These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

weapon accuracy score concern

Author
smokeydapot
Moon Of The Pheonix
#1 - 2016-04-25 05:02:46 UTC
So as i’m sure quite a few players who can’t make fanfest in person watched it all on the stream such as I did to plan my future and find something that either awe inspired me or made me go “ wait what now “ and this is one such change that made me do the latter.

So all turrets are now getting a weapon accuracy score in the up and coming expansion to replace the Rad/s tracking of old, This got me thinking how does this change my game play and it dawned on me, Wait don’t i use that to determined my hit probability when using big slow guns ( e.g. 1400 artillery ). The long reload time and poor tracking of such turrets means that I use the column Angular Velocity that directly represents the Tracking speed of turrets, This means that although the figure provided by the client in relation to “ weapon accuracy “ means the same thing ( or so was stated iirc ) just in a different way meaning the same thing.

This now means that there is no readout on the overview that tells me my tracking speed on a target and guess work is involved in my chance to hit beyond the tracking formula, This minor but in my gameplay significant change will sadly impact my gameplay in a negative manner making it rather difficult to get the WTF reactions I get in local chat when utilizing ALL the features within the game.

P.S. I believe i also heard a comment about not seeing the size of your target This is represented by the Size column that IIRC displays the signature of the ship your trying to kill.
MicDeath Titan
No Mans Corp
incendia equus
#2 - 2016-04-25 05:41:24 UTC
with the limited info, I can say it will suck balls.
Galaxxis
Unicorn Rampage
#3 - 2016-04-25 06:23:51 UTC
I think someone got ahold of the List of Terrible Ideas at CCP thinking it was the List of Great Ideas, and now they're just going down the line implementing them all. We had the gong and flashy red epilepsy trigger, now we have "weapon accuracy rating" so that JoBob the corn harvester doesn't get confused and violently angry at the prospect of having to do math. Seriously, when was this ever a problem?
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2016-04-25 09:10:18 UTC
smokeydapot wrote:
The long reload time and poor tracking of such turrets means that I use the column Angular Velocity that directly represents the Tracking speed of turrets
Not really, because you always had to factor in your guns' sig res and your target's signature radius.

Say your 1.400s have 0.02 tracking on your fit, you'd have a 50% chance to hit a battleship at 0.02 angular but a close to zero chance to hit a frigate at 0.02 angular. And MWDs and anything else affecting target's sig would change that as well.

Also,
smokeydapot wrote:
P.S. I believe i also heard a comment about not seeing the size of your target This is represented by the Size column that IIRC displays the signature of the ship your trying to kill.
unfortunately no, size is not sig radius. It's the 'physical' size, basically a fairly meaningless stat.

Before and after patch if you want to be fancy with your pew pew you still have to a) calculate and memorize your ideal angular velocity for each major ship class and b) make educated guesses about impact of MWD, shield v armor tank etc.

So no big change really, turret tracking is still way less intuitive than range (optimal/falloff), just in a different way.

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

smokeydapot
Moon Of The Pheonix
#5 - 2016-04-25 17:33:33 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
smokeydapot wrote:
The long reload time and poor tracking of such turrets means that I use the column Angular Velocity that directly represents the Tracking speed of turrets
Not really, because you always had to factor in your guns' sig res and your target's signature radius.


I’m aware of the impact of sig res vs sig rad on tracking but I'm not speaking about the formula just the information the client returns.

Gully Alex Foyle wrote:

Say your 1.400s have 0.02 tracking on your fit, you'd have a 50% chance to hit a battleship at 0.02 angular but a close to zero chance to hit a frigate at 0.02 angular. And MWDs and anything else affecting target's sig would change that as well.


I think you lost what i’m saying your reiterating on your previous statement that is based on sig rad vs sig res and totally not involved in anything i’m posting about, I’m posting about the change to weapon accuracy score from rad/s information returned to the client upon right click show info, i don’t recall any change to tracking over the years just a general sig rad shift on ships to make it more difficult to hit the little guys.

Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Also,
smokeydapot wrote:
P.S. I believe i also heard a comment about not seeing the size of your target This is represented by the Size column that IIRC displays the signature of the ship your trying to kill.
unfortunately no, size is not sig radius. It's the 'physical' size, basically a fairly meaningless stat.


