Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
smokeydapot
Tri-gun Psychotic Tendencies.
36
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 05:02:46 -
[1] - Quote
So as iGÇÖm sure quite a few players who canGÇÖt 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 GÇ£ wait what now GÇ£ 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 donGÇÖt 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 GÇ£ weapon accuracy GÇ£ 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
Titans Guild
107
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 05:41:24 -
[2] - Quote
with the limited info, I can say it will suck balls. |
Galaxxis
Unicorn Rampage
37
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 06:23:51 -
[3] - Quote
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
Black Fox Marauders
4374
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 09:10:18 -
[4] - Quote
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
Tri-gun Psychotic Tendencies.
36
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 17:33:33 -
[5] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Not really, because you always had to factor in your guns' sig res and your target's signature radius.
IGÇÖm 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 iGÇÖm saying your reiterating on your previous statement that is based on sig rad vs sig res and totally not involved in anything iGÇÖm posting about, IGÇÖm posting about the change to weapon accuracy score from rad/s information returned to the client upon right click show info, i donGÇÖt 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 iGÇÖm 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
901
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 20:26:28 -
[6] - Quote
Wait... ... ... ... ... ... ...WHAT?WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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
Irubo Kovu
121
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 20:45:39 -
[7] - Quote
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... |
PAPULA
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
99
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 21:06:50 -
[8] - Quote
it's the same stuff. Example:
Mega Pulse Laser II: OLD Value: Tracking Speed / Accuracy0.03375 rad/sec +Signature Resolution: 400 m
Mega Pulse Laser II: New Value: Weapon Accuracy Score3.375 +Signature Resolution40,00 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 Frigate: 40m
New Values: Everything: 40km |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
5995
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 21:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
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
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3020
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 21:52:13 -
[10] - Quote
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
Conquest and Kittens
89
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 22:04:17 -
[11] - Quote
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
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
99
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 22:10:26 -
[12] - Quote
So here's a simple calculation:
Examples MEGA PULSE LASER II Battleship weapons. old value * 100 = new value 0.0375 * 100 = 3,375
HEAVY PULSE LASER II 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 Frigate Weapons: old value * 1000 = new value 0.27375 rad/sec * 1000 = 273,75
You can also reverse calculation. Your weapons should hit exactly as they hit on TQ, there's no difference. |
Ferrotsmite Anzomi
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. The-Culture
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.28 04:22:23 -
[13] - Quote
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
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
105
|
Posted - 2016.04.28 06:25:59 -
[14] - Quote
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
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. The-Culture
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 03:13:32 -
[15] - Quote
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
Halas Hooligans
4
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 13:43:08 -
[16] - Quote
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
Dark-Rising
196
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 16:20:07 -
[17] - Quote
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
2794
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 20:48:29 -
[18] - Quote
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
884
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 21:00:44 -
[19] - Quote
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-á
|
Ferrotsmite Anzomi
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. The-Culture
4
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 00:03:02 -
[20] - Quote
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. |
|
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
228
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 00:28:41 -
[21] - Quote
You have got to be kidding.
You guys are literally bitching out CCP for redoing a system that required a calculator and replacing it with an easy-to-read value that has NO negative effect on gameplay.
I am never working for CCP. I would hate everyone who plays this game.
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
neovita
Aliastra Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 05:58:11 -
[22] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:You have got to be kidding.
You guys are literally bitching out CCP for redoing a system that required a calculator and replacing it with an easy-to-read value that has NO negative effect on gameplay.
I am never working for CCP. I would hate everyone who plays this game.
You are completely wrong about that.
With the old system you could use the angular velocity of your target, compare it to your tracking and get a rough idea of a chance to hit it. This way you could at least exclude targets you can't hit at all pretty easy. With the new system you need a calculator to get the same information using the same circumstances and informations. So the NEW system requires a calculator and the NEW system converts the value of the targets angular velocity into a complete useless piece of information in the middle of a fight. Not the old system like you just said...
So yes, ppl have are "bitching out CCP" like you said, because CCP replaced a very usefull (and in many cased realy required) information into a complete useless one. Or do you think your enemies will listen to you if you tell them things like:
"Guys, wait a second, i need to take my calculator do some math before i can make a decision which one of you to shoot first to at least have a chance to hit at all..."
in the middle of a fight?
