fall off. If you do not understand this you should really LOOK at the graphs available in the tracking guide. You obviously STILL are oblivious of tracking mechanics. Read up and then come back. Kthxbai."


So, short answer: No you can't have 4 mid megas with almost pulse ranges.

---

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer

---

Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

One example Lyria, ONE. Where, because of you're absurd target choice, and using best case blaster vs worst case pulse, hit chance happens to be about the around about the same in deep falloff. Stick the Apoc in there and 61% becomes 75%. Do that vs a Battleship (as I did) and you see a different plot all together.

We can go round in circles forever; your one example does not 'prove' there is fault with plots based on the base numbers from the flippin database, only that you are good at manufacturing a skewed example to support your argument.

---

What? the guy how doesn't know how many high slots a helios has? Sorry but no, the exact numbers are their in the database for all to see.

You didn't answer the second part of my question.

Seems the judge agrees with my calculations though oddly enough. Can't that that wrong.

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 07:15:25

Quote:

---

closing of the DPS gap between Pulses/Blasters/torps

---

What? when did this happen?

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 07:15:25

Quote:

---

closing of the DPS gap between Pulses/Blasters/torps

---

What? when did this happen?

---

Don't snip posts, it just makes you look like a ****. When they boosted torpedo DPS by 33%, reduced EM resistance and boosted pulse tracking (more real DPS).

---

Don't ignore the point, if you want to say that they reduced EM resistance and increased tracking then do so, don't say they increased DPS while looking at graphs that are damage type neutral as your indicator for a problem.

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Ahh, personal attacks, what would we ever do without them.

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

Did I mention about making the Apocalypse OTT? But like I said, it's not just Pulses, Torpedoes do absurd damage compared to Blasters these days. Both Pulse and Torpedoes make blasters a poor choice in a gang role, and if CCP don't want a solo Blaster role where do they fit in?

Oh and finally, I'd really really like to see a dev comment on the tracking formula flaw...

---

Man what?

Read that again and tell me it makes a logical argument. I dare you.

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 07:34:50

Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Ahh, personal attacks, what would we ever do without them.

---

It's a statement of a fact, he got it wrong.

---

Its an ad hominem.

Its an "argument" where you claim the other person is wrong because of some other unrelated information about him. Whether or not the accusation is true doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not you are making the argument that the other guys argument is wrong because of it.

Note: Tangentially it is not an ad hominem, because tangentially it is just a statement. But this is no tangential issue, the central crux of your argument is that he is wrong because he previously made a mistake.

Take your weak ass ad hominem **** elsewhere.

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

Blasters are a poor choice for gangs, because pulse and torps do near enough the same 'paper DPS' and more 'real DPS' because of the time spent MWD'ing to the target.

But that's ok, because they have a solo niche, oh wait, no they don't anymore, so what role are they supposed to play?

---

A = B
B = C

Therefore

D = E

That pulses and blasters are better for gangs[they always have been, and pretty much should be] is unrelated to the conclusion, which was that blaster are suddenly useless as gang size decreases.

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

I'm not arguing with Zulupark, I'm arguing with lyria.

According to Lyria using the base numbers from the database is 'faulty' because he/she can come up with one example where the hit chance is roughly the same. And, that somehow Zuluparks comments in the blog support Lyria's argument.

So get off your high horse.

---

No, according to Lyria, the results based on the numbers from the database are faulty because the actual math and realistic situations does not bear out the results provided, the situation presented was an example of said fault. Zuluparks comments as supporting are an argument to authority of the non-fallacy type. Now that does not mean that Zulupark should be taken at his word, but it does mean that he or Lyria isn't wrong because of the ad hominem you are slinging.

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

a) Unable to hit an unfit, webbed T1 cruiser at all (Sisi testing).
b) Top speed drastically cut, increased time on target, increased damage taken.
c) Scramblers shutting down MWD preventing you from getting to the target.

I'm not saying you should hit a cruiser for full damage, or that you should hit a frigate, but cutting the effective tracking in four?

---

A) Drones: They indeed exist, also try aggressive maneuvering. It works, seriously. I do it all the time.
B) It also means faster ships take longer to leave your reach. If the engagement is starting close this is, more or less a non-factor.
C). Which have, aside from inties and gallente specific recons, a max range of 9km. Which means they are within 4km of your optimal range and under 1/4 of your falloff. Indeed, they are actually pretty close to your optimal to hit numbers. Damn those dastardly enemies sitting at my optimal to hit distance and not allowing me to close!

---

Originally by: Goumindong

---

Edited by: Goumindong on 24/10/2008 16:20:30

Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

Once a cruiser gets in close you simply can't reduce the transversal enough to land a hit (assuming you are scrambled and can't MWD). Remember, this was a totally unfitted Stabber. No afterburners/tracking disrupters/tank/drone defence (i.e. shoot them) used.

---

So, what you're saying is that the smallest and fastest cruiser should be destroyed by battleship guns even if it makes 20km through enough DPS to kill it in 4-10 seconds while ignoring the other advantages like tank, drones, and neuts that the smaller ship has?

Also you're lying. Because an unfit stabber is not faster than a MWDing BS. It has to have at least an AB and scrambler to not get out-maneuvered.[and not have them shut off by a neut, and not killed by drones]

---