Prologue: I want to make it clear before getting into the post that what I am proposing here will have literally no effect on chance to hit or applied damage. It is purely a cosmetic change with no implications for game mechanics, though it will make game mechanics easier to understand.

Background: Turrets currently have four stats that affect damage application: optimal and falloff deal with range, while tracking and signature resolution deal with the target's movement. I am not interested in optimal and falloff today, and will ignore them. The turret chance-to-hit formula, for our purposes, looks like this:

Link

Most people understand the basic idea of tracking, but in my experience most people do not understand turret signature resolution. For example, let's suppose we double a turret's signature resolution. What happens?

Link

That is, doubling the turret's signature resolution is effectively identical to halving its tracking speed.

Here is the crux of the matter: tracking speed and signature resolution are two stats which affect exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. The effect of changing one in one direction is identical to the effect of changing the other in the other direction. Having two stats instead of one combined stat is confusing and serves no purpose whatsoever (other than to confuse). Indeed, based on my conversations with people, most Eve players are confused about the role of turret signature resolution.

Proposal: Because the turret signature resolution stat is useless, duplicative, and poorly understood by most EVE players, I suggest we do away with it entirely, adjust turret tracking speeds to keep each gun the same as it is currently, and stop confusing people. This does not even require any change in the Eve code base, just in the item database: pick a convenient number, for example 100, change all turret signature resolutions to 100, and multiply the tracking speed by 100/(old signature resolution). This can easily be accomplished with a database script and requires minimal programmer time to implement.

Summary: This will have literally no effect on how guns actually work in the game, on how often you hit or miss or on how much damage you apply. It will make the chance-to-hit formula easier to understand, allow easy comparison of tracking across guns of different sizes, and more natural comparison of your tracking speed to the angular velocity of targets.

What do you think?

Edit: fixed a typo.

I think you're a NERD.

I think turrets should rely MORE on signature radius than they do currently not less.
Remove it from the tracking formula, but add it as part of the dmg formula, so stationary targets dont take full dmg unless they are larger than the turret signature.

From what I understand, Tracking speed and turret res don't affect damage the same way.

Tracking speed is tracking speed. Either your guns have the ability to track the target or they don't, and this reduces the applied damage by a degree relevant to how much faster your target's transversal is than your tracking speed.

Basically you're assuming that your turrets are always locked on the ships weak point and hammering away at it, and if you don't have sufficient tracking speed your turrets slip off into a less vulnerable area of the ship.

Turret resolution is different in that it is, as I understand it, a percentage chance to hit the target based upon the targets size as compared to the turrets size, and the distance to the target. Either you hit, or you don't, based upon the formula, it doesn't merely reduce the damage.

I may have it entirely wrong, but that's what I've picked up from various documents that went into fine detail on the subject. The bottom line is that Turret Resolution and Tracking speed are controlling two different mechanics for mitigating damage to the target. The names make it sound like they contradict each other, but from a nuts and bolts perspective they do two entirely different things.

Edit:
ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ ((((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)^2)

Yeah, give me a moment to remember how math works, I only do this about once every 6 months thanks to everything in my life having nothing to do with it.

I saw this in his links, but my eyes just kind of glazed over and I referred back to what I've read before. This seems to be a less confusing way to represent it though.

Edit: And this is where the confusion comes in. The stuff that I read ages ago never showed a correlation between tracking speed and turret resolution, they were addressed as two different calculations. Same procedure if you were to take and mash the two together, but they were supposedly not.

Bad information?

Unless the formula has changed I'd say so. The way it works now basically treats it as a tracking modifier.

That said I'm not sure I'm fond of the ops idea if I understand it correctly. If you normalize tracking while removing sig radius concerns you nerf weapons with resolutions larger than the set number you normalized on. IE: a weapon with a sig res of 400 hits other ships with 400 sigs at it's stated tracking, where with the op's proposal and using the example number their tracking would be 25% of what it is now against same size targets.

It would also eliminate the ability to modify how much damage a hull takes with sig tanking without modifying it's base speed accordingly.

(snip)

That said I'm not sure I'm fond of the ops idea if I understand it correctly. If you normalize tracking while removing sig radius concerns you nerf weapons with resolutions larger than the set number you normalized on. IE: a weapon with a sig res of 400 hits other ships with 400 sigs at it's stated tracking, where with the op's proposal and using the example number their tracking would be 25% of what it is now against same size targets.

It would also eliminate the ability to modify how much damage a hull takes with sig tanking without modifying it's base speed accordingly.

That was bothering me also. It's pretty easy to just break tracking utterly so you can't be touched as it is, wouldn't this make that extreme even more accessible by fitting with that goal in mind?

You do not understand it correctly. My proposal, as I stated several times in my OP, changes literally nothing about how damage is applied. It does not remove sig radius as a concern. All it does is simplify the underlying concepts to make them easier to understand.

(snip)

And the more I think about it, the more I start to believe it'd take a complete overhaul of every ship and module to rebalance this.

Turret sig res is a static value. Everything else in that formula is a variable that can be changed by the player. What you're asking would make the calculation easier for the player to understand, and make balancing much, much harder because the field of averages suddenly becomes far wider.

You do not understand it correctly. My proposal, as I stated several times in my OP, changes literally nothing about how damage is applied. It does not remove sig radius as a concern. All it does is simplify the underlying concepts to make them easier to understand.

what turret sig does it makes it sort of arbitrarily difficult for large weapons to hit small targets, and like wise makes small weapons hit large targets extremely well.

No, the target sig radius does that. My proposal has nothing to do with sig radiuses.. The turret sig resolution does not do that. My proposal does have something to do with turret sig resolutions.

The number of people telling me I'm wrong in this thread is simply more evidence that the vast majority of Eve players don't understand sig resolution.

no this does change how the game works. ur assuming the guns are only shooting at targets of their own size.

what turret sig does it makes it sort of arbitrarily difficult for large weapons to hit small targets, and like wise makes small weapons hit large targets extremely well.

So even if a frig is webbed to hell, a battleship is not gonna have an easy time of hitting it. and even if an inty is mwd'ing round a BS, its still going to make good hits.

This somewhat parallels how missiles behave, where small missiles make near perfect hits against larger targets, and large missiles cant hit small targets for **** even when painted and webbed.

TL:DR

-1

Sig radius does that by directly comparing to sig resolution. It's not independent of it. If sig res goes away sig rad only affects lock time and has no effect on damage or chance to hit. Note that chance to hit directly affects hit quality as well.

The fact that there is an arbitrary number we call turret sig resolution in the numerator of that fraction is completely irrelevent to the effect sig radius has.

Sig radius does that by being included in the denominator of a fraction in the term to which 0.5 is raised in the chance-to-hit formula. The fact that there is an arbitrary number we call turret sig resolution in the numerator of that fraction is completely irrelevent to the effect sig radius has. Sig radius would still have exactly the same effect if my proposal was implemented as outlined in the OP.

Yes it would make understanding the system simpler, but it would not make the game better for it.

The number of people telling me I'm wrong in this thread is simply more evidence that the vast majority of Eve players don't understand sig resolution.

Turret Sig res is not the arbitrary number here. 0.5 is. There is still no way to address the static becoming a variable without a complete rebalance.

You are right, it would not make the game better, because it would make literally no difference to the game. Apart from making it easier to understand.

(snip)
And the op is unclear, are we normalizing sig res in the equation or removing it?

no the turret sig res DOES do that.

What u obviously think is that if i take a small turret and shoot at a moving frig, and then take a large turret and add enough tracking computers that its tracking is the same as the small turrets, that both weapons will have the same chance of hitting?

No, this is not how it works.

u cannot buff the tracking of a large turret so that it hits as well as a small turret, because of turret res.

You are correct. A large gun with 0.1 tracking will not track as well as a small gun with 0.1 tracking because of the sig res. This is exactly the problem I am trying to solve. By getting rid of sig res and changing the tracking numbers so that the tracking is exactly the same as it was previous to the change, we make no change to the game mechanic but make it easier to understand because there is now only one number to compare (tracking) rather than two (tracking and sig res).

(snip)

It introduces another issue with understanding: Why don't my guns hit some targets moving slower that my tracking while hitting others significantly faster?

You are correct. A large gun with 0.1 tracking will not track as well as a small gun with 0.1 tracking because of the sig res. This is exactly the problem I am trying to solve. By getting rid of sig res and changing the tracking numbers so that the tracking is exactly the same as it was previous to the change, we make no change to the game mechanic but make it easier to understand because there is now only one number to compare (tracking) rather than two (tracking and sig res).

Because big things are easier to hit.

(snip)

How do you translate your turrets' 6 radian tracking (now that it went up from 0.5, substantially due to removal of turret resolution) to your ships angular velocity of 0.2? How?

(snip)

0.5 tracking is easy to relate to 0.2 angular velocity. Far easier. No it doesn't tell much to the casual layman, but it's a lot more secure understanding.

Great, so what is the relevance of my tracking stat? How does it compare to anything I'm being presented in game?

Think about it this way: you remove turret scan res, and to compensate you change tracking as per your suggestion.

All guns have to be 1 scan res, or some other constant. The implication is that you blow up turret tracking to astronomical proportions. Whilst this holds no computation difference, it ruins interpretation.

How do you translate your turrets' 6 radian tracking (now that it went up from 0.5, substantially due to removal of turret resolution) to your ships angular velocity of 0.2? How?

You don't. Those numbers are far apart and feel MORE arbitrary than before.

AS mentioned - you are being ignorant. Turret scan resolution is not as arbitrary as you believe; whether intended by CCP or not, is up to debate.

Their PURPOSE is to normalise tracking numbers. Without them your tracking to angular velocity numbers would be largely out of proportion.

0.5 tracking is easy to relate to 0.2 angular velocity. Far easier. No it doesn't tell much to the casual layman, but it's a lot more secure understanding.

Yes, it compares to angular velocity. And unlike right now, it compares the same way to angular velocity no matter what size of ship you're flying.

So.... what your saying is you want to nerf target painters. Because thats literally the only effect that this change would have.

And the easy to understand argument. Srsly you cant handle highschool algebra 1 and understand it? Its not hard. Im not even good at math and it seems straightforward. Try explaining to a noob how passive shield tanking works instead.

In this brave new world, a gun with tracking 0.1 always has better than a gun with tracking 0.05, while in our current world this may or may not be the case.

Edit: A little clarification.

right so u admit this changes how the games works. because what happens with ur proposal is that large turrets will hit frigates more easily, and small turrets wont hit battleships as easily.

'so we nerf large weapon tracking' i hear u say.

so i respond 'so its harder for them to hit targets of their own size?'

and then u say 'oohhhhh....now i see.'

The issie that Tyberius brings up about hitting other things and not hitting others is a matter of sig radius and has nothing to do with my proposal. It will continue to exist after implementation of my proposal exactly as it exists now.

Suppose I'm flying along in lowsec and a frigate tackles me. My tracking is 0.2, his angular velocity is 0.1. Can I hit him?

Under the current system, it depends on what size of guns I have. If I have small guns then those numbers mean I can definitely hit him. If I have large guns then those numbers mean I probably can't.

Under my proposal, those numbers would mean the same thing no matter which size of ship you're flying. See how that makes it simpler?

right so u admit this changes how the games works. because what happens with ur proposal is that large turrets will hit frigates more easily, and small turrets wont hit battleships as easily.

'so we nerf large weapon tracking' i hear u say.

so i respond 'so its harder for them to hit targets of their own size?'

and then u say 'oohhhhh....now i see.'

That's entirely untrue. The comparison of angular velocity to tracking will only be accurate for targets around the number you normalize at. Sufficiently smaller targets than the normalization point will NOT be able to be hit when tracking speed = angular velocity, likewise sufficiently larger targets will be able to be hit even when angular velocity is much higher than tracking speed.

In the end the uncertain part of the comparison is shifted from the guns to the target but it doesn't create a situation where the comparison tells the whole story like the idea is being billed. And to compensate accurately it still requires out of game knowledge.

Currently, to estimate whether my guns can track a target, I need to know my tracking speed, my target's angular velocity, my target's sig radius, and my sig resolution.

Under my proposal, to estimate whether my guns can track a target, I need to know my tracking speed, my target's angular velocity, and my target's sig radius.

See how that makes it simpler?

Currently, to estimate whether my guns can track a target, I need to know my tracking speed, my target's angular velocity, my target's sig radius, and my sig resolution.

Under my proposal, to estimate whether my guns can track a target, I need to know my tracking speed, my target's angular velocity, my target's sig radius, and the normalization point.

See how that makes it simpler?

The issie that Tyberius brings up about hitting some things and not hitting others is a matter of sig radius and has nothing to do with my proposal. It will continue to exist after implementation of my proposal exactly as it exists now.


Suppose I'm flying along in lowsec and a frigate tackles me. My tracking is 0.2, his angular velocity is 0.1. Can I hit him?

Under the current system, it depends on what size of guns I have. If I have small guns then those numbers mean I can definitely hit him. If I have large guns then those numbers mean I probably can't.

Under my proposal, those numbers would mean the same thing no matter which size of ship you're flying. See how that makes it simpler?

Edit: Typo

This change wouldn't make anything simpler, it jsut wouldn't work period, my jab at your lack of algebra knowledge should have pointed to your lack of actually running the numbers, so here out of the goodeness of my heart and wasting an evening of playing the videyagames (baldurs gate) I'll do the math for you.

Heres the turret damage calculation simplified for our purposes

( Vt / R * -ë) * ( Sg / St)

Vt = target traversal velocity (Meters / Second)
R = range ( Meters, also could be understood as radius of a circle)
-ë = tracking speed of turret ( Radians / Second, angular velocity. This times the radius gets you a m/s because radians are m/m and cancel themselves out. Literally the tracking portion of the equation is comparing the target traversal speed and a "max traversal" speed that the turret can hit)

Sg = weapon sig rez (Meters, values are 40m/125m/400m for the small med and large turret sizes)
St = target sigrad (Meters, valuse also tend towards nominal 40m/125m/400m however a sample set of merlin moa rokh gets you 39/135/500 so they do change from ship to ship)

All other parts of the equation don't matter because they are either constants (the ^2, and the .5 out front. The range/optimal-falloff part also drops out because we are assuming the guns are all firing from their optimal range.

So lets throw some numbers in there.
You said lets work with a nominal value of 100m for the weapon sig of all guns correct. So, Sg = 100m
Going on the assumption that a target is orbiting you at optimal and with perfect tracking (because we are trying to work out the effect of this new sigrad equation) Lets say Vt and R are both 1.
Our equation becomes...

1/-ë * 100 / St
St is from our target ship, well roll with the average values. And now you are saying we will be changing the -ë of all the guns after the change to account for the changes Sg.

Any gun shooting at a frigate after change
1/-ë * 100/40 -> 100-ë = 40 -> -ë = .4r/s

Same gun... shooting a cruiser....
1/-ë * 100/125 -> 100-ë = 125 -> -ë = 1.25r/s ?

Battleships?
1/-ë * 100/400 -> 100-ë = 400 -> -ë = 4r/s ???

So, after this change.... a single gun firing at 3 different targets would have 3 different tracking speeds????????
Please sir, elaborate for me how its easier to understand for players that a gun just switches tracking speeds when you start shooting at different targets???
How do you even balance that? Theres some other values there to work with...

Range to target... well maybe if you stop shooting a frigate and start shooting a BS, he'll magically get forced back a distance to balance the equations?

Target Traversal... Maybe he'll slow down?

Target Sigrad.... well theres 1 that isn't controlled by the fight and instead is a built in stat... but well if you start shifting THOSE numbers around to fix it, youll end up with all ships having the same sigrad, missiles will be broken, and every ship and shootable structure int the game would need to be reworked to allow for this change to be viable....

That doesn't seem like good game design.

Perhaps though, the problem could be worked around by adding some kind of factor (DRF like missiles??) into the ammos themselves. But now we're starting to get kinda ridiculous, because we're just shoving the same value, into a different part of the problem.

This thread has been a goldmine of posts by people who don't understand math.

Anyway, currently we have three variables: turret sig resolution, target sig radius, and turret tracking. Fixing turret sig resolution and rolling the variability there into tracking reduces your variables to just target sig radius and turret tracking.

It's simpler to understand and changes nothing about how the game works. On the other hand, it requires some degree of developer effort and it changes nothing about how the game works.

Put the crayons down, because you're not ready to do algebra yet, kid.

What you've actually done is compute the tracking speed necessary to yield a constant hit probability on ships of varying signature radii (and you botched that, too, because (1/-ë * 100/40 = 1) yields -ë = 2.5, not 0.4) . It should not be surprising that this result varies by target signature radius--of course the tracking speed needed to generate the same hit probability is different for different sig radii. That's the whole point. You need a higher -ë to achieve the same hit probability for a 40m frigate than for a 125m cruiser, all other things being equal.

In reality, the weapon tracking speed is fixed for a given ship/skill/implant/velocity/etc. combination and it is the hit probability that varies by target signature radius. But setting the expression (1/-ë * 100/St) equal to a constant carries the implicit assumption that hit probability is being held constant.

Though it begs the question, where did the 40/125/400 gunrez stats come from? is this 1 of those old... back in the early days of eve before resist things (missiles still had a "shield damage" and "armor damage" stat a year or so ago that they finally got rid of I think, actually hevent checked in a while, is that still there on missiles? I think ammos had it too)

This thread has been a goldmine of posts by people who don't understand math.

I think turrets should rely MORE on signature radius than they do currently not less.
Remove it from the tracking formula, but add it as part of the dmg formula, so stationary targets dont take full dmg unless they are larger than the turret signature.

No, the target sig radius does that. My proposal has nothing to do with sig radiuses.. The turret sig resolution does not do that. My proposal does have something to do with turret sig resolutions.

The number of people telling me I'm wrong in this thread is simply more evidence that the vast majority of Eve players don't understand sig resolution.

The turret's sig res is essentially the same thing as the missile's explosion diameter (i.e. Sig Res <= Sig Rad, then 100% damage, barring other factors .... OR ... Sig Res > Sig Rad, then proportional decrease in applied damage) .

What, when you have removed signature, will target painters do? They are crap as it is.

And yet, the fail continues.

where am I wrong in the comparison?

it's how the math works ... yes, if the transversal is zero, you're gonna end up effectively zeroing out that side of the equation ... but that still doesn't mean that the tracking and signature resolution on the guns are the same thing.

If the transversal is zero (or very close to zero) the whole equation 'zeroes out' and you hit perfectly.

A moros will hit perfectly an unmoving pod, a Phoenix won't.

In your previous post it seems you said both wouldn't hit.

OP Math is correct. It does simplify things mathematically and does have ZERO effect on the way game is played.

However, from a lore and phyical point of view, I wouldn't want to see a 125mm autocannon and 1400mm arillery to have the same "radius".

I believe there is an easier fix to make things more "readable":

Right now the angular velocity and tracking values are in rad/sec which is a hard to understand term. Change it to deg/s and suddenly it wil become much clearer for people.

Good reply

Right now the angular velocity and tracking values are in rad/sec which is a hard to understand term. Change it to deg/s and suddenly it wil become much clearer for people.

Good suggestion

This would be 57.3 degrees per second. How do degrees help you?

But, even if PVP is extremely varied, most of the time you'll be shooting at the 'standard target'.

How about this to explain it.

Devide the tracking by its signature and you find the Absolute tracking value.

An Electron Blaster Cannon with 0.075 rad/s and a signature of 400.
0.075 / 400 = 0,0001875 Absolute

A 250mm railgun with a tracking of 0,02566 rad/s and a signature of 125.
0,02566 / 125 = 0,00020528 Absolute

Logically people think that the blaster has a lot more tracking because of the higher number. But in reality it has 9% worse tracking than the railgun. It confuses people without any reason.

+2 Good idea and stayed calm.

A quick follow up:

Removing the sig resolution part will undermine the role of sig radius.

Many things in game alter the sig radius of your ship:
Target Painters, Gang Links, Implants, MWD, Rigs, Modules, etc.

Removing the sig resolution from the turret hit formula essentially removes all the penalties and benefits of all these things.

Proposal: Because the turret signature resolution stat is useless, duplicative, and poorly understood by most EVE players, I suggest we do away with it entirely, adjust turret tracking speeds to keep each gun the same as it is currently, and stop confusing people. This does not even require any change in the Eve code base, just in the item database: pick a convenient number, for example 100, change all turret signature resolutions to 100, and multiply the tracking speed by 100/(old signature resolution). This can easily be accomplished with a database script and requires minimal programmer time to implement.

Summary: This will have literally no effect on how guns actually work in the game, on how often you hit or miss or on how much damage you apply. It will make the chance-to-hit formula easier to understand, allow easy comparison of tracking across guns of different sizes, and more natural comparison of your tracking speed to the angular velocity of targets.

What do you think?

Edit: fixed a typo.

(snip)

I think this is a horrible idea.

Unless you plan to somehow make all turrets track at different rates against targets of different sizes (which is effectively what the signature resolution of the turret does), removing the turret signature resolution from the game will absolutely impact turret damage.

Right now, the chance to hit with a turret is calculated as:

Chance to hit = 0.5^X * 0.5^Y

Where X is the "tracking" term and Y is the "range" term. As long as you're within your turret's optimal range, only the tracking term matters, so let's assume that for now. Currently, the tracking term depends both on the relative motion of your ship and the target (tracking), and the size of the target compared to the size of your weapon (signature). The reason for tracking being part of the equation is obvious: it makes it harder to hit things that are moving too quickly. But the signature part of the equation is equally important: it makes it harder to hit things that are too small. Without a signature term, battleship guns would either get a massive buff to their ability to hit frigates (assuming their ability to hit other battleships stayed the same) or a massive nerf to their ability to hit other battleships (assuming their ability to hit frigates stayed the same). If there is no size component in the hit equation, there is no way to balance it, and that would completely break every turret-based combat ship.



tl;dr: don't ever dumb down basic EvE mechanics because someone doesn't feel they're simple enough to understand.

Yep. Threads about tracking are always like this. And the sig resolution issue is a pretty bit part of people's misunderstanding, a distressing number of people think it's a to-hit chance separate to tracking, as if turrets were missiles.

The counter-argument of the current system making it easier to relate your turrets' tracking speed to the angular velocity of a same-size opponent has some merit though. Although, since the sigs of different ships are so variable, it's not sure it's really that valuable.

I'd be willing to bet that if the op didn't word the suggestion for normalizing tracking then suggesting regarding sig res that we "we do away with it entirely," where it's reasonable to assume "entirely" means from the tracking formula as well, rather than just converting it to a constant, that it might deal with half of those posts.

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make here. I am suggesting that we get rid of sig resolution entirely by removing it from the formula. I suggested that rather than changing game code it may be easier to just adjust values in the database, which gives the same result (I assume this is what you mean by normalization). Getting rid of it entirely and converting it to a constant ("normalizing it") are equivalent. If a variable has the same value for every entry in the database, it is effectively no longer a variable.

They aren't equivalent in that you have a number serving the exact same function in the formula. Whether you refer to it as sig res or "100" or whatever number you arbitrarily chose it still functions in modifying tracking the same way.

Removing it means changing the formula to actually remove it as a factor, or such is the way people are reading it judging by the comments. Turning a variable into a constant doesn't remove and terms from the equation, thus remove may not have been the best word to use.

Actually, OP is correct and so is the thread title.

Now it's: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radius, turret signature resolution

His proposal would be: chance to hit depends on tracking speed, target angular velocity, target signature radius

Base tracking stats of all turrets would be changed accordingly, obviously.

I still don't like the idea, though. Because imo the new, resulting tracking speeds would be much harder to relate to in-game target speed and distance.

Removing it means changing the formula to actually remove it as a factor, or such is the way people are reading it judging by the comments.

judging by the comments, people aren't reading the op at all

I already addressed that and stated that the normalization point alters, or for a small range confirms, what the direct comparison of target angular velocity and tracking speed would otherwise have you believe. If you don't know the normalization point then you don't know if the angular velocity of say, a thorax, being equal to your tracking means a good hit chance or a bad one.

If normalized at 50, your real tracking is over twice the angular, if 200 a little more than half, at 100 your pretty close on. Either way it's not a term you can ignore regardless of what you call it or whether it changes and thus isn't "removed".

(snip)

Thread should be renamed: make turret signature resolution even more obscure as it is currently.

OP, your proposal is bad and you should feel at least a little bit bad.

How can a variable that doesn't exist be obscure?

How can a variable that doesn't exist be obscure?

How can a variable that doesn't exist be obscure?

(snip)

Let's try the following exercise and I think you'll understand yourself.

Create an example of the new tracking speed figures for a small, medium and large turret, according to your idea.

Then imagine you're actually PVPing, with your overview showing angular velocity.

Determine which angular velocity will give you roughly a 50% chance to hit a frigate, cruiser or battleship. Approximately, no need to be exact. Basically, create a 3x3 matrix. Try to explain how you determined those figures.

If you agree to try this, and post it in this thread, I will then try do the same with the current system.


My point is, I'm pretty sure your way would be much harder to understand, especially in an actual PVP situation.

But let's do this experiment, if you disagree.

The 3x3 matrix doesn't really make sense under my proposal, because the answer is the same no matter what size of gun I'm using: if the angular velocity is some constant (which depends on the target size) times my tracking, then I'll have approximately a 50% chance to hit. So you could make it's a 3 matrix, I suppose.

Under the current system, you do need a 3x3 matrix because the chance to hit depends not only on your nominal tracking but also on your gun size.

So your experiment does a nice job demonstrating why the current system is more complicated. Thanks!

Here, I made some 3x3 charts for you:

Current

Proposed

Notice how (as your numbers confirm) under the current system there are 9 different ratios of angular velocity to tracking speed that would give a 50% chance of hitting, while under the proposed system there are only 3 different ratios.

See how that makes it simpler?

Here, I made some 3x3 charts for you:

Current

Proposed

Notice how (as your numbers confirm) under the current system there are 9 different ratios of angular velocity to tracking speed that would give a 50% chance of hitting, while under the proposed system there are only 3 different ratios.

See how that makes it simpler?

(snip)

I could spend time arguing the maths but enough people before me have done that,

BUT Eve does not need ot be simple, why the hell should it be, If i wanted simple i could go play minesweeper instead give me complicated give me confused, give me odd, give me bizzare, give me hell but in the end the to have fun things and have a greater sence of acheievment, we shoudl remember : "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" and really there is more scope in a game that is complicated at its very core and mechanics than one that is easy.

Fortunately all the people arguing against my math have one thing in common: they are all wrong.

As for complexity, scope, and richness, I absolutely agree with you. That is one of the reasons I play Eve. Fortunately, since my proposal does not change the game mechanics in any way, it also does not reduce the scope or richness of the Eve universe in any way.

on the upside -- you're also wrong in stating that "Tracking speed and signature effect the same thing in exactly the same way".

While they ~can~ work to end up getting you the same answer in specific cases, they're not the same thing. As someone else said (much better than me) -- the sig res of the gun is the grouping of shots you're able to make with that particular turret.

edit -- granted that if transversal is zero, then it doesn't matter in any case.

Also to the guy above. Tps do actually matter in the current equation and they do increase application of guns aswell as missiles.

Fortunately all the people arguing against my math have one thing in common: they are all wrong.

(snip)

I've really just been waiting for you to come up with a reasonable way to rebalance every ship and module around the new tracking speeds of turrets.

Because they would all have to be changed, so the onus is on you to prove that it's worth the effort to change everything in order to make one calculation just a bit easier for players to ballpark in a fight.

You've stated what the value of the change is to you, now justify the value of the change to CCP in terms of the amount of work it'd take them to the tangible benefits they would see.

Ok here is the issue with removing 1 value from the equation: it increases the importance of the other factors i.e 3+3+3+3=12 but you want 4+4+4=12 (this is just an example) or to be more like what you suggest merging values you really want 3+3+6=12.

Now you want to effectivly increase trackspeed across the board to compensate, what this does is mean ships with tracking bonus have just been massively buffed compared to those with out again simplistic example if i used to have a tracking of 3+50% i get 4.5 but now I get 4+50% i get 6 (agian simplistc example). You can also make simular arguments about haveing to adjust tracking computers and disrupters.

The point being:

By having more values in the equation it is easier for game balance and not allow one value to be the overiding factor in an engagment.

The only issue I see with this is it causes un-intuitive things to happen in game.

Say we normalize gun sig radii to 100 m^2 so the tracking speed on my Rokh's Neutron Blaster Cannons goes down to .01778 rad/s

We would still need to explain to new players why you can hit a battleship that is orbiting you faster than that, or why you cant hit an interceptor going around you at exactly that speed.

I understand it wouldnt change the game balance, but it would increase confusion for new players not decrease it.

Your argument is ignorant and wrong. Once again,

My proposal changes literally nothing about how damage is applied, so it makes no difference in game balance.

I'm sure you enjoy saying it, but it doesn't make it true. Skills, modules, and implants will have an entirely different effect on the new tracking value, and since no skill, module, or implant has any effect on turret sig res that expands their efficacy. Changing their values will change how they scale, which will necessarily require other things like ship signature radius to scale with them. Now that that's changed, what about how missiles interact with sig radius? Oops... Back to the grindstone, guys, we've got more work to do...

I'm sure you enjoy saying it, but it doesn't make it true. Skills, modules, and implants will have an entirely different effect on the new tracking value, and since no skill, module, or implant has any effect on turret sig res that expands their efficacy. Changing their values will change how they scale, which will necessarily require other things like ship signature radius to scale with them. Now that that's changed, what about how missiles interact with sig radius? Oops... Back to the grindstone, guys, we've got more work to do...

Bigger ships are easier to hit than smaller ships. Seems pretty intuitive to me.

it would be... except for the fact that people use transversal on their overviews...

See as it is right now, guns shooting at a target more or less their size (medium guns shooting at a cruiser, or large guns shooting at a battleship) track around their listed transversal, but with your proposal, you could have a battleship shooting at another battleship with 3x the transversal as is listed on the gun and still hit them perfectly...

This would require explanation...

it would be... except for the fact that people use transversal on their overviews...

See as it is right now, guns shooting at a target more or less their size (medium guns shooting at a cruiser, or large guns shooting at a battleship) track around their listed transversal, but with your proposal, you could have a battleship shooting at another battleship with 3x the transversal as is listed on the gun and still hit them perfectly...

This would require explanation...

I think I've explained it like 5 times in this thread.

Bigger targets are easier to hit.

Not that hard.

I think I've explained it like 5 times in this thread.

Bigger targets are easier to hit.

Not that hard.

That same trait comes over in the current system as well. A weapon hits what it's made to hit as well as it states and has issues with things smaller while hitting bigger things better. What your arguing is that it makes sense to abstract the tracking on a gun from it's "intended" targets in favor of some arbitrary focal point.

True. Because I think having "0.1" mean the same thing as "0.1" when you're looking at tracking makes more sense then "well you can probably track things roughly the same size as you..."

There is no need for any change. The current method makes perfect sense and isn't too difficult to understand at all. No point in dumbing things down just for the sake of it.

I think I've explained it like 5 times in this thread.

Bigger targets are easier to hit.

Not that hard.

7 pages of people who don't understand it in this thread argues otherwise.

arguably one of the worst idea's I've ever heard.

How does the OP not understand that signature resolution is an entirely seperate mechanic from tracking speed.

arguably one of the worst idea's I've ever heard.

How does the OP not understand that signature resolution is an entirely seperate mechanic from tracking speed.

This entire thread is disgusting.

There is literally no way to do away with one and not absolutely destroy the other.