If they are using a new scalling for the tracking value (represented by the accuracy score), then they should consider to use the exactly the same scaling system in the overview (a kind of "evasion score" like someone already said here) instead of the now complete useless angular velocity. |
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra Gallente Federation
459
|
Posted - 2016.05.02 10:20:05 -
[23] - Quote
Wow, I've entirelly missed this change in EVE. I even sent in a bug report cause I was so confused as to why all weapons had a signature value of 40km all of a sudden.
Whilst I agree that the old rad/s info hardly is intuitive I was absolutely dumbstruck on what the hell this new info was supposed to mean and what I was supposed to compare it to. A new player will have even less clue if you ask me if he starts to compare different weapons of different sizes and whatnot else.
This so must change to something better. What we had before wasn't exactly good but this is just really bad now. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
915
|
Posted - 2016.05.02 10:53:07 -
[24] - Quote
It is going to take some time to get use to, that's for sure. I suppose it will be some time before we start to really see the benefits of this new system, though I've been told that it will be far easier to compare when the stats of weapons of unequal size are stood side-by-side.
"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."
|
Rumbless
Not The Droids You Are Looking For
26
|
Posted - 2016.05.02 12:03:13 -
[25] - Quote
As long as missiles aren't getting nerfed yet again, I'm a happy camper. |
PAPULA
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
119
|
Posted - 2016.05.02 12:08:27 -
[26] - Quote
neovita wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:You have got to be kidding.
You guys are literally bitching out CCP for redoing a system that required a calculator and replacing it with an easy-to-read value that has NO negative effect on gameplay.
I am never working for CCP. I would hate everyone who plays this game. You are completely wrong about that. With the old system you could use the angular velocity of your target, compare it to your tracking and get a rough idea of a chance to hit it. This way you could at least exclude targets you can't hit at all pretty easy. And now you only have to divide by 100 to get correct rad/sec. Super hard to do.
|
CaesarGREG
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
3
|
Posted - 2016.05.02 12:16:38 -
[27] - Quote
this new system sux , u dont know if your guns r rotating fast or slow? where is tracing speed? And where is signature radius of guns
one noumber is not ENOUGH to describe guns!!
CCP this game is not for stuipid ppl, most ppl wich play here know math.
With one number u dont know to aproach target on low orbit or long orbit? Whats tracking speed of enemy guns?????
Remove signature of ships and broke whole game |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
309
|
Posted - 2016.05.02 12:17:12 -
[28] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:neovita wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:You have got to be kidding.
You guys are literally bitching out CCP for redoing a system that required a calculator and replacing it with an easy-to-read value that has NO negative effect on gameplay.
I am never working for CCP. I would hate everyone who plays this game. You are completely wrong about that. With the old system you could use the angular velocity of your target, compare it to your tracking and get a rough idea of a chance to hit it. This way you could at least exclude targets you can't hit at all pretty easy. And now you only have to divide by 100 to get correct rad/sec. Super hard to do.
Whereas before there was no arbitrary dividing factor... You could just look with your eyes and you were done, now you need to have these made up scale factors in your head to read the information properly. Much easier for the poor newbies huh ?
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
CaesarGREG
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
3
|
Posted - 2016.05.02 12:24:45 -
[29] - Quote
Old system was simple
Generally Ammar Guns: Low tracking , high optimal ,low fallof > now one number say **** Galante guns: high tracking , low optimal , low falloff , > now one number say **** Minmatar Guns:high tracking , low optimal, high fallof > now one number say ****,
how new player will knew aproach target , on low orbit , or kite? |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
6189
|
Posted - 2016.05.02 13:54:05 -
[30] - Quote
Put me in the camp of "WTF were they thinking?"
Tracking speed was easy and intuitive to think about, and the stat had meaningful units: rad/s
Signature resolution was easy and intuitive and the stat had meaningful units: meters
What are the units on this new stat? How do I compare it to information on the overview now?
Tell me why having 1 complicated number is better than 2 simple ones?
Bad idea CCP. :(
I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |