These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Proposal: Do away with turret signature resolution stat

Author
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2014-07-03 01:10:16 UTC
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

(snip)

It introduces another issue with understanding: Why don't my guns hit some targets moving slower that my tracking while hitting others significantly faster?
Because big things are easier to hit.
Great, so what is the relevance of my tracking stat? How does it compare to anything I'm being presented in game?


Yes, it compares to angular velocity. And unlike right now, it compares the same way to angular velocity no matter what size of ship you're flying.
Actually it doesn't. That's the point. Using 100 as a normalization again, a 200mm rail gun will track a BS at much higher angular than it's stated tracking, but that frigate? Nope, hitting that is harder than suggested by it's angular compared to your tracking. How much so? Guess you need to learn the tracking formula.
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#42 - 2014-07-03 01:11:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Aebe Amraen
The issie that Tyberius brings up about hitting some things and not hitting others is a matter of sig radius and has nothing to do with my proposal. It will continue to exist after implementation of my proposal exactly as it exists now.


Suppose I'm flying along in lowsec and a frigate tackles me. My tracking is 0.2, his angular velocity is 0.1. Can I hit him?

Under the current system, it depends on what size of guns I have. If I have small guns then those numbers mean I can definitely hit him. If I have large guns then those numbers mean I probably can't.

Under my proposal, those numbers would mean the same thing no matter which size of ship you're flying. See how that makes it simpler?

Edit: Typo
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#43 - 2014-07-03 01:12:53 UTC
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
So.... what your saying is you want to nerf target painters. Because thats literally the only effect that this change would have.

And the easy to understand argument. Srsly you cant handle highschool algebra 1 and understand it? Its not hard. Im not even good at math and it seems straightforward. Try explaining to a noob how passive shield tanking works instead.


Your personal attack is appreciated, but you are wrong. This would have literally no effect on the performance of target painters, just like it would have literally no effect on anything game-mechanics wise. All it does is free us from a redundant and difficult-to-understand turret stat.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#44 - 2014-07-03 01:14:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
and then i say 'oohhhhh....now i see.'

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#45 - 2014-07-03 01:18:37 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Aebe Amraen wrote:

In this brave new world, a gun with tracking 0.1 always has better than a gun with tracking 0.05, while in our current world this may or may not be the case.

Edit: A little clarification.


right so u admit this changes how the games works. because what happens with ur proposal is that large turrets will hit frigates more easily, and small turrets wont hit battleships as easily.

'so we nerf large weapon tracking' i hear u say.

so i respond 'so its harder for them to hit targets of their own size?'

and then u say 'oohhhhh....now i see.'


No. The numbers change, but the way the game works does not change. A battleship turret that used to have 0.1 tracking might have 0.02 tracking now, but it will hit both small and large ships exactly the same way it did previously.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2014-07-03 01:19:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Aebe Amraen wrote:
The issie that Tyberius brings up about hitting other things and not hitting others is a matter of sig radius and has nothing to do with my proposal. It will continue to exist after implementation of my proposal exactly as it exists now.

Suppose I'm flying along in lowsec and a frigate tackles me. My tracking is 0.2, his angular velocity is 0.1. Can I hit him?

Under the current system, it depends on what size of guns I have. If I have small guns then those numbers mean I can definitely hit him. If I have large guns then those numbers mean I probably can't.

Under my proposal, those numbers would mean the same thing no matter which size of ship you're flying. See how that makes it simpler?
That's entirely untrue. The comparison of angular velocity to tracking will only be accurate for targets with sigs around the number you normalize at. Sufficiently smaller targets than the normalization point will NOT be able to be hit when tracking speed = angular velocity, likewise sufficiently larger targets will be able to be hit even when angular velocity is much higher than tracking speed.

In the end the uncertain part of the comparison is shifted from the guns to the target but it doesn't create a situation where the comparison tells the whole story like the idea is being billed. And to compensate accurately it still requires out of game knowledge.
Arla Sarain
#47 - 2014-07-03 01:20:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Arla Sarain
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Aebe Amraen wrote:

In this brave new world, a gun with tracking 0.1 always has better than a gun with tracking 0.05, while in our current world this may or may not be the case.

Edit: A little clarification.


right so u admit this changes how the games works. because what happens with ur proposal is that large turrets will hit frigates more easily, and small turrets wont hit battleships as easily.

'so we nerf large weapon tracking' i hear u say.

so i respond 'so its harder for them to hit targets of their own size?'

and then u say 'oohhhhh....now i see.'

His proposal is absorb the effect of turret scan res into tracking,by an amount dictated by the turret size.

Yes, as far as calculations go nothing should change. But this won't make it easier to understand.

You will still be staring at 2 different numbers, which mean jack all to you, and ponder why you can't hit a frigate that's moving slow than your tracking, when being in a frigate yourself.

Radians per second have physical meaning. Your proposal shoves this physical meaning which relates range to perpendicular velocity out of the window.


For referance https://www.flickr.com/photos/42106607@N07/14538975516/ tracking. All you need now is to approximate ratios. The product of their tracking to their turret scan res over your angular velocity times your sig. Not difficult.
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#48 - 2014-07-03 01:21:55 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Aebe Amraen wrote:
The issie that Tyberius brings up about hitting other things and not hitting others is a matter of sig radius and has nothing to do with my proposal. It will continue to exist after implementation of my proposal exactly as it exists now.

Suppose I'm flying along in lowsec and a frigate tackles me. My tracking is 0.2, his angular velocity is 0.1. Can I hit him?

Under the current system, it depends on what size of guns I have. If I have small guns then those numbers mean I can definitely hit him. If I have large guns then those numbers mean I probably can't.

Under my proposal, those numbers would mean the same thing no matter which size of ship you're flying. See how that makes it simpler?
That's entirely untrue. The comparison of angular velocity to tracking will only be accurate for targets around the number you normalize at. Sufficiently smaller targets than the normalization point will NOT be able to be hit when tracking speed = angular velocity, likewise sufficiently larger targets will be able to be hit even when angular velocity is much higher than tracking speed.

In the end the uncertain part of the comparison is shifted from the guns to the target but it doesn't create a situation where the comparison tells the whole story like the idea is being billed. And to compensate accurately it still requires out of game knowledge.


Currently, to estimate whether my guns can track a target, I need to know my tracking speed, my target's angular velocity, my target's sig radius, and my sig resolution.

Under my proposal, to estimate whether my guns can track a target, I need to know my tracking speed, my target's angular velocity, and my target's sig radius.

See how that makes it simpler?
Arla Sarain
#49 - 2014-07-03 01:24:56 UTC
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Aebe Amraen wrote:
The issie that Tyberius brings up about hitting other things and not hitting others is a matter of sig radius and has nothing to do with my proposal. It will continue to exist after implementation of my proposal exactly as it exists now.

Suppose I'm flying along in lowsec and a frigate tackles me. My tracking is 0.2, his angular velocity is 0.1. Can I hit him?

Under the current system, it depends on what size of guns I have. If I have small guns then those numbers mean I can definitely hit him. If I have large guns then those numbers mean I probably can't.

Under my proposal, those numbers would mean the same thing no matter which size of ship you're flying. See how that makes it simpler?
That's entirely untrue. The comparison of angular velocity to tracking will only be accurate for targets around the number you normalize at. Sufficiently smaller targets than the normalization point will NOT be able to be hit when tracking speed = angular velocity, likewise sufficiently larger targets will be able to be hit even when angular velocity is much higher than tracking speed.

In the end the uncertain part of the comparison is shifted from the guns to the target but it doesn't create a situation where the comparison tells the whole story like the idea is being billed. And to compensate accurately it still requires out of game knowledge.


Currently, to estimate whether my guns can track a target, I need to know my tracking speed, my target's angular velocity, my target's sig radius, and my sig resolution.

Under my proposal, to estimate whether my guns can track a target, I need to know my tracking speed, my target's angular velocity, and my target's sig radius.

See how that makes it simpler?


Sir, please.

40, 125, whatever else. Not difficult to "know" anything.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2014-07-03 01:26:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Currently, to estimate whether my guns can track a target, I need to know my tracking speed, my target's angular velocity, my target's sig radius, and my sig resolution.

Under my proposal, to estimate whether my guns can track a target, I need to know my tracking speed, my target's angular velocity, my target's sig radius, and the normalization point.


See how that makes it simpler?
Corrected, in which case the only real difference is replacing remembering the sig res of weapons with the new normalized sig number, granted a singular factor reducing numbers to deal with, but more arbitrary and IMHO much less intuitive than the current idea that a gun tracks about as well as it says it does against same sizes targets and degrades as you go down.

Edit: To be more direct, seems like it would be easier for those that already understand how it works, but harder to practically work with for those that don't, which is the group that needs the help.
Gorn Arming
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#51 - 2014-07-03 05:10:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Gorn Arming
This thread has been a goldmine of posts by people who don't understand math.

Anyway, currently we have three variables: turret sig resolution, target sig radius, and turret tracking. Fixing turret sig resolution and rolling the variability there into tracking reduces your variables to just target sig radius and turret tracking.

It's simpler to understand and changes nothing about how the game works. On the other hand, it requires some degree of developer effort and it changes nothing about how the game works.
Linkxsc162534
State War Academy
Caldari State
#52 - 2014-07-03 05:20:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Linkxsc162534
This change wouldn't make anything simpler, it jsut wouldn't work period, my jab at your lack of algebra knowledge should have pointed to your lack of actually running the numbers, so here out of the goodeness of my heart and wasting an evening of playing the videyagames (baldurs gate) I'll do the math for you.

Heres the turret damage calculation simplified for our purposes

( Vt / R * ω) * ( Sg / St)

Vt = target traversal velocity (Meters / Second)
R = range ( Meters, also could be understood as radius of a circle)
ω = tracking speed of turret ( Radians / Second, angular velocity. This times the radius gets you a m/s because radians are m/m and cancel themselves out. Literally the tracking portion of the equation is comparing the target traversal speed and a "max traversal" speed that the turret can hit)

Sg = weapon sig rez (Meters, values are 40m/125m/400m for the small med and large turret sizes)
St = target sigrad (Meters, valuse also tend towards nominal 40m/125m/400m however a sample set of merlin moa rokh gets you 39/135/500 so they do change from ship to ship)

All other parts of the equation don't matter because they are either constants (the ^2, and the .5 out front. The range/optimal-falloff part also drops out because we are assuming the guns are all firing from their optimal range.

So lets throw some numbers in there.
You said lets work with a nominal value of 100m for the weapon sig of all guns correct. So, Sg = 100m
Going on the assumption that a target is orbiting you at optimal and with perfect tracking (because we are trying to work out the effect of this new sigrad equation) Lets say Vt and R are both 1.
Our equation becomes...

1/ω * 100 / St
St is from our target ship, well roll with the average values. And now you are saying we will be changing the ω of all the guns after the change to account for the changes Sg.

Any gun shooting at a frigate after change
1/ω * 100/40 -> 100ω = 40 -> ω = .4r/s

Same gun... shooting a cruiser....
1/ω * 100/125 -> 100ω = 125 -> ω = 1.25r/s ?

Battleships?
1/ω * 100/400 -> 100ω = 400 -> ω = 4r/s ???

So, after this change.... a single gun firing at 3 different targets would have 3 different tracking speeds????????
Please sir, elaborate for me how its easier to understand for players that a gun just switches tracking speeds when you start shooting at different targets???
How do you even balance that? Theres some other values there to work with...

Range to target... well maybe if you stop shooting a frigate and start shooting a BS, he'll magically get forced back a distance to balance the equations?

Target Traversal... Maybe he'll slow down?

Target Sigrad.... well theres 1 that isn't controlled by the fight and instead is a built in stat... but well if you start shifting THOSE numbers around to fix it, youll end up with all ships having the same sigrad, missiles will be broken, and every ship and shootable structure int the game would need to be reworked to allow for this change to be viable....

That doesn't seem like good game design.

Perhaps though, the problem could be worked around by adding some kind of factor (DRF like missiles??) into the ammos themselves. But now we're starting to get kinda ridiculous, because we're just shoving the same value, into a different part of the problem.
Gigan Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2014-07-03 05:23:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Gigan Amilupar
Aebe Amraen wrote:
The issie that Tyberius brings up about hitting some things and not hitting others is a matter of sig radius and has nothing to do with my proposal. It will continue to exist after implementation of my proposal exactly as it exists now.


Suppose I'm flying along in lowsec and a frigate tackles me. My tracking is 0.2, his angular velocity is 0.1. Can I hit him?

Under the current system, it depends on what size of guns I have. If I have small guns then those numbers mean I can definitely hit him. If I have large guns then those numbers mean I probably can't.

Under my proposal, those numbers would mean the same thing no matter which size of ship you're flying. See how that makes it simpler?

Edit: Typo


I think this is the problem. It's possible that I am not entirely understanding your proposal, but from what I've seen in this thread I am of the opinion that you are mistaken about removing the stat not effecting anything. Yes, turret sig res has the same effect on turret tracking as tracking speed. But equal value in the equation does not mean they are the same, as they are applied to different things.

Tracking speed is balanced against angular/transversal velocities an so forth. Basically, if my target is orbiting me, I have more trouble hitting it then if my target was sitting stationary (assuming that my ship is not moving, as ang/trans velocity is relative between the two objects, in this case my ship and the enemy ship).

Turret signature resolution is balanced against target signature radius, a stat that is effected by ship size, TP's, whether or not they are running their MWD ect. Basically, the size of my guns vs the perceived size of the target. This allows for the addition of tracking penalty to large guns shooting at small targets, regardless of ang/trans velocity. It also allows for increased tracking of small guns vs large targets by merits of shooting a much bigger target.

So while yes, turret tracking speed and turret res have scale to the same degree of how well you can hit your target, they are balanced against different stats; with tracking speed balancing damage application in regards to movement and turret sig res balancing damage application against size. Removing turret sig res (or replacing the value with tracking speed) would essentially break the curve upon which size factors into an engagement. In the absolute best case scenario, every signature radius in the game would have to be rebalanced against the tracking modifier, which scales between 0 and 1, where as presently sig rad is balanced against turret sig res, which scales between 0 and several 1000 (for instance, lasers go 40, 125, 400 and 2000 for S,M,L and XL respectively).

This does not simplify the turret damage application equation, if anything, it makes it more complex. It essentially hamstrings the game into using the same value for two different applications, instead of using two unique but equal values to adjust for the two different measurements being taken.

But here's the kicker, you don't want to simply replace one value with the other. You want to do away with the value entirely. This means that tracking, while rebalanced, will be entirely decided upon based on ship speed and trans velocity. You would be removing the variable size factor from the equation entirely. Basically, you would be altering how the game deals with tracking on the weapon side, but not on the target side. In this scenario, a large turret would hit a stationary battleship exactly the same as a stationary frigate, where as presently, I do not believe it is possible to do this. You may hit said frigate for enough damage to one shot it, but I don't think the upper limit on how much you can hit the frigate for will ever be the same as the upper limit on the battleship (relative to weapon damage), unless the frigate is somehow sporting the same signature radius.

TL;DR Either I don't understand you/some facet of the equation, or you've missed the concept of size-relative tracking and are trying to change it to a static form of tracking which will NOT work the same as it presently does; even though tracking speed/trans velocity and sig res/sig rad scale equally into how well you hit your target.
Linkxsc162534
State War Academy
Caldari State
#54 - 2014-07-03 06:02:50 UTC
Besides, if we were to do this change, wouldn't we then have to normalize missile exp rads across the board and shovel the remainder into the exp velocity part of the equation to keep turrets and missiles balanced to eachother????


Actually as thought I've been having for a while. Since they've been claiming to want an anti-missile tracking disruptor type module.

Make a new Ewar mod that hits either turret sig resolution (makes it higher while ewared and gives poorer application) and hits missile exprad (also makes higher, hurts application)
Gorn Arming
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#55 - 2014-07-03 06:17:22 UTC
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
This change wouldn't make anything simpler, it jsut wouldn't work period, my jab at your lack of algebra knowledge should have pointed to your lack of actually running the numbers, so here out of the goodeness of my heart and wasting an evening of playing the videyagames (baldurs gate) I'll do the math for you.

Heres the turret damage calculation simplified for our purposes

( Vt / R * ω) * ( Sg / St)

Vt = target traversal velocity (Meters / Second)
R = range ( Meters, also could be understood as radius of a circle)
ω = tracking speed of turret ( Radians / Second, angular velocity. This times the radius gets you a m/s because radians are m/m and cancel themselves out. Literally the tracking portion of the equation is comparing the target traversal speed and a "max traversal" speed that the turret can hit)

Sg = weapon sig rez (Meters, values are 40m/125m/400m for the small med and large turret sizes)
St = target sigrad (Meters, valuse also tend towards nominal 40m/125m/400m however a sample set of merlin moa rokh gets you 39/135/500 so they do change from ship to ship)

All other parts of the equation don't matter because they are either constants (the ^2, and the .5 out front. The range/optimal-falloff part also drops out because we are assuming the guns are all firing from their optimal range.

So lets throw some numbers in there.
You said lets work with a nominal value of 100m for the weapon sig of all guns correct. So, Sg = 100m
Going on the assumption that a target is orbiting you at optimal and with perfect tracking (because we are trying to work out the effect of this new sigrad equation) Lets say Vt and R are both 1.
Our equation becomes...

1/ω * 100 / St
St is from our target ship, well roll with the average values. And now you are saying we will be changing the ω of all the guns after the change to account for the changes Sg.

Any gun shooting at a frigate after change
1/ω * 100/40 -> 100ω = 40 -> ω = .4r/s

Same gun... shooting a cruiser....
1/ω * 100/125 -> 100ω = 125 -> ω = 1.25r/s ?

Battleships?
1/ω * 100/400 -> 100ω = 400 -> ω = 4r/s ???

So, after this change.... a single gun firing at 3 different targets would have 3 different tracking speeds????????
Please sir, elaborate for me how its easier to understand for players that a gun just switches tracking speeds when you start shooting at different targets???
How do you even balance that? Theres some other values there to work with...

Range to target... well maybe if you stop shooting a frigate and start shooting a BS, he'll magically get forced back a distance to balance the equations?

Target Traversal... Maybe he'll slow down?

Target Sigrad.... well theres 1 that isn't controlled by the fight and instead is a built in stat... but well if you start shifting THOSE numbers around to fix it, youll end up with all ships having the same sigrad, missiles will be broken, and every ship and shootable structure int the game would need to be reworked to allow for this change to be viable....

That doesn't seem like good game design.

Perhaps though, the problem could be worked around by adding some kind of factor (DRF like missiles??) into the ammos themselves. But now we're starting to get kinda ridiculous, because we're just shoving the same value, into a different part of the problem.

Put the crayons down, because you're not ready to do algebra yet, kid.

What you've actually done is compute the tracking speed necessary to yield a constant hit probability on ships of varying signature radii (and you botched that, too, because (1/ω * 100/40 = 1) yields ω = 2.5, not 0.4) . It should not be surprising that this result varies by target signature radius--of course the tracking speed needed to generate the same hit probability is different for different sig radii. That's the whole point. You need a higher ω to achieve the same hit probability for a 40m frigate than for a 125m cruiser, all other things being equal.

In reality, the weapon tracking speed is fixed for a given ship/skill/implant/velocity/etc. combination and it is the hit probability that varies by target signature radius. But setting the expression (1/ω * 100/St) equal to a constant carries the implicit assumption that hit probability is being held constant.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2014-07-03 06:49:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Gorn Arming wrote:
This thread has been a goldmine of posts by people who don't understand math.

Anyway, currently we have three variables: turret sig resolution, target sig radius, and turret tracking. Fixing turret sig resolution and rolling the variability there into tracking reduces your variables to just target sig radius and turret tracking.

It's simpler to understand and changes nothing about how the game works. On the other hand, it requires some degree of developer effort and it changes nothing about how the game works.
It's no simpler since you have some invisible factor breaking any apparent relationship between tracking speed and angular velocity. So we replace knowing general weapon size sig res with remembering actual tracking offsets for different target sigs sizes.

The end result is functionally no better or easily understood without knowing the same things you have to know now to figure it all out now.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2014-07-03 07:16:56 UTC
The OP's maths are correct and I understand the proposal.

However, I don't like it.


With the current system, you can compare the target's angular velocity with your guns' tracking speed, if you're shooting at the 'standard target' for your gun size:

. Small turrets --> frigates
. Medium turrets --> cruisers
. Large turrets --> battleships

If you're shooting cruisers with small turrets, you know your tracking is 3x better. Likewise, if you're shooting cruisers with large turrets, you know your tracking is 3x worse.

But, even if PVP is extremely varied, most of the time you'll be shooting at the 'standard target'.


With the OP's proposal, if all signature resolutions were 'normalized' say to medium turret values (125), nothing would change for medium turrets but in, say, every frig vs. frig fight we'd have to mentally divide our small turrets' tracking by 3 to get a tracking speed that we could actually relate to the target's angular velocity as shown in the overview.

Unnecessarily complicated, imo. Especially considering that, while PVP in EVE comes in all shapes and sizes, it's safe to say that most of the time you'll be shooting at frigates with small guns, cruisers with medium guns and battleships with large guns.

Also, while some may argue it's a matter of personal taste, in this case change is bad in itself because regular PVPers are used to the current system. Casual PVPers won't understand tracking and sig res anyway, becuase there's really no easy way around it: if you're 'serious' about PVP, you have to invest some time to fully understand the maths.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2014-07-03 07:36:04 UTC
I'll just add a 'shocking fact'.

At least, it was a bit of a surprise to me, when I first realized it.


If you're in optimal range

if you're shooting at something that has the same signature radius as your guns' signature resolution

if your target's angular velocity is equal to your turrets' tracking speed

you'll be hitting for 50% damage (on average)!


To hit for 90% damage, you have to reduce angular velocity to around a third of your nominal tracking speed.


So if you want to maximise your own damage, don't orbit @500m !!!

Tracking speed should maybe be renamed 'tracking speed falloff' Big smile

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Linkxsc162534
State War Academy
Caldari State
#59 - 2014-07-03 07:39:35 UTC
Gorn Arming wrote:

Put the crayons down, because you're not ready to do algebra yet, kid.

What you've actually done is compute the tracking speed necessary to yield a constant hit probability on ships of varying signature radii (and you botched that, too, because (1/ω * 100/40 = 1) yields ω = 2.5, not 0.4) . It should not be surprising that this result varies by target signature radius--of course the tracking speed needed to generate the same hit probability is different for different sig radii. That's the whole point. You need a higher ω to achieve the same hit probability for a 40m frigate than for a 125m cruiser, all other things being equal.

In reality, the weapon tracking speed is fixed for a given ship/skill/implant/velocity/etc. combination and it is the hit probability that varies by target signature radius. But setting the expression (1/ω * 100/St) equal to a constant carries the implicit assumption that hit probability is being held constant.


.4/1 = 2.5 You basically stated the reciprocal of what I said.

But yeah, I just ran those numbers real fast with only the built in calculator (doesnt support exponents btw) on my phone while sitting in a carpool on the way home. (no excel warrioring)
Now at home with proper excel warrioring, actually the numbers come out just fine across the board, with no notable change to turret accuracy after the change.

Things to note however.
choosing a 100m as the nominal works just fine, and scanning through other nominal values of turret resolutions just makes the numbers wonky with what your new tracking should be. For example, choosing a 1m instead makes all tracking speeds terribly low, and 200m gets strange fast.

Also unless my excel warrioring is wrong, there should be no change in effect from TP sig bloom (MWDs, all that jazz), or warfare links lowering sig, between current and post change. I don't think TDs/TCs should change either, but im going to bed soon, someone else figure it


Oh well, guess its not a bad change, the math works, and meh.

Though it begs the question, where did the 40/125/400 gunrez stats come from? is this 1 of those old... back in the early days of eve before resist things (missiles still had a "shield damage" and "armor damage" stat a year or so ago that they finally got rid of I think, actually hevent checked in a while, is that still there on missiles? I think ammos had it too)

Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2014-07-03 07:46:00 UTC
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
Though it begs the question, where did the 40/125/400 gunrez stats come from? is this 1 of those old... back in the early days of eve before resist things (missiles still had a "shield damage" and "armor damage" stat a year or so ago that they finally got rid of I think, actually hevent checked in a while, is that still there on missiles? I think ammos had it too)
Easy:

. Frigates have a sig radius of around 40
. Cruisers around 125
. Battleships around 400

Destroyers and Battlecruisers are somewhere in between.

Easy, right?

That's why the OP's idea complicates things rather than simplifying them.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!