Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 18:37:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Jim Hsu OO... this helps. My alliance was fussing over how to counter a 1400 T2 mach, and I suggested tracking disruptors. Looks like their role is enhanced somewhat in next patch (in that the defensive approach won't work).
Considering how effective they already are... It's maybe not so good. Anyway, i was just posting the figures i got, but it really needs to be tested. I really wonder if that's what happening on SISI currently.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. --- Spreadsheet - Damage @ range. |
Naughty Boy
Chronics of ordinary hate
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 18:37:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Jim Hsu OO... this helps. My alliance was fussing over how to counter a 1400 T2 mach, and I suggested tracking disruptors. Looks like their role is enhanced somewhat in next patch (in that the defensive approach won't work).
Considering how effective they already are... It's maybe not so good. Anyway, i was just posting the figures i got, but it really needs to be tested. I really wonder if that's what happening on SISI currently.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
In Rust We Trust |
dalman
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 20:49:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Naughty Boy Considering how effective they already are... It's maybe not so good. Anyway, i was just posting the figures i got, but it really needs to be tested. I really wonder if that's what happening on SISI currently.
As I said, I've not tested it out, but the numbers you ran there shows exactly what I saw as a possible problem. :/
Drink up, shoot in. Let the beating begin. Distributor of pain. Your loss becomes my gain...
|
dalman
Finite Horizon
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 20:49:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Naughty Boy Considering how effective they already are... It's maybe not so good. Anyway, i was just posting the figures i got, but it really needs to be tested. I really wonder if that's what happening on SISI currently.
As I said, I've not tested it out, but the numbers you ran there shows exactly what I saw as a possible problem. :/
Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Jim Hsu
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 21:25:00 -
[125]
Originally by: HUGO DRAX Edited by: HUGO DRAX on 08/12/2005 18:33:47 I will simplify the formula.
Mods < 3 = good =
Mods > 3 = bad
Indeed, it is that essentially. 2 mods offers a singificant improvement over current tranqiulity, 3 mods offers a little bit of improvement. Once you get to 4 mods, you should start to look for other things to fit in those slots. -- If you're a math wizard, help me here:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=255750&page=1
:)
|
Jim Hsu
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 21:25:00 -
[126]
Originally by: HUGO DRAX Edited by: HUGO DRAX on 08/12/2005 18:33:47 I will simplify the formula.
Mods < 3 = good =
Mods > 3 = bad
Indeed, it is that essentially. 2 mods offers a singificant improvement over current tranqiulity, 3 mods offers a little bit of improvement. Once you get to 4 mods, you should start to look for other things to fit in those slots. -- If you're a math wizard, help me here:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=255750&page=1
:)
|
Jim Hsu
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 22:46:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Jim Hsu on 08/12/2005 22:53:25 Edited by: Jim Hsu on 08/12/2005 22:50:26 Edited by: Jim Hsu on 08/12/2005 22:49:11
Originally by: Aenigma May i point out that this formula is likely based on the Gauss/ Normal distribution given the shape of the graph?
Generally one has P(x)=b/(w*sqrt(2*pi))*exp(-1/2*((x-m)/w)^2), in which b and w and m (mean value) are constants and x is the variable.
In this case it's most likely P(x)=exp(a*(x-1)^2), in which a is approximately 0,1403.
In this case constant a needs better approximation for better results. Keep machine errors in mind however since maths on a computer just ain't that precise.
Ok. {b -> 4.7324517818660508016, m -> 1., w -> 1.8879751057425276869}
b/(w*sqrt(2*pi)) = 1 (!!!). One piece of the puzzle solved.
Now, exp(-1/2*((x-m)/w)^2) ... um...
Of course, W^(-2)*(1/2) gives that 0.1402740... thing.
And W is another weird forum constant. Try searching "1.887975" in google.
Ok. So... w = Sqrt(2)*x/(2*sqrt(Pi)). So, that's where Sqrt(pi) comes from.
-- If you're a math wizard, help me here:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=255750&page=1
:)
|
Jim Hsu
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 22:46:00 -
[128]
Edited by: Jim Hsu on 08/12/2005 22:53:25 Edited by: Jim Hsu on 08/12/2005 22:50:26 Edited by: Jim Hsu on 08/12/2005 22:49:11
Originally by: Aenigma May i point out that this formula is likely based on the Gauss/ Normal distribution given the shape of the graph?
Generally one has P(x)=b/(w*sqrt(2*pi))*exp(-1/2*((x-m)/w)^2), in which b and w and m (mean value) are constants and x is the variable.
