[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tbontob:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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.

Quite right.

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)

---

The formula is not x/(y/z), which would indead come out to x*z/y. The formula is (x/y)/z.
___

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.

---

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.

x/y/z =(x/y)/z = (x/y)/(z/1) = (x/y)*(1/z) = x/(y*z) which is the formula I gave above.

Now x/(y*z) is not earth-shattering. 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.

And yes, I agree with you that the formula is not a all-encompassing method of comparing weapons.

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.