These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Turret ToolTip: FallOff= falloff - optimal. What?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Solecist Project
#1 - 2016-09-01 11:45:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
What i am talking about is the absolutely confusing tooltip of turrets ...
... showing optimal and optimal+falloff, instead of optimal and falloff seperately!

It is MUCH MUCH easier to simply add these two up ...
... compared to deriving falloff out of optimal+falloff!

No, it's not just a substraction!

http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/63099/1/08_new_tooltips.png

Falloff range within 8437 meters.
Optimal range within 4687 meters.

What?

Falloff range is 8k? ... the first thought
Optimal range is 4k. ... second thought
Is falloff now full range? ... third thought
What's falloff? ... fourth thought

This "within" demands that the reader thinks about the data first!

Based on what the player is reading, the nonsensical sounding equation is:

"falloff range" - optimal range = Falloff

!!

8437 - 4687 = 3750

What is much more effective in giving us the maximum information is this:

Falloff range.........3750m
Optimal range.......4687m*

If you align the numbers properly ...
... the brain can do a really quick estimate of max range just by looking at the first numbers!

It's a basic addition!
And we get falloff as well!

:D

SEE HERE AS WELL:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6610661#post6610661



Thank you!



*(why falloff at the top? Because it makes sense perspectivewise. I do assume CCP realized that as well. "Optimal" goes away from your ship first. Falloff is further away, thus at the top.)

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#2 - 2016-09-01 12:32:26 UTC
Whilst not quite so passionately, id prefer it this way too.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Wimzy Chent-Shi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2016-09-01 14:06:02 UTC
Knowing whether something is within falloff at first glance seems absolutely reasonable to me.

They could make the tooltip customizeable to make you happy though.
I guess winmatar does not really need to even read their optimal, since they would not be able to track within it anyway...

Come get some cancer @ my blog !

"This clash of opinions is like cutting onions. We are creating something here, that's productive, ...and then there is also salt." -Wimzy 2016
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#4 - 2016-09-01 14:13:54 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
This "within" demands that the reader thinks about the data first!

Oh snap you mean we may actually have to engage our brains BEFORE we look at data to determine range, what a revolting and disgusting idea.

CCP has ALWAYS displayed optimal and falloff as two separate numbers that had to be added together to determine max range so the new tool tip is consistent with the past.

CCP has always displayed falloff first and optimal second so again the new tool tip is consistent with the past.

So I guess your whole complaint is based on the use of the word "within", yet using the word within makes perfect sense.
Anything that is 4687 meters or closer is "within" your optimal range.
And anything that is farther away than 4687 meters but less than 13125 meters is "within" your falloff range.

Short version.
New tool tips are perfectly fine and dispaly the information as clearly as they always have, no changes needed.
Solecist Project
#5 - 2016-09-01 14:24:44 UTC
Donni, there is no way i will ever take you seriously ...
... because you always behave like an angry, passive aggressive manchild.
I sure hope you one day go back and read your own posts with the distance you obviously need.

To the others: thank you for posting!

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2016-09-01 22:05:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
I actually prefer it the way it is.

But honestly, if we can expect regular rage-posts like this, I'd say it's another reason to keep it around.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#7 - 2016-09-01 22:12:00 UTC
Rowells wrote:
I actually prefer it the way it is.

But honestly, if we can expect regular rage-posts like this, I'd say it's another reason to keep it around.



this way just makes it harder to find second falloff and can definitely be more confusing

this is worse than the weapon accuracy score imo

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#8 - 2016-09-01 23:41:49 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:


this is worse than the weapon accuracy score imo


Damn!

@Donna

The way its given is so that people don't have to think about it. But it looks like they assumed no one would be interested in guestimating weapon application beyond the given optimal + fall off. Like how many players are looking for JUST that value vs players like myself who like to know:

optimal + 1/2 fall off, and optimal + 1.5 fall off and optimal + 2x fall off.

The current tool obscures the real fall off value for some strange reason.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Solecist Project
#9 - 2016-09-02 08:14:19 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:


this is worse than the weapon accuracy score imo


Damn!

@Donna

The way its given is so that people don't have to think about it.

I am questioning their collective thinking processes.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Lugh Crow-Slave
#10 - 2016-09-02 10:16:45 UTC
it would help if at least the tactical overlay could also show second falloff

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Solecist Project
#11 - 2016-09-02 10:24:31 UTC
That'd just add more steps as well.
The point is to make all information available in an easily processable manner.

The current version does not do that at all.


But it's not a bad addition to the tactical, i guess.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Lugh Crow-Slave
#12 - 2016-09-02 10:31:35 UTC
that is why i said at least

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#13 - 2016-09-02 13:17:22 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Donni, there is no way i will ever take you seriously ...
... because you always behave like an angry, passive aggressive manchild.
I sure hope you one day go back and read your own posts with the distance you obviously need.

To the others: thank you for posting!

Got to love it, don't like what I say or how I choose to say it so instead of trying to explain what you do not like, or what you do not agree with you resort to childish tactics like name calling. And here I was under the belief that this was a place to exchange thoughts and idea on a subject.
Sitting Bull Lakota
Poppins and Company
#14 - 2016-09-03 03:26:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Sitting Bull Lakota
Donnachadh wrote:
And here I was under the belief that this was a place to exchange thoughts and idea on a subject.

...since when has that been true?

Solecist Project wrote:
This "within" demands that the reader think about the data first!
Oh the horror!

In all seriousness UI is bad when it is misleading.
This UI is misleading.
It is bad.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#15 - 2016-09-03 05:22:27 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:


CCP has ALWAYS displayed optimal and falloff as two separate numbers that had to be added together to determine max range so the new tool tip is consistent with the past.




i don't think you understand yes that is how it was in the past but a few years ago they started showing falloff as the already combined numbers of optimal and falloff

that is the problem we want falloff to be falloff we don't want falloff to be optimal + falloff when displayed in one location but just falloff when displayed in another. two different numbers with the same name is nothing but a hassle


so i would also be fine if on the mouse over in the hot bar you were shown optimal and 1falloff rather than it saying optimal and falloff. because again the number it is showing is falloff + optimal not just falloff like the name implies

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#16 - 2016-09-03 11:34:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Bumblefck
The currect system makes sense to me but could do with improvement

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log
Amarak Valerii
#17 - 2016-09-03 12:33:18 UTC
the real issue here is the bug in some tool tips that makes it show the falloff as a total of optimal+falloff and in other cases the e falloff is represented as it should(only the falloff). this bug makes things confusing

i might be wrong as i dont have a certain example to backup my claim, but i think this is what the op is referring to. i will edit when i get a clear example.

Also, why missiles get (from tooltips) to show the max flight range and turrets dont get the total range

Think for yourself. Don't be sheep!
Lugh Crow-Slave
#18 - 2016-09-03 14:01:14 UTC
Amarak Valerii wrote:
the real issue here is the bug in some tool tips that makes it show the falloff as a total of optimal+falloff and in other cases the e falloff is represented as it should(only the falloff). this bug makes things confusing

i might be wrong as i dont have a certain example to backup my claim, but i think this is what the op is referring to. i will edit when i get a clear example.

this is what we are talking about but it is not a bug the mouse over tool tip on the hot bar always shows optimal+falloff as falloff
Quote:

Also, why missiles get (from tooltips) to show the max flight range and turrets dont get the total range


because missiles do consistent damage up to that max range turrets do not. however if falloff was displayed as just fall off the calculation is easy just optimal + (falloff x 2)

so if you wanted to show the full range of turrets you would need optimal 1falloff and 2falloff that starts to get to be to much for a simple tool tip

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Solecist Project
#19 - 2016-09-03 16:32:31 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Amarak Valerii wrote:
the real issue here is the bug in some tool tips that makes it show the falloff as a total of optimal+falloff and in other cases the e falloff is represented as it should(only the falloff). this bug makes things confusing

i might be wrong as i dont have a certain example to backup my claim, but i think this is what the op is referring to. i will edit when i get a clear example.

this is what we are talking about but it is not a bug the mouse over tool tip on the hot bar always shows optimal+falloff as falloff
Quote:

Also, why missiles get (from tooltips) to show the max flight range and turrets dont get the total range


because missiles do consistent damage up to that max range turrets do not. however if falloff was displayed as just fall off the calculation is easy just optimal + (falloff x 2)

so if you wanted to show the full range of turrets you would need optimal 1falloff and 2falloff that starts to get to be to much for a simple tool tip

We might clash at some points ... i think we did ...
... but you understand not to dismiss what a person says just because of bias.

You're a good poster.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Captain Campion
Campion Corp.
#20 - 2016-09-03 16:40:57 UTC
I never liked that optimal implies the ideal range.
12Next page