In this case it's most likely P(x)=exp(a*(x-1)^2), in which a is approximately 0,1403.
In this case constant a needs better approximation for better results. Keep machine errors in mind however since maths on a computer just ain't that precise.
Ok. {b -> 4.7324517818660508016, m -> 1., w -> 1.8879751057425276869}
b/(w*sqrt(2*pi)) = 1 (!!!). One piece of the puzzle solved.
Now, exp(-1/2*((x-m)/w)^2) ... um...
Of course, W^(-2)*(1/2) gives that 0.1402740... thing.
And W is another weird forum constant. Try searching "1.887975" in google.
Ok. So... w = Sqrt(2)*x/(2*sqrt(Pi)). So, that's where Sqrt(pi) comes from.
-- If you're a math wizard, help me here:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=255750&page=1
:)
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 22:49:00 -
[129]
Looking good, good luck with the 2nd part :D ------------- Where are the named 800mm Plates and Mega Ions, CCP?
|
keepiru
Supernova Security Systems
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 22:49:00 -
[130]
Looking good, good luck with the 2nd part :D ----------------
Where are the scan probe BPOs? |
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 23:28:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 08/12/2005 23:29:17
Originally by: Jim Hsu Indeed, it is that essentially. 2 mods offers a singificant improvement over current tranqiulity, 3 mods offers a little bit of improvement. Once you get to 4 mods, you should start to look for other things to fit in those slots.
Actually, while i was computing the last table for my previous post in this thread, i noticed that some mods would give a better boost than now. Not by an impressive, or even significant margin, but still...
Sensor boosters t1 for instance (it's worse for sensor boosters t2): * ((1.5^4)^((1/4)^0.25)=3.148192599 or ~314.8% or 214.8% boost (current penalty) * (weird constants stuff)= 315.7% or 215.7% boost (rmr penalty)
H4x?
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. --- Spreadsheet - Damage @ range. |
Naughty Boy
Chronics of ordinary hate
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 23:28:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 08/12/2005 23:29:17
Originally by: Jim Hsu Indeed, it is that essentially. 2 mods offers a singificant improvement over current tranqiulity, 3 mods offers a little bit of improvement. Once you get to 4 mods, you should start to look for other things to fit in those slots.
Actually, while i was computing the last table for my previous post in this thread, i noticed that some mods would give a better boost than now. Not by an impressive, or even significant margin, but still...
Sensor boosters t1 for instance (it's worse for sensor boosters t2): * ((1.5^4)^((1/4)^0.25)=3.148192599 or ~314.8% or 214.8% boost (current penalty) * (weird constants stuff)= 315.7% or 215.7% boost (rmr penalty)
H4x?
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
In Rust We Trust |
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 00:00:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Vishnej on 09/12/2005 ?
It was described from the start as having less penalty on 2 mods than now, the same on 3, and extremely harsh penalties on 4. ---------------------------- T2 Destroyers: a proposal Requested Changes: An alphabet's worth |
Vishnej
Demonic Retribution Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 00:00:00 -
[134]
Edited by: Vishnej on 09/12/2005 ?
It was described from the start as having less penalty on 2 mods than now, the same on 3, and extremely harsh penalties on 4.
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 00:16:00 -
[135]
Maybe was that only for damage mods?
Else, it's pretty weird, i agree. It shouldn't be that hard to get the breakeven point, it's somewhere between 1.46 (46%) and 1.47 (47%).
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. --- Spreadsheet - Damage @ range. |
Naughty Boy
Chronics of ordinary hate
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 00:16:00 -
[136]
Maybe was that only for damage mods?
Else, it's pretty weird, i agree. It shouldn't be that hard to get the breakeven point, it's somewhere between 1.46 (46%) and 1.47 (47%).
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
In Rust We Trust |
TornSoul
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 03:16:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Lorth I actually enjoyed reading this thread. It was fun to watch you work out the problem. Now I'm wondering what that damn 2.222 constant it. I'de be willing to bet that its something dumb like the 42th root of 1337. Just seems that it has to be, but thats just me.
Thanks for a good read.
Who says the number has to be mathematically derived. It could be something much more fundamental - Well, to TomB anyhow.
Look at the top number : Yeast
We know TomB likes his beer Yeast is used in beer production
Coincidence? - Hardly
(For the record - I have zero clue what that page is about )
BIG Lottery
[u |
TornSoul
BIG R i s e
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 03:16:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Lorth I actually enjoyed reading this thread. It was fun to watch you work out the problem. Now I'm wondering what that damn 2.222 constant it. I'de be willing to bet that its something dumb like the 42th root of 1337. Just seems that it has to be, but thats just me.
