EVE Search - Effects of Higher Rate of Fire on Realized Damage

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Effects of Higher Rate of Fire on Realized Damage

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:14:00 - [1] I was curious after reading through the Eve Uni Wiki articles on gunnery. What effect does RoF have on actual damage in combat? One of the oft used criticisms of rail guns is their lack of DPS, based purely on EFT numbers, i.e. they often have lower values compared to the equivalent gun-types of other races. The one advantage they do possess is a greater rate of fire than the other gun types. So, for us Railgun users, what advantage does this increased rate of fire convey to us? Given the random number generators used in damage calculations, I assume that the chance for a wrecking shot increases with the number of times a target is actually hit. Is there a way to accurately graph the actual potential of railgun DPS taking this into account?
Daneel Trevize Black Viper Nomads	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:19:00 - [2] So would the chance for a miss, each shot's chance of doing damage is independant, thus the dps increase is exactly what the rof increase is, factoring in the usual stacking penalties and that reloading isn't accelerated.
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:21:00 - [3] Originally by: Daneel Trevize So would the chance for a miss, each shot's chance of doing damage is independant, thus the dps increase is exactly what the rof increase is, factoring in the usual stacking penalties and that reloading isn't accelerated. Lets assume for discussion's sake, there is a 100% chance to hit...
Crabs Collector	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:52:00 - [4] I think a lower rate of fire has a higher 'lost damage' percentage (lost damage because a ship needed only a small amount of damage to get popped), wich makes it slightly more efficient on large scale and pve. However, some situations require a high 'alpha damage' so they get (almost) instapopped and cant be repaired by logistics. In that situation a low RoF is better :)
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:08:00 - [5] Originally by: Crabs Collector I think a lower rate of fire has a higher 'lost damage' percentage (lost damage because a ship needed only a small amount of damage to get popped), wich makes it slightly more efficient on large scale and pve. However, some situations require a high 'alpha damage' so they get (almost) instapopped and cant be repaired by logistics. In that situation a low RoF is better :) This is purely about PvP and not about volley damage and its benefits. This is about the fact that a "perfect" hit scores 300% of base damage, "excellent" hits score 125-150% of base damage, and "well-aimed" hits score 100-125% of base damage. Does an increased rate of fire, over the same amount of time, increase the potential damage above that listed in EFT, due to the effects of these "bonus damage" hits? And, if so, how can we quantify that advantage. Sorry for not wording it effectively in my OP.
Miss Leatherpants	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:18:00 - [6] Edited by: Miss Leatherpants on 28/03/2011 21:19:29 Originally by: Von Kroll This is purely about PvP and not about volley damage and its benefits. Volley damage is relavent to pvp. See: Huge number of arty platforms being used in nullsec fleets right now. Increased RoF is actually (more often than not) a disadvantage since it increases the likelyhood logistics can be applied to the affected ship or the target leaving optimal range, or simply warping out. You are correct that, under ideal cicumstances the higher rate of fire weapon, rolling the dice more often, will have a larger number of hits(and thus a larger number of good quality hits, if range, velocity, etc. are constant) and provide more overall dps. Unfortunately this is what seperates EFT stats from in-game reality and a very small part of what makes railguns a sub-par weapon system compared to artillery (aside from their cap consumption, lack of damage selection, ammo size, reload time, etc). In short, railguns convey as close to no benefit over any other weapon system as you will find. This is why they are widely regarded as the worst weapon system in the game.
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:23:00 - [7] Originally by: Miss Leatherpants Originally by: Von Kroll This is purely about PvP and not about volley damage and its benefits. Volley damage is relavent to pvp. See: Huge number of arty platforms being used in nullsec fleets right now. Increased RoF is actually (more often than not) a disadvantage since it increases the likelyhood logistics can be applied to the affected ship or the target leaving optimal range, or simply warping out. You are correct that, under ideal cicumstances the higher rate of fire weapon, rolling the dice more often, will have a larger number of hits(and thus a larger number of good quality hits, if range, velocity, etc. are constant) and provide more overall dps. Unfortunately this is what seperates EFT stats from in-game reality and a very small part of what makes railguns a sub-par weapon system compared to artillery (aside from their cap consumption, lack of damage selection, ammo size, reload time, etc). I completely understand the utility of artillery, for example, and all the benefits it provides. For the purposes of this discussion, lets forget about volley damage. This isn't about a "railgun vs. artillery" comparison. I am only interested in whether or not someone can help me quantify the advantage railguns, with their high rate of fire, have in maximizing DPS, considering the bonus damage you receive from excellent, well-aimed, and wrecking shots.
