EVE Search - weapon accuracy score concern

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

weapon accuracy score concern

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
smokeydapot Tri-gun Psychotic Tendencies. 36	Posted - 2016.04.25 05:02:46 - [1] - Quote So as iGÇÖm sure quite a few players who canGÇÖt make fanfest in person watched it all on the stream such as I did to plan my future and find something that either awe inspired me or made me go GÇ£ wait what now GÇ£ and this is one such change that made me do the latter. So all turrets are now getting a weapon accuracy score in the up and coming expansion to replace the Rad/s tracking of old, This got me thinking how does this change my game play and it dawned on me, Wait donGÇÖt i use that to determined my hit probability when using big slow guns ( e.g. 1400 artillery ). The long reload time and poor tracking of such turrets means that I use the column Angular Velocity that directly represents the Tracking speed of turrets, This means that although the figure provided by the client in relation to GÇ£ weapon accuracy GÇ£ means the same thing ( or so was stated iirc ) just in a different way meaning the same thing. This now means that there is no readout on the overview that tells me my tracking speed on a target and guess work is involved in my chance to hit beyond the tracking formula, This minor but in my gameplay significant change will sadly impact my gameplay in a negative manner making it rather difficult to get the WTF reactions I get in local chat when utilizing ALL the features within the game. P.S. I believe i also heard a comment about not seeing the size of your target This is represented by the Size column that IIRC displays the signature of the ship your trying to kill.
MicDeath Titan Titans Guild 107	Posted - 2016.04.25 05:41:24 - [2] - Quote with the limited info, I can say it will suck balls.
Galaxxis Unicorn Rampage 37	Posted - 2016.04.25 06:23:51 - [3] - Quote I think someone got ahold of the List of Terrible Ideas at CCP thinking it was the List of Great Ideas, and now they're just going down the line implementing them all. We had the gong and flashy red epilepsy trigger, now we have "weapon accuracy rating" so that JoBob the corn harvester doesn't get confused and violently angry at the prospect of having to do math. Seriously, when was this ever a problem?
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders 4374	Posted - 2016.04.25 09:10:18 - [4] - Quote smokeydapot wrote: The long reload time and poor tracking of such turrets means that I use the column Angular Velocity that directly represents the Tracking speed of turrets Not really, because you always had to factor in your guns' sig res and your target's signature radius. Say your 1.400s have 0.02 tracking on your fit, you'd have a 50% chance to hit a battleship at 0.02 angular but a close to zero chance to hit a frigate at 0.02 angular. And MWDs and anything else affecting target's sig would change that as well. Also, smokeydapot wrote: P.S. I believe i also heard a comment about not seeing the size of your target This is represented by the Size column that IIRC displays the signature of the ship your trying to kill. unfortunately no, size is not sig radius. It's the 'physical' size, basically a fairly meaningless stat. Before and after patch if you want to be fancy with your pew pew you still have to a) calculate and memorize your ideal angular velocity for each major ship class and b) make educated guesses about impact of MWD, shield v armor tank etc. So no big change really, turret tracking is still way less intuitive than range (optimal/falloff), just in a different way. Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
smokeydapot Tri-gun Psychotic Tendencies. 36	Posted - 2016.04.25 17:33:33 - [5] - Quote Gully Alex Foyle wrote: smokeydapot wrote: The long reload time and poor tracking of such turrets means that I use the column Angular Velocity that directly represents the Tracking speed of turrets Not really, because you always had to factor in your guns' sig res and your target's signature radius. IGÇÖm aware of the impact of sig res vs sig rad on tracking but I'm not speaking about the formula just the information the client returns. Gully Alex Foyle wrote: Say your 1.400s have 0.02 tracking on your fit, you'd have a 50% chance to hit a battleship at 0.02 angular but a close to zero chance to hit a frigate at 0.02 angular. And MWDs and anything else affecting target's sig would change that as well. I think you lost what iGÇÖm saying your reiterating on your previous statement that is based on sig rad vs sig res and totally not involved in anything iGÇÖm posting about, IGÇÖm posting about the change to weapon accuracy score from rad/s information returned to the client upon right click show info, i donGÇÖt recall any change to tracking over the years just a general sig rad shift on ships to make it more difficult to hit the little guys. Gully Alex Foyle wrote: Also, smokeydapot wrote: P.S. I believe i also heard a comment about not seeing the size of your target This is represented by the Size column that IIRC displays the signature of the ship your trying to kill. unfortunately no, size is not sig radius. It's the 'physical' size, basically a fairly meaningless stat. I admit that the Size column is not the sig size of the ship ( like i thought at the time of writing but thought there was a column for sig size) but this was just a general screw up on my part i posted at 5am after an all night sesion. I already take all info into consideration before I engage with poor tracking guns such as 1400's but now iGÇÖm not informed on the UI of my turrets tracking speed like i always have been because of this weapon accuracy score that is displayed in place of rad/s.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 901	Posted - 2016.04.25 20:26:28 - [6] - Quote Wait... ... ... ... ... ... ...WHAT?WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are retiring my old trusty rad/sec system for some simple-minded kindergarten-level numbering system? Now how the hell am I suppose to make openly admitting to others that I play Eve sound impressive rather than immature? CCP, YOU GO TOO FAR THIS TIME! Seriously, though, is it a simple change to how the same information is displayed (formatting, ect.) or are we actually talking full-blown more/less information? Are we talking outright removal of rad/sec or just replacing the readout with some underwhelming "dis gun gud, this one=not so gud," number system? Btw, think of the cats, CCP. Think of them. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Sustrai Aditua Irubo Kovu 121	Posted - 2016.04.25 20:45:39 - [7] - Quote Yes. Yes. It's more a matter of having to become accustomed to...rather than we no longer have! Rads per second, once you got the concept, could be (virtually) visualized, I guess. I know by now I've got a sense of the two motions; my guns, your ship. Those dynamics remain the same regardless of what stat is issued, or what a stat is being called. So, there's no effective change. The true test is "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Do those using it (so far) find things easier, or more difficult? Then, when it's released, will "we" find it so? I imagine, as in all things, there's those who'll find things clearer, and those who'll be all bolluxed-up with it. I'm not a bean counter, myself. I watch the red lines and whose are uncomfortably reduced. If mine is fast, that sucks. If yours is fast, that's great. If yours is faster than mine, I'm winning as long as I don't run out before yours...'cause yours is bigger or some cruel sh!t like that. Since none of the actual dynamics will change, nothing I use as a meter will change. I know there's geniuses out there who think if they crunch the numbers with a level of specificity, they'll get better results (odds are, though most of this is percentage-based chance [so much for mathematical precision]). How anyone can try to fit by the numbers expecting systematic results, including trying to accommodate for critical hits (always a dice roll) mystifies me more than differential equations. Psychiatrists and behavior analysts will TELL you, when you break up a tried, and true routine just to be changing things on a "well-considered" whim, the direct result is a drop in performance. When the performance picks back up, it's not due to the change itself. It's due to the doers becoming accustomed to the difference...and is therefore always accommodating someone's whimsy. Such appears to be the case here, and this isn't the ONLY time. I think the uproar has more to do with what appears to be a trend to change things just to be changing them. If such isn't the case, some technical explanation would be the polite thing to do...for your paying customers...
PAPULA Black Aces I N F A M O U S 99	Posted - 2016.04.25 21:06:50 - [8] - Quote it's the same stuff. Example: Mega Pulse Laser II: OLD Value: Tracking Speed / Accuracy0.03375 rad/sec +Signature Resolution: 400 m Mega Pulse Laser II: New Value: Weapon Accuracy Score3.375 +Signature Resolution40,00 km So new value is always set for 40km so that means for 400m (battleship weapons) and for frigate you just move zeroes. For cruiser sized stuff you need to calculate it. Old values: Battleship: 400m Cruiser sized: 125m Frigate: 40m New Values: Everything: 40km
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5995	Posted - 2016.04.25 21:16:00 - [9] - Quote You know, you could always shoot stuff and observe the results. Example: I know I can thwak a frigate with an arty Tornado at 30 km. I've never done the math. There is even a test server.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition 3020	Posted - 2016.04.25 21:52:13 - [10] - Quote The problem with using the transversal in overview to compare to your tracking speed meant you had to completely geuss the final variable, the signature radius. Which varies depending on ships, fits, links, and prop mods. Until that number becomes something you can see with accuracy, you've moved your geuss from transversal to a geuss from accuracy score. In essence both pilots are still guessing. Even if their guesses tend to be accurate or not. I imagine there will be some sort of back-of-the head formula someone will come up with to adapt to the change, just like they did with the previous method.
W33b3l Conquest and Kittens 89	Posted - 2016.04.25 22:04:17 - [11] - Quote It's a little confusing. I've never done the math but know how the basic mechanics work. Like when you have big guns shoot the things in range with a low transversal velocity, and when you're using missiles shoot at things in range that are moving slow or you can tell have a mwd on. Or shoot at anything regrdless with a sudden negative spike in radial velocity lol. To this day I'm fuzzy on the exact gun math as far as fiquring out the exact speed you can't track something. But I've gotton the feel for it over the years. I didn't even know people did this. I figured that either just tried to get the values as high or low as possible depending on if They where evading or dealing dps.
PAPULA Black Aces I N F A M O U S 99	Posted - 2016.04.25 22:10:26 - [12] - Quote So here's a simple calculation: Examples MEGA PULSE LASER II Battleship weapons. old value * 100 = new value 0.0375 * 100 = 3,375 HEAVY PULSE LASER II Cruiser Weapons (400m is 3.2 larger than 125m): old value * 3.2 * 100 = new value 0.08125 rad/sec * 3.2 * 100 = 26 DUAL LIGHT PULSE Frigate Weapons: old value * 1000 = new value 0.27375 rad/sec * 1000 = 273,75 You can also reverse calculation. Your weapons should hit exactly as they hit on TQ, there's no difference.
Ferrotsmite Anzomi Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. The-Culture 0	Posted - 2016.04.28 04:22:23 - [13] - Quote The old method used real world physics measurements and units. It was beautiful. I actually used screenshots of weapons and their stats to teach my students rotational motion in high school. I am going to laugh so hard tomorrow when I show them this crap. Ill update tomorrow how many of them find this more simple.
PAPULA Black Aces I N F A M O U S 105	Posted - 2016.04.28 06:25:59 - [14] - Quote Ferrotsmite Anzomi wrote: The old method used real world physics measurements and units. It was beautiful. I actually used screenshots of weapons and their stats to teach my students rotational motion in high school. I am going to laugh so hard tomorrow when I show them this crap. Ill update tomorrow how many of them find this more simple. You can get old values back by using my calculation formula i posted above.
Ferrotsmite Anzomi Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. The-Culture 0	Posted - 2016.04.29 03:13:32 - [15] - Quote The problem is NOT that the guns are more or less effective. The argument is that the numbers used are now arbitrary, and have no meaning. You can do calculations to get the numbers to be value equivalent, but the removal of units, and the scaling of resolutions to 40,000 m makes them meaningless. I now group this measurement into the category of planets that have masses in excess of 10^44 kg, the high speed dread guns that are easily 100 feet long while only having 75 kg of mass, and ammo the size of a bus that has 0.125 m^3 of volume. Its like someone telling you that frogs weigh 800 lbs. Then when you go to correct them, they tell you it makes sense as long as you assume flies weight half a pound. The ratio is the same isn't it? Frogs are not that big, and my frigates guns are not designed to hit a target 40 kilometers wide.
Magnus Rexana Halas Hooligans 4	Posted - 2016.04.29 13:43:08 - [16] - Quote Ferrotsmite Anzomi wrote: The problem is NOT that the guns are more or less effective. The argument is that the numbers used are now arbitrary, and have no meaning. You can do calculations to get the numbers to be value equivalent, but the removal of units, and the scaling of resolutions to 40,000 m makes them meaningless. I now group this measurement into the category of planets that have masses in excess of 10^44 kg, the high speed dread guns that are easily 100 feet long while only having 75 kg of mass, and ammo the size of a bus that has 0.125 m^3 of volume. Its like someone telling you that frogs weigh 800 lbs. Then when you go to correct them, they tell you it makes sense as long as you assume flies weight half a pound. The ratio is the same isn't it? Frogs are not that big, and my frigates guns are not designed to hit a target 40 kilometers wide. I thought this was a silly argument until reading this one. It makes more sense now to stick with the old system. That being said, I now have an insatiable desire to shoot a 40km wide space frog...
Anyura Dark-Rising 196	Posted - 2016.04.29 16:20:07 - [17] - Quote Magnus Rexana wrote: That being said, I now have an insatiable desire to shoot a 40km wide space frog... Seconded.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2794	Posted - 2016.04.29 20:48:29 - [18] - Quote Ferrotsmite Anzomi wrote: The problem is NOT that the guns are more or less effective. The argument is that the numbers used are now arbitrary, and have no meaning. You can do calculations to get the numbers to be value equivalent, but the removal of units, and the scaling of resolutions to 40,000 m makes them meaningless. I now group this measurement into the category of planets that have masses in excess of 10^44 kg, the high speed dread guns that are easily 100 feet long while only having 75 kg of mass, and ammo the size of a bus that has 0.125 m^3 of volume. Its like someone telling you that frogs weigh 800 lbs. Then when you go to correct them, they tell you it makes sense as long as you assume flies weight half a pound. The ratio is the same isn't it? Frogs are not that big, and my frigates guns are not designed to hit a target 40 kilometers wide. The new value tells everyone that large guns track worse in pretty much all condition than small guns which wasn't the case before. You could get tracking value on stuff like neutron blaster cannon to exceed 280 arty even if in real effectiveness, it was not even close. Yes the 40k number looks a bit silly but then again, they needed a common point and large is easier to work with than small unless you want to end value of 0.0000034 or something like that. The new number is a "all things being equal" comparison. The previous one wasn't.
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 884	Posted - 2016.04.29 21:00:44 - [19] - Quote Dude, maybe this will help : http://imgur.com/gallery/kOxXA "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Ferrotsmite Anzomi Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. The-Culture 4	Posted - 2016.04.30 00:03:02 - [20] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: The new value tells everyone that large guns track worse in pretty much all condition than small guns which wasn't the case before. You could get tracking value on stuff like neutron blaster cannon to exceed 280 arty even if in real effectiveness, it was not even close. Yes the 40k number looks a bit silly but then again, they needed a common point and large is easier to work with than small unless you want to end value of 0.0000034 or something like that. The new number is a "all things being equal" comparison. The previous one wasn't. If you want to have medium guns hit small ships, divide the tracking speed of the mediums by 3. Hitting battleships, multiplying by 3.3 works. That was easy.. easy easy easy. If you need someone to show you in game proof that small guns track better than medium guns you haven't learned crap about combat. That is learned long before tracking calculations. People don't compare medium guns to small guns... or to large guns, they compare them to the ships they will be shooting. I haven't tried to shoot any medium auto cannons with my freaking laser beams, or track a 1600mm Howitzer Artillery Cannon from 150km away in an sniper naga, but I have tried to track a Vindicator with small neutron blasters. (I bet you are thinking that tracking a vindi with small blasters is a trivial issue, because you have attended tracking 101. Not because you did a calculation or referenced the info window on the small blasters.) I don't need to shoot guns, I know my big guns don't track well as your small, I know that with a tracking speed of .5 rad/s that a ship with 120m of sig radius better take 12 seconds or more to orbit my ship if I am shooting it with medium guns because all of those are measurements or calculations are really happening (1 rad/s takes about 6.25 seconds to rotate once). The old tracking numbers were normalized to indicate how they would fair against the type of ship they would most likely encounter (assuming that frigs fight mostly against frigs, and cruisers against cruisers, etc.), so no calculation was necessary. It has now been normalized to indicate how well you could track a large citadel as it orbits you at 500. Thank you for the new stat, for now I know that my small neutron blasters are better at tracking the citadel than a rail Thorax. Don't ask yourself what these types of measurements could be used for, ask what they ARE used for. Find what situations they will give USEFULL information towards. If another number needs to be put into the info list to indicate comparative tracking speeds among weapons of different sizes, add a new category called "Relative Tracking Value Indicator Thingy", and keep your arbitrary number, but put the measurements back that are usefull. Maby give each weapon an accuracy rating between 0 and 100 in the show info screen for a snapshot view of which weapons track better.
MidnightWyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 228	Posted - 2016.04.30 00:28:41 - [21] - Quote You have got to be kidding. You guys are literally bitching out CCP for redoing a system that required a calculator and replacing it with an easy-to-read value that has NO negative effect on gameplay. I am never working for CCP. I would hate everyone who plays this game. Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS! Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
neovita Aliastra Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2016.04.30 05:58:11 - [22] - Quote MidnightWyvern wrote: You have got to be kidding. You guys are literally bitching out CCP for redoing a system that required a calculator and replacing it with an easy-to-read value that has NO negative effect on gameplay. I am never working for CCP. I would hate everyone who plays this game. You are completely wrong about that. With the old system you could use the angular velocity of your target, compare it to your tracking and get a rough idea of a chance to hit it. This way you could at least exclude targets you can't hit at all pretty easy. With the new system you need a calculator to get the same information using the same circumstances and informations. So the NEW system requires a calculator and the NEW system converts the value of the targets angular velocity into a complete useless piece of information in the middle of a fight. Not the old system like you just said... So yes, ppl have are "bitching out CCP" like you said, because CCP replaced a very usefull (and in many cased realy required) information into a complete useless one. Or do you think your enemies will listen to you if you tell them things like: "Guys, wait a second, i need to take my calculator do some math before i can make a decision which one of you to shoot first to at least have a chance to hit at all..." in the middle of a fight? If they are using a new scalling for the tracking value (represented by the accuracy score), then they should consider to use the exactly the same scaling system in the overview (a kind of "evasion score" like someone already said here) instead of the now complete useless angular velocity.
Gillia Winddancer Aliastra Gallente Federation 459	Posted - 2016.05.02 10:20:05 - [23] - Quote Wow, I've entirelly missed this change in EVE. I even sent in a bug report cause I was so confused as to why all weapons had a signature value of 40km all of a sudden. Whilst I agree that the old rad/s info hardly is intuitive I was absolutely dumbstruck on what the hell this new info was supposed to mean and what I was supposed to compare it to. A new player will have even less clue if you ask me if he starts to compare different weapons of different sizes and whatnot else. This so must change to something better. What we had before wasn't exactly good but this is just really bad now.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 915	Posted - 2016.05.02 10:53:07 - [24] - Quote It is going to take some time to get use to, that's for sure. I suppose it will be some time before we start to really see the benefits of this new system, though I've been told that it will be far easier to compare when the stats of weapons of unequal size are stood side-by-side. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Rumbless Not The Droids You Are Looking For 26	Posted - 2016.05.02 12:03:13 - [25] - Quote As long as missiles aren't getting nerfed yet again, I'm a happy camper.
PAPULA Black Aces I N F A M O U S 119	Posted - 2016.05.02 12:08:27 - [26] - Quote neovita wrote: MidnightWyvern wrote: You have got to be kidding. You guys are literally bitching out CCP for redoing a system that required a calculator and replacing it with an easy-to-read value that has NO negative effect on gameplay. I am never working for CCP. I would hate everyone who plays this game. You are completely wrong about that. With the old system you could use the angular velocity of your target, compare it to your tracking and get a rough idea of a chance to hit it. This way you could at least exclude targets you can't hit at all pretty easy. And now you only have to divide by 100 to get correct rad/sec. Super hard to do.
CaesarGREG CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans 3	Posted - 2016.05.02 12:16:38 - [27] - Quote this new system sux , u dont know if your guns r rotating fast or slow? where is tracing speed? And where is signature radius of guns one noumber is not ENOUGH to describe guns!! CCP this game is not for stuipid ppl, most ppl wich play here know math. With one number u dont know to aproach target on low orbit or long orbit? Whats tracking speed of enemy guns????? Remove signature of ships and broke whole game
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 309	Posted - 2016.05.02 12:17:12 - [28] - Quote PAPULA wrote: neovita wrote: MidnightWyvern wrote: You have got to be kidding. You guys are literally bitching out CCP for redoing a system that required a calculator and replacing it with an easy-to-read value that has NO negative effect on gameplay. I am never working for CCP. I would hate everyone who plays this game. You are completely wrong about that. With the old system you could use the angular velocity of your target, compare it to your tracking and get a rough idea of a chance to hit it. This way you could at least exclude targets you can't hit at all pretty easy. And now you only have to divide by 100 to get correct rad/sec. Super hard to do. Whereas before there was no arbitrary dividing factor... You could just look with your eyes and you were done, now you need to have these made up scale factors in your head to read the information properly. Much easier for the poor newbies huh ? A case for more AoE in EvE
CaesarGREG CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans 3	Posted - 2016.05.02 12:24:45 - [29] - Quote Old system was simple Generally Ammar Guns: Low tracking , high optimal ,low fallof > now one number say ** Galante guns: high tracking , low optimal , low falloff , > now one number say Minmatar Guns:high tracking , low optimal, high fallof > now one number say **, how new player will knew aproach target , on low orbit , or kite?
War Kitten Panda McLegion 6189	Posted - 2016.05.02 13:54:05 - [30] - Quote Put me in the camp of "WTF were they thinking?" Tracking speed was easy and intuitive to think about, and the stat had meaningful units: rad/s Signature resolution was easy and intuitive and the stat had meaningful units: meters What are the units on this new stat? How do I compare it to information on the overview now? Tell me why having 1 complicated number is better than 2 simple ones? Bad idea CCP. :( I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 474	Posted - 2016.05.02 15:14:39 - [31] - Quote War Kitten wrote: What are the units on this new stat? It's rad/s units still. But scaled by different amounts depending on gun signature resolution. Quote: How do I compare it to information on the overview now? You really can't directly, unfortunately. You need to know the signature radius of the target to do that. Of course, under the old system you needed to know the signature radius of the target as well, so you were likely fooling yourself if you thought you could compare your guns' tracking to your targets angular velocity. You could get a very rough approximation, but it was just that, rough. You can do the same rough approximation, though. Multiply a frig's angular velocity by 1000, a cruiser's by 350, and a battleship's by 100. Then, just like before, you'll need to factor in whether it's shield tanked and therefore likely has shield extenders which make the signature radius larger, whether it's being target painted, whether you think they have skirmish (?) links, etc. Quote: Tell me why having 1 complicated number is better than 2 simple ones? Because it makes it much simpler to compare two different guns with each other. Quote: Bad idea CCP. :( I like it, so long as they add a Ship Evasion Score column to the overview so the calculations I mention above are done for us.
Pandora Carrollon Kingsman Tailors 192	Posted - 2016.05.02 15:38:25 - [32] - Quote I did some testing with some different turret types and different positions of ships last night. I took a 250mm Railgun II, 200mm Prototype Gauss Gun, and Dual 150mm Railgun I and fired them at the same type of frigate targets from a Faction Cruiser at about 10-15km. Orbiting the frigate, all but the dual 150's had horrific accuracy. Now that's with the frigate 'closing' on me. That should not be the case. In that 'scenario' I have essentially crossed the "T" on the frigate and their actual angular velocity or the transverse being required of my guns should have been minimal. I also had Scan Resolution and tracking boosting active to give the guns a maximum shot at being able to hit. Nope, the closer the frigate got, the worse the hit. Thus, I think RANGE is the primary driver in their formula for tracking- regardless of actual transverse vectors. When I would turn out and put the frigate into a tail chase, or turn in and go head on, the frigate was toast immediately as all guns connected. So, if I were to guess at the breakdown of the formula for the tracking algorithm. It would prioritize in this order: RANGE Velocity Turret Speed Bearing I don't think their balance is correct though in regards to bearing. Just because I'm side on to a target, if that target is coming at me, the relative motion of the target is nearly zero in transverse and I should be hitting just as easily as if they were tail or head on to me. So, while I don't really see an issue with the new way of reporting things (if it's an actual representation of the output of the formula), it's seemingly flawed in how the algorithm works. I still give them big Kudos for even caring about such a thing, but it needs some tweeking to get actual relative motion dialed in to be more realistic. However, if the reporting is correct to the formula, then I'll just fly the formula and not reality. It's just a game. Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game -- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 474	Posted - 2016.05.02 16:00:36 - [33] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: However, if the reporting is correct to the formula, then I'll just fly the formula and not reality. It's just a game. Indeed, the to-hit chance formula is: 0.5 ^ ( (target angular velocity * gun signature resolution / gun tracking / target signature radis)^2 + (range term)^2) which really doesn't reflect how guns work in real life. So just fly the formula.
Pandora Carrollon Kingsman Tailors 192	Posted - 2016.05.02 16:13:31 - [34] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Indeed, the to-hit chance formula is: 0.5 ^ ( (target angular velocity * gun signature resolution / gun tracking / target signature radis)^2 + (range term)^2) which really doesn't reflect how guns work in real life. So just fly the formula. Interesting, I must have missed where that was posted. Would've saved me some testing time... with the exception of whatever makes up "target angular velocity" as that could be about anything. So yea, just put it into a head/tail chase and the small ships don't stand a chance against the big guns unless you let them in under your nose, then you need a web or secondary battery. The Dual 150's did well. I was hoping to see more 'grouped' weapons in this expansion for ships even down to cruisers. A battery of Quad 75's or triplet of 125's in the rail family would be nice to see for dealing with small targets. Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game -- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
Vardec Crom Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 14	Posted - 2016.05.02 16:55:00 - [35] - Quote smokeydapot wrote: So as iGÇÖm sure quite a few players who canGÇÖt make fanfest in person watched it all on the stream such as I did to plan my future and find something that either awe inspired me or made me go GÇ£ wait what now GÇ£ and this is one such change that made me do the latter. So all turrets are now getting a weapon accuracy score in the up and coming expansion to replace the Rad/s tracking of old, This got me thinking how does this change my game play and it dawned on me, Wait donGÇÖt i use that to determined my hit probability when using big slow guns ( e.g. 1400 artillery ). The long reload time and poor tracking of such turrets means that I use the column Angular Velocity that directly represents the Tracking speed of turrets, This means that although the figure provided by the client in relation to GÇ£ weapon accuracy GÇ£ means the same thing ( or so was stated iirc ) just in a different way meaning the same thing. This now means that there is no readout on the overview that tells me my tracking speed on a target and guess work is involved in my chance to hit beyond the tracking formula, This minor but in my gameplay significant change will sadly impact my gameplay in a negative manner making it rather difficult to get the WTF reactions I get in local chat when utilizing ALL the features within the game. P.S. I believe i also heard a comment about not seeing the size of your target This is represented by the Size column that IIRC displays the signature of the ship your trying to kill. The rad/s tracking statistic was never the whole story, if you actually watched the panel you would have understand this. Rad/s is only meaningful when the sig radius of the target is EXACTLY the same as the sig resolution of the gun. So if you're shooting 1400's at anything smaller than a battleship, rad/s limits were completely meaningless anyway. Also you can just divide the tracking score by 4000 to get the old rad/s. But I know actually ******* thinking for yourself is too difficult
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 491	Posted - 2016.05.03 08:35:07 - [36] - Quote I am a physics major. I know my math and stuff. The old tracking number was not intuitive at all. If your gun can track fast enough then it should hit all the time. If it can't track fast enough it should never hit. Also your own ships rotation doesn't even fit into things! Yea nothing about tracking is intuitive. What i described was what i was thinking my first day playing the game. I assumed tracking is slew rate. It is not. In fact it really doesn't have any physical interpretation. It is a mechanic. An arbitrary mechanic that boils down to fast things are harder to hit with big guns. I still don't find it intuitive. Why? because who cares if that ship is moving at .03213 rads a sec. I don't know its sig radius so I am making ** up anyway. Now hop in a WH with effects.. Good luck with that. What i do is use pyfa and see what i can hit assuming fairly typical fits for targets. Then i try and apply to real combat situations. Which normally goes something like "** he got under my guns"... AKA the scientist. Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
Nana Skalski Poseidaon 9794	Posted - 2016.05.03 10:08:14 - [37] - Quote Delt0r Garsk wrote: I am a physics major. I know my math and stuff. The old tracking number was not intuitive at all. If your gun can track fast enough then it should hit all the time. If it can't track fast enough it should never hit. Also your own ships rotation doesn't even fit into things! Yea nothing about tracking is intuitive. What i described was what i was thinking my first day playing the game. I assumed tracking is slew rate. It is not. In fact it really doesn't have any physical interpretation. It is a mechanic. An arbitrary mechanic that boils down to fast things are harder to hit with big guns. I still don't find it intuitive. Why? because who cares if that ship is moving at .03213 rads a sec. I don't know its sig radius so I am making ** up anyway. Now hop in a WH with effects.. Good luck with that. What i do is use pyfa and see what i can hit assuming fairly typical fits for targets. Then i try and apply to real combat situations. Which normally goes something like "** he got under my guns"... If you only watch effects, than real world units would not bother you much, would they? If exactly the same would have been a situation for majority, and the rest acepted the units of measurements and the way its displayed, It boils down to overdedicated devs who dont have anything to do. ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ =ƒÅ¦ - my sandcastle Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 460	Posted - 2016.05.03 16:38:02 - [38] - Quote So, is this new Weapon Accuracy or whatever it's called basically the rad/s the gun can track on targets of a size of 40km? If so, it's cool. I can live with that. To shoot a frig, i'll have to divide it by about 1000, and then i have the rad/s at which i can track it ~roughly. If not, i'll be very confused.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 476	Posted - 2016.05.03 21:11:25 - [39] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: So, is this new Weapon Accuracy or whatever it's called basically the rad/s the gun can track on targets of a size of 40km? Interesting way of looking at it...! A 40 WAS gun shooting at a 40km ship orbiting at 40 rad/s would indeed have a 50% chance of hitting. :-) Quote: If so, it's cool. I can live with that. To shoot a frig, i'll have to divide it by about 1000, and then i have the rad/s at which i can track it ~roughly. If not, i'll be very confused. Yeah, basically. Divide 40000 by the target's sig radius - in the case of a 40m frig, that is indeed 1000. So take the gun's WAS and divide that by the new number - let's say it's a 125 WAS small gun, so 125/1000 = 0.125 rad/s orbit speed yields 50% to-hit chance. If it's a 125m cruiser, then 320 (40000/125) is the number to divide the WAS by to get the 50% to-hit chance orbit speed. Of course, you only have a rough estimate of the target's signature, due to things like MWD bloom, target painters and links. But that was just as true before the Citadel patch as it is after.
Verdis deMosays The Gold Angels Sixth Empire 124	Posted - 2016.05.12 13:03:32 - [40] - Quote neovita wrote: MidnightWyvern wrote: You have got to be kidding. You guys are literally bitching out CCP for redoing a system that required a calculator and replacing it with an easy-to-read value that has NO negative effect on gameplay. I am never working for CCP. I would hate everyone who plays this game. You are completely wrong about that. With the old system you could use the angular velocity of your target, compare it to your tracking and get a rough idea of a chance to hit it. This way you could at least exclude targets you can't hit at all pretty easy. With the new system you need a calculator to get the same information using the same circumstances and informations. So the NEW system requires a calculator and the NEW system converts the value of the targets angular velocity into a complete useless piece of information in the middle of a fight. Not the old system like you just said... So yes, ppl have are "bitching out CCP" like you said, because CCP replaced a very usefull (and in many cased realy required) information into a complete useless one. Or do you think your enemies will listen to you if you tell them things like: "Guys, wait a second, i need to take my calculator and do some math before i can make a decision which one of you to shoot first and at least have a chance to hit at all..." in the middle of a fight? If they are using a new scalling for the tracking value (represented by the accuracy score), then they should consider to use the exactly the same scaling system in the overview (a kind of "evasion score" like someone already said here) or at least ANY kind of information that would be directly related to the useless accuracy score, instead of the now complete useless angular velocity. I was going to post this almost to the letter, but midnight beat me to it. I teach a lot of new players, and the old system of Angular Velocity < Tracking g Speed = hit was very east for a new player to grasp. And for us old timers with 1400mm Tornados, that tracking compariso was almost requjred. This is not a good change. It makes new player frustration increase, which hurts retention terribly. It denies info to someone who can use it. It needs to be reversed ASAP, or at least modified to still give an actual tracking readout. Please listen to your players, CCP!
Cookie Snakeoil Industries Ltd. 0	Posted - 2016.05.12 13:22:31 - [41] - Quote Next patch all the numbers will be replaced by letters to stop confusing people with an IQ slightly above room temperature.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1178	Posted - 2016.05.12 13:43:06 - [42] - Quote Yeah, I'm not down with CCP making up their own equation for all this ****. Just give us the raw data and we're just fine crunching the numbers ourselves. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2819	Posted - 2016.05.12 13:54:16 - [43] - Quote They could of kept the rad data while also making them more comparable by just removing the weapon size modifier from the whole thing. Just make all the weapon "small" in their resolution and adjust the tracking value for this new ratio on medium, large and XL weapons. Then you get to have a more easily comparable data and a data that can be used on the fly without mentally adjusting for size discrepancies.
Pandora Carrollon Kingsman Tailors 241	Posted - 2016.05.12 15:04:27 - [44] - Quote 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. Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game -- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
Tengu Grib Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance 1508	Posted - 2016.05.12 17:27:03 - [45] - Quote neovita wrote: So yes, ppl have are "bitching out CCP" like you said, because CCP replaced a very usefull (and in many cased realy required) information into a complete useless one. Or do you think your enemies will listen to you if you tell them things like: "Guys, wait a second, i need to take my calculator and do some math before i can make a decision which one of you to shoot first and at least have a chance to hit at all..." in the middle of a fight? "GUYS Everyone hit Ctrl Space, the enemy FC needs to grab his calculator! Toxic I'm looking at you! STOP YOUR SHIP! Let him get his calculator! Guys cycle your guns, give him a minute God!" Rabble Rabble Rabble Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Tengu Grib Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance 1508	Posted - 2016.05.12 17:37:44 - [46] - Quote Delt0r Garsk wrote: Then i try and apply to real combat situations. Which normally goes something like "**** he got under my guns"... lol ain't that the truth. Rabble Rabble Rabble Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Tengu Grib Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance 1508	Posted - 2016.05.12 17:41:23 - [47] - Quote Cookie wrote: Next patch all the numbers will be replaced by letters to stop confusing people with an IQ slightly above room temperature. Hmm, let's see what the tracking number is on my guns... 'T'. Ok, let's check this other gun. '&' Ooooooh I get it. I'll go with the 'T' guns. Rabble Rabble Rabble Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Shayla Etherodyne Delta Laroth Industries 56	Posted - 2016.05.12 18:10:08 - [48] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Quote: Tell me why having 1 complicated number is better than 2 simple ones? Because it makes it much simpler to compare two different guns with each other. And why I will have to compare a small blaster with a large artillery piece? I will compare small blasters to small blasters or at worst other small guns. And i will do that outside of combat. A combat useful stat has been replaced by a market useful stat. But when I buy something I have the time to do the calculations, when I am using it I want information that I can use at a glance. Sure, I miss the size information and can only guess it, but that way I have to guess 1 piece of the puzzle while the others are already set,. with the new system I still have to guess that information and then do some math tho use it. Slower and more prone to errors.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 6190	Posted - 2016.05.12 19:05:50 - [49] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: It's rad/s units still. But scaled by different amounts depending on gun signature resolution. No, they're not rad/s if you have to multiply by something that approximates the sig radius of the target and it includes the sig resolution of the gun. Quote: War Kitten wrote: How do I compare it to information on the overview now? You really can't directly, unfortunately. You need to know the signature radius of the target to do that. Of course, under the old system you needed to know the signature radius of the target as well That is the problem - I can't directly compare to the useful stat on the overview. I can fly such that I keep the rad/s within the right range. I cannot adjust for sig radius while flying. I cannot swap guns in the midst of combat. I can only manually pilot my ship. Quote: Quote: Tell me why having 1 complicated number is better than 2 simple ones? Because it makes it much simpler to compare two different guns with each other. I like it, so long as they add a Ship Evasion Score column to the overview so the calculations I mention above are done for us. See, that's where you're seeing the number from the station fitting window and I'm trying to use the number in space while flying - Two different perspectives. I don't care if a different gun was better while flying. I have to use the guns I have on the ship. Now you're kinda seeing the pointlessness of it. I don't want to know anything about sig radius/resolution comparissons in my tracking column though. I know it plays into whether or not I can hit well - but it does not help me keep my orbit within the tracking capabilities of the gun. I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 6190	Posted - 2016.05.12 19:09:25 - [50] - Quote Cookie wrote: Next patch all the numbers will be replaced by letters to stop confusing people with an IQ slightly above room temperature. Well, I suppose if your IQ is slightly below room temperature, then I guess it doesn't matter if the number is muddled by other factors or letters or Egyptian hieroglyphics. You're clearly not using it in the heat of combat. I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33860	Posted - 2016.05.12 19:37:42 - [51] - Quote I don't think the new rating is any more or less clear than before. It's incomplete unless there is a visual cue in the HUD showing the projected damage percentage. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2954	Posted - 2016.05.12 20:23:26 - [52] - Quote I like having weapon accuracy score. I do not like not having radians per second. Given the choice between the two, I would select radians per second nine times out of ten. It should be a CHOICE. 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 1521	Posted - 2016.05.12 20:50:52 - [53] - Quote Tengu Grib wrote: Hmm, let's see what the tracking number is on my guns... 'T'. Ok, let's check this other gun. '&' Ooooooh I get it. I'll go with the 'T' guns. Yeah, let's simplify the process of selecting the ***** guns, because you're NOT in station completely safe from any sort of damage, and you DON'T have all the *** time in the world to pull out a calculator and compare the *** raw tracking and sig resolution stats, while you're docked in the *** station. Let's simplify it. Who cares that when you get out there and the other guy gets under your guns and you can't hit him, when you have to *** figure out WTF to do to escape this *** situation and save your ** expensive ship, you can no longer compare the gun's stat with something in the overview that would easily tell you what range or how much webification or whatever you need to apply to save your ass. That process needs to be more complicated, because when you're at 25% structure going to 0, that's when you need to do the ***** math. Gun sig resolution is static, not variable. The enemy's ship sig radius is static, not variable. Therefore, this comparison can be done in station when you select your guns. Gun tracking is static, not variable. Enemy's angular velocity is variable. Therefore, obscuring the gun tracking behind some stupid math formula prevents us from getting critical live feedback during combat. Whoever made this change at CCP is A ***** IDIOT. Tell him to come to the forums so I can call him that to his face. Or her. **!
Shayla Etherodyne Delta Laroth Industries 57	Posted - 2016.05.12 20:51:34 - [54] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Cookie wrote: Next patch all the numbers will be replaced by letters to stop confusing people with an IQ slightly above room temperature. Well, I suppose if your IQ is slightly below room temperature, then I guess it doesn't matter if the number is muddled by other factors or letters or Egyptian hieroglyphics. You're clearly not using it in the heat of combat. But room temperature is measured in Celsius or Fahrenheit? It make a lot of difference.
Verdis deMosays The Gold Angels Sixth Empire 125	Posted - 2016.05.12 20:55:33 - [55] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: I like having weapon accuracy score. I do not like not having radians per second. Given the choice between the two, I would select radians per second nine times out of ten. It should be a CHOICE. While I disagree with the score system being better, you but the nail on the head. It should be a choice. For on the fly combat calculations, I need either the Rad/s readout, or a useful way to convert WAS to accuracy on current target. As it stands now, I have to slowly adjust my orbit til I'm not missing, instead of just setting my orbit to my guns tracking speed. On most things it's not a big deal, but if I'm trying to brawl down a rlml caracal, I have no room to just hunt and peck my orbital state. Too many misses, and the other guy has an advantage. So to me this whole score thing is a direct nerf to turret boats. I can sort it out on an out of game fitting tool, but it's still not cool.
Memphis Baas 1521	Posted - 2016.05.12 20:58:17 - [56] - Quote Shayla Etherodyne wrote: But room temperature is measured in Celsius or Fahrenheit? It make a lot of difference. That's why I know that "nice outside" means around 18-20 C, 67-70 F. So I can compare whatever thermometer with my built-in stats. Tell me how that would work when the "thermometer" shows you "Joules of heat delivered to your body." The weather outside can deliver 400 ***** Joules of heat energy to an overweight person, 300 Joules to a normal, and 100 Joules to a child. Enjoy the ***** weather forecasting, hope we were clear about what the weather will be like."
