| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gabriel Karade
Celtic Anarchy
   |
Posted - 2008.12.13 14:58:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Detail plots from Liang's modification here. As I said nice solution, would work very well.
If you want to massively buff lasers, yes. If you want balanced weapons, no.
Also, those charts are stupidly hard to read.
Because it's based on falloff lasers are the least boosted of the weapon systems.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Gabriel Karade
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 13:17:00 -
[32]
Here is third possible solution that I had forgotten about, courtesy of Cpt Branko.
Again, this is a signature radius multiplier, but rather than based upon the turrets falloff/range ratio, it is a simple linear function of target range, that has large effects up very close (1km) and greatly diminishing effects moving out beyond web range. This is something where the strength of the effect can be easily tweaked by changing either of the numbers in the function (5000/500 in the example given).
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
SpawnSupreme
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 13:42:00 -
[33]
carefull with your numbers cuz what about snipers?
you know a sniper can hit his running target in the eye at 500 yars easier than he can shoot anywhere in the head at all on a running target inthrowing distance.
so there are other factors to concider here.
velocity should be a factor as well but i would toss out the angle for current tracing computers calculate angle with ease so whay does it become an issue far in the future.
i agree tho it should be size distance and speed
size should be a large factor speed should be a big factor and rang should only factor in if you are in optimal or in falloffif your in falloff range your tracking should naturaly improve cus long distance has a way of slowing targets
|
Gabriel Karade
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 17:30:00 -
[34]
Avoiding using 'optimal' in the calculation eliminates the problem of boosting snipers.
The falloff based sig radius multiplier (Liang) by design, affects blasters and autocannons strongly due to their high falloff.
The sig radius multiplier (Branko), or hit chance multiplier (me), only have strong effects up very close (1km or so), where the tracking of longer range weapons is so poor they won't receive any tangible benefit.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Atharax
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 18:02:00 -
[35]
/signed
Yes I known about this for ages, that if you're extremely close to any large object, be it a battleship or a starbase in one mission. You cant score a hit at all if you're too close. So your suggestion got my full support.
|
SecHaul
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 22:56:00 -
[36]
I agree with the logic, it makes sense from a realism perspective.
But I also agree with Goum, right now I am uncertain the change would be balanced. It would require in entire relook at all turrets and ammo combinations to consider the impact of the changes, which is a huge amount of work.
|
Gabriel Karade
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 09:29:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 16/12/2008 09:32:48
Originally by: SecHaul
I agree with the logic, it makes sense from a realism perspective.
But I also agree with Goum, right now I am uncertain the change would be balanced. It would require in entire relook at all turrets and ammo combinations to consider the impact of the changes, which is a huge amount of work.
All three proposed solutions only take effect at very close range, and have been designed in mind of keeping frigates safe from large, close-range turrets, with a large damage reduction (but not immunity) for cruisers. The hit chance modifier (#1) and Branko's sig radius multiplier (#3) are also completely independent of turret type/ammo.
It's not going to allow snipers to swat down cruisers/Battlecruisers up close, or any form of close-range turret taking down frigates - recall, best tracking close-range Battleship 100% hit chance on a 12.78 m/sec frigate, no amount of webbing will reduce a frigate to that.
Lastly if it were to be truly realistic, you would scrap the complete formula (tracking, falloff and all) and go for this. However, as I said a change such as that is probably not possible this late in the game, though they have re-worked the missile damage formula twice since Castor...
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Gabriel Karade
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2008.12.20 11:35:00 -
[38]
Guess I'll wait until the March Q&A thread comes up... 
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2008.12.20 15:55:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Onys Cissalc
I didn't read through the entire thread, but I do think that an almost more important thing to implement rather than a cone system, which is slightly flawed on account of ships' turret positioning making it hard to justify a turret in a... 'strange'... position being able to hit its target when said target is of X relative signature radius but is at Y distance off on the targeting plane of the turret that's hitting it.
This would only really be an issue of larger sized ships shooting at smaller sized ships tho...
Anyway, onto the thing I feel needs addressing.
I'm in a claw. I'm doing 5,5km/s around my target at ~18km. I'm shooting at him with 250mm II's with EMP loaded, not tremor. I have ambit extensions in to get my falloff up high enough that I can hit him. He's a battleship. I'm missing him. Why?
Because the angular velocity is broken, is why.
Nevermind that he's sitting still, doing a whopping 0m/s, the pure fact that I an orbitting him at 5.5km/s means that I am causing a straight transversal calculation to occur, that throws my guns' aim off making them miss.
Now, the thing that's being missed, is that my ship is turning to always have its side facing my target. So, if you pay attention to your ship up close, you will notice that as a direct result of this, my guns are never actually turning to aim at the target, they're kind of just locked in a direction and use the ship's turning to correct the aim.
So basically what I want is for the ship's turning when orbiting a target to get thrown into the calculation when guns are fired at someone... This should also make it possible for a cruiser sized target with artillery, that has set approach on an orbiting mwd'ing frigate or inty, to have a better chance to track his target, as his ship's turning (albeit slow due to low agility), is being factored into the calculation.
It also gives webbed battleships being orbited by other battleships a chance to track their targets.
I honestly don't see why this doesn't work the way it's meant to already...
Bingo! This is one of the major problems that's been around forever.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |