Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope, I've read it. Don't need to read it again.

Just eliminate it please.

Because as someone just said:

"It makes the post unnecessarily long, and waste's everyone's time (esp. low-bandwidth Users)." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

You have left in your sig in every post, so you can not use my sig as an argument. You have no ground to stand on there.

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Yes I do.

Sounds like your are retracting your:

"It makes the post unnecessarily long, and waste's everyone's time (esp. low-bandwidth Users)." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

No, you do not. Your sig is useless. Mine has a function. I am tired of repeating myself, so I will refer you to my previous Posts.

Stop using my words out of context. "it" is quoting the post immediately preceding your post. Do not try to use that case in other cases; it will not work.

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope, yours is useless too. We have all read it.

So please remove it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Ok, now you are just being petulant (well, you have been doing that for a while now, but now I point it out). It is obvious that you have no argument, so I am going to end this post-inflation fest now.

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I am not being petulant.

I have a valid point which you are dismissing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Your constant use of http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif exemplifies your current petulance very well.

Your point is not valid, and I will not waste time or space repeating why. I have dismissed it because it is invalid.

[ March 20, 2003, 07:13: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it is just pointing out your arguement is not realistic.

You claim to be concerned about peoples time when you say:

"It makes the post unnecessarily long, and waste's everyone's time (esp. low-bandwidth Users)."

but will not change your behaviour to help these people.

So, it is all B.S. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

My signature has not been read by everyone. Even if it has, people would still find it useful when looking for the things linked in it. This is why it is not pointless. Your quoting of Posts that were made just before your post is useless. It serves no useful purpose what-so-ever. Only someone with an IQ of, say, 0, would not be able to tell that you were responding to the post immediately preceding your post. This is why it is a waste of time and space.

Your argument that my sig is a waste of space holds no ground because yours is more of a waste of space than mine is (as it has no useful links or info in it), and you do not ever remove it from your Posts. You can not use my use of my signature as an argument against my own.

Also, I will ask you again to stop using my statements out of context. My statement about your excessive quoting wasting space has absolutley nothing to do with signatures at all. Do not use it there, for it only makes you look foolish.

If you want to continue your arrogant stubbornness and unwillingness to admit when you are wrong, go right ahead. I am through with this "debate".

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

I never claimed my sig was useful. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

There are other ways you can advertise your products.

It doesn't have to be in a sig where "It makes the post unnecessarily long, and waste's everyone's time (esp. low-bandwidth Users)."

So since you are not willing to help the people you are so concerned about, it is all B.S. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ March 20, 2003, 07:25: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

[ March 20, 2003, 08:07: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Welcome to the “Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus” Arena, where today we follow the ongoing championship match in “I want the Last word”.

Today’s contestants are. In the blue corner, reigning champion and ruler of the world: Imperator Fyron. In the red corner, the challenger, master of the quotes: Tbontob.

Sports fans around the forums all ask the same eternal question. Who is willing to waste most bandwidth with useless Posts, quotes and sigs.

We join the match in progress. Several pages are already wasted. Some unlucky spectators looking for info on Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus have already left the arena searching for info elsewhere.

There goes Fyron with and empty post but it is easily countered by the quoting Canadian with several smileys. Fyron have another go, but is once again thwarted.

The match seems to have gone into a lull, with only smileys being exchanged. We take a small commercial break, but will be back later with the conclusion of this exciting (yawn) match. Don’t go away.

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ROFLOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I got tears in my eyes, I am laughing so hard and my parrot is laughing with me.

Primitive, you have done it again! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

For those who are looking for Stealth/Scattering armor info, this was all the way back on page 3!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hi SJ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I'll take this step by step and try not to do it all at once. (please correct me if I am in error).

As I interpret it so far:

1250 represents the amount of firepower (which has a 40% chance of hitting) that is necessary to destroy shields which have a total of 500 shield points.

I hear you when you say the 187.5 value is the break-even point for stealth armor/no stealth armor.

And I understand the mathematics on how you got the 187.5 value, but intuitively, I do not see how it relates to being a break-even point.

Is there a way of explaining this connection?

If there isn't, I'll just take it as provisionally true and continue.

[ March 20, 2003, 16:56: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

LOL! Primitive, that was hilarious! I'm still laughing from that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Nice play-by-play there too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

There is one valid reason to quote the post immediately preceding your reply: there are a number of cases where multiple replies are added at once; since there may not be an indication that such an event is in progress until after the fact, there are two possible ways to handle it. The first requires crafting a post without the quote, posting the reply, and then editing the quote back in once one determines that an intervening simul-post has confused matters. The second method is to go ahead and quote the immediately preceding post, and deleting said quote afterwards (or at least editing the unnecessary portions out) if a simul-post did not occur.

Besides, I think the graphics on each page (especially the various avatars) use more bandwidth than some extra text. After all, when I'm on dialup, the text generally appears first, and quite quickly, while sometimes it takes up to a minute for all the avatars, buttons, etc. to appear.

Edit: just to prove my point, by the time I crafted & posted this reply, there were 3 (!!!) new Posts to this thread - from SJ, tbontob and Ragnarok...

[ March 20, 2003, 16:59: Message edited by: DirectorTsaarx ]

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Quoting a previous post, even one that immedietly preceeds yours, is not always a bad thing. It can help in making your point more clearly understood, and as Director Tarsx points out it doesn't use all that much bandwith.

However Tbontob, I am not taking sides, but you could use a little bit of editing in what you quote. It's not nessecary to include the entire text of the Last 5 comments in the thread. This has an unfortunate effect on the formatting of the page because of the way the forum software indents nested quotes.

It's not even neccesary to include the entire text of post you are quoting. This can actually make the meaning of your post less clear. It would be better to quote only the cogent points to which you are responding directly.

EDIT: Although I know that you know this and are simply "Fyron baiting". This is a popular past-time in our little forum here, one that I have partaken in myself a time or two. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

[ March 20, 2003, 17:12: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought you were dividing by the hit rate in (2). Is this the correct formula you propose, where:
s = shield points
h = percent of being hit (decimal)

x = (s)(1/h)(1/100)

Maybe if you go through an example for me, I will be enlightened. Say 500 shield points, 60% chance of being hit, after armor bonuses added (lvl 6, both armors).

Thanks!
-Spoon

[ March 20, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: spoon ]

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The 187.5 value is in units of Size x Hitpoints per ECM%, apparently.
I don't believe its worth thinking about, and it hurts my brain to try to understand what it really means.

IMO, it is much better to just use the 1200, which is easy to understand as:
- the amount of effective-hitpoints needed to break even on Stealth armor vs more shields.

IE: the point where subtracting 180 HP and adding 15% ECM gives you no change in effective-hitpoints.

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hi SJ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I'll take this step by step and try not to do it all at once. (please correct me if I am in error).

(snipping text to save bandwidth http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif )
I hear you when you say the 187.5 value is the break-even point for stealth armor/no stealth armor.
(snipping more text to save more bandwidth http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think SJ was claiming the 187.5 value was the break-even point, that was just a specific value for the effect of an extra 15% combat defense bonus, and he was comparing that to the break-even point he'd originally referenced. That effect needs to be compared to the size and structure of the component providing that bonus (i.e., stealth armor or scattering armor) and also compared to the size, structure, etc. of the components removed from the design to make room for the stealth/scattering armor.

In other words, this is a fairly straightforward cost/benefit analysis:

Cost of armor: 30 kT space (or 50 kT space)
Benefit of armor: 100 kT structure/HP (or 150 kT structure/HP) PLUS 5/10/15% combat defense bonus (depending on level of armor researched).

The next step is figuring out what benefits are lost when you add armor instead of (for instance) a shield generator (or a shield REgenerator, or a weapon, or a supply storage component, or a solar sail, or whatever). SJ's example assumes that you'd replace shield generator(s) with the stealth/scattering armor.

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Geo.

Fyron and I were both participants in the nested quotes. I just happened to be the Last one.

If you look carefully, it was not so much the nested quotes themselves but the fact I screwed up the nested quotes which SJ tried to correct but didn't eliminate the duplications.

You'll have to take a look at the quote to see what I mean.

And yes, I do try not to include the entire text and at times I include the entire text at time when it may be better not to.

But I am human and I make human mistakes.

I just don't like having someone ragging my *** if I should happen to overstep the line somewhat when the real issue is something else.

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Tbontob, as I said I wasn't taking sides. Please don't take this as an admonishment. I understood the reasons for your Posts. Yes we are all human, but I wasn't even suggesting you made a mistake. I was assuming you did it intentionally to goad Fyron a bit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I know he can be annoying at times. "Ragging" is something he seems to particularly enjoy. My prefered method of pointing it out to him is to speak to others about him in a slightly disapointed, patronizing way. The way you would speak about a particularly rambunctious child to other adults. Discussing it with him standing right there, but not directly acknoledging him as if he isn't. He hates that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think that's a fair assumption, since what the algorithm does is to optimize the defensive strength of ship using only the space already allocated to shields.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually I was. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That number takes into account the change in hitpoints, and the ECM bonus of 15%.

[ March 20, 2003, 17:51: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought you were dividing by the hit rate in (2). Is this the correct formula you propose, where:
s = shield points
h = percent of being hit (decimal)

x = (s)(1/h)(1/100)

Maybe if you go through an example for me, I will be enlightened. Say 500 shield points, 60% chance of being hit, after armor bonuses added (lvl 6, both armors).

Thanks!
-Spoon</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aw, man. Can you believe I'm in a math program at university?

1) Take the shield points currently generated.
2) Estimate the typical hit rate that your enemy has against your ship.
3) Divide your answer from (1) by your answer from (2), then multiply by 100.
4) If the answer you get is:
less than 1200 : Do not bother with Stealth or Scattering armor.
from 1200 to 1670 : Add a Stealth armor only.
1670 or higher : Add both Stealth and Scattering armor.

[ March 20, 2003, 17:48: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Geo

I did take what you said as "constructive criticism". In a very real and very positive sense.

If I cannot take an honest opinion and reflect on it, then I am not being honest with myself. Worse, I could be living a lie.

I wasn't so much as goading as I was determined not to let Fyron off the hook this time. Fyron uses a number of tactics to prove to himself he is right and to give the impresssion to others he is always right.

One of his Favorites is the subject change. When he feels he is losing the arguement, he will change the subject or throw it in a new direction where he can come out on top.

Unfortunately, most participants in the conversation don't realize he is doing this. They are always put in a position of "losing" and there is often bewilderment and anger over it.

I cannot recall the number of times he has used this tactic on me. I recognize it and usually stop participating. Since he has the Last word, he believes he has won the issue, which couldn't be further from the truth. I just refuse to go along with the subject change. This time I didn't.

Fyron has yet to learn there is no shame in being wrong and openly admitting it. Then real growth can take place.

I do consider Fyron a friend. I am just getting tired of the tactics being used on me. So this time I took it to the limit...to the amusement of everyone around us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And yes, there was an element of goading. The fact I did it in the manner that I did is an indication of how annoyed I was becoming with the tactics being used. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

To that formula:

This is a formula that counts with: Space reqired by component's, damage dealt, different % to hit and of course overall defense points. It works also with many extreme examples.

Abbreviations used in examples and formula:

su = Space used. Total of space the components take up on ship.
sr = Space required for components. Count in kt. Add ALL components.
dd = Damage dealt. Pick any number bigger than 1.
mp = Modified percent. Attacker's percent to hit(again, choose any number) minus your defense adjustment(count OLNY bonus from component).
dv = Defense value. Add damage resistance(in kt) and additional points(shield or armor).

How it works?

1: (dd*mp1/100) - (dv1*sr2/sr1)
Count.

2: (dd*mp2/100) - dv2
Count.

Compare. Smaller wins.

Example1:

Let's say you have 50 kt of free space on ship. Enemy can deal you 1000 points of damage and he hits 60% of time. First ship has an armor and second a shield generator.

