Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 13:27:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
it's the tracking advantage that this proposal is trying to fix ... because right now, they have a small tracking advantage, but it's still insufficient to hit at those close ranges reliably ...
it's like the missiles argument in nano age that they always hit ... yes they do ... for 0.1 damage which is 0 for all practical purposes ... same with close range turret tracking. the advantage in absolute numbers is still irrelevant ...
No, they have a large tracking advantage and its quite sufficient to get an advantage in short ranges so long as you do not refuse to use it.
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
actualy this has worked like that always. the main factor being warp disruption ranges ... a medium range setup is only usefull if you can hold the target at that range. this dictates the need for a gang. close range boats were always solo, because they do not work well in gangs. this was a balanced scenario. now with hictors, dictors and disruptor range bonused ships, combat range can be more variable.
This is not true, medium ranged ships do not always require keeping them at that range in order to be useful, they are useful as ships close and the time that that takes extend.
Combat range can be slightly longer now, but only non-battleships have a greater advantage than they used to and non-battleships are easily engagable at longer ranges by blaster pilots(sub-bs almost universally will want to be hugging the target). As well, the lack of 90% webs and reduction in speed fits(which negated all ability of blaster ships to kill smaller ships) have shifted the balance towards blasters(where as with 90% webs they could not achieve sufficient transversal to reduce incoming DPS on similarly sized ships and with nano-ships they could not engage smaller ones nearly at all).
Sorry but this is completely untrue. Speed fit HAC's were perfectly good targets for Blaster Battleships using Null L prior to QR. No you wouldn't always kill them, but you could still do enough damage to drive them off.
Lack of 90% webs with no change to short range tracking is not a boost apart from your fantasy Hyperion vs. Abaddon 1 vs 1 fight that you like to roll out as example. As I demonstrated before the QR changes came out, a zero-fit Stabber within minimum skills can orbit a maximum skilled Ion II Megathron all day long at 1-1.5km (bar wrecking hits), with no amount of manoeuvring to reduce transversal allowing a hit. How you come to the conclusion this is somehow a 'boost' quite frankly boggles....
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Tlar Sanqua
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 13:53:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Tlar Sanqua on 03/02/2009 13:53:02 I completely support this. Have stopped flying Mega's and Hyp blaster ships since QR.
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 16:37:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka well I see many people talk about the use of blasters and they state that the effective range should be optimal+some falloff ... however at these distances we start reaching pulse laser optimals ... you lose DPS due to falloff (there goes the DPS advantage) to make your tracking actual work ... so what's the point to use blasters ? you cannot be up close because tracking will lower your DPS and being at your effective range again lowers DPS because you are in falloff ... and you don't even have the range flexibility a pulse laser can offer ...
You don't need to orbit at full speed. Close to within optimal and adjust your speed so that your chance to hit is around 75%-60%. His chance to hit will then be around 62%-43%.
Your not going to negate his damage completely like you can against long range weapons, but you can certainly gain a significant advantage if you can control range/speed.
If you let him control range/speed then he will push you out into falloff since he knows he can't beat your tracking, but he can beat your range. |
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 16:44:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Sorry but this is completely untrue. Speed fit HAC's were perfectly good targets for Blaster Battleships using Null L prior to QR. No you wouldn't always kill them, but you could still do enough damage to drive them off.
You were not supposed to be able to hit a speed fit HAC's with Battleship turrets at close range. That is why the changes were made in the first place. |
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 18:13:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 03/02/2009 18:16:55
Originally by: Ki Tarra
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Sorry but this is completely untrue. Speed fit HAC's were perfectly good targets for Blaster Battleships using Null L prior to QR. No you wouldn't always kill them, but you could still do enough damage to drive them off.
You were not supposed to be able to hit a speed fit HAC's with Battleship turrets at close range. That is why the changes were made in the first place.
I was referring to the claim that Blaster ships were unable to hit smaller ships in the 'nano-age', and therefore we should view QR as a 'boost' - as I said, it was perfectly viable to land some (read enough) hits with Null L as they generally stayed in the 20km-ish range.
With the current situation however, Cruiser class ships don't even have to fit for speed tanking to avoid Large Blaster fire, the Stabber example (from about page 12 of the 44 page Blaster thread) had no modules fitted, Cruiser level I, and was orbiting at base speed while webbed. That's a little OTT in my opinion, but clearly you disagree with that. |
Kalia Masaer
Rosa Castellum
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 22:30:00 -
[66]
I like your idea but it may be difficult to implament programing wise and if it was implamented major changes would need to be applied to the tracking of guns in order to maintain a balance between the sizes of ships. As currently if a cruiser got close to a BS even orbiting it at a reasonably high speed your changes would mean most of the BS volleys would hit even with artillery.
Blasters need a slight decrease in damage and a slight increase in tracking to make them viable at their current ranges, currently they lack the range for their tracking to be effective.
As for realistic tracking I find it strange how maintaining a consitent orbit around a target increases the targets transversal velocity.
|
Nagilam
Quam Singulari Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 02:11:00 -
[67]
Simple to understand, Blasters and AC's are broke and need to be fixed.
|
Nathrezim
Euphoria Released Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 06:23:00 -
[68]
|
Ajurna Jakar
Dark Sun Collective
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 10:32:00 -
[69]
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 16:07:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade .... Cruisers will still have a damage reduction particularly if using, for example, tracking disrupters. Battlecruisers and Battleships however, are far too large to miss at 1km range.
So in your world cruisers have to waste a precious med slot to survive ? Why do you not fit a Tracking Computer on your BS instead ?
Your approach towards a new tracking formula sounds logical to me, BUT it does not guarantee a good game play. Game play > realistic simulation.
Despite all emo & whine towards recent expansion/patch, PvP works in QR. You still see big ships annihilating smaller one. What changed, is respect and caution. No Megathron pilot can ignore a smaller ship anymore. No vagapilot can (generally) laugh at a frigate. Pre-QR they would just crush a meaningless small worm. Now a competent enemy pilot asks for respect, and if a BS/BC pilot ignores it, he may take his toll.
|
|
Ted Grayham
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 21:57:00 -
[71]
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 00:35:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks
Originally by: Gabriel Karade .... Cruisers will still have a damage reduction particularly if using, for example, tracking disrupters. Battlecruisers and Battleships however, are far too large to miss at 1km range.
So in your world cruisers have to waste a precious med slot to survive ? Why do you not fit a Tracking Computer on your BS instead ?
Your approach towards a new tracking formula sounds logical to me, BUT it does not guarantee a good game play. Game play > realistic simulation.
Despite all emo & whine towards recent expansion/patch, PvP works in QR. You still see big ships annihilating smaller one. What changed, is respect and caution. No Megathron pilot can ignore a smaller ship anymore. No vagapilot can (generally) laugh at a frigate. Pre-QR they would just crush a meaningless small worm. Now a competent enemy pilot asks for respect, and if a BS/BC pilot ignores it, he may take his toll.
nope, with the way it was balanced [all three ideas] they [Cruiser hulls] would have to use that midslot if they wanted to obtain near-immunity, otherwise don't attack that close-range Battleship solo unless specifically fit for the task. I repeat, the test I was referring to was a module-less Stabber with minimal skills.
P.S A single tracking computer (30%) makes little difference, when you consider the 400% change post QR. The proposed changes would be more of a 'meeting half way' between QR and pre-QR in terms of hitting ability, but as webs are no longer the equivalent 'hitting the brick wall'. you still have the option of disengaging.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 07:24:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Ki Tarra
Originally by: Hugh Ruka well I see many people talk about the use of blasters and they state that the effective range should be optimal+some falloff ... however at these distances we start reaching pulse laser optimals ... you lose DPS due to falloff (there goes the DPS advantage) to make your tracking actual work ... so what's the point to use blasters ? you cannot be up close because tracking will lower your DPS and being at your effective range again lowers DPS because you are in falloff ... and you don't even have the range flexibility a pulse laser can offer ...
You don't need to orbit at full speed. Close to within optimal and adjust your speed so that your chance to hit is around 75%-60%. His chance to hit will then be around 62%-43%.
Your not going to negate his damage completely like you can against long range weapons, but you can certainly gain a significant advantage if you can control range/speed.
If you let him control range/speed then he will push you out into falloff since he knows he can't beat your tracking, but he can beat your range.
well I know all that ... the point is, you need to get that close and this means generaly web range/scrambler range. which means lower absolute transversals as most probably both of you will be webed ... this significantly lowers your ability to use the tracking advantage also ... and the closer you get, the less DPS you will deal to your target.
with growing effective sig, both of you would have the same sig/resolution ratio if using same grade/tier guns, but the blaster ship will have a tracking advantage up close ... this is what the proposal is trying to achieve ... |
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:21:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Ki Tarra on 05/02/2009 17:22:30
Originally by: Hugh Ruka well I know all that ... the point is, you need to get that close and this means generaly web range/scrambler range. which means lower absolute transversals as most probably both of you will be webed ... this significantly lowers your ability to use the tracking advantage also ... and the closer you get, the less DPS you will deal to your target.
No, the closer you get the more extreme your damage advantage becomes. Drop in closer so that your chance to hit is ~40% and his will drop to ~20%, you would be dealing more than twice as much damage as your opponent.
If you let him control range you won't win. If he pulls away until you lose damage due to falloff. If he pulls in closer he forces a draw because neither of you can deal sufficient damage to kill the other.
However, if you can keep yourself inside of your optimal+1/2falloff, and keep things moving faster than about half of his tracking speed, then you will out damage him. The closer/faster you go the greater the ratio between your damage and his, you just need to keep your damage high enough to break his tank.
Recap for those how have lost track of this sub-thread: this comparison is between Neutron Blaster Cannon II and Mega Pulse Laser II . |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 21:53:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
well I know all that ... the point is, you need to get that close and this means generaly web range/scrambler range. which means lower absolute transversals as most probably both of you will be webed ... this significantly lowers your ability to use the tracking advantage also ... and the closer you get, the less DPS you will deal to your target.
with growing effective sig, both of you would have the same sig/resolution ratio if using same grade/tier guns, but the blaster ship will have a tracking advantage up close ... this is what the proposal is trying to achieve ...
You're making contradictory points.
Tracking, under a certain speed threshold is effectively the same. Tracking above a certain speed threshold is effectively the same.
The current tracking with 60% webs is within the thresholds that means it makes a difference. If it didn't no one would be complaining about missing targets at close range.
changing sig(which is the same as changing tracking) will increase the threshold where tracking is effectively the same on the bottom end. This will bring the tracking of pulse lasers and blasters closer together effectively.
P.S. use the Hyperion, 2 webs== easier to create and reduce transversal. |
Naomi Knight
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 22:35:00 -
[76]
Hmm tracking formula is fine. The same ppl ,who support this change,would come whine, that the enemy bs easily hits their cruisers/frigs when they try to orbit it.
Maybe it should be changed similar to missiles. That the target ship sign would mean much more , like bs chance to hit a cruiser with 150m sig, would be maximum 150m/400m regardless of tracking. It is more realistic as it doesnt matter how good your skills with aiming if your weapon's disperion is greater than the target size. |
Rajere
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 03:48:00 -
[77]
Thumbs Down.
It isn't the tracking formula, it is the to-hit formula, it encompasses everything and no, it's not realistic, it's not supposed to be. It's only supposed to be balanced.
The changes to webs fixed a game balance issue (ship size imbalances) and you wish to reverse it and unbalance it again, arguing about realism. Get over it. -------------------------- NOTR B A N A N A S |
Cpt Jagermeister
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 04:33:00 -
[78]
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 11:13:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Ki Tarra Edited by: Ki Tarra on 05/02/2009 17:22:30
Originally by: Hugh Ruka well I know all that ... the point is, you need to get that close and this means generaly web range/scrambler range. which means lower absolute transversals as most probably both of you will be webed ... this significantly lowers your ability to use the tracking advantage also ... and the closer you get, the less DPS you will deal to your target.
No, the closer you get the more extreme your damage advantage becomes. Drop in closer so that your chance to hit is ~40% and his will drop to ~20%, you would be dealing more than twice as much damage as your opponent.
If you let him control range you won't win. If he pulls away until you lose damage due to falloff. If he pulls in closer he forces a draw because neither of you can deal sufficient damage to kill the other.
However, if you can keep yourself inside of your optimal+1/2falloff, and keep things moving faster than about half of his tracking speed, then you will out damage him. The closer/faster you go the greater the ratio between your damage and his, you just need to keep your damage high enough to break his tank.
Recap for those how have lost track of this sub-thread: this comparison is between Neutron Blaster Cannon II and Mega Pulse Laser II .
you are splitting up range and tracking (or rather hit formula).
the closer you are inside optimal, the worse for you because potential transversal grows. you have to keep in mind this balance. it does not matter that your damage potential is the same (inside optimal, there is alway same hit chance affected by range).
thus if your optimal and your tracking do not match, you are always getting a damage reduction, even if you are in optimal, because you have less tracking than you need.
the proposal only fixes this reduction based on transversal, as the growth in effective sig would in part negate the transversal increase. this enables you to be up close withou needed 3 webs and still hit well.
pulse lasers are actualy not important in this discussion, as they have the longest possible optimal of all the "short" range guns, so they should have the lowest tracking and DPS.
I'd argue that ACs need the best DPS given their short optimal (shortest of the bunch), blasters 2nd and pulses last. same with tracking speed.
but this is up to discussion, I admit I don't have all the details worked out, I still need a lot of math and graph work.
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 16:28:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Ki Tarra on 06/02/2009 16:43:09
Originally by: Hugh Ruka the closer you are inside optimal, the worse for you because potential transversal grows. you have to keep in mind this balance. it does not matter that your damage potential is the same (inside optimal, there is alway same hit chance affected by range).
You completely missed the point of what I was saying. Yes, I know that higher angular velocity is worse than lower angular velocity, in an absolute sense.
The point I was trying to make, is that the tracking advantage of blaster verses pulse laser is significant. You (as a blaster fitting pilot) could try going for a near 100% chance to hit, but then your opponent (fitting pulse lasers) would also have a near 100% chance to hit.
To use your tracking advantage you need to give up a bit of your EFT specified damage. Your tracking advantage gives you the option to give up ~25% of your DPS to take away ~50% of your opponents DPS. Push things a bit faster so that you are giving up ~50% of your DPS, and your opponent will have lost ~75% of his.
Unless you are shooting at a POS, you should not expect to hit for 100% DPS anyways. Originally by: Hugh Ruka pulse lasers are actualy not important in this discussion, as they have the longest possible optimal of all the "short" range guns, so they should have the lowest tracking and DPS.
Every type of turret is important to this discussion as all are affected by the hit forumla.
When I see a forumal that gives a siege-mode Dreadnought a 100% chance-to-hit against a max-speed intercepter orbiting at 500m, I say BAD IDEA!
... or did I misread his proposed forumal? (max(1, ((1/(exp(range/2000))) + 0.5))) ^ ((( tracking_penalty * sig_penalty) ^ 2) + (((optimal_penalty / Falloff) / Falloff) ^ 2))
As a fotenote, I am note entirely certain that Blasters/AC are fully and properly balanced. However, if there is a balancing problem it is a lot more subtle then the OP makes it out to be. Regardless of there being a problem or not, I am certain that the above forumla is not workable, nor is the approach taken by the OP to make a "realistic" game mechanic desirable.
If anyone still believes that there is a problem with the balance of Blasters/AC, I would suggest that he write up a detailed case showing why they are unbalanced. Don't worry about finding a "solution" to the problem. CCP has stated that they don't need the CSM to propose solutions, just raise issues. |
|
Ankhesentapemkah
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 17:00:00 -
[81]
Sorry guys, this issue was voted on and rejected, with just Bunyip, Vuk and me in favor of it. ---
NEW MOVIE! |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 14:37:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Ki Tarra Edited by: Ki Tarra on 06/02/2009 16:43:09
Originally by: Hugh Ruka the closer you are inside optimal, the worse for you because potential transversal grows. you have to keep in mind this balance. it does not matter that your damage potential is the same (inside optimal, there is alway same hit chance affected by range).
You completely missed the point of what I was saying. Yes, I know that higher angular velocity is worse than lower angular velocity, in an absolute sense.
The point I was trying to make, is that the tracking advantage of blaster verses pulse laser is significant. You (as a blaster fitting pilot) could try going for a near 100% chance to hit, but then your opponent (fitting pulse lasers) would also have a near 100% chance to hit.
To use your tracking advantage you need to give up a bit of your EFT specified damage. Your tracking advantage gives you the option to give up ~25% of your DPS to take away ~50% of your opponents DPS. Push things a bit faster so that you are giving up ~50% of your DPS, and your opponent will have lost ~75% of his.
Unless you are shooting at a POS, you should not expect to hit for 100% DPS anyways. Originally by: Hugh Ruka pulse lasers are actualy not important in this discussion, as they have the longest possible optimal of all the "short" range guns, so they should have the lowest tracking and DPS.
Every type of turret is important to this discussion as all are affected by the hit forumla.
When I see a forumal that gives a siege-mode Dreadnought a 100% chance-to-hit against a max-speed intercepter orbiting at 500m, I say BAD IDEA!
... or did I misread his proposed forumal? (max(1, ((1/(exp(range/2000))) + 0.5))) ^ ((( tracking_penalty * sig_penalty) ^ 2) + (((optimal_penalty / Falloff) / Falloff) ^ 2))
As a fotenote, I am note entirely certain that Blasters/AC are fully and properly balanced. However, if there is a balancing problem it is a lot more subtle then the OP makes it out to be. Regardless of there being a problem or not, I am certain that the above forumla is not workable, nor is the approach taken by the OP to make a "realistic" game mechanic desirable.
If anyone still believes that there is a problem with the balance of Blasters/AC, I would suggest that he write up a detailed case showing why they are unbalanced. Don't worry about finding a "solution" to the problem. CCP has stated that they don't need the CSM to propose solutions, just raise issues.
your tracking advantage in case of blasters is only relevant inside your optimal. in falloff you automaticaly start losing damage potential.
now pulse lasers don't need to worry much about that. they can change optimal quickly and they have the longest from short range weapons.
your tracking advantage is also not usefull if you cannot translate that into effective damage applied to the target or effective damage denied to the target (by you being faster than he can track). both are only realised in a very short optimal window with blasters. the same for autocannons does not make sense, as they are almost 99% times in falloff and lasers 99% times in optimal.
anyway pity the CSM turned down this one. I hope CCP realises the importance. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 15:42:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka anyway pity the CSM turned down this one. I hope CCP realises the importance.
I expect that a large part of why this got turned down was that the proposal is completely broken: the proposed "solution" would ensure that all shots from all turrets would hit all targets within the ranges 1m to 1,386m.
If you still think that Blasters and Autocannons need a rebalancing, then write up a proper case for it and resubmit it for review by the CSM and CCP. In writing up your case, don't bother to include a "solution" to whatever problem you find. You don't want your case shot down because of a flaw in your solution like this one was.
|
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 17:42:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Ki Tarra
If you still think that Blasters and Autocannons need a rebalancing, then write up a proper case for it and resubmit it for review by the CSM and CCP. In writing up your case, don't bother to include a "solution" to whatever problem you find. You don't want your case shot down because of a flaw in your solution like this one was.
this tbh - I didn't agree with the proposed solution, which is why I voted no ----------------------
My Blog |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 20:02:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Ki Tarra
Originally by: Hugh Ruka anyway pity the CSM turned down this one. I hope CCP realises the importance.
I expect that a large part of why this got turned down was that the proposal is completely broken: the proposed "solution" would ensure that all shots from all turrets would hit all targets within the ranges 1m to 1,386m.
If you still think that Blasters and Autocannons need a rebalancing, then write up a proper case for it and resubmit it for review by the CSM and CCP. In writing up your case, don't bother to include a "solution" to whatever problem you find. You don't want your case shot down because of a flaw in your solution like this one was.
pity this case is not only about blasters and autocannons ... this can be extended to proper rebalancing of all turrets. however nobody does see it ...
this proposal is introducing a very important behavior into the tracking mechanic. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 21:01:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka pity this case is not only about blasters and autocannons ... this can be extended to proper rebalancing of all turrets. however nobody does see it ...
Its effect on other types of turrets is one of the main reason why this is such a bad idea.
Did you not bother to look at what this would do to every other type of turret: like I already said, this change as proposed would cause EVERY turret to ALWAYS hit for ranges under 1.3km.
It would be impossible to miss!
Your turret could have an optimal and falloff of 1m and you could not miss a shot at 1.3km. Tracking would be irrelevant, seige-mode dreads would hit interceptors for full damage. Scout/Heavy Drones would also never miss, they all operate within 1.3km.
It would reduce the game to bumper boats: fit the biggest ship with the biggest guns, drive up to your target and stay within 1.3km hoping that your damage will break his tank before his damage breaks yours.
It short complete stupidity!
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 16:00:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Ki Tarra
It would reduce the game to bumper boats: fit the biggest ship with the biggest guns, drive up to your target and stay within 1.3km hoping that your damage will break his tank before his damage breaks yours.
It short complete stupidity!
a very accurate description of blaster boats ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
prodalt
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 19:46:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: Ki Tarra
It would reduce the game to bumper boats: fit the biggest ship with the biggest guns, drive up to your target and stay within 1.3km hoping that your damage will break his tank before his damage breaks yours.
It short complete stupidity!
a very accurate description of blaster boats ...
Only when flown by fools
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 16:32:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 14/02/2009 16:33:04
Originally by: Ki Tarra
Originally by: Hugh Ruka anyway pity the CSM turned down this one. I hope CCP realises the importance.
I expect that a large part of why this got turned down was that the proposal is completely broken: the proposed "solution" would ensure that all shots from all turrets would hit all targets within the ranges 1m to 1,386m.
If you still think that Blasters and Autocannons need a rebalancing, then write up a proper case for it and resubmit it for review by the CSM and CCP. In writing up your case, don't bother to include a "solution" to whatever problem you find. You don't want your case shot down because of a flaw in your solution like this one was.
Been away, but this part simply isn't true, as the tracking speed isn't modified, so your tracking speed still has to at least match, or be greater than a targets angular velocity.
Not that it matters now as this has been voted out, but perhaps I should have made it clearer (I did post example numbers which seem to have been overlooked). This proposal does not mean 'Automatic hit', it simply boosted the hit chance from 50% @ turret tracking speed = target angular velocity, to 100% @ turret tracking speed =target angular velocity, when inside 1.4km. --------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 17:07:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Ki Tarra on 14/02/2009 17:08:40
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Originally by: Ki Tarra the proposal is completely broken: the proposed "solution" would ensure that all shots from all turrets would hit all targets within the ranges 1m to 1,386m.
Been away, but this part simply isn't true, as the tracking speed isn't modified, so your tracking speed still has to at least match, or be greater than a targets angular velocity.
Uh, yes that is exactly what it does. I didn't notice it at first (or else I would have pointed out that flaw earlier) but when I started to review your formula, that is exactly the result you get.
(max(1, ((1/(exp(range/2000))) + 0.5))) ^ ((( tracking_penalty * sig_penalty) ^ 2) + (((optimal_penalty / Falloff) / Falloff) ^ 2))
Look at what happens when you drop in a value of 1,386m.
(max(1, ((1/(exp(range/2000))) + 0.5))) = (max(1, ((1/(exp(1386/2000))) + 0.5))) = 1
Now you tell me what 1^ANYTHING is?
As long as the Tracking/Falloff part can be resolved (ie no divide by zero due to range) the actual result is irrelavent as the final result is 1: ie ALWAYS HITS.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |