Player Features and Ideas Discussion

He wants to Normalize The Sig Res of the guns. The OP is just TERRIBLY worded about it. The only real Diffrence between this and the current formula is what your guns Tracking speed is only shows the True value vs cruisers, Frigs would be about a 3rd of it and BSs 3 times it.

To be fair, you could also argue that there are so many things affecting sig radius that 'angular velocity vs. tracking speed' is rarely an accurate hit quality predictor. Range will always be much more straightforward.

Still, I agree with you. It's easier for me to think:

. Guns larger than target --> need to stay far away, severly slow down the dude, paint him
. Guns smaller than target --> tracking isn't an issue anymore
. Target has unbonused MWD --> \o/ easier to hit
. Target is passive shield tanked --> \o/ easier to hit

...while still using angular velocity as shown on overview as a reference point.

But it is. You want to put everything into tracking so noobs have an easier time understanding... but if my gun cant physically track the target, how the hell are we hitting him??

Its like this. Rite nao. A frigate shooting a frigate, if your able to track him, you know that you should be hitting him.
post change, youll need to have a tracking more than 2x their angular to score about 50% of shots. This is because the sig will be the defining factor because the gun sig is too high.

To a newbie with a lack of understanding of the mechanics how is it more understandable that even though they "should" be tracking a target they cant hit it?

That same trait comes over in the current system as well. A weapon hits what it's made to hit as well as it states and has issues with things smaller while hitting bigger things better. What your arguing is that it makes sense to abstract the tracking on a gun from it's "intended" targets in favor of some arbitrary focal point.

There is no need for any change. The current method makes perfect sense and isn't too difficult to understand at all. No point in dumbing things down just for the sake of it.

7 pages of people who don't understand it in this thread argues otherwise.

You should retake some public school classes if you're having trouble understanding functions.

Please explain further.

Ignore the masses of posts from people who don't get the math. I get it.


I feel like whether it's done your way or not, people are largely not going to understand it. So I think either way, we just need a tutorial that explains it well. Not like the currently-existing tutorials, mind you, but something that's actually good. Something that engages the player in seeing differences and watching how they directly affect combat.

But I like the current system better. To someone who isn't a math whiz (99% of most games' playerbase, 95% of EVE's playerbase), it can be summed up as follows:

1. Frigate guns track frigates at approximately the listed rate, cruiser guns track cruisers at approximately the listed rate, etc.
2. Bigger sig radius means guns track it faster, smaller sig radius means guns track it slower
3. A cruiser would have to go a lot faster than a frigate to evade guns just as well

With your system, it would be:

1. All guns track (x ship size) by the listed rate
2. Bigger sig radius means guns track it faster, smaller sig radius means guns track it slower
3. Large guns track way slower and so are only useful against large ships, while small guns track way faster and can hit small ships

It's essentially the same learning curve when presented in this fashion, but the first style allows the learned pilot to easily estimate how fast a turret will track a similar-size target due to the listed tracking value being close to the actual tracking value--with a minor adjustment for difference between sig radius and sig resolution, a good estimate can be obtained by someone lousy at math. Also pilots who do not understand it at all can still read the tracking value and expect it to be basically right against the right size class of ships.

Your version would be more convoluted to the casual player even though it would make it easier for mathematically-oriented people to gain an intrinsic understanding of it.

that, and that OP got it all wrong. so very wrong.

signature resolution for turrets is for comparing with the target's SIZE. it has nothing to do with speed if you only consider that specific factor.