|
|
|
 |

December 27th, 2002, 02:32 AM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern CA, USA
Posts: 18,394
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Re: mathematical formulaes
|

December 27th, 2002, 05:03 AM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 1,226
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: mathematical formulaes
Quote:
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.
__________________
Know thyself.
Inscription at the Delphic Oracle.
Plutarch Morals
circa 650 B.C.
|

December 27th, 2002, 05:24 AM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,451
Thanks: 1
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Re: mathematical formulaes
Quote:
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 ...
|
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.
__________________
Things you want:
|

December 27th, 2002, 05:50 AM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 1,226
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: mathematical formulaes
Hmmmm....
I suspect we are all saying the same thing with respect to the formula for as Fyron has said....
Quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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.
|
__________________
Know thyself.
Inscription at the Delphic Oracle.
Plutarch Morals
circa 650 B.C.
|

December 27th, 2002, 09:15 AM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern CA, USA
Posts: 18,394
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Re: mathematical formulaes
|

December 27th, 2002, 09:43 AM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 1,226
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: mathematical formulaes
[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ehem...
Actually, it is algebra.
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. 
[ December 27, 2002, 07:45: Message edited by: tbontob ]
__________________
Know thyself.
Inscription at the Delphic Oracle.
Plutarch Morals
circa 650 B.C.
|

December 27th, 2002, 09:47 AM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern CA, USA
Posts: 18,394
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Re: mathematical formulaes
Your algebra looked fishy to me...
It is faster to reduce complex fractions to decimals with a calculator than in your head. 
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|