| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
Knights Of the Southerncross
    |
Posted - 2007.08.23 10:14:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 23/08/2007 10:21:01
I guess everyone of aware of the 'silly speeds' issue getting more and more out of hand. (And yeah I know many think it is fine).
Now I know realism does not neccessarily belong into a SciFi game, but let us apply it anyway.
Lets take the current 'speedtanks'. Most of them rely on simply outrunning the tracking of enemy guns or the explosion velocity of missiles in a straight orbit. That very concept is kinda silly. If something is in the kind of predictable motion like the speedtanks, it should be no problem at all for any halfway decent targeting & tracking system to anticipate the movement and to aim for the spot the ship will be in when the ordnance arrives instead of the ship itself, and thus hitting it despite its high speed.
What makes targets like fighters in SciFi Movies hard to hit is not their speed, but mainly their agility. The ability to move in an unpredictable way and thus to avoid regular damage. Of course you need some speed and a small size to make that work, but the really deciding factor is the agility.
So what I would propose is to base the tracking portion of gun to hit calcs as well as the explosion velocity portion of missile damage calcs not on transversal velocity/current velocity, but on some sort of blend between agility (mass * agility mod) and transversal/current velocity, with emphasis on agility but limitations based on the velocity factor (like, if transversal/current velocity is very low, even a high agility won't save you).
The way ships orbit in game would not have to change as that would probably require too much work or calculations, it is simply assumed that ships in combat would always try to avoid incoming fire at any time if possible.
This would not only make it more realistic, it would also go some way to fix the stupid speedtanks of big ships while leaving frigs to still do it since they have a naturally high agility.
And it would do away with the issue of the orbiter not hitting stuff due to pseudo-high transversal which in reality does not exist for the orbiting object. Now he would miss because of whatever he orbits dodges his shots, or he would hit because it does not.
There is no 'n' in turret
There is no 'r' in faction
There is no 'a' in Scorpion
There is no 'e' in Caldari
There is no makeup in rogue drones |
Sleepkevert
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 12:16:00 -
[2]
The idea itself is good. Problem is, the implementation in EVE is going to be problematic to say at least. If you want it based at agility, you need something to evade it. And that would mean in eve total mouse button spammage. Which is not very handy. If it was an WSAD controlled game like freelancer tough, it's an whole other story, and it is, freelancer uses agility for target calculations :)
But in EVE, it's just not viable.
Sign my sig! |
Cornucopian
Gallente
Dutch Omega
United Freemen Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 12:20:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Sleepkevert
The idea itself is good. Problem is, the implementation in EVE is going to be problematic to say at least. If you want it based at agility, you need something to evade it. And that would mean in eve total mouse button spammage. Which is not very handy. If it was an WSAD controlled game like freelancer tough, it's an whole other story, and it is, freelancer uses agility for target calculations :)
But in EVE, it's just not viable.
duly noted, but /signed anyway for the OP. very goood idea
-----------------------------------------------
"post with your main. delete your alt, you sad little exploiting metagamer." |
Hoshi
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 12:28:00 -
[4]
An old pnp RPG (or more like Small arms combat rule set) I have had rules for something similar. If the target where far enough away that it would take up to a few sec for the bullet to reach it there where some extra chance based calcs.
They included bullet travel time, target total movement and effective movement in that time. If the target where running in a straight line it where fairly easy to predict it's position but if it's effective movement where low ie it where just running back and forth on the spot it where it would be when the bullet arrived which cut the hit chance considerably.
----------------------------------------
A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 12:32:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 23/08/2007 12:33:29
Originally by: Sleepkevert
The idea itself is good. Problem is, the implementation in EVE is going to be problematic to say at least. If you want it based at agility, you need something to evade it. And that would mean in eve total mouse button spammage. Which is not very handy. If it was an WSAD controlled game like freelancer tough, it's an whole other story, and it is, freelancer uses agility for target calculations :)
But in EVE, it's just not viable.
Nonono, thats not what I mean. I mean base it purely mathematically on agility. Right now to hit is a calc of tracking vs. transversal. What I would like to see is basing it off something like tracking vs. (agility * 2 + transversal)/3 (these are just scales, not actual numbers). You would still visibly orbit in a straight line, but that straight line is just a disguise for what is actually a course meanderling more (high agility) or less (low agility) through enemy fire.
Nothing would change for actual gameplay other than that large ships fitted for high speeds would have just that. High speed. To get into or out of range. Making them slightly harder to hit, but not impossible. While to actually tank damage by preventing it from hitting, you have to load up on agility modifer and weight reduction modules, and even then you will probably still be very hittable in a battleship other than Typhoon or Machariel. While small ships already start with good agility, so they can freely fit speed mods to be fast AND hard to hit.
Fix speedtanks, base hit chance on agility! |
Beastofburden
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 02:58:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Beastofburden on 24/08/2007 03:00:56
Nice idea, indeed.
I didn&t bother to do any math on that right now, but the base is definately solid.
Way more likely to predict a BS&s position 3 secs from now than a Frig&s, especially when
we are talking about going in a straight line at high transversal rather than close orbiting (aka curving).
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 07:28:00 -
[7]
There's a good foundation to an idea there.
First thing that I like about it is it divides up the hegemony of speed a bit. Currently, speed gives you a lot of benefits at once: not only traditional damage reduction, but also range control, damage application, and escape, and sometimes these compound each other. So if you take some of the straight damage reduction out of that equation and give it to a separate though related attribute, you've accomplished something promising.
I do see one issue right off the bat though, which is turret tracking. Right now, the fast orbiter has as much trouble hitting the stationary ship, given the same weapons, mods, etc. (The explanation I've always liked for this is basically the same as your proposal. Ships don't do real orbits, those are just rough approximations for a lot more maneuvering actually going on, maneuvering that affects both sets of turrets.) However, to the extent you make agility*mass (net agility) a part of the equation, you're throwing that balance off unless you also make a ships agility or lack thereof also affect its own tracking. Which it probably should.
Let's see if I can cut this short. The questions as I see them around this are:
- Is net agility going to affect tracking?
-- If no, how to address the balance of power shift that will cause in combat?
- If yes, is there going to be a way to modulate agility like you can with speed?
-- If no, how to address the balance of power shift that will cause in combat?
- If yes (and it is probably better as well as more logical) what would that look like? Another bar like the throttle? A menu option? Something else?
Anyway, that's the first thing off the top of my (very sleepy) head.
* * *
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Xion Dsurion
Gallente
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2007.08.27 15:00:00 -
[8]
I am sorry, I just do not agree with this much.
The crazy speed setups already use nanos, istabs, polycarbons.. that would help the agility quite a bit on those ships as it is. This will not solve the problem any more than it already is. Another thing is that long range weapons do have poor tracking, and most of these ships fly out of range of short range. I just see no difference and don't believe this would help achieve what you really want it to do; hit fast moving ships.
 |
Andre Ricard
Gallente
Templars of Space
Fallen Souls
|
Posted - 2007.08.28 19:16:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Xion Dsurion
I am sorry, I just do not agree with this much.
The crazy speed setups already use nanos, istabs, polycarbons.. that would help the agility quite a bit on those ships as it is. This will not solve the problem any more than it already is. Another thing is that long range weapons do have poor tracking, and most of these ships fly out of range of short range. I just see no difference and don't believe this would help achieve what you really want it to do; hit fast moving ships.
Actually, (and correct me if I'm wrong), but I'm pretty sure those mods only affect mass, not agility. since the calculations have something to do with mass*agility, a lower mass does affect "agility" but not the actual agility modifier. I believe the only way to lower agility is the 2 or 3 skills that affect it specifically (Evasive maneuvering, Spaceship Command,and Advanced Spaceship Command).
|
Acoco Osiris
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.08.29 11:52:00 -
[10]
Mass does not affect the agility modifier, HOWEVER, your net agility (how fast you can turn in EVE), is affected by mass. Mounting an afterburner, for instance, is going to lower your mass.
Also, remember this-these ships are ships, NOT fighters, nothing even vaguely like Freelancer. Ships of war do not "jink" or "dodge". They zig-zag, change course, vary their speed, but they do not have the agility (normally) to dodge. Even interceptors are huge (though game mechanics wise, they seem to be like fighters with their insane agility).
Remember: Big hulking ships-of-war, not fighter craft.
Also, consider that maybe tracking is less guessing where they'll be than keeping the optics/gun centered on-target. It would be very difficult for a sniper to keep a bead on a target's head when he's sprinting in a circle 4 feet outside the sniper. Same thing goes for guns-maybe turning them too fast vibrates them off the mark or some such thing.
------------------------------
One more soldier off to war...
And one Velator in my hangars. |
|
Letheeth Kayl
Amarr
Chosen Path
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 07:40:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Tsanse Kinske
Will agility affect tracking ability.
I wanted to ask the same question: does agility affect your own tracking as well. It seems logical, because if you're trying to zip and dodge this million pound metal wreck through incoming fire, it's going th throw off the tracking computers in your own ship as well.
In answer to some people, we already have a module that directly affects agiliity: inertia stabilizers. Overdrives affect speed (at cost of cargo space), Nano's reduce mass (at expense of structure integrity), and Inertia stabs increase agility by decreasing intertia (at the expense of increased signature radius).
I think the back stories need some clarification about what is actually happening when the command to fire the gun bank is given.
It'd also be nice to see nano's have more trouble at hitting targets (because the agility is so high, tracking is further thrown off on their own ships). Sadly, this would boost missiles in a relative sense, as this is effectively a turret nerf, and make interceptors all but wortheless at dealing damage outside of missiles.
Signed.
Call it a tracking computer breakthrough or something (CCP).
Put down the mirror and return to live
With pain With sin With despair
Live with penance in God's glory
Lesson of Tobias and the Mirror
Scriptures Verses26-29 |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 09:57:00 -
[12]
Very good idea.
Quote:
Also, remember this-these ships are ships, NOT fighters, nothing even vaguely like Freelancer. Ships of war do not "jink" or "dodge". They zig-zag, change course, vary their speed, but they do not have the agility (normally) to dodge. Even interceptors are huge (though game mechanics wise, they seem to be like fighters with their insane agility).
In an environment like those of EVE you aren't "jinking" or "dodging" manually, it is the computer that make random adjustments to your couse to reduce the chances of effective hits. You don't really need so much of a course change to get a difference of 10 meter in your position from what your opponent has predicted and with the sizes of the common ships in EVE 10 meter can be sufficent.
Your movement shouldn't matter for the to hit calculations as you machine konw exactly your maneuvers before applying them and so can fully compensate. The only situation where that is not true is when you own agility is superior to your tracking. In that istance you chance to hit would suffer.
The whole idea wold need some serious testing and balancing as it is a big change, but will resolve a lot of things too.
/signed
|
Mashie Saldana
Hooligans Of War
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 11:26:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
If something is in the kind of predictable motion like the speedtanks, it should be no problem at all for any halfway decent targeting & tracking system to anticipate the movement and to aim for the spot the ship will be in when the ordnance arrives instead of the ship itself, and thus hitting it despite its high speed.
The problem isn't the targeting, the problem is that big heavy turrets don't rotate wery fast, which is exactly what the tracking speed reflect. It doesn't help that the computer knows the turret need to turn 60 degrees to hit the target if it takes 3 seconds to reach that angle, by which time a new angle will be needed.
The only thing that should be fixed is that ships orbiting shouldn't be affect by the tracking speed as the guns actually don't move as the ship angle is constant versus a stationary target while orbiting. However that would break the game balance unfortunately.
 |
Aki Yamato
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 13:03:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
If something is in the kind of predictable motion like the speedtanks, it should be no problem at all for any halfway decent targeting & tracking system to anticipate the movement and to aim for the spot the ship will be in when the ordnance arrives instead of the ship itself, and thus hitting it despite its high speed.
The problem isn't the targeting, the problem is that big heavy turrets don't rotate wery fast, which is exactly what the tracking speed reflect. It doesn't help that the computer knows the turret need to turn 60 degrees to hit the target if it takes 3 seconds to reach that angle, by which time a new angle will be needed.
The only thing that should be fixed is that ships orbiting shouldn't be affect by the tracking speed as the guns actually don't move as the ship angle is constant versus a stationary target while orbiting. However that would break the game balance unfortunately.
You mean huge turrets with mass lest then ONE ton ? 
Seriousli even WW2 battlaships can turn their turrets faster even wilth mass thousad times more then in eve.
BIG GUN
BIG FUTURE |
Mashie Saldana
Hooligans Of War
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 13:29:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Aki Yamato
You mean huge turrets with mass lest then ONE ton ?
Seriousli even WW2 battlaships can turn their turrets faster even wilth mass thousad times more then in eve.
Good point
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 20:48:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
The problem isn't the targeting, the problem is that big heavy turrets don't rotate wery fast, which is exactly what the tracking speed reflect. It doesn't help that the computer knows the turret need to turn 60 degrees to hit the target if it takes 3 seconds to reach that angle, by which time a new angle will be needed.
Well considering that ships just orbiting in a straight line only change direction in one direction, it would be easy for the slower turrets to just rotate the other way round and fire at the right moment to hit.
Now theres another thought to tack onto this, if your target outruns your tracking, your RoF is reduced...
And yeah, I guess if your own evasive manoevers outrun your own tracking you get a penalty as well. And there would probably have to be a gauge where people can set the amount of evesion their ships are supposed to do, somewhere near the speed gauge.
Fix speedtanks, base hit chance on agility! |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |