These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cristl
#81 - 2016-05-22 05:48:00 UTC
Areen Sassel wrote:
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
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.


I think you are confused. If you're orbiting at max velocity, you will have a high angular velocity (depending on range). It doesn't matter who's moving, only the relative velocity.

But only in this game is what that poster is saying. They are saying that trying to think about the mechanics from any real life perspective will fail, since the game physics uses its own formulae which don't have much connection with reality. In real life if you orbited a stationary target your guns wouldn't need to move at all (circular orbit, target at centre).
Areen Sassel
Dirac Angestun Gesept
#82 - 2016-05-22 20:48:53 UTC
Cristl wrote:
Areen Sassel wrote:
I think you are confused. If you're orbiting at max velocity, you will have a high angular velocity (depending on range). It doesn't matter who's moving, only the relative velocity.

But only in this game is what that poster is saying. They are saying that trying to think about the mechanics from any real life perspective will fail, since the game physics uses its own formulae which don't have much connection with reality.


If so, why run their own tests? The pertinent game mechanics are hardly undocumented.

FWIW, the whole "weapon accuracy" thing seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup; turret tracking was always effectively divided by weapon signature radius, and a figure that encapsulates that division conveys more directly useful information, not less.
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2016-05-23 14:14:35 UTC
With this new system it's much harder to figure out what your actual tracking is since there's no overview column for "accuracy score"

Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2016-05-23 15:56:33 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
With this new system it's much harder to figure out what your actual tracking is since there's no overview column for "accuracy score"

It should be "Ship Evasion Score" and it should definitely be an overview column option.

Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2016-05-23 16:08:14 UTC
Cristl wrote:
Areen Sassel wrote:
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
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.


I think you are confused. If you're orbiting at max velocity, you will have a high angular velocity (depending on range). It doesn't matter who's moving, only the relative velocity.

But only in this game is what that poster is saying. They are saying that trying to think about the mechanics from any real life perspective will fail, since the game physics uses its own formulae which don't have much connection with reality. In real life if you orbited a stationary target your guns wouldn't need to move at all (circular orbit, target at centre).
They would still need to track to hit something several km away, unless your orbit is exactly, perfectly circular.

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

Areen Sassel
Dirac Angestun Gesept
#86 - 2016-05-23 17:19:36 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
With this new system it's much harder to figure out what your actual tracking is since there's no overview column for "accuracy score"


There's still one for angular velocity and you still need to be aware of a fiddle factor to see how that compares to your weapon. The only difference is that now the fiddle factor only needs to take account of the enemy's signature radius and not your gun's signature resolution.
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement
Good Sax
#87 - 2016-06-17 01:14:31 UTC
I can understand rads per second, this weapon accuracy shenanigans however, not.

My frig has 500, omen 20, does that mean frig guns are 20 times better? It could say "LOL pizza" instead, that's how much info i get from this stat.

Can we haz some useful tracking data back?

<./salt>
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#88 - 2016-06-17 16:24:05 UTC
Yes. Frig guns do indeed track better. Ask any Moa pilot who found himself incapable of hitting a webbed frig at 9km.
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#89 - 2016-06-17 16:51:00 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Yes. Frig guns do indeed track better. Ask any Moa pilot who found himself incapable of hitting a webbed frig at 9km.


Small turrets (frigates) track faster than Mediums or Larges.

Some larger ships mount secondary batteries to deal with this. I have a dual 150 II mount on my Exequror NI just for this purpose. It's not as fast as a single 150 mount (which I could have done) but with my tracking and scan resolution scripts running for close combat, it blows up frigates nicely. Yes, you do lose top DPS, but DPS against a ship you can't hit is ZERO, so I'll let you guys do the math. Lol
Dildus Maximus
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#90 - 2016-06-17 19:10:01 UTC
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Yes. Frig guns do indeed track better. Ask any Moa pilot who found himself incapable of hitting a webbed frig at 9km.


Small turrets (frigates) track faster than Mediums or Larges.

Some larger ships mount secondary batteries to deal with this. I have a dual 150 II mount on my Exequror NI just for this purpose. It's not as fast as a single 150 mount (which I could have done) but with my tracking and scan resolution scripts running for close combat, it blows up frigates nicely. Yes, you do lose top DPS, but DPS against a ship you can't hit is ZERO, so I'll let you guys do the math. Lol



Nothing like a Dominix with small guns, the ultimate space potato.
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#91 - 2016-06-17 19:48:32 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
They would still need to track to hit something several km away, unless your orbit is exactly, perfectly circular.


Yes, but minute changes.

At the Battle of 73 Easting a handful of US M1 Abrams battle tanks decimated a far larger force of Iranian T-72 tanks because in the up-close confrontation, the Abrams turrets were built to track and fire on targets in under 5-10 seconds while many of the T-72's were supposedly still hand cranked.

Had those M1's been 'orbiting' the T-72's (They were running right through the middle of their formations) the turrets wouldn't have had to move much at all and it would have been all about reload time, which it still was considering how fast an M1 turret can transverse, but transverse, even going nuts in the middle of an enemy formation wasn't the sticking point.

It's an extreme example of a difference in tracking, but EVE's turrets should be even more advanced than something that was built in the 1980's. So all of this is moot since it's basically a game mechanic to let the smaller ships have a shot at surviving against larger ones... not much of a shot, but one nonetheless.
Areen Sassel
Dirac Angestun Gesept
#92 - 2016-06-18 02:18:56 UTC
Blade Darth wrote:
My frig has 500, omen 20, does that mean frig guns are 20 times better? It could say "LOL pizza" instead, that's how much info i get from this stat. Can we haz some useful tracking data back?


That is useful tracking data. It's better than the old data because the old data didn't have the better tracking of small guns figured into it.
Alinessa
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2016-07-17 11:08:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Alinessa
What's the point of making new much worse not helping with anything stat and hide simple and well known rad\s? if u want so, make atleast new universal column in overview which will consider your turret tracking speed and target signature!
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#94 - 2016-07-17 11:27:00 UTC
While you're at it please put a green checkmark next to my guns to indicate target is in range and I'll hit.
Bright green when in optimal range, dark green in falloff.

Red cross when in range but can't track, or within missile range but can't hit (target velocity would prevent missiles from catching up before burning out).

Can I also request auto-fire mode to automatically select an optimal target and load the best ammo for the job?

Oh and please introduce two new icons, one for shield/armor and one for MWD. Also, since this information allows us to easily gauge a target's tank, would you be so kind to add a column "Total Hitpoints"?

Thanks a bunch.
Alinessa
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2016-07-17 13:05:51 UTC
Looks like some kind of unfunny joke try again.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2016-07-17 13:17:20 UTC
Alright then, since you didn't get it: Signature radius is currently unknown. You're actually asking for MORE intel -- specifically as to how your enemy is fit.

Now, with both of those not only known but spelled out for you, you might as well just ask for "Can I hit [Yes/No] ?"

rad/sec never told you whether you could or not. In fact it didn't tell you anything as you lack about half of the equation.
Alinessa
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2016-07-17 13:22:02 UTC
The point is that before, turrets tracking was related to the size of ship class for which it was made, not to a something magical with 40 000m scale.
She11by
Big Boys Don't Cry
Kids With Guns Alliance
#98 - 2016-07-17 13:31:54 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Alright then, since you didn't get it: Signature radius is currently unknown. You're actually asking for MORE intel -- specifically as to how your enemy is fit.

Now, with both of those not only known but spelled out for you, you might as well just ask for "Can I hit [Yes/No] ?"

rad/sec never told you whether you could or not. In fact it didn't tell you anything as you lack about half of the equation.


Sure but it's CCP wish to make it more "simple" stat (in reality much harder to understand) and in need of division 24\7.
What about signature radius - it's well known cuz you got "size" column in client overview already, i'm always using it
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#99 - 2016-07-17 13:34:10 UTC
This I know, yes.
What of it?

The new value can be compared (which is a plus). Neither have in-combat use as there is simply too much variation on sig radius.

Not knowing if a ship is shieldtanked or hulltanked, now knowing what kind of MWD it's running, and not having learnt all base sig radii by heart, can you honestly say you found the old value useful?

The fact that small guns apply to small targets and mediums to cruisers hasn't changed-- this I knew even without looking up my tracking.

You can still compare your railgun to artillery, same as before; but you can now also compare your Large dual 650s to Medium 650s. From where I stand that's an argument in favour of the new system. Now please explain to me what you used rad/sec for, specifically in combat because that's what you wanted to modify yes?
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2016-07-17 13:34:58 UTC
She11by wrote:

What about signature radius - it's well known cuz you got "size" column in client overview already, i'm always using it


If you're using it, then stop using it. Size is not Signature Radius -- far from it, in fact.