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 - 2009.01.27 14:00:00 -
[1]
I raised this with Zulupark at the last Q&A session, but there was no further answer so I'll bring it up here.
The current tracking formula does not work.
Figure 1. represents in the simplest form (using a Megathron as the example target), the problem with the current tracking formula, which screws up close-range ships.
Figure 2. represents how the tracking formula should work, the target at half the range, is twice the effective size, and therefore should be easier to hit.
Now clearly we can't bin the complete formula and start over, that is not what I'm proposing - I've already gone through three possible changes to the tracking equation that the game uses here, to account for the 'size vs distance' component that is missing, either through modifying the ĉ50% hit chanceĈ at very close ranges, or through adding a 'signature radius multiplier' at close ranges.
This has been broken since Castor, but with 60% webs, this is now causing huge issues for close-range ships ability to hit targets, the proposed modifications would rectify that without scrapping the current tracking formula.
Regards, Gabriel Karade --------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Worlds End Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 15:17:00 -
[2]
The one thing I've never understood.... is the tracking formula in certain conditions dosen't make sense.
A 1400mm cannon (8 of them) can hit a target rather hard at 80 clicks.... At 50 it starts hitting harder...
At 20 it can't hit worth crap....
You could be at point blank range and still not hit crap.... and the target could be bigger than you are.
A frigate makes sense... maybe a cruiser (maybe)... but if its obivous that you could be off by 5 to 10 degrees... your still going to hit something..... but you don't.
Any comments? =============== CEO of Clan Shadow Cadre www.shadowcadre.com =============== |
Gabriel Karade
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 15:36:00 -
[3]
I forgot to add my own 'thumbs up'...oops --------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Red Raider
Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 16:13:00 -
[4]
Anything that adds some realism to the game and fixes some of the issues at the same time is a beautiful thing!
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out. |
Efrim Black
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 16:15:00 -
[5]
|
Venkul Mul
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 19:23:00 -
[6]
|
Pattern Clarc
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 20:03:00 -
[7]
|
Ankhesentapemkah
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 20:13:00 -
[8]
Tried to get this through with that issue about blasters and other turret issues but it was voted out.
Anyway, supporting this a second time of course! ---
NEW MOVIE! |
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.01.27 22:19:00 -
[9]
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 07:58:00 -
[10]
Not sure of the details, but I've never liked the tracking formula. It's always seemed incomplete. |
|
eWrath
The Omni Federation
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 08:04:00 -
[11]
|
croou
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 10:28:00 -
[12]
|
Aeron RU
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 12:03:00 -
[13]
UP!
|
Chen Rossii
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 12:04:00 -
[14]
|
Scagga Laebetrovo
Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 12:15:00 -
[15]
I support this, however I didn't agree with your 'shrinking' hypothesis.
I think that the current tracking system relies on you hitting a 'target' point on a ship that is directly proportional to the signature radius. This allows us to imagine all ships as being points. Ship velocity causes the points to move, and increased distance translates to less deviation with increased distance. When the ship is up close, the relative movement of the 'target' point is harder to align to as movement translates to larger deviation.
I am no expert on programming, but I think we can appreciate that 'upgrading' the tracking formula would require all calculations to take into account a more 'accurate' shape of the ship, and thus calculating hits/misses might become far more demanding. Thus my support is for the idea, but I raise questions about the practicality.
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 15:16:00 -
[16]
They key word is 'effectively' - as far as the tracking formula is concerned the angle subtended by a target remains the same at all ranges (signature radius is a fixed number). The only way that can happen if you half the distance, is to half the arc length.
*shrug* It's merely a way of illustrating the problem of size vs. distance not being accounted for. In a way, you can think of the 0m 'bug' being as a result of this problem; it occurs because as far as the tracking formula is concerned, at 0m your target is infinitesimally small, you can never hit it.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Seiji Hannah
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 15:20:00 -
[17]
Indeed - this is how it should work
/Supported |
Miyamoto Shigesuke
Jugis Modo Utopia Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 16:35:00 -
[18]
I support this proposal. Does this mean when you are at 0m range, you'll always hit?
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Worlds End Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:03:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Miyamoto Shigesuke I support this proposal. Does this mean when you are at 0m range, you'll always hit?
Lets try to keep the key word "Realistic" first.
The objects size should be a factor.. if your flying an interceptor around my Malestrom and I lay into you with 8 1400mm cannons at point blank range do you really wana feel the full brunt of that strike?
