open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Fundamental Game Mechanics - Fix the Tracking Formula
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

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
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
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.

Armitage RU
Posted - 2009.01.30 17:56:00 - [34]
 


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
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
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
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
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...

Gabriel Karade
Gallente
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
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.

TimGascoigne
Sebiestor Tribe

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
Gallente
Serious Business Incorporated

Posted - 2009.01.31 12:50:00 - [40]
 


Erika Bronz
Gallente
The Wyld Hunt
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2009.01.31 14:31:00 - [41]
 


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
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
SniggWaffe
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
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
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2009.02.01 10:09:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 01/02/2009 10:49:16
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?

Edit: Not trying to troll or flame you here, I'm really curious as to what you see as the problem with the specific proposals in the linked thread? - it would not take us back to the old 90% web days.

Second edit: This is not something that has been simply a reaction to the web changes, I brought this up a long time ago.

Gabriel Karade
Gallente
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2009.02.01 10:18:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 01/02/2009 10:37:22

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 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.

Zenethalos
Minmatar
Doesn't Afraid Of Anything

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
SniggWaffe
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
SniggWaffe
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
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2009.02.02 09:40:00 - [51]
 

'Just as dumb' - ok whatever you say... Rolling Eyes

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
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
SniggWaffe
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
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2009.02.02 12:25:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Gabriel Karade
'Just as dumb' - ok whatever you say... Rolling Eyes

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 ...

Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
Posted - 2009.02.02 17:21:00 - [57]
 

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.

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.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
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 ...


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

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