I believe there is an easier fix to make things more "readable":

Right now the angular velocity and tracking values are in rad/sec which is a hard to understand term. Change it to deg/s and suddenly it wil become much clearer for people.

I think you're a NERD.

that, and that OP got it all wrong. so very wrong.

signature resolution for turrets is for comparing with the target's SIZE. it has nothing to do with speed if you only consider that specific factor.

You miss the point of applying radians: If you are orbiting Aebe Amraen's Eagle in your Vagabond and trying to outmaneuver his 250mm Railguns, that you have to be able to travel 0.01011 radians per second around him to outmaneuver, adjusted a bit by his Motion Prediction skill and any difference in your Vagabond's signature radius from 125 meters.

How does this make the math easier? Simple. You travel 1 radian around him when you travel a distance in the orbit equal to the distance from him to you. Say he is 14,216 meters away from you, well punch into a calculator 14,216 x 0.012 (adjusting upwards for tracking skill and shield extenders) and you get 170.6 meters per second you should be traveling to match his tracking. Since at this range you might even make 340m/s without afterburner, you should be able to lazily drift around him without getting hit, provided he doesn't do any fancy maneuvering. But he's a pretty sharp guy so I'm sure he won't give in that easily. Still, being able to make such an estimation quickly on the fly is important for judging your opponent's abilities.

Also, this thread is proof TEST is better at math than the rest of EVE.

I've read the OP and it doesn't seem like he's simplifying anything. But neither implementation seems superior to the other. Both implementations are a bit mysterious to a new player. Both implementations require maths and a bit of game experience to understand. Gameplay is exactly the same in both implementations. Meaning that no change should happen. If a change isn't beneficial there's no point having a change.

The Op's post might not change the way thing actually work but it might make it easier to understand as currently this thread proves that currently the system is not understood by many.

With your system, it would be:

1. All guns track (x ship size) by the listed rate
2. Bigger sig radius means guns track it faster, smaller sig radius means guns track it slower
3. Large guns track way slower and so are only useful against large ships, while small guns track way faster and can hit small ships

You're wrong. Rather than spending a bunch of time explaining why you're wrong, I will simply refer you back to the first three pages of this thread where a half dozen other people were wrong in the same way as you.

This is, as I said then, further evidence that most people do not understand the turret sig resolution stat. Removing the turret sig resolution stat in the way I suggested will literally change nothing about any gun's ability to hit small or large, fast or slow targets. All it will do is make the mechanic easier to understand, so that hopefully we will have fewer people being wrong.

Turret signature resolution is not just a multiplier in an equation, it's a way to balance different classes of turrets and prevent extreme tracking scenarios.

Everything that I've seen in favor of your idea would have every gun get a new, re-balanced tracking stat, ignore the turret signature resolution while keeping the target's signature radius, and apply the same tracking equally to all targets. (If I'm incorrect here, please tell me so.) On paper, and at first glance, you are correct. Nothing seems to change.

There are two very key things you overlooked.

First, under the current system, only part of the tracking term is subject to effects from things like tracking computers, ammo type, tracking disruptors, etc. While the signature radius of the target can obviously be modified (target painters, MWDs, warfare links, etc.), there is currently no way to modify the signature resolution of a turret. It's static. It's constant. It's a buffer of sorts to keep their stats from going completely out of whack. Which leads me to my next point.

Second, turret signature resolution is way of saying that no, that 425mm railgun should not be able to hit that moving frigate quite so easily at 100km, even if my tracking says I should be able to while still ensuring that my light electron blaster will hit that battleship that I'm orbiting at 250m. At close to zero ranges, tracking needs to go up exponentially in order to have any chance to hit. Since giving them that much tracking would grossly overpower them at longer ranges, there needs to be another way to do it. CCP has acknowledged that tracking does not scale well, with either range or turret size. Trying to balance tracking so that close range weapons can track well enough to hit while not allowing long range weapons to over-track at long ranges is non-trivial. The signature resolution of a turret plays a key role in maintaining that balance. Try applying some of your re-balancing to to more extreme ranges (near zero, 100km+) and I guarantee you that you'll see unusual behavior.

Regardless of whether this is a good idea or not, it produces demonstrably different results than the current mechanic when you consider tracking bonuses/penalties, and would likely lead to broken performance at extremes of range and/or tracking. This means that your underlying assumption (that turret performance wouldn't change) is flawed.

Ergo, this idea is flawed and should not be implemented.

QED.

EDIT: The issue with tracking at close ranges is a large part of the reason why webs used to be 90% instead of 60%. Blasters used to need targets to be going that slow at ranges under 10km in order to hit anything, even oversized targets.

Since you asked me to tell you if you were incorrect, here you go: you're still wrong.

Everything that I've seen in favor of your idea would have every gun get a new, re-balanced tracking stat, ignore the turret signature resolution while keeping the target's signature radius, and apply the same tracking equally to all targets.

Unfortunately, almost everything after that sentence in your post is incorrect. Your paragraph about how sig res is a buffer keeping tracking from going out of whack is nonsense (and wrong). Your next paragraph is riddled with errors (i.e. it's wrong). The paragraph after that is just completely false (i.e. wrong).

Does tracking not scale exponentially with decreasing range?

Nope. The tracking needed to maintain a constant chance-to-hit on a target with constant transversal is inversely proportional to range, i.e. x ~ 1/y, while exponential would be something like x ~ e^(1/y). This is completely irrelevant to the argument, but since you asked about this specifically I figured I'd go ahead and point out that you are wrong here anyway.

