JoBob the corn harvester doesn't get confused and violently angry at the prospect of having to do math. Seriously, when was this ever a problem?

Old system was better i never cared about gun comparison of different sizes but rather within it own group and for that old system was flawless

For that, new system too is flawless. Isn't chance to hit based on the multiplication of tracking and signature radius anyway? That's what you're getting.

Edit: open question (I don't have the formula at hand) : is a gun with target res 40, tracking speed 5 deg/sec equivalent to a gun with target res 400, tracking speed 50 deg/sec ?

Frogs are not that big, and my frigates guns are not designed to hit a target 40 kilometers wide.

Someone needs to calm down at CCP and stopping trying to 'improve' stuff that isn't broken.

There is a tendency to look at the technical in MMO's. Rules lawyers, mini-maxxers, etc.

This generally ends up overlooking the practical and empirical. Then when the theoretical doesn't line up with what is actually experienced people kind of go nuts.

Again, my suggestion is to play the fight, maneuver in such a way to get the accuracy to get your weapons on target and stick with actual tactical results.

I predict a lot of headache and heartache if we start crunching numbers and find out that the algorithms are not working in a way we anticipate and it causes that dissonance between what we think should happen and what actually does.

My own tests have shown that nose or tail on, weapons are pretty accurate. Broadside is garbage if you're moving or your target is. I have tested orbital processes, where I am orbiting a stationary or low speed target at max velocity. The theory is that my guns tracking should be irrelevant at that point since the targets angular velocity compared to my relative velocity is ZERO. The reality is my guns hit like garbage. If I stop or go nose or tail on to the target, my guns hit like monsters.

So, the algorithm for tracking and targeting is not what you'd expect, which makes the accuracy numbers mostly useless. However, empirical testing has shown me how to hit and range issues. It's the reality of the game vs. the theory of it.

I'm all for numbers and crunching but I place more emphasis on empirical results.

I think someone got ahold of the List of Terrible Ideas at CCP thinking it was the List of Great Ideas, and now they're just going down the line implementing them all. We had the gong and flashy red epilepsy trigger, now we have "weapon accuracy rating" so that JoBob the corn harvester doesn't get confused and violently angry at the prospect of having to do math. Seriously, when was this ever a problem?

Well to be fair .... I'm BillyBum the engineer and I'd rather see Degrees than radials. They don't mean a thing to me, because I always blatantly round fractions down and use gut feeling to assess what Da Number truly means. Radials don't mean nothing to me.

Now that we've got accuracy score which actually means something, all we need is angular velocity expressed in degrees/sec and a checkbox to put the game in mathboy mode (old style) again.

Then everyone will be happy. Right?

You're an engineer and you don't comprehend rad/s?
What engineering school did you go to?..

Yet it is you who "cannot understand this change".

It's elementary dear Watson: since you always needed two variables anyway, there is no point in giving two separate numbers that only become meaninful when combined when only one of those numbers is on the overview.

My own tests have shown that nose or tail on, weapons are pretty accurate. Broadside is garbage if you're moving or your target is. I have tested orbital processes, where I am orbiting a stationary or low speed target at max velocity. The theory is that my guns tracking should be irrelevant at that point since the targets angular velocity compared to my relative velocity is ZERO.

I think you are confused. If you're orbiting at max velocity, you will have a high angular velocity (depending on range). It doesn't matter who's moving, only the relative velocity.

But only in this game is what that poster is saying. They are saying that trying to think about the mechanics from any real life perspective will fail, since the game physics uses its own formulae which don't have much connection with reality.

With this new system it's much harder to figure out what your actual tracking is since there's no overview column for "accuracy score"

But only in this game is what that poster is saying. They are saying that trying to think about the mechanics from any real life perspective will fail, since the game physics uses its own formulae which don't have much connection with reality. In real life if you orbited a stationary target your guns wouldn't need to move at all (circular orbit, target at centre).

With this new system it's much harder to figure out what your actual tracking is since there's no overview column for "accuracy score"

Yes. Frig guns do indeed track better. Ask any Moa pilot who found himself incapable of hitting a webbed frig at 9km.

Small turrets (frigates) track faster than Mediums or Larges.

Some larger ships mount secondary batteries to deal with this. I have a dual 150 II mount on my Exequror NI just for this purpose. It's not as fast as a single 150 mount (which I could have done) but with my tracking and scan resolution scripts running for close combat, it blows up frigates nicely. Yes, you do lose top DPS, but DPS against a ship you can't hit is ZERO, so I'll let you guys do the math.