EVE General Discussion

Well to be fair .... I'm BillyBum the engineer and I'd rather see Degrees than radials. They don't mean a thing to me, because I always blatantly round fractions down and use gut feeling to assess what Da Number truly means. Radials don't mean nothing to me.

Now that we've got accuracy score which actually means something, all we need is angular velocity expressed in degrees/sec and a checkbox to put the game in mathboy mode (old style) again.

Then everyone will be happy. Right?

Old system was better i never cared about gun comparison of different sizes but rather within it own group and for that old system was flawless

Further more it shows correct sig rez of all guns and not 40 km made up number out of someone behind just to show smaller number for big guns and bigger for small.

Jeez let me know when Nobel prize is on i wanna see the nomination process may self.

In other news i would gladly go to old system that was just fine and one that no one ever complained if CCP make that as option.

What you miss is the point of our arguments against this WAS system. If I give you the number 11.88, and say tell me how fast I can orbit my target, without missing, you can't do it. The only way is to break that number down into its components to find Radians per second, which was shown before the change. There is simply no way to apply a WAS number to practical application by itself.

5/40 = 0.125 = 50/400 so yes, they are identical.

Aren't citadels 40km? There you go, this silly argument we're having about gun stats is laid to rest, once and for all. All your guns are designed to hit citadels.

It's not a matter of being rules lawyers, min-maxers, or whatever other derogatory term you want to use. This game is run by numbers, it's run by defined formulas in fact, and the practical and empirical will exactly match the theoretical. If people "go nuts" because things don't match up, then it is because of either A) a bug in the system, or much more commonly B) their theoretical idea of how things should work was missing out on some of the key variables or formulas required. If this is because of A, then that "headache or heartache" is certainly well-founded, and is something that should be addressed and fixed. If it's because of B, then the error is on the human, and the system should be faulted for that.




So your tests have shown exactly what the numbers have already proven, that when a ship's angular velocity is low (nose or tail on), weapons are pretty accurate, and when there's a high angular velocity (moving broadside), accuracy is garbage. In fact, in the second part of your empirical tests, you demonstrate exactly the point B i was referring to above. When stating that your gun tracking shouldn't matter when that target is staying still, while you're moving, is an inaccurate thing being included into your theoretical formula. In the situation described, your tracking does very much matter, because your angular velocity is still above 0, because you are moving. So the accurate theory is that your guns should hit like garbage in that situation, which, as you were kind enough to test, they do. So yes, the algorithm for tracking and target is exactly what I expect, which makes the accuracy numbers immensely important. If you want to keep it at a simplistic level of analysis (angular velocity affects accuracy, low=good and high=bad) then that's your choice and that's fine.

But there are those of us who want to go a step beyond that, and want to know how much angular velocity affects accuracy. That's the reason why we crunch the numbers, to give us an accurate theoretical view of how a situation will work, so that we can make a better decision based on the information available. In some cases this isn't as necessary, such as a frigate orbiting a battleship at 1000, where they can know without much math that they'll have close to perfect accuracy. In other cases, such as a 1400 arty tempest, taking a few moments to make sure that their next 30+ seconds of waiting on guns won't be wasted isn't min-maxing, rules lawyering, or any of that nonsense, it's just plain playing smart.

No math was required, you could literally watch your overview and decide if you were going to hit the target with certainty [depending on ticks].

You're an engineer and you don't comprehend rad/s?
What engineering school did you go to?..

You need to ask?

It was Da School, where they taught him Da Number.

They didn't mention pi cause that would have made everyone hungry and they'd skip school.
So, instead of "a circle is 2 radians," they used "a circle is 360 degrees."
Like a pizza.
You put it in the oven at 360 degrees for 6 minutes, so that's 360 seconds.
So degrees / second makes sense.

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.