These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Turret tracking vs overview tracking?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2016-12-29 15:37:06 UTC
Cookie wrote:
so, there was a rad/s stat for guns, there still is a rad/s readout in overview, rather easy to match if you ask me, why there was a need for a change is still a mystery to me.
Because the rad/s in the overview didn't correlate to the rad/s in the gun's tracking stat due to differences in signatures, and the rad/s in one gun's tracking stat didn't correlate to the rad/s tracking in another gun's tracking stat due to differences in signature resolutions.
Captain Awkward
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2016-12-29 16:06:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Awkward
Well with the old system you had all the numbers (not the fomulars) and at least could figure it out yourself.

Now you have this arbitrary tracking number that calculates tracking to a fictive 40km radius and EvE itself tells you NOTHING about it. You have to go to the forums and ask and be redicted to a outdated wiki or some def post to find out what Tracking Score actually means.

And then you still have no idea if your Tracking Score of 20 is enoug to engage a frig or not because it does not tell you anthing about the necessary tracking score to actually hit the firg.

The sad truth is that 90% of EvEs player base is operating on the rule of thumb and gut feelings and has no idea how it actually works. And the game itself does not take any actiuons to make it tranparant or understandable.

A tracking score colum in the overview would clear things up a lot.
Cookie
Snakeoil Industries Ltd.
#43 - 2016-12-29 16:37:48 UTC
Guns tracking speed has nothing to do with signatures. Your turret will not start to turn slower when you're firing at smaller stuff.
Grigg Skjellerup
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2016-12-29 16:47:30 UTC
Captain Awkward wrote:
Well with the old system you had all the numbers (not the fomulars) and at least could figure it out yourself.


You couldn't, not without a trip to the forums or a look at the formula, because it was counter-intuitive. It didn't just matter that the angular velocity shown on the overview was below the tracking on your gun, because target size also mattered.

cookie wrote:
Guns tracking speed has nothing to do with signatures. Your turret will not start to turn slower when you're firing at smaller stuff.


Signature size is right there in the chance to hit formula. It matters.

If you're trying to visualise it, imagine looking through the scope on a gun, aiming at something 300m away. In one case, you're aiming at a deer. 2nd case, a frog. 3rd case, you've managed to spot a fly. They all move slowly enough at that range that you can turn quickly enough to look in their general direction. But which will you actually be able to maintain your aim at while they move?
mkint
#45 - 2016-12-29 17:17:59 UTC  |  Edited by: mkint
Grigg Skjellerup wrote:
Captain Awkward wrote:
Well with the old system you had all the numbers (not the fomulars) and at least could figure it out yourself.


You couldn't, not without a trip to the forums or a look at the formula, because it was counter-intuitive. It didn't just matter that the angular velocity shown on the overview was below the tracking on your gun, because target size also mattered.

cookie wrote:
Guns tracking speed has nothing to do with signatures. Your turret will not start to turn slower when you're firing at smaller stuff.


Signature size is right there in the chance to hit formula. It matters.

If you're trying to visualise it, imagine looking through the scope on a gun, aiming at something 300m away. In one case, you're aiming at a deer. 2nd case, a frog. 3rd case, you've managed to spot a fly. They all move slowly enough at that range that you can turn quickly enough to look in their general direction. But which will you actually be able to maintain your aim at while they move?

Sig radius vs resolution mattered, but it didn't need to be exact. A battleship shooting at a frigate, you'd know where the tracking and angular velocity were, so you could just fudge a little to compensate for size. The new numbers expect perfect math in your head every single time for every single target, rather than a much simpler starting at a fixed point and adjusting. Or rather the new numbers are a convoluted way of a dev who doesn't actually play the game deciding he was going to bastardize the numbers into something he could pretend he understands, even though in an actual fight, they are incomprehensible.

The new numbers are bad. Just like having to click twice is automatically worse than having to click once, looking at a number and having to do math is much worse than just looking at a number.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Grigg Skjellerup
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2016-12-29 17:49:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Grigg Skjellerup
mkint wrote:

Sig radius vs resolution mattered, but it didn't need to be exact. A battleship shooting at a frigate, you'd know where the tracking and angular velocity were, so you could just fudge a little to compensate for size. The new numbers expect perfect math in your head every single time for every single target, rather than a much simpler starting at a fixed point and adjusting. Or rather the new numbers are a convoluted way of a dev who doesn't actually play the game deciding he was going to bastardize the numbers into something he could pretend he understands, even though in an actual fight, they are incomprehensible.

The new numbers are bad. Just like having to click twice is automatically worse than having to click once, looking at a number and having to do math is much worse than just looking at a number.


As I said before, I think that the fact the guns are standardised is great. I can directly compare the tracking of guns, no maths required. Want to know if blasters on a cruiser can be as accurate as rails on a frigate? You can check, very quickly. Want to get an idea just how much worse your battleship sized guns will be than what you are used to? You can check, very quickly. I had to take the time to learn what the new tracking score was, sure. But now that I have, I like it. And it allows those who don't know the underlying meanings to directly compare things, and not get surprised when they put 0.5 rad/s guns on a cruiser and suddenly can't hit anything, even though 0.5 rad/s guns on their destroyer worked great.

For people who don't do maths, don't put angular velocity on the overview, wouldn't know what a radian was if it bit them, I think the change makes sense, makes the basic information they need more intuitive.

I think that your criticism is very valid for people who put angular velocity on the overview. Valid for people who want more information than the basics. But I think it can be fixed, made simple for you in space, become quickly comprehensible, with a very small change to allow assinging your own scalar multiplier to the angular velocity column. Do that in its simplest form, and you have the old method back, almost exactly. The only change is you see a 20 on both gun & overview instead of a 0.0625 on both.

So it brings back the old functionality, and offers more scope for customisation, and is more intuitive for those not interested in looking beyond the basics of which gun is more accurate.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#47 - 2016-12-29 17:57:23 UTC
Grigg Skjellerup wrote:
mkint wrote:

Sig radius vs resolution mattered, but it didn't need to be exact. A battleship shooting at a frigate, you'd know where the tracking and angular velocity were, so you could just fudge a little to compensate for size. The new numbers expect perfect math in your head every single time for every single target, rather than a much simpler starting at a fixed point and adjusting. Or rather the new numbers are a convoluted way of a dev who doesn't actually play the game deciding he was going to bastardize the numbers into something he could pretend he understands, even though in an actual fight, they are incomprehensible.

The new numbers are bad. Just like having to click twice is automatically worse than having to click once, looking at a number and having to do math is much worse than just looking at a number.


As I said before, I think that the fact the guns are standardised is great. I can directly compare the tracking of guns, no maths required. Want to know if blasters on a cruiser can be as accurate as rails on a frigate? You can check, very quickly. Want to get an idea just how much worse your battleship sized guns will be than what you are used to? You can check, very quickly. I had to take the time to learn what the new tracking score was, sure. But now that I have, I like it. And it allows those who don't know the underlying meanings to directly compare things, and not get surprised when they put 0.5 rad/s guns on a cruiser and suddenly can't hit anything, even though 0.5 rad/s guns on their destroyer worked great.

For people who don't do maths, don't put angular velocity on the overview, wouldn't know what a radian was if it bit them, I think the change makes sense, makes the basic information they need more intuitive.

I think that your criticism is very valid for people who put angular velocity on the overview. Valid for people who want more information than the basics. But I think it can be fixed, made simple for you in space, become quickly comprehensible, with a very small change to allow assinging your own scalar multiplier to the angular velocity column. Do that in its simplest form, and you have the old method back, almost exactly. The only change is you see a 20 on both gun & overview instead of a 0.0625 on both.

So it brings back the old functionality, and offers more scope for customisation, and is more intuitive for those not interested in looking beyond the basics of which gun is more accurate.

The difference between capital guns and small guns is four orders of magnitude, as in small guns are 35,000 times better than capital guns. You don't make any sense of that, it means nothing to you.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2016-12-29 19:36:53 UTC
Captain Awkward wrote:
Well with the old system you had all the numbers (not the fomulars) and at least could figure it out yourself.

Now you have this arbitrary tracking number that calculates tracking to a fictive 40km radius and EvE itself tells you NOTHING about it. You have to go to the forums and ask and be redicted to a outdated wiki or some def post to find out what Tracking Score actually means.
To be fair, with the older display you were only given tracking and sig resolution for the guns, and zero indication in the game how those two stats interacted - you'd have to go to the forums or the EVE Uni wiki to learn how they fit in to the to-hit formula. Tracking Score isn't any better, but at least it isn't any worse.

Quote:
And then you still have no idea if your Tracking Score of 20 is enoug to engage a frig or not because it does not tell you anthing about the necessary tracking score to actually hit the firg.
In the new system you have to do some math, sure - specifically, adjust the gun's 40km signature resolution to match the target's signature radius then adjust the tracking score similarly - but you had to do some math in the old system as well. Except instead of knowing that the tracking score is in relation to a constant 40km sig res, you have to know the individual gun's sig res - which admittedly could only be one of three different numbers so those numbers were easy to memorize, but still there were three instead of just the single number now.

Quote:
The sad truth is that 90% of EvEs player base is operating on the rule of thumb and gut feelings and has no idea how it actually works. And the game itself does not take any actiuons to make it tranparant or understandable.
True. The game really does reward those who put a lot of effort into digging in to how things work.

Quote:
A tracking score colum in the overview would clear things up a lot.
Definitely.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#49 - 2016-12-29 19:53:28 UTC
You could maybe explain some of this oversimplification by assuming the game is meant to feel like a zynga game. The problem with that is a player's understanding (and hope for consistent success) is behind, say, a year of playtime. But I think if they make it that far, they're in it for things other than the game's challenge of skill. So yes the skilled play is there, but no one is sticking around long enough to find it specifically. Visualizing it into something like a HUD display not only does all the math for you, it gives an indication about why you died and what went wrong. I don't believe for one second anyone is "doing trig on the fly" you're not rainman. Ships don't move fast enough for it to matter nearly as much compared to where you landed on grid and what ewar is being applied, and your tank.

All things considered I don't see it making much of an impact either way.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Previous page123