These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Removal of tracking speed value in the attributes tab
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ja'e Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2016-04-11 22:44:05 UTC
Hello o/

I was testing the new HAW for the dreadnoughts earlier, and I wanted to check the value of my guns' tracking.
Heavy Neutron Blaster II attributes (not a dread gun, but they're all the same now afaik)
So now instead of the tracking value in rad/s, you're now greeted with a "Weapon Accuracy Score" which is, afaik, dimensionless.

Is this a "work in progress" thing? I can't wrap my head around that new number.
If you want to compare the two: Current (left) and new (right). I grabbed my calculator for a minute and tried to find what that new number represents but I wasn't lucky yet.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2 - 2016-04-12 00:45:34 UTC
Yea.... can we bring back rads please CCP. There is an overview setting that directly displays Rad/s angular velocity so you don't even have to do maths to see if their orbit speed is lower or higher than your guns.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#3 - 2016-04-12 05:32:16 UTC
Don't even think about doing something like this ccp you give us a number we can work with

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Aivlis Eldelbar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4 - 2016-04-12 08:37:18 UTC
And could we have gun resolutions standardized while we're at it? The rad/s value doesn't say much either as it has to be multiplied by the signature to resolution ratio anyway.
Ja'e Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2016-04-12 11:50:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Ja'e Ambraelle
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:
And could we have gun resolutions standardized while we're at it? The rad/s value doesn't say much either as it has to be multiplied by the signature to resolution ratio anyway.

I'm curious, would you care to elaborate about how things should be done instead, please? (with details)

Those mechanics and numbers are what they are for a reason.
And while I will agree that it can be confusing when shooting at things below your gun resolution, the rad/s tracking value does say everything there is to say when shooting at things in your guns' resolution.
After that, you get some easy numbers to work with if you care enough to do some quick maths and note them down for later use; ie, if you're shooting at a frigate with battleship guns, your effective tracking speed is divided by 10 (because 400/40=10). Though I don't now anyone playing with those values on the fly, it's not that useful anyway, you know your tracking will be **** against frigates and that you'll have to work hard with slingshots and a bit of luck and manual piloting or sit at great range if you want to shoot down a frigate, etc.
If you plan on keeping a tracking mechanic in this game, you shouldn't obfuscate the rad/s value anyway, there isn't any reason to do so.

If the plan is to do something completly new, well ... I'm less than joyful.
I'd rather have a useful in-game video tutorial about how tracking and gun mechanics work (and maybe it already exists? I havent checked), instead of trying to dumb down a game mechanic that works as intended and/or reinventing the wheel.

All of the above is just speculation. Without an official statement from CCP explaining what the hell they're doing with the tracking values, we don't know much.
Aivlis Eldelbar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2016-04-12 15:46:52 UTC
Ja'e Ambraelle wrote:
...


No easy answer, but I'd prefer all resolutions to be the same, to remove one variable (your guns' resolution) from the process. This can of course be considered just personal preference.
I recall a while back there was a thread or discussion on slack about making the sig radius of a ship openly visible on the overview, since this info is already available if you know your sensor res and have the time to lock that target. An argument could be made for being able to sort by the normalized angular velocity of the target, even if it was done using the average sig radius for the target's class (40, 150, 400?).

But then again, I'm mostly bouncing off you, not defending it as necessarily good. The overview is already at the limits of it's capability, and is about to be worked even harder once the new capital mechanics are out.
Ja'e Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2016-04-12 16:14:56 UTC
Well the issue with that (removing the signature resolution), of course, is that you'd have to rebalance heavily a lot of other things if you want to keep the same damage application as we have today.
Let's take an exemple with a battleship shooting a frigate without signature radius: the frigate would have to move 10x faster to compensate. After that, on a frigate to frigate level, you'd have to up every frigate gun tracking by the same factor (10x) so they can track each other.
And then you have frigates cruising around at 40km/s, so you need to rework optimal and ... You get the idea :p

I can get behnd the feeling though, because the maths behind it are a bit complicated and you need some time to get used to it.

Having a different overview column showing rad/s but multiplied by (guns' resolution tracking) / (targeted ship sig radius) ? I think that'd be a nice addition indeed. Maybe a bit complicated to implement, but could be useful. I'm sure there's a better way to present that information.
But maybe we're derailing a bit here.
Aivlis Eldelbar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2016-04-12 17:45:10 UTC
Just to be clear, I'm not for removing scan resolution's effects, but for removing it as an extra number that changes from gun to gun.
Lord Haur
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#9 - 2016-04-14 13:34:50 UTC
So, in case you didn't notice, the new signature resolution value for that (and all turrets) is 40km. The Weapon Accuracy Score is a combination of both the old Sig Res and Tacking Speed.

To calculate the new values, it would be
WeaponAccuracyScore = oldTrackingSpeed * 40000 / oldSigRes

This keeps the effect in the tracking formula the same, as
(oldSigRes / oldTrackingSpeed) = (newSigRes / WeaponAccuracyScore)
Ja'e Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2016-04-14 14:52:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ja'e Ambraelle
Ay, thank you. As far as I understand it that means there's no change in the hit chance, good.

I can understand that having an accuracy score to help people understand which guns track better is nice thing.
What isn't nice however, is hiding the actual values that people can use to compare their tracking to the actual rad/s happening on grid.

CCP, can we get the old values back? The new accuracy score can cohabit with those, there's no reason to hide them.
Arla Sarain
#11 - 2016-04-14 15:02:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Arla Sarain
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:
And could we have gun resolutions standardized while we're at it? The rad/s value doesn't say much either as it has to be multiplied by the signature to resolution ratio anyway.

Yes it does.

Because it is really easy to estimate. You don't have to know the exact ratio, only the typical approximate ratio for your ship and your enemies guns.

Because 125/40 ~ 3
and 400/125 ~ 3
and 400/40 = 10.

So the difference over one size tier is 3 something, and over two size tiers is 10, and above 3 practically infinite (not really, but might as well be). Meaning that your tracking is either ideal, 3 times worse, 10 times worse, or 3 times better, or 10 times better.

38.4 accuracy score tells me nothing. I have no reference point. Not that the tracking game was any good to begin with (having flown 25m sig radius slashers, I can tell you for sure, that outside of obvious size differences, sig tanking is trash).

It's just a number.

GG CCP. You kneejerked into a silly decision because someone wanted to be very smart on the forums and show off how well he could manipulate algebra.
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2016-04-14 17:13:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Stan
Arla Sarain wrote:
38.4 accuracy score tells me nothing. I have no reference point. Not that the tracking game was any good to begin with (having flown 25m sig radius slashers, I can tell you for sure, that outside of obvious size differences, sig tanking is trash).

It's just a number.

GG CCP. You kneejerked into a silly decision because someone wanted to be very smart on the forums and show off how well he could manipulate algebra.


It tells you a lot - if you normalize the target ship's stats in the same way.

In the Heavy Neutron Blaster II example ( http://i.imgur.com/EKSYO2h.png ) the new Accuracy score is calculated via:
oldTrackingSpeed * 40000 / oldSigResolution

That's 0.12 * 40000 / 125 = 38.4 Accuracy.

Do the same for a Thorax orbiting at 2000 meter range doing 240 m/s. That's a 0.12 rad/s orbit rate. And the Thorax has a 120 m signature radius. So the calculation becomes:

0.12 * 40000 / 120 = 40.0 Evasion. ("Evasion" being the term that I chose to use.)

Bam! We instantly know, without caring about sig radius of the target or the gun, that the to-hit chance will be very close to 50%, since the Accuracy and Evasion are so close. (Specifically, it's a 52.79% chance to hit.)

CCP - if you are going to chance weapon stats to only show a "Weapon Accuracy Score" then you MUST in my opinion add an overview column called "Ship Evasion Score."
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2016-04-14 21:29:54 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
Arla Sarain wrote:
38.4 accuracy score tells me nothing. I have no reference point. Not that the tracking game was any good to begin with (having flown 25m sig radius slashers, I can tell you for sure, that outside of obvious size differences, sig tanking is trash).

It's just a number.

GG CCP. You kneejerked into a silly decision because someone wanted to be very smart on the forums and show off how well he could manipulate algebra.


It tells you a lot - if you normalize the target ship's stats in the same way.

In the Heavy Neutron Blaster II example ( http://i.imgur.com/EKSYO2h.png ) the new Accuracy score is calculated via:
oldTrackingSpeed * 40000 / oldSigResolution

That's 0.12 * 40000 / 125 = 38.4 Accuracy.

Do the same for a Thorax orbiting at 2000 meter range doing 240 m/s. That's a 0.12 rad/s orbit rate. And the Thorax has a 120 m signature radius. So the calculation becomes:

0.12 * 40000 / 120 = 40.0 Evasion. ("Evasion" being the term that I chose to use.)

Bam! We instantly know, without caring about sig radius of the target or the gun, that the to-hit chance will be very close to 50%, since the Accuracy and Evasion are so close. (Specifically, it's a 52.79% chance to hit.)

CCP - if you are going to chance weapon stats to only show a "Weapon Accuracy Score" then you MUST in my opinion add an overview column called "Ship Evasion Score."


For those following along, here's my better-written proposal to CCP for this:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6439952#post6439952
Sepheir Sepheron
State War Academy
Caldari State
#14 - 2016-04-15 09:42:32 UTC
What is this nonsensical arbitrary number!?

I demand that rad/sec and signature of weapons remain visible for all players!