I admit that the Size column is not the sig size of the ship ( like i thought at the time of writing but thought there was a column for sig size) but this was just a general screw up on my part i posted at 5am after an all night sesion.

I already take all info into consideration before I engage with poor tracking guns such as 1400's but now i’m not informed on the UI of my turrets tracking speed like i always have been because of this weapon accuracy score that is displayed in place of rad/s.

Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#6 - 2016-04-25 20:26:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Sobaan Tali
Wait...
...
...
...
...
...
...WHAT?ShockedWHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are retiring my old trusty rad/sec system for some simple-minded kindergarten-level numbering system? Now how the hell am I suppose to make openly admitting to others that I play Eve sound impressive rather than immature? CCP, YOU GO TOO FAR THIS TIME!

Seriously, though, is it a simple change to how the same information is displayed (formatting, ect.) or are we actually talking full-blown more/less information? Are we talking outright removal of rad/sec or just replacing the readout with some underwhelming "dis gun gud, this one=not so gud," number system?

Btw, think of the cats, CCP. Think of them.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

Sustrai Aditua
Intandofisa
#7 - 2016-04-25 20:45:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Sustrai Aditua
Yes. Yes. It's more a matter of having to become accustomed to...rather than we no longer have!

Rads per second, once you got the concept, could be (virtually) visualized, I guess. I know by now I've got a sense of the two motions; my guns, your ship. Those dynamics remain the same regardless of what stat is issued, or what a stat is being called. So, there's no effective change.

The true test is "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Do those using it (so far) find things easier, or more difficult? Then, when it's released, will "we" find it so? I imagine, as in all things, there's those who'll find things clearer, and those who'll be all bolluxed-up with it.

I'm not a bean counter, myself. I watch the red lines and whose are uncomfortably reduced. If mine is fast, that sucks. If yours is fast, that's great. If yours is faster than mine, I'm winning as long as I don't run out before yours...'cause yours is bigger or some cruel sh!t like that. Since none of the actual dynamics will change, nothing I use as a meter will change.

I know there's geniuses out there who think if they crunch the numbers with a level of specificity, they'll get better results (odds are, though most of this is percentage-based chance [so much for mathematical precision]). How anyone can try to fit by the numbers expecting systematic results, including trying to accommodate for critical hits (always a dice roll) mystifies me more than differential equations.

Psychiatrists and behavior analysts will TELL you, when you break up a tried, and true routine just to be changing things on a "well-considered" whim, the direct result is a drop in performance. When the performance picks back up, it's not due to the change itself. It's due to the doers becoming accustomed to the difference...and is therefore always accommodating someone's whimsy. Such appears to be the case here, and this isn't the ONLY time.

I think the uproar has more to do with what appears to be a trend to change things just to be changing them. If such isn't the case, some technical explanation would be the polite thing to do...for your paying customers...Cool

If we get chased by zombies, I'm tripping you.

PAPULA
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#8 - 2016-04-25 21:06:50 UTC  |  Edited by: PAPULA
it's the same stuff.
Example:


Mega Pulse Laser II:
OLD Value: Tracking Speed / Accuracy 0.03375 rad/sec
+Signature Resolution: 400 m

Mega Pulse Laser II:
New Value: Weapon Accuracy Score 3.375
+Signature Resolution 40,00 km


So new value is always set for 40km so that means for 400m (battleship weapons) and for frigate you just move zeroes.
For cruiser sized stuff you need to calculate it.

Old values:
Battleship: 400m
Cruiser sized: 125m (3.2x)
Frigate: 40m

New Values:
Everything: 40km
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#9 - 2016-04-25 21:16:00 UTC
You know, you could always shoot stuff and observe the results.

Example: I know I can thwak a frigate with an arty Tornado at 30 km. I've never done the math.

There is even a test server.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#10 - 2016-04-25 21:52:13 UTC
The problem with using the transversal in overview to compare to your tracking speed meant you had to completely geuss the final variable, the signature radius. Which varies depending on ships, fits, links, and prop mods. Until that number becomes something you can see with accuracy, you've moved your geuss from transversal to a geuss from accuracy score.

