open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Tiericide
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

Author Topic

Zilberfrid
Posted - 2011.03.02 20:58:00 - [181]
 

I do not know if I already said so, but what would be against giving lower tier ships another bonus?

This way they'll still be easy to get in to, but harder to master.

For instance, the Caracal might have a 2% bonus to CPU per cruiser level, the Omen to grid, and the logi cruisers to cap use of their logistic stuffs.

grypher
Posted - 2011.03.02 21:40:00 - [182]
 

I have to agree with Templar Dane and Val'Dore, EVE is better of without the tier system. Ships should be balanced by role, not given a role and gimped by tier. As it stands now there is no reason to fly the vast majority of low tier frigs/cruisers over their high tier counterparts even for the low tier ships specific role, thanks to the tier system.

Also...
Quote:
I have addressed this quite a few times already.


Originally by: "Val'Dore"You are claiming that railguns in a sniping setup on a Ferox will do almost 400 dps?



Yes, and this at 74km or so ranges. Obviously, this assumes lvl5 skills, but then this is when compared against an equally skilled Drake.

At closer ranges, should the player opt to use blasters or use Javelin on a rail platform, it can out-dps a Drake entirely.


No.

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2011.03.02 21:53:00 - [183]
 

Edited by: Nova Fox on 02/03/2011 21:53:36
Originally by: grypher
I have to agree with Templar Dane and Val'Dore, EVE is better of without the tier system. Ships should be balanced by role, not given a role and gimped by tier. As it stands now there is no reason to fly the vast majority of low tier frigs/cruisers over their high tier counterparts even for the low tier ships specific role, thanks to the tier system.

Also...


I wished you were the OP instead.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.03.02 22:51:00 - [184]
 

grypher, yes.

259dps before hit-types, 388.5dps at 1.5x averaged hit-types, Caldari Navy Uranium in 250mm Railgun IIs or prototype rails. 53+15 ranges
311dps before hit-types, 466dps at 1.5x averaged hit-types, Caldari Navy Antimatter in 250mm Railgun IIs or prototype rails. 35+15 ranges

Javelin, in this case, gets a measly 5dps over using faction Antimatter at the cost of 17km of optimal AND a 25% reduction in tracking, so it's not worth using after all.

Am I the only one that knows how turrets work, in this thread?

grypher
Posted - 2011.03.03 00:44:00 - [185]
 

No, really. The ferrox isn't going to achieve 400dps at 74km. Even with 6 250mm rails and javelin ammo I could only just get ~380 and that was with Officer MagStabs + Rigs.

http://bayimg.com/GAEJDaADd

Plus the ferrox has no room left for any sort of prop or tank mods and awful turret tracking.
The drake on the other hand gets 400dps at 80km (500 with drones) and still has room for a prop mod and a half decent tank plus full tackle.

http://bayimg.com/faEJiAadd

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.03.03 01:44:00 - [186]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 03/03/2011 01:45:44
Turrets can achieve the following kinds of hits:

Barely scratches 0.25x
Lightly hits 0.50x
Hits 1.00x
Is very well aimed 1.50x
Excellent hit 2.00x
Strikes perfectly 3.00x


Against a target that has a signature radius equal to or greater than your turrets' signature resolution (here's looking at you, Templar Dane!), you can achieve an average of 1.5x hits as a minimum figure to go by, assuming your tracking can keep up.

As the target gets smaller, your overall accuracy decreases due to the signature resolution of your guns being too large for your target's signature radius (shotgun vs pingpong ball effect, here's looking at you, Templar Dane!), which will mean that your overall dps is reduced.


Missiles cannot do more damage than their packaging says, they can only do less. This reduction is based on the target's signature radius and movement speed, which for a Scourge Fury missile is 161.25 at lvl5 skills, where the explosion velocity is 145.5m/s. Most cruisers in missions tend to not only move faster than this, but are smaller than this; the same applies for Destroyers and Frigates, and is particularly true for PVP purposes, obviously.

So what do you get?

More DPS than a Drake based on hit-types for targets that are the same size or larger than your turret's signature resolution and better overall dps capability for targets smaller (hint: if the target is far away enough for your sniper fit to track, then its speed doesn't mean anything to you, whereas for missiles that becomes a major problem, as their movement may even cause your missiles to run out of gas before reaching them)

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.03.03 08:38:00 - [187]
 

Originally by: Marchocias
1) I agree... its especially odd that some ships get a bonus from skills which they require at level 5 to even fly... there is no way to get less than a full caldari cruiser bonus on t2 caldari cruisers, for example. Why give them a bonus based on that skill at all? Why not just hardwire it at max, and save a tiny bit of time?


Interesting point, but that is a Tech 2 issue really. Sort of like the missing bonus from Assault Ships.

Quote:
2) I disagree... when the balancing is done, I think they ought to end up with approxiately equal material costs, which should then be tweaked a few months later based upon popularity in the market, so that the less popular are made cheaper to make.


Mass is roughly equal among the classes (though it should be reviewed individually along with other stats), what other standard would be used to decide the resource cost of a ship when tiers go by the wayside? I mean other than the arbitrary detail stuff we never see.

Quote:
3) I'm not so sure... I would still like to see big variations... just fairer variations.


By normalized, I don't mean to make everything equal, I mean to remove the differences in stats from being based on the tier standard to being based on the role standard. Certain ships in certain roles should have 'lower' stats to keep them balanced. Normalization is this context doesn't meant congruency. Apologies if it seems that way.

Quote:
4) Again, I'm not so sure... it would be unsatisfactory if every race had an almost identical array of frigates, so that every race has an even divide between shield and armour tanking, for example.


I am probably in the minority, but I think the racial design philosophies concept is antiquated. However, my thoughts on that are not relevant to this thread. When I say let the slots and bonuses dictate what a ship does, that is precisely what I mean.

A ship with Double Damage bonuses and more low slots than mid is clearly meant to be a DPS ship with a tendency to tank armor. While it may not have a role specifying that, it is the obvious one for the ship. Another ship with an ECM bonus or three and 6 midslots is clearly a EW ship.

The intention was to remove tier from the methodology of doling out roles and keep it ship specific.

Quote:
5) I dunno... I think that the current "roles" that the less used ships have can still be retained much the same. For example, the cruisers with mining bonuses could still keep them, but be buffed up to be effective in combat at the same time. It'd be great if there were potential fits for a mining cruiser which could hold its own in PvP but also pull in a significant fraction of the what the hulk is able.


What I meant with this one is to avoid the Battleship Scenario: Multiple ships of a single class filling the same role.

For example: Abaddon and Armageddon. Now even at the same or similar costs in minerals the two ships are only alike in that they are both Amarr. They each have enough differences to fill different styles of the same role. I want to avoid this at the Frigate/Cruiser level even while getting rid of tiers. Redesigning enter ship lines is not out of the question (The Scorp for example... I don't think ANY BS should be an EW boat).

Quote:
6) As stated, I think the roles they are supposed to serve are already pretty good... I just think they need to be buffed up a bit in order to actually serve those purposes effectively.


Role Bonuses could go a long way toward fixing a lot of weaknesses in various ships. Such as a web bonus for Blasterboats. Damage (or RoF!) bonus for Railgun ships.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.03.03 08:58:00 - [188]
 

Originally by: Zilberfrid
I do not know if I already said so, but what would be against giving lower tier ships another bonus?

This way they'll still be easy to get in to, but harder to master.

For instance, the Caracal might have a 2% bonus to CPU per cruiser level, the Omen to grid, and the logi cruisers to cap use of their logistic stuffs.


That method of bonuses is certainly worth exploring. But many would argue that that is only going to demonstrate the problem with those ships with even more clarity... that you need a lot of sp to make them work.

Originally by: Nova Fox
I wished you were the OP instead.


Are you the troll with the neon green hair? I liked that one.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Turrets can achieve the following kinds of hits:

Barely scratches 0.25x
Lightly hits 0.50x
Hits 1.00x
Is very well aimed 1.50x
Excellent hit 2.00x
Strikes perfectly 3.00x


If you are in ideal combat conditions. The reality is a lot more disappointing... especially on Rail ships.

Quote:
Against a target that has a signature radius equal to or greater than your turrets' signature resolution (here's looking at you, Templar Dane!), you can achieve an average of 1.5x hits as a minimum figure to go by, assuming your tracking can keep up.


Where are you getting the average? Are you taking a sampling or going with theoretical numbers?

Demonstrate this with a Damage log and run your numbers through the formulae.

Quote:
As the target gets smaller, your overall accuracy decreases due to the signature resolution of your guns being too large for your target's signature radius (shotgun vs pingpong ball effect, here's looking at you, Templar Dane!), which will mean that your overall dps is reduced.


The signature resolution of the 250mm Railgun II is 125 m. The signature radius of a Stiletto is 31 m. Strict logic terms would have you at a disadvantage assuming the terminology is literal, that you are hitting in a Cone of Fire that is consistantly accurate within a 125 m diameter circle and that an object 31 m in radius inside that 125 m diameter circle is actually 62 m in diameter for purposes of formulation. So will be hit reliably slightly less than 50% of the time assuming all other conditions are ideal.

What actually happens is a little different: If any value in the tracking formula is 0, hit chance is 0% or 100%, not both (not taking into consideration optimal or falloff). If the Angular Velocity is absolute zero, the size of the target and the accuracy of the weapon do not come into play at all. That Stiletto would get vaporized by Erebus Railguns in one shot with those conditions. However, since that essentially never occurs, the tracking formula is constantly in effect, which also means that you will never get the laboratory DPS numbers so real turret DPS is always lower than the perfect conditions scenario.

Marchocias
Posted - 2011.03.03 09:39:00 - [189]
 

Edited by: Marchocias on 03/03/2011 09:42:53
I guess mass is as good an arbitrary basis for cost as any other. This must definitely be tweaked after release tho.

Regarding role bonuses, so long as they don't invalidate the bonuses of higher tech level ships, they could act as a an appropriate buff.

I think this could work, but the risk is that you end up with lots of almost equal ships, except for a handful that just happen to have killer role bonuses, and these will be the ones everyone uses. By subsequently nerfing those bonuses, you make the ship balanced but not actually that good at the role, or by nerfing the rest of the ship you get a great utility ship that sucks for other purposes.

This tradeoff we already see across tech 2 ships, and we have the same problem there, with some ships being way more useful than others.

Personally I'd like to see the t1 ships normalised (i get what you mean now) without overdoing thier role bonuses. Then, once they are balanced, some of the t2 variants can be revisited and made more useful at their focus.

Also... What's wrong with multiple ships filling the same role... Especially if it's one as important as combat? It adds more spice to the mix if there are a number of similar but subtly different ships, surely?

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.03.03 10:19:00 - [190]
 

Originally by: Marchocias
I guess mass is as good an arbitrary basis for cost as any other. This must definitely be tweaked after release tho.


Well, the mass stat itself is pretty arbitrary, but basing mineral cost on mass isn't. The mass has to come from somewhere. It makes no sense for a lighter ship to require more raw resources to build than a heavier ship.

Quote:
Regarding role bonuses, so long as they don't invalidate the bonuses of higher tech level ships, they could act as a an appropriate buff.


I think one of the major mistakes Tech 2 ships brought into the game is the concept that Tech 2 ships should fill roles there are no Tech 1 ships filling. All Tech 2 ships should be is next generation versions of Tech 1 ships and Tech 1 ships' role profiles need to be expanded to encompass all but a select few roles (such as covert ops).

Quote:
I think this could work, but the risk is that you end up with lots of almost equal ships, except for a handful that just happen to have killer role bonuses, and these will be the ones everyone uses. By subsequently nerfing those bonuses, you make the ship balanced but not actually that good at the role, or by nerfing the rest of the ship you get a great utility ship that sucks for other purposes.


Which is why I didn't get into a details argument with the trolls who wanted to use theoretical details to argue against this. Each ship needs to be reviewed by itself and then in context against its peers and then in context against its engagement profile.

Quote:
This tradeoff we already see across tech 2 ships, and we have the same problem there, with some ships being way more useful than others.


Absolutely.

Quote:
Personally I'd like to see the t1 ships normalised (i get what you mean now) without overdoing thier role bonuses. Then, once they are balanced, some of the t2 variants can be revisited and made more useful at their focus.


Right, which is the entire premise of removing tiers from Tech 1. They don't serve a useful purpose that isn't better served already or in theory by Tech 2's relationship with Tech 1.

Quote:
Also... What's wrong with multiple ships filling the same role... Especially if it's one as important as combat? It adds more spice to the mix if there are a number of similar but subtly different ships, surely?


I didn't say it was a problem, I merely said that some ships after the removal of tiers may overlap enough to warrant a change in one of them to keep them individually unique and viable.

I firmly believe that the noob frigates should be the only ships in the game intentionally nerfed below normalization, but even they should be viable in the right hands.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.03.03 14:32:00 - [191]
 

Val'Dore, I'm going by actual testing using various ship sizes and weapon sizes and a Damage Log Parser.

My post to grypher was more to highlight his (and Templar's) lack of knowledge concerning how turrets work in comparison to missiles.

They seem to believe that the EFT numbers are the average DPS they can achieve, which they are not. They are quite simply the turret's damage mod multiplied by the charge's damage, then divided by the turret's ROF. The same applies to the missiles, damage divided by rof.

Missiles cannot ever do more damage than they say they will, only as much as or less. Turrets can, realistically, easily achieve 1.5x hit types or greater when dealing with anything that is at the same signature radius as your guns' signature resolution, again provided tracking can keep up (and at sniping distances, especially if we use Templar's target pai- er, web example, this is very realistically achieved without problems).

Here's a link to the program in question. It's incredibly old and cannot take into account groups properly, so I recommend you use your turrets out of a group if you're going to test it.

http://www.chaos.org.uk/~dean/cla/


And regarding the signature resolution vs signature radius thing, to my understanding turrets essentially fire through a cylinder, not a cone, so if your turrets' signature resolution is 400m (battleship gun) and the target is 200m in radius, you will get an averaged 50% accuracy in damage, as opposed to chance-to-hit.

As has been proven to me before, even if you're using dread guns and your target has a sig radius of only 10m, if you can track it, you can hit it, the only thing that changes is how much damage you can potentially do with your hit, which considering there are only 6 hit types, the lowest of which only goes as low as 0.25x, may mean that you can hit but will get the 0.25x multiplier at best, on average.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.03.03 20:10:00 - [192]
 

That makes sense, it helps to know where you are coming from with that.

The sig radius and res thing, I think you are probably right about that, that it is only a mitigation not a hit chance. But I haven't done any deliberate experiments to verify it. But the laser beam or projectile being the size of a Volkswagen hitting an object the size of a mail box is still a relatively wrecking shot even if the actual hit wasn't. So the overall effect is reduced, yet still amplified relatively. But what you are saying makes more sense now. Maybe you should start a thread challenging the common conception of how turret dps works, it would be interesting if nothing else.

Kogh Ayon
Posted - 2011.03.03 20:12:00 - [193]
 

Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 03/03/2011 20:15:01
Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Missiles cannot ever do more damage than they say they will, only as much as or less. Turrets can, realistically, easily achieve 1.5x hit types or greater when dealing with anything that is at the same signature radius as your guns' signature resolution, again provided tracking can keep up (and at sniping distances, especially if we use Templar's target pai- er, web example, this is very realistically achieved without problems).

The quality of hit does not help in DPS, even under perfect conditions you still have ~49.5% chance to get a hit lower than expected DPS and ~49.5% to have a hit higher than expected (EFT). And the mulitipler works fair. Hence with turrects you will not get higher DPS in perfect condition, when you are not in perfect condition, the DPS will be down.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

As has been proven to me before, even if you're using dread guns and your target has a sig radius of only 10m, if you can track it, you can hit it, the only thing that changes is how much damage you can potentially do with your hit, which considering there are only 6 hit types, the lowest of which only goes as low as 0.25x, may mean that you can hit but will get the 0.25x multiplier at best, on average.

If you did got the 10m sig stuff, you will do a damage with at least 50% DPH of one turrect. Or you will miss for ever, if it moves

How can I tell these? Jet a ship in space and keep shooting it in perfect condition, look at the log.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.03.03 20:46:00 - [194]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 03/03/2011 20:54:53
Val'Dore, I actually have made a post in that regard on the F&I forums before. I'm busy looking for it now, but while I'm looking, there's at least this that I came across. Seems Mag's has been stalking me for years D:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=940702&page=1#3


Here was one of them, but not the post I'm looking for...

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=943889&page=1#18

And yes, Onys is my alt. More people hate me and will automatically be prejudiced towards anything I have to say on ATN than they are on Onys, who they don't know.


And here she is.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1192581&page=1#23
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1192581&page=1#28

You'll notice I've been very argumentative for years.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.03.03 23:56:00 - [195]
 

Edited by: Val''Dore on 03/03/2011 23:58:28
Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 03/03/2011 20:54:53
Val'Dore, I actually have made a post in that regard on the F&I forums before. I'm busy looking for it now, but while I'm looking, there's at least this that I came across. Seems Mag's has been stalking me for years D:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=940702&page=1#3


Here was one of them, but not the post I'm looking for...

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=943889&page=1#18

And yes, Onys is my alt. More people hate me and will automatically be prejudiced towards anything I have to say on ATN than they are on Onys, who they don't know.


And here she is.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1192581&page=1#23
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1192581&page=1#28

You'll notice I've been very argumentative for years.


Ill take a gander at those when I'm not on my Droid.

ActiveX, Sobeseki Pawi, Eximius Josari, Thor Xian, and Anubis Xian were all former mains of mine.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.03.04 00:58:00 - [196]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 04/03/2011 03:50:48
Hit Type Summary
800mm Heavy 'Scout' Repeating Artillery I

Hit Type Hits Hit % Dmg Dmg %
Wrecking 45 1% 18670.5 3%
Excellent 1195 23% 226250.2 31%
Well Aimed 1333 26% 206794.8 29%
Hit 1328 26% 160659.1 22%
Light Hit 654 13% 62073.9 9%
Scratch 620 12% 48337.7 7%


Kogh, here's the 'perfect' data you wanted. Notice how 47% of the hits are above the 1.0x multiplier, with only 25% below the 1.0x multiplier. Essentially, 75% of the hits are 1.0x or greater. For safety's sake, I work with a 1.5x average, since that seems to be roughly what you can expect to get in a realistic situation.

For an imperfect example, here's hits against mission cruisers, but with a far smaller sample set to work with (guns were grouped for these, not grouped for the above chart)


Hit Type Summary
group of 800mm Heavy 'Scout' Repeating Artillery I

Hit Type Hits Hit % Dmg Dmg %
Excellent 7 10% 10364.4 14%
Well Aimed 19 28% 23868.7 33%
Hit 24 35% 23680.2 32%
Light Hit 8 12% 8997.0 12%
Scratch 9 13% 6281.2 9%
Miss 1 1% 0.0 0%






Again, 26% of the shots are below 1.0x or misses, while the rest are all 1.0x or greater. In this example, there is 38% of hits above 1.0x that creates an offset of 12% above the shots that are below 1.0x.


Important notes for both charts:

Scratch = 0.25x multiplier
Lightly hits = 0.5x
Hits = 1.0x
Well aimed = 1.5x
Excellent hit = 2.0x
Wrecking hit = 3.0x

Using this, working with a multiplier of 1.0x as base and 100,000 as the base amount of damage in total dealt, the following happens:

13% = 0.25x, so 3,250 total damage of 100,000 is dealt
12% = 0.5x, so 6,000 total damage of 100,000 is dealt
35% = 1.0x, so 35,000 total damage of 100,000 is dealt
28% = 1.5x, so 42,000 total damage of 100,000 is dealt
10% = 2.0x, so 20,000 total damage of 100,000 is dealt

Adding these up, we get 106,250, which means we got just over 1.0x total averaged damage in an 'imperfect' situation.


For the larger sampling up top, again using 100,000 as the base figure:

12% = 0.25x, so 3,000 total damage of 100,000 is dealt
13% = 0.5x, so 6,500 total damage of 100,000 is dealt
26% = 1.0x, so 26,000 total damage of 100,000 is dealt
26% = 1.5x, so 39,000 total damage of 100,000 is dealt
23% = 2.0x, so 46,000 total damage of 100,000 is dealt
1% = 3.0x, so 3,000 total damage of 100,000 is dealt

Adding these up, we get 123,500, which doesn't put us up at the 1.5x average figure I believe one can realistically achieve, but does still put things at 1.23x greater than 1.0x, which is the figure one gets in EFT. The target for the first sample was at a 435 or so signature radius and within optimal.


In other words, the damage you see in EFT isn't what you will realistically achieve with turrets; if your tracking keeps up and your target is large enough, you will get greater damage than you see on paper.

The original figures I was working with were based on Sleeper ships shooting at us, again using the combat log analyzer to combine the data to see what kinds of hits they were getting against us. Sleepers easily achieved 1.5x averaged hits against us while our signature radiuses were around 385m in Tengus, and this data was spread across several thousand hits as well. Those calculations were originally done in order to assess how much damage each Sleeper type did, and with what weapons.

Likewise, using turrets, we were able to easily achieve roughly 1.5x average hits against them.
*edit* holy crabsticks batman, table fail Laughing
*edit2* yay, less table fail! Very Happy


AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.03.04 01:06:00 - [197]
 

Also, I make no claim to be mathematically inclined even in the slightest, as I was taken out of school at a very young age and have since not learned anything beyond the most basic algebra, and even that knowledge is now essentially lost to me in favour of other more relevant skills.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.03.04 01:45:00 - [198]
 

Use code tags to make a decent Table



Example 1 67 123%
Example 2 89 56%
Example 3 103 45%


Kogh Ayon
Posted - 2011.03.04 03:44:00 - [199]
 

Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 04/03/2011 04:00:37
Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 04/03/2011 03:58:02
Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 04/03/2011 03:55:09
Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 04/03/2011 03:48:40
Seriously, "hits" is less than 100% and "well aimed" is just right above 100%.

