These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

weapon accuracy score concern

Author
Cookie
Snakeoil Industries Ltd.
#41 - 2016-05-12 13:22:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Cookie
Next patch all the numbers will be replaced by letters to stop confusing people with an IQ slightly above room temperature.
Aiwha
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#42 - 2016-05-12 13:43:06 UTC
Yeah, I'm not down with CCP making up their own equation for all this ****. Just give us the raw data and we're just fine crunching the numbers ourselves.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#43 - 2016-05-12 13:54:16 UTC
They could of kept the rad data while also making them more comparable by just removing the weapon size modifier from the whole thing. Just make all the weapon "small" in their resolution and adjust the tracking value for this new ratio on medium, large and XL weapons. Then you get to have a more easily comparable data and a data that can be used on the fly without mentally adjusting for size discrepancies.
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#44 - 2016-05-12 15:04:27 UTC
There is a tendency to look at the technical in MMO's. Rules lawyers, mini-maxxers, etc.

This generally ends up overlooking the practical and empirical. Then when the theoretical doesn't line up with what is actually experienced people kind of go nuts.

Again, my suggestion is to play the fight, maneuver in such a way to get the accuracy to get your weapons on target and stick with actual tactical results.

I predict a lot of headache and heartache if we start crunching numbers and find out that the algorithms are not working in a way we anticipate and it causes that dissonance between what we think should happen and what actually does.

My own tests have shown that nose or tail on, weapons are pretty accurate. Broadside is garbage if you're moving or your target is. I have tested orbital processes, where I am orbiting a stationary or low speed target at max velocity. The theory is that my guns tracking should be irrelevant at that point since the targets angular velocity compared to my relative velocity is ZERO. The reality is my guns hit like garbage. If I stop or go nose or tail on to the target, my guns hit like monsters.

So, the algorithm for tracking and targeting is not what you'd expect, which makes the accuracy numbers mostly useless. However, empirical testing has shown me how to hit and range issues. It's the reality of the game vs. the theory of it.

I'm all for numbers and crunching but I place more emphasis on empirical results.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#45 - 2016-05-12 17:27:03 UTC
neovita wrote:


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?



"GUYS Everyone hit Ctrl Space, the enemy FC needs to grab his calculator! Toxic I'm looking at you! STOP YOUR SHIP! Let him get his calculator! Guys cycle your guns, give him a minute God!"

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#46 - 2016-05-12 17:37:44 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Then i try and apply to real combat situations. Which normally goes something like "**** he got under my guns"...

lol ain't that the truth.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#47 - 2016-05-12 17:41:23 UTC
Cookie wrote:
Next patch all the numbers will be replaced by letters to stop confusing people with an IQ slightly above room temperature.


Hmm, let's see what the tracking number is on my guns... 'T'. Ok, let's check this other gun. '&' Ooooooh I get it. I'll go with the 'T' guns.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Shayla Etherodyne
Delta Laroth Industries
#48 - 2016-05-12 18:10:08 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:

Quote:
Tell me why having 1 complicated number is better than 2 simple ones?
Because it makes it much simpler to compare two different guns with each other.


And why I will have to compare a small blaster with a large artillery piece? I will compare small blasters to small blasters or at worst other small guns. And i will do that outside of combat.

A combat useful stat has been replaced by a market useful stat. But when I buy something I have the time to do the calculations, when I am using it I want information that I can use at a glance.
Sure, I miss the size information and can only guess it, but that way I have to guess 1 piece of the puzzle while the others are already set,. with the new system I still have to guess that information and then do some math tho use it. Slower and more prone to errors.


War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#49 - 2016-05-12 19:05:50 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
It's rad/s units still. But scaled by different amounts depending on gun signature resolution.
No, they're not rad/s if you have to multiply by something that approximates the sig radius of the target and it includes the sig resolution of the gun.
Quote:


War Kitten wrote:
How do I compare it to information on the overview now?
You really can't directly, unfortunately. You need to know the signature radius of the target to do that. Of course, under the old system you needed to know the signature radius of the target as well
That is the problem - I can't directly compare to the useful stat on the overview. I can fly such that I keep the rad/s within the right range. I cannot adjust for sig radius while flying. I cannot swap guns in the midst of combat. I can only manually pilot my ship.
Quote:

Quote:
Tell me why having 1 complicated number is better than 2 simple ones?
Because it makes it much simpler to compare two different guns with each other.

I like it, so long as they add a Ship Evasion Score column to the overview so the calculations I mention above are done for us.
See, that's where you're seeing the number from the station fitting window and I'm trying to use the number in space while flying - Two different perspectives. I don't care if a different gun was better while flying. I have to use the guns I have on the ship.

Now you're kinda seeing the pointlessness of it. I don't want to know anything about sig radius/resolution comparissons in my tracking column though. I know it plays into whether or not I can hit well - but it does not help me keep my orbit within the tracking capabilities of the gun.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#50 - 2016-05-12 19:09:25 UTC
Cookie wrote:
Next patch all the numbers will be replaced by letters to stop confusing people with an IQ slightly above room temperature.


Well, I suppose if your IQ is slightly below room temperature, then I guess it doesn't matter if the number is muddled by other factors or letters or Egyptian hieroglyphics. You're clearly not using it in the heat of combat.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#51 - 2016-05-12 19:37:42 UTC
I don't think the new rating is any more or less clear than before. It's incomplete unless there is a visual cue in the HUD showing the projected damage percentage.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2016-05-12 20:23:26 UTC
I like having weapon accuracy score.

I do not like not having radians per second.




Given the choice between the two, I would select radians per second nine times out of ten. It should be a CHOICE.

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."

Memphis Baas
#53 - 2016-05-12 20:50:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Memphis Baas
Tengu Grib wrote:
Hmm, let's see what the tracking number is on my guns... 'T'. Ok, let's check this other gun. '&' Ooooooh I get it. I'll go with the 'T' guns.


Yeah, let's simplify the process of selecting the ******* guns, because you're NOT in station completely safe from any sort of damage, and you DON'T have all the ******* time in the world to pull out a calculator and compare the ******* raw tracking and sig resolution stats, while you're docked in the ******* station. Let's simplify it.

Who cares that when you get out there and the other guy gets under your guns and you can't hit him, when you have to ******* figure out WTF to do to escape this ******* situation and save your ****** expensive ship, you can no longer compare the gun's stat with something in the overview that would easily tell you what range or how much webification or whatever you need to apply to save your ass. That process needs to be more complicated, because when you're at 25% structure going to 0, that's when you need to do the ******* math.

Gun sig resolution is static, not variable.
The enemy's ship sig radius is static, not variable.
Therefore, this comparison can be done in station when you select your guns.

Gun tracking is static, not variable.
Enemy's angular velocity is variable.
Therefore, obscuring the gun tracking behind some stupid math formula prevents us from getting critical live feedback during combat. Whoever made this change at CCP is A ******* IDIOT. Tell him to come to the forums so I can call him that to his face. Or her. ****!
Shayla Etherodyne
Delta Laroth Industries
#54 - 2016-05-12 20:51:34 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Cookie wrote:
Next patch all the numbers will be replaced by letters to stop confusing people with an IQ slightly above room temperature.


Well, I suppose if your IQ is slightly below room temperature, then I guess it doesn't matter if the number is muddled by other factors or letters or Egyptian hieroglyphics. You're clearly not using it in the heat of combat.



But room temperature is measured in Celsius or Fahrenheit? It make a lot of difference.
Verdis deMosays
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#55 - 2016-05-12 20:55:33 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I like having weapon accuracy score.

I do not like not having radians per second.




Given the choice between the two, I would select radians per second nine times out of ten. It should be a CHOICE.


While I disagree with the score system being better, you but the nail on the head. It should be a choice. For on the fly combat calculations, I need either the Rad/s readout, or a useful way to convert WAS to accuracy on current target. As it stands now, I have to slowly adjust my orbit til I'm not missing, instead of just setting my orbit to my guns tracking speed. On most things it's not a big deal, but if I'm trying to brawl down a rlml caracal, I have no room to just hunt and peck my orbital state. Too many misses, and the other guy has an advantage. So to me this whole score thing is a direct nerf to turret boats. I can sort it out on an out of game fitting tool, but it's still not cool.
Memphis Baas
#56 - 2016-05-12 20:58:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Memphis Baas
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:
But room temperature is measured in Celsius or Fahrenheit? It make a lot of difference.



That's why I know that "nice outside" means around 18-20 C, 67-70 F. So I can compare whatever thermometer with my built-in stats.

Tell me how that would work when the "thermometer" shows you "Joules of heat delivered to your body." The weather outside can deliver 400 ******* Joules of heat energy to an overweight person, 300 Joules to a normal, and 100 Joules to a child. Enjoy the ******* weather forecasting, hope we were clear about what the weather will be like."
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2016-05-12 21:46:36 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
Gun sig resolution is static, not variable.
The enemy's ship sig radius is static, not variable.
Therefore, this comparison can be done in station when you select your guns.

Gun tracking is static, not variable.
Enemy's angular velocity is variable.


Gun sig resolution is static, yes.
Target ship's sig radius changes depending on MWD activation, T3D mode, links, and target painters.
Therefore, you cannot make that comparison in station.

Gun tracking changes based on ship skills and modules like tracking enhancers/computers, and remote tracking enhancers/disruptors.
Target's angular velocity does change, yes.

All the above means that knowing your small blaster of sig 40 m tracks at 0.32 rad/s and your heavy blaster of sig 125 m tracks at 0.12 rad/s doesn't tell you much about the relative performance of the guns and their ability to hit various targets, unless you pull out the calculator and start cranking through 0.5 ^ ( (target angular velocity * gun signature resolution / target signature radius / gun tracking) ^ 2 ) And since you don't know your targets actual sig radius and can only estimate it, you can only estimate your chance to hit. (Fortunately, while your gun tracking can change dynamically, you can get-info on them to find their actual point in time tracking.)

And just like you know what 67F feels like because you've experienced it despite it being an arbitrary scale with an arbitrary 0-point and somebody who's never heard of it would curse you for making them pull out a calculator to figure out how hot something is when C is perfectly useable and meaningful, you would get used to what various Weapon Accuracy Scores mean.

Currently, you know how a light blaster with 0.35 rad/s tracking performs against a frig and you know how a heavy blaster with 0.35 rad/s tracking performs against a frig, and you know they perform differently. This is because you've used this system a lot and have gotten used to it, just like F. With the Accuracy Sore, you'll eventually know how well a 300 WAS performs against a frig, and you won't have to worry about whether you're shooting with a small, medium or large gun because a 300 WAS gun is just as accurate as any other 300 WAS gun no matter their sizes. You'll get to know what a 20 vs 80 WAS gun can do, and what a 1.2 vs 0.01 WAS gun can do, as well. (Assuming you spend any time with those guns.)

Regardless, I'll reiterate my request to CCP that if they stick with the WAS stat, they add the Ship Evasion Score stat as an available overview column. Smile
Memphis Baas
#58 - 2016-05-13 01:03:52 UTC
So it's been several patches, and multiple threads requesting that, and they haven't done it. So, given their track record with iterating on past features, I'm going to continue to be furious about this, because the amount of stupidity in the way this was implemented precludes civility.
lollerwaffle
Perkone
Caldari State
#59 - 2016-05-13 08:32:56 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
Currently, you know how a light blaster with 0.35 rad/s tracking performs against a frig and you know how a heavy blaster with 0.35 rad/s tracking performs against a frig, and you know they perform differently. This is because you've used this system a lot and have gotten used to it, just like F. With the Accuracy Sore, you'll eventually know how well a 300 WAS performs against a frig, and you won't have to worry about whether you're shooting with a small, medium or large gun because a 300 WAS gun is just as accurate as any other 300 WAS gun no matter their sizes. You'll get to know what a 20 vs 80 WAS gun can do, and what a 1.2 vs 0.01 WAS gun can do, as well. (Assuming you spend any time with those guns.)

Regardless, I'll reiterate my request to CCP that if they stick with the WAS stat, they add the Ship Evasion Score stat as an available overview column. Smile


No. This is stupid. In PVP, especially in non-F1monkey PVP, timing your guns to fire when there is low angular velocity is important, especially when firing slow ROF, high dmg guns like arties (or even beams/rails).

It's not about 'getting used' to it. While rad/s isn't the only input in tracking, it's still something that is very useful and important in PVP. I don't want to have to do mental calculations before knowing whether my guns have a chance of hitting based on the target's angular velocity alone.
Alexander Otium
Mothhat
#60 - 2016-05-13 09:25:46 UTC
lollerwaffle wrote:
Eli Stan wrote:
Currently, you know how a light blaster with 0.35 rad/s tracking performs against a frig and you know how a heavy blaster with 0.35 rad/s tracking performs against a frig, and you know they perform differently. This is because you've used this system a lot and have gotten used to it, just like F. With the Accuracy Sore, you'll eventually know how well a 300 WAS performs against a frig, and you won't have to worry about whether you're shooting with a small, medium or large gun because a 300 WAS gun is just as accurate as any other 300 WAS gun no matter their sizes. You'll get to know what a 20 vs 80 WAS gun can do, and what a 1.2 vs 0.01 WAS gun can do, as well. (Assuming you spend any time with those guns.)

Regardless, I'll reiterate my request to CCP that if they stick with the WAS stat, they add the Ship Evasion Score stat as an available overview column. Smile


No. This is stupid. In PVP, especially in non-F1monkey PVP, timing your guns to fire when there is low angular velocity is important, especially when firing slow ROF, high dmg guns like arties (or even beams/rails).

It's not about 'getting used' to it. While rad/s isn't the only input in tracking, it's still something that is very useful and important in PVP. I don't want to have to do mental calculations before knowing whether my guns have a chance of hitting based on the target's angular velocity alone.



Wouldn't you still just time it for their angular to be low...?