Gallente Weapons Missing Targets


(Cyvain Eytherrannia) #1

I have come across a bug on a newly made Gallente character my partner has been playing during the tutorial missions so far. When taking on various different ships the railgun 75mm is missing the targets sometimes burning through ammo yet the same type of ship it is taking out within 2 or 3 shots. We have even tried using a stasis webifier on those targets despite the tutorial missions not having given one out at the point this issue was found and this made no difference. I am aware usually when shots miss it is a range or tracking issue but as I have said earlier in this post it is randomly doing so with the same target type and other times the same target type is gone in 2 or 3 shots. Restarting the guns at this point also does not get it out of this long period of missing shots. This takes the fun out of doing security missions and is quite off putting.

(Quelza) #2

Are you using Orbit or Keep At Range? If so, to what distance?

What speed are you traveling?

(Cyvain Eytherrannia) #3

Orbiting at 1,000m and speed 258 m/s approx. without afterburner and faster when using afterburner as this has been tested also.

(erg cz) #4

Railguns are not for close orbiting. Use blasters instead. There are ships, like tristan or Algos, where 75 mm will be able to hit the target on low orbit and low speed, but you want to use pulse laser, blaster or autocannons on close orbiting and raliguns, beam lasers and artillery at larger distance orbit. With some exceptions, but basic rule is like that.

(Cyvain Eytherrannia) #5

Ah ok, so railguns dont work so well once you get close then.

(Cyvain Eytherrannia) #6

However during the tutorial it teaches you to orbit and then shoot therefore you will be orbiting at the default orbiting range. Which is not even within the falloff range for the blasters. So that would mean no guns would work at the default orbiting range which you would not know how to change when first learning to play as it doesn’t teach you.

(Wander Prian) #7

The tutorial teaches you the very basics of Eve. How to move, how to shoot, etc. That’s what a tutorial is supposed to do. Your job is to expand upon the lessons from the tutorial and learn new things, just just follow what the tutorial said to the T without ever trying anything else.

(Anderson Geten) #8

that’s not correct.

What is important is angular speed. When you move in a direction, and the target moves in his own direction, you can subtract one to the other to get the difference speed.
The thing is, when you orbit something, actually that thing avoids you at that speed. The concept of angular speed is wrong in Eve because actually the game engine does not know you are orbiting : to him you are going in straight lines, doing changes of direction every second so as to be almost at range.

In all, when you orbit something, the game considers it also orbits you at the same speed. railguns can’t track something that orbits you close, so they can’t track something that YOU orbit close. you need to web yourself to track it.

I know, this is very stupid.

(Quelza) #9

Through multiple iterations, no one has ever accused CCP of designing a competent tutorial.

Broadly speaking, turret weapons have an optimal range wherein they theoretically apply maximum damage, and a falloff range where the damage drops of dramatically. These ranges are affected by multipliers inherent to your choice of ammunition. Turrets also have to track their target, and their tracking speed determines how well they can keep up and apply damage adequately to a faster target. If a target has a high tansversal velocity by orbiting close and fast “under your guns”, they get harder to hit.

Short-range weapon systems generally have higher tracking speeds. For some reason, both Caldari and Gallente start with a longe-range Civilian-grade weapon. If you hover your cursor over the weapon icon you’ll get a tooltip that displays, among other things, your optimal range. Rule of thumb is to set your orbit distance slightly shorter than your optimal (to account for times when you overshoot your orbit due to speed). You can right-click the Orbit or Keep At Range icons in the Selected Item Panel to get an option to change the default range.

(mkint) #10

It’s only sort of a range issue. As long as you are within optimal range you can potentially do full damage. However at closer ranges, tracking becomes more of an issue. The tutorials don’t effectively teach tracking, and CCP has taken efforts to make it even harder to understand tracking.

Short answer, most weapons function best right at their optimal range. The slower the orbit, the better your guns will hit the target. (Orbit and Keep at Range are in some ways the same thing, in that they try to hold you at a certain distance from your target. You could think of Keep at Range being an orbit with no orbit speed, so should create the most ideal conditions to hit your target.)

(Anderson Geten) #11

such a claim needs to be backed.

(Quelza) #12

Lot of people were dissatisfied when CCP decided to streamline the tracking stat. Less specific information available to the pilot means less informed piloting decisions, at least until you get a “feel” for the new system.

Jury’s out on whether it was a net positive or negative change.

(Anderson Geten) #13

That is not “make the effort to set it harder”. The formula has not changed, only the presentation has changed to remove the useless turret signature optimal. Now every turret has the same optimal sig (100km ?) which means you can easily compare the tracking of turrets.

CCP made changes, and people are pissed because they need to learn to play with those changes. Yet this does not mean the game is “harder to understand”.

(Quelza) #14

I was referring more to the change from the “rad/sec” tracking values to the unit-less “Turret Tracking” value. Personally, I feel that it’s less intuitive. It facilitates comparison, yes, but it isn’t as easy to use in the heat of the moment to make informed moment-to-moment piloting decisions.

But like I said, jury’s still out.

(Buggs LeRoach) #15

what does turret signature optimal mean ? every turret optimal sig is the same , what does that mean ?

i liked the old display in radians , which could be checked against your weapon’s stats to determine hit chance , and directly correlated to the overview columns for relative speed / angular velocity etc . to another ship . the new tracking numbers are useful only for comparing guns to one another , nothing related to actually applying damage …

(mkint) #16

Are you kidding? Tracking and angular velocity used to be directly comparable. A 1:1 comparison. The claim “now you can compare turrets of different sizes” is the most retarded excuse ever. You NEVER have to make a decision between turret sizes. If you do, you’re an idiot trying to fit under-sized, unbonused guns. It’s like “oh, now we have a metric to compare apples to oranges. They are both spherical.” Nobody has EVER needed to compare apples to oranges, nobody has EVER said “should I make my apple pie out of oranges?” No, it’s “what kind of apples do I need to use?” And the fake-tracking-stat shits all over that. Especially since the ACTUAL stat that ACTUALLY matters was completely removed from the client. Now players are required to load up 3rd party apps to figure out what their guns ACTUALLY do. The client should never lie. Now it does.

(Anderson Geten) #17

NO they don’t, and they never were. Are YOU kidding me ?
Just because you compared your weap tracking to your target angular speed does not mean you were using it correctly.

The signature of target has always been taken into the formula.
Your turret accuracy has always been turret_tracking/target_angular*target_sig/turret_sig. if it is 1, you have 50% chance to hit. if it is 2, you have 90% ; if it is 0.5, you have 10%.

The ONLY thing they made was modify the values so that every turret has the same turret_sig. so NOW you can compare tracking of turrets just by using ingame compare tool, which was not before. Besides that, everything else is the same.

(mkint) #18

Of course they were. At least as a starting point. Now there is no starting point. No “this is my tracking, adjust for target size.” Now it’s “that arbitrary meaningless number I need to modify to get something resembling the actual tracking speed so I can now compare it to angular velocity and now I can adjust for target size.” It’s a ridiculous, meaningless joke of a number. There is nothing to compare the ■■■■■■■■ number to, no common ground, no way of really telling if you have any chance of hitting moment to moment.

(Anderson Geten) #19

There was NEVER this value. because this value depends on target sig.
you always had to make the same math to get the overall hit chance.

(mkint) #20

Maye you just sucked at using it?