Miss Leatherpants	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:29:00 - [8] Edited by: Miss Leatherpants on 28/03/2011 21:30:20 Originally by: Von Kroll I am only interested in whether or not someone can help me quantify the advantage railguns, with their high rate of fire, have in maximizing DPS, considering the bonus damage you receive from excellent, well-aimed, and wrecking shots. I made that point in my post. I simply used artillery for point of in-game comparison between the two. Yes, in theory, a higher rate of fire results in more wrecking shots since your shot count is higher you have greater odds of one of those shots being a wrecking shot. Ed fires his turret 5 times under ideal conditions, he has 5 chances at a wrecking shot. Jo fire his turret 3 times under ideal conditions, he has 3 chances at a wrecking shot. Statsitically, in a vacume, railgun rate of fire should be an advantage in terms of higher dps for their operating range, yes. My point was simply: this completely falls apart in-game for the reasons I mentioned before.
Main ForumAlt	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:38:00 - [9] # of wrecking shots is irrelevant as a slower weapon would get better value from each wrecking shot. Slow is more spiky - that's as mentioned an advantage against repair. Fast is more even - that's an advantage against non-repair as fast will get less overkill. The ow advantage is more often needed. Rails fail yet again.
Seriously Bored Minmatar	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:47:00 - [10] Originally by: Von Kroll This is purely about PvP and not about volley damage and its benefits. This is about the fact that a "perfect" hit scores 300% of base damage, "excellent" hits score 125-150% of base damage, and "well-aimed" hits score 100-125% of base damage. Does an increased rate of fire, over the same amount of time, increase the potential damage above that listed in EFT, due to the effects of these "bonus damage" hits? And, if so, how can we quantify that advantage. Sorry for not wording it effectively in my OP. The game determines your turret damage by checking your hit quality against a random number generated for each shot (call X in the damage formula), and then applies a damage multiplier of X + 0.5 to your shot. So if you have a 100% chance of hitting, you will do between 0.52x and 1.5x of your base turret damage, with a 1% chance of doing 3x damage. (I'm assuming you know all this, just setting the logical framework.) As the critical hit has a 1% chance of doing triple damage, you can calculate that as adding on average 3% to your overall DPS over a large number of shots and engagements. If you look at it as a statistical distribution over a given amount of time, increasing your rate of fire increases your sample rate. What that means is that a gun with a higher DPS will tend to have a smoother and more predictable damage curve over a given amount of time because it will have more samples in its damage distribution. Guns with higher rates of fire will tend to have an actual DPS value in a given engagement closer to their "EFT DPS," while a low-rate-of-fire weapon's DPS will be more erratic, sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the predicted "EFT DPS." In terms of getting more bonus damage out of it by firing more often, I don't think statistics work that way given the degree of randomness built into turret damage formula. ùùùùù Originally by: CCP Big Dumb Object When I nerf something, it takes 2-3 months for your dreams to be crushed.
stoicfaux Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:09:00 - [11] Originally by: Von Kroll The one advantage they do possess is a greater rate of fire than the other gun types. So, for us Railgun users, what advantage does this increased rate of fire convey to us? Given the random number generators used in damage calculations, I assume that the chance for a wrecking shot increases with the number of times a target is actually hit. Is there a way to accurately graph the actual potential of railgun DPS taking this into account? Argh, you don't understand statistics. This is going to be painful. Short answer: Don't rely on wrecking hits to win or otherwise treat it as an "advantage." A shot has a 1% chance of being a wrecking hit (for 3x damage.) This increases your average DPS by 3%. Yes, firing more often will increase the number of wrecking hits you get, for the simple reason that you're firing more shots. However, 1% of shots will be wrecking hits on average. Weapon grouping isn't going to result in massive volley damage. (Dev blog.) The damage for each gun in the group is computed separately and added together. A Rokh with eight guns does NOT have a 1% chance to score a wrecking hit with all eight guns in a single group. A 1% chance of a wrecking hit means that a Rokh firing eight guns would need to fire 12.5 volleys on average to get a single wrecking hit with one gun. You have a 50% chance of scoring a wrecking hit with one gun every 69 hits, which is about 8.6 Rokh volleys. ----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
Crabs Collector	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:11:00 - [12] given enough shots, the real dps doesnt differ between low RoF and high RoF. The practical differences in pvp situations are already mentioned above.
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:45:00 - [13] Originally by: stoicfaux Argh, you don't understand statistics. I understand them, I just don't understand how the math works. Quote: Short answer: Don't rely on wrecking hits to win or otherwise treat it as an "advantage." I'm not looking for a game changer. I'm just curious about "normalizing" damage where the increased chance for a wrecking shot, well-aimed shots, and excellent shots over the same period of time may make the EFT numbers misleading. Your Rokh example is a good start. Quote: A shot has a 1% chance of being a wrecking hit (for 3x damage.) This increases your average DPS by 3%. Yes, firing more often will increase the number of wrecking hits you get, for the simple reason that you're firing more shots. However, 1% of shots will be wrecking hits on average... ...Weapon grouping isn't going to result in massive volley damage... I don't care about volley damage--this isn't to prove anything or going to used as a justification that Rails suck or Arty is overpowered. Let's just assume one 425mm Railgun, compared to one Mega Beam Laser, compared to one 1400mm artillery. All are firing at their optimal, without any penalties from target signature or tracking. I don't want anyone to do leg-work for me. I'll crunch the numbers. What I'm curious about is whether or not, theoretically, a higher rate of fire increases the chance that the actual damage created is higher than the base damage listed in EFT.
Paikis Red Federation	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:51:00 - [14] Short Answer: No Long Answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Hiroshima Jita	Posted - 2011.03.29 01:46:00 - [15] You don't understand statistics. Lets simplify it. weapon a is rated at 1DPS (1/1) rate of fire 1 shot / 1 second damage 1 weapon b is rated at 1 DPS (2/2) rate of fire 1 shot / 2 seconds damage 2 Critical hit chance 25% and a critical hit does 2x damage. Over a 8 second period both weapons DO EXACTLY THE SAME DAMAGE ON AVERAGE Weapon a 8 shots. 1/4 of those shots are critical hits. 6 hits for 1 damage each = 6 damage 2 critical hits for 2 damage each =4 damage =10 damage total at perfect tracking in 8 seconds for weapon a weapon b 4 shots 1/4 of those shots are critical hits. 3 hits for 2 damage each = 6 damage 1 critical hit for 4 damage = 4 damage =10 damage total at perfect tracking in 8 seconds for weapon b The only difference is that because weapon b fires less often it is going to have a fewer number of samples. Thus it is more likely for weapon b to have more varying damage over a finite period of time.
Mimiru Minahiro	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:09:00 - [16] Originally by: Von Kroll the actual damage created is higher than the base damage listed in EFT. Not that it really matters but: It is not EFT-DPS + Wrecking shots. Wrecking shots are already included in EFT-DPS (unless something changed in the past couple releases).
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:24:00 - [17] Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro Originally by: Von Kroll the actual damage created is higher than the base damage listed in EFT. Not that it really matters but: It is not EFT-DPS + Wrecking shots. Wrecking shots are already included in EFT-DPS (unless something changed in the past couple releases). Current version of EFT shows "volley" as [base damage from ammo type*damage mod of weapon] and "dps" as [volley/duration]
Seriously Bored Minmatar	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:10:00 - [18] Edited by: Seriously Bored on 29/03/2011 07:11:45 Originally by: Von Kroll Current version of EFT shows "volley" as [base damage from ammo typedamage mod of weapon] and "dps" as [volley/duration] The answer to your question, then, is: multiply EFT DPS by 1.03 for your real DPS over a large number of shots fired. Yes, critical hits factor into damage more than EFT shows, but no, ROF has nothing to do with it. (Though rate of fire is an awesome stat to boost if you want to get your overall DPS up.) Just for the record, I totally see how you ended up on the thought path that you did. I don't think you really deserve flames...there are questions that are orders of magnitude more wrong than this that are asked on this forum every day. ùùùùù Originally by:* CCP Big Dumb Object When I nerf something, it takes 2-3 months for your dreams to be crushed.
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:03:00 - [19] You may not care about volley damage but since volley and ROF are two components that are balanced against each other you can't have a meaningful discussion about overall DPS without considering both. When comparing weapon systems you can't just get higher ROF, that always comes at some cost of volley damage, so as shown above you will get more wrecking hits, but those wrecking hits will be smaller.
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:34:00 - [20] Originally by: Siiee You may not care about volley damage but since volley and ROF are two components that are balanced against each other you can't have a meaningful discussion about overall DPS without considering both. You obviously missed the 2 or 3 times where I said I wasn't trying to compare weapon systems or overall DPS. I was merely trying to determine if rate of fire could increase actual DPS above the base damage represented in EFT, due to a possible increased chance of wrecking shots or other bonus damage from well-placed or excellent hits. Now...testing... I ran a series of two tests to see if I could glean anything. I took the trusty Merlin out with a single 75mm T2 railgun. I've got almost perfect gunnery skills, and when plugged in to EFT, the program stated I should get 33 volley damage and 17 DPS from standard anti-matter. I anchored a can out in system, and parked about 5500 meters from it, within optimal, stationary. I shot two series of 100 rounds each at the can. The can has no resistances, so I should see 100% of my potential DPS realized. The results: Ironically, I didn't get a wrecking shot with either test series unfortunately, but... First Series Volley Average: 34.59 Volley Median: 35.3 Avg Deviation: 8.01 Mode: 41.9 Std Deviation: 9.30 Shots registered in logs: 96 Time registered in logs: 181 seconds That gave me an average of 18.35 DPS and 34.59 volley over 181 seconds Second Series Volley Average : 33.16 Volley Median: 33.45 Average Deviation: 8.05 Mode: 27.9 Std Deviation: 9.31 Shots registered in logs: 99 Time registered in logs: 185 seconds This one gave me an average DPS of 17.57 and 33.16 volley I haven't run all the different combinations, but if you isolate a small number of successive shots, you can get much higher and much lower averages over shorter periods of time. It would have been interesting to see how much of a change introducing one wrecking shot would have made. Either way, the conclusion is that so far, there doesn't seem to be any significant increase when both series are considered. I'll count up the number of each type of hit and post that later as well.
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:27:00 - [21] Long story short: Shooting twice as fast for half the damage does the same DPS, whether you're taking into account wrecking shots or not. This is because while you will get twice as many wrecking shots with the higher DPS, those wrecking shots will do half the damage. Shocking, truly.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2011.03.29 10:06:00 - [22] Originally by: Aamrr Long story short: Shooting twice as fast for half the damage does the same DPS, whether you're taking into account wrecking shots or not. This is because while you will get twice as many wrecking shots with the higher DPS, those wrecking shots will do half the damage. Shocking, truly. while thats true since no one 'shoots forever' a proper average damage (what the dps calcs say it should be) cant be reached during a normal length fight, therefore the less vollys you put in the better the actual dps would be. 1 damage every second for 60 seconds is 60 dps. 10 damage every ten seconds for 60 seconds is 60 dps. however since the first volly is "free" after 60 seconds the second example would have done 10 more damage than the first. so its technical dps is actually 16% higher as long as the fight is one minute, the more minutes your shoot the closer the longer rof will get to the dps of the short rof example.
Crabs Collector	Posted - 2011.03.29 11:08:00 - [23] @ Von Kroll No, ofcourse faster RoF doesnt make a difference in average for wrecking hits. Guns with low RoF have a way higher potential dps bonus, wich compensates with the higher RoF guns who might get them more often.
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.03.29 11:58:00 - [24] Originally by: Dr Fighter Originally by: Aamrr Long story short: Shooting twice as fast for half the damage does the same DPS, whether you're taking into account wrecking shots or not. This is because while you will get twice as many wrecking shots with the higher DPS, those wrecking shots will do half the damage. Shocking, truly. while thats true since no one 'shoots forever' a proper average damage (what the dps calcs say it should be) cant be reached during a normal length fight, therefore the less vollys you put in the better the actual dps would be. 1 damage every second for 60 seconds is 60 dps. 10 damage every ten seconds for 60 seconds is 60 dps. however since the first volly is "free" after 60 seconds the second example would have done 10 more damage than the first. so its technical dps is actually 16% higher as long as the fight is one minute, the more minutes your shoot the closer the longer rof will get to the dps of the short rof example. DPS is the cumulative sum of all damage dealt to a target, divided by the amount of time that the damage occurred over. For general discussions, this particular period of time happens to be "infinity." If you want to discuss the benefits of a high volley, then that's a topic for another day. Until then, you're just confusing someone who apparently has enough trouble understanding why "volley/RoF = DPS."
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:22:00 - [25] Originally by: Von Kroll You obviously missed the 2 or 3 times where I said I wasn't trying to compare weapon systems or overall DPS. True, I've only skimmed the thread, because honestly the answer is quite simple and straightforward. I was caught up on your first post something about railgun users and looking for an advantage for your weapon system. Originally by: Von Kroll I was merely trying to determine if rate of fire could increase actual DPS above the base damage represented in EFT, due to a possible increased chance of wrecking shots or other bonus damage from well-placed or excellent hits. So you're not looking to compare DPS, but only looking to compare DPS? Or actual DPS is different than overall DPS? Frankly at this point I'm really confused what you're trying to get at. Yes increasing ROF will increase the amount of damage dealt due to wrecking shots over a fixed time period No, increasing ROF will not increase the chance of getting a wrecking shot for any single shot. Yes, you can calculate the effects of wrecking shots on top of your EFT DPS via the very simple math that's already been mentioned in this thread. No, ROF is not weighted any higher than volley when determining actual, realized DPS including wrecking shots. Actual testing seems pretty silly to me unless you think that there is some other unexplained mechanic at play, but if you really want to I'd say that 100 shot tests are laughably small. I would recommend getting in any ship you can that has 8 turret slots and fitting it with 8 frig lasers (no matter what kind of ship it is) That will give you much faster data collection (using ungrounded guns of course) and can run completely unattended for as long as you want. Then look at the data once you've got 10's of thousands of shots in your log.
Riedle Minmatar Paradox Collective Black Legion.	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:28:00 - [26] You are all over thinking it. an increase to the rate of fire of 4% will eventually equal out to a 4% increase in DPS - everything else being equal. That's it.
Khory Thunderstar	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:32:00 - [27] There is no advantage. For example's sake - suppose that you have 10% chance to miss, 80% chance to hit normally and 10% chance to get a wrecking hit. If you fire 20 shots, it is expected that you will have 2 missed, 16 hits and 2 wrecking hit. If, at the same time, you fire 40 shots, you will have 4 misses, 32 hits and 4 wrecking. The proportion is exactly the same. You will have more wrecking hits, yes, but you will also have more misses. There is absolutely no gain from it
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:32:00 - [28] Originally by: Riedle You are all over thinking it. an increase to the rate of fire of 4% will eventually equal out to a 4% increase in DPS - everything else being equal. That's it. About 4.2%, actually (1/.96). I say this only so he doesn't assume that a 50% RoF increase is a 50% DPS increase (it's actually a 100% DPS increase).
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:35:00 - [29] Originally by: Von Kroll So, for us Railgun users, what advantage does this increased rate of fire convey to us? In terms of damage output, none. Quote: Given the random number generators used in damage calculations, I assume that the chance for a wrecking shot increases with the number of times a target is actually hit. No. Quote: Is there a way to accurately graph the actual potential of railgun DPS taking this into account? No, because there is no such effect at play. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Khory Thunderstar	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:40:00 - [30] Edited by: Khory Thunderstar on 29/03/2011 13:45:33 Originally by: Riedle You are all over thinking it. an increase to the rate of fire of 4% will eventually equal out to a 4% increase in DPS - everything else being equal. That's it. No, this is incorrect Let me use hipotetical weapon #1 as a example. HW1 has a rate of fire of 1 shot every 100s. It also does 1 damage per shot. Just so we have easy numbers to work with. Our weapon has a 100s cicle time. A 4% increase in rate of fire would bring that cicle time to 96s. Our HW2 has a rate of fire of 96s - So far so good? Now, lets take 9600 seconds of time. HW1 will shot 96 times, doing 96 damage total ( That is 100% damage of HW1, obviously) HW2 will shot 100 times, doing 100 damage total ( and since 96 damage is 100% damage, this is 104.166667% of HW1 damage. Thats a 4.16666% increase ) This just gets better the more you add to RoF. For example, HW3 has a 50% increase in rof comared to HW1 (50s cicle time) In 100 seconds, HW1 does 1 shot, dealing 1 damage In 100 seconds, HW3 does 2 shots, dealing 2 damage ( 100% more damage than HW1 ) Ok, now how much damage would that
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:54:00 - [31] Edited by: Tippia on 29/03/2011 13:57:20 Originally by: Khory Thunderstar Our weapon has a 100s cicle time. A 4% increase in rate of fire would bring that cicle time to 96s. Our HW2 has a rate of fire of 96s - So far so good? Not really, no, but at the same time yes ù the problem is that you're using the same flawed idea of "RoF" that the game uses. Riedle is also quite correct, which is wrong in terms of how RoF is handled in the game. What the game has isn't really "rate of fire", but rather "cycle length" (or refire delay) ù it doesn't measure how many shots are fired, it measures time between shots. Eg. #1: Ye olde M16 has a rate of fire of 700û950 rounds per minute, or 11û15 rounds per second. This translates into a cycle length of 63û86 ms. Eg. #2: Ye (not quite as) olde 800mm II has a cycle length of 7875 ms (before skills and bonuses), which is mislabelled in the info screen as "rate of fire." This translates into a RoF of 7.6 rounds per minute or 0.13 rounds per second. When Riedle says that 4% more RoF = 4% more damage, he's quite correct, assuming we're talking about the first (correct) meaning of RoF: you shoot 4% more bullets, and therefore do 4% more damage. What you're talking about is the game's interpretation of RoF and RoF increases (which are actually cycle length and cycle reductions, which translate into RoF increases). So yes, a game bonus that says it improves your rate of fire by 4% does not improve the actual rate of fire by 4% ù it reduces the cycle length by 4% which translates into a RoF increase (and thus a damage increase) of 1/(1-4%), but an actual RoF increase of 4% would mean that the damage also increases by 4%. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Khory Thunderstar	Posted - 2011.03.29 14:21:00 - [32] You are quite correct Tipia The game doesnt use 'rate of fire', but 'delay between shots'. Reducing delay between shots increases damage in a higher proportion than increasing the proper rate of fire would, as i explained.
Pod Amarr	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:25:00 - [33] It should not see If the DPS is constant and chance of critical hit is percentage. Then it is does not matter how fast you fire since the low cycle high alpha weapons critical will be even higher offsetting the more common but lower dmg of the high ROF weapon. So statistically over long periond of time it will be the same. Pod
Butzewutze	Posted - 2011.03.29 16:02:00 - [34] Originally by: Khory Thunderstar There is no advantage. ... There is absolutely no gain from it Thats not quite true. If u have a higher ROF, i mean if u fire more often in a certain amount of time u have a better chance to apply damage to a target. For example: 1 shot in 60 seconds(100 damage) = 1 hit chance with 100 damage(if u miss... u wont do any damage for the next 60 seconds) 10 shots in 60 seconds(10 damage)= 10 hit chances with 10 damage(more chances to do at least some damage) Regards Butze
Jagga Spikes Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2011.03.29 16:26:00 - [35] Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 29/03/2011 16:26:20 Originally by: Butzewutze ... For example: 1 shot in 60 seconds(100 damage) = 1 hit chance with 100 damage(if u miss... u wont do any damage for the next 60 seconds) 10 shots in 60 seconds(10 damage)= 10 hit chances with 10 damage(more chances to do at least some damage) ... on the other hand, if target has 100 hit points and reps 10 point of damage per 6 seconds, higher rate of fire isn't helping at all. ________________________________ : Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel - [jedi handwave] "There is no spoon."
stoicfaux Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.29 17:34:00 - [36] Originally by: Von Kroll Originally by: stoicfaux Argh, you don't understand statistics. I understand them, I just don't understand how the math works. /facepalm. No. No. Nonononononononononononononono... Quote: I'm not looking for a game changer. I'm just curious about "normalizing" damage where the increased chance for a wrecking shot, well-aimed shots, and excellent shots over the same period of time may make the EFT numbers misleading. Your Rokh example is a good start. The more shots you fire the more consistent your DPS will look. The fewer shots your fire, the greater the chance for wrecking hits (aka luck) to make a huge difference in your short term DPS. Example. You're an amateur poker player. You join a table of professional poker players. If you play for a long time, you will lose everything unless you have a huge string of incredible luck. Your best chance to win is to depend on short term luck; bet everything on one hand and hope lady luck comes through for you. Back to railguns. The more you fire, the more consistent your DPS will be (the DPS graph will be smoother.) The less you fire, the more impact that wrecking hits (luck) will have on your DPS (the DPS graph can be very spikey.) Quote: I don't want anyone to do leg-work for me. I'll crunch the numbers. What I'm curious about is whether or not, theoretically, a higher rate of fire increases the chance that the actual damage created is higher than the base damage listed in EFT. Use the DPS graph in EFT. It includes wrecking hits in the DPS number. You can see this since your DPS graph DPS can be higher than the raw DPS number on the ship fitting window. ----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:32:00 - [37] Ok, my theory was wrong. Hopefully that puts out the flames. That leads me to a second question then. What advantage does a higher rate of fire convey then? Given that in EvE, volley damage increases as rate of fire decreases and vice versa, what advantage, if any, does a weapon with a higher rate of fire convey in PvP?
Riedle Minmatar Paradox Collective Black Legion.	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:40:00 - [38] Edited by: Riedle on 29/03/2011 18:42:54 It all equals out. Sometimes you will have the extra shot in any given exchange and sometimes you will not. 4% increase in ROF = 4% increase in DPS over time. simple. KISS
Riedle Minmatar Paradox Collective Black Legion.	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:48:00 - [39] Edited by: Riedle on 29/03/2011 18:49:08 Quote: Given that in EvE, volley damage increases as rate of fire decreases and vice versa, what advantage, if any, does a weapon with a higher rate of fire convey in PvP? That is not a given. You shoot 1400mm howitzers from your maelstrom 4% faster when you have trained another level of rapid firing. That's it. If your target was a POS, for example, you would have applied 4% more DPS on the POS as you otherwise would have if you didn't train that extra level of Rapid Firing. DPS is already a calculation over time. If you decrease the cycle time of your weapons, your DPS (damage per second) goes up. Why? Because it took you less time (S) to apply the same damage (D). It's not a hard concept unless you want it to be.
Rutger Centemus Phantom Squad En Garde	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:54:00 - [40] Originally by: Riedle 4% increase in ROF = 4% increase in DPS over time. KISS Keeping it simple: look up Tippia's explanation. IRL you would be correct, in Eve you're mistaken. Leaving the last "S" up to you to apply where applicable Originally by: Crumplecorn I prefer launching bathtubs of antimatter at my opponents over pointing an open DVD player at them, even if the bathtubs do miss a lot. So no.
Usahina	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:00:00 - [41] The effect of higher refire rate will be to increase your ammo and cap costs, and that you don't kill a target as soon as higher alpha. This is because high alpha weapons frontload their damage (say, gun1 deals 6 damage, refire every 7 seconds, gun2 deals 1 damage every second, after 6 seconds gun2 will outdamage gun1 by 1, and at sec 7 it will be outdamaged by 5 again, gun2 will outdamage gun1 after 42 seconds), and that high alpha weapons deal with optimal shield recharge better. Taking this to eve: don't use rails, they have larger ammo and use cap, and they don't damage well.
Riedle Minmatar Paradox Collective Black Legion.	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:29:00 - [42] Originally by: Rutger Centemus Originally by: Riedle 4% increase in ROF = 4% increase in DPS over time. KISS Keeping it simple: look up Tippia's explanation. IRL you would be correct, in Eve you're mistaken. Leaving the last "S" up to you to apply where applicable How does decreasing the cycle time of your guns by 4% not equal a circa 4% increase in your ROF? Realizing there is a difference in it actually being 4% less cycle time and it not being exactly 4% - it is still an increase in your DPS. If it's 3.94% or whatever is not the point. The relevent point is that it is an increase in your DPS of about 4%. Seriously, getting caught up in decimal points? lol Unless one wants to be purposefully obtuse and pedantic, it makes no difference. Yes, it's division instead of multiplication but my point remains. You know exactly what the S means and it still stands.
Jagga Spikes Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:38:00 - [43] Originally by: Riedle Originally by: Rutger Centemus Originally by: Riedle 4% increase in ROF = 4% increase in DPS over time. KISS Keeping it simple: look up Tippia's explanation. IRL you would be correct, in Eve you're mistaken. Leaving the last "S" up to you to apply where applicable ... Seriously, getting caught up in decimal points? lol Unless one wants to be purposefully obtuse and pedantic, it makes no difference. ... it gives wrong idea. at some point it stops being about decimals and it starts to make difference. for example, EVE's 50% increase in ROF is not 50% increase in dps. ________________________________ : Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel - [jedi handwave] "There is no spoon."
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:51:00 - [44] Originally by: Riedle How does decreasing the cycle time of your guns by 4% not equal a circa 4% increase in your ROF? [à] Seriously, getting caught up in decimal points? It's not so much the decimal point or that 1/0.96 ≈ 1+1.04 ù it's that it's a good idea to remember what you're actually doing since the differences become much more pronounced as the bonuses increase. For instance, by the time you have a 25% "RoF bonus" (in the EVE sense) ù which quite a few ships offer ù you have actually increased your rate of fire by 33%, and that's significantly more than the bonus itself would suggest. If you had a 50% EVE-style RoF bonus, your rate of fire would have doubled, and so on (and a 100% RoF bonus would mean you did infinite damage¦à now all we have to do is convince CCP to give us such a ship ). ¦ àok, not infinite. It would do the entire ammo capacity worth of damage in one shot ù your DPS would be [volley]+[ammo capacity]/10 (for the reload) ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:53:00 - [45] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 19:55:41 Given equal DPS between a high ROF ship and a high volley ship, the high ROF ship will excel only when the volley damage is greatly superior to the amount of HP the target has. Consider 1000 damage volley/10s ROF vs 100 damage volley/1s ROF: - T0: 1000 Damage / 100 damage - T1: 1000 Damage / 200 damage - T2: 1000 Damage / 300 damage - T3: 1000 Damage / 400 damage - T4: 1000 Damage / 500 damage - T5: 1000 Damage / 600 damage - T6: 1000 Damage / 700 damage - T7: 1000 Damage / 800 damage - T8: 1000 Damage / 900 damage - T9: 1000 Damage / 1000 damage - T10: 2000 Damage / 1100 damage Basically: at no point does a high ROF ship exceed the damage done by a high volley damage ship (as long as all other variables are equal). Consider 3 frigs with 2000 HP ea flying towards you. High volley ship fires one volley and blows up one frig. ... time passes ... snooze a bit ... High volley ship fires one volley and misses because the frigs are now too close. High ROF ship fires two volleys and blows up one frig. High ROF ship fires two volleys and blows up one frig. High ROF ship fires one volley and puts the last frig at half armor. Second volley misses because it's too close. -Liang Ed: And yes, I'm aware that ungrouping your guns can mitigate part of this problem. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Flex Nebura Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:15:00 - [46] High damage and low RoF (long time between shots) is better for dealing damage. Ignoring the random chance of wrecking or missing, as we should, low RoF will be better for overcoming most tanking, except passive armor or hull that recieves no support. It is also cheaper in terms of ammo. And has the added bonus of putting you on higher up on kill mails. And if you dont want to ignore the random chances of turrets. Ok faster RoF should hit its average dps sooner than the slower weapons. I just dont think it matters all that much.
Riedle Minmatar Paradox Collective Black Legion.	Posted - 2011.03.29 22:55:00 - [47] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Riedle How does decreasing the cycle time of your guns by 4% not equal a circa 4% increase in your ROF? [à] Seriously, getting caught up in decimal points? It's not so much the decimal point or that 1/0.96 ≈ 1+1.04 ù it's that it's a good idea to remember what you're actually doing since the differences become much more pronounced as the bonuses increase. For instance, by the time you have a 25% "RoF bonus" (in the EVE sense) ù which quite a few ships offer ù you have actually increased your rate of fire by 33%, and that's significantly more than the bonus itself would suggest. If you had a 50% EVE-style RoF bonus, your rate of fire would have doubled, and so on (and a 100% RoF bonus would mean you did infinite damage¦à now all we have to do is convince CCP to give us such a ship ). ¦ àok, not infinite. It would do the entire ammo capacity worth of damage in one shot ù your DPS would be [volley]+[ammoácapacity]/10 (for the reload) ok, true enough - that is a good explanation. I think we can all agree that the higher the ROF on the same guns, the better. Some people seem to be getting caught up on the details of volley and dps when the OP was not comparing the virtues of different weapons systems.
Cyniac Gallente Twilight Star Rangers	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:42:00 - [48] Originally by: Von Kroll Ok, my theory was wrong. Hopefully that puts out the flames. That leads me to a second question then. What advantage does a higher rate of fire convey then? Given that in EvE, volley damage increases as rate of fire decreases and vice versa, what advantage, if any, does a weapon with a higher rate of fire convey in PvP? There is one effect that shorter cycle times has - it allows you to switch targets faster as you need to as you need to wait for a cycle to finish before you can switch targets.
ThirdEyeBlenny	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:14:00 - [49] This is how I have constructed fanfest to be in my mind... I'm sat in 'The English Pub' in downtown Reykjavik, with ten of you dorks, debating the breasts off the theoretical damage increase, which is potentially inherent in a 4 percent rate of fire bonus, while drinking ridiculously overpriced ale. It all gets nasty as the arguments over the propper application of the mathematical principle of statistics begin to heat up, and you all start glassing each other. I go back to the hotel, a broken man, and cry**** into a sock. The end.
Dr Sheepbringer Gallente Halinallen veroparatiisi Inglorious Carebears	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:27:00 - [50] Uff...the moar bullets in space, the moar potential damage you will make (i mean, you can miss them all..). Basically the RoF helps. Period. Rails just suck that to overcome the suckyness...one would have to get a RoF of 2-3x at least... Originally by: CCP Shadow Dr. Sheepbringer -- It's not that kind of horn.
Seriously Bored Minmatar	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:16:00 - [51] Originally by: Dr Sheepbringer Rails just suck that to overcome the suckyness...one would have to get a RoF of 2-3x at least... Somehow I don't think doubling or tripling the DPS of Rail Guns will solve imbalance. Or if you take your statement at face value, having them fire once every 28 seconds wouldn't solve much either. ùùùùù Originally by: CCP Big Dumb Object When I nerf something, it takes 2-3 months for your dreams to be crushed.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.