Do yourself a favor and work out the numbers for these scenarios:

The whole point of algebra is that it saves us from having to work out (possibly uncountably many) specific examples.

Turret signature resolution is not just a multiplier in an equation, it's a way to balance different classes of turrets and prevent extreme tracking scenarios.

Actually it's not a multiplier at all, and it is not useful at all in balancing turrets.

You and several others are under the impression that signature resolution affects turret tracking. It does not.

Signature resolution is an arbitrary value that the rest of the equation is built around.

The equation is balanced to the desired values in partnership with the arbitrary value(s). Any and all possible arbitrary values work correctly and will not affect the outcome provided the tracking multipliers on the individual weapons are balanced to give them the correct amount of tracking.

Actually it's not a multiplier at all, and it is not useful at all in balancing turrets.

You and several others are under the impression that signature resolution affects turret tracking. It does not.

Signature resolution is an arbitrary value that the rest of the equation is built around.

The equation is balanced to the desired values in partnership with the arbitrary value(s). Any and all possible arbitrary values work correctly and will not affect the outcome provided the tracking multipliers on the individual weapons are balanced to give them the correct amount of tracking.

This seems like a good argument against the proposed. If sig res isn't to be considered a tracking modifier than adjusting tracking in order to migrate the current values to a single constant doesn't make much sense.

I don't see your point. The OP isn't trying to change tracking and in fact wants to make sure that it doesn't change. What the OP aims to do would be done flawlessly with his proposal, with zero collateral damage. The majority of his detractors believe that his proposal will cause collateral damage and are opposed to it for that reason and that reason only--my point is helping to explain to them that the OP's proposal would cause no collateral damage.

because they never get the near zero radial velocity guns can get

Granted, changing the sig res doesn't change the stated tracking, but it does change the actual chance to hit by it's relation to the sig rad of any non-0 angular velocity target.

angular, not radial

I think it's neat that afterburners can help mitigate damage from missiles. I believe that missiles should have much higher explosion velocities so you don't start losing damage from target velocity until the target is going much faster than base speed. Overdrive injectors and nanofiber hulls shouldn't be all you need to mitigate missile damage.

Changing the sig res without adjusting individual tracking modifiers to compensate does change tracking, but changing the individual tracking modifiers is core to the OP's proposal while changing sig res values to all be the same is merely the solution to the OP's initial dilemnadilemma.

This way they compare to each other much more realistically, at the cost of them not comparing to their targets as realistically. A Small Focused Beam Laser will track a 125m sig radius cruiser at 0.3125 radians per second, but will only track a 40m sig radius frigate at 0.1 radians per second.

I don't know where you're getting 24 rad/sec but you seem to have your basic algebra wrong

Like I said earlier, you can easily adjust the tracking speed of a turret to compensate for changing the sig res.

The sig res values are entirely aesthetic, and therefore arbitrary.

If you change sig res to 1 across the board, you would divide small turret tracking by 40, medium turret t...

And that is what my post addresses. There is no mathematical error to be found.

This suggestion introduces a misleading perception, or worse, lack of any perception.

I repeatedly ask of you and the OP, how does one look at the adjusted tracking and compare it with angular velocity.
By how much do you expect to adjust the tracking?
My understand is that by reducing the 40, 125, 400 to 1, you need to adjust tracking to accommodate this. Considering we are talking about basic algebra, and please correct if I'm wrong, increase the tracking value of small turrets by 40, medium by 125, and large by 400.
And confirm if this is the new number I will be seeing in my stat window.

Devide the tracking by its signature and you find the Absolute tracking value.

An Electron Blaster Cannon with 0.075 rad/s and a signature of 400.
0.075 / 400 = 0,0001875 Absolute

A 250mm railgun with a tracking of 0,02566 rad/s and a signature of 125.
0,02566 / 125 = 0,00020528 Absolute

From Ashley's good idea at page 3


I think if the aim is to "simplfy" things so that it is easier to understand, something like this can be used too:

In addition to tracking use the term "Normalized Tracking" (Short NT) which is guns tracking/signature
Add a new column to overview called "Normalized Angular Velocity" (Short NAV) which is targets angular velocity/signature radius.

So that player can directly discern if his gun can hit the enemy or not by looking at these values. If NT is smaller than NAV, less chance to hit, if NT is larger than NAV more chance to hit.

As I explained above, a sensible way to do it would be using 125 as the base value.

So, to answer your question:

. All small turrets would have tracking multiplied by 125/40 = 3.125

. All medium turrets would remain the same

. All large turrets would have tracking multiplied by 125/400 = 0.3125


Neither I nor Reaver would like it, though.

This procedure is exactly the same as I did but with different numbers. I am addressing an issue with messing the actual tracking number that will show up on the SHOW INFO tab and how does the user relate THAT to the angular velocity.

Spoiler alert: it's bad.

Yes, I agree it's bad, squid-friend.

Was just trying to be nice and answer a question you posted, since I really like your nose (even if you're a squid).

Why don't you hop by in Huola this afternoon, so we can test the tracking formula on the battlefield?

Spoiler alert: you'll die.

I beat a Neutron Void atron on my tracking atron with this so I give no f***s. All that paper DPS down the drain.

P.S. Huola? For reals?

is good for the end user. That was my original point too, I guess we just got lost in translation somewhere.

like the ratio of their own tracking to their current angular velocity.