These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Why does tracking always have to go both ways?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vega Umbranox
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2013-05-14 12:46:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Vega Umbranox
I dont get it. when u are orbiting someone and they are at 0m/s its the same as if u are still and they are orbiting even though in a perfect orbit your guns should not have to move at all. seems a bit unfair that if u web someone they get the same tracking advantage as you. infact if they park their ship still on purpose you might as well not even have webs..

is there some balance thing ive overlooked?
is it a very hard thing to "fix" in terms of coding?
or what? im curious. the more i think of it the more it bothers me lately.




"imagine u are looking at what u are orbiting with your eyes (imagine your body is your ship)
see how even tho you circle you aren't having to move your head or eyes at all?

now imagine u swap places, u are now standing still, the other person is orbiting you.
now try to continue looking at him... notice how u have to spin your head/eyes to stay looking at him?"
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#2 - 2013-05-14 12:53:55 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I gladly point out this rather good guide on how tracking works.

Edit: corrected an embarrassing spelling mistake.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#3 - 2013-05-14 12:54:21 UTC
Now imagine yourself sitting still from your point of view and the other is orbiting you at your orbit velocity.

Physics. Ask Einstein.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4 - 2013-05-14 12:57:46 UTC
all things are not equal to real physics.

You are playing a submarine game masquerading as a space sim, tracking should indeed be reduced for the guy giving "broadside" vollys VS. the guy in the middle of the orbit whos guns are spinning around trying to track him. If you want to not have tracking issues even tho your guns dont actually have to move,m you want launchers instead in eve, it just works that way.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Major 'Revolver' Ocelot
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-05-14 13:21:34 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
I gladly point out this rather good guide on hoe tracking works.


Hoe tracking, nice. Gotta track them all!
Vega Umbranox
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2013-05-14 13:22:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Vega Umbranox
Abrazzar wrote:
Now imagine yourself sitting still from your point of view and the other is orbiting you at your orbit velocity.

Physics. Ask Einstein.



ah the relativity card. ok ill play.

now imagine u are looking at what u are orbiting with your eyes (imagine your body is your ship)
see how even tho you circle you arent having to move your head or eyes at all?

now imagine u swap places, u are now standing still, the other person is orbiting you.
now try to continue looking at him... notice how u have to spin your head/eyes to stay looking at him?

so your relativity thing means nothing here.

and thank u for the link Ezwal but i already knew that and it doesnt change the fact this seems like itd be better to be accurate



Edit: still cool link actually =)
Draqone an'Alreigh
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2013-05-14 13:28:47 UTC
Vega Umbranox wrote:
I dont get it. when u are orbiting someone and they are at 0m/s its the same as if u are still and they are orbiting even though in a perfect orbit your guns should not have to move at all. seems a bit unfair that if u web someone they get the same tracking advantage as you. infact if they park their ship still on purpose you might as well not even have webs..

is there some balance thing ive overlooked?
is it a very hard thing to "fix" in terms of coding?
or what? im curious. the more i think of it the more it bothers me lately.


1) Add angular velocity to your overview.
2) Orbit a stationary ship.
3) Be amazed.

Inducing the proliferation of common sense throughout EVE Official forums since April 27th, 2013.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#8 - 2013-05-14 13:33:56 UTC
Vega Umbranox wrote:

and thank u for the link Ezwal but i already knew that and it doesnt change the fact this seems like itd be better to be accurate


I'm with you here, it seems like tracking gains are undervalued by the game mechanics. I read the wiki and I know how quickly damage falls off when tracking is an issue according to the formula, but in the game it doesn't feel like it has as much of an impact as it should.

Maybe I need to spend more time shooting frigs with a rail fit talos =-P
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#9 - 2013-05-14 13:39:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
For instance; we were shooting structure the other day and every now and then a red frig would warp onto a perch. Most of the guys were in Naga's, a few of us were in rail fit Talos. The frig KM's were dominated by the naga's. As were the structure KM's. It seems like Talos should have handily won the frig mails.

This was a small sample and may be more of an issue of optimal range, but it seems to me that the Talos should have been higher on the damage vs frigs even considering range. I have noticed this for some time in other situations as well, it just feels like tracking is underweighted.
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#10 - 2013-05-14 13:41:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Vilnius Zar
Vega Umbranox wrote:
I dont get it. when u are orbiting someone and they are at 0m/s its the same as if u are still and they are orbiting even though in a perfect orbit your guns should not have to move at all. seems a bit unfair that if u web someone they get the same tracking advantage as you. infact if they park their ship still on purpose you might as well not even have webs..

is there some balance thing ive overlooked?
is it a very hard thing to "fix" in terms of coding?
or what? im curious. the more i think of it the more it bothers me lately.


