These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Capital turrets, old stats and new WAS stats.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dornier Pfeil
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1 - 2016-07-27 18:34:27 UTC
Trying to help some of my rookie friends with understanding tracking now that the stat is missing from the game, I used the EvEUni Turrets page to concoct my own version to share with them. The problem is I couldn't get the numbers for the Capital turrets to come out right.

Lord Haur's comment here gives the WAS formula as WeaponAccuracyScore = oldTrackingSpeed * 40000 / oldSigRes which suggests that a 2000 meter signature resolution leaves a factor of 20 when divided into a 40,000 meter signature resolution. But 20 doesn't work.

PAPULA's comment here says CCP took a nerf bat to the capital tracking (or maybe the signature resolution, or maybe both) before they computed the capital WAS but there is nothing in the updates archive about that.

Can any math numerates shed any light on this for me?
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#2 - 2016-07-27 18:45:03 UTC
Dornier Pfeil wrote:
Trying to help some of my rookie friends with understanding tracking now that the stat is missing from the game, I used the EvEUni Turrets page to concoct my own version to share with them. The problem is I couldn't get the numbers for the Capital turrets to come out right.

Lord Haur's comment here gives the WAS formula as WeaponAccuracyScore = oldTrackingSpeed * 40000 / oldSigRes which suggests that a 2000 meter signature resolution leaves a factor of 20 when divided into a 40,000 meter signature resolution. But 20 doesn't work.

PAPULA's comment here says CCP took a nerf bat to the capital tracking (or maybe the signature resolution, or maybe both) before they computed the capital WAS but there is nothing in the updates archive about that.

Can any math numerates shed any light on this for me?

The primary problem you are going to hit here I think is that although we have CCP's word that the tracking on things has not changed...and we have formulas which theoretically show you how to convert back and forth from the new and old data....We don't actually have any official source to get the old values to compare. They are just gone. Hidden for no ****ing reason.

As for the E-Uni Wiki page - it may well be a few years out of date on those numbers - but there is nowhere to get the real numbers from just before the change, other than maybe digging through old EFT files or something? And even then you will be relying on non-CCP-verified data.

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#3 - 2016-07-27 20:48:49 UTC
If the old data was in the data dump, is still available from that source:

https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/dump/

If CCP changed the formulae, then ya, it is anybody's guess.
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2016-07-27 21:05:24 UTC
Dornier Pfeil wrote:
Can any math numerates shed any light on this for me?


Best thing to do at this point is to calculate a Ship Evasion Score for your intended target and use that to compare against the Weapon Accuracy Score. That way, you don't have find (or guess) the gun's signature resolution.

This is particularly helpful in that when you calculate the SES you can factor in things like sig bloom due to MWD, the differences between spiraling in vs direct approach, target painters, and links. You can demonstrate under which conditions a dread can blap a frig, and which conditions it can't. You can show how certain behaviors of the target double, or halve, the chances of getting a hit.

"Ship Evasion Score" would be = angular velocity * 40000 / signature radius.
Example scenario:
Ship = 40 m signature frig
Angular velocity = 0.05 rad/sec (Orbital distance = 2000 m, ship speed = 100 m/s assuming web and scram)
SES = 50

To-hit chance = 0.5 ^ ( (SES/WAS) ^2 )
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#5 - 2016-07-27 21:09:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Forum Alt
Eli Stan wrote:
Dornier Pfeil wrote:
Can any math numerates shed any light on this for me?


Best thing to do at this point is to calculate a Ship Evasion Score for your intended target and use that to compare against the Weapon Accuracy Score. That way, you don't have find (or guess) the gun's signature resolution.

This is particularly helpful in that when you calculate the SES you can factor in things like sig bloom due to MWD, the differences between spiraling in vs direct approach, target painters, and links. You can demonstrate under which conditions a dread can blap a frig, and which conditions it can't. You can show how certain behaviors of the target double, or halve, the chances of getting a hit.

"Ship Evasion Score" would be = angular velocity * 40000 / signature radius.
Example scenario:
Ship = 40 m signature frig
Angular velocity = 0.05 rad/sec (Orbital distance = 2000 m, ship speed = 100 m/s assuming web and scram)
SES = 50

To-hit chance = 0.5 ^ ( (SES/WAS) ^2 )

Much more intuitive in the middle of live combat than just an angular velocity and a basic understanding that you would lose a little dps shooting undersized targets with big ammo (but typically not a very noticeable amount in sub-capital warfare)...


edit: Am I really the only one to whom 0.05 rad/s target movement vs 0.15 rad/s tracking speed is more intuitive than "Accuracy Score 223.83" and "hold on let me get my 14 function scientific calculator and figure out your evasion chance"?

edit #2: The new tracking scores are kind of like a slap in the face with a wet fish - CCP telling us we are too stupid to handle tracking values on the fly, so here is a random number - all you have to know is *bigger* is *better* - but in a meaningless, abstract, arbitrary way...

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)