The old system had the tracking stat in rad/s which I could directly map against my targets angular velocity as that is also rad/s.
What the heck is the tracking stat supposed to be now?
Are they trying to make EvE into space DnD?
3 main things would affect the chance to hit/do damage.
Range. optimal and falloff, we can measure and control those (to a certain extent depending on circumstance)
Sig Resolution of weapon v target. Simple the small the weapon v the larger the target the more likely you will hit. (think of shotgun v bean tin at 30m)
And tracking. If my gun track at 2 rad/s and my target is travelling at 3 rad/s Iām very likely going to miss as my turrets just canāt keep up with them.
Decent smart pilot could mitigate the main factors that cause then issues to maximise damage application/output. But now with this single stat is feels more like āroll the D20 and compare against the targets THAC0ā
Anyone got a simple explanation as all the stuff Iāve read is just making it more complicated to say a simple thing like, get in range, pick the right sized gun and donāt spin too fast!
While I assume the mechanics are basically the same it does mean that the cloud around what I have to match to get decent application is more confusing.
ok so mapping my tracking to my targets angular velocity was useless?
Hmm I guess all those fights I had where I had to manually work my movement to make my angular velocity drop enough so my turrets could track was just a waste thenā¦
turret combat was simply a mechanism to figure out what was causing you to miss.
If you are in range and your turret sig smaller than your target sig then tracking which was a stat that WAS measure in rads/s which is angular velocity was the most important stat to work out if you were hitting your target. Without this my time as a frig pilot in FW would have been way way more difficult,
But now I have to mentally keep converting figures in my head when you can track all the others directlyā¦ seems like they are trying to dumb it down by adding complexityā¦
Ah well I guess Iāll just have to relearn the new numbers ā¦ā¦
This you see was easyā¦ I checked my weapons sig stat and compared it to my expected target sig stat.
See simple comparisons of all the variables that constituted turret combat metricsā¦
Range, Sig and Trackingā¦
why take two and drop it into a single abstract figure that you canāt directly compare for combat without maths is just silly from as system analytic point of view.
right so I compare a simple system where you actually compare directly stats and figures versus an abstract system that has no direct comparison and you get grumpy at me cos Iām saying it a dumb systemā¦ Go figure.
But no need to get rude about it. Iām only asking as it was a fairly big change in how I would carry out my combat operations now I have to keep track of abstract numbers rather than compare direct statsā¦ but hey kids nowadays obviously donāt think literally anymoreā¦ ah wellā¦
Actually itās not useless. Most of the time, of the three variables you can only change 1. By manual piloting, you were able to quickly see if you were lowering youāre targets angular velocity enough to allow your guns to track. You couldnāt change your guns, nor your targets signature (since for most of itās life Target painters were considered the most useless form of ew - now ecm has that title) so the old tracking number gave you instant feedback on the results of your actions - itās why many of us have angular velocity selected as an overview column.
While I agree multiplying by 1000 or 100 is childās play, I donāt have my x325 tables memorized. While I agree the new number makes is very easy to compare guns. It does not directly tell me if my 425ās can track that frigate as weāre both maneuvering (we now use, āif I get down to thisā¦ā). It doesnāt matter in the end, whatās done is done. Iām sure the OP will learn the new system.
Again you are showing a lack of understanding here.
If you can compare directly the stats you need to manage then you have a simpler system than an abstract number reference.
I will learn the new system as apart from the numbers now mean way less than they ever did before the mechanics seem to be performing the same.
As a systems guy this change really is devolving the process to a Dungeon and Dragon dice roll mechanismā¦
Ah wellā¦
Edit:
Also just had a look at the new stats.
200m AC II has a base stat of 315 (in Pyfa) now x 1000 to give me 315000ā¦ what the heck is that supposed to represent? Which stat do I have to compare that to so I can actually make an impact the outcome of hitting the target?
Some of the scale representation of to hit chance v a targets signature that I have no idea about?
Now under the old system.
Range between 1200m and 5200m. Guess what Iām orbiting at 1km. So range has best chance to hit
My sig was 40, compared to 30-40 (unmodified) of my expected targets. So Iām not getting 100% chance to hit there ok so I mitigate that by
Keeping the angular velocity below the 0.25 rad/s (whatever the old stat number was) that my tracking had.
mechanics seems not to have changed but itās much more difficult to explain to someone new how to track and manage what you do now than it ever wasā¦
A value that you know (rad/s) and can directly compare to your target is useless??? You one of the F1 button mashing crowd?
So the old system you can track and compare 2 out of the 3 main factors yet under the new system you can only compare and track 1 yet the old system was uselessā¦ you and I have a very different definition of useless
I agree with OP that the old information would be better to have than the new information and that CCP made a bad, but well-intentioned, decision in making this change.
The old system - You could directly correlate the turret tracking (as it was measured in radians/sec) to an overview column, and you could put the Size column in the overview as well in order to put in a ballpark guess as to whether your tracking number would be a bit high or low for any given target.
The new system - What the hell can I actually do with this number? Thereās no real-time information in the overview (or anywhere at all) where I can cross-check whether this number indicates that I can expect to get hits on a target. Iām left completely in the dark with respect to any specific target in situ.
CCPlease admit you did a bad and either (a) revert this change or (b) implement some new gui element (in the overview or otherwise) which helps a player determine when opening fire might actually hit a target.
