mathematical formulaes

Dralasite · #1 December 26th, 2002, 08:44 PM

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.

Pax · #2 December 26th, 2002, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taera:
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?

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).

Dralasite · #3 December 26th, 2002, 10:17 PM

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

Fyron · #4 December 27th, 2002, 02:32 AM

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.

tbontob · #5 December 27th, 2002, 05:03 AM

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.

Suicide Junkie · #6 December 27th, 2002, 05:24 AM

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.

tbontob · #7 December 27th, 2002, 05:50 AM

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.