EVE General Discussion

You are completely wrong about that.

With the old system you could use the angular velocity of your target, compare it to your tracking and get a rough idea of a chance to hit it. This way you could at least exclude targets you can't hit at all pretty easy.
With the new system you need a calculator to get the same information using the same circumstances and informations. So the NEW system requires a calculator and the NEW system converts the value of the targets angular velocity into a complete useless piece of information in the middle of a fight. Not the old system like you just said...

So yes, ppl have are "bitching out CCP" like you said, because CCP replaced a very usefull (and in many cased realy required) information into a complete useless one. Or do you think your enemies will listen to you if you tell them things like:

"Guys, wait a second, i need to take my calculator and do some math before i can make a decision which one of you to shoot first and at least have a chance to hit at all..."

in the middle of a fight?

If they are using a new scalling for the tracking value (represented by the accuracy score), then they should consider to use the exactly the same scaling system in the overview (a kind of "evasion score" like someone already said here) or at least ANY kind of information that would be directly related to the useless accuracy score, instead of the now complete useless angular velocity.

It is going to take some time to get use to, that's for sure. I suppose it will be some time before we start to really see the benefits of this new system, though I've been told that it will be far easier to compare when the stats of weapons of unequal size are stood side-by-side.

And now you only have to divide by 100 to get correct rad/sec.
Super hard to do.

Whereas before there was no arbitrary dividing factor... You could just look with your eyes and you were done, now you need to have these made up scale factors in your head to read the information properly. Much easier for the poor newbies huh ?

Makes me think of the module name changes. We killed the immersion in the game in an attempt to make it easy for new players. To remove the layers of extra knowledge needed to browse the market. Now we're introducing more layers of information around the tracking system. The old system was a simple "read it", the new one is a downgrade in usefulness.

Put me in the camp of "WTF were they thinking?"

Tracking speed was easy and intuitive to think about, and the stat had meaningful units: rad/s

Signature resolution was easy and intuitive and the stat had meaningful units: meters


What are the units on this new stat? How do I compare it to information on the overview now?

Tell me why having 1 complicated number is better than 2 simple ones?

Bad idea CCP. :(

I did some testing with some different turret types and different positions of ships last night.

I took a 250mm Railgun II, 200mm Prototype Gauss Gun, and Dual 150mm Railgun I and fired them at the same type of frigate targets from a Faction Cruiser at about 10-15km.

Orbiting the frigate, all but the dual 150's had horrific accuracy. Now that's with the frigate 'closing' on me. That should not be the case. In that 'scenario' I have essentially crossed the "T" on the frigate and their actual angular velocity or the transverse being required of my guns should have been minimal. I also had Scan Resolution and tracking boosting active to give the guns a maximum shot at being able to hit. Nope, the closer the frigate got, the worse the hit. Thus, I think RANGE is the primary driver in their formula for tracking- regardless of actual transverse vectors.

When I would turn out and put the frigate into a tail chase, or turn in and go head on, the frigate was toast immediately as all guns connected.

So, if I were to guess at the breakdown of the formula for the tracking algorithm. It would prioritize in this order:

RANGE
Velocity
Turret Speed
Bearing

I don't think their balance is correct though in regards to bearing. Just because I'm side on to a target, if that target is coming at me, the relative motion of the target is nearly zero in transverse and I should be hitting just as easily as if they were tail or head on to me.

So, while I don't really see an issue with the new way of reporting things (if it's an actual representation of the output of the formula), it's seemingly flawed in how the algorithm works. I still give them big Kudos for even caring about such a thing, but it needs some tweeking to get actual relative motion dialed in to be more realistic. However, if the reporting is correct to the formula, then I'll just fly the formula and not reality. It's just a game.

Interesting, I must have missed where that was posted. Would've saved me some testing time... with the exception of whatever makes up "target angular velocity" as that could be about anything.

So yea, just put it into a head/tail chase and the small ships don't stand a chance against the big guns unless you let them in under your nose, then you need a web or secondary battery. The Dual 150's did well.

I was hoping to see more 'grouped' weapons in this expansion for ships even down to cruisers. A battery of Quad 75's or triplet of 125's in the rail family would be nice to see for dealing with small targets.

I am a physics major. I know my math and stuff. The old tracking number was *not* intuitive at all. If your gun can track fast enough then it should hit all the time. If it can't track fast enough it should never hit. Also your own ships rotation doesn't even fit into things!

Yea nothing about tracking is intuitive. What i described was what i was thinking my first day playing the game. I assumed tracking is slew rate. It is not. In fact it really doesn't have any physical interpretation. It is a mechanic. An arbitrary mechanic that boils down to fast things are harder to hit with big guns.

I still don't find it intuitive. Why? because who cares if that ship is moving at .03213 rads a sec. I don't know its sig radius so I am making **** up anyway. Now hop in a WH with effects.. Good luck with that.

What i do is use pyfa and see what i can hit assuming fairly typical fits for targets. Then i try and apply to real combat situations. Which normally goes something like "**** he got under my guns"...

So, is this new Weapon Accuracy or whatever it's called basically the rad/s the gun can track on targets of a size of 40km?

If so, it's cool. I can live with that. To shoot a frig, i'll have to divide it by about 1000, and then i have the rad/s at which i can track it ~roughly.

If not, i'll be very confused.

I was going to post this almost to the letter, but midnight beat me to it. I teach a lot of new players, and the old system of Angular Velocity < Tracking g Speed = hit was very east for a new player to grasp. And for us old timers with 1400mm Tornados, that tracking compariso was almost requjred.

This is not a good change. It makes new player frustration increase, which hurts retention terribly. It denies info to someone who can use it. It needs to be reversed ASAP, or at least modified to still give an actual tracking readout.

Please listen to your players, CCP!