Armor requires 50 kt's adds 150 armor points and 15% to defend.
Shield generator reqires 40 kt and adds 375 shield points.

sr1 = 50
sr2 = 40
dd = 1000
mp1 = 45
mp2 = 60
dv1 = 200
dv2 = 415

1: 1000*45/100 - 200*40/50 = 290
2: 1000*60/100 - 415 = 185

Shield wins.

Example2:

Let's say you have 210 kt of free space on ship. Enemy can deal you 1000 points of damage and he hits 60% of time. First ship has 4 shield generators and 1 armor and second has 5 shield generators.

Armor requires 50 kt's adds 150 armor points and 15% to defend.
Shield generator reqires 40 kt and adds 375 shield points.

sr1 = 210
sr2 = 200
dd = 1000
mp1 = 45
mp2 = 60
dv1 = 1850
dv2 = 2075

1: 1000*45/100 - 1850*200/210 = -1312
2: 1000*60/100 - 2075 -1475
Shield wins(but slightly).

This is not a failure. Here really the shield wins. After all, if the armor gives you 15% to defense it is as if it gave you one sixth more defense. That also means that on average only after 6 shields it pays off to have an armor.
Try to slightly increase the % of shield. You'll see the results you probably want to see.

Of course this formula does NOT include all possibilities but it covers most common situations.

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

I almost forgot: The break even point is easy find. Just give those two sides into eqation. That't the exact break-even point.

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Is your damage dealt supposed to be the effective hitpoints of the ship, rather than just any number?

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually I was. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That number takes into account the change in hitpoints, and the ECM bonus of 15%.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Great. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Now I'M getting confused by the whole thing. And I'm an engineer - I should be used to arcane cost-benefit analysis formulas!

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If I was as petty as Geo, I would respond (with more than this not-such-a-response) to that. As I am not, all you get is http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Suicide Junkie:
That depends on what you want to calculate. The damage dealt is the damage your enemy deals you. I intenionally left it there so that you can also include enemy's firepower(that also an answer to your question). This can give you more accurate view. Yes, the formula works with amplifying and decreasing basic damage. At first I thought two things that later turned out to be false: That I can't use "virtual hit points" instead of to hit(ot to defend) %. With the second I will not bother anyone until someone finds that possibility(It has something to do with very big or low chances of hitting). I hope I answered your question well enough.

[ March 20, 2003, 19:03: Message edited by: Ward ]

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

If you are trying to maximize the defense strength of your ship (using a given amount of space, of course), then the amount of damage the enemy fires at you per round dosen't matter for shields and stealth/scattering armor.

And whenever the to-hit chances get locked at 1% or 99%, then our formulae will certainly be off.

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

These are good formulae if you know enough math to appreciate what they are saying as a general principle. In practice though, you almost never have a reliable figure for enemy's chance to hit you, and even if you had full information, it's not a single number, but a probablility distribution, and a different one for each enemy design, experience level, weapon, etc.

So, this illustrates the theory, and would be a reasonable system for an improved AI to use, and if you're really confused and think this will help your designs, it'll give you something to give you advice, but there isn't really a valid formula that will tell you what the best thing to do is.

PvK

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Suicide junkie:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, you are right. But you can eliminate it if you wish. Just make an equation you know is right and cut the "damage dealt" off. The formula was meant to be as universal as possible. It could certainly use much refining but I thought this should suffice for your comparisons.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again you are right. But if you begin to count the formula for such extreme circumstances, you should also count how many times enemy fires at you (and the math of many chances - two chances of 5% aren't one chance of 10% - is much more difficult and I think it's useless in this example).

You showed some interest in that so tomorrow I'll post here a complete Version taking everithing into consideration (I'll look at it at home. Now am at work and I don't have much time).

P.S.: Excuse my English, please. :-))

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

True, although hulls and most weapons have no accuracy bonuses, and designs will typically include the maximum attack bonuses possible with the available tech.

Given the range your ships fight at, and some knowledge of the enemy's tech level, you can get a pretty accurate baseline.

The true break-even point will be a fuzzy region around the calculated point, but if you are well on one side or the other, you can be fairly certain which of the two options (ECM-armor or shields) is best.

There are also missiles, talismans and rammers to worry about, as well as one-shot-one-kill weapons.

Given the complexity of the game, formulae like this will be a guide, rather than a law.
Before I went through the formula, I had no idea when it would be worth putting Stealth armor on a ship http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

So, in short you can micro manage ship design or do as Unknown_Enemy suggested and put 1 of each on each ship worthy of it.
Or, I guess if you did it enough you would get an relyable gestimate for when it was worth it.

I'm too lazy, I'm going with Unknown_Enemy.
Enjoy

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Here comes the post I promised yesterday.

This formula works with statistics. That means it doesn't matter if you hit 1% of time with stength 100 or 100% of time with 1 damage(with little refinement you can make it matter). I will not give you a complete formula, but rather only pieces that hold together. I have also counted with tactical and strategical elements(different magnitude of weapons depending on range, movement, strategy chosen), effectivity of separate components and component's resource cost but then I decided not to include them here(I got to a point where it would be easyer to ask programmers for source code http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). If someone is interested I can post it too(but the post will be thrice this long). If you find a mistake, please check if it is a mistake of principle or just hitting the wrong key(I wrote this late at night) before you accuse me of something wrong.

Abbreviations:
!: "faktorial"; I don't know the right word here. 5! means 5+4+3+2+1, 1! is 1, 10! is 10+9+8...+2+1. (3!)! is (3)+(2)+(1). Just substitute the number with the Last one minus 1.
AAW: "All active weapons" Sum of all weapons that can fire this turn. Used to calculate how much you actually hit after substracting efficiency.
ATH: "Attacker's to hit" Sum of all attacker's positive attack modifiers (experience, weapons) esxcept CAM.
CAM: "Constant attack mofifier" The bonus(penalty) you recieve from modifiers that don't change(ship size, ?).
CDM: "Constant defense modifier" The bonus(penalty) you recieve from modifiers that don't change(ship size, event predictor).
DD: DP*HE; "Damage dealt" HE-CDM has can be 0-1.
DP: "Damage potential" Sum of all weapons' damage. Do not apply anything except bonuses for mounts.
DRRA: "Damage resistance of remaining armor" Sum of all. The difference between DRRA and DRRS can be important if you implement weapons that bypass certain defenses.
DRRC: "Damage resistance of remaining components" Sum of all components' damage resistance. Do not include any armor.
DRRS: "Damage resistance of remaining shields" Sum of all. The difference between DRRA and DRRS can be important if you implement weapons that bypass certain defenses.
DTD: "Defenders to defend" Sum of all defenders' positive defense modifiers (experience, components) except CDM.
E: RSDR/OSDR; "Effectivity" This represents the proportion of your functionality.
ED: DRRC+DRRA+DRRS; "Effective defense"
HE: ((TH sqared with AAW)!)/(100 sqared with AAW!))*AWW +CAM -CDM + E; "Hit efficiency" This value can be 0-1. First you determine pure chances of attack. Then you add all constant modifiers and how damaged you are. This is the value that modifies the damage you deal.
OSDR: "Original ship damage resistance."
RESULT: ED-DD
RSDR: "Remaining ship damage resistance" DRRA+DRRC+DRRS
TH: ATH-DTD; "To hit"

This is a core from which you can derive anything about effectivity about whole ships. Now if you search for a break-even point just give wanted values to each side and give there an equation(of course leave some values as unknown). One equation is for 1 situation. For optimization purposes it's best to make a clumsy design that includes the type of components you want to include. Then Count higest and lowest numbers and find a golden heart.

Just a rough example(If this works well): A hi-end battleship +20 kt comuter core +50 kt engines(100kt) +240 kt of shields(375 shields) + 10 multiplex +10 senzors(65%) +10 ECM(60%) +30 Stealth(100 armor,15%) +50 Scattering(150 armor,15%) +20 kt Quantum +20 Sail +40 PD +300 Energy(90,135dmg/1round). It has overall +65% to attack and +90 to defense. It's components' damage reduction is 770, 2250 are shields, 250 armor. It can cause maximum damage of 5*135=675 kTs. It's overall defense is 3270 pionts. If this value drops to 770 the ship is beginning to take serious damage. 3270-770=2500/675=3.7 This means that it can take 3 full hits until it takes damage to internal systems. Let's optimize this ship. We just want to switch combat parts. ECM, Senzors and Multiplex are left on the ship. We have 800-420=380 space left. We want to have RESULT as high as possible. Now the effectivity of that weapon(on that range) is 3,75. Effectivity of shield is 10,375. That indicates Shields are much more efficient in this example. For simplicity let's assume HE is 0.2; TH=0.2(I know that this break a little bit this example, but it't O.K. for illustrating). DD=DP*0.2; ED=? Result "is bigger than" 0 (intead of zero I should have inserted the RESULT value of previous desigh, againg simplifing) DP*0.2 -ED "is bigger than" x; DP*0.2"is smaller than"x- ED; Maximum ED is 380(free space)-60(At least one weapon)/40 (space used by maximu shields, round down)*(value of each shield)=3000 Minimum is 0. Maximum DP is 380/60=6*135=810. Now we search a value that best fits these requrements. DP*0.2"is smaller than"3000; DP "is smaller than"15000 The best value that approaches this apparent no-sense is 810. This no-sense indicates also when it would be more effective to add weapons instead of armor. No surprise; the component effectivity values indicated that. Using these guidelines you can count any combination. Adding components with % is somewhat more complicated. You count the component effectivity and add the percent to overall ED or HE. This requires a bit math or an hour with Excel. If someone is willing to make that small program, you may know your answer to what universal combination is best.

WARD

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

SHIELD DEPLEATERS are smaller and more effective than normal weapons. They are the big equalizers for Shields vs Armor debate.

2 shots at 50% accuracy do not equal 1 shot at 100% accuracy. Two shots at 50% should break down to 75% for one hit, 25% for both hits, and 25% both miss. It should be the same as formula for repeated dice throws. That is why ECM and Combat Sensors are so important.

Is anyone here a Mathamagician at probability and odds? I can't find the link I was looking for.

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Wardad:
This is the math you look for. Yesterday I have spent two hours inventing this. Just check what all those abbreviations mean.
((TH sqared with AAW)!)/(100 sqared with AAW!))*AWW +CAM -CDM + E

For your 50% chance:

s=sqared
50%s(2weapons)!
---------------
100%s(2weapons)!

50s(2) 50s(1)
------ + --------- = 0.75
100s(2) 100(1)

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

Wardad:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes I counted with it. For comparison, here is a rough and simplificated formula for components effective attack: Damage/Space used. That's all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I believe you meant to type 50/25/25, so it adds up to 100%.

(25% x 2) + (50% x 1) + (25% x 0) = 100%

So you can expect an average of one hit per volley of double-shots @ 50%

If you fire N shot volleys, at 1/N accuracy, you'll get 1 hit per volley on average.

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A math major! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

No wonder I am having some difficulty understanding the underlying premises/conclusions of some of the Posts being made by the participants. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Even with my having a good math background. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

I read what you guys are posting with a great deal of interest. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

This is great stuff.

[ March 21, 2003, 16:19: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just to be clear, the ! operator in math, called factorial, is a multiplicative, not additive. So 5! = 5x4x3x2x1 = 120, not 5+4+3+2+1 = 15.

I didn't check your usage of it so if in fact you intended to add the numbers the answer might still might be right.

There are math symbols for doing addition as you suggest, but they are different from the ! operation.

Slick.

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

BTW, if you want a fast formula for calculating the sum of "n+(n-1)+(n-2)+...+2+1", it's n*(n+1)/2.

The idea is that you're finding the sum of "n" terms of an arithmetic progression; the generic formula is:

Sum=(n/2)*(A+L)

Where:
A is the first term in the series
L is the Last term in the series
n is the number of terms

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

[ March 21, 2003, 16:25: Message edited by: DirectorTsaarx ]

Re: Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus
 

I admit I didn´t remember the symbol is multiplicative, not additive. What is important is the usage. I also didn´t know how to say the wole formula is to be repeated AAW times with % changing. But then - it´s about five years I did some math.