open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Turret Accuracy Flaw Discovered
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Tsunari
Posted - 2004.01.26 12:22:00 - [1]
 

While taking the unbeaten path by testing Cruisers and Frigates on Chaos vs Battleships, I have come by a startling discovery about turrets and their accuracy vs different sizes of targets. As of now, the chance for a turret to hit it's target depends on the velocity of the target ship against the tracking speed of a turret. From my testing, the signature analysis nor the size effects the percentage nor quality of turret hits. In other words, the EVE gameplay physics says that the chance of hitting a bus traveling at 10mph would be equally as hard as hitting a pigeon traveling at 10mph.

If this is true, this disturbingly tips the balance way in favor of larger ships as small ships can not use their size to avoid incoming fire nor use the target's greater size to get better percentage of hits. Distance doesnt seem to play a role either. Its very fustrating to see my 250mm Railgun miss a Megathron 5k away as much as a drone 30k away.

I believe a serious fix is in order. Such a fix would allow smaller ships to have a fair chance to use their smaller size as a strength. Furthermore, it would allow ships with range advantages to actually have some meaning.

Please support this post.

Darkwolf
Caldari
TOG Empire
Combat Mining and Logistics
Posted - 2004.01.26 13:22:00 - [2]
 

Never mind that Caldari ships have the largest signature radius, yet the smallest physical size in their class.

Signature Radius isn't just physical size. It's a measure of electronic emissions combined with physical dimensions. It's electronic signature, in other words.

Frigates have the advantage of EXTREME speed, which makes them hard to hit to start with. An Executioner rigged properly can tear around at 3km/s, and still be armed enough to be a serious threat.

Incidentally, distance plays a massive role. Up to your optimal, distance matters little, it's tracking that does. After your optimal, distance is everything.

Conrad
Caldari
Raddick Explorations
Posted - 2004.01.26 17:01:00 - [3]
 

Is it wrong for me to say that this is confusing.
I understand aspects alone of this, but throwing them together seems to cause conflicting ideas in my head. Can you explain it more clearly? Thanks.

Tsunari
Posted - 2004.01.27 00:02:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Tsunari on 27/01/2004 00:15:26
Okay, I will try to explain this better. To my knowledge and observations the chance for a turret to hit depends on two things. One, how fast the target is moving in angular velocity from your ship and how far away it is compared to your optimum range.

In other words, imagine you have a gun and you are shooting at a moving target 10 yards away. Tracking speed means how fast you can move your gun to aim accurately. As for optimal range lets say your ammunition has the quality to hit targets accurately up to 100 yards.

So lets put this into scenario. The current system works like this. You have a target thats about 12 inches (1 foot) in diameter. 10 feet away moving very slow. You fire and PLING you hit. The target moves faster and you find it more difficult to hit so you miss a couple times. If you move the target back to 100 yards, its pretty much the same deal. If you move it past 100 yards, you start to miss more depending on how far away it is from your optimal. That is where Accuracy Falloff comes into play.

However here is the problem. Lets say the target is 100 feet in diameter which is 100 times bigger than the last target. If it moves at the same speed as the last target it should be easier to hit because of its larger size right? In real life yes, but in EVE, no. EVE has it such it does not matter how large the target is when it comes to the success of your turrets. It can be a size of a moon yet EVE says that it is as difficult to hit as a small asteroid.

So if you were say in a frigate firing at a battleship moving at 100m/s, you would have the same chance to hit a drone moving at 100m/s. This is wrong and it needs to be fixed. It's very silly when you are right on top of a huge ship and your turrets miss half of the time.

When it comes to distance, the target area should be smaller the farther away it is therefore making it more difficult to hit. However, this isn't so. It just calculates your optimal range and forgets that size even exists. So effectively saying, EVE says it would be equally as hard to hit a station 60km away than it is to hit a frigate 60km.

You see the problem here?

I hope this makes better sense.

Beseb
Minmatar
R.O.T.
Posted - 2004.01.27 00:27:00 - [5]
 

I understand what you are saying, and your explaination leading up to the description of the problem is accurate.

I don't believe there is a problem there however. In fact, the opposite if the patch notes are to be believed. Some time ago, TomB added the Signature Radius stat to all ships which essentially provides exactly what you are describing - a factor of size in the "to hit" equation.

I tested this a bit when it hit live and seemed to work correctly. I didn't test it exhaustively, but I shot at a cruiser in my BS for a bit and then shot at another battle ship (all other things being equal) and the empircal evidence from that test suggested that size of ship did matter, but, like you have discovered, transverse velocity was a *much* bigger factor.

It seems you are furthering that test and getting different results. I'll be interested to see how this plays out.

Tsunari
Posted - 2004.01.27 01:49:00 - [6]
 

If the "To Hit" equation does infact take signature radius into account, it definitely needs to be adjusted as I am seeing no difference. Either the equation is bugged or the difference is so small that it really doesn't seem to matter.

I will do some more testing and post the logs and see what we can come up with.

Thanks for the info.

Jael
Posted - 2004.01.27 01:52:00 - [7]
 

I think you're mixing two different aspects: targetting and tracking.

Signature radius affects targetting, but not tracking.
Tracking speed affects tracking, but not targetting.

The theory being that, once locked, the technologically advanced weapons have no trouble being accurate (within their specified ranges), regardless of the size of the locked object, but it takes somewhat longer to lock smaller targets.

I could have totally misread it, though.

Beseb
Minmatar
R.O.T.
Posted - 2004.01.27 02:06:00 - [8]
 

Jael, signature radius is used both in the "to hit" equation as being discussed and also in targetting (sig radius vs scan resolution).

Least that's what we are told.

Tsunari
Posted - 2004.01.27 02:34:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Tsunari on 27/01/2004 02:36:37
Test Results

Okay did some testing on Chaos (1378) I positioned myself 30k away from 2 different asteroids, one huge arkanor and one small mercoxit. I positioned my cruiser outside of my optimal range to get more varied results. Here is the data.

Arkanor Radius: 4692.5
Mercoxit Radius: 128.2

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Test Results While Sitting Still 30km Away:

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

As you can see, it seems to work while sitting still. However, take a look at the next set of test results when motion is applied.

Test Results While Orbiting at 145m/s, 30km Away:

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

As you can see, there definitely isn't something right here. The Mercoxit which is tiny compared to the Arkanor is scoring a LOT more direct hits and even perfect hits while the large arkanor isn't.

The evidence speaks for itself that there is a bug in the code.

MaiLina KaTar
Posted - 2004.01.27 03:55:00 - [10]
 

TomB sais:

Quote:
The design for guns is that they are accurate no matter what the range is if they are within the range parameters of your guns. When the object starts moving away from your guns, they start tracking it. The faster it moves, the faster the guns have to move, big guns are slow and have hard time tracking fast objects, the closer you are the faster you move for the guns.

Drutort
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2004.01.27 06:47:00 - [11]
 

yes i would have to agree something is up here, and it should be looked into, the hole thing behind the signature etc... and the size was to help the small ships not make it the same for small or big to hit, its not fair at all, regardless of how good the comp's is its a physical system and it can never done right, the computer calc's the tracking but the physical limitations and the nature of the gones still is there, and things are always built to work well with 1 thing and not other...

big ships are not meant to try and snipe super fast frigs, they are battle ships!! big diff there... and frigs are not meant to just go solo and try to take out a BS either... so they should be playing the parts that everyone wants them to... but it seems to be working half way.Neutral

Drutort
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2004.01.27 06:52:00 - [12]
 

You have to make compromises, like make big battle ships, with huge fire power or make frigs with high precision weapons that hit fast things but don’t do who knows how much dmg…

Its just common sense and it is true IRL today with big and small, you don’t fire a battle ship gun at something small because of its limitations and things come with limitations based on size, you will never be able to come up with some uber weapon that can have the best of both worlds.


IMO higher speeds should really start to limit the weapons ability to track, because the speed is so great, those guns were never meant to track so fast, and for fast tracking you either have to give up a lot of slots and boost your tracking who knows how high or use special guns that naturally have great tracking.
Idea

Tsunari
Posted - 2004.01.27 09:48:00 - [13]
 

Haha, like Confucious says,

"Don't use cannon to kill mosquito"

Eight

Posted - 2004.01.27 10:50:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Eight on 27/01/2004 11:30:41
<previous post removed>

Sorry, my bad.

SigRadius is used, but I've not sufficient understanding of how it is used to give any relevant information on the matter.

Tsunari
Posted - 2004.01.27 11:08:00 - [15]
 

So in other words, the official word is that the size of the target does not effect the hit/miss equation?

TomB

Posted - 2004.01.27 11:25:00 - [16]
 

Signature Radius is suposed to be taken into count in the accuracy calculation, I've been noticing it myself and been looking into it.

Thanks for the feedback Tsunari

Tsunari
Posted - 2004.01.27 11:50:00 - [17]
 

Quite welcome Tomb, however I am curious how much does it count? Is it a small difference or a big difference? I would like to know what we should expect when testing.

Tsunari
Posted - 2004.01.27 12:01:00 - [18]
 

Suggestion

If I might make a suggestion, I think that the signature radius should play a very big role in turret accuracy. Such that it would allow frigates to score "well aimed" or higher most of the time vs battleships while battleships usually score low quality hits at best vs frigates.

This would close the damage gap a little bit between ship classes and make them a lil more useful.

Celt Eireson
Minmatar
Posted - 2004.01.27 17:29:00 - [19]
 

Hmmm I'd think (given what Tomb said) that the size of the target is irrelevant within the optimal range of the gun, and therefore only tracking speed is an issue for gun accuracy.

However outside of the optimal range then size of target should have an increasing effect related to distance i.e. further you are outside of the optimal range then the more effect target size has on accuracy.

Blackie
Posted - 2004.01.27 21:27:00 - [20]
 

then thats crap tho..if the computer can accurately predict where the exact center of the ship moving at whatever speed will be it shouldnt even matter what kind of tracking speed u have. if i can put an x on the spot where u are gonna walk before u get there it shouldnt be much harder to have the coyote rig a boulder above it either...

i thought the realism and difference between classes was supposed to be greatly important now. so why chicken out?

Drutort
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2004.01.27 22:21:00 - [21]
 

i dont know i think its just not fair, either way BS will kill a frig even with the idea's that people post here, its just that it gives a small chance for the frigs to get away at times, and thats how it should be with big guns, face it if we say small signature means something then it should mean that, those guns have some tolerance or % of error, or efficiency vs something that is smaller, all this should be put in, were just saying that there should be a difference when you do a test, over all it should be worse, we are not saying that you shouldn’t be able to hit or all shots will suck… just want to kind of make a penalty for those large guns vs small things.

It is always true in life, you cant get the best of both worlds, so why is it eve makes it seem as if it is, that large guns can fire and do exactly that small guns could but with so much more fire power and so much more range, it isn’t so, you have some strong and weak area’s and we are just asking that they be placed in the game.

Jayad
Aliastra
Posted - 2004.01.28 02:54:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Jayad on 28/01/2004 02:56:26
Tsunari,

Thanks for taking such great lenghts to test a problem ive been writting about for a week now. Smile

Remarkably my post was on similar lines to what your saying and lends support to this problem. Thread can be read under sub-section Ships and Moduals (Combat and frigate overview). You and others may find it interesting, it would seem that many people would welcome this change.


Kind regards

Ruffles
Posted - 2004.01.28 10:40:00 - [23]
 

Tsunari, I think a lot of people that have been contributing to frigate-related discussions had noticed and mentioned this issue.

I completely agree with what you are saying, its a lot harder to accurately target and hit something small at longer ranges, which is why most big-gun ships are used for bombardment of large items, buildings, stations, etc. Thus relying on their support vessels to keep them safe from danger of smaller vessels.

I remember TomB having said a while back it was taken into account, and I am glad people have noticed its current state. Smile

I do hope it does have a similar type effect as you described Tsunari when fixed. Smile

Thanks for bringing it up, and thanks for answering and looking into it TomB. Smile

TomB

Posted - 2004.02.05 18:22:00 - [24]
 

I have looked into it and SignatureRadius is taken into count with accuracy but speed is the biggest factor, SignatureRadius is not used well enough and accuracy tracking will require much more tuning before we can get this fixed.

Thank you all for the feedback and I hope we can get better tracking for the guns as soon as possible.

Viceroy
Posted - 2004.02.05 18:59:00 - [25]
 

So will size (Volume) ever play any part in accuracy? Will smaller ships have less chance of getting hit? Will bigger ships become easier to hit? Will TomB ever become Caldari? If he does, will he nerf Caldari ships (again)? All these questions remain unanswered!

Cekle Skyscales
Gallente
New Eden Logistics
Posted - 2004.02.06 02:33:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Cekle Skyscales on 06/02/2004 02:35:36
I'm probably going to spark a lot of flaming...but the post "Battleships can kill frigates so easily" is probably one of the stupidest things I've heard...

[rant]
There's a REASON it's called a BATTLESHIP...Take into account that a frigate is mostly a 1-person ship. Can one person manage two guns back and forth with a tiny size and probably the worst guns in the game against a battleship? Consider that the battleship has 600 people aboard it. With the Apocalypse...8 turrets...Let's say that 30 people manage the engines, 50 people make sure the ship is going completely in tune with the captain's commands, and the rest are either fixing things or manning turrets/targetting. That's easily 400 or more people working on targetting a ship, frigate, battleship or cruiser, using enormous guns...which is probably about 50 people per gun managing the gun's tracking...stuff like that.

Anyway, so now we have this 1 man frigate attacking the 600 man battleship? Due to increases in technology for larger weapons, I think it's pretty balanced out that a battleship should definitely be able to score huge amounts of damage on a tiny little frigate.

Let's also say that your skills go to your 600 men as well. So, Signature Analysis (I think it's called) allows you to target faster or something like that...well then your targetting men can target the ship faster than before. Long range targetting...your targetters learn the ability to sight things far away and target lock them...Motion Prediction...your gunmen find the ability to predict the place of a ship before it's there...blah blah blah

So taking into account the technology and size, with the frigate's limited technology in weapons, yet fighting the larger battleship, scores hits and misses even with the crappy turrets, whilest the battleship can score hits and misses even with the frigate because even though the frigate is small, the more people manning the turrets makes up for it. [/rant]

That's my little rant about why Battleships should be able to hit a fast-moving/small-sized frigate just as well as a fast-moving/small-sized frigate can hit a slow, huge battleship

Vel Kyri
Amarr
Empire Assault Corp
Dead Terrorists
Posted - 2004.02.06 07:03:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Vel Kyri on 06/02/2004 07:03:48
[rant reply]

a battleship is still basically immune to frigates - they cannot seriously hurt a battleship EVER - and never will.

a battleship should just ignore the frigates and focus on the other big fish -AS THEY ARE DESIGNED TO- the large guns are designed to HIT BATTLESHIPS AND KILL THEM.

if you want to swat those annoying bugs, use a cruiser or other frigates - thats what THEY are for.

end of story.
[/rant reply]

Caeneus
Caldari
HULL DAMAGE
Posted - 2004.02.06 07:42:00 - [28]
 

I think most of you have good points, it should be difficult for a battleship to neatly destroy a frigate.

The but here is, it should be difficult with the large turrets, obviously a 425mm rail or large Laser are going to track slower than a 125mm. Regardless of any motion prediction.

The other but of course, is that battleships should have additional point defense systems.
For example, a 8.5K rat got under my apocs optimum range and orbited my battleship doing considerable damage to my shields and I couldnt hit him. (optimum range and all that). So I would need something like a 75mm gatling rail to effectively hit it. But that would mean replacing a tachyon laser with a 75mm rail. Which would mean the 75mm rail takes up the same space as a tachyon.

From the frigates perspective it should be able to hit the battleship 100% of the time due to the ships size. I mean how could it miss? But would the smaller weaponary be able to penetrate or even scratch the additional armour of a battleship..no not a chance.

I think the ships could do with some balancing to make it seem more realistic. Yes battleships would have been developed for hitting hard targets but that shouldnt leave them with no defenses. 8 Turrets simply isnt enough. You should have something like a distribution of hard point sizes. ie 6 heavy, 2 med, 1 small or whatever.

Sorry for the ramble but its very late.


 

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