The game engine doesn't at all account for where the guns are aimed or what direction your ship is pointing. According to the game both ships are just points, nothing more. And due to the relative movement between those two points you get the angular velocity which, logically, whill be the same towards each other. For more info on the whole tracking thing check the link in my sig and watch the turret tutorial.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#11 - 2013-05-14 13:46:52 UTC
Amat victoria curam sounds a lot like Amarr victor to me.

Great videos by the way, anyone interested in cloak/mwd or tracking should watch them.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#12 - 2013-05-14 13:54:44 UTC
Turrets are gyrostabilised and try to retain their position and orientation relative to their own inertial frame, not that of the ship. They therefore have to be slewed out of position to keep their orientation relative to the ship hull, and thus to the target. This slewing action is subject to the same tracking accuracy no matter if it's the target or the turret ship that is creating the relative motion.

There you go.
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#13 - 2013-05-14 13:57:01 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Amat victoria curam sounds a lot like Amarr victor to me.

Great videos by the way, anyone interested in cloak/mwd or tracking should watch them.


It means "Victory favours the prepared".
Vega Umbranox
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2013-05-14 14:00:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Turrets are gyrostabilised and try to retain their position and orientation relative to their own inertial frame, not that of the ship. They therefore have to be slewed out of position to keep their orientation relative to the ship hull, and thus to the target. This slewing action is subject to the same tracking accuracy no matter if it's the target or the turret ship that is creating the relative motion.

There you go.


eff dat my blasters use magnetic field stabilizers not gyros!!! good explanation tho for sure.

still for gameplay purpose i dont like it one bit
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#15 - 2013-05-14 14:04:23 UTC
Vega Umbranox wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Turrets are gyrostabilised and try to retain their position and orientation relative to their own inertial frame, not that of the ship. They therefore have to be slewed out of position to keep their orientation relative to the ship hull, and thus to the target. This slewing action is subject to the same tracking accuracy no matter if it's the target or the turret ship that is creating the relative motion.

There you go.


eff dat my blasters use magnetic field stabilizers not gyros!!! good explanation tho for sure.

still for gameplay purpose i dont like it one bit


It's a necessity, the amount of coding and cpu cycles required to allow for actual turret tracking would be completely insane and would make bigger confrontations entirely impossible. So if you want to have a single shard game world with as little as possible restrictions on player numbers in one location all affecting each other, then you will HAVE to simplify a lot of game mechanics. Can't have it both ways.
Vega Umbranox
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2013-05-14 14:09:20 UTC
yeah fair enough.
ive got some slight idea but itd involve changing tracking formulas
BUT i am no where near as good at math to believe itd be a simple matter and im sure itd be a LOT more complicated than i imagine it at 1st thought
Aralieus
Shadowbane Syndicate
#17 - 2013-05-14 14:11:36 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
hoe tracking


I need this so bad, tired of mine dodging me errytime I come around!

Oderint Dum Metuant
Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2013-05-14 14:16:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Florestan Bronstein
Vilnius Zar wrote:
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Amat victoria curam sounds a lot like Amarr victor to me.

Great videos by the way, anyone interested in cloak/mwd or tracking should watch them.


It means "Victory favours the prepared".

nope

it says "victory loves care" ("care" as in "accuracy"/"diligence")

"victory favors the prepared" would be "victoria paratum/paratos amat" (although I think amare is too strong for "to favor" edit: why not just use favere)
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#19 - 2013-05-14 14:26:34 UTC
Florestan Bronstein wrote:
Vilnius Zar wrote:
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Amat victoria curam sounds a lot like Amarr victor to me.

Great videos by the way, anyone interested in cloak/mwd or tracking should watch them.


It means "Victory favours the prepared".

nope

it says "victory loves care" ("care" as in "accuracy"/"diligence")

"victory favors the prepared" would be "victoria paratum/paratos amat" (although I think amare is too strong for "to favor")


literal translation is literal and ofcourse very useful.
Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2013-05-14 14:28:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Florestan Bronstein
Vilnius Zar wrote:

literal translation is literal and ofcourse very useful.

it's not a question of literal vs non-literal translation but an issue of accurate vs inaccurate translation.

victoria curam amat.

does simply not mean the same as

victoria parato/paratis favet.

in the second sentence victory favors the prepared (singular/plural), in the first sentence victory likes/loves diligence as such/as a quality.

Victory doesn't like you for what you do but for how you do it - i.e. with diligence/care.

Even changing it from "victory loves diligence" to "victory loves preparation" would alter the meaning of that statement significantly (and imho reduce its depth).

edit: to be entirely honest I have some doubts regarding (prae)parare - sounds more like sth you'd do to a dish rather than a human. but i don't really know any alternative and it seems to be used that way in modern latin.
123Next page