hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 71

Thread: The Great Tracking Nerf v0.1

  1. #1
    Donor Mike deVoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    6,900

    The Great Tracking Nerf v0.1

    I'd like to see a tracking nerf. More accurately, I'd like signature radius to be taken into account more explicitly in the tracking formula.

    Specifically, I'd like for it to be hard for oversize guns to hit small targets - even when transversal is very low - with the aim of nerfing titan blapping of pretty much anything except other capitals.

    With your normal DPS graph, you see this:



    Which is you start off at 100% chance to hit at 0m range, and as the range increases the chance to hit (and hence DPS) drops off. The intercept of the Y-axis is 100%.

    So to start you off, read this blogpost (not me): http://serpentinelogic.wordpress.com...a-was-changed/

    It's pretty good, but there are some adjustments I'd make.

    Basically I want to change the current tracking formula from this:



    to something a little bit like this:



    the values of (a) and (b) can be fine tuned for balance/taste. I'm kinda liking 0.5 and 3, respectively, at the moment.

    I have an excel google spreadsheet that you can access and view the new formula in a plot, along with changing (a) and (b) to see what happens. Access it here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...kxoUHBJVUJZZFE.

    Sheet2 is the one you want to look at. You'll see something like this: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64474800/SheetPlot.png

    You can adjust the values of (a) and (b), and the DPS levels. I've plotted the chance to hit against the ratio of target/gun sig size. So if you target is equal or bigger than your gun you have 100% chance to hit (at 0 transversal). As the target gets smaller, the chance to hit decreases. Playing with (a) and (b) adjust the shape of the curve.

    I've include a table showing the chance to hit at least once as you continue to cycle your guns. I've included this because if you look at the new maxDPS figures alone you'll get won't get a full understanding of the fact that it might take 5-10 cycles for that titan to alpha your frigate.

    So take a look. Do you agree with the principle of the nerf? Do you like/not like the implementation? Does it work for XL guns but unfairly penalise BCs vs Frigs? Would you like to see added functionality like being able to apply 1 or more Target Painters against a target to see the chance in DPS/Change-to-hit?

      Spoiler:
    The password for unprotecting the spreadsheet is 'fhc'.
    I used this website to create the formula: http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php
    You can find the latex 'code' used here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64474800/For...raw%20text.txt
    Last edited by Mike deVoid; April 2 2012 at 03:05:57 PM.

  2. #2
    Donor Sponk's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    AU TZ
    Posts
    11,277
    I was thinking of something similar today but am bad at math, but how about this?

    one of the stupid things about tracking in general is that as you get further away from the target, it gets basically impossible to keep up transversal.

    And yet, in the real world, turret transversal is always way above the speed of the target at medium-long ranges yet they still miss. why?

    because stuff that's far away is a lot smaller duh.

    target twice as far away? target is actually 1/4 the size. Optimal vs falloff aims to model this but obviously it's imperfect.


    sooo, how about this:

    e(signature) = max(0, sigRes - sigRadius)/sigRes ^ (min(1,range/10km))

    so if you have inaccurate guns, they get way more inaccurate vs smaller ships as you increase range.

    bs same-size targets, the formula is the same as now.

    vs shooting small stuff that's in close orbit, you aren't penalised much, but as things get further away you have no chance to hit.

    Perhaps that might achieve what you want, Mike?
    Contract stuff to Seraphina Amaranth.

    "You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position. Ever."


  3. #3
    Wrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Wormholes
    Posts
    1,980
    Stopping titans from blapping subcaps is great. But do you really want to stop hurricanes and vagas from blapping frigs? A blanket change to tracking like this could bring about Enyo Online (not that I actually object...). I just think it should be taken into account what this does to frigs.
    Last edited by Wrack; March 31 2012 at 05:58:52 PM.
    Skill training online: Daesis Wrack
    Everything else: Cosmic Osmo

  4. #4
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    14,277
    Stop trying to nerf titans by tracking nerfs, dont even think about them when you try to implement changes to the tracking formula ( it needs changing ). Give them a complete new role and remove their offensive capability completely.


