Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So, I've always wondered why target painters had optimal and falloff range...

When it comes to TP's they're pretty much required on a missile boat if you want to be effective with anything more than precision ammo.

However, the optimal and falloff actually leads to situations where they're not useful beyond a certain range, which hinders missiles even more than flight time already does...
Now, it takes forever to hit a target, and beyond a certain range, they're not even that helpful.

Take a Golem for example..
A target painter with all skills lvl 5 is 45+90...

Sure, they help at a Golem's max range, but barely at all.


My proposal..

Give Target Painters a flat max range and the allow skills to buff that max range.
Now, you can balance TP's based on cap/fitting/range, as range doesn't seem to be a factor, currently.

With this, I will now be able to hit targets with acceptable damage at long range, instead of 45km being my max efficiency with long range missiles.

A projectile fired in space would continue on its trajectory and the same velocity until acted upon by another force.

A missile and/or craft in space would continue to gain velocity as long as the thrusters were still engaged, unless acted upon by another force.

Asteroids orbit planets and solar systems at thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of miles per hour.

Getting withing 100kms from a Sun would likely be your death.

Ships have no need to make banked turns in space.

Thrusters would be required on the front and sides of your ship in order to stop and make turns.

There is no sound in space.
No fire in space.
Size does not determine velocity or mobility in space.
Weight is a non-factor in space travel.
Larger ships = larger thrusters = equals faster acceleration = faster velocity in space.

You know, physics and stuff...

it's probably best to leave physics out of the equation when talking about Eve.

Besides, in space there is no atmosphere, which is the leading cause of light dispersion.
This is why we can see distant stars from earth, but can't see a flash light past a certain distance.
So, I'd say you're likely on the wrong end of the physics debate....

I highlighted the part that aids me on my point...

I have no idea what you're trying to say, nor where you're going with your point...

in no way has your argument invalidated my proposal, nor has it expressed why it isn't viable.

It seems to me that you've basically found a fancy way to say "No, cause it is the way it is".

• There is nothing to suggest that projectiles in EVE do not act this way, with the exception of blasters which have a clearly-stated reason to their limitation.
• There is no reason to believe that missiles do not act this way, and a ships do not operate this way because the game would be somewhere between unplayable and impossible to balance.
• Things in EVE do not orbit for two main reasons: The hardware would not be able to handle simulating the movement of thousands of planets, their POCOS, their moons, the POSes anchored in orbit around those moons... The other reason is that it would make bookmarks nigh useless.
• Getting within 100km of a star today would be your death, but we know nothing of hull, plating and shielding technologies 20,000+ years in the future. The game says you can do it so I'm going to go ahead with "in EVE it's possible."
• Ships make banked turns in space because we use a fluid dynamics model instead of a newtonian model for our physics. Planes also make banked turns in the air and nautical vessels also bank somewhat when they turn, so there's that. This is one of those "playability and fun trumps realism" times.
• The lore handled this one many years ago - EVE acknowledges that there is no sound in space, however our pods are fitted with equipment that is able to synthesize the sounds we would hear if there were sound in space. The Jovians saw to that when designing the hydrostatic pod for their own use.
• There would be fire in space if it were burning in an oxygenated environment and that burning oxygen were escaping through some manner of opening into space.
• Size doesn't, but power-to-mass ratio does.
• Specific weight isn't, but mass is.
• Larger ships = larger mass. Larger mass = more power required to accelerate. Huge engines doesn't always mean proportionately higher power - we don't know how much thrust is actually produced by the engines on an Ark or Leviathan and the engines on an Orca are actually pretty small relative to the size of the ship.

If you really want to be completely daft about the matter, then I'll just lay it out bluntly:

Target painters have a falloff distance for the same reason that ECM, Sensor dampers and all other things do: Game Balance.

Additionally, you seem to be one of the many that believe Target Painters are primarily for missiles. While they are extremely useful for missiles (to the point that a missile boat or two have painter bonuses), they are in fact primarily for turrets (specifically projectiles that always operate in falloff). Webs are much more effective when using missiles, as they keep the target from outrunning the missile's explosion velocity.

I am going to step into this one say you are both right to some degree. Real physics is ignored on some things in EVE, yet on others the game seems to follow the laws of physics. Here are a few examples.

To the OP and target painters first. Light is affect by the inverse square law and that applies even in space, link below with a more complete explanation.
Essentially what this means is that every time you double the distance light travels you decrease it's intensity by a factor of 4.
So even in real world physics the optimal range and fall off of the target painters makes sense as a less computationally intense way of accounting for this inverse square law.
Now to the deal with the laser pointed at the moon. It is this inverse square law that allows them to accurately calculate the distance between the earth and our moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Projectile weapons in space, because of the recoil affect it is hard to see how these are even possible in space. The Missouri class of battle ships in WW2 were over 700 feet long and weight more than 70,000 tons and even with the waters resistance to movement they would be driven more than 9 feet sideways if they fired a full broadside. And those were only 16" guns (a mere 406mm), imagine the forces applied if a full broadside of 1400mm (that's more than 55" folks) needed to be countered. I can think of one way to do this but in a fleet environment it would not be practical as your fleet mates may not like you shooting at them.

Staying with projectiles, there would be no such thing as optimal and fall off. Once filed the projectile would continue it's same course and speed essentially forever, or until it hit something or was redirected by a gravitational field. Even after a distance of 100,000 of thousands of kilometers when it did hit something it would deliver the same amount of energy it had just a few feet out of the muzzle end of the weapon.

So overall it is reall not a good thing to get to hung up on real world physics when you look at EVE, however as I stated in teh first part there is a real world physics reason to use as a base for the optimal range and fall off of the target painters and laser weapons.

because you are trading better application for range that is way they are better closer. Turns out you can't have your cake and eat it.


However this would be a good idea for the metaside that they are doing make more powerful painters with a lower optimal and weaker (but still stronger then the base ones in fall off) ones with a longer optimal

If optimal/falloff is still a factor, I would Opt to say that t2 is long range painting, with low falloff, at higher fitting and cap requirements.

Then you would balance the metas and t1 based off that.


That said though, missiles are designed to do equal damage across equal ranges. That and damage select are the only things they have going for them. TPs should support this, as they're the only module that aids in missile effectiveness.

Turrets can increase their range and efficiency with tracking comps and scripts.
So why is the module, that assists missiles in efficiency, designed in a way that suggests reducing range to target with a long range weapon system, in order for increased efficiency?

This would be like me telling a Tornado pilot that he's better off in brawling range with his arty cannons than he is at snip range...


I would also like to note that the long engagement time on missiles is why the Naga was made into a turret boat. If missiles are balanced at long range, then why did CCP change this ship to being a turret boat?
Might have something to do with long range missiles and their damage application(TP's) not being effective enough to fit on a glass cannon....

First off, target painters are electronic warfare modules, not damage mods. Painters increase the target's signature radius, and while this does help some for missiles, target velocity is a much bigger factor in damage application than signature radius.

Not true... i still require target painters in order to increase missile effectiveness, even if i'm shooting at a BS that is sitting still.
Target velocity is less of a factor than signature, until you start reaching high speeds.

In the same case of using a BS, and MWD is the only thing effective at increasing their velocity enough to negate missile damage. However, the MWD increases sig, which counters the effect the MWD would have in the case of a BS.

When considering a frig, the damage negation through velocity is as intended, when factoring BS class missiles. This is no different than the effects on turrets.

However, the turret will hammer a frig sitting still with max potential force, while a missile will still require TPs.


Point is, TP's are a much more effective way of increasing damage application, unless you're facing a high velocity frig, which again, is as intended.