Damage Calculation

[Quikngruvn]

Before this goes too far afield.... tbontob, your definition of 'weapon' is completely valid--'anything used to cause harm to another.' But the point you're missing is that your chart deals with weapons as defined by the game. That, I think, was Fyron's original point, and that talking about things the game does not consider to be weapons in this context is moot.

So, at least in the context of the chart, a weapon is 'a component that can do damage to another empire's ships, units, or colonies.'

A mine is not a weapon (it is a unit), but its warheads are weapons.
Intel projects are not weapons. They're, well, intel projects....
The Stellar Nucleonic Torpedo is not a weapon, though its effect is much more devastating than any weapon in the game....

Outside the context of the chart, all of the above are indeed weapons.

Can I have my hint now?

Quikngruvn

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
Before this goes too far afield.... tbontob, your definition of 'weapon' is completely valid--'anything used to cause harm to another.' But the point you're missing is that your chart deals with weapons as defined by the game. That, I think, was Fyron's original point, and that talking about things the game does not consider to be weapons in this context is moot.

So, at least in the context of the chart, a weapon is 'a component that can do damage to another empire's ships, units, or colonies.'

A mine is not a weapon (it is a unit), but its warheads are weapons.
Intel projects are not weapons. They're, well, intel projects....
The Stellar Nucleonic Torpedo is not a weapon, though its effect is much more devastating than any weapon in the game....

Outside the context of the chart, all of the above are indeed weapons.

Can I have my hint now?

Quikngruvn

Quikngruvn

I appreciate you comments, but want you to know I was well aware of Fyrons contention.

An unaddressed issue is that Newbies will be using the information as well as experts. Experts know the difference between SE4 defined weapons, Newbies do not.

Newbies would like to know that mines have a 100% chance to hit.

Newbies would like to know that drones have a 100% chance to hit.

Newbies would like to know that capital ship missiles have a 100% chance to hit.

So, I have preserved the weapons as “defined by the game” in the ATTACK and DEFENSE bonus section. I assume there is no issue with that.

The special section is just that…special. Experts would know this and understand that they may not be weapons as strictly defined by SE4. And with that understanding, they could be more tolerant of the needs of Newbies.

Newbies do not know the distinction between SE4 defined weapons and non-SE4 defined weapons. More importantly, in the early stages of their learning curve, they do not care whether it is a “weapon as defined by the game” or not. Later, they may care, but it is not on the top of their list of priorities when they are starting to learn the incredible intricacies of this game.

They require a starting point as to what “all the weapons” of SE4 can do. And they can learn about the “chance to hit” of all weapons by reading it in this thread.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Quikngruvn:

Can I have my hint now?

Quikngruvn

Hmmmm

Hint #1 Someone has indirectly touched on the "error".
Hint #2 The player who "mechanically" applies the attack and defense factors may (or may not) calculate an incorrect hit probability.

[Kamog]

Originally posted by tbontob:

Hint #2 The player who "mechanically" applies the attack and defense factors may (or may not) calculate an incorrect hit probability.

OK, how about:

We should include the note that:
The % to hit can never go above 99% without the talisman
The % to hit can never go below 1%

So, after "mechanically" applying the attack and defense factors, we have to apply these range checks.

[DirectorTsaarx]

Originally posted by Kamog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tbontob:

Hint #2 The player who "mechanically" applies the attack and defense factors may (or may not) calculate an incorrect hit probability.

OK, how about:

We should include the note that:
The % to hit can never go above 99% without the talisman
The % to hit can never go below 1%

So, after "mechanically" applying the attack and defense factors, we have to apply these range checks.

---

We also have to start from the same point; "to-hit" chances start at 100%. THEN the modifiers are applied...

[Wardad]

Nice list.....
but what are the fighter ECM and Sensor bonuses?

[Suicide Junkie]

They are abilities given directly to the fighter hull.

Next time you are selecting a ship size, hold your mouse over a fighter size hull, and look at the text box near the cancel button.
It will list all the ability descriptions associated with that hull.

[Wardad]

no, not that bonus...
I meant with the fighter ECM and targeting componants.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Wardad:
Nice list.....
but what are the fighter ECM and Sensor bonuses?

Thanks Wardad

You bring up a good point as

Small combat sensors are 10% 20% and 30%
Small ECM are 10%, 20% and 30%

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Kamog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tbontob:

Hint #2 The player who "mechanically" applies the attack and defense factors may (or may not) calculate an incorrect hit probability.

OK, how about:

We should include the note that:
The % to hit can never go above 99% without the talisman
The % to hit can never go below 1%

So, after "mechanically" applying the attack and defense factors, we have to apply these range checks.

---

Sorry Kamog

But your question brings up a good issue in that I have to change the special section somewhat to make it more understandable to the readers. Originally, the 1% was in there and I thought my phrasing covered it, but obviously it did not.