Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mishi Bangbang
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 20:56:00 -
[1]
I thought about what's discussed in this thread before but regarding the +10% optimal bonus on the Typhoon.
Aren't turrets supposed to hit better when at their optimal and their hit/damage ratio reduced once below ? If so, doesn't this bonus improve the turret optimal hit range but makes it worse at optimal ranges it use to be good at ? Or will fallof values prevent this of happening? The same question applies to the sharpshooter skill.
Someone shed some logic on this (probably discussed back and forth before...)
bang
|
Mishi Bangbang
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 20:56:00 -
[2]
I thought about what's discussed in this thread before but regarding the +10% optimal bonus on the Typhoon.
Aren't turrets supposed to hit better when at their optimal and their hit/damage ratio reduced once below ? If so, doesn't this bonus improve the turret optimal hit range but makes it worse at optimal ranges it use to be good at ? Or will fallof values prevent this of happening? The same question applies to the sharpshooter skill.
Someone shed some logic on this (probably discussed back and forth before...)
bang
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 21:02:00 -
[3]
While within optimal your chance to hit is based purely on tracking (no penalty) While within falloff (which is after optimal) your chance to hit is based on tracking, but reduced depending on how far you are from optimal (99/100% right on the edge of optimal - 50% at the very far end of falloff)
the closer you are and the faster the target the more tracking is needed to hit - in some cases, especially projectiles, the tracking is so poor that it doesn't start tracking well untill you are at such a range as to be in falloff, at which point because you can track you hit more with the accuracy penalty from falloff than you would within optimal.
To sum up, more optimal is never a bad thing . ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 21:02:00 -
[4]
While within optimal your chance to hit is based purely on tracking (no penalty) While within falloff (which is after optimal) your chance to hit is based on tracking, but reduced depending on how far you are from optimal (99/100% right on the edge of optimal - 50% at the very far end of falloff)
the closer you are and the faster the target the more tracking is needed to hit - in some cases, especially projectiles, the tracking is so poor that it doesn't start tracking well untill you are at such a range as to be in falloff, at which point because you can track you hit more with the accuracy penalty from falloff than you would within optimal.
To sum up, more optimal is never a bad thing . ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Perry
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 21:08:00 -
[5]
The Distance between your ship and your guns' optimal range is only relevant for tracking. The Falloff works above that optimal, where tracking becomes secundary. So an increased optimal enables more damaging ammunition to become effective at greater distances, and increases your absolute range. It does not punish you in any way *g
|
Perry
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 21:08:00 -
[6]
The Distance between your ship and your guns' optimal range is only relevant for tracking. The Falloff works above that optimal, where tracking becomes secundary. So an increased optimal enables more damaging ammunition to become effective at greater distances, and increases your absolute range. It does not punish you in any way *g
|
Mishi Bangbang
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 21:24:00 -
[7]
Thanks Zyrla. I was aware of the tracking speed and target distance/speed effects but this was confusing me... and it's that simple .
Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm ...in some cases, especially projectiles, the tracking is so poor that it doesn't start tracking well untill you are at such a range as to be in falloff, at which point because you can track you hit more with the accuracy penalty from falloff than you would within optimal.
This is exactly what i come across with 1200mm/1400mm's and target close fast on me, i have to use a higher range penalty ammo like emp to hit outside optimal while keeping/increasing distance and moving parallel to it to reduce transversal speed... this way i can score some good hits but it can be messy with several fast targets.
bang
|
Mishi Bangbang
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 21:24:00 -
[8]
Thanks Zyrla. I was aware of the tracking speed and target distance/speed effects but this was confusing me... and it's that simple .
Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm ...in some cases, especially projectiles, the tracking is so poor that it doesn't start tracking well untill you are at such a range as to be in falloff, at which point because you can track you hit more with the accuracy penalty from falloff than you would within optimal.
This is exactly what i come across with 1200mm/1400mm's and target close fast on me, i have to use a higher range penalty ammo like emp to hit outside optimal while keeping/increasing distance and moving parallel to it to reduce transversal speed... this way i can score some good hits but it can be messy with several fast targets.
bang
|
Mishi Bangbang
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 21:32:00 -
[9]
So basically, sitting still and use one type of ammo doesn't help. Gotta either choose ammo / choose distance or both to hit better .
Some tracking mods don't hurt either.
bang
|
Mishi Bangbang
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 21:32:00 -
[10]
So basically, sitting still and use one type of ammo doesn't help. Gotta either choose ammo / choose distance or both to hit better .
Some tracking mods don't hurt either.
bang
|
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 21:33:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Mishi Bangbang Thanks Zyrla. I was aware of the tracking speed and target distance/speed effects but this was confusing me... and it's that simple .
Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm ...in some cases, especially projectiles, the tracking is so poor that it doesn't start tracking well untill you are at such a range as to be in falloff, at which point because you can track you hit more with the accuracy penalty from falloff than you would within optimal.
This is exactly what i come across with 1200mm/1400mm's and target close fast on me, i have to use a higher range penalty ammo like emp to hit outside optimal while keeping/increasing distance and moving parallel to it to reduce transversal speed... this way i can score some good hits but it can be messy with several fast targets.
bang
Er Not sure if you misread me or I wasn't clear enough, or I'm misreading you :) but tracking is an entity unto itself, the range at which you track well or dont doesn't change - its simply that when in falloff your chance to hit is reduced more. So increasing optimal only ever improves chance to hit. Though if your target is at 20k away having a 30k optimal wont offer any advantage over a 21k optimal . ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 21:33:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Mishi Bangbang Thanks Zyrla. I was aware of the tracking speed and target distance/speed effects but this was confusing me... and it's that simple .
Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm ...in some cases, especially projectiles, the tracking is so poor that it doesn't start tracking well untill you are at such a range as to be in falloff, at which point because you can track you hit more with the accuracy penalty from falloff than you would within optimal.
This is exactly what i come across with 1200mm/1400mm's and target close fast on me, i have to use a higher range penalty ammo like emp to hit outside optimal while keeping/increasing distance and moving parallel to it to reduce transversal speed... this way i can score some good hits but it can be messy with several fast targets.
bang
Er Not sure if you misread me or I wasn't clear enough, or I'm misreading you :) but tracking is an entity unto itself, the range at which you track well or dont doesn't change - its simply that when in falloff your chance to hit is reduced more. So increasing optimal only ever improves chance to hit. Though if your target is at 20k away having a 30k optimal wont offer any advantage over a 21k optimal . ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Mishi Bangbang
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 21:56:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm
Though if your target is at 20k away having a 30k optimal wont offer any advantage over a 21k optimal
That's exactly where i wanted to get with this thread. If i like to use a certain type of ammo like titanium on a 1400mm (35km optimal) and optimal bonuses are applied i have either to change ammo or increase distance to get the better hits outside optimal. Specially when projectiles tracking speed is so low.
Bs lvl5 would give me +50% more optimal = 52.5km Add to that Sharpshooter lvl5 +25% = 65.5km
It would be nice to have "warp in at 80km". How does it sound ?
bang
|
Mishi Bangbang
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 21:56:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm
Though if your target is at 20k away having a 30k optimal wont offer any advantage over a 21k optimal
That's exactly where i wanted to get with this thread. If i like to use a certain type of ammo like titanium on a 1400mm (35km optimal) and optimal bonuses are applied i have either to change ammo or increase distance to get the better hits outside optimal. Specially when projectiles tracking speed is so low.
Bs lvl5 would give me +50% more optimal = 52.5km Add to that Sharpshooter lvl5 +25% = 65.5km
It would be nice to have "warp in at 80km". How does it sound ?
bang
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 22:13:00 -
[15]
ok throwing some example numbers out here (not real ones, since we dont really need them)
Say we have a Fictional Artillery I - 50k optimal, 50k falloff, poor tracking
The tracking is calced first, hits against a target going 200m/s might be
10k = 0% 20k = 15% 30k = 30% 40k = 45% 50k = 60% 60k = 75% 70k = 90% 80k+ = 100%
Now if we apply the optimal/falloff after the tracking we get :
10k = 0% = 0% (optimal) 20k = 15% = 15% (optimal) 30k = 30% = 30% (optimal) 40k = 45% = 45% (optimal) 50k = 60% = 60% (end of optimal) 60k = 75% = 67.5% (reduction to 90% from 80% of falloff range) 70k = 90% = 72% (reduction to 80% from 60% of falloff range) 80k = 100% = 70% (reduction to 70% from 40% of falloff range) 90k = 100% = 60% (reduction to 60% from 20% of falloff range) 99.99k = 100% = 50% (reduction to 50% from 0.1% falloff range)
so the best chance to hit is actually in falloff
Now if we were to increase the optimal to 100k we'd have :
10k = 0% = 0% (optimal) 20k = 15% = 15% (optimal) 30k = 30% = 30% (optimal) 40k = 45% = 45% (optimal) 50k = 60% = 60% (optimal) 60k = 75% = 75% (optimal) 70k = 90% = 90% (optimal) 80k = 100% = 100% (optimal) 90k = 100% = 100% (optimal) 100k = 100% = 100% (end of optimal) 110k = 100% = 90% (reduction to 90% from 80% of falloff range) 120k = 100% = 80% (reduction to 80% from 60% of falloff range) 130k = 100% = 70% (reduction to 70% from 40% of falloff range) 140k = 100% = 60% (reduction to 60% from 20% of falloff range) 149.9k = 100% = 50% (reduction to 50% from 0.1% falloff range)
since we now have optimal at/past the point where the tracking ceases to be an issue the best chance to hit is now in optimal (and better)
. ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2004.11.06 22:13:00 -
[16]
ok throwing some example numbers out here (not real ones, since we dont really need them)
Say we have a Fictional Artillery I - 50k optimal, 50k falloff, poor tracking
The tracking is calced first, hits against a target going 200m/s might be
10k = 0% 20k = 15% 30k = 30% 40k = 45% 50k = 60% 60k = 75% 70k = 90% 80k+ = 100%
Now if we apply the optimal/falloff after the tracking we get :
10k = 0% = 0% (optimal) 20k = 15% = 15% (optimal) 30k = 30% = 30% (optimal) 40k = 45% = 45% (optimal) 50k = 60% = 60% (end of optimal) 60k = 75% = 67.5% (reduction to 90% from 80% of falloff range) 70k = 90% = 72% (reduction to 80% from 60% of falloff range) 80k = 100% = 70% (reduction to 70% from 40% of falloff range) 90k = 100% = 60% (reduction to 60% from 20% of falloff range) 99.99k = 100% = 50% (reduction to 50% from 0.1% falloff range)
so the best chance to hit is actually in falloff
Now if we were to increase the optimal to 100k we'd have :
10k = 0% = 0% (optimal) 20k = 15% = 15% (optimal) 30k = 30% = 30% (optimal) 40k = 45% = 45% (optimal) 50k = 60% = 60% (optimal) 60k = 75% = 75% (optimal) 70k = 90% = 90% (optimal) 80k = 100% = 100% (optimal) 90k = 100% = 100% (optimal) 100k = 100% = 100% (end of optimal) 110k = 100% = 90% (reduction to 90% from 80% of falloff range) 120k = 100% = 80% (reduction to 80% from 60% of falloff range) 130k = 100% = 70% (reduction to 70% from 40% of falloff range) 140k = 100% = 60% (reduction to 60% from 20% of falloff range) 149.9k = 100% = 50% (reduction to 50% from 0.1% falloff range)
since we now have optimal at/past the point where the tracking ceases to be an issue the best chance to hit is now in optimal (and better)
. ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Mishi Bangbang
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 00:22:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Mishi Bangbang on 07/11/2004 00:29:08 You're a star. Somehow, i was thinking the best chance to hit would move with the bonuses and not increase. I've been checking some other posts made by Dust Puppy and KingsGambit for some more info on getting formulas and whatnot. Interesting stuff. I need to spend more time in the forums...
Again, thanks.
bang
|
Mishi Bangbang
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 00:22:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Mishi Bangbang on 07/11/2004 00:29:08 You're a star. Somehow, i was thinking the best chance to hit would move with the bonuses and not increase. I've been checking some other posts made by Dust Puppy and KingsGambit for some more info on getting formulas and whatnot. Interesting stuff. I need to spend more time in the forums...
Again, thanks.
bang
|
KingsGambit
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 02:24:00 -
[19]
The forums are a good place to get info, and Zyrla has it all absolutely spot on, nice one.
P.S. Where can I get Fictional Artillery Is?
-------------
BYOC Crow Interceptor Deals |
KingsGambit
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 02:24:00 -
[20]
The forums are a good place to get info, and Zyrla has it all absolutely spot on, nice one.
P.S. Where can I get Fictional Artillery Is?
-------------
BYOC Crow Interceptor Deals |
|
X'Alor
|
Posted - 2004.11.09 17:17:00 -
[21]
thanks for posting that link.
was looking for that to see if any DEV or GM has commented on that sharpshooter "affect"
no matter what numbers are posted on paper with example.......it simply does not equate to real world ingame use and it's "affect" with large long range lasers in apoc.
not only do they hit farther out, but they miss farther out on the near side when completing that skill.
and curious as to weather they program range bonuses for ships the same way as the range bonus for the skill.
if they do, it will have the same affect and show up more in large guns.
not sure apoc specific, tach/mega beam specific, large gun specific.
I would imagine would really show up with 1400mm projectiles.......maybe why they don't hit well to begin with.
We can dictate and post whatever math or figures but ultimately we as playerbase haven't a clue what the main equaiton is that it is based on so anything a player posts as far as numbers and figures means hogwash to me and is strictly and opinion.....in my opinion
I want to see a GM post the equation that it's based on first before we players start throwing math around.
|
X'Alor
|
Posted - 2004.11.09 17:17:00 -
[22]
thanks for posting that link.
was looking for that to see if any DEV or GM has commented on that sharpshooter "affect"
no matter what numbers are posted on paper with example.......it simply does not equate to real world ingame use and it's "affect" with large long range lasers in apoc.
not only do they hit farther out, but they miss farther out on the near side when completing that skill.
and curious as to weather they program range bonuses for ships the same way as the range bonus for the skill.
if they do, it will have the same affect and show up more in large guns.
not sure apoc specific, tach/mega beam specific, large gun specific.
I would imagine would really show up with 1400mm projectiles.......maybe why they don't hit well to begin with.
We can dictate and post whatever math or figures but ultimately we as playerbase haven't a clue what the main equaiton is that it is based on so anything a player posts as far as numbers and figures means hogwash to me and is strictly and opinion.....in my opinion
I want to see a GM post the equation that it's based on first before we players start throwing math around.
|
KingsGambit
|
Posted - 2004.11.09 17:49:00 -
[23]
Originally by: X'Alor We can dictate and post whatever math or figures but ultimately we as playerbase haven't a clue what the main equaiton is that it is based on so anything a player posts as far as numbers and figures means hogwash to me and is strictly and opinion.....in my opinion
I want to see a GM post the equation that it's based on first before we players start throwing math around.
Come on, they must've taught trigonometry in secondary/high school? This site I just found on Google might clear it up a bit. And the Distance/Speed/Time triangle is probably taught earlier still.
-------------
BYOC Crow Interceptor Deals |
KingsGambit
|
Posted - 2004.11.09 17:49:00 -
[24]
Originally by: X'Alor We can dictate and post whatever math or figures but ultimately we as playerbase haven't a clue what the main equaiton is that it is based on so anything a player posts as far as numbers and figures means hogwash to me and is strictly and opinion.....in my opinion
I want to see a GM post the equation that it's based on first before we players start throwing math around.
Come on, they must've taught trigonometry in secondary/high school? This site I just found on Google might clear it up a bit. And the Distance/Speed/Time triangle is probably taught earlier still.
-------------
BYOC Crow Interceptor Deals |
X'Alor
|
Posted - 2004.11.10 20:09:00 -
[25]
not trying to discredit your knowledge and opinions about real world math. physics are proven real world equations and math yes you are correct.
as to who teaches what as to when and where in real life has to do with the range bonus equation that's used for ingame programming "how"?
we all know(so i thought) unfortunately that real world physics and math are thrown out the window for game physics and the "affect" of the programmed game math on guns.
apples to oranges mang, sorry
real world math and physics simply do not = ingame math and physics for game affect.
if they did. lasers would have infinite range and there is no fall off affect on lasers at all simply limited by a ships sensors to lock the target and up to what range and the ability for the ship to sustain power to that laser till it struck the target.
I'm still curious about the "ingame math"
not the out of game proven theories, but thanks for trying.
|
X'Alor
|
Posted - 2004.11.10 20:09:00 -
[26]
not trying to discredit your knowledge and opinions about real world math. physics are proven real world equations and math yes you are correct.
as to who teaches what as to when and where in real life has to do with the range bonus equation that's used for ingame programming "how"?
we all know(so i thought) unfortunately that real world physics and math are thrown out the window for game physics and the "affect" of the programmed game math on guns.
apples to oranges mang, sorry
real world math and physics simply do not = ingame math and physics for game affect.
if they did. lasers would have infinite range and there is no fall off affect on lasers at all simply limited by a ships sensors to lock the target and up to what range and the ability for the ship to sustain power to that laser till it struck the target.
I'm still curious about the "ingame math"
not the out of game proven theories, but thanks for trying.
|
Harry MacDougal
|
Posted - 2004.11.10 21:53:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Harry MacDougal on 10/11/2004 21:56:06 Right, but you can reverse engineer an equation by testing inputs and their corresponding outputs. The more points you get, the more likely you are to be able to reconstitute the equation. It might not be exact, but it'll be pretty damn close. And on that note, TomB was kind enough to post the graphs of what's supposed to happen, and the data, so the equations are probably accurate.
seriously x'alor, you need to relax a little and stop flaming people for trying to clear things up. --------------
Your 720mm Howitzer Artillery I perfectly strikes Guristas Spy, wrecking for 411.2 damage. |
Harry MacDougal
|
Posted - 2004.11.10 21:53:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Harry MacDougal on 10/11/2004 21:56:06 Right, but you can reverse engineer an equation by testing inputs and their corresponding outputs. The more points you get, the more likely you are to be able to reconstitute the equation. It might not be exact, but it'll be pretty damn close. And on that note, TomB was kind enough to post the graphs of what's supposed to happen, and the data, so the equations are probably accurate.
seriously x'alor, you need to relax a little and stop flaming people for trying to clear things up. --------------
Your 720mm Howitzer Artillery I perfectly strikes Guristas Spy, wrecking for 411.2 damage. |
Mishi Bangbang
|
Posted - 2004.11.10 22:10:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Mishi Bangbang on 10/11/2004 22:12:32 Are refering to this thread and this one ?
I'd love to look at them.
bang
|
Mishi Bangbang
|
Posted - 2004.11.10 22:10:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Mishi Bangbang on 10/11/2004 22:12:32 Are refering to this thread and this one ?
I'd love to look at them.
bang
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |