EVE General Discussion

In Eve there are traking issues! If you orbit a still ship or even a celestial, you will face tracking issues.

That is why :

- Eve mechanics don't match with real physics ;
- you are not agree with Tippia who considers that Eve mechanics match with real physics.

I was reading the thread and thinking of a reason why future space engineers would have fully stabilized turrets. I think this is a great is a great example.

Having turrets effected by the hull rotation would only(?) be useful in an orbiting situation, every(?) other type or ship movement would be detrimental to your tracking. Pilots would have to fly in a way that minimized the angular velocity between the hull movement and the enemy, which sounds like adding some crazy complications to me.

So there is a logical reason for the turrets to behave the way they do, and its not just a product of way objects are handled in Eve.

I think I got that right, it is hot and I am tired 'n all.

…or when you're trying to close with the target because the current orbit is wrong for you. Or when you're trying to alter the orbiting plane. Or when you're trying to jink into a higher-angular movement (which would be especially effective if you had turrets that inherited the ship orientation).

None of those are turning in the wrong direction.

The only direction thats in the wrong direction is away from ur targets direction. Every other direction will assist ur turrets tracking speed. None of that matters though because what matters is that currently in eve any time ur ship is faster than the target its bad for ur turrets and thats bad ship design for pretend eve engineers.

I prefer my ship design where faster ship benefits from its speed than ur/eves design where faster ships are bad for their own turrets. Except for game balance. In which case i can deal with that. But lets call a cow for what it is and not pretend its the prefered engineering method in pretend spacw combat

If I'm being orbited by a fast ship in a clockwise rotation and I'm being outflown, I'm definitely going to try to reroute my current orbit to try to drive that attacker around where his speed is not so superior. Be it turning a different direction to get him to turn around and hope for a lucky hit as his speed slows way down in a u-turn, or to find a way to realign myself to either force him to bump into something or use my environment in any other way as a benefit.

This is just a couple of ways to slow down a ship that is far faster than your own.

It may confirm that the tracking issue with stationary ships is, from CCP point of view, a game mechanic to balance fights (and not a reproduction of real physics, otherwise the same issue would have existed with all targets).

…but, again, there is nothing “unreal” about the physics involved in how turrets in EVE work. The only thing that's maybe a bit odd about them is the engineering decision — effectively Infinity Ziona complaint — but the rest is basic vector maths and overlapping reference frames.

The hit formula is a statistic one, yes,which is pretty much the norm for RPGs, but the actual tracking is exactly you'd expect: the relative angular velocity of the target. And yes, that's maybe what trips people up: the assumption that the formula has anything to do with physics, when it's just a benchmark for a statistic based on simple trigonometry of relative motion.

I am not so sure about it as you are. It is all assumptions to me.

The whole idea of a weapon signature seems broken from a physics point of view. It is implemented as if the shots would scatter over the exact area regardless of the distance. You can find yourself sitting in a battleship with a signature radius of maybe 380m and your large guns will scatter their shots right at the muzzle over a 400m radius.

I am sure one can find some exotic distribution to explain this behaviour, but I doubt that the creator of the mechanic had thought about this. It is more likely a completely fictitious formula and only loosely related to real physics.

I am not complaining about it. I think it is good fun. I just would not want to be too serious about its meaning.

No. There have only been tons of examples that don't replicate how EVE turrets work, that's all.

You're going to have to go into a quite a lot of detail to describe how something can traverse in a full circle without rotating through all 360° of that circle. Please go ahead.

The actual fact is, an orbiting ship's turrets have to traverse 2π radians in the orbit time in order to keep facing the target. Coincidentally, as you move around the target in a full, the target's turrets have to traverse 2π radians in the same orbit time. So we have a case of 2π/t = 2π/t, which explains why turrets on both sides see the same angular velocity in the opposite party. Your confusion (same as those who provided incorrect examples) is that you assume that the turret must absolutely, positively, inherit the ship's rotational frame, when no such absolute requirement exists.

Source: Algebra 101 and Mechanics 101.

…except that there is nothing unreal about it. Gimbals have been around for millennia; gyro-stabilisation for almost a century and a half. Disconnecting one body's rotation from that of another body is done on a daily basis — possibly even in your own household.

Poor students. Oh, and no, you use a radically different example, which does not actually disprove my point.

I believe his point is that when a ship orbits a (stationary) ship then the ship itself rotates around its own axis. This is also what one can see on the screen. An orbiting ship (almost) never points into the same direction.