Calculate your expected 100% damage please.

That is why you got too much scartches. Your DPS was successfully decreased, since you used 800mm with 400 resolution,which should be more than the signature radius of a cruiser.

So also it was not a "perfect" situation. It was a bad situation :P

And also there will never be a "200% damage". I don't know if you were use a signle gun or a group of guns. If you did use only one 800mm, there will never be a 200% damage. Oh right you need to know what is your 100% damage first please.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 04/03/2011 03:54:02
Wow, read the rest of that post before being rude, please.

If I've made a mistake in my calculations, then show me where it is, because I honestly don't know if I have.
Otherwise, I'm assuming my calculations are correct and that you are wrong.

*edit* also thanks Val'Dore, I think with this I've finally reached lvl5 forum pompousness and can begin training advanced forum pompousness :D

Again you need to show what your expected 100% damage is.
Your wrecking damage/3 is your 100% damage. Have a look then you will find what a mistake you made.

All the "hits" are less than 100%

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.03.04 03:53:00 - [200]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 04/03/2011 03:58:06
Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 04/03/2011 03:54:02
Wow, read the rest of that post before being rude, please.

If I've made a mistake in my calculations, then show me where it is, because I honestly don't know if I have.
Otherwise, I'm assuming my calculations are correct and that you are wrong.

*edit* also thanks Val'Dore, I think with this I've finally reached lvl5 forum pompousness and can begin training advanced forum pompousness :D
*edit2* And Kogh, if I'm reading correctly, you seem to think that a "hits" readout and a "well aimed" are less than a 1.0x multiplier and only slightly better than a 1.0x multiplier?

Have you ever taken your guns out of grouping, reduced a battleship or other large ship to hull then taken individual shots to see what your damage readouts are for single guns?

If you had, you'd know that these multipliers are exact. What you see when you have your guns grouped is an averaged damage between the various hits the guns achieved and the closest rounded multiplier they got to in terms of nomenclature.

If you don't believe me, go test it for yourself. Personally, I'm typing this from bed and am going to parse a nice fat log of ~77k hits of a Geddon shooting at an Archon for you, tomorrow (it's been running for at least 3 hours now, I think).

Kogh Ayon
Posted - 2011.03.04 04:05:00 - [201]
 

As my calculation before test. The expected 100% damage would be 63.19

03:48:01 Combat Your Heavy Modal Pulse Laser I perfectly strikes XXXXX(Drake), wrecking for 189.0 damage.

189/3=63

03:49:35 Combat Your Heavy Modal Pulse Laser I hits xxxxxx(Drake), doing 61.5 damage.
03:57:49 Combat Your Heavy Modal Pulse Laser I is well aimed at xxxxxx(Drake), inflicting 65.3 damage.

Obvious. "hits" is less than 100%; "well aimed" is more than 100%.

And

03:59:36 Combat Your Heavy Modal Pulse Laser I barely scratches xxxx(Drake), causing 35.4 damage.

In the worst hit. We still got half damage. Not your 25% one


AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.03.04 04:13:00 - [202]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 04/03/2011 04:19:06
My goodness, so are you telling me that a 'barely scratches' is 0.5x and that a 'lightly hits' might in fact then be 0.75x, only making my logs' averaged damage higher?

Because then I might have simply confused myself at some point and determined that a 'barely scratches' was 0.25x and 'lightly hits' was 0.5x, which would explain why my calculations earlier didn't get to the 1.5x average I worked out late 2009!

I guess I need to work these out again quickly... let's see...


129,750 total working with a base total damage done of 100,000, so I guess we've just gone from 1.235x to 1.2975x averaged dps against a target that's 435m vs my 400mm turrets.

I can live with doing slightly more dps than I thought at first, though.



You're not proving yourself correct, by the way, you're in fact proving yourself incorrect right now...

*edit* boo, the test server is going down at 0500, so my logs are going to get cut short, and I wanna go to sleep >:(
*edit2* I guess I'll actually go parse this log now, quick, to show you a neat trick with regards to hit types in the new EVE (back in my day, our hits were precise!)

Kogh Ayon
Posted - 2011.03.04 04:23:00 - [203]
 

Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 04/03/2011 04:24:49
Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 04/03/2011 04:23:48
Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 04/03/2011 04:19:06
My goodness, so are you telling me that a 'barely scratches' is 0.5x and that a 'lightly hits' might in fact then be 0.75x, only making my logs' averaged damage higher?

Because then I might have simply confused myself at some point and determined that a 'barely scratches' was 0.25x and 'lightly hits' was 0.5x, which would explain why my calculations earlier didn't get to the 1.5x average I worked out late 2009!

I guess I need to work these out again quickly... let's see...


129,750 total working with a base total damage done of 100,000, so I guess we've just gone from 1.235x to 1.2975x averaged dps against a target that's 435m vs my 400mm turrets.

I can live with doing slightly more dps than I thought at first, though.



You're not proving yourself correct, by the way, you're in fact proving yourself incorrect right now...

*edit* boo, the test server is going down at 0500, so my logs are going to get cut short, and I wanna go to sleep >:(
*edit2* I guess I'll actually go parse this log now, quick, to show you a neat trick with regards to hit types in the new EVE (back in my day, our hits were precise!)

When you have a mistake on the root then you probably need to rework the whole thing but not just try to fix it.

After you correct your scratches and lightly hits, you may need to redo your hit, well aimed and excellently hit also, which are all based on the actual 100% damage.

If you half-valued your 100% damage, you will always get 200% hit lol

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.03.04 04:27:00 - [204]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 04/03/2011 05:05:37
Actually, my hit-types were based on how turrets used to work way back when. I don't know when this change to have all individual turrets get random hits that average around a multiplier got implemented...

It used to be that I could get 133.7 hits with a particular 720mm Howitzer on a Rupture of mine, exactly because of that...

Anyway, I'll edit this post once I've got this log parsed for you with the cool bits.

*edit*

7.5288228041x damage multiplier
28 EM / 20 TM on the crystal

91.1915198218 % EM
88.5489757683 % TM

Resists on the target

35.8114489053 as resultant base damage, rounded to 35.8

0.5x would be 17.9 damage
0.75x would be 26.8 damage (rounded down)
1.0x would be 35.8 damage
1.5x would be 53.7 damage
2.0x would be 71.6 damage
3.0x would be 107.4 damage



Hit Type Hits Hit % Dmg Dmg %
Scratch 2666 100% 62189.3 100%


By dividing the 62,189.3 by 2,666, we get 23.3, which is 1.3x higher than the 0.5x expected multiplier



Hit Type Hits Hit % Dmg Dmg %
Light Hit 2655 100% 73941.7 100%


By dividing the 73,941.7 by 2,655, we get 27.8, which is 1.037x the expected figure.


If we now combine these two, or divide 136,131 by 5,321 we get 25.6, which is 0.955x the expected 0.75 figure

Considering that one would normally accept a 'scratch' to be way down there while a 'barely hits' should be significantly higher, we might as well combine these two at this point.

Moving on...


Hit Type Hits Hit % Dmg Dmg %
Hit 5278 100% 184823.3 100%


By dividing the 184,823.3 by 5,278 we get 35.0, which is 0.978x less than expected



Hit Type Hits Hit % Dmg Dmg %
Well Aimed 5462 25% 248650.2 28%


By dividing the 248,650.2 by 5,462 we get 45.5, which is 0.8476x the expected figure

If we do something similar to the 'hits' and 'well aimed' here to what we did with the 'sratches' and 'barely hits'...
Divide 433,473.5 by 10,740 which gives us 40.36, which is 1.127x a figure of 1.0x



Hit Type Hits Hit % Dmg Dmg %
Excellent 5197 24% 288118.8 33%


288,118.8 / 5,197 = 55.4, or 0.77x the expected figure



Hit Type Hits Hit % Dmg Dmg %
Wrecking 200 1% 24143.7 3%


24,143.7 / 200 = 120.7, which is 1.124x the expected figure


Combining those two at this point gives 57.9, which is at 1.61x the expected 1.0x figure


Now taking the whole lot and dividing them by their shots, we get the following:

881,867 / 21,485 = 40.084, which is, for this graph, 1.11968x the expected 1.0 figure

This was for a Geddon shooting an Archon.


Now, again, I was under the impression that hit types were still linear, and I don't know or remember when they got changed to his newfangled system (damnit CCP, nerfing my argumentative logic!), but even at all of this, the total averaged damage done is still greater than the linear figure you will see when you're working with nothing but your base multipliers, and in realistic terms, you can still get as much as 1.0x damage against a smaller-than-sigres target, while achieving more against a larger target due to less 'crappy' hits.

*edit3* holy crap, I need sleep...

Kogh Ayon
Posted - 2011.03.04 07:36:00 - [205]
 

Seems you made a big mistake in experiment design.

You said you use laser geddon shooting archon.

Can I assume the archon was armor tank?

While ships tanking with armor they still get shield regeneration.

And shields get much lower resistance than armor in EM/TH.

That's could explain why you could got higher damage.

And as we know the wrecking shoots are using fixed 3x multipler, there is no reason to vary in the statistic, that is why I doubt your result at the first sight.

Try again in a shield tank ship pleaseSmile Thanks for your contribution.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.03.04 12:13:00 - [206]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 04/03/2011 14:01:43
Sigh, okay, be back when I have even more figures for you, even though the Drake example alone should prove that one can achieve more than 1.0x DPS, and not less than it, in 'perfect' conditions.

*edit* And in hindsight, you're right, I'm an idiot. I was so tired when I did that batch of testing that I didn't take into account that the log was including the entire shield buffer that had to be taken down first, as well. Oh well.

*edit2* Also, way for us to go way off topic. Rolling Eyes

*edit3* Prelim numbers:

7.5288228041x damage multiplier
28 EM / 20 TM on the crystal

76.5107195248 % EM resist
64 % TM resist

Expected damage/shot = 103.724624586

Shots fired: 6,919
Total damage done: 730,158

Averaged damage per shot = 105.5294117647059, or 1.017399794753747x expected damage

This is of course using a 'perfect' example.

*edit4*

Hit Type Summary
Mega Pulse Laser II

Hit Type Hits Hit % Dmg Dmg %
Wrecking 75 1% 23340.0 3%
Excellent 1658 24% 235681.9 32%
Well Aimed 1720 25% 200641.2 27%
Hit 1757 25% 159852.5 22%
Light Hit 854 12% 60898.1 8%
Scratch 855 12% 49744.7 7%

Ignoring 'wrecking' hits, we have a combined 74% chance to get 1.0x or greater hits, or a 49% chance to achieve hits greater than 1.0x

Excellent and Well Aimed shots contributed 59% to the total damage dealt, while normal Hits dealt 22% of the total damage.

Light hits and scratches account for 24% of total hits, and are below 1.0x total damage potential.


Using only the total damage dealt divided by shots it's already shown that one can't achieve much more than 1.0x one's DPS (anymore?), whereas when I originally worked all of this out, I'm fairly confident that what I saw was our turrets doing more than 1.5x their average hits.

This is also based on a lot of POS bashing, which have very linear resists and which I was able to work out total time-to-complete to a figure within minutes for the falling over of the towers, taking into account several Armageddons/Harbingers, but I haven't done this since early 2009, if not before that, and we can already see that, again, the 1.5x figure isn't accurate.


Anyway, for your hits so we can assess what multipliers the hits average around:

Hit Type Damage/Shots Result Expected Difference Resulting Mx
Scratch 49,744.7/855 58.18 51.86 1.1218x 0.5609x
Light Hit 60,898.1/854 71.30 77.79 0.9165x 0.6874x
Hit 159,852.5/1,757 90.98 103.72 0.8771x 0.8771x
Well Aimed 200,641.2/1,720 116.65 155.58 0.7497x 1.1246x
Excellent 235,681.9/1,658 142.14 207.44 0.6852x 1.3704x
Wrecking 23,340/75 311.2 311.16 1.0001x 3.0003x

Which means you're right on that a 'hit' will deal slightly less than 1.0x and a 'well aimed' will only deal slightly more than 1.0x, which is annoying (not because you're right), since I just dropped a bundle of isk on shiny turret toys and spent SP I didn't need to instead of just getting Tengus again. :(

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.03.05 18:01:00 - [207]
 

That sucks. Anyway, back on topic.

Since no argument for keeping tiers is going to show up in this thread at some point, this should be a unanimous 'supported' in the Assembly Hall... right?

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.03.05 20:05:00 - [208]
 

Well, the idea has been discussed so moving it to the assembly hall would be the logical next step. I know that if I notice the thread I'll simply oppose it, but if you want to now get support then that's where you need to go.

Obviously, even if it receives overwhelming support, whether or not it gets picked up by the CSM and more importantly whether or not CCP decide to do anything about 'it' is an entirely different matter.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.03.05 20:49:00 - [209]
 

Naturally, but I wanted to make sure any discussion was thoroughly fleshed out before doing so.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only