Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 22:24:00 -
[241]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 26/10/2009 22:25:01
Originally by: Liang Nuren
IIRC C-Type ANPs do roughly the same job as an EANM II and save thirty CPU over a AN EANM... ;-)
Yea, note I did mention deadspace mods ;)
Dont know the prices out of the top of my head, but arent the c-type ANPs around 2/3rd of the AN EANMs?
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 02:42:00 -
[242]
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist PS: Blasters rock!
Running the danger of crossing a line here: On what basis do you argue this? I mean, is there some scientific foundation for this statement?
What I'd like to see is a statistic in real world terms, indexed maybe for BB/CC/DD sizes, that shows how many people have been killed in the last n months by Energy weapons / Hybrids / Projectile weapons and further keyed for each short range weapon, i.e. blasters / autocannons / pulses.
This will give some ratios, those ratios would further have to be corrected for factors such as number of pilots in each race, number of ships that do the killings etc.
If blasters are actually underperforming, signs might be: low ratio of megas killing vs killed, high ratio of megas killing with nonblasters vs blasterthrons when compared to ratios of geddons with nonpulses and pulses, etc.
Statistics are a complicated story and usually you only find the really interesting tidbits once you've started to play around with the metrics.
However, I can't do something like that. The first of many reasons being that I don't have access to a complete and representative set of data.
It just feels unsatisfying, when competent (if synthetic) calculations on the subject show blasters underperforming in most real life scenarios and it's countered with (apparently a dogmatic and unreflected) "no, blasters rock"
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 06:29:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Just wanted to say that CCP claimed to have fixed the zero error on the tracking formula.
They claimed that the centre of the ball-like object is now being used as the zero point meaning the "size" of your ships ball radius means you'll never actually have a 0km target, because it will really be the ball radius as minimum range - even though it may display 0m on the overview.
Proof that "ball size" does indeed matter. Though no matter how big your balls, blasters still need a stiff examining.
The zero error and the 'gash tracking formula' I referred to are separate. The latter comprises the inability of the current formula to account for changing target aspect - a Megathron at 1km distance for example, would fill half your view - which causes huge issues in the range Blasters are supposed to operate at. This has been discussed at length in the past along with possible modifications.
Though, now we know the size of ones balls count, there may be other potential modifications.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 08:22:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Dabljuh
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist PS: Blasters rock!
Running the danger of crossing a line here: On what basis do you argue this? I mean, is there some scientific foundation for this statement?
I belive its general idea is based in the minds of those who brought us:
Multi mwd era multi heat sink era nano era
shall i go on......
|
Vyktor Abyss
Gallente The Abyss Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 13:45:00 -
[245]
I get what you're saying Gabrial with regards the perspective in that a 300m long ship 1m away from you should be unmissable with a gun, but the reality of trying to mathmatically code this part into the tracking formula would be a nightmare for even the best mathmatician.
The additional radians taken up by an object at close range would also depend on the "frontage" aspect of what direction it is facing since a 5km long needle face on will have a different "frontage" to a 5km diameter sphere at the same distance.
Claims like "fix the formula" to include this stuff are unfeasible if you ask me, especially since they you're talking about model "frontage", which software isn't inherantly clever enough yet to incorporate. We're all flying spheres even though they dont look like it until the model design software improves.
If you propose a new forumla to CCP that works better than the current one taking into account the "perspective" radians at close range then I'm sure they'd consider it. So dust off your Trigonometry books and get cracking.
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 15:36:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss I get what you're saying Gabrial with regards the perspective in that a 300m long ship 1m away from you should be unmissable with a gun, but the reality of trying to mathmatically code this part into the tracking formula would be a nightmare for even the best mathmatician.
Actually it would depend on what side of the ship the target is on and how many guns it has facing it.
After all you can hardly shoot through your own ship, admittedly the guns facing the oposing ship could not miss but the others could equally not hit or even fire.
Also there are many examples of a relativly smaller ship hugging the hull of a larger one, the defiant vs the neg'var class in the DS9 episode about the mirror universe is a good example of this.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 16:44:00 -
[247]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss I get what you're saying Gabrial with regards the perspective in that a 300m long ship 1m away from you should be unmissable with a gun, but the reality of trying to mathmatically code this part into the tracking formula would be a nightmare for even the best mathmatician.
The additional radians taken up by an object at close range would also depend on the "frontage" aspect of what direction it is facing since a 5km long needle face on will have a different "frontage" to a 5km diameter sphere at the same distance.
Claims like "fix the formula" to include this stuff are unfeasible if you ask me, especially since they you're talking about model "frontage", which software isn't inherantly clever enough yet to incorporate. We're all flying spheres even though they dont look like it until the model design software improves.
If you propose a new forumla to CCP that works better than the current one taking into account the "perspective" radians at close range then I'm sure they'd consider it. So dust off your Trigonometry books and get cracking.
It's been done before... and it wasn't terribly hard.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 17:33:00 -
[248]
Here's a link for all you math-noobs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
Basically it's very simple. If we assume the signature radius of a ship is effectively the angular diameter at a certain range (3km, 20km, 100km, it doesn't matter) then we have the simple formula that the effective signature of a ship doubles as the distance is halved.
Now this is veeeery simple stuff and doesn't take a math degree to understand. It's
relativesig = normaldistance * absolutesig / realdistance
The question that I'm wondering is: what does (effective) sig actually do to the hit probability in the current turret formula?
Lets say it *should* be like this: if the angular velocity is 10x tracking, but the relative sig is 10x the signature size of the gun, you still get 100% hit chance.
Or in other words: if we choose the normal point for signatures to be 10km, a 40m sig frig 1 km away at an angular velocity of 0.1 (That's a transversal of 100m/s) will still be hit 100% if the tracking of the gun is at least 0.01 and the guns signature range is maximally 400m.
Changing the formula is a very interesting subject. Right now it's frickin impossible to hit anything that's close due to hilarious angular velocities that can be achieved, and that's whats gimping blasters. Being right in someones face currently protects you from all turret damage. Why should it be like that? And who's surprised that blasters are gimped?
Any formula change that would incorporate the fact that the angular diameter increases as distances become smaller, would invariable result in massively higher hit probability of smaller ships at closer ranges. That means, speed tanking would become much more dangerous. All tracking speeds and signature sizes on the guns would have to be reevaluated. But in the end, blasters would be excellent in-your-face weapons.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 18:32:00 -
[249]
The tracking formula already accounts for 'relative signature radius' - your chance to hit decreases with range. At optimal you will hit a ship with the signature the gun was intended for assuming it's moving at a trackable speed. You won't hit it any better inside optimal because you can already hit it perfectly.
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 06:23:00 -
[250]
Originally by: ropnes The tracking formula already accounts for 'relative signature radius' - your chance to hit decreases with range. At optimal you will hit a ship with the signature the gun was intended for assuming it's moving at a trackable speed. You won't hit it any better inside optimal because you can already hit it perfectly.
That's a rather naive view, firstly because the formula isn't that linear; you have a basic 50% hit chance at optimal if you're target is moving at a track-able speed (where angular velocity = gun tracking speed). Secondly, the formula simulates the effect of decreasing target size at long range with "falloff", but it fails to do the opposite up close. The closer you get, the larger the target, and "falloff" should be adding a positive multiplier to the hit chance.
Or in simple terms, even if you are shooting at say, a Cruiser with a Battleship gun ("signature" of 125m vs. "signature resolution" of 400m); eventually if you get close enough to the thing, it will still blot out the sun...
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 07:45:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Or in simple terms, even if you are shooting at say, a Cruiser with a Battleship gun ("signature" of 125m vs. "signature resolution" of 400m); eventually if you get close enough to the thing, it will still blot out the sun...
But then in "REALITY" opnly a small percentage of your weapons will be on the side of your ship that is facing the target so the others would not be able to see it or hit it without firing directly through your own ship.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 08:02:00 -
[252]
I see what you're saying, but no It would effectively cancel out transversal velocity and tracking (since the angular velocity increases linearly with decreasing distance and the effective sig does too)
You shouldn't motivate changes to the tracking formula with realism
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 08:35:00 -
[253]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Just wanted to say that CCP claimed to have fixed the zero error on the tracking formula.
They claimed that the centre of the ball-like object is now being used as the zero point meaning the "size" of your ships ball radius means you'll never actually have a 0km target, because it will really be the ball radius as minimum range - even though it may display 0m on the overview.
Proof that "ball size" does indeed matter. Though no matter how big your balls, blasters still need a stiff examining.
Hmm, I wonder if that makes some ships impossible to get in optimal, on something like light neutrons?
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 17:20:00 -
[254]
Originally by: ropnes Edited by: ropnes on 28/10/2009 08:08:29 I see what you're saying, but no
You shouldn't motivate changes to the tracking formula with realism
If realism were the only goal, I'd bin the whole thing and start from scratch; bin 'tracking as is, bin falloff, have accuracy in terms of angle of arc determining hits vs target size e.t.c e.t.c...
I still maintain close-range weapons (i.e. Blasters and Autocannons) are not hitting well enough inside their optimals (of the order 5km for Large blasters for example). I don't believe you should see any damage reduction (i.e. misses) against BS/BC sized targets considering the size of the targets and the maximum transversal velocities involved in BS vs BS, or BS vs BC engagments, and I see tweaking the tracking formula to work better "up close" as being one of the more desirable ways to go about it. --------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Polinus
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 19:21:00 -
[255]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss I get what you're saying Gabrial with regards the perspective in that a 300m long ship 1m away from you should be unmissable with a gun, but the reality of trying to mathmatically code this part into the tracking formula would be a nightmare for even the best mathmatician.
The additional radians taken up by an object at close range would also depend on the "frontage" aspect of what direction it is facing since a 5km long needle face on will have a different "frontage" to a 5km diameter sphere at the same distance.
Claims like "fix the formula" to include this stuff are unfeasible if you ask me, especially since they you're talking about model "frontage", which software isn't inherantly clever enough yet to incorporate. We're all flying spheres even though they dont look like it until the model design software improves.
If you propose a new forumla to CCP that works better than the current one taking into account the "perspective" radians at close range then I'm sure they'd consider it. So dust off your Trigonometry books and get cracking.
It's been done before... and it wasn't terribly hard.
-Liang
makign a perfect one would be hard (keeping it efficient)... but making something very close is not hard I must agree.
For starters, something taking into account the ratio between distance and the signature of target (as a simplified approach of the ship size), capped at for example 2 would help a lot.
Incredbly simplified example. Add component to formula * min(1,target_signature/range). That would (very very roughly make very very easy to hit a large ship closer than its own size. Obviously this simple formula has HUGE issues like being stupidly easy to hit anything at point blank. But just illustrate how its easy to add some new aspects to the formula.
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 20:53:00 -
[256]
Edited by: Dabljuh on 28/10/2009 20:54:47 Edited by: Dabljuh on 28/10/2009 20:54:13 Turned img into link due to size Ok so I played around in OpenOffice Excel for a bit. Entered all the base guns, and calculated the maximal transversal that they'd hit at their optimal range and optimal+falloff. This is surprisingly easy to calculate, tracking * distance = transversal.
Yeah, as it turns out, it's not just that pulses are massively OP, but beams too and blasters are gimped. Pulses' tracking need to be nerfed by a whopping 35% to be brought in line with the other guns.
Linkage
|
Aalu Aullard
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 22:17:00 -
[257]
IMO, the biggest problem that Hybrid weapons have is the Antimatter Charge. Basicly all Hybrid weapons come with inbuild -50% range penalty.
Minmatar have their different damage types and Amarr have instant ammo switch. And missiles are different story. For Hybrids theres no really reason having 8 ammotypes.
Since one of the blaster boosts that people have been asking is slight buff for optimal... Soo, how would blasters and rails work if the range penalty were switched into turret signature resolution penalty? Ammos having range bonus would keep it as it is.
Good/bad idea?
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 23:05:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Aalu Aullard Good/bad idea?
Not gonna answer that, I'm just going to point out that CCP has the whole Damage=1/Range formula built into every weapon system in the game.
The first problem of blasters is that that the Damage=1/Range formula doesn't work at the range of blasters because of tracking issues. Changing the tracking formula is one venue.
The other thing is that we have weapon systems that do similiar damage as blasters (even Tachyon Beams only do about 20% less DPS than Neutron Cannons) have a vast range advantage.
So given that for blaster+AM optimal you will necessarily need to be within unoverloaded scram/web/bumping range, blasters simply aren't worth fitting. With ACs, Torps and Pulses you can stay out of that. Not with blasters.
CCPs own formula isn't working.
|
Deziel Sma
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 01:39:00 -
[259]
I don't know if this is way off topic or not. It covers hybrids anyway. Props to all for the figures.
If you also compare power grid requirements to fit rails versus lasers in order to match the DPS at range of scorch, things become ....
Grab a Moa and put focused medium pulse II on it with scorch, now try 200mm rails with Anti-Matter. I can only shudder to think what Gallente boats would need to do to match DPS at range, but .... drones. Probably impossible.
Blasters with null can compete with Amarr Navy Multi Freq. Scorch is just crazily OP due to the range.
|
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 08:34:00 -
[260]
Originally by: Aalu Aullard
Since one of the blaster boosts that people have been asking is slight buff for optimal... Soo, how would blasters and rails work if the range penalty were switched into turret signature resolution penalty? Ammos having range bonus would keep it as it is.
Good/bad idea?
Signature resolution penalty would be a tracking penalty what is pretty much a bad idea if you put tracking penalties on close range high damage ammo, what diminishing any kind of range gain with worse tracking(at still very close ranges). In general this donŠt works very well, there is void ammo to prove this.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 10:28:00 -
[261]
CCP could just change void ammo. Drop the extra damage. MAke it equal to AM. But give a 40% tracking bonus.
|
Aalu Aullard
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 12:44:00 -
[262]
Originally by: The Djego
Originally by: Aalu Aullard
Since one of the blaster boosts that people have been asking is slight buff for optimal... Soo, how would blasters and rails work if the range penalty were switched into turret signature resolution penalty? Ammos having range bonus would keep it as it is.
Good/bad idea?
Signature resolution penalty would be a tracking penalty what is pretty much a bad idea if you put tracking penalties on close range high damage ammo, what diminishing any kind of range gain with worse tracking(at still very close ranges). In general this donŠt works very well, there is void ammo to prove this.
I dont see how it would be comparable to tracking penalty Wouldnt it be more like tracking boost if the higher damage hybrid charges had optimals set same as Lead?
RPwise it would make sense, since the Gallentes opposing faction, Caldari, has the largest sig radiuses. Scorp 480m, Raven 460m and Rokh 500m. These radiuses get bigger due shield mods, so a standard Raven with LSEs/rigs is nearly 600m. Which would be the resolution for large hybrids if the antimatter range penalty was resolution penalty instead.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 12:47:00 -
[263]
Do you realize how pathetically weak a megatron would be against a hurricane for example?
|
Aalu Aullard
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 13:26:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Seishi Maru Do you realize how pathetically weak a megatron would be against a hurricane for example?
My real point was trying to get away from the "default as antimatter"-way of thinking. And you seem to assume that Megathron uses Antimatter in all cases. But yea, mid damage ammos are some what pathetic, so they could use slight damage buff.
So i was thinking that this idea could cover what people have been asking for: Small optimal buff for high damage ammo without it becoming too powerful and slight damage buff for mid damage ammo to make other hybrid charges more viable option.
But if no one likes the idea, then im going to assume it was bad idea all along
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 13:48:00 -
[265]
Edited by: Murina on 29/10/2009 13:53:57
Originally by: Aalu Aullard
My real point was trying to get away from the "default as antimatter"-way of thinking. And you seem to assume that Megathron uses Antimatter in all cases. But yea, mid damage ammos are some what pathetic, so they could use slight damage buff.
PPL use AM as blaster default ammo because it justifies their idea of close range being at 5km or so instead of under 15km as it should be.
Its a interesting fact that a mega with 7 guns and a single mag stab and faction AM does 695dps from 0-4.5km while the geddon with faction MF and a single HS does 636dps from 0-15km so only 10% less dps for 300% more range.
If you want neutron blasters to reach even 14km they need to fit faction iron ammo and they get a 0-14km optimal but the dmg is reduced to a pitiful 290dps.
So still less optimal than the lasers by 1km but now well under 50% of the DPS.
SHORT RANGE starts at 15km and blasters and the ammo they use should be adjusted accordingly.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 14:28:00 -
[266]
Just make Neutrons in a megatron track at 5 km exaclty the same as Pulses track with MF at 10-12 km (no .. not 15 because you msut remember that blasters have quite more falloff than lasers).
Do it by boosting a bit blasters and nerfign a bit pulses... pretty logical? Then make adjustments from there.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 14:37:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Seishi Maru Just make Neutrons in a megatron track at 5 km exaclty the same as Pulses track with MF at 10-12 km (no .. not 15 because you msut remember that blasters have quite more falloff than lasers).
That still makes blaster BS worthless compared to laser BS at any range apart from 5isk km, blaster BS should not be limited to using only AM ammo and operating at 5ish km.
Fix the other faction blaster ammo so they are at least as useful at 14km or so as pulse lasers.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 14:51:00 -
[268]
That is nonsense. IF blasters can deal damage at pulse MF range as well as PUlse then PUlses become worthless. REmember that game is Not ONLY t2 ammo!
Blasters CANNOT match pulses at 14 km.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 14:58:00 -
[269]
Edited by: Murina on 29/10/2009 15:09:31
Originally by: Seishi Maru That is nonsense. IF blasters can deal damage at pulse MF range as well as PUlse then PUlses become worthless.
WTF are you smoking?.
Have you heard of scorch?....and noticed that pulse can hit out to way over 45km?.
That is far from being made worthless.
Originally by: Seishi Maru Blasters CANNOT match pulses at 14 km.
Blasters should match pulse in dmg at 14km cos thats blasters max optimal and pulses minimum it the cross over point that they should be equal, they should also gain dmg from 13km down to 4.5km as the ammo type range decreases.
While pulse gain range for a drop in dmg from the cross over point of 14km blasters gain dmg for a drop in range....its called balance and how things should work, but blasters do not get better dmg until about 6km while lasers get a huge boost in range....and that is called broken.
At the moment blasters get matched or bent over by pulse at every range from 6km onwards and matched or out damaged by pulse with MF in every ammo type apart from AM...and that is broken big time.
And THAT is what is making blasters worthless compared to lasers.
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 00:16:00 -
[270]
Edited by: Dabljuh on 30/10/2009 00:23:15 So yeah.
Blasters: 25% more Falloff, 50% more tracking, 10% more dps Pulses: -40% tracking Beams: -25% tracking, -10% dps
Fixed?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |