mathematical formulaes
 

Hey people, im curious how many formulaes are there.
I only use
damage/size/rof and
(trade-received)*(100/trade-percent)

Anyone with interesting formulaes?

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

Formula to determine cost to research tech:

Low Tech cost: level cost*level
Med Tech cost: level cost*(level^2)/2
High Tech cost: level cost*(level^2)

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

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

What are these formualas for? And what is "rof"?

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

OK, I figured out that

(trade-received)*(100/trade-percent)- is the formuala for determining an opponents production of minerals, organics, radioactives, research points and intelligence points.

Having a trade relationship with more than one race will of course screw it up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But I am still puzzled about...

damage/size/rof and the meaning of "rof".

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is for determining how powerful a weapon is. The formula factors out differences in Size and Rate of Fire, to bring all weapons to the same scale. The higher the end result is, the better the weapon is.

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is for determining how powerful a weapon is. The formula factors out differences in Size and Rate of Fire, to bring all weapons to the same scale. The higher the end result is, the better the weapon is.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanx. I think I see what you are trying to say... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Hmmmm....

Possibly, a better way to put the formula may be damage*rof/size.

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

No, it would be bad. ROF is how many turns it takes to recharge and fire the gun. 1 means it can fire every turn, 2 means it fires every other turn, 3 every 3rd turn, and so on.

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

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

Bringing the divisor up to the numerator changes it, from rol to 1/rol.

So a better way of putting it may be...
damage/(size*rol) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ December 26, 2002, 05:57: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the Politics menu (grey alien), click the "Trade" button. This shows how much Min/Org/Rad/Res/Intel you're getting from each empire. "Tariff" does the same for Subjugated and Protectorate empires. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I don't really use any other formulae in the game... usually it's just percentages and ratios.

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

lets see.

ripper: 50/(20*1) = 50/20 = 5/2
incentrator: 90/(50*2) = 90/100 = 9/10
WMG: 140/(70*3) = 140/210 = 2/3

Interesting. Basicly same results as my formula.
Guess it doesnt matter that much.

Shouldnt range be included somewhere?
Anyone with a good formula?
perharps dmg/(si*rof)*range?

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

Keep in mnd that the formulas can't cover everything. I haven't seen one take the WMG's to-hit bonus into account, and only some acknolage the smashing ability of larger weapons. Damage over time is irrelevant if the enemy's first shot blows you up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Otherwise Rocket Pods would be fairly crappy weapons, when they're actually decent ones.

Range: it varies on situation. Warp Point assults tend to have a different style than open-space battles. (this is why I love Ripper-Beam armed sats)

Phoenix-D

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">From my observations, the trade calculation determines the base rate of production before trade. The base rate is useful for a number of things, for example you can determine how much an opponent is relying on trade to finance their empire. As far as I know, a trade relationship adds onto that base rate and does not get "re-traded".

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

it doesnt. but this is when political savvy gets involved.
What yes, you can learn abour their base production. If you see that what they use surpasses it you can check the treaty grid and look around for remote mining ships/bases/sats from that empire.

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

You could do an average of the hit rate over all the ranges (from 0-20) to get a number to compare range and accuracy. But seekers would probably come out looking better than they are. Also it doesn't account for the first-shot-kill, firing strategies, etc.

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, MY! If the trade profits INCLUDED trade from others too, you'd be instantly filty rich!

Trading with 5 equally sized empires gets you 100% more resources (20% from each).
But since you trade after trade income, you should be giving twice as much as we originally thought.
Everybody gets 200% more resources instead.
But since you trade after trade income, should be giving three times as much as originally thought.
Everybody gets 300%...
Infinite resources, get your infinite resources here! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Also, it will be totally thrown out of whack by combat sensors, ECM and other accuracy modifiers...

[ December 26, 2002, 15:38: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

Combat sensors/ecm/etc. all have the same effect on any direct fire weapon, right? So it would simplify things to ignore them.

Seekers don't really fit into the formula anyway. Their classication is in many ways more like a drone, because you have to take into account the target and attacker speeds, pdc, and other junk.

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Range should be included, yes. How to do this, and accurately reflect thebenefits of range, is difficult to do, however.

I presume people here are looking at :damage at maximum range", especially in the caseof weapons which attenuate.

I suggest -- find the average damage the weapon does, instead. So if a gin does "30 30 20 10 10" ... the damage portion of the formula should be 20, not 30 and not 10.

Run your calculation as normal.

Then, for my art at least, I multiply the result by "1 + (range / 10)"; this accounts for the small bonus one gets from a larger range (a range 8 weapon, versus a range 6 weapon, will get a 20% boost to it's "usefulness index" if you will).

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

OK, how about

average over distance d = 0 to 20 of (chance to hit at range d * damage at range d)

for direct fire only (not counting combat sensors, ecm, race bonus, etc.). One problemo would be that it favors longer range weapons, which wouldn't make sense if you are using a "point blank" style strategy.

So back to the drawing board. On the other hand, I'm happy that SEIV can't be reduced to some simple formulas http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

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

Bringing the divisor up to the numerator changes it, from rol to 1/rol.

So a better way of putting it may be...
damage/(size*rol) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The formula is not x/(y/z), which would indead come out to x*z/y. The formula is (x/y)/z. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
___

No one ever said the forumla was the end-all, beat-all. Of course range and other factors influence the usefulness of a weapon. But, the raw damage is the primary factor when determining the strength of a weapon. All the formula does is to create a base from which to compare weapons of different sizes and rates of fire. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

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

Bringing the divisor up to the numerator changes it, from rol to 1/rol.

So a better way of putting it may be...
damage/(size*rol) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The formula is not x/(y/z), which would indead come out to x*z/y. The formula is (x/y)/z. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
___

No one ever said the forumla was the end-all, beat-all. Of course range and other factors influence the usefulness of a weapon. But, the raw damage is the primary factor when determining the strength of a weapon. All the formula does is to create a base from which to compare weapons of different sizes and rates of fire. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, I think you got things a bit mixed up.

I did not say the formula was x/(y/z). In the terms you have used, the formula I gave would be x/(y*z) which is something completely different from x/(y/z).

Also (x/y)/z is the same as x/y/z. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

x/y/z =(x/y)/z = (x/y)/(z/1) = (x/y)*(1/z) = x/(y*z) which is the formula I gave above. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Now x/(y*z) is not earth-shattering. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It is just that it is usually easier to multiply rather than divide. Which is why I gave the formula as x/(y*z) and for no other reason. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And yes, I agree with you that the formula is not a all-encompassing method of comparing weapons. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

If one uses it only as a quick and dirty way to compare weapons, it can be useful. But we should keep in mind that it is only one way of comparing the relative strengths of weapons and therefor is not to be relied upon as the "method" of definitively ranking the value of weapons since other factors which are not reflected in the formula (such as range), can have a major impact on the value of a weapon.

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It gives a very useful BASE strength.
To me, Range, Accuracy, Damage Type and others are all special features which "make up for" any deficit in base strength.
These special features all have variable value as tactical, strategic and technological situations vary. As such, they are not fit to be included in the base rating.

Weapons technology: The art and science of persuading the enemy ships to explode.

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

Hmmmm.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I suspect we are all saying the same thing with respect to the formula for as Fyron has said....

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

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

Ehem...

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

Bringing the divisor up to the numerator changes it, from rol to 1/rol.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What you posted appears to be some confused mathematics to me. I was merely trying to help alleviate the confusion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It seems as if you are saying to change ROF to 1/ROF, which would be an indication of you thinking it is x/(y/z). Maybe this is simply a result of me being confused by the wording of your post. I don't know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I will argue that x/(y*z) is not easier than x/y/z. Use a calculator. Fewer keystrokes with x/y/z. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ehem...

Quote:

Originally posted by Fyron: What you posted appears to be some confused mathematics to me. I was merely trying to help alleviate the confusion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It seems as if you are saying to change ROF to 1/ROF, which would be an indication of you thinking it is x/(y/z). Maybe this is simply a result of me being confused by the wording of your post. I don't know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I will argue that x/(y*z) is not easier than x/y/z. Use a calculator. Fewer keystrokes with x/y/z. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

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

But yes, if you are dependant on a calculator to do the computations, it may be quicker to do it as you have described.

But if you do it in your head, my formula is easier. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ December 27, 2002, 07:45: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

Your algebra looked fishy to me... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It is faster to reduce complex fractions to decimals with a calculator than in your head. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, whether it looks fishy to you or not, the proof is in the pudding.

And like I said in an earlier posting, it is much easier to multiply than to divide. This of course applies to mental calculations. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

I will submit to you that division is simply multiplying fractions. It is the same process either way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

Sure, but using the combat simulator isn't going to give you a nice table of numerical weapon comparisons. The combat simulator takes a lot longer, and the results would only be valid for those ships going 1-on-1 with the same ship strategies.

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

this would not prove much. certain weapons are strong with one tactic but weak with all other tactics, and then the subject of counter-weapons comes.

Re: mathematical formulaes
 

I think it is possible to determine which weapon is stronger using Combat Simulator. You should create ships with the same base components (Master Computer, Engines, Quantum Reactor) and add a single weapon, varying per different ship. Then you should arrange a certain number on combats one-on-one. Repeat the same number with switched sides in order to neglect "first shot" factor. The ship, which wins more combats in two rounds has a better weapon. The larger the number of combats, the larger accuracy of results.

[ December 27, 2002, 12:08: Message edited by: BBegemott ]