No it isn’t. Trust me, as someone who does photography, it does not work that way. You only believe it does because at sufficiently long distance the “center” of the camera covers a huge volume of space. You might be 6" to the side of the target but you can’t resolve such a small distance at low magnification from that range so you think it’s a hit. But if you zoom in far enough you now see that you’re 6" off target.
As an example, recently I was trying to shoot pictures of a rocket launch out the window of a moving plane. Even after I let my passenger take the controls so I could focus 100% of my effort on trying to line up a shot the level of zoom required to frame a decently interesting picture meant that, from ~10 miles away, even the slightest bit of shaky hands or turbulence was jerking the camera so far off target that I couldn’t see any of the launch site at all. And that’s a much larger target than a car.
And think about how turrets have limited turning speed.
I’ve already answered that. Instead of trying to keep up continuously you set an aim point ahead of the target and fire when it reaches your aim point. Artillery, with its very low rate of fire, would be able to maintain most of its overall DPS by aiming at a fixed point in the target’s orbit and firing every time it crosses that point. Rotation speed then becomes irrelevant.
Because EVE is unrealistic and has ways to quickly change that path for almost any given ship.
So math is just assuming that pilots maneuver slightly while engaged.
This is funny, bc we are talking about the game Star Wars Armada.
Some ships have a defense action called evade that takes away damage.
I assume a few things in the theater of the mind:
This isn’t a reaction that lets a large ship dodge a laser, just an abstraction of saying haha your laser missed.
These ships have guns that have to turn, manually position to aim, it’s no the ships moving to aim.
Long range is still effective range.
The evade token works at long range and doesn’t at close range (which is close enough for the ships to touch).
My statement is that this evade action should really be based on speed not distance. Here is my reasoning it’s not the distance by itself that causes the guns to inaccurately track a target but a number of variables. Since this is a table top game and we can’t do clunky calculations, I understand using only 1 variable. I would use speed bc I’d rather always aim at a slower target in my effective range, and a fast target close to you could actually be harder to hit than a fast target further away so that’s why I wouldn’t use distance.
Pretty much no one engaged with this idea. I was just get that’s stupid, it’s always better to hit a close target and everyone says they have a better chance to hit a fast close target than a slow far target.
Except even when you don’t change that path the shots still miss. Seriously, stop trying to explain it in realistic terms. EVE has the damage math that it uses because of game balance, in reality a battleship would obliterate that frigate in a single shot at close range but it wouldn’t be balanced so CCP set the hit chance to zero.
But of course, in real life you can still hit that ship with even perfectly stationary guns and a good calculator, if the ship’s trajectory is predictable and periodic or, as one poster mentioned, make your turret even move in opposite spin. However, we’re talking within the limits of the Eve mechanics, and the case of speed tanking principles.
Personally i’d opt for flechettes or grape shot if that sucker rotates too fast, just to be sure.
If you consider simplification of game mechanics a balance reason, then sure.
Requiring pilots to constantly change their course ever so slightly to fool prediction is probably too much for a game.
There are two factors at play when taking a shot. The first factor is precise you have to aim in order to hit the target. In this case, the closer the target is the easier it is to hit because it takes up a larger portion of the field of view.
The second is how long it takes you to adjust your aim to hit a target that takes up that FoV. To aim, you have to see the target, register where it is, move your gun or whatever to that position, and all the while your target is moving to a new position. If it does this fast enough, by the time you’ve positioned your weapon for the attack, you would miss and have to aim all over again. When at close range, a lot more movement is required of the gunner to make these adjustments, and more movement takes more time, which gives the target more time to get out of the way of your shot once you line it up.
Of course, in real life ship’s trajectory would be predictable, at least in short term, since ships commonly move at very high speeds and their trajectory-changing opportunities are very limited. And of course, in real life opposing ships would not be actually so close to one another, as they are in EVE.
EVE has differences from real life. One of them is that maneuvering does not actually cost anything. But that makes for a bad gameplay (because you need to mash buttons randomly to get less damage in battle), so it is assumed that all ships change their course constantly, and trajectory prediction can be done only roughly.
Tell them to imagine the turret on a tank trying to hit a running man in a field. There is a maximum speed the turret can turn at. Now, if the man is running around 200 yards away you can easily keep following him however he moves. And you’ve got the range to get a shell there.
If he’s up close he can run around the tank faster than your big gun can follow him.
So then you fit a machine gun on a mount which can turn quicker. You can hit him close up now because you can more easily follow him. But you may not have the accuracy to hit him a long way away.
The whole “how fast I can move my gun to keep it aligned to a moving target”, allowing for a big person is a more obvious target than a small person (and probably not as fast) is what tracking is all about.
Some turrets are faster than others, but they normally trade off something.
Optimum and Falloff are really all about how far the gun forest accurately - which it table top gaming is normally the main consideration - depending on the rule set.
No, they’re not. Your logic is ■■■■. If you’re shooting a stationary target, sure, the closer you’re to it, the better (assuming it’s not a scoped rifle). If the target is MOVING, the farther away - up to gun’s effective range -, the less important his speed (relative to the Earth). The perceived momentum is greater the closer the target is from the damn shooter. The farther he is, the lesser his speed relative to shooter. Easy as ■■■■ to understand and yet you keep on babbling ■■■■■■■■.
Which, again, does not do what you think it does. If you are shooting at an orbiting target that is too fast to track with continuous fire you hold your shot, aim at the point in space they’re going to pass through on the next pass, and hit them when they come around again.
That is not what I said. Please read and try again.
if that sucker rotates too fast, just to be sure.