Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus

[DirectorTsaarx]

There is one valid reason to quote the post immediately preceding your reply: there are a number of cases where multiple replies are added at once; since there may not be an indication that such an event is in progress until after the fact, there are two possible ways to handle it. The first requires crafting a post without the quote, posting the reply, and then editing the quote back in once one determines that an intervening simul-post has confused matters. The second method is to go ahead and quote the immediately preceding post, and deleting said quote afterwards (or at least editing the unnecessary portions out) if a simul-post did not occur.

Besides, I think the graphics on each page (especially the various avatars) use more bandwidth than some extra text. After all, when I'm on dialup, the text generally appears first, and quite quickly, while sometimes it takes up to a minute for all the avatars, buttons, etc. to appear.

Edit: just to prove my point, by the time I crafted & posted this reply, there were 3 (!!!) new Posts to this thread - from SJ, tbontob and Ragnarok...

[ March 20, 2003, 16:59: Message edited by: DirectorTsaarx ]

[geoschmo]

Quoting a previous post, even one that immedietly preceeds yours, is not always a bad thing. It can help in making your point more clearly understood, and as Director Tarsx points out it doesn't use all that much bandwith.

However Tbontob, I am not taking sides, but you could use a little bit of editing in what you quote. It's not nessecary to include the entire text of the Last 5 comments in the thread. This has an unfortunate effect on the formatting of the page because of the way the forum software indents nested quotes.

It's not even neccesary to include the entire text of post you are quoting. This can actually make the meaning of your post less clear. It would be better to quote only the cogent points to which you are responding directly.

EDIT: Although I know that you know this and are simply "Fyron baiting". This is a popular past-time in our little forum here, one that I have partaken in myself a time or two.

Geoschmo

[ March 20, 2003, 17:12: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[spoon]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

1) Take the shield points currently generated.
2) Estimate the typical hit rate that your enemy has against your ship.
3) Multiply your answers from (1) and (2), then divide by 100.
4) If the answer you get is:
less than 1200 : Do not bother with Stealth or Scattering armor.
from 1200 to 1670 : Add a Stealth armor only.
1670 or higher : Add both Stealth and Scattering armor.

I thought you were dividing by the hit rate in (2). Is this the correct formula you propose, where:
s = shield points
h = percent of being hit (decimal)

x = (s)(1/h)(1/100)

Maybe if you go through an example for me, I will be enlightened. Say 500 shield points, 60% chance of being hit, after armor bonuses added (lvl 6, both armors).

Thanks!
-Spoon

[ March 20, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: spoon ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Originally posted by tbontob:
As I interpret it so far:

1250 represents the amount of firepower (which has a 40% chance of hitting) that is necessary to destroy shields which have a total of 500 shield points.

I hear you when you say the 187.5 value is the break-even point for stealth armor/no stealth armor.

And I understand the mathematics on how you got the 187.5 value, but intuitively, I do not see how it relates to being a break-even point.

Is there a way of explaining this connection?

If there isn't, I'll just take it as provisionally true and continue.

The 187.5 value is in units of Size x Hitpoints per ECM%, apparently.
I don't believe its worth thinking about, and it hurts my brain to try to understand what it really means.

IMO, it is much better to just use the 1200, which is easy to understand as:
- the amount of effective-hitpoints needed to break even on Stealth armor vs more shields.

IE: the point where subtracting 180 HP and adding 15% ECM gives you no change in effective-hitpoints.

[DirectorTsaarx]

Originally posted by tbontob:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Hitpoints / chance to be hit = average firepower thrown at your ship. (Toughness)
Overkill, cripplings, and internals being ignored.

Lets see there.
As a random example:
500 shield points, and typically 40% to hit.
That gives 500/.4 = 1250
1250*.15 = 187.5, pretty close to that 165 number.

Hi SJ

I'll take this step by step and try not to do it all at once. (please correct me if I am in error).

(snipping text to save bandwidth )
I hear you when you say the 187.5 value is the break-even point for stealth armor/no stealth armor.
(snipping more text to save more bandwidth )

---

I don't think SJ was claiming the 187.5 value was the break-even point, that was just a specific value for the effect of an extra 15% combat defense bonus, and he was comparing that to the break-even point he'd originally referenced. That effect needs to be compared to the size and structure of the component providing that bonus (i.e., stealth armor or scattering armor) and also compared to the size, structure, etc. of the components removed from the design to make room for the stealth/scattering armor.

In other words, this is a fairly straightforward cost/benefit analysis:

Cost of armor: 30 kT space (or 50 kT space)
Benefit of armor: 100 kT structure/HP (or 150 kT structure/HP) PLUS 5/10/15% combat defense bonus (depending on level of armor researched).

The next step is figuring out what benefits are lost when you add armor instead of (for instance) a shield generator (or a shield REgenerator, or a weapon, or a supply storage component, or a solar sail, or whatever). SJ's example assumes that you'd replace shield generator(s) with the stealth/scattering armor.

[tbontob]

Geo.

Fyron and I were both participants in the nested quotes. I just happened to be the Last one.

If you look carefully, it was not so much the nested quotes themselves but the fact I screwed up the nested quotes which SJ tried to correct but didn't eliminate the duplications.

You'll have to take a look at the quote to see what I mean.

And yes, I do try not to include the entire text and at times I include the entire text at time when it may be better not to.

But I am human and I make human mistakes.

I just don't like having someone ragging my *** if I should happen to overstep the line somewhat when the real issue is something else.

[geoschmo]

Tbontob, as I said I wasn't taking sides. Please don't take this as an admonishment. I understood the reasons for your Posts. Yes we are all human, but I wasn't even suggesting you made a mistake. I was assuming you did it intentionally to goad Fyron a bit.

I know he can be annoying at times. "Ragging" is something he seems to particularly enjoy. My prefered method of pointing it out to him is to speak to others about him in a slightly disapointed, patronizing way. The way you would speak about a particularly rambunctious child to other adults. Discussing it with him standing right there, but not directly acknoledging him as if he isn't. He hates that.

Geoschmo