| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ELECTR0FREAK
   |
Posted - 2005.07.08 07:00:00 -
[1]
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 08/07/2005 07:00:22
I've FIGURED IT OUT! At least, the formula I'm using supports all of my data within a fraction of a decimal place in damage, which I pin down to rounding and error in data.
So, without further ado:
First, there are conditions that the formula must adhere to. Keep these in mind when making your final calculation.
If Target Signature Radius >= Missile Explosion Radius, then ( Target Signature Radius / Missile Explosion Radius ) = 1.0
If Target Velocity <= Missile Explosion Velocity, then ( Target Velocity - Missile Explosion Velocity ) = 0.0
Missile Damage * (Target Signature Radius / Missile Explosion Radius) * e^( -1 * (Target Velocity - Missile Explosion Velocity )^2 / (1500^2) ) = Final Missile Damage
This is definately too complicated to do casually, but I'm sure Mr. M will be happy to incorporate this equation into his missile damage calculator at www.evegeek.com
Anyhow, in conclusion, I'd like to thank everyone on this thread who's helped thus far (especially Petrus for getting me onto the Gaussian Curve route), and I'd also like to thank Badri and CDLPeacemaker for suffering through all my testing.
I also take donations in the form of isk, don't forget the zero in my name... 
|
Monitio
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 07:12:00 -
[2]
meh, try curing cancer...
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 07:23:00 -
[3]
It probably wouldn't take as long as I spent solving this goddamn puzzle .
But in all honesty, couldn't have done it without the help of a few key members of the community who put me on the right track. 
|
MrRookie
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 07:30:00 -
[4]
Nice. I`ll remember to convo you when i need help with my homework 
_____________________________________________
\o/
I got a siggy... 
WTB 3x Medium Modulated Pulse Energy Beams
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=139877 |
Dexter Rast
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 07:33:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 08/07/2005 07:00:22
I've FIGURED IT OUT! At least, the formula I'm using supports all of my data within a fraction of a decimal place in damage, which I pin down to rounding and error in data.
So, without further ado:
First, there are conditions that the formula must adhere to. Keep these in mind when making your final calculation.
If Target Signature Radius >= Missile Explosion Radius, then ( Target Signature Radius / Missile Explosion Radius ) = 1.0
If Target Velocity <= Missile Explosion Velocity, then ( Target Velocity - Missile Explosion Velocity ) = 0.0
Missile Damage * (Target Signature Radius / Missile Explosion Radius) * e^( -1 * (Target Velocity - Missile Explosion Velocity )^2 / (1500^2) ) = Final Missile Damage
This is definately too complicated to do casually, but I'm sure Mr. M will be happy to incorporate this equation into his missile damage calculator at www.evegeek.com
Anyhow, in conclusion, I'd like to thank everyone on this thread who's helped thus far (especially Petrus for getting me onto the Gaussian Curve route), and I'd also like to thank Badri and CDLPeacemaker for suffering through all my testing.
I also take donations in the form of isk, don't forget the zero in my name...
just play the game
---------------------------------------------
|
Blind Fear
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 07:35:00 -
[6]
Awesome.
Time to break out matlab and do some skill/damage graphs.
|
Malacore
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 08:08:00 -
[7]
Ah...
...Electr0freak, proving daily that I have more of a life then someone, atleast.
|
Hellspawn666
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 08:13:00 -
[8]
Cool must of took some work ncie to see a maths degree is useful for somthing :) im starting to use these weapons forumlas more nowadays with setup changes since there getting fairly accurate now so good work not that i have much isk spare:)
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 08:16:00 -
[9]
Hehe, was wondering how long it would take 
~Toh'kra Shi'Khran Pawi
A new dimension in Eve Role Play |
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 08:19:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Dexter Rast
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
:words:
just play the game
Actually, to play the game you need to understand the mechanics. People have been ridiculing Caldari for not adapting and whining.
Here is the perfect comeback. Understanding that formula will enable missile users to see what has the BIGGEST effect on damage and they will be able to setup and plan tactics accordingly.
Congrats Electr0Freak. Thats a worthy accomplishment
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 08:22:00 -
[11]
*Warning* Blatant whinge follows (but intended humourously)
As far as I can see the formula is a lot simpler...
If (ship) = "Raven" Then damage = 0
:-)
Really struggling to get my Raven to be a viable ship again...and no I'm NOT talking about soloing level 4's...but would be nice to do SOMEthing in it that doesn't require me having a retinue of 4 or 5 ships just to look after it...
In my defence I DID warn you it was a whinge...
=========================================
* I'm ALLOWED to cheat. I'm a STARSHIP. *
========================================= |
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 08:26:00 -
[12]
Excellent. Well done :)
ex P-TMC
If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU.
|
The Pacman
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 08:32:00 -
[13]
Hi
as i wrote in the other thread (click here) i doubt it is the right formula.
Why? To many computation intensive parts to be handled by a server that has to be done houndreds or thousands of this in a minute.
Maybe we can discuss this in the other thread again - i've posted my result there.
bye
The Pacman
|
elFarto
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 08:40:00 -
[14]
Nice one Electr0, glad you figured it out.
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
Missile Damage * (Target Signature Radius / Missile Explosion Radius) * e^( -1 * (Target Velocity - Missile Explosion Velocity )^2 / (1500^2) ) = Final Missile Damage
1,500? What is this value ment to represent?
Regards
elFarto
|
Urfin
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 09:14:00 -
[15]
Nice work man, but it does seem a little too calc heavy to be real.
And what does the magic 1500 number stand for?
_____________________
Heatsink - Ship efficiency calculation proggie |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 09:17:00 -
[16]
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 08/07/2005 09:19:54
The 1500 is just some wierd constant I found after a lot of playing hot and cold with a graph in my calculator. I got the curve right with the first part, but that 1500 stretches the graph left and right. So I just tried high values, low values, and narrowed down on it until I hit the right damage results.
Essentially, as a target travels faster and faster, missile damage decreases in a concave down shape, until the target velocity hits explosion velocity + 1500m/s, at which point the graph begins it's turn into concave up.
|
Petrus Illyusanov
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 09:19:00 -
[17]
It looks like he fit the width of the guassian and got that. I would have thought they would have used the blast velocity itself...but they might have started with that and then tweeked the numbers.
The main effect here is that it downplays the effect of speed...it basically says you need to be going 1500 m/s faster than the blast velocity to dramatically reduce the damage.
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 09:23:00 -
[18]
Yep. Petrus, thanks again man, you're the one that figured out that it was a Gaussian Curve and put me right on track. Wish I'd thought of that sooner, woulda saved a LOT of time.
|
Colthor
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 09:28:00 -
[19]
Good job on figuring it out
--
OTO are selling Impel and Bustard transport ships. Contact Tsavong Lah or Lacero Callrisian for details.
Like mining, hauling or building? Join OTO! |
elFarto
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 09:29:00 -
[20]
Edited by: elFarto on 08/07/2005 09:29:50
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 08/07/2005 09:19:54
The 1500 is just some wierd constant I found after a lot of playing hot and cold with a graph in my calculator. I got the curve right with the first part, but that 1500 stretches the graph left and right. So I just tried high values, low values, and narrowed down on it until I hit the right damage results.
Essentially, as a target travels faster and faster, missile damage decreases in a concave down shape, until the target velocity hits explosion velocity + 1500m/s, at which point the graph begins it's turn into concave up.
It just so happens the missiles have an attribute that is set to 1,500.
If you look at jide's item db here you'll see that the missiles have a 'AoeFalloff' value. It's set to 1,500 for all missiles and torps. I'm assuming the Aoe means Area of effect.
Hope that helps
Regards
elFarto
|
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 09:30:00 -
[21]
1500 is in a property of missiles called AOERatio (sp?).
Anyway, I've produced a graph using Electro's forumlae. It represents the maximum damage a missile will do against a target that is stationary (V0) and moving at it's maximum speed (VM). It is not modified for skills.
You can find it here. Apologies for the crappiness of the Excel chart.
ex P-TMC
If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU.
|
Petrus Illyusanov
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 09:41:00 -
[22]
Ok then the orgin of the 1500 m/s is answered. This being the case the arguments the formula is wrong due to being too computationally intensive I think hold little water. He fits a guassian curve to his data and independantly produces something which is later confirmed to be correct says to me that the formula is right.
Also each gun shot done over optimal range uses a similier calculation (the chance to hit is a guassian distribution) from what I have seen.
Your welcome, no problem. Data analysis is what I do for a living.
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 09:50:00 -
[23]
Ah HA! Excellent! Doubtless that hidden value is there to allow the devs to insert faction and Tech 2 missiles that will be less effected by target speed! Missile Explosion Velocity + 1500 m/s is also the point where missile damage equals exactly base damage * 0.5. Thus, if the devs were to introduce a missile with a larger number than 1500, it would take higher speeds to achieve the same reduction in missile damage, essentially making them hit faster targets at less of a damage penalty.
Awesome! :)
|
Seramis
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 10:56:00 -
[24]
It seems there is something wrong with the missiles atm. I launched torpedos against a cruiser that was moving, made some hits with around 140 - 150damage each torp. Then i launched torpedos against a cruiser that did not move, overview showed 0m/s) and i only did 114 damage. I expected an increased value of speed slows down.
|
Mr M
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 10:59:00 -
[25]
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
This is definately too complicated to do casually, but I'm sure Mr. M will be happy to incorporate this equation into his missile damage calculator at www.evegeek.com
Fixed and done. Now I'm off to bed again
EVEgeek Ore calculator, Mineral Index, and more |
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 11:22:00 -
[26]
Originally by: FireFoxx80
1500 is in a property of missiles called AOERatio (sp?).
Anyway, I've produced a graph using Electro's forumlae. It represents the maximum damage a missile will do against a target that is stationary (V0) and moving at it's maximum speed (VM). It is not modified for skills.
You can find it here. Apologies for the crappiness of the Excel chart.
Just a question... why does moving not affect dmg? mistake or do i read chart wrong. Because it seems that torpedos (and all other stuff) do same dmg no matter if target is moving or not.
|
lythos miralbar
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 11:37:00 -
[27]
You sir are a damm genius.. 1000 outa 10 for persistence.. GJ
And who cares if its is the "right formula", eg exactly the same. If it works surely thats all that matters????
|
slip66
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 11:49:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Monitio
meh, try curing cancer...
lol
|
elFarto
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 12:07:00 -
[29]
Edited by: elFarto on 08/07/2005 12:09:06
Originally by: LUKEC
Just a question... why does moving not affect dmg? mistake or do i read chart wrong. Because it seems that torpedos (and all other stuff) do same dmg no matter if target is moving or not.
You right, on both counts. Speed does effect damage, and the chart shows no difference in damage between V0 and VM (except the Suttle and Ibis vs. a torp).
There is a simple explaination for this. The ships aren't going fast enough to out run the explosion velocity.
In the Ibis vs. torp example, the torp has a explosion velocity of 250m/sec and the Ibis has a max velocity of 260m/sec. Plugging the values into the missile equation gives you:
Damage = base damage * MIN(ship sig/explosion radius,1) * EXP(-1 * (MAX(ship speed-explosion velocity,0)^2) / (1500^2))
450 * MIN(45/250,1) * EXP(-1 * (MAX(260-250,0)^2) / (1500^2)) = 50.6
Hmmmm...somethings wrong here, either FireFoxx80's graph or my calculation.
But anyway, speed does make a difference, you just need alot of it to make a big difference.
Regards
elFarto
|
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 12:12:00 -
[30]
Edited by: FireFoxx80 on 08/07/2005 12:18:50
Edited by: FireFoxx80 on 08/07/2005 12:13:11
Originally by: LUKEC
Originally by: FireFoxx80
1500 is in a property of missiles called AOERatio (sp?).
Anyway, I've produced a graph using Electro's forumlae. It represents the maximum damage a missile will do against a target that is stationary (V0) and moving at it's maximum speed (VM). It is not modified for skills.
You can find it here. Apologies for the crappiness of the Excel chart.
Just a question... why does moving not affect dmg? mistake or do i read chart wrong. Because it seems that torpedos (and all other stuff) do same dmg no matter if target is moving or not.
These are for the maximum speed of the ship, in only very few cases (shuttle and raptor) does the ships standard maximum exceed the explosion velocity of a torpedo (250m/s).
Afterburners will increase this speed, and hence decrease the effect of the explosion velocity. But MWD's will increase your signature radius also, you may be able to out run the missile, but if you don't you're more of a target.
I will do another chart to better explain the effect of ship's speed.
el farto, look at the explosion radius in your equation, it's 500, not 250
ex P-TMC
If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU.
|
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 13:21:00 -
[31]
Ok, I've done some charting myself and have come to the following conclusions...
Ship Size is the biggest factor affecting the amount of damage done by a missile. If you fired a torpedo at a frigate that wasn't moving, you would do roughly 20% of the torpedo's maximum damage; firing it at a industrial that wasn't moving would do about 60% of the maximum damage. Conversly, Rockets to 100% of their damage to any ship.
The Guided Missile Precision skill decreases the penalty of firing larger missiles at smaller ships. But only for Light, Heavy, and Cruise missiles. Not Torpedos , and Rockets.
Ship Speed has a lesser effect, well kind of. We instantly rule out that if your target is traveling faster than the missile, it will not hit; but since the patch, they will have to travel very fast indeed.
Secondly, if your target is traveling below your missiles' explosive velocity, then only the ship size rule above comes into play.
So, only if your target is in the magic region of being above your missiles' explosive velocity, but below the missiles' velocity; then an exponential amount of damage comes into play. At extreme levels, say if your target was flying at 99% of the missile's velocity, then they will suffer approximately 70% of the missiles' total damage, not taking into account any of the size rule above.
The Target Navigation Prediction skill can decrease the impact of this effect.
Finally a note on MWD's, remember that as well as increasing your top speed, you will also increase your signature radius and hence the damage done by incoming missiles. eg. Do not mount a MWD on a cruiser in an attempt to outrun torpedos.
ex P-TMC
If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU.
|
Natasha Kerensky
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 13:29:00 -
[32]
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 08/07/2005 07:00:22
I've FIGURED IT OUT! At least, the formula I'm using supports all of my data within a fraction of a decimal place in damage, which I pin down to rounding and error in data.
So, without further ado:
First, there are conditions that the formula must adhere to. Keep these in mind when making your final calculation.
If Target Signature Radius >= Missile Explosion Radius, then ( Target Signature Radius / Missile Explosion Radius ) = 1.0
If Target Velocity <= Missile Explosion Velocity, then ( Target Velocity - Missile Explosion Velocity ) = 0.0
Missile Damage * (Target Signature Radius / Missile Explosion Radius) * e^( -1 * (Target Velocity - Missile Explosion Velocity )^2 / (1500^2) ) = Final Missile Damage
This is definately too complicated to do casually, but I'm sure Mr. M will be happy to incorporate this equation into his missile damage calculator at www.evegeek.com
Anyhow, in conclusion, I'd like to thank everyone on this thread who's helped thus far (especially Petrus for getting me onto the Gaussian Curve route), and I'd also like to thank Badri and CDLPeacemaker for suffering through all my testing.
I also take donations in the form of isk, don't forget the zero in my name...
You can crank out formulas like this for EVE but ill bet you failed high school geometry
------------
FORUMZ! Because none of us, is as dumb as all of us |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 13:46:00 -
[33]
Actually, I've failed Calculus I three times. Last semester included.
Most of that has to do with the fact that I spend too much time messing around with stuff like this and not doing my homework.
|
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 13:47:00 -
[34]
In his other post, he mentioned calculus, 3 times.
Myself, I'm about to start my third try at calc :)
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 14:51:00 -
[35]
Edited by: j0sephine on 08/07/2005 14:51:57
"meh, try curing cancer..."
seconded ;s
very useful calculation... plugged few numbers in it to check results reported in yesterday's thread about interceptors vs light and heavies.
Quick and dirty rule of thumb seems to be: if you're flying a frigate that can't go faster than 2.5 km/sec with MWD on, do not use MWD around a ship firing heavy missiles. You'll get way more damage reduction from your signature size being much smaller than explosion radius, than you'd get from getting hit for full damage with velocity reduction applied. (you'll also get hit much harder than a light missile could smack you) If you *can* fly faster than 2.5 km/sec with MWD, go for it.
Against light missiles, if you're flying regular frigate then MWD doesn't really cause you receive more damage, might as well use it to take advantage of velocity damage reduction. If flying an inty... without MWD you're going to get ~50% damage reduction from light missiles thanks to small signature, but on the other hand again if you can move faster than ~2.5 km/sec with MWD on, then damage reduction from high velocity outweights that... so mix and match as applicable, i guess. :s
As sidenote, fully trained Target Navigation Prediction means ~20 hp damage increase per missile to a target which moves faster than missile's explosion velocity... for light and heavies anyway. Not bored enough to check cruises and stuff.
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 15:34:00 -
[36]
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
Actually, I've failed Calculus I three times. Last semester included.
Most of that has to do with the fact that I spend too much time messing around with stuff like this and not doing my homework.
Stop using computer algebra systems.
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 18:14:00 -
[37]
So if I'm understanding this correctly, a ship using an AB that can go over 1500 m/s is the best off versus missiles?
~Toh'kra Shi'Khran Pawi
A new dimension in Eve Role Play |
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2005.07.08 19:27:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Monitio
meh, try curing cancer...
search for vitamin b17 and ask yourself why hunzas never get cancer ... so much for apricot seeds being poisones cuz hunzas eat them each day ...
regarding this missile calculation ... awesome good job, very much appreciated!
Greetings Grim |
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2005.07.09 16:09:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
So if I'm understanding this correctly, a ship using an AB that can go over 1500 m/s is the best off versus missiles?
Using an AB, if you use a MWD you just light up like a christmas tree to missiles.
If your ship is traveling faster than the explosive velocity of a missile (2000m/s for rockets, going to 250m/s for torpedos), then the damage falls off exponentially depending on your speed above that explosive velocity.
Your ship size has a far greater and easier impact on the damage done by missiles.
ex P-TMC
If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU.
|
Ortu Konsinni
|
Posted - 2005.07.09 16:15:00 -
[40]
Math mumbo jumbo too hard for Ortu *drool*
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.07.09 21:59:00 -
[41]
Ah, but I'm sure even Ortu can use Mr M's Missile Damage Calculator which has been updated with the new formula.
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Deadzone
|
Posted - 2005.07.10 00:13:00 -
[42]
Originally by: j0sephine
Edited by: j0sephine on 08/07/2005 14:51:57
"meh, try curing cancer..."
seconded ;s
very useful calculation... plugged few numbers in it to check results reported in yesterday's thread about interceptors vs light and heavies.
Quick and dirty rule of thumb seems to be: if you're flying a frigate that can't go faster than 2.5 km/sec with MWD on, do not use MWD around a ship firing heavy missiles. You'll get way more damage reduction from your signature size being much smaller than explosion radius, than you'd get from getting hit for full damage with velocity reduction applied. (you'll also get hit much harder than a light missile could smack you) If you *can* fly faster than 2.5 km/sec with MWD, go for it.
Against light missiles, if you're flying regular frigate then MWD doesn't really cause you receive more damage, might as well use it to take advantage of velocity damage reduction. If flying an inty... without MWD you're going to get ~50% damage reduction from light missiles thanks to small signature, but on the other hand again if you can move faster than ~2.5 km/sec with MWD on, then damage reduction from high velocity outweights that... so mix and match as applicable, i guess. :s
As sidenote, fully trained Target Navigation Prediction means ~20 hp damage increase per missile to a target which moves faster than missile's explosion velocity... for light and heavies anyway. Not bored enough to check cruises and stuff.
Those minimum velocity values are thrown out the window if you are up against Caldari ships. They have velocity bonuses. Just FYI.
DZ
Vice-Admiral
Executive Commanding Officer
Military Command
Hadead Drive Yards |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.07.10 02:04:00 -
[43]
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 10/07/2005 02:05:36
Incorrect.
The missile explosion speed attribute that dictates how well a missile does damage to a fast-moving target is totally seperate from the missile velocity attribute. Caldari ships such as the Raven, Caracal, Cerberus, and Crow may make missiles go faster, and thus travel father, but it does NOT have any impact on missile damage.
Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't post as if you do, it just spreads misinformation.
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
JoCool
|
Posted - 2005.07.26 10:46:00 -
[44]
This equation is partly wrong. Unfortunately, I might add.
There's another factor in the equation and that has to be distance, flight time or traveled distance.
My Missiles do more damage to smaller targets than their own size the further the distance between the two engaging ships is at the point of launching the missile.
|
Aragis Starlancer
|
Posted - 2005.07.27 23:26:00 -
[45]
haha why dont you help me for my physic exam after you finish your scientific experiment
|
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.07.27 23:28:00 -
[46]
Originally by: JoCool
This equation is partly wrong. Unfortunately, I might add.
There's another factor in the equation and that has to be distance, flight time or traveled distance.
My Missiles do more damage to smaller targets than their own size the further the distance between the two engaging ships is at the point of launching the missile.
How much more?
Any rat using an MWD now will get hit for much more damage, and I believe they turn it on quite a bit more when they are far away.
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.07.27 23:30:00 -
[47]
Originally by: JoCool
This equation is partly wrong. Unfortunately, I might add.
There's another factor in the equation and that has to be distance, flight time or traveled distance.
My Missiles do more damage to smaller targets than their own size the further the distance between the two engaging ships is at the point of launching the missile.
That makes no sense.
~Sobe
Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss
Combat Pilot and looking for a corp? Check AGSYN out here |
CDLPeacemaker
|
Posted - 2005.07.28 03:54:00 -
[48]
THey turned their MWDs on and didnt go fast. Thats why they blow up like that.
|
Prand
|
Posted - 2005.07.28 04:03:00 -
[49]
Originally by: "FireFoxx80"
Ship Size is the biggest factor affecting the amount of damage done by a missile
I believe this goes both ways, that's why a frigate firing cruise missiles can deal 250+ damage (with my, crappy missile skills) to another frigate
|
Uggster
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 19:46:00 -
[50]
Nice one ELECTROFREAK and other unsung but equally brilliant maths dudes
Loads of people have given their knee-jerk reaction to the new way of missiles working (or not depending on the player) but there are few that have tried to actually help by saying anything really worth reading, ELECTRO and others of his ilk put aside the reactions of the lizard brain and use their higher functions
I have such a feeble grasp of maths I need a calc if I run out of fingers but the explanations that go with the formulers really help.
Respect to the man with the slide rule 
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 20:05:00 -
[51]
Originally by: JoCool
This equation is partly wrong. Unfortunately, I might add.
There's another factor in the equation and that has to be distance, flight time or traveled distance.
My Missiles do more damage to smaller targets than their own size the further the distance between the two engaging ships is at the point of launching the missile.
You're partly wrong, I might add. The formula works. I know that for a fact. HOWEVER, devs added in signature change when NPCs MWD. Now, I got a lot of flak from people concerning how their missiles seemed to do random damage, sometimes hitting a slow-moving NPC for large amounts of damage.
So I went and did a little testing. What I found is that, sometimes, even when they're not going super fast, NPCs have the signature radius as if they were MWDing. This seems to switch on and off rather rapidly sometimes, meaning you can hit it for a lot of damage with one missile, and a few seconds later hit for very little damage.
So, I'm not sure what exactly is going on with the NPCs. Maybe the MWD script for them has a flaw in it, causing them to have the signature blow up when they aren't supposed to. Or perhaps, they're MWDing but for some reason don't accelerate like they should. Maybe its even intended to give missile users a bit of a break, that, I can't be sure.
I do wish somehow that a MWDing target would get some kind of symbol next to it up on the overview so that you can see that it's MWDing, even if it's not whizzing along at over 1km/sec
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
shakaZ XV
|
Posted - 2005.08.03 02:03:00 -
[52]
Edited by: shakaZ XV on 03/08/2005 02:10:12
/me looks confused 
/me is glad to be a turret-user 
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
So if I'm understanding this correctly, a ship using an AB that can go over 1500 m/s is the best off versus missiles?
edit: nm i think i got it wrong 
=========================
One small step for me, one giant leap for ALT-kind. |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.08.03 04:53:00 -
[53]
Damnit, I should never have put a link to this thread in my sig Ahhh god I'm such a forum *****...
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Christopher Scott
|
Posted - 2005.08.03 05:03:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Christopher Scott on 03/08/2005 05:03:47
At extreme velocities, MWD > AB by a mile in damage reduction.
I thought ELECTROREAK already pointed out, there is a bell curve with explosion velocity. Once you cross a certain threshold, the missile damage gets reduced by incredible amounts. It's the reason why an interceptor can reduce the damage of a Cerebrus firing assaults, with level 4 skills, to around 4-6 damage a missile. :-P
|
Vordor
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 07:51:00 -
[55]
This is indeed very good work!!! Was woundering if any 1 knows how much the MWD increases the sig radius by?
What would a a frig's sig radius be after MWD if the original was 30 ???
Cheers :D
__________________________________________________
The first step in winning a war is to have scientists to build and design the war machine!
Freedom for our people!!
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 08:56:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Grey Area on 10/08/2005 09:04:29
I'm trying to enter the formula into Excel, but it seems to be giving some odd results...can someone confirm the following is correct please?
=C3*(C7/C4)*(EXP(-1*((C8-C5)*(C8-C5)/(1500*1500))))
Where;
C3 = missile damage
C7 = Target Sig Radius
C4 = Missile Explosion Radius
C8 = Target Velocity
C5 = Missile Explosion Velocity
Rather than electrofreak's method, I have conditions set so that
If Target Signature Radius >= Missile Explosion Radius Then Missile Explosion Radius = Target Signature Radius (which means one divided by the other = 1.0)
Translates in Excel as =IF(C7>=C4,C4,C7)
If Target Velocity <= Missile Explosion Velocity, then Missile Explosion Velocity = Target Velocity (so again, one minus the other will be = 0.0)
Translates in Excel as =IF(C8<=C5,C8,C5)
It seems to give results that are way too high...have I missed a bracket or something?
Edit: It looks much more sensible if I change the missile velocity formula to be "less than" rather than "greater than". i.e. =IF(C7<=C4,C4,C7). Was there perhaps an error in the original post?
Thanks!
=========================================
* I'm ALLOWED to cheat. I'm a STARSHIP. *
========================================= |
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 09:29:00 -
[57]
Well, I think my correction is right...it gives the rough pattern that I'm seeing in the game.
It also shows up just how dumb this option is...for instance, the Minmatar shuttle, with a signature radius of just 7 metres, is in the happy position of being all but immune to missile damage. IF my calculation is right (and it's a big if*) then the range of damage is from 10.25 for a standard missile, down to 7 points for a cruise or heavy missile.
Remind me again, turret users, how many points can you hit a shuttle for with a large turret?
* I'm calling in to question only my ability with Excel, not Electrofreak's excellent work.
=========================================
* I'm ALLOWED to cheat. I'm a STARSHIP. *
========================================= |
Vordor
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 09:54:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Grey Area
Edited by: Grey Area on 10/08/2005 09:04:29
I'm trying to enter the formula into Excel, but it seems to be giving some odd results...can someone confirm the following is correct please?
=C3*(C7/C4)*(EXP(-1*((C8-C5)*(C8-C5)/(1500*1500))))
=c3*MIN(c7/c4,1)*EXP(-1*(MAX(c8-c5,0)^2)/(1500^2)))
That should work, sorry didnt have time to check it at work 
__________________________________________________
The first step in winning a war is to have scientists to build and design the war machine!
Freedom for our people!!
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 10:36:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Grey Area on 10/08/2005 10:38:14
Originally by: Vordor
=c3*MIN(c7/c4,1)*EXP(-1*(MAX(c8-c5,0)^2)/(1500^2)))
That should work, sorry didnt have time to check it at work
Much neater than mine, Mr. Excel Genius :-)
Gives the same result as mine, but ONLY when I've corrected the Target Radius/Sig Radius condition as I mentioned above...maybe Elctr0 can comment?
=========================================
* I'm ALLOWED to cheat. I'm a STARSHIP. *
========================================= |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 12:57:00 -
[60]
Yes, your calculations are correct. See, as long and convoluted as my missile formula appears, it really is just 2 parts: the signature radius penalty calculation and the target velocity penalty calculation. These are both multiplied together to give the total damage penalty which is multiplied by the missile damage to give the final missile damage when it hits the target.
Since we're talking about a stationary shuttle, you can completely toss the whole target velocity penalty part of the calculation. Heck, you can ALWAYS toss that part of the calculation if the target is traveling slower than the missile's explosion velocity. Same applies if target signature radius >= missile explosion radius, and this is why my equation, as complicated as it seems, isn't as server intensive as people think, since the entire formula isn't always used (only when you're shooting big missiles at a small target thats going really fast is the entire thing used).
Anyways (sorry about the tangent there), all you're really looking at when evaluating that shuttle is: Missile Damage * (7 / Missile explosion radius). Thus:
Rocket: 25 * 7 / 20 = 8.75 damage
Standard 75 * 7 / 50 = 10.5
Heavy 150 * 7 / 150 = 7 damage,
Cruise 300 * 7 / 300 = 7 damage
Torpedo 450 * 7 / 400 = 7.875 damage.
On an unmoving shuttle. If that shuttle goes over 500m/s, cruise will hit for even less. If that shuttle goes over 250m/s torpedos will hit for even less (this is because they'll be going faster than explosion velocity, and the second part of the formula will play in).
So, bottom line... something needs to be figured out here. I don't know exactly what, but while turrets can miss, requiring 27 standard missiles to kill an unmoving shuttle (and thats BEFORE resists!) is sorta ridiculous. Especially when we all know any frigate turret will do the job much better. (Or even a BS turret for goodness sakes!)
I think the best solution would be to reduce the explosion radius of all missiles to the (more or less) average signature of all ships in it's intended class. Then, by training the missile skills, you're making those missiles more effective against smaller ships, not just allowing them to hit their intended target for full damage.
10m for Rockets (to hit shuttles and pods with)
40m for Standards
125m for Heavy
250m for Cruise (meaning they're as effective as Heavy versus Cruisers, but still pack more punch versus anything larger than a BC)
400m for Torpedos (remains the same, however I'd like to see explosion velocity increased)
Eh, but this is just an idea. Personally, I hate the idea that in order to actually get our missiles to hit their intended targets full force, we have to train the missile skills. We shouldn't be training skills to reduce/remove a penalty that occurs by default in an intended situation.
For example. Look at the signature resolution of frigate turrets. 40m. Cruiser turrets. 125m. Battleship turrets, 400m. Explosion radius essentially is signature resolution for turrets, while explosion velocity is the missile version of tracking speed.
So why are Light and Heavy Missiles 50m and 150m explosion radius respectively? Torpedos seem in line. Cruise are sorta a hybrid heavy missile and torpedo so it makes sense that their explosion radius should fall between. Rockets give missile users a chance to kill very small signature things like pods and shuttles (though they should have much higher velocity, don't even get me started).
So cmon CCP, tweak your missile numbers a bit. No, I don't want my frig-pwning Raven back, I just don't see why I'm training these new skills to remove a penalty that shouldn't be there...
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 13:08:00 -
[61]
Sorry Electr0, I feel I've now hijacked your purely mathematical thread into another missile whine...
...but - you're right about the odd sig radii. You're also right about the Cruise missile being an odd Hybrid. I posted in another thread that missiles should be brought into line re size classes (another good example is the Cerberus..it gets a bonus for firing standard and heavies....but standards should be a FRIGATE weapon!).
My suggestion would be to differentiate between rockets and missiles...
Frigate : Rockets and Standard Missiles
Cruiser : Heavy Rockets and Heavy Missiles
Battleship : Rocket Bombs and Torpedoes
Rockets : short range, higher rate of fire, higher velocity to target, higher explosion velocity (i.e. less sig radius and speed penalty)
Missiles : long range, slower rate of fire, slower velocity, lower explosion velocity
i.e. give missile users a TRUE short/long range option. Rockets would have to be fired from rocket launchers, missiles from missile launchers.
It would also tidy up that whereas every other weapon class has 6 weapon sizes (split nicely into 2 per ship size), missile users have to spread five sizes over the three classes. You don't need Electr0freak to tell you that five into three won't go.
=========================================
* I'm ALLOWED to cheat. I'm a STARSHIP. *
========================================= |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 13:24:00 -
[62]
While I definately like the idea, my worry is that CCP wouldn't be willing to dive that deep back into revamping missiles. Game developers REALLY don't like to backpedal over something they've already "fixed" unless its absolutely necessary. And while your proposed new missile lauchers / ammo seem like a good fix, I doubt CCP is willing to go back and spend time fiddling wtih missiles again. 
So, IMO, we're more or less stuck with the system we've got. The problem I'm seeing is, that in reducing missiles versatility, it seems as if CCP has made them less versatile than turrets. And turret users, don't give me the tracking speed arguement. Turrets have an advantage at long range (easy tracking and instant damage) while launchers have an advantage at short range (no tracking problems at point blank). Causes you to wonder why CCP keeps trying to make missiles long-range, right?
But back to the point, I think we really just need to find a way to convince CCP that the whole missile situation can be fixed with a few tweaks of their database numbers (which, while it may not be the BEST solution, is feasible).
Ballistic Control IIs will also help the situation a bit, just the trick then becomes not making Siege Launchers the new 1400mm Artillery...
Bah. Balance. Its such a pain in the butt.
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 13:30:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Grey Area on 10/08/2005 13:31:25
This is very nearly a real time conversation. Don't we have anything better to do?
I agree - best result is to tweak the system...as well as BCU II's, the introduction of hardwiring implants for missiles (to match the turret ones) and some mid slot modules to maybe reduce the effect of sig radius and/or speed on damage could be enough without any further tweaking of the equation.
=========================================
* I'm ALLOWED to cheat. I'm a STARSHIP. *
========================================= |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 13:44:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Grey Area
Edited by: Grey Area on 10/08/2005 13:31:25
This is very nearly a real time conversation. Don't we have anything better to do?
Thanks for reminding me, its 9:30 am here... perhaps I should head to bed
But yes, you also mentioned a couple other good points that totally slipped my mind. Target Painters currently help reduce signature radius, but it would be also be cool to have a Missile Navigation Processor (like a Tracking Comp) that increases explosion velocity and such, or a module that increases missile velocity at the expense of flight time (meaning range stays the same but they become more useable at range in PVP) etc. I'd also like to see some low slot versions... much like a Tracking Enhancer, for those of us who have too much already invested in our mid slots.
Good ideas, they really are, and they could, as you say, fix the problem without involving the statistics being tweaked too much. New modules don't seem particularly difficult to develop either, just another chunk of code somewhere and a little graphic icon to draw up.
Anyhow... I'm going to go crash... my sleep deprived brain is causing me to ramble.
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Vordor
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 13:44:00 -
[65]
Original:
=c3*MIN(c7/c4,1)*EXP(-1*(MAX(c8-c5,0)^2)/(1500^2)))
Not sure if this one is right, but im in my lunch brake
This does the above but adds in the bigger than or = statment.
So if missile explosion > enemy sig u get 100% damage if not u get the ratio. Same with speed, will test it when i get home.
C3 = missile damage
C7 = Target Sig Radius
C4 = Missile Explosion Radius
C8 = Target Velocity
C5 = Missile Explosion Velocity
=c3*IF(c7<=c4,0,MIN(c7/c4,1))*EXP(-1*IF(c8<=c5,0,(MAX(c8-c5,1)^2)/(1500^2)))
and yah i agree the system or concept aint to bad, simple and effective but the numbers might need some loving...
__________________________________________________
The first step in winning a war is to have scientists to build and design the war machine!
Freedom for our people!!
|
Orin Malbaum
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 13:52:00 -
[66]
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 08/07/2005 07:00:22
I've FIGURED IT OUT! At least, the formula I'm using supports all of my data within a fraction of a decimal place in damage, which I pin down to rounding and error in data.
So, without further ado:
First, there are conditions that the formula must adhere to. Keep these in mind when making your final calculation.
If Target Signature Radius >= Missile Explosion Radius, then ( Target Signature Radius / Missile Explosion Radius ) = 1.0
If Target Velocity <= Missile Explosion Velocity, then ( Target Velocity - Missile Explosion Velocity ) = 0.0
Missile Damage * (Target Signature Radius / Missile Explosion Radius) * e^( -1 * (Target Velocity - Missile Explosion Velocity )^2 / (1500^2) ) = Final Missile Damage
This is definately too complicated to do casually, but I'm sure Mr. M will be happy to incorporate this equation into his missile damage calculator at www.evegeek.com
Anyhow, in conclusion, I'd like to thank everyone on this thread who's helped thus far (especially Petrus for getting me onto the Gaussian Curve route), and I'd also like to thank Badri and CDLPeacemaker for suffering through all my testing.
I also take donations in the form of isk, don't forget the zero in my name...
Yeeeeeeees, i understand all that. Congratulations anyway, that lot dwarfs my mathematical capability as an Obelisk does a pod lol. Grats.
|
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 14:18:00 -
[67]
Just to throw into the mix...
There should be 'Light Assault' launchers, only capable of launching rockets/defenders.
This should help rebalance both the Kestrel, and bring defenders back into line. At the moment, defenders are impossible to realistically mount on a frigate as the only launcher with a high ROF (assault) takes 40PG.
Possibly one of the 23 # ex: P-TMC | USAC |
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 14:59:00 -
[68]
On a side note, this is the missile's equivalent to the tracking calculations for turrets, which are just as complicated, and have to be figured for every turret fire. I see it as quite resonable for this to be the server's equation.
Also, the Cerberus gets a bonus to light missiles because the Assault Launcher (firing Light missiles) is a cruiser weapon.
Harry Voyager
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 15:09:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Harry Voyager
Also, the Cerberus gets a bonus to light missiles because the Assault Launcher (firing Light missiles) is a cruiser weapon.
Junk. Compare a medium turret's DPS to a small turret. Now compare the DPS of assault launchers firing light missiles to standard launchers firing the same. Light missiles are very much a frig weapon, regardless of what they are fired from.
And, while we're at it Mr. Minmatar, as projectiles can ALSO deal all type of damage by switching ammo, how would you feel if the Muninn's bonus was "5% damage per level when using Titanium Sabot ammo"? Hardly realistic, I hope you agree.
=========================================
* I'm ALLOWED to cheat. I'm a STARSHIP. *
========================================= |
Vordor
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 16:26:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Vordor on 10/08/2005 16:34:37
Edited by: Vordor on 10/08/2005 16:29:02
Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Harry Voyager
Also, the Cerberus gets a bonus to light missiles because the Assault Launcher (firing Light missiles) is a cruiser weapon.
Junk. Compare a medium turret's DPS to a small turret. Now compare the DPS of assault launchers firing light missiles to standard launchers firing the same. Light missiles are very much a frig weapon, regardless of what they are fired from.
Which medium turret?? they are category based, in lasers there are quad light lasers, mediums and heavy (all medium class) each of course is significantly diffrent.
What quad light lacks in range and power makes up for it in ROF and tracking, making it ideal against fast targets. Mediums beams are the mid point and heavy are well heavy what they lack in tracking and ROF they make up with damage and range. Heavies are almost useless vs fast ships.
Just wanted to point this out, i am not saying Missiles are fine or they are crap, just stating a point. I will leave my judgment till i have more data and maybe a graph or 2
One more thing, i usually go for more ROF weopens than damage, since in turrets due to misses you tend to get an overall better result since you fire for example 2 times when a heavier gun would fire 1 giving you a better chance of hitting. With heavier guns when you miss you lost the whole damage for the duration of the ROF.
Also if your compare ROF with damage, some weaker guns actually make more damage due to the ROF then heavier ones. Will post details on that point as soon as i can
Quote:
And, while we're at it Mr. Minmatar, as projectiles can ALSO deal all type of damage by switching ammo, how would you feel if the Muninn's bonus was "5% damage per level when using Titanium Sabot ammo"? Hardly realistic, I hope you agree.
a lot of ships have that, like the maladiction, it has bonus to EM missiles only. I dont like the idea of having a certain bonus to 1 ammo type either.
__________________________________________________
The first step in winning a war is to have scientists to build and design the war machine!
Freedom for our people!!
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 16:47:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Harry Voyager
Also, the Cerberus gets a bonus to light missiles because the Assault Launcher (firing Light missiles) is a cruiser weapon.
Junk. Compare a medium turret's DPS to a small turret. Now compare the DPS of assault launchers firing light missiles to standard launchers firing the same. Light missiles are very much a frig weapon, regardless of what they are fired from.
[...]
I'd love to see a frigate fitting a 50 MW grid weapon as its main. Aside from NPCs and idots, I mean.
|
Vordor
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 17:08:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Harry Voyager
Also, the Cerberus gets a bonus to light missiles because the Assault Launcher (firing Light missiles) is a cruiser weapon.
Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage and 10% bonus to Missile velocity per level
Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus Light and Heavy Missile flight time and 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire per level
__________________________________________________
The first step in winning a war is to have scientists to build and design the war machine!
Freedom for our people!!
|
Mr Dogg
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 17:10:00 -
[73]
Just a quick note on things I've noticed. Those of you who think this is to complex of a formula, consider the math behind flying a ship thru a 3D shpere as we do in EVE constantly. ELECTR0 has done some great things here and In doing so has convinced me and probably many others to NOT give up on missiles.....
well not all together anyways.
From a programing standpoint I think what makes this formula doable n-times a second on the server is the fact that if :
SHIP SIGS >= BLAST RADII that comes to 1. EVE sets to 1 doesnt even need to run calc just a direct comparison
same thing with
Ship velocity < explosive velocity = to 0
since 90% of the time your moving with less velocity then a missiles explosion.
This knocks out a large chunk of what would normaly be a huge computation. SO... right all you disbelivers out there this is a huge computation to pull. Compare it to turrets, about the same, compare it to just pinging each client location, speed, trajectory, time syncronization etc etc...
I know this is off topic but the biggest computational beast on CCP right now is Insta-Bookmarks ever wonder why it takes ages to load emm? cause CCP has HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF BMs on there servers any of which needs to be requested copied or added to server n-times/second.
Thats an area of the game requirering reform but I will not go there as it is off topic again. Great work ELECR0, the answer has been evading alot of us for awile..
QUESTION? why don't some of the new missile skills effect rockets / torps? Anyone know or did I miss post?
____
|
Vordor
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 17:10:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Harry Voyager
I'd love to see a frigate fitting a 50 MW grid weapon as its main.
He ment cruisers fitting light missiles not vice versa
__________________________________________________
The first step in winning a war is to have scientists to build and design the war machine!
Freedom for our people!!
|
Vordor
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 17:17:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Mr Dogg
QUESTION? why don't some of the new missile skills effect rockets / torps? Anyone know or did I miss post?
Torps dont get bonus to target missile precesion which basically make you do more damage on smaller sig radius. That about the only 1 i can think of that CCP did not add bonus too. Im guessing they want to keep torps from poping frigs in 1 and 2 missiles.
Rockets are now pretty darn cool, tried them at close range and i was surprised on how much damage they do!!
Light missiles will do for example 11.68 dmg per sec and rockets now do 14.6 !!!
__________________________________________________
The first step in winning a war is to have scientists to build and design the war machine!
Freedom for our people!!
|
Isonkon Serikain
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 18:03:00 -
[76]
Thanks electrofreak!
|
Grey Area
|
Posted - 2005.08.10 18:29:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Harry Voyager
I'd love to see a frigate fitting a 50 MW grid weapon as its main. Aside from NPCs and idots, I mean.
Ah the last resort of turret users everywhere. Ignore the valid argument and quote some statistical technicality that gets you out of actually considering the FACTS...
...which are, that the damage output of assault launchers loaded with light missiles is more akin to frigate damage than cruiser damage. The bonus from the Cerberus makes it a little bit better, BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
=========================================
* I'm ALLOWED to cheat. I'm a STARSHIP. *
========================================= |
Vordor
|
Posted - 2005.08.11 09:36:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Vordor on 11/08/2005 09:38:03
Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Harry Voyager
I'd love to see a frigate fitting a 50 MW grid weapon as its main. Aside from NPCs and idots, I mean.
Ah the last resort of turret users everywhere. Ignore the valid argument and quote some statistical technicality that gets you out of actually considering the FACTS...
...which are, that the damage output of assault launchers loaded with light missiles is more akin to frigate damage than cruiser damage. The bonus from the Cerberus makes it a little bit better, BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
A kestler fitted with rockets does excatly 25% more damage per second than a missile, although shorter in range rockets will do MORE damage.
Rocket does 19.79 (DPS) damage per sec and missiles does 15.83 (DPS). (all standard launchers not named.)
Assualts DO NOT do more damage, their rate of fire does not bring them near the heavy missiles.
With skills constent (please let me know if u want more details on my calculations) Assualt missile launcher will do 19.79 DPS (1 launcher) and heavy will do 26.39 DPS about 25% more damage per sec.
Now Rockets ROF makes you shoot about 3 times as compared to light missiles. Assualt rate of fire is about 66% less than a heavy (6.3 secs Assualt / 9.45 secs heavy).
BUT!!! if you are firing at a frig with 40 sig and going at 1250 m/s an assualt will do 14.84 DPS as opposed to 6.25 DPS for heavy lauchers!!!!
So basically, if your using an assualt vs another cruiser you will do less damage and if your using it against frig you will be doing more damage!!!
Oh and i just fitted my kestler with rockets.... they rock !
__________________________________________________
The first step in winning a war is to have scientists to build and design the war machine!
Freedom for our people!!
|
Grim Starwind
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 12:30:00 -
[79]
Never reached the end of this post before wanting to reply to the very first post about the formula. Dude, really.. I have noooooo idea what any of that means =D Like seriously.
Missile Damage * (Target Signature Radius / Missile Explosion Radius) * e^( -1 * (Target Velocity - Missile Explosion Velocity )^2 / (1500^2) ) = Final Missile Damage
You what?! what is... *e^( -1 *... Looks like you hit some freaky keys on the keyboard. Not dissing you or anything, mostly taken the **** out of myself for being such a retard =D well done for whatever you worked out.. sure looks hard lol
|
WeirdNoise
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 11:26:00 -
[80]
Originally by: FireFoxx80
1500 is in a property of missiles called AOERatio (sp?).
Anyway, I've produced a graph using Electro's forumlae. It represents the maximum damage a missile will do against a target that is stationary (V0) and moving at it's maximum speed (VM). It is not modified for skills.
You can find it here. Apologies for the crappiness of the Excel chart.
Your graph above doesnt seem to take range into account. I use cruise missiles against frigs at long range and they very often do max damage (about 360 for me). Maybe it's not range that is taken into account there, but anyway it should show in your graph at the 'max dmg of cruise missiles versus frigs' bar.
Cruises do crappy dmg on frigs at medium or low range of course, but at long range (say 100km or more) they do awesome damage. Maybe it's because the frigs are not reacting at that range, thereby flying slower. But then it should show in your speed=0 bar.
|
TIvian
|
Posted - 2005.09.07 11:52:00 -
[81]
Edited by: TIvian on 07/09/2005 11:54:27
Thought I would jump in since there have been some great suggestions.
I would like to point out one thing that has bothered me about the logic concerning size vs type of missile.
As it stands now torps and cruise missiles are not supposed to do max damage like they used too right? A battle ship how ever being as big as it is takes full damage from rockets and lights. And heavys falls some where in between.
A battleship is supposed to be this monster of a ship...dwarfing the frigate in all catagories that make up a ship....example more power grid more shields more armor....you get what I am saying?
I was messing around with my corp mate flying my crow testing my damage and set up.
And then it hit me....my light missiles should not even be scratching his shields, I mean he should not be seeing red..not from a lone frigate...IMO, It should take more then 1 frigate to bring enough damage as to scratch a battleships shields....at least on a raven..as caldari are shield dependent.
I understand the concept of frigates moving faster then torps or cruise missiles, or out running the damage radius...But I think CCP got it backwards.
The torpedo carries enough damage to take down a much bigger ships sheilds and armor then the frigate. Same with cruise missiles as well....so how is it that if these weapons are ment to do enough damage to ship that has way more power, shields, and armor then a frigate can't take down something as small as a frigate?
IF a torpedo strikes or hits the mark it should carry enough blast force to shred a frigates shields and or if hit hard enough blow the frigate to dust.
BUT, I also believe that in turn a frigate should be harder to hit since it is a smaller target. and obviously moving faster then the torp or cruise missile that is thrown at it.
And cruisers are stuck in the middle. able to take more damage then the frigate but not strong enough to stand multiple fast mover ships.
any way just my 2 isk.
For the record. here is a torp hit on a frigate that was moving fast:
[ 2005.08.09 02:41:58 ] (combat) <color=0xffbbbb00>Your Juggernaut Torpedo I hits Guristas Webifier, doing 262.8 damage.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) Teh Uber Asheron's Call Bunny Booty WTFPWNZ you!! |
Archa
|
Posted - 2005.09.07 17:52:00 -
[82]
i thought the answer was:
42....
|
stoicfaux
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 00:23:00 -
[83]
Off the wall question:
Is there any chance that the transversal velocity is used instead of the target velocity when comparing target velocity against the missile explosion velocity?
I highly doubt it, but I thought I'd ask.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 00:34:00 -
[84]
Originally by: stoicfaux
Off the wall question:
Is there any chance that the transversal velocity is used instead of the target velocity when comparing target velocity against the missile explosion velocity?
I highly doubt it, but I thought I'd ask.
No.
And, TIvian, the frig was using MWD. MWD = 500%+ bigger signature = 500%+ more damage from torps.
Also, let dead threads sleep.
-------------
Axe the Thorax's drone bay.
|
Jack Tau
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 11:56:00 -
[85]
Wow, what a maths whizz. You might be able to tell me why this happens then... Attacking a Guristas War Installation, which is a 22KM wide stationary object, I used all 4 torpedo types. Arbalest launchers all around. And I was getting 146.3 damage for all torps, regardless of ammo type. Now I went back and switched to heavy arbalests, same load-out, all ammo types, nothing changed, just the launchers. And then I was doing 153 damage!! How the hell does this work?
Bit of background, my missile skills are all to level 4(Cruises, torps and heavies). The other skills that affect this kind of thing dont apply, as were talking about a massive stationary object.
I haven't tested it as accurately as this, but AFAIK cruise missiles suffer from the same "error".
|
Azuriel Talloth
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 11:59:00 -
[86]
I think it's because CCP decided to give some large stationary objects ridiculously small signature sizes for no apparent reason.
"Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory,
for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated." |
Jack Tau
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 12:03:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Azuriel Talloth
I think it's because CCP decided to give some large stationary objects ridiculously small signature sizes for no apparent reason.
Your kidding me? I will be most upset if that is true, as this also seems to be happening with important mission objects, such as telescopes and stations.
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 08:11:00 -
[88]
Edited by: The Wizz117 on 01/10/2005 08:11:27
Originally by: Jack Tau
Originally by: Azuriel Talloth
I think it's because CCP decided to give some large stationary objects ridiculously small signature sizes for no apparent reason.
Your kidding me? I will be most upset if that is true, as this also seems to be happening with important mission objects, such as telescopes and stations.
they just want to iritate the caldary and all missile users, also the speed of frigs and cruisers will be 20% more and they will
have 20% less radius..
i cinda posted on the wrong topic, edited to make it right
|
Fighterpilotjp
|
Posted - 2005.10.01 16:06:00 -
[89]
Glad to see someone took the time to work this out, I was interested in seeing how the damage worked. |
Hoshi
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 17:41:00 -
[90]
Guided Missile Precision can be seen as a 5% damage increase per level to targets smaller than the explosion radius of the missile (but have no effect at all against other targets).
Target Navigation Prediction is mostly useless for pve as the npc don't reach the speeds needed to reduce the damage, or if they do reach those speeds they don't keep it for long.
Even against torpedos with no skills the target needs to move around 1000-1250m/s before you start see any real difference in damage.
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.10.19 08:58:00 -
[91]
Actually, shortly after creating this thread, I created This One on how missile skills play into it all.
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Sarafina Atrebates
|
Posted - 2006.01.01 04:56:00 -
[92]
You know, posts are about "having a life" and all are pretty pointless. We all get what we want out of the game, and if some people get a kick out of discovering the underpinnings of the game, then they are still enjoying the game. How silly to think that everybody has to play the game the same way.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Ralph Waldo Emerson.
|
Kaito Rei
Gallente
TAWD Research and Building Corporation
TALIONIS ALLIANCE
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:21:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Kaito Rei on 22/10/2007 10:25:46
Originally by: The Pacman
[...] i doubt it is the right formula.
Why? To many computation intensive parts to be handled by a server that has to be done houndreds or thousands of this in a minute.[...]
you know that the damage you make is not calculated by the server, but by your system.
means, additionally what you tank is also not calulated by the server,
means, the server only sends the allready calculated damages around.
if it werent so the server couldnt handle 130 people flying missions in the same sytem.
and btw, someone has already hacked tris once, and got perma-banned as i heard(someone from bob?) and since then the servers check if the damages could be faked, once in a while. (i only heard this though)
So far
Kaito Rei
|
Headless Giraffe
Amarr
Alpha Production Technologies
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:31:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Kaito Rei
you know that the damage you make is not calculated by the server, but by your system.
You know that you are replying to a thread that is two years old? Necro FTL.
|
Solant
Minmatar
Ventis Secundis
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:05:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Kaito Rei
Edited by: Kaito Rei on 22/10/2007 10:27:40
Originally by: The Pacman
[...] i doubt it is the right formula.
Why? To many computation intensive parts to be handled by a server that has to be done houndreds or thousands of this in a minute.[...]
you know that the damage you make is not calculated by the server, but by your system.
means, additionally what you tank is also not calulated by the server,
means, the server only sends the allready calculated damages around.
if it weren't so the server couldnt handle 130 people flying missions in the same sytem.
and btw, someone has already hacked this once, and got perma-banned as i heard(someone from bob?) and since then the servers check if the damages could be faked, once in a while. (i only heard this though)
So far
Kaito Rei
dude.. 2 year old thread.. wtf?
and no, youre wrong. any calculations that affect gameplay (ie damage calculations) are done serverside. it would be idiocy for any online game to do it differently. time has shown that any game that handles its data client side (open bnet diablo anyone?) is instantly compromised (i wont say hack, because really theres no hacking involved, its quite easy)
|
Fuazzole
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:20:00 -
[96]
hmmm, I remember the calculations of old..
Fire missle (type-any) wait....boom 100% dmg
Torping inty's was fair game as long as your torps could catch em.
|
Ulstan
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:31:00 -
[97]
I gather then, that the formula in this thread is out of date?
If so, it might be wise to remove it from the links in the sticky at the top of the forum, or it will confuse new players.
|
bellator militaris
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 10:30:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Ulstan
I gather then, that the formula in this thread is out of date?
If so, it might be wise to remove it from the links in the sticky at the top of the forum, or it will confuse new players.
"Confuse" Let me look that up.
|
bellator militaris
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 10:31:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Solant
Originally by: Kaito Rei
Edited by: Kaito Rei on 22/10/2007 10:27:40
Originally by: The Pacman
[...] i doubt it is the right formula.
Why? To many computation intensive parts to be handled by a server that has to be done houndreds or thousands of this in a minute.[...]
you know that the damage you make is not calculated by the server, but by your system.
means, additionally what you tank is also not calulated by the server,
means, the server only sends the allready calculated damages around.
if it weren't so the server couldnt handle 130 people flying missions in the same sytem.
and btw, someone has already hacked this once, and got perma-banned as i heard(someone from bob?) and since then the servers check if the damages could be faked, once in a while. (i only heard this though)
So far
Kaito Rei
dude.. 2 year old thread.. wtf?
and no, youre wrong. any calculations that affect gameplay (ie damage calculations) are done serverside. it would be idiocy for any online game to do it differently. time has shown that any game that handles its data client side (open bnet diablo anyone?) is instantly compromised (i wont say hack, because really theres no hacking involved, its quite easy)
Right on! I like the threads that were posted in '04 really nice. lol
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |