EVE Search - Weapon Accuracy Score is nice, but needs to go with Ship Evasion Sco...

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Weapon Accuracy Score is nice, but needs to go with Ship Evasion Sco...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 457	Posted - 2016.04.14 19:26:24 - [1] - Quote On the test server there has been the introduction of the concept of a Weapon Accuracy Score for turrets. (Thanks Ja'e.) This new number utilizes both tracking and signature resolution to create a score that's directly comparable across different turrets. Previously, a gun with 0.12 rad/s tracking could have extremely different accuracy compared to a different gun with 0.12 rad/s tracking if the two guns had extremely different signature resolutions. With this new score, a gun with 40 WAS is known to be exactly as accurate as a different gun with a 40 WAS. However, it's now more problematic when comparing weapon accuracy to what's happening on the grid. Currently, if a pilot knows that their gun has a similar signature as their target, they know comparing the gun's tracking to the target's radial velocity is a very good indicator of the to-hit chance. With the Weapon Accuracy Score however, there's nothing about the ship that makes an easy comparison. A cruiser with 120 meter signature orbiting 1300 meters away at 200 m/s (0.15 rad/s) doesn't translate to an obvious to-hit chance when using a 40 WAS gun. Without doing some math it's not obvious whether it's 10% chance or a 90% chance. All we know is that a 90 WAS gun is more accurate than a 40 WAS gun. (It's a 32% chance to hit in this example, btw.) My proposal is to add an "Evasion Score" as an overview column. This Evasion Score would be calculated exactly like how the Weapon Accuracy Score is calculated. That is, 40000 * radial velocity / signature. In the above cruiser example, the ship has a 51 Evasion Score, which is slightly better than the gun's 40 Weapon Accuracy Score, so it's immediately obvious the gun has less than a 50% chance to hit. (When the two scores are equal, there's a 50/50 chance to hit.) This isn't a static value that can be added to the stats since it changes depending on the ship's speed and direction, which is why it needs to be an overview column. This will also help out with target painters, since as they dynamically effect a ship's signature radius they would dynamically effect a ship's Evasion Score. Similarly, MWD penalties would also show up on the overview. This is a very synergistic way to represent the turret chance-to-hit equation. If the above cruiser were to turn on its MWD and bloom its sig radius from 120m to 720m, it would have an Evasion Score of only 8.5, barely anything, until it was able to get up to full speed.
Robbert Smith Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2016.04.14 20:56:20 - [2] - Quote While some will complain that this is dumbing down Eve, I think this has been to difficult for even veterans to understand. I laugh every time someone encourages a new bro to add transverse velocity to their overview... I think this is a great idea.
Iain Cariaba 2917	Posted - 2016.04.14 21:31:25 - [3] - Quote The problem with evasion score is that a good portion of that revolves around how you fly your ship. If you're flying straight at the person shooting at you, you're easy to track. If you're orbiting at 50km sniping, you're easier to hit than if you're at the same speed orbiting at 5km. And yes, Robbert, while adding the transversal column to your overview is rather silly, it is still important to know how your transverse velocity impacts your opponent's ability to hit you. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 457	Posted - 2016.04.14 21:43:22 - [4] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: The problem with evasion score is that a good portion of that revolves around how you fly your ship. If you're flying straight at the person shooting at you, you're easy to track. If you're orbiting at 50km sniping, you're easier to hit than if you're at the same speed orbiting at 5km. No, that's not a problem with the Evasion Score, since the Evasion Score takes that into account. An example with a frig: Ship signature radius: 42 m Ship speed: 4000 m/s Transversal speed: 0 m/s (since it's moving directly towards you) Radial speed: 0 rad/s Evasion Score = 40000 * 0 / 42 = 0. So the ship has an Evasion Score of ZERO. The Evasion Score tells you exactly what you're talking about - that is, how easy or difficult it is for your guns to track your target. Quote: And yes, Robbert, while adding the transversal column to your overview is rather silly, it is still important to know how your transverse velocity impacts your opponent's ability to hit you. Indeed, but it only matters in relationship to the engagement range, which is entirely what the radial speed column tells you. So you can put on range and transversal speed and manually calculate radial speed, or you can just show the radial speed column and have it calculated for you. There is NO other use for transversal speed info.
Iain Cariaba 2917	Posted - 2016.04.14 22:27:21 - [5] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: The problem with evasion score is that a good portion of that revolves around how you fly your ship. If you're flying straight at the person shooting at you, you're easy to track. If you're orbiting at 50km sniping, you're easier to hit than if you're at the same speed orbiting at 5km. No, that's not a problem with the Evasion Score, since the Evasion Score takes that into account. An example with a frig: Ship signature radius: 42 m Ship speed: 4000 m/s Transversal speed: 0 m/s (since it's moving directly towards you) Radial speed: 0 rad/s Evasion Score = 40000 * 0 / 42 = 0. So the ship has an Evasion Score of ZERO. The Evasion Score tells you exactly what you're talking about - that is, how easy or difficult it is for your guns to track your target. And when you change even one of those variables, the evasion score changes. You're looking at recalculating the evasion score every second for every ship on grid with every other ship in space on the entire server. That's a lot of load on the server there. Edit: Also, the formula used to determine tracking hit chance is a lot more complex than it appears you think it is. Edit 2: Sorry, I meant to research this more before posting. I blame sleep deprivation, and am currently working on this. Please be patient. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Ja'e Ambraelle Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 14	Posted - 2016.04.15 00:31:46 - [6] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: And when you change even one of those variables, the evasion score changes. You're looking at recalculating the evasion score every second for every ship on grid with every other ship in space on the entire server. That's a lot of load on the server there. Well that's a decision CCP has to make. The point still stands though, without an evasion rating, the accuracy score doesn't do or help much. Iain Cariaba wrote: This is incorrect. According to the wiki on turret damage, specifically the part about the to hit equation, radial speed is how the ship is moving along the radius of the circle around your ship. AKA, it is the movement towards or away from your ship, not it's movement as it transverses the circle. Yeah he probably meant angular speed, we don't really care about transversal nor radial with guns.
Iain Cariaba 2917	Posted - 2016.04.15 01:11:48 - [7] - Quote Ja'e Ambraelle wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: And when you change even one of those variables, the evasion score changes. You're looking at recalculating the evasion score every second for every ship on grid with every other ship in space on the entire server. That's a lot of load on the server there. Well that's a decision CCP has to make. The point still stands though, without an evasion rating, the accuracy score doesn't do or help much. It's not really hard to figure out. Let's use a moderate sized fleet engagement of two fleets, one with 100 pilots and one with 101 (for ease of calculation in the example). For one ship, the server would have to recalculate the evasion score every second as it relates to each of the 200 other ships. This has to be done using the variables from each ship, as each one can potentially be different. This then has to be repeated 200 more times, for a total of 40,200 additional operations every second on top of the work the server already does. This is just for 201 ships, this gets magnified greatly when you account for the fact that this calculation would have to be done for every single ship in space as it relates to every other ship, NPC, structure, etc. that share the same grid. With tens of thousands of players spread over seven thousand systems, you'd be looking at adding a few million more calculations per second to servers that already have to use tidi to manage the load at times. Edit: Oh, drones. Can't forget drones. Add 5 drones to each of the ships in the example fleets. Can you do the math to figure how many calculations it'd take to work this when you add a thousand drones into the mix? EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 457	Posted - 2016.04.15 01:37:32 - [8] - Quote Thanks Ja'e, I was indeed using the incorrect word. Gah. "Radial" replaced with "angular" above. Iain, the calculation to determine the Evasion Score is incredibly simple. The client can do it millions of times per second without breaking a sweat. Its simply 40000 * angular velocity (which is already known and shown on the overview) / signature radius of target (which is also known). That's it. One multiplication, one division, zero server cycles. Easy.
Helsinki Atruin Assisted Suicide Services Epicenter. 5	Posted - 2016.04.15 11:53:59 - [9] - Quote Someone could probably even make this as an overlay, that works in real time, that is if it wouldn't get them banned. Further, with the information the overview currently provides in addition to stats from the guns, ammo and ship bonuses combined with an estimate as to the targets sig radius, (you don't know if they are using shield extenders, halo implants, so this will only be an estimate) and display an estimated chance to hit.
Iain Cariaba 2920	Posted - 2016.04.15 14:29:11 - [10] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Thanks Ja'e, I was indeed using the incorrect word. Gah. "Radial" replaced with "angular" above. Iain, the calculation to determine the Evasion Score is incredibly simple. The client can do it millions of times per second without breaking a sweat. Its simply 40000 * angular velocity (which is already known and shown on the overview) / signature radius of target (which is also known). That's it. One multiplication, one division, zero server cycles. Easy. So a server that already has to use time dilation to slow down time in game so that it can keep up with the load can suddenly handle millions of extra calculations per second on top of it's current load? EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2777	Posted - 2016.04.15 15:00:40 - [11] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: One multiplication, one division, zero server cycles. Easy. TIL: calculation don't require CPU cycles.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 458	Posted - 2016.04.15 16:44:44 - [12] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Eli Stan wrote: One multiplication, one division, zero server cycles. Easy. TIL: calculation don't require CPU cycles. You both missed "the client" in my sentence. And if has to be the servers that calculates (40000 * angular velocity / signature radius) and sends the results to the clients along with all the other overview data then YES I think the servers can EASILY handle that with absolutely ZERO noticeable impact to performance, even at 10% tidi. It's really an incredibly simple calculation, one multiplication and one division, and scales linearly. It's not some factorial behemoth.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2777	Posted - 2016.04.15 17:03:02 - [13] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Eli Stan wrote: One multiplication, one division, zero server cycles. Easy. TIL: calculation don't require CPU cycles. You both missed "the client" in my sentence. And if has to be the servers that calculates (40000 * angular velocity / signature radius) and sends the results to the clients along with all the other overview data then YES I think the servers can EASILY handle that with absolutely ZERO noticeable impact to performance, even at 10% tidi. It's really an incredibly simple calculation, one multiplication and one division, and scales linearly. It's not some factorial behemoth. It's a behemoth when you realize each entity in space has to be calculated in reference to each other entity in space on the grid since the game has no way to know who is an enemy. Those entity include everything from ship to drones and cans because they can all get shot. Hundred of entity on grid create thousands upon thousands of 1v1 relationship that has to be calculated at all time on top of what is already chocking the server. You client side idea is also only viable if CCP accept to let the client do any calculation instead of leaving everything server side like it is right now.
Dirritat'z Demblin Aliastra Gallente Federation 33	Posted - 2016.04.15 17:19:56 - [14] - Quote He talks about doing a rough,, client sided calculation from the numbers that your overview allready gives You. A number the server prop. Never needs, since it already has all the numbers. 'keep all the data serverside' is BS in this case, the graphics are not serversidet, the cycletimes you see are not serverside. The whole idea needs, indeed, 0.0000% more load to the Server. If your Machine has problems with This, stop playing eve on a comodore PET.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2777	Posted - 2016.04.15 17:25:52 - [15] - Quote Dirritat'z Demblin wrote: He talks about doing a rough,, client sided calculation from the numbers that your overview allready gives You. That is, indeed, 0.0000 more load to the Server. Of your Machine has problems with This, stop playing eve on a comodore PET. It's not like the server has to feed us all the sig radius data so our CPU can do the math right? Sending hundred if not thousand of value to each client every ticks surely won't add any load...
Ebag Trescientas Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 5	Posted - 2016.04.15 17:30:17 - [16] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: It's not like the server has to feed us all the sig radius data so our CPU can do the math right? Sending hundred if not thousand of value to each client every ticks surely won't add any load... You do know that sig size is already an available column in the overview, right? Client already has all the data required for the calculation. No server CPU used because the calculations can be done instantly on the client side. Since it's just data being displayed to the client (and not actually used for calculation on the server, which is already being done anyway), there's zero impact to TiDi, server ticks, server CPU, or anything else (other than making the client do a very minor amount of additional work).
Arla Sarain 763	Posted - 2016.04.15 17:31:12 - [17] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: And when you change even one of those variables, the evasion score changes. You're looking at recalculating the evasion score every second for every ship on grid with every other ship in space on the entire server. That's a lot of load on the server there. . Where do you think rad/s come from...? Especially considering that rad/s is relative to the the person's ship. i.e. it's calculating that for every person with an overview, for every ship on grid.
Dirritat'z Demblin Aliastra Gallente Federation 33	Posted - 2016.04.15 17:32:21 - [18] - Quote You mean all the data we already have ready in the overview? Yes, I'm sure it won't increase the load if the server has to send only what it already is sending.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2778	Posted - 2016.04.15 17:44:20 - [19] - Quote Dirritat'z Demblin wrote: You mean all the data we already have ready in the overview? Yes, I'm sure it won't increase the load if the server has to send only what it already is sending. I though we only had small, medium or large and not the actual numerical value.
Ebag Trescientas Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2016.04.15 17:49:48 - [20] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Dirritat'z Demblin wrote: You mean all the data we already have ready in the overview? Yes, I'm sure it won't increase the load if the server has to send only what it already is sending. I though we only had small, medium or large and not the actual numerical value. http://puu.sh/ojhG0/3523923a60.png You can even get the sig size of stations and stars, if you want.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2778	Posted - 2016.04.15 18:02:37 - [21] - Quote Ebag Trescientas wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Dirritat'z Demblin wrote: You mean all the data we already have ready in the overview? Yes, I'm sure it won't increase the load if the server has to send only what it already is sending. I though we only had small, medium or large and not the actual numerical value. http://puu.sh/ojhG0/3523923a60.png You can even get the sig size of stations and stars, if you want. Guess it changed since the last time I checked what all the tabs did. Then it would only be a matter of CCP wanting the cleint to do it.
Ebag Trescientas Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2016.04.15 19:04:35 - [22] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Guess it changed since the last time I checked what all the tabs did. Then it would only be a matter of CCP wanting the cleint to do it. To be fair, I have no idea when they ninja'd it in. All I know is it made me very happy (as a heavy missile user). \o/
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 3201	Posted - 2016.04.17 12:39:43 - [23] - Quote This is instead of tracking? That could be misleading. With tracking i knew the way to avoid being hit was to orbit or spiral or whatever. With accuracy rating you could get people flying straight at an artie boat and wonder why they are being hit despite its low accuracy rating. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 806	Posted - 2016.04.17 14:30:35 - [24] - Quote I am conflicted on these numbers. One side of me says that a ship with the advanced computers ours would have could easily and probably would provide such information so I say why not. The other side of me tends to agree with Iain Cariaba and the continual dumbing down of the game, thus eliminating another of the things left that clearly differentiate the good pilots from the great ones and setting server load argument aside that would be a bad thing so I say NO to this idea. A few response to things posted. Frostys Virpio wrote: Eli Stan wrote: One multiplication, one division, zero server cycles. Easy. TIL: calculation don't require CPU cycles. Actually they do. The CPU has to tell the memory and math portions of itself that they need to wake up and go to work. While the actual math may be handled by the math co-processor portion of the chip the cpu still has a lot of work to do to make it all happen. Eli Stan wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Eli Stan wrote: One multiplication, one division, zero server cycles. Easy. TIL: calculation don't require CPU cycles. You both missed "the client" in my sentence. And if has to be the servers that calculates (40000 * angular velocity / signature radius) and sends the results to the clients along with all the other overview data then YES I think the servers can EASILY handle that with absolutely ZERO noticeable impact to performance, even at 10% tidi. It's really an incredibly simple calculation, one multiplication and one division, and scales linearly. It's not some factorial behemoth. Ah actually it can be a technical behemouth. Given 500 ships, 100 drones and say 50 other objects in space on your grid we have a lot of "simple" math going on. 1st we have the calculations for the ships themselves so 500 x 500 = 250,000 2nd now the drones relative to the ships 500 x 100 = 50,000 3rd now the drones relative to each other 100 x 100 = 10,000 4th the ships and drones relative to the other objects 600 x 50 = 30,000 At this point we have 340,000 math operations per second, but as the informercials would say but wait there is more. To the computer your formula is actually handled as 2 separate math operations the multiplication and the division so we need to account for that so 340,000 x 2 = 680,000 Add in all of the other situations where this calculation may be needed on the same server and you could easily add several million more math operations per second and taken all by themselves that could initiate TIDI. And I do not know about you but I hate TIDI and increasing the chance of it happening for a gee this would be neat idea gets a NO from me. Some of you feel that this would not add to the server load because it could be handled client side and I wonder if that is really true? Since the damage calculations are run server side does your client have the signature data for every object? Does the client receive all the relevant data about the drones? If not then handling this client side simply replaces the math load on the servers with the data processing load required to move all this information to the clients of every active player in the node. Having gone through all of that CCP obviously has found a way to handle this without adding to much server overhead or they would not have brought it to your local test server. Either that or they need the data from the test servers to determine if the additional load can be handled by Tranquility.
Ben Ishikela 71	Posted - 2016.04.17 14:40:43 - [25] - Quote Helsinki Atruin wrote: Someone could probably even make this as an overlay, that works in real time, that is if it wouldn't get them banned. Further, with the information the overview currently provides in addition to stats from the guns, ammo and ship bonuses combined with an estimate as to the targets sig radius, (you don't know if they are using shield extenders, halo implants, so this will only be an estimate) and display an estimated chance to hit. All of this would be doable clientside, therefor no serverload Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop trees to start a fire.
Robbert Smith Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2016.04.17 19:40:43 - [26] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Given 500 ships, 100 drones and say 50 other objects in space on your grid we have a lot of "simple" math going on. 1st we have the calculations for the ships themselves so 500 x 500 = 250,000 2nd now the drones relative to the ships 500 x 100 = 50,000 3rd now the drones relative to each other 100 x 100 = 10,000 4th the ships and drones relative to the other objects 600 x 50 = 30,000 At this point we have 340,000 math operations per second, as the informercials would say but wait there is more. To the computer your formula is actually handled as 2 separate math operations the multiplication and the division so we need to account for that so 340,000 x 2 = 680,000 All this talk is getting out of hand. All you need is one logical evaluation to see if the object is currently visible in the overview and a few trivial math operations by the client on values the server is already sending you. If you're worried about performance, turn that column off. I do however, recall from one of the Fanfest presentations that the overview code is particularly "legacy"... so that's the only real thing I could see holding it up.
Iain Cariaba 2925	Posted - 2016.04.18 04:26:30 - [27] - Quote Ben Ishikela wrote: Helsinki Atruin wrote: Someone could probably even make this as an overlay, that works in real time, that is if it wouldn't get them banned. Further, with the information the overview currently provides in addition to stats from the guns, ammo and ship bonuses combined with an estimate as to the targets sig radius, (you don't know if they are using shield extenders, halo implants, so this will only be an estimate) and display an estimated chance to hit. All of this would be doable clientside, therefor no serverload So you shunt the several hundred thousand to million more calculations per second off onto hardware that is inferior to the server, thus bogging down the computers running the client. Yeah, this is another great Ben Ishikela idea here. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3186	Posted - 2016.04.18 06:44:49 - [28] - Quote Ben Ishikela wrote: All of this would be doable clientside, therefor no serverload Funnily enough it's not. Client does not get information on the sig size of your target. We can argue over if it should or shouldn't, but this would actually give you relative information as to sig size of your target.
Ja'e Ambraelle Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2016.04.18 15:46:25 - [29] - Quote Debating about whether or not it's feasible is really interesting, but I'm sure CCP can decide by themselves if it is or not. Keep in mind this is an answer to the Weapon Accuracy Score on sisi. As it stands today, the only value you have on sisi is that accuracy score and the standardized signature resolution of 40,000m. The current signature resolution isn't shown anymore, as well as the tracking speed value in rad/s. So if you think it isn't feasible to show that Evasion Score? Great! Go whine at CCP to bring back the old values. Because with only the Accuracy Score and nothing else to compare it to, it's super hard to tell if your guns can track something or not. You think that's feasible? Great too! I think the Evasion Score versus Accuracy Score idea is easier to manipulate, even if I agree that it obfuscates a lot of the actual numbers behind it.
Gigiarc Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 10	Posted - 2016.04.19 02:10:49 - [30] - Quote The change they have on sisi doesn't even make checking tracking easier to do. If you want to get a ballpark on what you can and can't track you still need to adjust for sig res/rad differences (because most ships don't have a 40km sig radius). I don't know if this is just me being "back in my day we had to learn tracking uphill both ways", but I don't think this change is needed because turret mechanics aren't that hard to understand.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 807	Posted - 2016.04.19 14:50:12 - [31] - Quote Robbert Smith wrote: All this talk is getting out of hand. All you need is one logical evaluation to see if the object is currently visible in the overview and a few trivial math operations by the client on values the server is already sending you. There you go again assuming(with all the negative connotations of that word) that the client is already receiving all of the information needed for your calculations. Does the client receive all of the information? Specifically since the damage calculations are run server side does the client receive the adjusted sig radius numbers from the server? Nevyn Auscent seems to be of the belief that the client does not and if he is correct then your entire argument of handling this client side with information the client already has falls apart because it does not have all of the required information. So send that information to the client you would say, and while that is easily accomplished it brings us right back to the server load issue only now that load is caused by moving more data between client and server instead of running the additional calculations sever side. Your simple logical test for being on grid with you is irrelevant to this discussion. IF the calculation is handled client side then as you say it would only work with numbers from the overview for this logical test is not needed since the client would only owrk with information from your overview. On the other hand IF these calculations are handled server side then your logic evaluation is not required because the server already knows who is on the same grid with you. But all of that still ignores this simple reality IF this was handled server side it still needs to run these calculations for EVERY object / ship / drone in that server nodes area of responsibility because even if you do not get the numbers the rest of the players who are on that node would be getting them, so again you simple logic test is irrelevant. Robbert Smith wrote: If you're worried about performance, turn that column off. There you go again with the assumptions. This time it is the assumption that turning off this display would prevent the client from performing these calculations. While that is a possibility it is equally possible that CCP would chose to run the calculations anyway and simply allow for you to turn the display of these calculation on or off. Robbert Smith wrote: I do however, recall from one of the Fanfest presentations that the overview code is particularly "legacy"... so that's the only real thing I could see holding it up. Yet another of your assumptions. There are significant reasons why implementing your idea could be problematic for the game as a whole and the overview being legacy code has nothing to do with any of them.
Ashterothi Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 394	Posted - 2016.04.19 19:59:18 - [32] - Quote I agree with this, but can "Evasion Score" be on the locket targets information box as well? I really don't care to have my overview expanded any further then it needs to be, and really I only care about the enemies evasion score if I have them locked and I am trying to fire. Also allow us to see Accuracy Score on the module hover over, so we can make quick good decisions. Listen to Hydrostatic Podcast for all your Empyrean needs!
Ben Ishikela 73	Posted - 2016.04.20 12:10:13 - [33] - Quote Ashterothi wrote: I agree with this, but can "Evasion Score" be on the locket targets information box as well? I really don't care to have my overview expanded any further then it needs to be, and really I only care about the enemies evasion score if I have them locked and I am trying to fire. Also allow us to see Accuracy Score on the module hover over, so we can make quick good decisions. this totaly! IF the overview wasnt updated. Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop trees to start a fire.
Seymarr Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 12	Posted - 2016.04.27 21:56:56 - [34] - Quote I agree that the introduction of an "Evasion Score" would be helpful for giving the "Accuracy Score" something to directly compare to - and would finally, finally solve the problem that the "angular velocity" column on the overview is almost meaningless without taking the target's signature radius into account. As both values are already provided by the server to the client, and both can already be put on the overview, it'd just be cutting down on mental math required to determine "am I likely to hit this target?" There's good difficulty, and there's bad difficulty. I don't feel like "do mental math quickly to multiply two overview columns" is a useful kind of difficulty to keep.
elitatwo Eve Minions 1185	Posted - 2016.04.27 22:37:49 - [35] - Quote Robbert Smith wrote: While some will complain that this is dumbing down Eve, I think this has been to difficult for even veterans to understand. I laugh every time someone encourages a new bro to add transverse velocity to their overview... I think this is a great idea. I don't get it? There's one rule for transversal speed. High = bad, low = good. What is difficult to comprehend for a noob? Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Tzar Sinak Mythic Heights 209	Posted - 2016.04.27 22:51:39 - [36] - Quote Why not boil it all down to a single number: % chance to hit displayed under the target icon when it is actively being shot at? Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE Check out the Eve-Prosper show for your market updates!
Linoire Ironblade Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 6	Posted - 2016.04.28 06:09:02 - [37] - Quote The CPU discussion made me giggle. It's like I was BOOSHED back to 1992, unwillingly. For those of you NOT still using a Commodore PET, read on. If you have a crappy CPU operating at, say, 20 GFLOPS (billion floating-point math operations per second), this new calculation would require - according to the poor CPU pipelining example given above - approximately .0034% more CPU attention per second. That is: 680,000 ÷ 20,000,000,000 ---------------- 0.000034 So, if pipelining worked in a monolithic fashion - which it doesn't - and if it was truly 680,000 more calculations per second (which it's not), I think devoting another .0034% CPU to "dumb down" something that seems like it should be obvious - I'm all for it. I don't think it's dumbing it down. I'm sorry so many of us were punished for so many years with having to "do things the hard way" and walking uphill, in the snow, with no shoes, both ways. But, putting shoes on, and hailing a cab are not EVILBAD solutions. You don't punish a new generation of people because YOU had it rough. You also don't punish a new generation because they might be able to kick your ISK in battle because they have better, more sensible tools in this modern age of gaming. I get it. I do. We had to do stuff the hard way. We didn't have to. We shouldn't resent that there are better ways.
elitatwo Eve Minions 1186	Posted - 2016.04.28 07:23:28 - [38] - Quote Since we are getting off-topic anyway, pipelining is not the only thing that influences processing speed. Reading some whitepapers along the way, my cpu has 4 15 stage pipelines, does MADD, MUL and some other hardcoded math operations per cycle, actually several of them in one. One of those calculations per cycle is completed so quickly that addressing the result in memory takes longer as riding from the US West Coast to the East Coast with a bike from the cpu's point of view. In recent CPU architectures they have increased the speed a little and shortened the ways that result has to travel but from the CPU's point of view it's still slow. Anyhow, that accuracy score leads the way to a stamina score for shields and armor, a mana storage capacity for cap and a dexterity score for ship speed and agility. Next thing you know, we are picking up health potions at a moon. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2930	Posted - 2016.04.28 17:19:09 - [39] - Quote We should be able to track ship evasion score on the overview. It would be similar to tracking angular velocity, only it'll relate directly to weapon accuracy score. I wouldn't say this is dumbing down EVE, it's more just ready information you can use to make split-second decisions. Given how little time you have to read the angular velocity and make use of that information, it's really not condensed in a form usable by most pilots. I myself am one of those rare math nerds who can understand exactly how it relates, and crunch those numbers in the important split seconds. I keep angular velocity on my overview and gain a distinct advantage over others with my ability to use that column so easily. Actually I don't even look at the angular velocity most fights, I can do it by eye. I have been known to score wrecking hits using 1400mm artillery against frigates at close range, and I find that stunt fairly easy to pull off any time a frigate ignores me long enough to forget I am a threat. It's senseless that normal players should be expected to not only understand these advanced 3D Euclidean concepts but to discern information from mathematical output numbers to figure out when their guns will hit. I'm no master at EVE, look at my killboard. It's time everybody else had the chance to see what I see, to fight the way I fight. It's not cheating, it's just giving people more room for their skills to shine. elitatwo wrote: Anyhow, that accuracy score leads the way to a stamina score for shields and armor, a mana storage capacity for cap and a dexterity score for ship speed and agility. Next thing you know, we are picking up health potions at a moon. Slippery slope argument. I know you're afraid that EVE will turn into WoW in Space, but please remember that our dev team is CCP, not Blizzard. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1979	Posted - 2016.04.28 17:45:53 - [40] - Quote OK guys I just crunched a whole lot of data from several sources. I ran 3 independent algorithms to verify my conclusions from different viewpoints. Here's what I came up with. Bigger targets are easier to hit. Smaller targets are harder to hit. Fast targets are difficult to hit. Slow targets are easier to hit. Targets going around you are really hard to hit. Targets moving toward you are the easiest to hit (more speed = better speed) Targets moving away from you are also easy to hit (less speed = better speed) Target painters help you. Webs help you. Tracking computers help you. Signal amplifiers help you. Sensor damps screw you (can't lock target) or help you (give you time to make tea while locking) ECM Screw you. New sensor boosters - didn't do the complex math on them yet, but the general feeling is they are good. Your ship's speed helps you if you're moving toward or away from the target. Your ship's speed doesn't help you if you're not. There is a lot of deep (really deep) math behind this. To get the raw data - go to my website and download the stuff (63 page pdf and 16 spreadsheets). Boiling this down further: 1. Hit approach 2. Apply point/scram 3. Apply webs and painters as available 4. Press fire 5. Cross fingers 6. Turn on reppers/call for reps/watch buffer melt away (as applicable) 7. Reload as necessary
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2931	Posted - 2016.04.28 18:01:40 - [41] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Bigger targets are easier to hit. Smaller targets are harder to hit. Fast targets are difficult to hit. Slow targets are easier to hit. Targets going around you are really hard to hit. In before people whining that Reaver's Tornado wrecks frigates but my Tornado can't hit the broad side of a barn When Tornadoes came out, I was honestly frightened that it was going to turn this game into Tornadoes Online. This was after I had used a Maelstrom to blap frigs. I thought people would figure out how to do it and it would become a standard tactic. Serendipity Lost wrote: Boiling this down further: 4. Press fire 5. Cross fingers I don't cross my fingers when I fire my 1400mm artillery. I fire at the right time, and I hit. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1979	Posted - 2016.04.28 18:15:05 - [42] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Bigger targets are easier to hit. Smaller targets are harder to hit. Fast targets are difficult to hit. Slow targets are easier to hit. Targets going around you are really hard to hit. In before people whining that Reaver's Tornado wrecks frigates but my Tornado can't hit the broad side of a barn When Tornadoes came out, I was honestly frightened that it was going to turn this game into Tornadoes Online. This was after I had used a Maelstrom to blap frigs. I thought people would figure out how to do it and it would become a standard tactic. Serendipity Lost wrote: Boiling this down further: 4. Press fire 5. Cross fingers I don't cross my fingers when I fire my 1400mm artillery. I fire at the right time, and I hit. Just my way of reminding folks to not overcomplicate the game. Sure there's a lot of math and computer stuff happening behind the scenes, but really... it's all about having some fun. Shooting something in this game is both basic and easy. The difficult part is knowing which thing to shoot first and why. Lucky for me there aren't any equations for that.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2931	Posted - 2016.04.28 18:34:03 - [43] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: The difficult part is knowing which thing to shoot first and why. Lucky for me there aren't any equations for that. I'm glad you can do without the equations, but for some people knowing that they could gain an advantage studying this math makes them feel like it is important for them to study it, and that's not fun. Sometimes dumbing the game down a bit makes it more fun for experts and veterans. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Memphis Baas 1483	Posted - 2016.04.29 15:38:50 - [44] - Quote The accuracy rating number is stupid when it's displayed in the Show Info window. It's like the other stupid they've done since the beginning of the game: your gun does damage x, and then they display the calculated values vs. imaginary "shields" and imaginary "armor", confusing everyone. They need to put this Accuracy number in the Overview, replacing the angular velocity column. So we can tell (again) at a glance whether our guns will hit or not. Why are CCP behaving like morons so often? They mostly do ok with their changes, but then we periodically get **** like this.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1989	Posted - 2016.04.29 15:48:57 - [45] - Quote Memphis Baas wrote: The accuracy rating number is stupid when it's displayed in the Show Info window. It's like the other stupid they've done since the beginning of the game: your gun does damage x, and then they display the calculated values vs. imaginary "shields" and imaginary "armor", confusing everyone. They need to put this Accuracy number in the Overview, replacing the angular velocity column. So we can tell (again) at a glance whether our guns will hit or not. Why are CCP behaving like morons so often? They mostly do ok with their changes, but then we periodically get **** like this. I like angular velocity. How about instead of replacing it, just add the new thing as and option to put in a column just like all the current ones.
Jennifer en Marland Shiny Violent Killing Toys 42	Posted - 2016.04.29 17:08:43 - [46] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: On the test server there has been the introduction of the concept of a Weapon Accuracy Score for turrets. (Thanks Ja'e.) This new number utilizes both tracking and signature resolution to create a score that's directly comparable across different turrets. Previously, a gun with 0.12 rad/s tracking could have extremely different accuracy compared to a different gun with 0.12 rad/s tracking if the two guns had extremely different signature resolutions. With this new score, a gun with 40 WAS is known to be exactly as accurate as a different gun with a 40 WAS. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that the combined 'tracking plus sig resolution' stat doesn't seem to have made it onto TQ; from what I can tell, 'weapon accuracy score' is just the old tracking value multiplied by 1000, and guns still have a separate signature resolution score. I don't think the mechanics have changed at all, but rather CCP have just given tracking a more intuitive name and more easily digested numbers I'm happy to accept I might be wrong though Army of dolls stole all your perfect imperfections.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2933	Posted - 2016.04.29 19:12:12 - [47] - Quote Memphis Baas wrote: They need to put this Accuracy number in the Overview, replacing the angular velocity column. So we can tell (again) at a glance whether our guns will hit or not. I think that's too easy. I like the idea of showing the target's evasiveness in the overview, with you being able to check your updated weapon accuracy from the info tab at your leisure. There needs to be some work for the end user, but it should be accessible to nearly all players. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 473	Posted - 2016.04.29 20:00:14 - [48] - Quote Jennifer en Marland wrote: I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that the combined 'tracking plus sig resolution' stat doesn't seem to have made it onto TQ; from what I can tell, 'weapon accuracy score' is just the old tracking value multiplied by 1000, and guns still have a separate signature resolution score. I don't think the mechanics have changed at all, but rather CCP have just given tracking a more intuitive name and more easily digested numbers I'm happy to accept I might be wrong though You are correct in that the mechanics and the math behind determining whether and how hard you hit has not changed at all. However you are wrong about whether the displayed stat has been changed on TQ. The 1000 multiplier is true for light guns, since light guns had a signature resolution of 40m, and 40000m / 40m = 1000. However, medium guns had a signature resolution of 125m so their Accuracy Score is old tracking times 320. Previously for Heavy Neutron Blaster II: Tracking - 0.12 rad/sec Sig res - 125 m Currently for Heavy Neutron Blaster II: 0.12 * 40000 / 125 = 38.4 The "to hit" calculation (ignoring range) remains 0.5^( (Evasion Score / Accuracy Score)^2 ). Expand the Evasion Score using my suggestion and the Accuracy Score as presented by CCP, and you'll get the exact same equation that CCP has always used. Nothing has changed except how the info is displayed.
Memphis Baas 1485	Posted - 2016.04.29 20:06:16 - [49] - Quote Unfortunately, they didn't replace it with a hard number, they replaced it with a percentage of sorts. Before: You compare 0.023 vs. 0.536 (rad/s) and it's a yes/no comparison, do I hit or do I not hit. After: How do you compare 60% "evasiveness" vs. 80% "accuracy"? Hmm? It's completely different; "evasiveness" is vs. 100% accurate guns, and "accuracy" is measured vs. a static target (0% evasiveness). So you have to mentally 0.4 * 0.8 = 32% chance of hitting a 60% target with your 80% guns? Where the ** is the "easy" in this math? No. They need to put the ONE number in the overview and let us see it without having to do any math. If they want to simplify. Because, before, it was a simple comparison, and multiplication or addition are more complicated mental effort tasks than a simple comparison. I'm ok with an optional column instead of removing the angular. Everybody will just add it to their "unfuck your overview" guides and ** CCP and their idiocy. We already have a million guides to work around their stupid UI choices.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 473	Posted - 2016.04.29 21:06:36 - [50] - Quote Memphis Baas wrote: Unfortunately, they didn't replace it with a hard number, they replaced it with a percentage of sorts. Before: You compare 0.023 vs. 0.536 (rad/s) and it's a yes/no comparison, do I hit or do I not hit. After: How do you compare 60% "evasiveness" vs. 80% "accuracy"? Hmm? It's completely different; "evasiveness" is vs. 100% accurate guns, and "accuracy" is measured vs. a static target (0% evasiveness). So you have to mentally 0.4 * 0.8 = 32% chance of hitting a 60% target with your 80% guns? Where the ** is the "easy" in this math? No. They need to put the ONE number in the overview and let us see it without having to do any math. Damage reduction, as a percentage from 0 to 100, due to all factors. Out of range, show 0. Tracking issues, explosion radius or sig resolution, explosion velocity or tracking, whatever the the reasons combine them all together and show me the number. If they want to simplify. Because, before, it was a simple comparison, and multiplication or addition are more complicated mental effort tasks than a simple comparison. I'm ok with an optional column instead of removing the angular. Everybody will just add it to their "unfuck your overview" guides and ** CCP and their idiocy. We already have a million guides to work around their stupid UI choices. Err... No, it's not a percentage. It's still a rad/sec number, but it's been scaled by a factor (which varies based on gun size) to make it more human readable. And the math is easy. When the Weapon Accuracy Score and the Ship Evasion Score are equal, there's a 50/50 chance to hit. When the Ship Evasion Score is twice the Weapon Accuracy Score, there's a 6.25% chance to hit. When the Ship Evasion Score is half the Weapon Accuracy Score, there's an 84% chance to hit. Since a ship can equip three different kinds of guns with three different Accuracies and ranges, it's not possible to present a single "To Hit Chance" stat on the overview for each target. However, it's certainly possible for CCP to present the Ship Evasion Score, and a simple comparison between that and your Weapon Accuracy Score will tell you whether you're more or less likely than 50% to hit something.
Jennifer en Marland Shiny Violent Killing Toys 42	Posted - 2016.04.29 23:33:04 - [51] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Jennifer en Marland wrote: I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that the combined 'tracking plus sig resolution' stat doesn't seem to have made it onto TQ; from what I can tell, 'weapon accuracy score' is just the old tracking value multiplied by 1000, and guns still have a separate signature resolution score. I don't think the mechanics have changed at all, but rather CCP have just given tracking a more intuitive name and more easily digested numbers I'm happy to accept I might be wrong though You are correct in that the mechanics and the math behind determining whether and how hard you hit has not changed at all. However you are wrong about whether the displayed stat has been changed on TQ. The 1000 multiplier is true for light guns, since light guns had a signature resolution of 40m, and 40000m / 40m = 1000. However, medium guns had a signature resolution of 125m so their Accuracy Score is old tracking times 320. Previously for Heavy Neutron Blaster II: Tracking - 0.12 rad/sec Sig res - 125 m Currently for Heavy Neutron Blaster II: 0.12 * 40000 / 125 = 38.4 The "to hit" calculation (ignoring range) remains 0.5^( (Evasion Score / Accuracy Score)^2 ). Expand the Evasion Score using my suggestion and the Accuracy Score as presented by CCP, and you'll get the exact same equation that CCP has always used. Nothing has changed except how the info is displayed. I see, thanks for pointing that out Army of dolls stole all your perfect imperfections.
Ophira Fermont Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.05.26 21:54:16 - [52] - Quote The inclusion of an Evasion Score column in the overview would be a great complement to the newly introduced Weapon Accuracy Score. Having to do mental math or putting a post-it note with a bunch of pre-calculated values on your monitor does not interestingly enrich gameplay. It just makes the to-hit mechanic unnecessarily arcane and more difficult to pick up for new players.
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1224	Posted - 2016.05.27 01:17:14 - [53] - Quote Ophira Fermont wrote: The inclusion of an Evasion Score column in the overview would be a great complement to the newly introduced Weapon Accuracy Score. Having to do mental math or putting a post-it note with a bunch of pre-calculated values on your monitor does not interestingly enrich gameplay. It just makes the to-hit mechanic unnecessarily arcane and more difficult to pick up for new players. My advice, stop shooting and your ship in any fight and take a few minutes to think about this, change your overview and look at all the rows and columns why everyone will shoot you regardless of anything the overview would tell them - ezpz. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Ophira Fermont Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.05.27 18:08:07 - [54] - Quote elitatwo wrote: My advice, stop shooting and your ship in any fight and take a few minutes to think about this, change your overview and look at all the rows and columns why everyone will shoot you regardless of anything the overview would tell them - ezpz. Your post is actually a perfect analogy here: Sure, people can still figure out what you were trying to say if they spend a bit more effort on trying to parse that sentence, but that process is neither interesting nor does it add any depth. Instead, it would have made more sense to express that thought coherently in the first place, just as it would make more sense for Eve to communicate the to-hit chance in a less indirect and convoluted manner.
Althalus Stenory Flying Blacksmiths 59	Posted - 2016.06.21 12:39:12 - [55] - Quote Little love for this post, as it's still required.. Please, either replace angular/radial/transversal velocity in the overview to add "Evasion Score", or allows us to have again the tracking speed somewhere (in addition to the WAS). This actually means nothing while playing pve/pvp, it only helps comparing turrets, but it does not help knowing what we can / cannot hit. Moreover, it's now pain in the ass to explain to new players WHY they miss, or, well, we can explain to them, but they'll never understand clearly on how to know if they can / cannot hit a target, as tracking speed isn't visible anymore.
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 16	Posted - 2016.06.21 15:04:20 - [56] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Memphis Baas wrote: They need to put this Accuracy number in the Overview, replacing the angular velocity column. So we can tell (again) at a glance whether our guns will hit or not. I think that's too easy. I like the idea of showing the target's evasiveness in the overview, with you being able to check your updated weapon accuracy from the info tab at your leisure. There needs to be some work for the end user, but it should be accessible to nearly all players. "evasiveness" cringe It's called angular velocity. Combining sig radius and transversal into one is imho bad, useless info for missile users since they look at target distance speed/ sig and angular does not matter at all, and useless for turret users since what they are interested in is a) angular b) distance, it doesn't really matter if the target is a dread or a frig, even if it has big sig but moves too fast, you not gonna hit it, and who cares about sig radius if you got 8000 alpha and the 120 m sig target is not moving at all, ya gonna blap it anyway. My comet has 500 score, omen navy 20. Is it 25 times better at tracking? If target is moving at 0.5 rad/s am I going to hit? How do i get useful info out of this magic stat? Captain?
Daenika Chambers of Shaolin 175	Posted - 2016.06.22 18:58:32 - [57] - Quote It's unfortunately rather unlikely that they'll add this. Why? Because right now, the client does not expose the signature radius of other ships at all. The "size" column on the overview is the physical size of the object (which has no bearing on anything at all), not the sig radius (example, my Sabre has an overview "size" of 276m, but has a sig radius of 78m, and the "size" on the overview doesn't change when I light an MWD). Now, it would certainly be nice to have such an evasive score, as it would allow direct comparison to the accuracy score. I'm just not sure they'd be willing to expose that information. Could be arguably added to the fitting window, however (40,000 * max velocity / sig radius). As for the computation argument earlier, it's largely moot. The server already has to calculate angular velocity for every target relative to every other target on grid. Multiplying that value by a constant and a variable that doesn't change super often (relative to how often angular velocity changes, which is literally every tick, for every ship on field relative to every other one) and is specific to that ship (rather than relative to every other ship) is fairly trivial in the way of additional computational load. It's not a zero effect, but it's not a large one, compared to the existing load of angular competition already being done. Quote: useless for turret users since what they are interested in is a) angular b) distance, it doesn't really matter if the target is a dread or a frig, even if it has big sig but moves too fast, you not gonna hit it, and who cares about sig radius if you got 8000 alpha and the 120 m sig target is not moving at all, ya gonna blap it anyway. You don't understand the turret equations, apparently. Your tracking is directly multiplied by the ratio of your turret's sig resolution to the target's sig radius. If you have a large turret (sig resolution 400m) with tracking of 0.05 radians per second, and you shoot it at a battleship target (sig 400m) moving at 0.05 radians per second (say, moving with a tangential velocity of 500 m/s at 10km), you have a 50% chance to hit it. If you shoot the same turret at a target moving the same angular speed, but this time the target is a shield Tengu (sig 200m), you'd have only a 6.25% chance to hit, the same chance you'd have against the original battleship target if it were moving twice as fast (0.10 radians/s). If a Legion suddenly landed on field and started moving at the same angular speed, but he had his MWD on (sig 800m), you'd have an 84% chance to hit, the same chance as against the original battleship if it were moving half as fast (0.025 radians/s). So no, it moving fast doesn't mean you aren't going to hit it. A Moros moving at 2000 m/s is still going to get nailed on every single shot by a battleship, even if it's only a couple kilometers from that battleship and that battleship is fitting large Rails with Spike. By the same token, a frigate orbiting at 400 m/s with no prop mod at 5km is going to be flat impossible to hit (without some whiplash gimmicks) with those railguns. The size of the target has an immense effect.
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 19	Posted - 2016.06.23 02:09:21 - [58] - Quote Looks like being too salty is bad for projecting clear thoughts, ms. NerdX above is correct. If mwd affects locking time, which shows up as ETA on client, sig radius is theoretically visible to everyone on grid already. So making the "avoidance" column in overview shoule be easy (multiply on client side). Theoretically. Pls make it so that if my guns say "accuracy score 500" and target has "500" or less in avoidance list, chance to hit for full damage (in optimal) is 100% ish.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition 3060	Posted - 2016.06.23 07:52:33 - [59] - Quote Ebag Trescientas wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Dirritat'z Demblin wrote: You mean all the data we already have ready in the overview? Yes, I'm sure it won't increase the load if the server has to send only what it already is sending. I though we only had small, medium or large and not the actual numerical value. http://puu.sh/ojhG0/3523923a60.png You can even get the sig size of stations and stars, if you want. That is size, not sig radius. An almost useless value actually.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.