Source
r/Stellaris•
Someone3

PSA: Patch 1.1.0 also seems to have changed the accuracy/evasion formula

I just tested out accuracy in patch 1.1.0 by ramming identical corvette fleets at each other and I'm getting unexpected results. Using level 1 sensors to avoid the sensor accuracy buffs I tested small plasma throwers (82% accuracy) and got the following:

corvettes with 40% evasion: 51% hit rate

corvettes with 20% evasion: 75% hit rate

corvettes with 5% evasion: 94% hit rate

With small lvl1 coil guns (76% accuracy)

corvettes with 5% evasion: 93% hit rate

The new formula seems to be: Hit% = (Accuracy - Evasion) / Accuracy.

Edit: It may have always been this way but with the 100% accuracy bug we never noticed because it was dividing by 1 most of the time.

Edit2: I just opted out of the patch beta to test it again with level 1 sensors and this does seem to be a change in the formula.

Posted May 27, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC · edited

57156
juliandark•

so no evasion = 100% accuracy? weird formula

17
Andy06r•

Why is that weird? You aren't moving

35
FateNight•

Remembering a drill instructor yelling to his students on citadel in mass effect about one of Newtons' Laws.

Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space! (...) I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty! Once you fire this hunk of metal, it keeps going 'till it hits something! That can be a ship, or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years.

No hip-firing in space =)

26
Ajanissary•

Judging by how often my science ships get hit by stray mass projectile rounds there is quite a lot of hip firing in space.

23
Hyndis•

The accuracy of my own ships is often just as appalling.

Who made that man a gunner?!

11
akeean•

First League used Corvette Swarms :)

1
EnergetixDJ•

This needs to be a special project. City gets hit by a stray torpedo. Lose a pop. Get a science project for torpedo.

3
MnkyMgcOeai•

There is a special event similar to this already, no losses but a very small science bonus. Definitely a mass effect reference.

1
juliandark•

That does make some sense, but is confusing that you have "accuracy" and most people understand it that it's like a "chance to hit an unmoving target". At least I do.

13
Aekiel•

To put it in a more sci-fi appropriate way, each ship's computer calculates the probable vectors the target could take and then fires at the most likely possibility. This is the accuracy. Evasion is the ability of the target to manoeuvre into the least likely vector. 0 Evasion therefore means that the targeting computer has a pretty much perfect model of what the ship can do to evade, and therefore knows where best to aim to achieve a hit.

So it's not that the ship isn't moving, it's that you're trying to evade a shot that is already moving to where you're going to evade to. It's also a neat explanation for why sensors improve accuracy; they give a more detailed view of the ship's capabilities and position/current vector. Makes for better targeting.

28
Sithrak•

This. We are assuming they use advanced targeting computers in space, not that they aim manually.

13
Andy06r•

It's definitely a bad label.

The current formula is closer to how EVE does it, where accuracy is listed as "tracking" - it measures the degrees of a circle that the gun can trace in a unit of time. Moving twice as fast puts your accuracy at 0%, and being stationary just rocks you - talking battleships instant killing corvettes.

In Stellaris's case, the math isn't as clean. If 1 - {Evasion} / {Accuracy} is > {Accuracy} you do worse. The opposite means you do better.

17
meowskywalker•

What's the word that means "ability to hit an evasive target"? Because, yes, a computer is definitely doing all the targeting, so an immobile target, or a target traveling on a calculable path, is going to be hit every time. It doesn't have to guess how far to lead a target. It just figures how fast the ship is going, calculates how fast their weapon fires, and then aims their shot exactly at the spot where they will meet. With no evasion, they will hit every time.

1
RealZeratul•

Unless the weapon itself has some inherent inaccuracy. Autocannons might have tiny imbalances in the projectiles, and heat and powder residue can affect the barrel. Plasma will be affected by magnetic fields, will disperse and might form turbulences.

Of course there is a distance where you will hit a stationary target of a given size in 99.9% of all cases, but why not try to engage from further away, and risk 20% of your shots to miss?

3
williamfbuckleysfist•

It makes no sense, but your explanation is correct

0
williamfbuckleysfist•

It's definitely weird, even if you aren't moving certain weapons are inaccurate.

2
Andy06r•

Not on space. No wind, no gravity. Weapons in space should be hitscan and be point and shoot. Your computer might point it the wrong way though.

3
mrtherussian•

This also assumes that weapons are perfectly constructed, perfectly calibrated, perfectly maintained, perfectly integrated with the targeting and firing systems, that nothing controlling the shot breaks or malfunctions, that the programmers of the computer made no errors, etc. There are a thousand reasons why it makes sense for less than 100% hit rate on an unmoving target, even in space.

7
williamfbuckleysfist•

The thing is everything is still moving in space even if there is no air resistance there certainly still is gravity. You would definitely need a computer to target things accurately. Or a very fast little alien man.

1
Glucose98•

No. No evasion = 100% hit rate. Accuracy != hit rate.

(Accuracy - Evasion) / Accuracy is actually somewhat interesting. If you have no evasion, you get hit at 100% with every possible weapon.

If you're a highly evasive target, then lower accuracy weapons are penalized more than highly accurate weapons as the evasion is going to make up a bigger portion of their accuracy. This also lets accuracy values of greater than 100% make sense. It just means the evasion values take up a smaller chunk.

9
vodkaholicHuman•

So what we're really talking about is that it currently makes no sense for the game to display "accuracy" or "evasion" values as a percentage because it's misleading as balls.

3
KerbalFactorioLeague•

Plus it's confusing when you see "Evasion = x%", and an admiral that adds 10% evasion, and the result isn't "Evasion = (x+10)%"

1
Valiantheart•

Does evasion affect missile accuracy as well?

8
taggedjc•

Missiles have 100% accuracy regardless, since they are self-propelled and aim themselves, unlike bullets or lasers. Their weakness is that they can be shot down with Point Defense.

24
finder787Reptilian•

shot down with Point Defense

And fighters.

Which is hilarious.

10
Kiloku•

It's a trope. I remember nerve-wracking missions in Freespace 2 where I was boosting at maximum afterburners, all power in engines, to shoot down a missile/bomb before it hit some ship I was escorting.

29
barack_ibama•

True, I recall Battlestar Galactica also has several scenes where the Vipers were ordered to shoot at Cylon missiles launched towards the colony ships.

9
runetrantorEmperor•

Ah, Freespace 2, what a great game.

I can still see in my mind that technicolor soup that was the nebula.

4
beeprog•

The Pegasus was great for that, what a fighter.

2
akeean•

Yep, that was awesome.

1
Rurutie•

Why? Fighters in space can be as fast as missiles. The only problem is acceleration, not speed (unless you hit something).

6
salvation122•

You can safely accelerate a couple slugs of barely-subcritical plutonium a hell of a lot harder than you can a living, thinking hunk of meat.

3
Evil4Zerggin•

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6H_cflk1E

1
youtubefactsbot•

DCS : Anti-Anti-Ship-Missile [Su33] [13:32]

★Changing up a tiny bit from usual DCS missions. Today, we are on a mission to strike down cruising Harpoon ASM using the Su33. Result is slightly unexpected.

^Luftangreifer ^in ^Gaming

^43,116 ^views ^since ^Sep ^2015

^bot ^info

2
Turin_The_MormegilMolluscoid•

Clearly the fighters are piloted by Fox McCloud and Slippy Toad.

1
Jkjklkl•

Does PD shoot at all missiles in range, or only at missiles targeting the ship the PD is on?

1
AppeaseTheComet•

All missiles in range

6
ikkonoishi•

Fortunately the solution to point defense is more missiles.

1
PPL_93•

Missiles have 100% accuracy regardless

In my current playthrough I've equipped all ships with just missiles since they have the highest DPS, 100% accuracy AND they bypass shields completely. I don't see why you'd put anything else on your ships unless you lack the tech...?

Edit: They also have the greatest range by far.

1
taggedjc•

Only Torpedos pierce shields; regular missiles do not.

Torpedos are slower so are more vulnerable to Point Defense.

3
yourfalseprophet•

Because AI point defense

1
PPL_93•

Hmm. Okay.

1
Someone3OP•

No, missiles are a guaranteed hit unless you have point defense weapons. But PD is really powerful and can easily render missiles useless.

4
PurpleMentat•

PD defaults to 40% accuracy. With sensors fixed, it is much weaker than it used to be.

10
Someone3OP•

It seems like PD one shit kills missiles including the supposedly anti-pd swarm missiles. It may have a 40% accuracy but it has a 0.9 second cool down so each PD battery should kill enough to 100% counter:

~2.5 missiles

~1.1 swarm missiles

~3.7 torpedoes

11
AadeeMoien•

The swarm missiles are anti-pd because there are enough in the swarm that some get through, not because they are pd proof on their own.

10
lifelongfreshman•

From what I can tell, that 40% accuracy seems to be their accuracy when used on other ships, because of course point defenses can be used to shoot down ships. However, their accuracy against missiles seems to be 100%.

Or maybe I just assume it is, because they fire fast enough. I'm really not sure, but I do feel they're currently too strong versus missiles. Makes them something of a noob trap at the moment, which is something I hate.

1
0xE6•

one shit

Oh so that's how point defense works, all the dudes on the ship take turns defecating out a special hatch.

0†
Hyndis•

True, it is much weaker than it used to be, but even a single PD gun on a ship can negate a very large percentage of incoming missiles. Trading a single small weapon hardpoint to take about 50% less missile damage? Thats a great trade for me. Sucks for the guy using missiles.

1
Cazador0•

That still will hit 100% of the time if missiles have an evasion of 0.

1
Gen_McMuster•

What if you use more missiles? My torpedo cruisers loaded up with small and medium torpedoes were able to ruin the days of empires that carried point defense.

It seems to mitigate but not 100%

3
Hyndis•

PD scales faster than just installing more missiles. 1 PD mount can negate missiles from multiple launchers. A PD mount also uses a small mount and it can shoot down medium and large missiles just fine.

1
Someone3OP•

You really do need a much larger number of missiles vs PD to be effective. And small missiles should be better than large because each one is a separate target for PD but I haven't tested that.

1
I_go_by_Ronin•

Wait, missiles are hard coded to 100% accuracy? I didn't know this.

1
Someone3OP•

It's not something the game tells you. It just lists it as 100% accuracy and leaves it to you to figure out that it means something different for missiles.

5
temotodochi•

No. 100% hit ratio without point defence.

0
Andy06r•

So S/M/L weapons are often 2x and 4x better.

But that assumes the listed accuracy happens. The big cannons will do even worse against small, fast targets but actually outperform the smalls on larger targets (where they all converge to ~95% accuracy)

3
Rhelae•

In fact, if you're up against a big battleship (or even some cruisers) with 0% evasion, accuracy makes no difference. Your attacks will all hit the bigger ships since

(x - 0) / x = x / x = 1

So basically, the largest weapons that do much more damage are more useful. It doesn't matter that those tachyon lances have lower accuracy, they're guaranteed to hit and do more damage against targets with no evasion.

In other words... You want different tactics for small ships and big ships. Which is good! A mixture of ships that are designed to take out high-evasion corvettes and ships designed to take on low-evasion battleships is best. For example, ships with mass drivers that fire more shots in a given time period will hit more times in that time period, so they're best against corvettes. But you want some heavy hitters against those slow-moving battleships that can tear a hole in your planet with a single blast (just kidding, those don't exist in Stellaris... yet).

2
Someone3OP•

Even with the thruster nerf a battleship with a defensive computer and level4 thrusters should have 10% evasion before any admiral bonus.

1
Rhelae•

True - but a battleship with an offensive computer will have 0%. And in a mixed fleet, that might well be worth it to have an extremely heavy hitter!

1
MaievSekashi•

Sounds more worth it to have a big cannon than a slightly bigger cannon that gets blown to fuck.

1
agtkMolluscoid•

What I would love is to give either ship types or fleets or specific ships within a fleet a "targeting priority" so if they have ships in range of multiple types, you can tell them to target smaller ships first, or larger ships first, or perhaps a specific ship type. I'd also like to give certain corvettes the instruction to "protect battleships" or "protect cruisers" or "engage fighters"

1
Rhelae•

Yeah, this is what we need really to make strategies like this viable. As u/MaievSekashi pointed out above, it's more worth it at the moment to have one big cannon that can survive than an even bigger cannon that gets destroyed very quickly.

But if you could have a set of battleships with the biggest weapons and aggressive computers, set to target other battleships, and some corvettes and maybe destroyers with a setting to attack anything attacking that battleship... That's strategic combat.

And I feel like this would be fairly straightforward to accomplish! Have it as a setting per class of ship, like combat computers. You set a single target preference, and if that preference isn't a valid target, they just use whatever logic they currently use to decide who to attack.

2
Someone3OP•

Actually, running some quick numbers on plasma cannons shows the large ones should do about 8% more damage to 10% evasion than 4x the small ones. Vs 40% evasion the large weapons are dealing 0.5% less. And that's with zero accuracy buffs. The 6% accuracy buff from the level 4 sensors should push that -0.5% to +1.5%. Of course admirals would boost that 40% evasion higher but unless you're going against pure corvettes I'd say large is probably the way to go.

1
TrueBlue84•

So what exactly does this mean going forward? Should we start using bigger ships now?

3
Someone3OP•

Yeah. I haven't actually tested proper fleets to see what works but I'd say corvette spam is officially dead.

3
TrueBlue84•

I'm just wondering if they have a place in the game as meatshields still or do you just want big ships all day now.

2
Questionablechoice•

well I tested a 20k fleet of only corvettes vs a mixed fleet of 20K and the mixed fleet edged it out by 4K (2 Battle cruisers 1 massively damaged). So they seems viable but once the big fleet started to turn the tide it avalanched very quickly.

I suspect if I ran a 100 simulation you would see bigger swings in the corvette success but a more linear swing in the mixed fleet.

The big advantage was some of the corvettes get 1 shot by the weapons I had so this effectively completely removed there fire power. Which all things being equal should work this way.

However if one of the big targets went down earlier I could see this swinging in reverse much the same.

As an initial assessment I would say you need to exceed to win with only corvette and they won't win in an even power contest.

I was using mass drivers III shield III and engines III with shields II and reactor III for this test.

5
agtkMolluscoid•

One advantage corvettes have over bigger ships is that they may "waste" some DPS of the opposing fleet as it takes some time between many of the weapons being fired and impacting their target. I haven't tested it myself, but you can imagine that 20 tachyon lances being fired at the same time against the same corvette is going to waste a bunch of DPS, as it would only need 4-5 of them to actually destroy the corvette reliably. It's possible the ship AI knows when enough DPS has been dished out against a target and changes targets prematurely, but I don't think it does. However, it's possible these advantages are nullified by the time it takes for the smaller ships to close the gap and get in range of the larger. But this is why you probably want at least some smaller ships and other ships with smaller weapons to deal with missile spam (afaik no battleships will even be able to carry PD in the future) and fighters/bombers.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Andy06r•

Target priority rules mean they tend to get shot at first.

Guns acquire a target, and then change target with weightings. The previous target has a weight to anchor the model.

Many of the ships in this game will lock onto the first thing they see, and only change after it dies.

2
frogandbanjo•

It seems like the battle AI I've seen in beta still highly prefers to target smaller ships first, which means that enough corvettes could serve as a meat shield. The question is whether it's still cost/time effective to keep cranking them out instead of transitioning to larger ships.

The real problem is still destroyers and cruisers, because I have no idea what their roles are supposed to be in the vanilla game. In my personal-use mod I'm playing around with having destroyers be H/K vessels with higher non-combat speed and sensor range, and cruisers be proportionally well-armored, high-rate-of-fire, in-combat distance closers. That at least gives them some unique role, even if ultimately I can't make those roles work.

2
axiomshift•

For destroyers they are useful later on in the game as tachyon lance sniper type deals with some backup smalls depending on enemy fleet, works out pretty well for wearing down the enemy fleet before getting into knife fighting range, generally have a raiding fleet or two of those and some pd vettes for harrying much stronger opponents than me. Major use of them is that they are easier to bust out with low level spaceports and still have a large weapon slot if you want those. Besides that I just use battleships for aura/brawling range support and vettes with pd for distractions/brawling range. Cruisers I just don't know what they could be used for really. They are in a awkward spot of not being as useful as a battleship and not being as combat/cost effective as a destroyer/corvette.

1
aztecraingod•

Any design ideas for bigger ships? I don't even know where to start.

1
agtkMolluscoid•

You have three main kinds: (A) artillery battleships that sit back and shoot from afar. These are like the Tachyon Lance ships that many FEs employ, though they can use certain kinetic weapons very well to tear down ships with less armor. (B) carriers (actually useful now) to spam out those little guys can do a ton of damage. Then (C) hulking tanks that emphasize shield regen over more powerful weapons and use closer range and accurate weapons to be more of the front-line battleships. You'll probably also want some PD-focused cruisers to sit with your battleships (maybe with one long-range large weapon to keep them back).

3
Wild_Marker•

Wait, sensor buff? What sensor buff? Is that listed anywhere? I haven't seen it.

3
Someone3OP•

Sensors have an accuracy buff of +2% for level 2, +4% for level 3 and +6% for level 4. I think prior to this patch it wasn't visible on the tooltip when choosing your sensor but it is now.

3
GeneralVeek•

Prior to this patch it was 200%, 400%, and 600%. (Essentially giving you max accuracy, always)

1
Gilad1Autocrat•

Nice find and very interesting. I imagine it was an oversight but very odd on why that dividing would even be included. It seems to work well on most examples however when you get to the extremes on the low end it gets really funky. Only way I can think of this as intended behavior is if it's designed that way to account for bigger masses since practically speaking you'd only expect the big ships to have that low level of evasion so it's designed to simulate those shots that would normally miss hitting the huge mass that are those bigger ships.

2
artisticMink•

There goes my 60% evasion corvette fleet.

2
srasmus4•

Could you do a test where you mod a weapon to have >100% Accuracy in the game files and see if the game treats it as its actual value or if it rounds it down to 100 when calculating hit chance. It would be nice to know for modding.

2
Someone3OP•

Uhhh... It seems to have some odd effects. I just tested a 6000% accuracy bonus vs corvettes with 40 evasion. Instead of getting 51% hit rate I was getting 60% indicating it's capped at 100% accuracy but it also said the evasion rate was 60%, which doesn't make any sense because 60% + 60% = 120%?????

2
Athunc•

I was hoping they would go for the following, but I am happy with this as well.

Hit%= 100% - inaccuracy*(1+Evasion bonus)

Inaccuracy is obviously 100%-accuracy

That way, the old evasion levels were actually balanced and even against 0% evasion, inaccurate weapons sometimes miss. Evasion just increases inaccuracy by multiplying it.

1
barack_ibama•

Hit%= 100% - inaccuracy*(1+Evasion bonus) Inaccuracy is obviously 100%-accuracy

Wouldn't it then simply Hit% = accuracy * (1+Evasion bonus) ?

1
gunnerviFungoid•

No, not quite:

Hit% = 100% - Inaccuracy*(1+Evasion)

Hit% = 100% - (100% - Accuracy)*(1+Evasion)

Hit% = Accuracy*(1+Evasion) - (100% * Evasion)

Hit% = Accuracy - Inaccuracy*Evasion

2
Athunc•

Correct, and I like the formula

     Hit% = Accuracy - Inaccuracy*Evasion

It's more clear than my apparently somewhat confusing version.

1
BureMakutte•

Yours would allow hit% values above 100, and your combining an evasion stat with an accuracy stat which doesn't make sense. His formula with brackets would be 100% - ((100% - accuracy)*(1+evasion bonus)) which is not the same as what you described. Both formulas have issues though because for example an 80% accuracy weapon against a 30% evading ship, only reduces the hit% to 74% which is far to little of a change. With your numbers it would be a 104% chance to hit which goes the opposite way of what evasion should do.

Honestly the formula should be Hit% = accuracy / (1+Evasion bonus), which in the above example would result in a hit % that is 61.5%.

Edit: This formula has issues as well (like having 100% evasion only just reduces their accuracy by 1/2). Honestly, evasion values should of just been fixed and the old simple formula should of stayed.

2
Athunc•

Yes, I do think that the overall accuracy of all weapons would have to be lowered by 20% to make my formula work with these weapons. 80% accurate weapons would simply be very accurate and not very susceptible to evasion.

I like your formula except that it means that the accuracy of your weapons no longer determines your susceptibility to evasion, it just lowers damage per second overall.

1
Athunc•

No, you always multiply terms before adding terms (unless parenthesis)

So in short: 100% - ((100%-accuracy)*(100%+Evasion bonus))

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Mouon•

What are the implications for gameplay and shipbuilding?

1
Someone3OP•

I did some testing and it seems pure battleships beats mostly everything. Destroyers can mount 1 large weapon, cruisers can mount 2 and battleships can mount 6. That tilts things heavily in favor of the battleships when you consider the powerful large only weapons. This is on a fleet capacity basis. Looking at it on a maintenance basis I designed some destroyers which I could afford 4.4 for each battleship and the beat the battleships.

Lastly, considering fortresses are now only ~42.9% of what they used to cost in maintenance I expect you could make a quite cost effective defense if you put a fortress in a system with a fleet positioned on top of it. The ftl snare would help to reduce the effect of that first tachyon lance volley which is quite devastating. Of course that's only if the snared ships target everything equally instead of hitting the station first and then the defending fleet.

1
Mouon•

pure battleships beats mostly everythin

That would be a problem. It should be a balance that works best.

1
axiomshift•

Battleships can beat mostly everything if you can afford your max ship cap in them. Otherwise its destroyers doing damage with some pd vettes to be safe if using shields and a battleship or two on aura duty for cost effectiveness.

1
Mouon•

Thats unbalanced. It should be that you need all ship types, in a balance, supplementing eachother.

1
gr4vediggr•

Also, I noticed that the accuracy bug is still there, I think. Using some crystal shard throwers (65% accuracy, with the best sensors + 6%), adds to a total of 71%. Against corvettes with the basic engines, I got 95% hit ratio.

0
Someone3OP•

No, that's the result of the new formula I'm talking about. (0.71 - 0.05) / 0.71 = 0.93.

3
gr4vediggr•

On the forums, it has been confirmed that the following is the case:

Hmm.

So.. accuracy|evasion:

100|100 = 0 chance to hit

0|100 = -100 (0) chance to hit

100|0 = 100 chance to hit

50|50 = 0 chance to hit

Confirmed.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/beta-patch-1-1-0-clarke-released-checksum-b938-not-for-problem-reports.937741/page-20#post-21274147

Edit: it also wouldn't make sense if you suddenly start hitting more than the accuracy rating of your weapon. That means that your enemies move into your shots on purpose.

0
Someone3OP•

Those 4 figures you've quoted don't disprove my statement about the new formula, they fit my math apart from the divide by 0 if you somehow have a base accuracy of 0 but I'm assuming the devs are checking for that. Also, if you'd read my post properly you'd see you ARE hitting more than the accuracy rating of your weapon. I actually tested it in game using the debug commands. Weapons with 82% accuracy were hitting 94% of their shots vs corvettes with 5% evasion.

5
gr4vediggr•

I'm sorry, you are right!

I tested the crystal shard throwers with 75% accuracy against a station. Stations have 0 evasion.

The result was indeed a 100% hit rate.

This means that your formula is most likely correct.

At the same time, I started thinking a bit more about the implications of this. If a target is indeed unable to evade, computers far in the future should be quite capable of hitting it, no matter the accuracy of the weapon. However, if the target is very nimble, less accurate weapons should have more trouble hitting the target.

However, with the nerf to evasion, this means that previously 40% evasion vs 75% accuracy was 35% hit rate, and now its only 47% hit rate. So corvettes are doubly nerfed.

1
dragonfang12321•

If the formula is accuracy-evasion = chance to hit. That's a bad formula.

Really should be % to hit = Accuracy * (100-evasion)

25% to hit = 50% accuracy * (100%- 50%)evasion

So off the (A%) shots to hit you evade E%. So 50|50 needs to be a 25% chance to hit not 0. Otherwise 50% evasion is really 100% evasion which makes no sense.

-2
gr4vediggr•

I agree. That would make the most sense indeed.

OPs formula could also work though. It clearly demonstrates that if a target is bad at evading, even if a weapon is quite inaccurate, it will still hit it.

Lets look at the following examples, I attack a stationary target (starport, or something) using a lower accuracy weapon, say 75%. The target cannot evade.

Using your formula A*(1-E), I get 75% hit ratio.

Using A-E, I get 75%.

Using OPs formula, I get 100% hit ratio. (Also observed in game, so OP is correct)

From a lore perspective, it would be quite strange that we cannot hit a stationary target accurately. We are currently able to hit stationary target better on earth where there is all kinds of atmospheric effects. (And before you say, in space nothing is stationary. Orbital mechanics is very predictable, see missions to the asteroids for example).

Thus OPs formula makes quite a lot of sense. However, the numbers are not intuitive for the players. And corvettes got doubly nerfed.

5
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1