In essence both pilots are still guessing. Even if their guesses tend to be accurate or not. I imagine there will be some sort of back-of-the head formula someone will come up with to adapt to the change, just like they did with the previous method.
W33b3l
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2016-04-25 22:04:17 UTC  |  Edited by: W33b3l
It's a little confusing. I've never done the math but know how the basic mechanics work. Like when you have big guns shoot the things in range with a low transversal velocity, and when you're using missiles shoot at things in range that are moving slow or you can tell have a mwd on. Or shoot at anything regrdless with a sudden negative spike in radial velocity lol.

To this day I'm fuzzy on the exact gun math as far as fiquring out the exact speed you can't track something. But I've gotton the feel for it over the years. I didn't even know people did this. I figured that either just tried to get the values as high or low as possible depending on if They where evading or dealing dps.
PAPULA
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#12 - 2016-04-25 22:10:26 UTC  |  Edited by: PAPULA
So here's a simple calculation:


Examples
Dual Giga Pulse Laser I (2km)
XL Weapons:
old value * 10 = new value
0.00384864 rad/sec * 10 = 0.0384864
(Reduced Tracking in new expansion for XL)

MEGA PULSE LASER II (400m)
Battleship weapons.
old value * 100 = new value
0.0375 rad/sec * 100 = 3,375

HEAVY PULSE LASER II (125m)
Cruiser Weapons (400m is 3.2 larger than 125m):
old value * 3.2 * 100 = new value
0.08125 rad/sec * 3.2 * 100 = 26

DUAL LIGHT PULSE (40m)
Frigate Weapons:
old value * 1000 = new value
0.27375 rad/sec * 1000 = 273,750




You can also reverse calculation.
Your weapons should hit exactly as they hit on TQ, there's no difference.
Ferrotsmite Anzomi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#13 - 2016-04-28 04:22:23 UTC
The old method used real world physics measurements and units. It was beautiful. I actually used screenshots of weapons and their stats to teach my students rotational motion in high school. I am going to laugh so hard tomorrow when I show them this crap. Ill update tomorrow how many of them find this more simple.
PAPULA
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#14 - 2016-04-28 06:25:59 UTC
Ferrotsmite Anzomi wrote:
The old method used real world physics measurements and units. It was beautiful. I actually used screenshots of weapons and their stats to teach my students rotational motion in high school. I am going to laugh so hard tomorrow when I show them this crap. Ill update tomorrow how many of them find this more simple.

You can get old values back by using my calculation formula i posted above.
Ferrotsmite Anzomi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#15 - 2016-04-29 03:13:32 UTC
The problem is NOT that the guns are more or less effective. The argument is that the numbers used are now arbitrary, and have no meaning. You can do calculations to get the numbers to be value equivalent, but the removal of units, and the scaling of resolutions to 40,000 m makes them meaningless.

I now group this measurement into the category of planets that have masses in excess of 10^44 kg, the high speed dread guns that are easily 100 feet long while only having 75 kg of mass, and ammo the size of a bus that has 0.125 m^3 of volume. Its like someone telling you that frogs weigh 800 lbs. Then when you go to correct them, they tell you it makes sense as long as you assume flies weight half a pound. The ratio is the same isn't it?

Frogs are not that big, and my frigates guns are not designed to hit a target 40 kilometers wide.
Magnus Rexana
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2016-04-29 13:43:08 UTC
Ferrotsmite Anzomi wrote:
The problem is NOT that the guns are more or less effective. The argument is that the numbers used are now arbitrary, and have no meaning. You can do calculations to get the numbers to be value equivalent, but the removal of units, and the scaling of resolutions to 40,000 m makes them meaningless.

I now group this measurement into the category of planets that have masses in excess of 10^44 kg, the high speed dread guns that are easily 100 feet long while only having 75 kg of mass, and ammo the size of a bus that has 0.125 m^3 of volume. Its like someone telling you that frogs weigh 800 lbs. Then when you go to correct them, they tell you it makes sense as long as you assume flies weight half a pound. The ratio is the same isn't it?

