These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
First pagePrevious page8910
 

Proposal: Do away with turret signature resolution stat
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arla Sarain
#181 - 2014-07-11 11:34:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Arla Sarain
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Arla Sarain wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Like I said earlier, you can easily adjust the tracking speed of a turret to compensate for changing the sig res.

And that is what my post addresses. There is no mathematical error to be found.

This suggestion introduces a misleading perception, or worse, lack of any perception.

I repeatedly ask of you and the OP, how does one look at the adjusted tracking and compare it with angular velocity.
By how much do you expect to adjust the tracking?
My understand is that by reducing the 40, 125, 400 to 1, you need to adjust tracking to accommodate this. Considering we are talking about basic algebra, and please correct if I'm wrong, increase the tracking value of small turrets by 40, medium by 125, and large by 400.
And confirm if this is the new number I will be seeing in my stat window.
As I explained above, a sensible way to do it would be using 125 as the base value.

So, to answer your question:

. All small turrets would have tracking multiplied by 125/40 = 3.125

. All medium turrets would remain the same

. All large turrets would have tracking multiplied by 125/400 = 0.3125


Neither I nor Reaver would like it, though. Lol


This procedure is exactly the same as I did but with different numbers. I am addressing an issue with messing the actual tracking number that will show up on the SHOW INFO tab and how does the user relate THAT to the angular velocity.

Spoiler alert: it's bad.

A practical example, as per your guidelines:

0.6*3 = 1.8 (please allow me to simplify 3.215 for arguments sake)
0.15*3 = 0.45

These are adjusted tracking numbers as this suggestion persistently tries to beat into our heads will save the whole freaking world.

Now compare it to a practical angular velocity just by eyeballing them. 0.5 is a good guess (400m/s orbit at 800m)
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#182 - 2014-07-11 11:39:30 UTC
Arla Sarain wrote:
This procedure is exactly the same as I did but with different numbers. I am addressing an issue with messing the actual tracking number that will show up on the SHOW INFO tab and how does the user relate THAT to the angular velocity.

Spoiler alert: it's bad.
Yes, I agree it's bad, squid-friend.

Was just trying to be nice and answer a question you posted, since I really like your nose (even if you're a squid).

Why don't you hop by in Huola this afternoon, so we can test the tracking formula on the battlefield?

Spoiler alert: you'll die. PirateBig smile

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Arla Sarain
#183 - 2014-07-11 11:42:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Arla Sarain
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Arla Sarain wrote:
This procedure is exactly the same as I did but with different numbers. I am addressing an issue with messing the actual tracking number that will show up on the SHOW INFO tab and how does the user relate THAT to the angular velocity.

Spoiler alert: it's bad.
Yes, I agree it's bad, squid-friend.

Was just trying to be nice and answer a question you posted, since I really like your nose (even if you're a squid).

Why don't you hop by in Huola this afternoon, so we can test the tracking formula on the battlefield?

Spoiler alert: you'll die. PirateBig smile

I beat a Neutron Void atron on my tracking atron with this so I give no f***s. All that paper DPS down the drain.

P.S. Huola? For reals?
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2014-07-11 11:47:15 UTC
Arla Sarain wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Arla Sarain wrote:
This procedure is exactly the same as I did but with different numbers. I am addressing an issue with messing the actual tracking number that will show up on the SHOW INFO tab and how does the user relate THAT to the angular velocity.

Spoiler alert: it's bad.
Yes, I agree it's bad, squid-friend.

Was just trying to be nice and answer a question you posted, since I really like your nose (even if you're a squid).

Why don't you hop by in Huola this afternoon, so we can test the tracking formula on the battlefield?

Spoiler alert: you'll die. PirateBig smile

I beat a Neutron Void atron on my tracking atron with this so I give no f***s. All that paper DPS down the drain.

P.S. Huola? For reals?
Most violent system of New Eden in the past few days. But hey, feel free to miss out on the fun.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#185 - 2014-07-11 21:06:03 UTC
I think I get what you're saying, Arla. You're just pointing out that the current system, which compares sig resolution to standard target sig radius, is good for the end user. That was my original point too, I guess we just got lost in translation somewhere.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Arla Sarain
#186 - 2014-07-12 09:08:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Arla Sarain
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
is good for the end user. That was my original point too, I guess we just got lost in translation somewhere.

That's general. But yes.

Undoubtedly the current system is confusing, but it is as simplified as it can be. Pretty much all thats left is to allow the option of degree/s instead of rad/s (as suggested by someone down the pages), and display ratios on the overview for those ratios which parameters are already known to the user, like the ratio of their own tracking to their current angular velocity. This would streamline it a bit further.

The confusion stems from little significance given to Turret scan res vocally. When have you heard anyone speak of it? And as I understand it, this is where OP suggestion spawned from - the lack of documentation on the parameter that is seemingly used in the background with little significance.

Alas, Turret scan res may be as unimportant as the OP claims, but the strategy of adjusting tracking numbers to compensate is the downside of this suggestion, and quite frankly it introduces further issues. Hence why I keep preaching that you would replace one problem with another.

One could also ask for the chance to hit on outbound and inbound shots to be displayed on the overview all together. As the Frog mentioned, it does indirectly relay information on the enemy stats back to the end user, but they'd still need to go back and calculate to find them. Not that anyone would care to know that your BS has 380 sig or 420.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2014-07-12 13:59:54 UTC
Arla Sarain wrote:
like the ratio of their own tracking to their current angular velocity.
That's actually a great idea!

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
First pagePrevious page8910