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 480	Posted - 2016.05.12 21:46:36 - [57] - Quote Memphis Baas wrote: Gun sig resolution is static, not variable. The enemy's ship sig radius is static, not variable. Therefore, this comparison can be done in station when you select your guns. Gun tracking is static, not variable. Enemy's angular velocity is variable. Gun sig resolution is static, yes. Target ship's sig radius changes depending on MWD activation, T3D mode, links, and target painters. Therefore, you cannot make that comparison in station. Gun tracking changes based on ship skills and modules like tracking enhancers/computers, and remote tracking enhancers/disruptors. Target's angular velocity does change, yes. All the above means that knowing your small blaster of sig 40 m tracks at 0.32 rad/s and your heavy blaster of sig 125 m tracks at 0.12 rad/s doesn't tell you much about the relative performance of the guns and their ability to hit various targets, unless you pull out the calculator and start cranking through 0.5 ^ ( (target angular velocity * gun signature resolution / target signature radius / gun tracking) ^ 2 ) And since you don't know your targets actual sig radius and can only estimate it, you can only estimate your chance to hit. (Fortunately, while your gun tracking can change dynamically, you can get-info on them to find their actual point in time tracking.) And just like you know what 67F feels like because you've experienced it despite it being an arbitrary scale with an arbitrary 0-point and somebody who's never heard of it would curse you for making them pull out a calculator to figure out how hot something is when C is perfectly useable and meaningful, you would get used to what various Weapon Accuracy Scores mean. Currently, you know how a light blaster with 0.35 rad/s tracking performs against a frig and you know how a heavy blaster with 0.35 rad/s tracking performs against a frig, and you know they perform differently. This is because you've used this system a lot and have gotten used to it, just like F. With the Accuracy Sore, you'll eventually know how well a 300 WAS performs against a frig, and you won't have to worry about whether you're shooting with a small, medium or large gun because a 300 WAS gun is just as accurate as any other 300 WAS gun no matter their sizes. You'll get to know what a 20 vs 80 WAS gun can do, and what a 1.2 vs 0.01 WAS gun can do, as well. (Assuming you spend any time with those guns.) Regardless, I'll reiterate my request to CCP that if they stick with the WAS stat, they add the Ship Evasion Score stat as an available overview column.
Memphis Baas 1522	Posted - 2016.05.13 01:03:52 - [58] - Quote So it's been several patches, and multiple threads requesting that, and they haven't done it. So, given their track record with iterating on past features, I'm going to continue to be furious about this, because the amount of stupidity in the way this was implemented precludes civility.
lollerwaffle Black Serpent Technologies The-Culture 288	Posted - 2016.05.13 08:32:56 - [59] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Currently, you know how a light blaster with 0.35 rad/s tracking performs against a frig and you know how a heavy blaster with 0.35 rad/s tracking performs against a frig, and you know they perform differently. This is because you've used this system a lot and have gotten used to it, just like F. With the Accuracy Sore, you'll eventually know how well a 300 WAS performs against a frig, and you won't have to worry about whether you're shooting with a small, medium or large gun because a 300 WAS gun is just as accurate as any other 300 WAS gun no matter their sizes. You'll get to know what a 20 vs 80 WAS gun can do, and what a 1.2 vs 0.01 WAS gun can do, as well. (Assuming you spend any time with those guns.) Regardless, I'll reiterate my request to CCP that if they stick with the WAS stat, they add the Ship Evasion Score stat as an available overview column. No. This is stupid. In PVP, especially in non-F1monkey PVP, timing your guns to fire when there is low angular velocity is important, especially when firing slow ROF, high dmg guns like arties (or even beams/rails). It's not about 'getting used' to it. While rad/s isn't the only input in tracking, it's still something that is very useful and important in PVP. I don't want to have to do mental calculations before knowing whether my guns have a chance of hitting based on the target's angular velocity alone.
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 16	Posted - 2016.05.13 09:25:46 - [60] - Quote lollerwaffle wrote: Eli Stan wrote: Currently, you know how a light blaster with 0.35 rad/s tracking performs against a frig and you know how a heavy blaster with 0.35 rad/s tracking performs against a frig, and you know they perform differently. This is because you've used this system a lot and have gotten used to it, just like F. With the Accuracy Sore, you'll eventually know how well a 300 WAS performs against a frig, and you won't have to worry about whether you're shooting with a small, medium or large gun because a 300 WAS gun is just as accurate as any other 300 WAS gun no matter their sizes. You'll get to know what a 20 vs 80 WAS gun can do, and what a 1.2 vs 0.01 WAS gun can do, as well. (Assuming you spend any time with those guns.) Regardless, I'll reiterate my request to CCP that if they stick with the WAS stat, they add the Ship Evasion Score stat as an available overview column. No. This is stupid. In PVP, especially in non-F1monkey PVP, timing your guns to fire when there is low angular velocity is important, especially when firing slow ROF, high dmg guns like arties (or even beams/rails). It's not about 'getting used' to it. While rad/s isn't the only input in tracking, it's still something that is very useful and important in PVP. I don't want to have to do mental calculations before knowing whether my guns have a chance of hitting based on the target's angular velocity alone. Wouldn't you still just time it for their angular to be low...?
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders 4419	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:28:23 - [61] - Quote Using live angular velocity readout on the overview during combat boils down to this: 1) You have memorized beforehand your desired maximum rad/s - This figure will obviously be different for different ship classes. If for example you expect to be shooting at anything from frigates to to cruisers, you have to memorize 3 different numbers 2) You try to determine if your target is using an mwd and/or (but much less important) if they're heavily buffer shield tanked 3) You compare their angular velocity with your pre-memorized 'ideal' rad/s: - If MWD, you know it can be up to 6x higher - If shield, you know it can be maybe 1.5x higher (doesn't really change much imo) The ONLY change is how you calculate step 1), which is something you SHOULDN'T be doing 'live' during combat anyway. I agree WAS makes step 1) less intuitive, but you still needed to do some math before the patch (unless you were planning on shooting exclusively frigates with small guns, or cruisers with medium guns, etc.). Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 298	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:57:20 - [62] - Quote Galaxxis wrote: 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?
Memphis Baas 1530	Posted - 2016.05.13 12:20:54 - [63] - Quote Sure, everybody will be happy when they put a column in the overview that matches the gun stat as a direct comparison, but until then it's rage, and it'll be expressed as a comment about EVE and CCP until they do. On the internets.
Mina Sebiestar Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate 1076	Posted - 2016.05.13 12:36:24 - [64] - Quote 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 Further more it shows correct sig rez of all guns and not 40 km made up number out of someone behind just to show smaller number for big guns and bigger for small. Jeez let me know when Nobel prize is on i wanna see the nomination process may self. In other news i would gladly go to old system that was just fine and one that no one ever complained if CCP make that as option. Typhoon Fleet Issue SOE skin for the win.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 298	Posted - 2016.05.13 12:48:32 - [65] - Quote Mina Sebiestar wrote: 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.
Verdis deMosays The Gold Angels Sixth Empire 127	Posted - 2016.05.13 14:28:44 - [66] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Mina Sebiestar wrote: 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. What you miss is the point of our arguments against this WAS system. If I give you the number 11.88, and say tell me how fast I can orbit my target, without missing, you can't do it. The only way is to break that number down into its components to find Radians per second, which was shown before the change. There is simply no way to apply a WAS number to practical application by itself.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 298	Posted - 2016.05.13 15:34:29 - [67] - Quote Nor can you say you'll hit stuff when I tell you its angular velocity is 0.0745. Because you don't know the target's signature radius. What you could do, and still can, is try to shoot when its angular velocity is nigh zero. Now, having to take your guns target resolution into account versus sigradius ..... that's exactly what that "accuracy" figure does, no? 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 ?
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 482	Posted - 2016.05.13 17:46:15 - [68] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: 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 ? 5/40 = 0.125 = 50/400 so yes, they are identical.
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 520	Posted - 2016.05.13 18:59:56 - [69] - Quote I found the old system much better. The current tracking numbers are completely abstract until you divide them to the appropriate level; how many ships have a 40km sig radius... With the old system you could see at a glance how a medium gun should be tracking against a medium ship, or how a large gun should be tracking against a large ship etc. Also I am confused as to why CCP decided to make fighters apply missile type damage to targets even when they are using turret weapons. An attempt to simplify and dumb down the game perhaps? Someone needs to calm down at CCP and stopping trying to 'improve' stuff that isn't broken. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Memphis Baas 1530	Posted - 2016.05.13 19:01:32 - [70] - Quote Ferrotsmite Anzomi wrote: Frogs are not that big, and my frigates guns are not designed to hit a target 40 kilometers wide. Aren't citadels 40km? There you go, this silly argument we're having about gun stats is laid to rest, once and for all. All your guns are designed to hit citadels.
Mikkal Rune Ammatar Academy of Sciences 20	Posted - 2016.05.14 23:08:00 - [71] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: Someone needs to calm down at CCP and stopping trying to 'improve' stuff that isn't broken. Yes. ThereGÇÖs been a lot of this lately. GÇ£HelpfulGÇ¥ changes to things no one was complaining about. And I appreciated the fact that radians and seconds were real-world things that translated into something in my head, in a way that a number that only reflects them if I remember to divide it by a particular other number do not. So IGÇÖm sorry to see them go too.
Aplier Shivra 35	Posted - 2016.05.15 00:48:43 - [72] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: 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. It's not a matter of being rules lawyers, min-maxers, or whatever other derogatory term you want to use. This game is run by numbers, it's run by defined formulas in fact, and the practical and empirical will exactly match the theoretical. If people "go nuts" because things don't match up, then it is because of either A) a bug in the system, or much more commonly B) their theoretical idea of how things should work was missing out on some of the key variables or formulas required. If this is because of A, then that "headache or heartache" is certainly well-founded, and is something that should be addressed and fixed. If it's because of B, then the error is on the human, and the system should be faulted for that. Quote: 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. So your tests have shown exactly what the numbers have already proven, that when a ship's angular velocity is low (nose or tail on), weapons are pretty accurate, and when there's a high angular velocity (moving broadside), accuracy is garbage. In fact, in the second part of your empirical tests, you demonstrate exactly the point B i was referring to above. When stating that your gun tracking shouldn't matter when that target is staying still, while you're moving, is an inaccurate thing being included into your theoretical formula. In the situation described, your tracking does very much matter, because your angular velocity is still above 0, because you are moving. So the accurate theory is that your guns should hit like garbage in that situation, which, as you were kind enough to test, they do. So yes, the algorithm for tracking and target is exactly what I expect, which makes the accuracy numbers immensely important. If you want to keep it at a simplistic level of analysis (angular velocity affects accuracy, low=good and high=bad) then that's your choice and that's fine. But there are those of us who want to go a step beyond that, and want to know how much angular velocity affects accuracy. That's the reason why we crunch the numbers, to give us an accurate theoretical view of how a situation will work, so that we can make a better decision based on the information available. In some cases this isn't as necessary, such as a frigate orbiting a battleship at 1000, where they can know without much math that they'll have close to perfect accuracy. In other cases, such as a 1400 arty tempest, taking a few moments to make sure that their next 30+ seconds of waiting on guns won't be wasted isn't min-maxing, rules lawyering, or any of that nonsense, it's just plain playing smart.
Lellulah Eshnayim Justified Lethal Response 0	Posted - 2016.05.19 19:24:49 - [73] - Quote The change does seem rather arbitrary. Either way, yes, we will "normalize" to the changes As far as the "hitting broadside" should be easier assumption: This makes the assumption that the calculation "to hit" accounts for the guns orientating with the direction of the ship. So someone orbiting a stationary target, the guns themselves don't have to rotate as the ship itself is rotating thus keeping the guns pointed on target...I certainly don't see that assumption in the formula... Perhaps if you pictured the calculation like a hovering flying saucer with a rotating turret in the center...the saucer doesn't turn as it orbits, the turret must turn.... Ie: don't kite your own guns...the "broadside" thing won't work ...maybe it should...but it doesn't , ie..ship A should be able to out "kite" ship B if all other things are equal aside from their top speeds, but it doesn't work like that... Or perhaps my kneejerk unproofed rant is just that lol
Moonlit Raid State War Academy Caldari State 300	Posted - 2016.05.19 21:08:40 - [74] - Quote Galaxxis wrote: 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? No math was required, you could literally watch your overview and decide if you were going to hit the target with certainty [depending on ticks]. If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough. Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
Johnny Riko SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 104	Posted - 2016.05.19 22:06:51 - [75] - Quote I can't understand this change. It's just blatant dumbing down. I didn't even think the current system was unintuitive, if anything it is more clear than what they are proposing. Stupid idea CCP. Re-evaluate who is making these decisions. I wanna join up. I think I got what it takes to be a Citizen.
Johnny Riko SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 104	Posted - 2016.05.19 22:09:27 - [76] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Galaxxis wrote: 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?.. I wanna join up. I think I got what it takes to be a Citizen.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 306	Posted - 2016.05.19 22:14:16 - [77] - Quote 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.
Memphis Baas 1572	Posted - 2016.05.19 22:20:59 - [78] - Quote Johnny Riko wrote: You're an engineer and you don't comprehend rad/s? What engineering school did you go to?.. You need to ask? It was Da School, where they taught him Da Number. They didn't mention pi cause that would have made everyone hungry and they'd skip school. So, instead of "a circle is 2 radians," they used "a circle is 360 degrees." Like a pizza. You put it in the oven at 360 degrees for 5 minutes, so that's 300 seconds. So degrees / second makes sense.
nezroy Nice Clan 6	Posted - 2016.05.20 01:20:01 - [79] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: 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. You need 4 numbers total. Before change you were given three of the numbers explicitly under any circumstance (including temp effects to tracking, etc.). Yes, the 4th # was unknown without awareness of your target's likely sigrad based on experience and circumstance. After the change you are given two of the four numbers you need explicitly. Two others are now only provided indirectly and require some on the fly division to recover under any circumstance (e.g. how badly is that tracking disruption affecting my angular? I dunno let me divide by 40km in my head real qui... oops there's the hull alarm). Figuring out the fourth # is not any different than before. So we went from having 3 of the 4 required numbers accurately and explicitly provided at a momentary glance to now only having two of the four required numbers accurately and explicitly displayed at a glance.
Areen Sassel 103	Posted - 2016.05.22 05:11:33 - [80] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: 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.
Cristl 426	Posted - 2016.05.22 05:48:00 - [81] - Quote Areen Sassel wrote: Pandora Carrollon wrote: 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. In real life if you orbited a stationary target your guns wouldn't need to move at all (circular orbit, target at centre).
Areen Sassel 104	Posted - 2016.05.22 20:48:53 - [82] - Quote Cristl wrote: Areen Sassel wrote: 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. If so, why run their own tests? The pertinent game mechanics are hardly undocumented. FWIW, the whole "weapon accuracy" thing seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup; turret tracking was always effectively divided by weapon signature radius, and a figure that encapsulates that division conveys more directly useful information, not less.
Tsukino Stareine Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found 1451	Posted - 2016.05.23 14:14:35 - [83] - Quote 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"
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 488	Posted - 2016.05.23 15:56:33 - [84] - Quote Tsukino Stareine wrote: 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" It should be "Ship Evasion Score" and it should definitely be an overview column option.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders 4439	Posted - 2016.05.23 16:08:14 - [85] - Quote Cristl wrote: Areen Sassel wrote: Pandora Carrollon wrote: 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. In real life if you orbited a stationary target your guns wouldn't need to move at all (circular orbit, target at centre). They would still need to track to hit something several km away, unless your orbit is exactly, perfectly circular. Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Areen Sassel 112	Posted - 2016.05.23 17:19:36 - [86] - Quote Tsukino Stareine wrote: 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" There's still one for angular velocity and you still need to be aware of a fiddle factor to see how that compares to your weapon. The only difference is that now the fiddle factor only needs to take account of the enemy's signature radius and not your gun's signature resolution.
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 9	Posted - 2016.06.17 01:14:31 - [87] - Quote I can understand rads per second, this weapon accuracy shenanigans however, not. My frig has 500, omen 20, does that mean frig guns are 20 times better? It could say "LOL pizza" instead, that's how much info i get from this stat. Can we haz some useful tracking data back? <./salt>
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 332	Posted - 2016.06.17 16:24:05 - [88] - Quote Yes. Frig guns do indeed track better. Ask any Moa pilot who found himself incapable of hitting a webbed frig at 9km.
Pandora Carrollon Kingsman Tailors 363	Posted - 2016.06.17 16:51:00 - [89] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: 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. Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game -- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
Dildus Maximus Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 6	Posted - 2016.06.17 19:10:01 - [90] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: 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. Nothing like a Dominix with small guns, the ultimate space potato.
Pandora Carrollon Kingsman Tailors 365	Posted - 2016.06.17 19:48:32 - [91] - Quote Gully Alex Foyle wrote: They would still need to track to hit something several km away, unless your orbit is exactly, perfectly circular. Yes, but minute changes. At the Battle of 73 Easting a handful of US M1 Abrams battle tanks decimated a far larger force of Iranian T-72 tanks because in the up-close confrontation, the Abrams turrets were built to track and fire on targets in under 5-10 seconds while many of the T-72's were supposedly still hand cranked. Had those M1's been 'orbiting' the T-72's (They were running right through the middle of their formations) the turrets wouldn't have had to move much at all and it would have been all about reload time, which it still was considering how fast an M1 turret can transverse, but transverse, even going nuts in the middle of an enemy formation wasn't the sticking point. It's an extreme example of a difference in tracking, but EVE's turrets should be even more advanced than something that was built in the 1980's. So all of this is moot since it's basically a game mechanic to let the smaller ships have a shot at surviving against larger ones... not much of a shot, but one nonetheless. Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game -- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
Areen Sassel 121	Posted - 2016.06.18 02:18:56 - [92] - Quote Blade Darth wrote: My frig has 500, omen 20, does that mean frig guns are 20 times better? It could say "LOL pizza" instead, that's how much info i get from this stat. Can we haz some useful tracking data back? That is useful tracking data. It's better than the old data because the old data didn't have the better tracking of small guns figured into it.
Alinessa University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.07.17 11:08:53 - [93] - Quote What's the point of making new much worse not helping with anything stat and hide simple and well known rad\s? if u want so, make atleast new universal column in overview which will consider your turret tracking speed and target signature!
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 404	Posted - 2016.07.17 11:27:00 - [94] - Quote While you're at it please put a green checkmark next to my guns to indicate target is in range and I'll hit. Bright green when in optimal range, dark green in falloff. Red cross when in range but can't track, or within missile range but can't hit (target velocity would prevent missiles from catching up before burning out). Can I also request auto-fire mode to automatically select an optimal target and load the best ammo for the job? Oh and please introduce two new icons, one for shield/armor and one for MWD. Also, since this information allows us to easily gauge a target's tank, would you be so kind to add a column "Total Hitpoints"? Thanks a bunch.
Alinessa University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.07.17 13:05:51 - [95] - Quote Looks like some kind of unfunny joke try again.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 406	Posted - 2016.07.17 13:17:20 - [96] - Quote Alright then, since you didn't get it: Signature radius is currently unknown. You're actually asking for MORE intel -- specifically as to how your enemy is fit. Now, with both of those not only known but spelled out for you, you might as well just ask for "Can I hit [Yes/No] ?" rad/sec never told you whether you could or not. In fact it didn't tell you anything as you lack about half of the equation.
Alinessa University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.07.17 13:22:02 - [97] - Quote The point is that before, turrets tracking was related to the size of ship class for which it was made, not to a something magical with 40 000m scale.
She11by Big Boys Don't Cry Kids With Guns Alliance 5	Posted - 2016.07.17 13:31:54 - [98] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Alright then, since you didn't get it: Signature radius is currently unknown. You're actually asking for MORE intel -- specifically as to how your enemy is fit. Now, with both of those not only known but spelled out for you, you might as well just ask for "Can I hit [Yes/No] ?" rad/sec never told you whether you could or not. In fact it didn't tell you anything as you lack about half of the equation. Sure but it's CCP wish to make it more "simple" stat (in reality much harder to understand) and in need of division 24\7. What about signature radius - it's well known cuz you got "size" column in client overview already, i'm always using it
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 406	Posted - 2016.07.17 13:34:10 - [99] - Quote This I know, yes. What of it? The new value can be compared (which is a plus). Neither have in-combat use as there is simply too much variation on sig radius. Not knowing if a ship is shieldtanked or hulltanked, now knowing what kind of MWD it's running, and not having learnt all base sig radii by heart, can you honestly say you found the old value useful? The fact that small guns apply to small targets and mediums to cruisers hasn't changed-- this I knew even without looking up my tracking. You can still compare your railgun to artillery, same as before; but you can now also compare your Large dual 650s to Medium 650s. From where I stand that's an argument in favour of the new system. Now please explain to me what you used rad/sec for, specifically in combat because that's what you wanted to modify yes?
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 406	Posted - 2016.07.17 13:34:58 - [100] - Quote She11by wrote: What about signature radius - it's well known cuz you got "size" column in client overview already, i'm always using it If you're using it, then stop using it. Size is not Signature Radius -- far from it, in fact.
She11by Big Boys Don't Cry Kids With Guns Alliance 5	Posted - 2016.07.17 13:56:03 - [101] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: This I know, yes. What of it? The new value can be compared (which is a plus). Neither have in-combat use as there is simply too much variation on sig radius. Not knowing if a ship is shieldtanked or hulltanked, now knowing what kind of MWD it's running, and not having learnt all base sig radii by heart, can you honestly say you found the old value useful? The fact that small guns apply to small targets and mediums to cruisers hasn't changed-- this I knew even without looking up my tracking. You can still compare your railgun to artillery, same as before; but you can now also compare your Large dual 650s to Medium 650s. From where I stand that's an argument in favour of the new system. Now please explain to me what you used rad/sec for, specifically in combat because that's what you wanted to modify yes? Signature radius 99% of the time isn't changing by THAT much. Never had problems to compare them before but got it now cuz new stat showing what? how good turrets can track a giant asteroid? o_O how often ppl shoot at that kind of things. P.S. in combat u have no time to divide all by few thousands i'd better compare weapons with more effort on station than do the same thing during fight, before it wasn't perfect but definitely made life easier not harder
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 407	Posted - 2016.07.17 14:17:22 - [102] - Quote For a cruiser it's somewhere between 75-172 (base), with an MWD bonus between 390% and 500%, which leads to a variation somewhere between 367-1032 while warpdriving. Assuming you can tell by the speed it's going whether it's an MWD fit or not, you're still looking at a deviation of 1.65 without or 1.9 with. Not including Target paint, obviously. Edit: (these figures rather conservative as I've assumed max rigging skills. Taking skill into account, the variation is even greater). Now tell me, did you do math off the top of your head on-the-fly to accomodate for these? Range, an estimate of sigradius- everything EFT or experience can tell you but the old angular velocity could not? I doubt it.
She11by Big Boys Don't Cry Kids With Guns Alliance 5	Posted - 2016.07.17 16:36:27 - [103] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: For a cruiser it's somewhere between 75-172 (base), with an MWD bonus between 390% and 500%, which leads to a variation somewhere between 367-1032 while warpdriving. Assuming you can tell by the speed it's going whether it's an MWD fit or not, you're still looking at a deviation of 1.65 without or 1.9 with. Not including Target paint, obviously. Edit: (these figures rather conservative as I've assumed max rigging skills. Taking skill into account, the variation is even greater). Now tell me, did you do math off the top of your head on-the-fly to accomodate for these? Range, an estimate of sigradius- everything EFT or experience can tell you but the old angular velocity could not? I doubt it. I knew it, that u gonna argue about MWD but guess what from turret perspective if the target got x5 speed and x5 signature it change nothing. Sure it never was 100% accurate, but most of ppl are fine with 80-90% accuracy because you can see a whole picture better w\o division for several thousands, anyway was lighter before.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 407	Posted - 2016.07.17 16:46:56 - [104] - Quote She11by wrote: I knew it, that u gonna argue about MWD but guess what from turret perspective if the target got x5 speed and x5 signature it change nothing. Sure it never was 100% accurate, but most of ppl are fine with 80-90% accuracy because you can see a whole picture better w\o division for several thousands, anyway was lighter before. Dude. It makes a difference if it's x4.9 or x6, and the x5 speed is an equally inaccurate assumption. The accuracy is not 80-90%. It's more like 50-200%. But thanks for making my point: when MWDing, the angular velocity is at least 5 times higher than the tracking on your guns AND YOU STILL HIT. The other way around is also possible: to be well within the tracking of your guns and still not hit. Furtnermore the Size column may read 150m while the sigradius is only 60. This is what we generally refer to as a "useless stat" -- the new system at least allows for comparison. I'll leave it at that. If you insist on using an overview column that lists the wrong size and don't care about sig radius, that's your problem really. The more targets don't understand the tracking of their guns, the better it is for me. Please, do carry on!
She11by Big Boys Don't Cry Kids With Guns Alliance 5	Posted - 2016.07.17 18:13:21 - [105] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: She11by wrote: I knew it, that u gonna argue about MWD but guess what from turret perspective if the target got x5 speed and x5 signature it change nothing. Sure it never was 100% accurate, but most of ppl are fine with 80-90% accuracy because you can see a whole picture better w\o division for several thousands, anyway was lighter before. Dude. It makes a difference if it's x4.9 or x6, and the x5 speed is an equally inaccurate assumption. The accuracy is not 80-90%. It's more like 50-200%. But thanks for making my point: when MWDing, the angular velocity is at least 5 times higher than the tracking on your guns AND YOU STILL HIT. The other way around is also possible: to be well within the tracking of your guns and still not hit. Furtnermore the Size column may read 150m while the sigradius is only 60. This is what we generally refer to as a "useless stat" -- the new system at least allows for comparison. I'll leave it at that. If you insist on using an overview column that lists the wrong size and don't care about sig radius, that's your problem really. The more targets don't understand the tracking of their guns, the better it is for me. Please, do carry on! OK 50-200% accuracy still better than none. I thought that u can actually see size in overview but u'r right it's != signature radius, don't rage so hard pls. New system gaves nothing except all guns now showing us old tracking but for planet size target(40 000m), it would be better even if they normalized it around 400m (at least something u can really want to shot in eve) not some miracle number
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 407	Posted - 2016.07.17 18:18:44 - [106] - Quote Apologies. Wasn't raging but yea ... it did come over a bit gruff (woops)
W33b3l Conquest and Kittens 123	Posted - 2016.07.17 21:21:20 - [107] - Quote Maybe its because im not at my computer but I have a question. If tracking speed is how long it takes a turret to pivot 180 degrees and tranversal velocity is in meters per second. How the hell could people ever do that math on the fly in the first place? How many meters per second of transversal = 1 radius per second? Ive always spit balled it from experience. But if they want to change the stats they should just tell you what the max tranversal velocity tracking equivelant of the turret is and bam, simple and usefull.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 409	Posted - 2016.07.17 21:29:57 - [108] - Quote W33b3l wrote: If tracking speed is how long it takes a turret to pivot 180 degrees and tranversal velocity is in meters per second. How the hell could people ever do that math on the fly in the first place? How many meters per second of transversal = 1 radius per second? Ive always spit balled it from experience. But if they want to change the stats they should just tell you what the max tranversal velocity tracking equivelant of the turret is and bam, simple and usefull. There is a column "Angular Velocity" on your overview, if you enable it - but as I've been trying to explain these gentlemen: there is no "maximum velocity" - angular or otherwise. That's the whole point
W33b3l Conquest and Kittens 124	Posted - 2016.07.17 21:41:26 - [109] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: W33b3l wrote: If tracking speed is how long it takes a turret to pivot 180 degrees and tranversal velocity is in meters per second. How the hell could people ever do that math on the fly in the first place? How many meters per second of transversal = 1 radius per second? Ive always spit balled it from experience. But if they want to change the stats they should just tell you what the max tranversal velocity tracking equivelant of the turret is and bam, simple and usefull. There is a column "Angular Velocity" on your overview, if you enable it - but as I've been trying to explain these gentlemen: there is no "maximum velocity" - angular or otherwise. That's the whole point I know ive had them both enebled for years. I dont even bother with having the overview show me the actual speed of other ships anymore. I know angular velocity doesnt mean anything with turrets but im just confused to how you can just look at the tranversal speed and know about what your tracking speed has to be in order to hit a ship by doing quick math. You know the ballpark for what you can hit and what can hit you for given ships through experience but the units of measurement are no where the same to actually compare them on the fly. You have to just know the rough range.
Sergey Hawk The Sith Syndicate REFORD 120	Posted - 2016.07.24 07:11:29 - [110] - Quote Changing real world physics measurements and units for some "score" it's another ~~great~~stupid idea from CCP. In my overview, column with angular velocity always visible and I often compare speeds when manually piloting. Compare values that use the same unit of measurement is always easier. Accuracy score has a simple formula for converting into rad/s, but why i need to do this math? Make no sence! And do not tell me about the ship and guns signatures, in space both are static. And angular velocity is variable and better to have guns tracking speed in same units. Lauda about CCP New camera: It's a sh.tbox! It zooms like crazy and centering before rotation is a disaster. It's amazing - all these dev teams, and you make a piece of crap like this.
Areen Sassel 130	Posted - 2016.07.25 00:37:23 - [111] - Quote Sergey Hawk wrote: Accuracy score has a simple formula for converting into rad/s, but why i need to do this math? It's one multiplication. To convert an old-style tracking into something you can actually compare with the target's tracking speed is also one multiplication. No change there.
Sergey Hawk The Sith Syndicate REFORD 120	Posted - 2016.07.25 07:25:29 - [112] - Quote Areen Sassel wrote: Sergey Hawk wrote: Accuracy score has a simple formula for converting into rad/s, but why i need to do this math? It's one multiplication. To convert an old-style tracking into something you can actually compare with the target's tracking speed is also one multiplication. No change there. Sergey Hawk wrote: but why i need to do this math? Make no sence! What's brought this change in the game? Nothings. This is just an imitation of work. Many things need to be fixed and improved, but CCP spends time on completely unnecessary "improvements". Lauda about CCP New camera: It's a sh.tbox! It zooms like crazy and centering before rotation is a disaster. It's amazing - all these dev teams, and you make a piece of crap like this.
ugh zug 113	Posted - 2016.07.25 15:21:19 - [113] - Quote http://i.imgur.com/DOfXctV.jpg Want me to shut up? Remove content from my post,1B. Remove my content from a thread I have started 2B.
Areen Sassel 130	Posted - 2016.07.25 16:04:44 - [114] - Quote Sergey Hawk wrote: What's brought this change in the game? Nothings. As mentioned above, the new score bakes-in the difference in accuracy between different sizes of weapons. It is an improvement.
Althalus Stenory Flying Blacksmiths 60	Posted - 2016.07.29 21:56:21 - [115] - Quote Areen Sassel wrote: Sergey Hawk wrote: What's brought this change in the game? Nothings. As mentioned above, the new score bakes-in the difference in accuracy between different sizes of weapons. It is an improvement. How so ? I don't believe having a useless stat is an improvement. Right, comparing tracking between my ships and turrets, that's great. But what should I do when it comes to real fights ? I have nothing to compare with in my overview... oh wait ! * taking my scientific calculator and taking from overview some data, calculating and... * Oh god, target's .... [gone / dead / i'm dead] (pick the correct answer). Joking aside, I seriously think the WAS is great and required, BUT, there is no reason to either remove tracking data from turret informations, or not to add an "evasion score" into the overview. And this is at the moment the main issue with WAS. And I really wish CCP to sometimes read and really take note of some of our concerns....
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 505	Posted - 2016.07.29 22:15:41 - [116] - Quote You could of course do this calculation once before undocking, and then nothing changes. I still believe that column in the overview is pointless but you have the right to disagree. All you have to do is write down the tracking speed of your turret against the estimated sigradius. It's one division, which for several sizes can easily be done off the top of your head, assuming 40m for a frig (divide by 100); 80 for a dessie; 160 for a cruiser and so on ... (multiply by four, then divide by 100). At least the base value is something that easily converts to the old tracking value. No need for a pocket calculator. Although throughout the entire thread, nobody has explained to me how exactly you used to old values. Do you guys just compare the angular velocity to your turret's tracking or something? How does that help in positioning your ship? What does it tell you? What do you actually use it for, and how? If only somebody could explain me this, then perhaps I could understand what the problem is.
Althalus Stenory Flying Blacksmiths 60	Posted - 2016.07.29 23:00:38 - [117] - Quote The idea, behind the fact of seing it, is to actually know how much high my score should have been to hit the target (as it moves). It was the same with rad/s : I knew how much I could track (in optimal conditions), then I knew the radial speed of my target compared to my position (that's what the rad/s column shows) which is the radial speed i would need (in perfect condition) to hit the target. After that, depending on the target size (and based on experience) I knew I could hit, or not, that target. Right now what is missing is the data to know "how much WAS should I need in perfect condition to hit that target", this is what I called the "evasion score". The real question you may have is actually : why should that data be displayed. I'd say, why not ? :) I see no reason to keep angular/transversal velocity as you cannot use them for this purpose, but I also see no reason not to show an "evasion score" to allow people to compare this score to their WAS, as we did before with radial speed. Moreover if I try to explain how WAS works and how to use it in real condition to some new players I have/had. So far, the only answer I got is more or less "I cannot use it, i just have to pray to hit my target" Yes, I can write down the estimated tracking speed of my turret, even get it from older SDE, but the idea behind WAS (at least I think) was to hide those data and have an unified value to use. And I don't really want to keep a note in game as a "tracking speed reminder", I want to use the was, as it's an information the game shows me. In the best of the best condition, I may know what WAS I need to hit a specific target. Right, but now they move: approach, orbit. They use MWD/AB ! I web them. The only thing I may know behind those facts is : better/lesser chance to hit. Fine. That'll help me a lot, but how much ? Knowing "it helps" doesn't help as much as knowing "I halfed his radial speed" ! That's actually what I (and maybe many people) want to know with the WAS. I don't care if the value is not the most accurate, btw we never had really accurate data when it comes to hit chance (based on overview infos I mean). Now, we have nothing more. I'd like to use the WAS, really, but for now I have nothing to use it unless I want to get my calculator each time I target a NPC or a player to shot him. Right know I almost feel like rolling some dices each time I shot to know whether i'll hit or not, and I know that some of my corp mate really feel that way, even when they know there is some real physics behind it.
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 48	Posted - 2016.07.30 08:18:46 - [118] - Quote Not even looking at this stat any more, corp CEO told me to keep blood pressure low while mining. https://namamai.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/turret-mechanics-part-2-transversal-vs-angular-velocity/ angular > transversal I just wish it got scaled a bit, "12" instead of 0.00012 would be better to look at. New EVE unit, the kilorads xP
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 620	Posted - 2016.07.30 11:19:53 - [119] - Quote I'm finding this new stat much less useful than the old stat for calculating hit chance in combat. I'm having to ignore the client now and am just using EFT to calculate. While the idea of being able to compare tracking directly between different classes of weapon does have some merit, we should have both pieces of information available. I.e. keep the signature resolution and tracking value of guns as they were, and then include the comparative value as an additional piece of information. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 620	Posted - 2016.07.30 11:42:03 - [120] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Although throughout the entire thread, nobody has explained to me how exactly you used to old values. Do you guys just compare the angular velocity to your turret's tracking or something? How does that help in positioning your ship? What does it tell you? What do you actually use it for, and how? If only somebody could explain me this, then perhaps I could understand what the problem is. The information told you at a glance the tracking required to hit a ship class equivalent to the weapon. Any half decent pvper will always have the angular velocity showing on their overview, and from that they get to know what the standard angular velocity is for a specific type ship. From this they can see at a glance how good the weapon will be for the ship your looking at using it on. The slightly tricky bit came when your fighting ships of a different size class to the signature of the weapon, but in most cases that wasn't too difficult to calculate as after a while it becomes second nature to have the multiplication factors in your head and the multiplication factor was usually something pretty simple to calculate on the fly. For instance: Battleship vs frigate: 400m / 40m = divide tracking by 10 Battleship vs destroyer: 400m / 80m = divide tracking by 5 Battleship vs cruiser: 400m / 100m = divide tracking by 4 Cruiser vs frigate: 125m / 40m = divide tracking by 3 Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Areen Sassel 132	Posted - 2016.07.31 21:39:43 - [121] - Quote Blade Darth wrote: Not even looking at this stat any more, corp CEO told me to keep blood pressure low while mining. https://namamai.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/turret-mechanics-part-2-transversal-vs-angular-velocity/ So that is a good example of the common error in this thread: " If I know my artillery has a tracking value of 0.013 (radians/sec), then I know that IGÇÖll be able to track and hit anyone on my overview who has an angular velocity less than 0.013, assuming theyGÇÖre in my optimal range." No, you don't, not unless you know the target's signature radius - and if you estimate that correctly you then have a fiddle factor to multiply by to find the angular velocity you can hit. Exactly the same is true in the WAS world - the fiddle factor is just different.
Gibbeous Moon Heimdal Freight and Manufacture Inc 21	Posted - 2016.07.31 22:18:48 - [122] - Quote Magnus Rexana wrote: That being said, I now have an insatiable desire to shoot a 40km wide space frog... If I'd ever come across a 40km wide space frog I'd just be runnin'....
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 512	Posted - 2016.07.31 22:30:22 - [123] - Quote I'd just lay off the LSD for a day.
Sergey Hawk The Sith Syndicate REFORD 123	Posted - 2016.08.02 12:31:58 - [124] - Quote Areen Sassel wrote: So that is a good example of the common error in this thread: " If I know my artillery has a tracking value of 0.013 (radians/sec), then I know that IGÇÖll be able to track and hit anyone on my overview who has an angular velocity less than 0.013, assuming theyGÇÖre in my optimal range." No, you don't, not unless you know the target's signature radius - and if you estimate that correctly you then have a fiddle factor to multiply by to find the angular velocity you can hit. Exactly the same is true in the WAS world - the fiddle factor is just different. Common error in this thread that some people believe that WAS is a awesome improvement but they are wrong. Is the old system did not takes into account signature radius? In calculating the old formula already used the signature radius. But CCP make super-duper improvement just multiplying OLD values by 100 and called new value WAS. Do you really think that this is improves some game mechanics??? Now we need some WAS analog for angular velocity in overview column. With OLD system you fit cruiser with blasters, you know your blasters tracking speed in rad/s and you have angular velocity in overview. In combat with another cruiser, if you do not remember your blaster tracking speed, you can quickly look blaster stats and all you need is to compare tracking speed with angular velocity in overview because all cruisers have approximately the same size of signature radius. We are not talking about MWD. With the old system we do not need to make any calculations. With new system you need to convert WAS in rad/s. Yes, it's simple calculations but it's a waste of time! Why, during the battle, I do have to think about these calculations? WHY?? Lauda about CCP New camera: It's a sh.tbox! It zooms like crazy and centering before rotation is a disaster. It's amazing - all these dev teams, and you make a piece of crap like this.
Dirty Forum Alt Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 370	Posted - 2016.08.02 14:19:06 - [125] - Quote I'm not opposed to the existence of the new Weapon Accuracy Score - and I don't think anybody else is either. We just want the old rad/s value back as well. Put it in the spot that currently says "40.0km" for literally every single module in the entire game....
Althalus Stenory Flying Blacksmiths 62	Posted - 2016.08.09 11:45:46 - [126] - Quote @CCPlease read that thread and hear us ! Thanks ! (i'm feeling like I was summoning god... lol, sadly it's common knowledge "he" never answers)
Lunarisse Aspenstar Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque 840	Posted - 2016.08.09 12:20:56 - [127] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: I'm not opposed to the existence of the new Weapon Accuracy Score - and I don't think anybody else is either. We just want the old rad/s value back as well. Put it in the spot that currently says "40.0km" for literally every single module in the entire game.... This is my issue/concern. I don't mind the existence of the new WAS. But please give me back my data!
Soltys Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 152	Posted - 2016.10.07 00:07:31 - [128] - Quote Can we please get rad/s back into the game ? How the hell are people supposed to quickly relate overview readings to their weapons' / drones' stats (sig radius vs. resolution aside - which it doesn't address in any way or form either way) ? What kind of ridiculous idea (and whose ?) was that either way ? If you do crazy nonsense like that, please add damn CHECKBOX so we can retain normal values without being forced to convert it back to something comparable. Then your new (?) target audience can have their pretty kindergarten values and normal players can have well - normal values. Jita Flipping Inc.: Solmp / Kovl
Arec Bardwin 1915	Posted - 2016.10.07 01:24:08 - [129] - Quote Wait, CCP removed rad/s from ingame info? Relying on old eft installs to get the tracking info is just
Soltys Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 153	Posted - 2016.10.07 01:55:57 - [130] - Quote Arec Bardwin wrote: Wait, CCP removed rad/s from ingame info? Relying on old eft installs to get the tracking info is just I reedited my initial reply. It's not that they removed it - they scaled tracking of every gun/drone to same 40km resolution - which made them directly comparable, but PITA to relate to angular velocity in overview. Jita Flipping Inc.: Solmp / Kovl
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18265	Posted - 2016.10.07 05:22:01 - [131] - Quote Tau Cabalander wrote: You know, you could always shoot stuff and observe the results. Example: I know I can thwak a frigate with an arty Tornado at 30 km. I've never done the math. There is even a test server. I haven't run the maths on most of my toys for years, I just sort o know if I'm going to hit stuff or not.
Arec Bardwin 1915	Posted - 2016.10.07 13:00:41 - [132] - Quote When we've got the new awesome weapon accuracy stat added could we at least have it shown with the range and damage info in the mouse-over display for weapons? That would actually be useful when being TDed and such.
Soltys Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 154	Posted - 2016.10.07 21:39:56 - [133] - Quote TBH "normalized" (or however to call it) angular velocity column in overview would be damn awesome now to have. The tracking related part in chance-to-hit has always been (target_angular / target_sig) / (gun_track / gun_res). Now after scan resolution changes, it's essentially (target_angular / target_sig) / (gun_track / 40km). So instead of displaying actual angular velocity, display "normalized" angular matching 40km signature radius. Then we have simply: norm_angular / gun_track. Something that is always directly comparable in every situation. Jita Flipping Inc.: Solmp / Kovl
Tornii Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 90	Posted - 2016.10.22 10:30:56 - [134] - Quote Ferrotsmite Anzomi wrote: People don't compare medium guns to small guns... or to large guns, they compare them to the ships they will be shooting. This. The change essentially removed the ability to make informed adjustments to ship maneuvering while shooting a target.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [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.