Frogs are not that big, and my frigates guns are not designed to hit a target 40 kilometers wide.


I thought this was a silly argument until reading this one. It makes more sense now to stick with the old system.

That being said, I now have an insatiable desire to shoot a 40km wide space frog...
Anyura
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2016-04-29 16:20:07 UTC
Magnus Rexana wrote:
That being said, I now have an insatiable desire to shoot a 40km wide space frog...


Seconded.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2016-04-29 20:48:29 UTC
Ferrotsmite Anzomi wrote:
The problem is NOT that the guns are more or less effective. The argument is that the numbers used are now arbitrary, and have no meaning. You can do calculations to get the numbers to be value equivalent, but the removal of units, and the scaling of resolutions to 40,000 m makes them meaningless.

I now group this measurement into the category of planets that have masses in excess of 10^44 kg, the high speed dread guns that are easily 100 feet long while only having 75 kg of mass, and ammo the size of a bus that has 0.125 m^3 of volume. Its like someone telling you that frogs weigh 800 lbs. Then when you go to correct them, they tell you it makes sense as long as you assume flies weight half a pound. The ratio is the same isn't it?

Frogs are not that big, and my frigates guns are not designed to hit a target 40 kilometers wide.


The new value tells everyone that large guns track worse in pretty much all condition than small guns which wasn't the case before. You could get tracking value on stuff like neutron blaster cannon to exceed 280 arty even if in real effectiveness, it was not even close. Yes the 40k number looks a bit silly but then again, they needed a common point and large is easier to work with than small unless you want to end value of 0.0000034 or something like that.

The new number is a "all things being equal" comparison. The previous one wasn't.
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#19 - 2016-04-29 21:00:44 UTC
Dude, maybe this will help : http://imgur.com/gallery/kOxXA

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 

Ferrotsmite Anzomi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#20 - 2016-04-30 00:03:02 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The new value tells everyone that large guns track worse in pretty much all condition than small guns which wasn't the case before. You could get tracking value on stuff like neutron blaster cannon to exceed 280 arty even if in real effectiveness, it was not even close. Yes the 40k number looks a bit silly but then again, they needed a common point and large is easier to work with than small unless you want to end value of 0.0000034 or something like that.

The new number is a "all things being equal" comparison. The previous one wasn't.


If you want to have medium guns hit small ships, divide the tracking speed of the mediums by 3. Hitting battleships, multiplying by 3.3 works. That was easy.. easy easy easy. If you need someone to show you in game proof that small guns track better than medium guns you haven't learned crap about combat. That is learned long before tracking calculations.

People don't compare medium guns to small guns... or to large guns, they compare them to the ships they will be shooting. I haven't tried to shoot any medium auto cannons with my freaking laser beams, or track a 1600mm Howitzer Artillery Cannon from 150km away in an sniper naga, but I have tried to track a Vindicator with small neutron blasters. (I bet you are thinking that tracking a vindi with small blasters is a trivial issue, because you have attended tracking 101. Not because you did a calculation or referenced the info window on the small blasters.)

I don't need to shoot guns, I know my big guns don't track well as your small, I know that with a tracking speed of .5 rad/s that a ship with 120m of sig radius better take 12 seconds or more to orbit my ship if I am shooting it with medium guns because all of those are measurements or calculations are really happening (1 rad/s takes about 6.25 seconds to rotate once).

The old tracking numbers were normalized to indicate how they would fair against the type of ship they would most likely encounter (assuming that frigs fight mostly against frigs, and cruisers against cruisers, etc.), so no calculation was necessary. It has now been normalized to indicate how well you could track a large citadel as it orbits you at 500. Thank you for the new stat, for now I know that my small neutron blasters are better at tracking the citadel than a rail Thorax.

Don't ask yourself what these types of measurements could be used for, ask what they ARE used for. Find what situations they will give USEFULL information towards. If another number needs to be put into the info list to indicate comparative tracking speeds among weapons of different sizes, add a new category called "Relative Tracking Value Indicator Thingy", and keep your arbitrary number, but put the measurements back that are usefull. Maby give each weapon an accuracy rating between 0 and 100 in the show info screen for a snapshot view of which weapons track better.
123Next pageLast page