These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Communication Center » EVE General Discussion » weapon accuracy score concern

Topic is locked indefinitely.

weapon accuracy score concern
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Areen Sassel

Dirac Angestun Gesept

Likes received: 225

#121 - 2016-07-31 21:39:43 UTC

Blade Darth wrote:

Not even looking at this stat any more, corp CEO told me to keep blood pressure low while mining.
https://namamai.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/turret-mechanics-part-2-transversal-vs-angular-velocity/

So that is a good example of the common error in this thread:

" If I know my artillery has a tracking value of 0.013 (radians/sec), then I know that I’ll be able to track and hit anyone on my overview who has an angular velocity less than 0.013, assuming they’re in my optimal range."

No, you don't, not unless you know the target's signature radius - and if you estimate that correctly you then have a fiddle factor to multiply by to find the angular velocity you can hit. Exactly the same is true in the WAS world - the fiddle factor is just different.

Heimdal Freight and Manufacture Inc 27
Gibbeous Moon Heimdal Freight and Manufacture Inc Likes received: 27	#122 - 2016-07-31 22:18:48 UTC Magnus Rexana wrote: That being said, I now have an insatiable desire to shoot a 40km wide space frog... If I'd ever come across a 40km wide space frog I'd just be runnin'....

Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 919
Brokk Witgenstein Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic Likes received: 919	#123 - 2016-07-31 22:30:22 UTC 1 I'd just lay off the LSD for a day.

Sergey Hawk

The Sith Syndicate

REFORD

Likes received: 219

#124 - 2016-08-02 12:31:58 UTC

Areen Sassel wrote:

Common error in this thread that some people believe that WAS is a awesome improvement but they are wrong.
Is the old system did not takes into account signature radius? In calculating the old formula already used the signature radius.
But CCP make super-duper improvement just multiplying OLD values by 100 and called new value WAS.
Do you really think that this is improves some game mechanics???
Now we need some WAS analog for angular velocity in overview column.
With OLD system you fit cruiser with blasters, you know your blasters tracking speed in rad/s and you have angular velocity in overview. In combat with another cruiser, if you do not remember your blaster tracking speed, you can quickly look blaster stats and all you need is to compare tracking speed with angular velocity in overview because all cruisers have approximately the same size of signature radius. We are not talking about MWD. With the old system we do not need to make any calculations.
With new system you need to convert WAS in rad/s. Yes, it's simple calculations but it's a waste of time!
Why, during the battle, I do have to think about these calculations? WHY??

Aura: "You need to be within range to execute this function."

Kimi Räikkönen: “Leave me alone, I know what I’m doing.”

Dirty Forum Alt

Forum Alts Anonymous

Likes received: 881

#125 - 2016-08-02 14:19:06 UTC

I'm not opposed to the existence of the new Weapon Accuracy Score - and I don't think anybody else is either.

We just want the old rad/s value back *as well*.

Put it in the spot that currently says "40.0km" for literally *every single module in the entire game*....

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)

Flying Blacksmiths 123
Althalus Stenory Flying Blacksmiths Likes received: 123	#126 - 2016-08-09 11:45:46 UTC \| Edited by: Althalus Stenory 2 @CCPlease read that thread and hear us ! Thanks ! (i'm feeling like I was summoning god... lol, sadly it's common knowledge "he" never answers) EsiPy - Python 2.7 / 3.3+ Swagger Client based on pyswagger for ESI

Lunarisse Aspenstar

Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque

Khimi Harar

Likes received: 1,214

#127 - 2016-08-09 12:20:56 UTC | Edited by: Lunarisse Aspenstar

Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

This is my issue/concern. I don't mind the existence of the new WAS. But please give me back my data!

To elaborate.

While weapon accuracy score seems better to compare guns between each other... but not for estimating hits when you are kiting or moving, for reasons other people have explained a lot better than me above, which rely on knowing angular velocity and the effect on tracking.

I use angular velocity in my overview. So I think they should at least put back in tracking speed in the weapon description attributes (although really, I'd want all of the data like rad/s values). But at least this gives two important parameters visible: accuracy score and tracking. One for comparing guns, second - for estimating dependency of hit from angular speed.

Soltys

Brutor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 177

#128 - 2016-10-07 00:07:31 UTC | Edited by: Soltys

Actually let me reedit this, now that I have cooled down.

~~Can we please get rad/s back into the game ?~~

Can we please get gun vs. ship comparable sizes back into the game ?

OR

Can we please get Normalized (to 40km target size) Angular Velocity in overview ?

In the past, appropriately sized guns roughly (modulo implants, booster, subsystems, etc.) matched appropriately sized ships - which implied that gun's rad/s could be easily related to overview column. Or adjusted in head quickly, on the fly.

Now it is no longer so easy, as we have extra step from ridiculous 40km size to rough frigate/cruiser/battleship size.

If you do crazy ninja stuff like that, please add damn CHECKBOX so we can retain normal singature resolution values along with tracking values so we have something more directly comparable to overview.

Or (perhaps better) - if you are going to stick to all tracking values normalized to 40km (we all know you will), then for the love of all is good:

Add normalized angular velocity column option to overview (which will show: 40km*target_angular/target_signature). As this way we get directly comparable values (and directly usable in well known chance to hit formula)

Jita Flipping Inc.: Kovl & Kuvl

1,915
Arec Bardwin Likes received: 1,915	#129 - 2016-10-07 01:24:08 UTC Wait, CCP removed rad/s from ingame info? Relying on old eft installs to get the tracking info is just

Soltys

Brutor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 177

#130 - 2016-10-07 01:55:57 UTC

Arec Bardwin wrote:

Wait, CCP removed rad/s from ingame info? Relying on old eft installs to get the tracking info is just Roll

I reedited my initial reply. It's not that they removed it - they scaled tracking of every gun/drone to same 40km resolution - which made them directly comparable, but PITA to relate to angular velocity in overview.

Jita Flipping Inc.: Kovl & Kuvl

Bat Country Pandemic Horde 19,001
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Horde Likes received: 19,001	#131 - 2016-10-07 05:22:01 UTC Tau Cabalander wrote: 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. I haven't run the maths on most of my toys for years, I just sort o know if I'm going to hit stuff or not.


Arec Bardwin Likes received: 1,915	#132 - 2016-10-07 13:00:41 UTC When we've got the new awesome weapon accuracy stat added could we at least have it shown with the range and damage info in the mouse-over display for weapons? That would actually be useful when being TDed and such.

Soltys

Brutor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 177

#133 - 2016-10-07 21:39:56 UTC

TBH "normalized" (or however to call it) angular velocity column in overview would be damn awesome now to have.

The tracking related part in chance-to-hit has always been (target_angular / target_sig) / (gun_track / gun_res).

Now after scan resolution changes, it's essentially (target_angular / target_sig) / (gun_track / 40km). So instead of displaying actual angular velocity, display "normalized" angular matching 40km signature radius. Then we have simply: norm_angular / gun_track. Something that is always directly comparable in every situation.

Jita Flipping Inc.: Kovl & Kuvl

Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 91
Tornii Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation Likes received: 91	#134 - 2016-10-22 10:30:56 UTC \| Edited by: Tornii 1 Ferrotsmite Anzomi wrote: People don't compare medium guns to small guns... or to large guns, they compare them to the ships they will be shooting. This. The change essentially removed the ability to make informed adjustments to ship maneuvering while shooting a target.