Thanks for a good read.
Who says the number has to be mathematically derived. It could be something much more fundamental - Well, to TomB anyhow.
Look at the top number : Yeast
We know TomB likes his beer Yeast is used in beer production
Coincidence? - Hardly
(For the record - I have zero clue what that page is about )
BIG Lottery
[u |
Jim Hsu
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 03:33:00 -
[139]
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Lorth I actually enjoyed reading this thread. It was fun to watch you work out the problem. Now I'm wondering what that damn 2.222 constant it. I'de be willing to bet that its something dumb like the 42th root of 1337. Just seems that it has to be, but thats just me.
Thanks for a good read.
Who says the number has to be mathematically derived. It could be something much more fundamental - Well, to TomB anyhow.
Look at the top number : Yeast
We know TomB likes his beer Yeast is used in beer production
Coincidence? - Hardly
(For the record - I have zero clue what that page is about )
errr ... omg. -- If you're a math wizard, help me here:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=255750&page=1
:)
|
Jim Hsu
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 03:33:00 -
[140]
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Lorth I actually enjoyed reading this thread. It was fun to watch you work out the problem. Now I'm wondering what that damn 2.222 constant it. I'de be willing to bet that its something dumb like the 42th root of 1337. Just seems that it has to be, but thats just me.
Thanks for a good read.
Who says the number has to be mathematically derived. It could be something much more fundamental - Well, to TomB anyhow.
Look at the top number : Yeast
We know TomB likes his beer Yeast is used in beer production
Coincidence? - Hardly
(For the record - I have zero clue what that page is about )
errr ... omg. -- If you're a math wizard, help me here:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=255750&page=1
:)
|
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.12.14 15:52:00 -
[141]
We have a problem:
It appears from the figures in this thread that negative-bonus modules are always being sorted to last.
This makes setups with multiple tracking and sensor modules virtually immune to dampers and disruptors.
And, im afraid, affects painters vs. a target with mwd &/or stealth modules (are these coming in at all?) in the same way.
If this is confirmed, this is - imo - a serious mechanics bug, as it pretty much kills the usefulness of non-jamming EW in multiple common sitations, as well as seriously tactically pre-nerfing all recon cruisers bar the caldari ones. ------------- Where are the missile damage implants? ;)
|
keepiru
Supernova Security Systems
|
Posted - 2005.12.14 15:52:00 -
[142]
We have a problem:
It appears from the figures in this thread that negative-bonus modules are always being sorted to last.
This makes setups with multiple tracking and sensor modules virtually immune to dampers and disruptors.
And, im afraid, affects painters vs. a target with mwd &/or stealth modules (are these coming in at all?) in the same way.
If this is confirmed, this is - imo - a serious mechanics bug, as it pretty much kills the usefulness of non-jamming EW in multiple common sitations, as well as seriously tactically pre-nerfing all recon cruisers bar the caldari ones. ----------------
Where are the scan probe BPOs? |
James Lyrus
|
Posted - 2005.12.14 17:04:00 -
[143]
Edited by: James Lyrus on 14/12/2005 17:07:05 That falloff looks somewhat like a cosh curve. Maybe 1/cosh(x) Not quite a perfect fit, but it does have the right properties. Namely a 'curve' downwards that gets small > 4.
Trying a few values in excel, of things like cosh(N/2 - 1/2) gives a fairly good approximation of the curve.
Leads me to suspect we've got some e^n - e^-n factors.
Actually, using those values on the first post,
cosh((N-1)/1.7) is a pretty close fit, although not quite there. Trial and error doesn't get the curves overlapping at any point either unfortunately.
Not sure where that 1.7 (it's an ish, too, it's not a perfect fit) comes from mind.
EDIT: Actually, if you've a penchant for pi, then sqrt(pi) also works as the divisor, Still don't have _quite_ enough falloff at 4/5/6 though.
Hrm.
-- Lyrus Associates is recruiting |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2005.12.14 17:04:00 -
[144]
Edited by: James Lyrus on 14/12/2005 17:07:05 That falloff looks somewhat like a cosh curve. Maybe 1/cosh(x) Not quite a perfect fit, but it does have the right properties. Namely a 'curve' downwards that gets small > 4.
Trying a few values in excel, of things like cosh(N/2 - 1/2) gives a fairly good approximation of the curve.
Leads me to suspect we've got some e^n - e^-n factors.
Actually, using those values on the first post,
cosh((N-1)/1.7) is a pretty close fit, although not quite there. Trial and error doesn't get the curves overlapping at any point either unfortunately.
Not sure where that 1.7 (it's an ish, too, it's not a perfect fit) comes from mind.
EDIT: Actually, if you've a penchant for pi, then sqrt(pi) also works as the divisor, Still don't have _quite_ enough falloff at 4/5/6 though.
Hrm.
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 14:03:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Jim Hsu I can get it to arbitrary precision (if my inputs (existing data) are arbitrary precise). But .. what in the world is that number? Some "magical constant"?
It's entirely possible that there is some "magical constant". Thinking about how game design would go about making the curve, it's entirely possible that they'd start with with the type of curve they wanted, then use one factor in it to drag the curve around until it hit the key points they wanted it to. They would be far more concerned with getting the curve in the right place than having a pretty number in formula.
------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2005.12.15 14:03:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Jim Hsu I can get it to arbitrary precision (if my inputs (existing data) are arbitrary precise). But .. what in the world is that number? Some "magical constant"?
It's entirely possible that there is some "magical constant". Thinking about how game design would go about making the curve, it's entirely possible that they'd start with with the type of curve they wanted, then use one factor in it to drag the curve around until it hit the key points they wanted it to. They would be far more concerned with getting the curve in the right place than having a pretty number in formula. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Rede
|
Posted - 2005.12.17 21:20:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Jim Hsu I can get it to arbitrary precision (if my inputs (existing data) are arbitrary precise). But .. what in the world is that number? Some "magical constant"?
It's entirely possible that there is some "magical constant". Thinking about how game design would go about making the curve, it's entirely possible that they'd start with with the type of curve they wanted, then use one factor in it to drag the curve around until it hit the key points they wanted it to. They would be far more concerned with getting the curve in the right place than having a pretty number in formula.
Or there is possibility that there is multiple magical constants for every stacked module added to make penality curve to look like they wanted. Or just maybe five or so, first four to these markable penalities and one for rest of modules to render them useless. (After a study there might be just bunch of magical constants that are not reflected anyway to any realworld curve. Just numbers those brilliant coders did to satisfy calculations... )
Maybe trying same might help - get curve that is close to current situation and adjust with constants and do testing for some other modules. Might work out - or not.
|
Rede
|
Posted - 2005.12.17 21:20:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Jim Hsu I can get it to arbitrary precision (if my inputs (existing data) are arbitrary precise). But .. what in the world is that number? Some "magical constant"?
It's entirely possible that there is some "magical constant". Thinking about how game design would go about making the curve, it's entirely possible that they'd start with with the type of curve they wanted, then use one factor in it to drag the curve around until it hit the key points they wanted it to. They would be far more concerned with getting the curve in the right place than having a pretty number in formula.
Or there is possibility that there is multiple magical constants for every stacked module added to make penality curve to look like they wanted. Or just maybe five or so, first four to these markable penalities and one for rest of modules to render them useless. (After a study there might be just bunch of magical constants that are not reflected anyway to any realworld curve. Just numbers those brilliant coders did to satisfy calculations... )
Maybe trying same might help - get curve that is close to current situation and adjust with constants and do testing for some other modules. Might work out - or not.
|
Matrices Reborn
|
Posted - 2006.02.14 00:56:00 -
[149]
How do the skills factor in to various things affected by the stacking penalty?
Would you just add them on or assume the stacking affect them as well?
BTW it does look like sensor damps. and tracking disruptors are going to be rendered useless by eccm.
Is this stacking formula in effect already or will it happen in Kali.
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2006.02.14 01:03:00 -
[150]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 14/02/2006 01:04:47
Originally by: Matrices Reborn How do the skills factor in to various things affected by the stacking penalty?
Skills and stacking penalty are not directly related to each other. Only the stacking of modules is subject (sometimes) to the stacking penalty. There's no real stacking of skills, so no stacking penalty either. However, as modifiers are sometimes affected by skills, there's a slight of some skills effect in the stacking penalty.
Originally by: Matrices Reborn Would you just add them on or assume the stacking affect them as well?
It depends on what you want to compute. For damage, tracking related skills, for instance, there's no impact of the skill effect into the stacking. For skills affecting directly the modifiers, there's an impact (ex: armor/shield compensation skills, tracking disruptors/sensor dampeners spec skills). Here's a particular case, with the armor compensation skills.
Originally by: Matrices Reborn BTW it does look like sensor damps. and tracking disruptors are going to be rendered useless by eccm.
...by the stacking penalty. Not useless, but there's an issue - changed already on SISI.
Originally by: Matrices Reborn Is this stacking formula in effect already or will it happen in Kali.
It's on TQ, but changed on SISI.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |