open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked The ultimate solution to a lot of problems (and it's simple too)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.04.20 13:09:00 - [1]
 

So what does this solution "fix" anyway ?

* blobs (more precisely, medium to long-range blobbing : sniper / focus fire effectiveness) directly
* small ship vs big ship scenarios (more likely to acheive a standoff and/or disengage rather than instadeath) directly
* boosts effectiveness of short-range weapons (longer fights at long ranges, shorter fights at short ranges)
* boosts effectiveness of logistics ships (indirectly)
* boosts effectiveness of frigate/cruiser tacklers in fleet combat (indirectly)


Is it complicated or counterintuitive ? Will it create more lag ?

No. Quite the contrary, on both counts.


So what the frack is it ?

Changing the way turret "to hit" chance and "hit quality" calculations.


Say WHAT ? How ?
WARNING: Wall of text coming...

It's already (relatively) common knowledge that zero transversal means "perfect tracking" regardless of gun/target signatures.
The only thing influencing hit quality in a zero-transversal case is optimal/falloff of gun and range to target, basically meaning "snipers" ALWAYS hit within optimal in this scenario, and extreme-range snipers have little to no trouble at all killing distant targets, regardless of target signature (think sniper BS vs distant frigate).
Another counter-intuitive thing about "chance to hit" and quality of hit in case of NON-zero transversal is the fact that target's signature is not a percentage modifier, but instead a tracking multiplicator (huh? yeah, exactly, that's what I said too when I realised it).

I could go on and on about how the current formula is bonkers and all that and keep on analyzing it, but it would serve no good purpose. Instead, I'm just going to propose a much simpler (to calculate), much more intuitive (both for vets and newbies alike) and also game BALANCING formula (as per claims in the first paragraph). Simply put, here it is:


1. Chance to hit (CTH) affected mainly by GUN STATS, and further only by range/transversal and sig of target involved
CTHtemp = min[X,(range * GunTracking/Transversal)] * [(targetsig/gunsig)^2]
Where X is either an arbitrary constant like, say "3"
CTH = min(1, CTHtemp) you can't get more than 100% chance to hit, no?


2. Quality of hit (QOH) affected mainly by RANGE and gun optimal, secondarily by sigs involved, and by the rest of the usual factors (which other ones, that's optional).
QOH can vary between 0 (hit for no damage) and 3 (high cap, wrecking hit), and is a multiplier to the base damage.
I have no clear proposal in mind for the QOH quotients, but a basic example could look like this:

QOH = [2*optimal/max(optimal/5,range) + falloff/max(falloff/2,range) - range/(optimal+2*falloff)] * TargetSig/GunSig

This one is the "open for discution" formula.

Marquis Dean
Caldari
Indigo Fade
Posted - 2007.04.20 13:36:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Akita T
frack


Stop using this word right now.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.04.20 13:40:00 - [3]
 

The "original" word gets filtered out, this "derived" word isn't.
Blame BSG for setting up a precedent (on prime-time television nevertheless).
Can we get back on track now and ignore that ONE word ?

Vincent Almasy
Gallente
The Underground
The ENTITY.
Posted - 2007.04.20 13:44:00 - [4]
 

for quality of hit you have to add in a factor for transveral for if it was a clean hit(well inside of turrent speed) to even a glanceing hit(barrly inside of turrent speed). Also this would gix missing a stationary target while not moving or getting galances shot on it!

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.04.20 13:55:00 - [5]
 

For all I care, keep the current "quality of hit" formula, slightly more biased as it currently is (more wreckings in good conditions, more glancing blows in bad conditions).
What that formula is, I have no clue, and I can only guess it's complicated/obfuscated enough if nobody reverse engineered it yet.

Then just modify the "to hit" formula a bit (not as radically as I porposed, but instead) by just removing the [target sig/gun sig]^2 factor out of the current "to hit" equation, and putting it back in as a FINAL multiplier, after all other calculations are complete.

Mel'pomene
Stars and Garters
Posted - 2007.04.20 14:14:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Akita T
The "original" word gets filtered out, this "derived" word isn't.
Blame BSG for setting up a precedent (on prime-time television nevertheless).
Can we get back on track now and ignore that ONE word ?


BSG didn't set any frelling precedent. Wink

Jayne Tamm
Posted - 2007.04.20 14:25:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Mel'pomene
Originally by: Akita T
The "original" word gets filtered out, this "derived" word isn't.
Blame BSG for setting up a precedent (on prime-time television nevertheless).
Can we get back on track now and ignore that ONE word ?


BSG didn't set any frelling precedent. Wink


i personally prefered the use of chines for cursing as used by that greatest of sci-fi shows...FIRELFY Very Happy


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only