    

  5. #5
    RoemySchneider's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,092
    the principle is fine, just like all the other concepts that are based on mine.

    but they all have the same (little) flaw: what about MWDs [and (buckets of) painters]?




    once every ship has a -50% mwd bloom bonus and the highly-anticipated ship/slot rebalance allows dual-prop for everyone, it's less of an issue ofc -.-

  6. #6
    Kerc Kasha's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    185
    This def. needs to happen one way or the other and I hope a CSM rep can bring this up with CCP.

    I'd also like to see them eventually change missiles back to how they were at release(sig radius etc dont mean shit) but have it so missiles miss. Maybe, probably would piss a lot of people off.

  7. #7
    prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    3,860
    This would result in AFs, HACs, & T3s being woefully overpowering against larger targets.
    Even moreso when aided by Logistics and/or any form of ewar.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Prom is right and you're dumb.
    Latest Video - The Inner Zone
    YouTube - LiveStream

  8. #8
    Donor Sponk's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    AU TZ
    Posts
    11,277
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post
    This would result in AFs, HACs, & T3s being woefully overpowering against larger targets.
    Even moreso when aided by Logistics and/or any form of ewar.
    That sounds quite intriguing, actually.
    Contract stuff to Seraphina Amaranth.

    "You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position. Ever."


  9. #9

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,578
    Drakes, man, drakes. Everyone is going to fly them (except the richer guys in hac/t3) now that guns are nerfed and battleships becomes niche.

    ----
    Here is another idea that may not pan out: What if there is weapons or mods that can force pretty much any ship to move (even titans, yes) somehow, so there is always some relative velocity in a real fight? Maybe one could even change the bump formula or something funny like that.

  10. #10
    Donor Sponk's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    AU TZ
    Posts
    11,277
    nobody would undock a freighter ever again?
    Contract stuff to Seraphina Amaranth.

    "You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position. Ever."


  11. #11
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Wiltshire, UK
    Posts
    2,603
    Redoing tracking because Titans blap subcaps sounds more to me cutting ones nose off to spite the face tbh.

    Also I don't fundamentally understand why a massive gun fired at an immobile target wouldn't just obliterate it. Why would it miss?

    I do agree with Sponk's hypothesis though that the formula is currently a bit broken in so much as it doesn't sufficiently factor in how much smaller things become at greater ranges. A tachyon Nightmare for example won't miss anything at 80km, even frigates.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,578
    Its the same reason why a giant phallic spaceship can't fit a few thousand small autocannons on its hull.

    As for making it hard to hit small targets at long range, it would be interesting but probably won't fix titans, since you need neuts and heavy dps to take them down, and those aren't long range. Be amusing by having sniper frigs actually work well though.

  13. #13
    Donor Mike deVoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    6,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Durzel View Post
    Redoing tracking because Titans blap subcaps sounds more to me cutting ones nose off to spite the face tbh.

    Also I don't fundamentally understand why a massive gun fired at an immobile target wouldn't just obliterate it. Why would it miss?

    I do agree with Sponk's hypothesis though that the formula is currently a bit broken in so much as it doesn't sufficiently factor in how much smaller things become at greater ranges. A tachyon Nightmare for example won't miss anything at 80km, even frigates.
    The concept for why a massive gun would sometimes miss a small target is that you imagine the gun Sig res as a dartboard and the target Sig radius as the size of the bullseye. Only a hit to the bullseye counts as a hit. Big gun, small target means that the dart will not always hit the the bullseye. Equal or bigger target than the gun and you cant miss until the target has some transversal and pulls some of the bullseye out of the dartboard.

  14. #14
    Donor Mike deVoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    6,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Sponk View Post
    I was thinking of something similar today but am bad at math, but how about this?

    one of the stupid things about tracking in general is that as you get further away from the target, it gets basically impossible to keep up transversal.

    And yet, in the real world, turret transversal is always way above the speed of the target at medium-long ranges yet they still miss. why?

    because stuff that's far away is a lot smaller duh.

    target twice as far away? target is actually 1/4 the size. Optimal vs falloff aims to model this but obviously it's imperfect.


    sooo, how about this:

    e(signature) = max(0, sigRes - sigRadius)/sigRes ^ (min(1,range/10km))

    so if you have inaccurate guns, they get way more inaccurate vs smaller ships as you increase range.

    bs same-size targets, the formula is the same as now.

    vs shooting small stuff that's in close orbit, you aren't penalised much, but as things get further away you have no chance to hit.

    Perhaps that might achieve what you want, Mike?
    I'll write up a graph and table on this later, and maybe try to get this to work in google docs (will need a different method because I'm using a hack method atm to get Excel to plot an actual function).

  15. #15
    Donor Mike deVoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    6,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrack View Post
    Stopping titans from blapping subcaps is great. But do you really want to stop hurricanes and vagas from blapping frigs? A blanket change to tracking like this could bring about Enyo Online (not that I actually object...). I just think it should be taken into account what this does to frigs.
    50% damage attenuation for med guns on frigates doesn't sound too bad to me. Though because if the sigRad/sigRes ration you only limit the DPS of XL guns on BS by about 60%.

  16. #16
    Donor Mike deVoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    6,900
    Quote Originally Posted by RoemySchneider View Post
    the principle is fine, just like all the other concepts that are based on mine.

    but they all have the same (little) flaw: what about MWDs [and (buckets of) painters]?




    once every ship has a -50% mwd bloom bonus and the highly-anticipated ship/slot rebalance allows dual-prop for everyone, it's less of an issue ofc -.-
    I have included ships with MWD bloom in my spreadsheet (if you can't see the combo it's because it ends up above 100% of the gun sig res). But yeah, I'd like to include the effects of painters. Also the minmatar sig links.

  17. #17
    Donor Mike deVoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    6,900
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post
    This would result in AFs, HACs, & T3s being woefully overpowering against larger targets.
    Even moreso when aided by Logistics and/or any form of ewar.
    An effect of a change of this kind would mean that monofleets consisting of large hulls only would have large gaping defensive holes against small targets. And as such would lead to fleet diversity.

    I don't think you can talk about the immediate effect of a change without considering the different choices FCs will want to make about fleet composition.

  18. #18
    Donor Mike deVoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    6,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Shin_getter View Post
    Drakes, man, drakes. Everyone is going to fly them (except the richer guys in hac/t3) now that guns are nerfed and battleships becomes niche.

    ----
    Here is another idea that may not pan out: What if there is weapons or mods that can force pretty much any ship to move (even titans, yes) somehow, so there is always some relative velocity in a real fight? Maybe one could even change the bump formula or something funny like that.
    Well, you could do a very simple damage attenuation for guns just like for missiles in sig rad/sig res. With a possible sig rad nerf for titans fitting XL guns making their damage attenuation on smaller than caps pretty massive.

  19. #19
    Donor Sponk's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    AU TZ
    Posts
    11,277
    Mike I think that ^ in my formula should be a * because I am bad at math ha.


    Blah blah blah tapatalk
    Contract stuff to Seraphina Amaranth.

    "You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position. Ever."


  20. #20
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Wiltshire, UK
    Posts
    2,603
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike deVoid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Durzel View Post
    Redoing tracking because Titans blap subcaps sounds more to me cutting ones nose off to spite the face tbh.

    Also I don't fundamentally understand why a massive gun fired at an immobile target wouldn't just obliterate it. Why would it miss?

    I do agree with Sponk's hypothesis though that the formula is currently a bit broken in so much as it doesn't sufficiently factor in how much smaller things become at greater ranges. A tachyon Nightmare for example won't miss anything at 80km, even frigates.
    The concept for why a massive gun would sometimes miss a small target is that you imagine the gun Sig res as a dartboard and the target Sig radius as the size of the bullseye. Only a hit to the bullseye counts as a hit. Big gun, small target means that the dart will not always hit the the bullseye. Equal or bigger target than the gun and you cant miss until the target has some transversal and pulls some of the bullseye out of the dartboard.
    Except the big gun is firing a dart that is as big as the dartboard and then some. Does it still miss?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •