| Author |
Topic |
Jones Maloy
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 04:40:00 - [ 1]
i've gone up to a structure at 0m and unloaded 7 med beams for a whole minute and got nothing but miss messages. bug? or do they not want giant mosh pits of battleships constantly bumping eachother out of aliangment? #^ [email protected] spelling....................... |
twelvea
Minmatar |
Posted - 2007.12.15 04:42:00 - [ 2]
Edited by: twelvea on 15/12/2007 04:42:24
you can't hit when you're at 0m, it's meant to be that way.
|
Jones Maloy
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 04:44:00 - [ 3]
 Originally by: twelvea
Edited by: twelvea on 15/12/2007 04:42:24
you can't hit when you're at 0m, it's meant to be that way.
any specific reason? 5 bucks says missiles can hit at that range. |
Liang Nuren |
Posted - 2007.12.15 04:47:00 - [ 4]
Originally by: Jones Maloy
Originally by: twelvea
Edited by: twelvea on 15/12/2007 04:42:24
you can't hit when you're at 0m, it's meant to be that way.
any specific reason?
5 bucks says missiles can hit at that range.
Look at the tracking formula and think about it for a minute. -Liang |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 11:04:00 - [ 5]
Why not give turrets a flat out 9.9999 tracking bonus when at 0km next to large objects? It always felt odd that I had to back away from a giant structure that I couldn’t possibly miss, just to hit it. |
Joie Mains
Vindicator A Team
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 11:07:00 - [ 6]
Originally by: Pottsey
Why not give turrets a flat out 9.9999 tracking bonus when at 0km next to large objects? It always felt odd that I had to back away from a giant structure that I couldn’t possibly miss, just to hit it.
qft |
Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers |
Posted - 2007.12.15 11:15:00 - [ 7]
Originally by: Pottsey
Why not give turrets a flat out 9.9999 tracking bonus when at 0km next to large objects? It always felt odd that I had to back away from a giant structure that I couldn’t possibly miss, just to hit it.
' It wouldnt matter, its a bug in the tracking formula. |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition. |
Posted - 2007.12.15 11:25:00 - [ 8]
Its rather simple, if you're at zero meters, tracking has to be infinite in order to hit =P
|
Acoco Osiris
Gallente |
Posted - 2007.12.15 13:19:00 - [ 9]
Essentially, what Sok said-in order to hit at 0m, you would have to have infinite tracking speed. Essentially, shooting at 0m is like dividing by 0.
Back away to 1m, and you'll start hitting again. |
Jonny JoJo
Amarr
The Imperial Guards
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 13:41:00 - [ 10]
Either way this is a long standing bug and needs to be fixed. A missile/drone boat needs to approach any turret ship at 0 to get a 100% immunity to turret damage |
Laboratus
Gallente
Invicta.
Cry Havoc. |
Posted - 2007.12.15 13:45:00 - [ 11]
Originally by: Pottsey
Why not give turrets a flat out 9.9999 tracking bonus when at 0km next to large objects? It always felt odd that I had to back away from a giant structure that I couldn’t possibly miss, just to hit it.
Divide by zero and see how it turns out. |
Lazuran
Gallente
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 13:50:00 - [ 12]
The 0m is a long standing bug and makes no sense. Of course it's due to the divide by zero, but the real distance for tracking should be measured from the center of the object (thus > 0 because of bumping) and not from the edge.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League |
Posted - 2007.12.15 13:53:00 - [ 13]
Or just make it impossible to be within 0m... always round up to 1m  regarding the large structures you are never point blank anyways, but just 0m from their invisible boundaries... |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 14:28:00 - [ 14]
“Divide by zero and see how it turns out.”
Surly you can just stick the +9.999 on at the end. Divide by zero = 0 then add +9.999 so you end up with 9.999 tracking. There has to be some fix. What if there’s a 2nd formula which replace’s the 1st when shooting at large objects at 0km?
|
Laboratus
Gallente
Invicta.
Cry Havoc. |
Posted - 2007.12.15 14:31:00 - [ 15]
Just take your calculator and divide any number by zero.
You will see what the problem is... |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 14:43:00 - [ 16]
Edited by: Pottsey on 15/12/2007 14:43:51
“Just take your calculator and divide any number by zero."
I don’t see the problem. Divide by zero, see you just divided by zero, scarp the result and replace with +9.9999 to hit.
Some children are thought how to divide by zero using the number 'nullity' in school. This is another solution.
|
Laboratus
Gallente
Invicta.
Cry Havoc. |
Posted - 2007.12.15 14:47:00 - [ 17]
Finally you spotted it.
The function used is not too advanced and since it is pretty much never a real issue, fixing it isn't propably a priority...
Simply setting it (if distance < 1, distance = 1) would solve all problems with it. Then again, not propably much of a priority... |
Wet Ferret |
Posted - 2007.12.15 15:00:00 - [ 18]
Perhaps making minimum distance to the target 0.000001 or something like that would work? It could still show up as "0km" on display.
I can't think of any adverse side effects. |
Karentaki
Gallente
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi |
Posted - 2007.12.15 15:19:00 - [ 19]
I've had almost exactly the same problem when making a flash game - projectiles did no damage if they collided with the object at its exact centre, and it was impossible to fire if you had the mouse over the centre of the player - I solved it by simply adding 0.00001 to whatever value I got for distance - takes about 10 seconds to add in :P |
Lazuran
Gallente
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 16:05:00 - [ 20]
Originally by: Laboratus
Finally you spotted it.
The function used is not too advanced and since it is pretty much never a real issue, fixing it isn't propably a priority...
Simply setting it (if distance < 1, distance = 1) would solve all problems with it. Then again, not propably much of a priority...
That "fix" would still give you terrible tracking issues with a huge object that should be impossible to miss. They should use the real center of the object to calculate tracking, so larger objects are easier to hit even if you bounce off their boundaries. |
Phil Miller
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm |
Posted - 2007.12.15 16:14:00 - [ 21]
Originally by: Pottsey
I don’t see the problem. Divide by zero, see you just divided by zero, scarp the result and replace with +9.9999 to hit.
Here is the problem though - what if the target is truly near impossible for your turrets to track? If, for example we do drop the original result and substitute with a 100% hit, then someone's going to complain. The solution is simple though, and requires 2 lines of code. If target != player && turret.track < 0.0000005 then turret.track = 100% |
Suboran
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cascade Imminent |
Posted - 2007.12.15 17:07:00 - [ 22]
Edited by: Suboran on 15/12/2007 17:07:51
if you have 0 distance to a punchbag, how can u punch it without drawing back? |
Hardtail
Ever Flow
Axiom Empire |
Posted - 2007.12.15 18:03:00 - [ 23]
Originally by: Suboran
Edited by: Suboran on 15/12/2007 17:07:51
if you have 0 distance to a punchbag, how can u punch it without drawing back?
you punch it with your other hand? |
Maverick479
Caldari
Cruoris Seraphim |
Posted - 2007.12.15 18:17:00 - [ 24]
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy |
Posted - 2007.12.15 18:21:00 - [ 25]
Actually ccp should change this. When you get closer and closer to 0 distance your hit chance should go up again instead of down. This would force every ship to try to hold their optimal instead of every gank ship just pushing approach button with mwds and guns blazing. |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 18:28:00 - [ 26]
“Here is the problem though - what if the target is truly near impossible for your turrets to track?”
But it never would be. My idea was to only do it for very large objects. Something like a massive structure or starbase is impossible to miss at 0km. You don’t even need really aim. Just shoot in the general direction and you should hit.
Surly it’s not too much work to have sometime like, when large object is not moveing and is targeted at 0km distance, chance to hit 95% or 100%. Dont use that rule when target is not large or is moveing.
The current system is like haveing an elite troop aiming a tank at a house whiling being point blank and missing all the time.
|
Jonny JoJo
Amarr
The Imperial Guards
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 20:28:00 - [ 27]
Just make it that all distances have +1m added to it. So you can never be 0m away, as 0+1 = 1m |
Veritas Falx |
Posted - 2007.12.15 21:30:00 - [ 28]
More code=slower. Honestly for things like that I see some sort of abuse coming of that. If you make it something large then BS will have to be added and then you have lots of problems. |
Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc. |
Posted - 2007.12.15 21:34:00 - [ 29]
You don't add code to a formula that's used countless times during a single fight, for the off chance you'll be at 0m exactly for longer then 1 shot.
And against really large objects. Moving away that 2m to make the formula do it's job isn't exactly a challenge... |
Alex Shurk |
Posted - 2007.12.15 21:38:00 - [ 30]
Originally by: Gariuys
And against really large objects. Moving away that 2m to make the formula do it's job isn't exactly a challenge...
Unless you're inside the structure, due to it being dozens of KMs across. |
All Channels
Ships and Modules