Obviously unrealistic... maybe you'll get clipped every so often.. like 1 out of 50 shots : O P
But if your a battelcruiser.... the odds of nailing that ship should be far higher than a frigate.
THAT...is the key. Or one of them at least. =============== CEO of Clan Shadow Cadre www.shadowcadre.com =============== |
Ignition SemperFi
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 19:45:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Ignition SemperFi on 28/01/2009 19:44:47 Im all for this fix, but also this would make missiles "explosion" tracking even worse than gun tracking.
Not that guns arent already better for PVP than missiles in most instances
---- People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
Quote:
They already did introduce a counter to missiles, it's called Quantum Rise
|
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 20:46:00 -
[21]
Your entire idea is based on the false premise that tracking is supposed to equate to reality.
Game mechanics are not designed to simulate reality!
Please try re-drafting your proposal to address a problem with game mechanics, and not try to create a space simulator. Eve is so far from a realistic space simulator that we would need to bin the entire game to head in that direction.
|
Red Raider
Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 21:38:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ki Tarra Your entire idea is based on the false premise that tracking is supposed to equate to reality.
Game mechanics are not designed to simulate reality!
Please try re-drafting your proposal to address a problem with game mechanics, and not try to create a space simulator. Eve is so far from a realistic space simulator that we would need to bin the entire game to head in that direction.
There are portions of the game that relate very much to reality and there are portions that don't.
What is wrong with adding bits and pieces of reality of it makes the game better?
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out. |
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 21:59:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ki Tarra Your entire idea is based on the false premise that tracking is supposed to equate to reality.
Game mechanics are not designed to simulate reality!
Please try re-drafting your proposal to address a problem with game mechanics, and not try to create a space simulator. Eve is so far from a realistic space simulator that we would need to bin the entire game to head in that direction.
My idea (as I stated in the OP), is based around the problem of close-range gun tracking; specifically, because of the aforementioned flaw, close-range turrets are more heavily penalised at their optimal ranges compared to long range turrets. Close-range turret tracking cannot be significantly boosted because it would overpower them with longer range ammo, so instead I'm posting ideas of how to attack the problem at very close ranges only.
Now, I think the change in webs was a good thing, as it makes combat more fluid, it's actually possible to dive in and out of web range in frigates now. I'm not proposing to go back to how it previously was with 90% webs, but to fix the tracking formula so that close range ships, particularly the bigger ones, can function better at their optimal (for Autocannons and Blasters we are talking sub-5km here) without removing frigates new found role in being able to close with the big ships...
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 22:20:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Ki Tarra on 28/01/2009 22:23:27
Originally by: Gabriel Karade My idea (as I stated in the OP), is based around the problem of close-range gun tracking; specifically, because of the aforementioned flaw, close-range turrets are more heavily penalised at their optimal ranges compared to long range turrets. Close-range turret tracking cannot be significantly boosted because it would overpower them with longer range ammo, so instead I'm posting ideas of how to attack the problem at very close ranges only.
How are they more heavily penalised at their opperational range?
Having 4x better base tracking isn't enough? 4x tracking is enough to take a 6% chance to hit up to a 84% chance to hit. How much of a tracking advantage do you expect short range turrets to have?
How would your proposed changes affect the usage of long range turrets at short range?
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.01.29 10:30:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Ki Tarra Edited by: Ki Tarra on 28/01/2009 22:23:27
Originally by: Gabriel Karade My idea (as I stated in the OP), is based around the problem of close-range gun tracking; specifically, because of the aforementioned flaw, close-range turrets are more heavily penalised at their optimal ranges compared to long range turrets. Close-range turret tracking cannot be significantly boosted because it would overpower them with longer range ammo, so instead I'm posting ideas of how to attack the problem at very close ranges only.
How are they more heavily penalised at their opperational range?
Having 4x better base tracking isn't enough? 4x tracking is enough to take a 6% chance to hit up to a 84% chance to hit. How much of a tracking advantage do you expect short range turrets to have?
How would your proposed changes affect the usage of long range turrets at short range?
Taking a Neutron Blaster vs. a 425mm Railgun for example, the latter has 8x the base range for 22% of the tracking. It gets worse when you consider real setups, where for example a tracking computer pushes the long range weapon out to ranges (still talking short range ammo here), where you simply cannot miss another Battleship. Plug in the base numbers into the tracking guide and you can see that even with a small (50 m/sec) transversal, hit chance drops to 80% at 2km, and 40% at 1 km. Note; this is for a weapon system with a base optimal range (short range ammo) of 3.6km shooting at a km-sized target... you simply cannot miss another km-sized target at 1km!
Again, taking the base numbers for a 415mm Railgun, my proposed changes would boost it's hit chance, vs. another Battleship to 100% at 13 m/sec transversal at 1.4km, 72% hit chance at 29 m/sec transversal at 3km, and 51% hit chance at 48 m/sec transversal at 5km (c.f. the current is 50% at those ranges at those transversals). In short, you are still stuffed if you fight a close-range Battleship up close when you are fitted for long range.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.29 11:23:00 -
[26]
ah you are trying logic and maths, don't expect much support :-)
anyway a quick fix would be to multiply the gun tracking speed by the effective/true signature ratio if effective > gun sig res.
now a simple and fast way to determine the effective sig ...
SUPPORTED |
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.01.29 12:08:00 -
[27]
Haha, well anyway, ignoring the 'technical' thread I created, I'd say to my detractors who think I'm trying to create a 'realistic space sim' that, size vs. distance is a pretty simple, uncomplicated matter... --------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Kaya Divine
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.01.29 12:18:00 -
[28]
As soon wrecking hits are removed, this will have my support.
|
Myrhial Arkenath
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2009.01.29 12:26:00 -
[29]
Supported
CEO | Diary of a pod pilot |
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.29 16:16:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Taking a Neutron Blaster vs. a 425mm Railgun for example, the latter has 8x the base range for 22% of the tracking.
Your doing it wrong!
Opperational range is optimal + 1/2 falloff.
Neutron Blasters have 4.5x the tracking while 425mm Railgun has 5.7x range.
Add Antimatter ammo into the mix and the range advantage drops to 4.7x.
Try using your falloff range as intended.
|
|
G'rin
|
Posted - 2009.01.30 01:54:00 -
[31]
|
Fujiwara Kimiko
|
Posted - 2009.01.30 11:52:00 -
[32]
Blasters need a serious boost, and this would be it.
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.01.30 13:55:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Ki Tarra
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Taking a Neutron Blaster vs. a 425mm Railgun for example, the latter has 8x the base range for 22% of the tracking.
Your doing it wrong!
Opperational range is optimal + 1/2 falloff.
Neutron Blasters have 4.5x the tracking while 425mm Railgun has 5.7x range.
Add Antimatter ammo into the mix and the range advantage drops to 4.7x.
Try using your falloff range as intended.
If you want to get nit-picky then yes, but this is before taking into account any realistic setup, as I said in my previous reply, it does not make any sense missing another Battleship (1km length) from 1km away, particularly when using a dedicated close range weapon, that is the crux of my argument.
I gave some examples from the basic tracking guide, please feel free to have a play around, and you'll see that compared to the hit chance for long range weapons at their optimal, short range weapons, i.e. Blasters and Autocannons, are hit by the lack of effective target size in the tracking formula. Now this wasn't a problem with 90% webs as everyone was stationary, I repeat; the web change was in my opinion a good one, but close-range ships need some help that a simple tracking boost alone will not provide (recall, ship velocities in 'operational range' went up by a factor 400%) now that combat is more fluid at short ranges.
Correcting for size vs. distance is not intended to make eve 'more realistic', if you follow through the technical thread I linked, you would see that for 'realism' you would go down a somewhat different route, this is simply aimed at boosting close-range weapons, without going back to 'anything within web range dies' - with regards to large close-range guns, Frigates for example, would still be completely untouched, Cruisers would still be able to mitigate some damage (but you wouldn't want to go in solo vs. a close range-Battleship for example), Battlecruisers and above would be taking nearly full damage except for large transversal velocities inside of 2km.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Armitage RU
|
Posted - 2009.01.30 17:56:00 -
[34]
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.01.30 19:26:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka ah you are trying logic and maths, don't expect much support :-)
anyway a quick fix would be to multiply the gun tracking speed by the effective/true signature ratio if effective > gun sig res.
now a simple and fast way to determine the effective sig ...
SUPPORTED
He is using math, but no logic as to why it should be. Tracking does not need changed to reduce the advantages that low tracking weapons have in the close range.
In short, there is no reason to buff pulse lasers. |
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.31 04:50:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Ki Tarra on 31/01/2009 04:52:16
Originally by: Gabriel Karade this is simply aimed at boosting close-range weapons, without going back to 'anything within web range dies'
No instead you are moving it to an anything within 1km dies.
It is supposed be nothing moving within 1km dies. So as they say: "working as inteneded" |
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.01.31 09:53:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Hugh Ruka ah you are trying logic and maths, don't expect much support :-)
anyway a quick fix would be to multiply the gun tracking speed by the effective/true signature ratio if effective > gun sig res.
now a simple and fast way to determine the effective sig ...
SUPPORTED
He is using math, but no logic as to why it should be. Tracking does not need changed to reduce the advantages that low tracking weapons have in the close range.
In short, there is no reason to buff pulse lasers.
As I stated in the other thread, it provides a larger boost to those weapons designed for sub 5km range i.e. Blasters and Autocannons. It's perfectly logical for a closer target to be easier to hit... --------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.01.31 09:56:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Ki Tarra Edited by: Ki Tarra on 31/01/2009 04:52:16
Originally by: Gabriel Karade this is simply aimed at boosting close-range weapons, without going back to 'anything within web range dies'
No instead you are moving it to an anything within 1km dies.
It is supposed be nothing moving within 1km dies. So as they say: "working as inteneded"
Negative, Frigates class hulls will not be touched by this, 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.
Does the '0m' effect count as "working as intended"? - probably not. --------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
TimGascoigne
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.01.31 09:59:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Ki Tarra Edited by: Ki Tarra on 31/01/2009 04:52:16
Originally by: Gabriel Karade this is simply aimed at boosting close-range weapons, without going back to 'anything within web range dies'
No instead you are moving it to an anything within 1km dies.
It is supposed be nothing moving within 1km dies. So as they say: "working as inteneded"
fool the effects of tracking will still work as intended and making it difficult to hit targets that are moving fast and near(transversal velocity) however the target should not effectively shrink because of the games in inability to understand how a firing arc actually needs to increase when the distance reduces.
In other words objects in the EVE do not apaear to be bigger when you get closer to them. Instead thay effectively shrinking in size. A typical school maths revision guide on our the behaviour of angles and perspective view will end the matter.
|
Stalina
Deep Space Exploration Squad
|
Posted - 2009.01.31 12:50:00 -
[40]
TL;DR : How does I not hit ?
|
|
Erika Bronz
The Wyld Hunt
|
Posted - 2009.01.31 14:31:00 -
[41]
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.01.31 17:53:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade As I stated in the other thread, it provides a larger boost to those weapons designed for sub 5km range i.e. Blasters and Autocannons. It's perfectly logical for a closer target to be easier to hit...
imbalance is never logical.
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.31 18:54:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Gabriel Karade As I stated in the other thread, it provides a larger boost to those weapons designed for sub 5km range i.e. Blasters and Autocannons. It's perfectly logical for a closer target to be easier to hit...
imbalance is never logical.
what imbalance ??? |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.01.31 19:51:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Gabriel Karade As I stated in the other thread, it provides a larger boost to those weapons designed for sub 5km range i.e. Blasters and Autocannons. It's perfectly logical for a closer target to be easier to hit...
imbalance is never logical.
what imbalance ???
He will eliminate the weakness of low tracking weapons at close range.
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.01 03:30:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Does the '0m' effect count as "working as intended"? - probably not.
Yes, it does count as "working as intended".
I have pointed out the problem with your proposal. I will not continue to repeat myself. I will simply take comfort in the fact that I do not expect the developers to implement your proposal even if it is raised by the CSM.
You can continue to waste your efforts on selling your idea, or you can go back and work out something that is better in line with the spirit of existing mechanics.
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.01 10:09:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Ki Tarra
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Does the '0m' effect count as "working as intended"? - probably not.
Yes, it does count as "working as intended".
I have pointed out the problem with your proposal. I will not continue to repeat myself. I will simply take comfort in the fact that I do not expect the developers to implement your proposal even if it is raised by the CSM.
You can continue to waste your efforts on selling your idea, or you can go back and work out something that is better in line with the spirit of existing mechanics.
What problem is that specifically? Your first objection was that this is some kind of attempt at creating a 'realistic' space sim - it isn't. Your second objection seemed to be that close ranged weapon systems are some how perfectly ok, despite the recent 400% cut in effective tracking - ask any Blaster pilot.
I guess you probably won't answer but: do you see why the tracking formula is flawed? Do you understand the concept of a closer target should be easier to hit?
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.01 10:18:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 01/02/2009 10:22:47
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Gabriel Karade As I stated in the other thread, it provides a larger boost to those weapons designed for sub 5km range i.e. Blasters and Autocannons. It's perfectly logical for a closer target to be easier to hit...
imbalance is never logical.
what imbalance ???
He will eliminate the weakness of low tracking weapons at close range.
Goumindong, Pulse Lasers (this is effectively what you are referring to) would still be hitting less often than in the old 90% web days, when targets were effectively stationary, as in fact will Blasters and Autocannons. Pulse Lasers were not overpowered then - I for one, never had any issues taking down Pulse boats in my Blaster boats provided I didn't try to engage them from too far off - and would not be overpowered after this. |
Zenethalos
Noir.
|
Posted - 2009.02.02 06:57:00 -
[48]
Supporting some form of revamp for tracking. As it stands if I am in one of my auto BS boats orbiting another close range BS boat at relative optimal ranges I hit less then I would at say opt + falloff.
As for the comment about making this a more realistic game and its not supposed to be blah blah I don't believe it was intended for us to not be able to shoot a stationary target 2X+ the size of our ship at 0 and not be able to hit it it once. Fix this issue. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.02 08:32:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Goumindong on 02/02/2009 08:33:17
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Goumindong, Pulse Lasers (this is effectively what you are referring to) would still be hitting less often than in the old 90% web days, when targets were effectively stationary, as in fact will Blasters and Autocannons. Pulse Lasers were not overpowered in terms of tracking then - I for one, never had any issues taking down Pulse boats in my Blaster boats provided I didn't try to engage them from too far off - and would not be overpowered after this.
Pulse lasers certainly were better than they should have been in terms of short range tracking in the 90% web days. You could figure that just by running simple DPS/EHP tests, 90% webs meant that short range ships needed to get into their optimals against laser ships nearly instantly or they would not have sufficient traction to win a fight without better skills or equipment(at least on the battleship level). That you were able to kill pulse boats says nothing towards their actual effectiveness. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.02 08:54:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade ask any Blaster pilot.
The vocal minority of blaster pilots that post all over the boards are wrong(and/or troll alts)
Quote:
I guess you probably won't answer but: do you see why the tracking formula is flawed? Do you understand the concept of a closer target should be easier to hit?
There is no reason other than "its more realistic" which you have explicitly denied as being a reason in the paragraph above. There is no "flaw" in the formula unless you state that the goal of the tracking formula is realism and not balance.
Quote:
Second edit: This is not something that has been simply a reaction to the web changes, I brought this up a long time ago.
And it was just as dumb then as it is now. |
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.02 09:40:00 -
[51]
'Just as dumb' - ok whatever you say...
Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, close-range ships are having more trouble hitting their targets, and short of boosting their tracking (not possible, too much of a boost with regards to use of T2 long range ammo), modifying the tracking formula is a perfectly valid approach.
|
Naomi Knight
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.02 10:15:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Naomi Knight on 02/02/2009 10:15:15 Pulses need a nerf not a buff. Not supported. |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.02.02 12:10:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 02/02/2009 12:12:38
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Gabriel Karade As I stated in the other thread, it provides a larger boost to those weapons designed for sub 5km range i.e. Blasters and Autocannons. It's perfectly logical for a closer target to be easier to hit...
imbalance is never logical.
what imbalance ???
He will eliminate the weakness of low tracking weapons at close range.
like what weakness ? all the low tracking guns have lower DPS as the high tracking guns. also if you manage to immobilize a target at 100m next to your capital gun, you should be able to vaporize it as it is basicaly in the barrel of your gun.
same goes for long ranged setups. they already have about 1/2 the DPS of the same class short range gun.
now medium range guns (like pulse lasers) are a problem, but they are again lower DPS (or SHOULD BE) than the close range cannons.
so either the guns are not ballanced NOW and the imbalance will show in a proper tracking formula, or we need to do a few tweaks afterwards. but no imbalance will result.
(maybe we'd need to reverse the tracking boost on lasers :-)) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.02 12:24:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka now medium range guns (like pulse lasers) are a problem, but they are again lower DPS (or SHOULD BE) than the close range cannons.
They are, but the short range weapons are, by necessity, not that far ahead that you can forgo tracking at short range as an advantage.
Quote: so either the guns are not ballanced NOW and the imbalance will show in a proper tracking formula, or we need to do a few tweaks afterwards. but no imbalance will result.
This is a false dichotomy. It is also possible that the guns are balanced now, or require no changes in the formula to get right.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.02 12:25:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade 'Just as dumb' - ok whatever you say...
Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, close-range ships are having more trouble hitting their targets, and short of boosting their tracking (not possible, too much of a boost with regards to use of T2 long range ammo), modifying the tracking formula is a perfectly valid approach.
Valid approach to what? Close range ships are hitting just as much as they ought to be. You don't need to hit all the time to win, you just need to hit more than the other guy. And if you want to hit more, maneuver for less transversal.
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.02.02 14:48:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Hugh Ruka now medium range guns (like pulse lasers) are a problem, but they are again lower DPS (or SHOULD BE) than the close range cannons.
They are, but the short range weapons are, by necessity, not that far ahead that you can forgo tracking at short range as an advantage.
Quote: so either the guns are not ballanced NOW and the imbalance will show in a proper tracking formula, or we need to do a few tweaks afterwards. but no imbalance will result.
This is a false dichotomy. It is also possible that the guns are balanced now, or require no changes in the formula to get right.
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 ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.02 17:21:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka also if you manage to immobilize a target at 100m next to your capital gun, you should be able to vaporize it as it is basicaly in the barrel of your gun.
If you immobilize a target then you won't miss it at 100m. You will only miss if you are moving or you have failed to immobilize your target. Originally by: Gabriel Karade Do you understand the concept of a closer target should be easier to hit?
If realism is the goal, then yes, closer should be easier.
However, the goal is not realism, the goal is game balance. Having a game balanced so that being closer is always better will result in people try to get as close as possible, with no interest in range control beyond getting as close as possible. That does not encourage diversification in range control, it encourages bumper boats.
Game balance dictates that being too close must be a bad thing, so that people will attempt to find a comprimise between too close and too far.
As I have said before, don't bother with realism in requesting game mechanics. Look for something that adds to the game. No game mechanics have been added or change to make things more "realistic".
If you think that there is a problem with the effective range of short-ranged weapons, then look for some effective mechanics based on the merits of the mechanics alone. Once the mechanic has been developed, then you can go looking for someway of describing it to sound "realistic", but that is by no means required.
Rewriting the tracking mechanics is a massive change, and would therefore require substancial justification. However, if the "problem" without rewriting fundamental mechanics, those options will be exausted first, regardless of what "realism" the other option might provide. |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.02.02 20:35:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Ki Tarra Edited by: Ki Tarra on 02/02/2009 17:40:19
Originally by: Hugh Ruka also if you manage to immobilize a target at 100m next to your capital gun, you should be able to vaporize it as it is basicaly in the barrel of your gun.
If you immobilize a target then you won't miss it at 100m. You will only miss if you are moving or you have failed to immobilize your target. Originally by: Gabriel Karade Do you understand the concept of a closer target should be easier to hit?
If realism is the goal, then yes, closer should be easier.
However, the goal is not realism, the goal is game balance. Having a game balanced so that being closer is always better will result in people try to get as close as possible, with no interest in range control beyond getting as close as possible. That does not encourage diversification in range control, it encourages bumper boats.
Game balance dictates that being too close must be a bad thing, so that people will attempt to find a comprimise between too close and too far.
As I have said before, don't bother with realism in requesting game mechanics. Look for something that adds to the game. No game mechanics have been added or changed to make things more "realistic".
If you think that there is a problem with the effective range of short-ranged weapons, then look for some effective mechanics based on the merits of the mechanics alone. Once the mechanic has been developed, then you can go looking for someway of describing it to sound "realistic", but that is by no means required.
Rewriting the tracking mechanics is a massive change, and would therefore require substancial justification. However, if the "problem" can be solved without rewriting fundamental mechanics, those options will be exausted first, regardless of what "realism" the other option might provide.
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. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 05:16:00 -
[59]
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).
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.02.03 09:59:00 -
[60]
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).
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 ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
|
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.
|
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 18:34:00 -
[91]
Ah, it should have been a multiplier not 'to the power of' i.e. 0.5 up to 1 x (fraction due to tracking/angular velocity), so that it's not possible to spit out a '1' unless target is stood still. Oh well, my ****-up but I stand by the general aim, and the flaw in the current formula. --------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 18:59:00 -
[92]
I also stand by my earlier suggestion:
First, prove that there is infact a problem with how short range turrets are balanced and not with how you are attempting to use them.
Then look for an adjustment to attributes before re-writing mechanics.
Lastly, if attribute adjustments cannot solve the problem, look for a new mechanic based on the merrits of its playablity, indepent of any resemblence to reality.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |