These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2014-07-03 17:13:13 UTC
Ashley Animus wrote:
How about this to explain it.

Devide the tracking by its signature and you find the Absolute tracking value.

An Electron Blaster Cannon with 0.075 rad/s and a signature of 400.
0.075 / 400 = 0,0001875 Absolute

A 250mm railgun with a tracking of 0,02566 rad/s and a signature of 125.
0,02566 / 125 = 0,00020528 Absolute

Logically people think that the blaster has a lot more tracking because of the higher number. But in reality it has 9% worse tracking than the railgun. It confuses people without any reason.

+2 Good idea and stayed calm.



QFT

Comparing a large weapon to a medium in terms of their tracking is kind of fail
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#82 - 2014-07-03 18:29:57 UTC

I don't really give a **** if people don't take the time to understand the formula's.

The turret sig resolution is a great way to help balance the ability to hit smaller targets.

Large Guns (400m sig resolution) have 10x as much trouble tracking a frig (40m sig radius) as it does a Battleship (400m sig radius). Seems alright to me. Why do we want to change this?



Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#83 - 2014-07-03 18:53:30 UTC

A quick follow up:

Removing the sig resolution part will undermine the role of sig radius.

Many things in game alter the sig radius of your ship:
Target Painters, Gang Links, Implants, MWD, Rigs, Modules, etc.

Removing the sig resolution from the turret hit formula essentially removes all the penalties and benefits of all these things.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#84 - 2014-07-03 19:03:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Rift
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

A quick follow up:

Removing the sig resolution part will undermine the role of sig radius.

Many things in game alter the sig radius of your ship:
Target Painters, Gang Links, Implants, MWD, Rigs, Modules, etc.

Removing the sig resolution from the turret hit formula essentially removes all the penalties and benefits of all these things.



all those things would still work like they do now. your large guns will still suck at shooting small things. MWD will still make you easyer to hit. TP's still as effective.

The op's post is 100% about trying to make the math easier to understand and grasp so that people don't fail like you just did.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#85 - 2014-07-03 19:04:53 UTC
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Proposal: Because the turret signature resolution stat is useless, duplicative, and poorly understood by most EVE players, I suggest we do away with it entirely, adjust turret tracking speeds to keep each gun the same as it is currently, and stop confusing people. This does not even require any change in the Eve code base, just in the item database: pick a convenient number, for example 100, change all turret signature resolutions to 100, and multiply the tracking speed by 100/(old signature resolution). This can easily be accomplished with a database script and requires minimal programmer time to implement.

Summary: This will have literally no effect on how guns actually work in the game, on how often you hit or miss or on how much damage you apply. It will make the chance-to-hit formula easier to understand, allow easy comparison of tracking across guns of different sizes, and more natural comparison of your tracking speed to the angular velocity of targets.

What do you think?

Edit: fixed a typo.


I think this is a horrible idea.

Unless you plan to somehow make all turrets track at different rates against targets of different sizes (which is effectively what the signature resolution of the turret does), removing the turret signature resolution from the game will absolutely impact turret damage.

Right now, the chance to hit with a turret is calculated as:

Chance to hit = 0.5^X * 0.5^Y

Where X is the "tracking" term and Y is the "range" term. As long as you're within your turret's optimal range, only the tracking term matters, so let's assume that for now. Currently, the tracking term depends both on the relative motion of your ship and the target (tracking), and the size of the target compared to the size of your weapon (signature). The reason for tracking being part of the equation is obvious: it makes it harder to hit things that are moving too quickly. But the signature part of the equation is equally important: it makes it harder to hit things that are too small. Without a signature term, battleship guns would either get a massive buff to their ability to hit frigates (assuming their ability to hit other battleships stayed the same) or a massive nerf to their ability to hit other battleships (assuming their ability to hit frigates stayed the same). If there is no size component in the hit equation, there is no way to balance it, and that would completely break every turret-based combat ship.



tl;dr: don't ever dumb down basic EvE mechanics because someone doesn't feel they're simple enough to understand.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#86 - 2014-07-03 19:42:32 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:


(snip)

I think this is a horrible idea.

Unless you plan to somehow make all turrets track at different rates against targets of different sizes (which is effectively what the signature resolution of the turret does), removing the turret signature resolution from the game will absolutely impact turret damage.

Right now, the chance to hit with a turret is calculated as:

Chance to hit = 0.5^X * 0.5^Y

Where X is the "tracking" term and Y is the "range" term. As long as you're within your turret's optimal range, only the tracking term matters, so let's assume that for now. Currently, the tracking term depends both on the relative motion of your ship and the target (tracking), and the size of the target compared to the size of your weapon (signature). The reason for tracking being part of the equation is obvious: it makes it harder to hit things that are moving too quickly. But the signature part of the equation is equally important: it makes it harder to hit things that are too small. Without a signature term, battleship guns would either get a massive buff to their ability to hit frigates (assuming their ability to hit other battleships stayed the same) or a massive nerf to their ability to hit other battleships (assuming their ability to hit frigates stayed the same). If there is no size component in the hit equation, there is no way to balance it, and that would completely break every turret-based combat ship.



tl;dr: don't ever dumb down basic EvE mechanics because someone doesn't feel they're simple enough to understand.


You're wrong. Rather than spending a bunch of time explaining why you're wrong, I will simply refer you back to the first three pages of this thread where a half dozen other people were wrong in the same way as you.

This is, as I said then, further evidence that most people do not understand the turret sig resolution stat. Removing the turret sig resolution stat in the way I suggested will literally change nothing about any gun's ability to hit small or large, fast or slow targets. All it will do is make the mechanic easier to understand, so that hopefully we will have fewer people being wrong.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#87 - 2014-07-03 19:45:37 UTC
the bigness of mah gun is now in the tracking, and then my tracking-at-current-transversal-speed maths is muliplied by 100/target sig, but it's the same effect on my chance-to-hit as before, 'cos the bigness was in the tracking-at-current-transversal maths

gotcha
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2014-07-03 20:40:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Gypsio III wrote:
Gorn Arming wrote:
This thread has been a goldmine of posts by people who don't understand math.


Yep. Threads about tracking are always like this. And the sig resolution issue is a pretty bit part of people's misunderstanding, a distressing number of people think it's a to-hit chance separate to tracking, as if turrets were missiles.

The counter-argument of the current system making it easier to relate your turrets' tracking speed to the angular velocity of a same-size opponent has some merit though. Although, since the sigs of different ships are so variable, it's not sure it's really that valuable.
I'd be willing to bet that if the op didn't word the suggestion for normalizing tracking then suggesting regarding sig res that we "we do away with it entirely," where it's reasonable to assume "entirely" means from the tracking formula as well, rather than just converting it to a constant, that it might deal with half of those posts.

If it was explained exactly what would happen to the tracking formula that would probably have preempted half of the comments seeming to misunderstand. I get the math just fine but was myself initially confused by the wording of the op regarding the details of the suggestion.

Regarding tracking being associated by size currently, while the exact figures will differ within a size class, the general rule is still a lot more consistent for relating tracking angular than anything we would end up with for the suggested except for a small window of targets no larger than that of any individual weapon size now.
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#89 - 2014-07-03 21:20:06 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that if the op didn't word the suggestion for normalizing tracking then suggesting regarding sig res that we "we do away with it entirely," where it's reasonable to assume "entirely" means from the tracking formula as well, rather than just converting it to a constant, that it might deal with half of those posts.


I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make here. I am suggesting that we get rid of sig resolution entirely by removing it from the formula. I suggested that rather than changing game code it may be easier to just adjust values in the database, which gives the same result (I assume this is what you mean by normalization). Getting rid of it entirely and converting it to a constant ("normalizing it") are equivalent. If a variable has the same value for every entry in the database, it is effectively no longer a variable.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2014-07-03 21:26:37 UTC
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that if the op didn't word the suggestion for normalizing tracking then suggesting regarding sig res that we "we do away with it entirely," where it's reasonable to assume "entirely" means from the tracking formula as well, rather than just converting it to a constant, that it might deal with half of those posts.


I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make here. I am suggesting that we get rid of sig resolution entirely by removing it from the formula. I suggested that rather than changing game code it may be easier to just adjust values in the database, which gives the same result (I assume this is what you mean by normalization). Getting rid of it entirely and converting it to a constant ("normalizing it") are equivalent. If a variable has the same value for every entry in the database, it is effectively no longer a variable.
They aren't equivalent in that you have a number serving the exact same function in the formula. Whether you refer to it as sig res or "100" or whatever number you arbitrarily chose it still functions in modifying tracking the same way.

Removing it means changing the formula to actually remove it as a factor, or such is the way people are reading it judging by the comments. Turning a variable into a constant doesn't remove and terms from the equation, thus remove may not have been the best word to use.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2014-07-03 21:43:40 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that if the op didn't word the suggestion for normalizing tracking then suggesting regarding sig res that we "we do away with it entirely," where it's reasonable to assume "entirely" means from the tracking formula as well, rather than just converting it to a constant, that it might deal with half of those posts.


I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make here. I am suggesting that we get rid of sig resolution entirely by removing it from the formula. I suggested that rather than changing game code it may be easier to just adjust values in the database, which gives the same result (I assume this is what you mean by normalization). Getting rid of it entirely and converting it to a constant ("normalizing it") are equivalent. If a variable has the same value for every entry in the database, it is effectively no longer a variable.
They aren't equivalent in that you have a number serving the exact same function in the formula. Whether you refer to it as sig res or "100" or whatever number you arbitrarily chose it still functions in modifying tracking the same way.

Removing it means changing the formula to actually remove it as a factor, or such is the way people are reading it judging by the comments. Turning a variable into a constant doesn't remove and terms from the equation, thus remove may not have been the best word to use.
Actually, OP is correct and so is the thread title. Big smile

Now it's: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radius, turret signature resolution

His proposal would be: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radius

Base tracking stats of all turrets would be changed accordingly, obviously.

I still don't like the idea, though. Blink Because imo the new, resulting tracking speeds would be much harder to relate to in-game target speed and distance.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2014-07-03 21:51:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Actually, OP is correct and so is the thread title. Big smile

Now it's: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radius, turret signature resolution

His proposal would be: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radius

Base tracking stats of all turrets would be changed accordingly, obviously.

I still don't like the idea, though. Blink Because imo the new, resulting tracking speeds would be much harder to relate to in-game target speed and distance.
I already addressed that and stated that the normalization point alters, or for a small range confirms, what the direct comparison of target angular velocity and tracking speed would otherwise have you believe. If you don't know the normalization point then you don't know if the angular velocity of say, a thorax, being equal to your tracking means a good hit chance or a bad one.

If normalized at 50, your real tracking is over twice the angular, if 200 a little more than half, at 100 your pretty close on. Either way it's not a term you can ignore regardless of what you call it or whether it changes and thus isn't "removed".
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#93 - 2014-07-03 21:56:19 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Removing it means changing the formula to actually remove it as a factor, or such is the way people are reading it judging by the comments.

judging by the comments, people aren't reading the op at all
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2014-07-03 21:58:43 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Removing it means changing the formula to actually remove it as a factor, or such is the way people are reading it judging by the comments.

judging by the comments, people aren't reading the op at all

Maybe, I posted issues both ways as initially I wasn't able to conclusively discern which way he was going with it. I had to ask for clarification to be sure.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2014-07-03 22:01:13 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Actually, OP is correct and so is the thread title. Big smile

Now it's: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radius, turret signature resolution

His proposal would be: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radius

Base tracking stats of all turrets would be changed accordingly, obviously.

I still don't like the idea, though. Blink Because imo the new, resulting tracking speeds would be much harder to relate to in-game target speed and distance.
I already addressed that and stated that the normalization point alters, or for a small range confirms, what the direct comparison of target angular velocity and tracking speed would otherwise have you believe. If you don't know the normalization point then you don't know if the angular velocity of say, a thorax, being equal to your tracking means a good hit chance or a bad one.

If normalized at 50, your real tracking is over twice the angular, if 200 a little more than half, at 100 your pretty close on. Either way it's not a term you can ignore regardless of what you call it or whether it changes and thus isn't "removed".
Actually, you're right, I'm wrong, and that's why the OP's proposal is even worse than I thought. Big smile

OP, 'doing away with turret signature resolution' is impossible, unless you want to just ignore any meaningful relation between the formula and what is actually going on in space.

Thread should be renamed: make turret signature resolution even more obscure as it is currently.

OP, your proposal is bad and you should feel at least a little bit bad.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#96 - 2014-07-03 22:16:53 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
(snip)

Thread should be renamed: make turret signature resolution even more obscure as it is currently.

OP, your proposal is bad and you should feel at least a little bit bad.


How can a variable that doesn't exist be obscure?
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#97 - 2014-07-03 22:19:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Rift
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
(snip)

Thread should be renamed: make turret signature resolution even more obscure as it is currently.

OP, your proposal is bad and you should feel at least a little bit bad.


How can a variable that doesn't exist be obscure?



because like the whole tracking formula now people don't look at it they go off gut feeling and what they think works.

This is more obscure because while in reality it doesn't exist in there minds it still does and they have a hard time finding it. thus its obscure.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2014-07-03 22:20:00 UTC
Op is correct about the effects of the change making weapons which have different sig res currently more easily comparable for tracking purposes. That's a pretty factual statement. What I'm questioning are the practical gains compared to creating in what my mind is a just as convoluted system for making practical, on the fly determinations and still leaving a good amount of explaining to do before people get how tracking really works.

If simple tracking comparison is the goal, go for it. If making the system as a whole easier to understand is the goal, I think it misses the mark.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2014-07-03 22:22:10 UTC
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
(snip)

Thread should be renamed: make turret signature resolution even more obscure as it is currently.

OP, your proposal is bad and you should feel at least a little bit bad.


How can a variable that doesn't exist be obscure?
Because the constant that replaces it is no longer visible in the client per your suggestion yet it greatly skews the application of the portion of the information which is still in the client.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2014-07-03 22:31:07 UTC
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
(snip)

Thread should be renamed: make turret signature resolution even more obscure as it is currently.

OP, your proposal is bad and you should feel at least a little bit bad.


How can a variable that doesn't exist be obscure?
Let's try the following exercise and I think you'll understand yourself.

Create an example of the new tracking speed figures for a small, medium and large turret, according to your idea.

Then imagine you're actually PVPing, with your overview showing angular velocity.

Determine which angular velocity will give you roughly a 50% chance to hit a frigate, cruiser or battleship. Approximately, no need to be exact. Basically, create a 3x3 matrix. Try to explain how you determined those figures.

If you agree to try this, and post it in this thread, I will then try do the same with the current system.


My point is, I'm pretty sure your way would be much harder to understand, especially in an actual PVP situation.

But let's do this experiment, if you disagree.

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