| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Javius Rong
Caldari
Sigillum Militum Xpisti
   |
Posted - 2008.11.14 14:36:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Skie Ankora
Edited by: Skie Ankora on 14/11/2008 10:16:54
Edited by: Skie Ankora on 14/11/2008 08:56:27
Edited by: Skie Ankora on 14/11/2008 08:50:05
[
Originally by: Javius Rong
Does this curve look similar to a rail gun tracking fall off with transversal speed?
That's an interesting point I looked into it and it turns out that the relationship is actually linear. If you double transversal, chance to hit reduces by a factor of 4, and so on.
So no the relationship is very different - from looking at the formula these changes mean that missiles are nerfed for about a third less damage unless the target is using a MWD.
That is what I thought. It just feels like the missile damage fall off it too abrupt. It is almost like a square wave where you get most of the benefit for very little change. I really would have thought that the curves for tracking and missile damage reductions would be more similar. Or at least don't use a Ln function. Use a Sin function with a tail.
Skie has done great work by helping plot this up, everyone should be thankful.
|
Skie Ankora
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 16:22:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Javius Rong
That is what I thought. It just feels like the missile damage fall off it too abrupt. It is almost like a square wave where you get most of the benefit for very little change. I really would have thought that the curves for tracking and missile damage reductions would be more similar. Or at least don't use a Ln function. Use a Sin function with a tail.
My feelings exactly. The use of the ln function creates a damage falloff which starts off very steep and then evens out. Under the pre-Quantum rise system the trend was the opposite - starting off shallow (so more damage at slower speeds) and then rapidly falling off to zero.
There are positive points to this system - speed tanking without MWD now gives massive benefits, which was the intention. Use of the incorrect size missiles (e.g. cruise against frigate targets) fails due to the rapid damage falloff at speeds above 200m/s or so, even if the target uses a MWD. Also use of a webber will almost always keep the damage at the highest possible level due to the fact the curve is initially flat at very slow speeds.
But the problem is that all you have to do now is fly without a MWD at full speed and you get a 35% damage reduction on pre-patch missile damage, 50% if you use an afterburner.
Of course, forcing people not to use MWD was the main objective, and it does at least achieve that, but why do missiles need to do so much less damage than before against non-MWD targets? Was that the intention?
Thank you for coming up with the formula! Without it we wouldn't be able to make such a detailed comparison of the new missile damage system. I've enjoyed being able to see "through the noise" of guesswork, player opinion and testing on Sisi and see directly what the numbers are.
|
Viktor Del'Grande
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 18:53:00 -
[63]
Today i did the tests for cruiser (130m sig) and a battleship (370m sig).
The Setup for all tests was as following:
Raven
1x Rocket Launcher I
1x Standard Missle Launcher I
1x Heavy Assault Missle Launcher I
1x Heavy Missle Launcher I
1x Cruise Launcher I
1x Siege Launcher I
All kinetic missles (T1)
(5x Hammerhead to keep the shield of the target down)
------
Oneiros to keep the target alive
Medium Armor Drones and 4 Large Solace Repper
-----
The Target
1x Ishkur
1x Arbitrator
1x Armageddon
All data was collected with kinetic damage and recalculated back to the "real hit".
50m Signature Radius Diagram - Scilab File
130m Signature Radius Diagram - Scilab File
370m Signature Radius Diagram - Scilab File
Hope that helps somebody to understand (the new) missles better. It helped me a lot 
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2008.11.14 21:52:00 -
[64]
for anybody who wants to fiddle real quick with graphs, there's a site
http://www.walterzorn.com/grapher/grapher_e.htm
this is what i entered for lvl4 missle skills against my 65m scimitar:
100 * MIN(MIN(65/450,1) , (099.4/450 * 65/x)^(0.1975 * 5));
100 * MIN(MIN(65/240,1) , (096.6/240 * 65/x)^(0.1975 * 4.5));
100 * MIN(MIN(65/100,1) , (113.5/100 * 65/x)^(0.1975 * 3.2));
100 * MIN(MIN(65/040,1) , (096.6/040 * 65/x)^(0.1975 * 4.5));
100 * MIN(MIN(65/040,1) , (238.0/040 * 65/x)^(0.1975 * 2.8));
100 * MIN(MIN(65/020,1) , (119.0/020 * 65/x)^(0.1975 * 3));
-
putting the gist back into logistics |
ELECTR0FREAK
Carpe Nocte
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 02:48:00 -
[65]
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 25/11/2008 02:48:17
Sorry to thread ressurect, but I wanted to extend my congratulations. I now hand over the Missile Damage Formula crown to Stafen. 
Discoverer of the Original Missile Damage Formula |
Stafen
Killer Koalas
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:27:00 -
[66]
As pointed out by ELECTR0FREAK (and I had previously noticed) there is a new hidden missile attribute "oaeDamageReductionSensitivity"
It's value is 5.5 for all missiles as far as I can make out.
This hidden attribute is probably what the constant in the missile formula comes from. It seems to be so as:
oaeDamageReductionSensitivity = 5.5
and
1/log(5.5) = 0.5866
so now we have:
Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(drf)/log(oaeDamageReductionSensitivity)) )
which now explains everything!
I will update the first post.
|
Stafen
Killer Koalas
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 00:53:00 -
[67]
I updated my spreadsheet of my in-game measured results (from post 49) to use the updated constant and found it matches perfectly (with the errors almost certainly being measurement errors).
For the spreadsheet I used the following which also takes into account the rounding in EVE:
ROUND(Base_Dmg * (Ev/Er * s/v) ^(LN(drf)/LN(5.5));1)
Spread sheet is Missile_Data_20081125.PNG
As you can see most are dead on (zero error), with only a handful of errors (maximum 0.8 dmg off or 0.65%)
|
Patent Pending
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 04:21:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Patent Pending on 26/11/2008 04:22:40
Stafen,
If you're crazy enough, run a comparison test for the following factors that CCP chose to ignore:
Turret damage with 0 transversal (% of hits that do more than base damage) with ships flying over 300 m/s and with ships flying at 10 m/s. Towards and away from the attacker.
Repeat same test but with missiles.
Of course, using weapon to match ship size for both scenarios (large turret / cruise missile vs battleship)
The game only takes speed into account when doing the bulk of its damage mitigation for missiles. I'm certain of it and its a huge gap in the missile line. We only get penalties, no bonuses.
And on top of that, we have to wait for the g-darn missiles to reach the target while guns are insta-damage.
|
Kantress
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 08:14:00 -
[69]
Has anyone made a program one can use to determine the approximate damage my missile would do?
|
Stafen
Killer Koalas
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 14:24:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Kantress
Has anyone made a program one can use to determine the approximate damage my missile would do?
I have tested EFT 2.9 and later and it seems to follow the formula above (use the DPS graph)
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 22:02:00 -
[71]
Can anyone confirm the damage reduction factor for citadel torpedoes? In EFT it's listed as 5.0, but that's the same as for normal torps, so I doubt it's correct.
---
Can't afford that BPO? Look here.
20:1 mineral compression
The EVE f@h team |
Ardakke
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 12:08:00 -
[72]
Thanks for all the work in extracting the formula.
I have a question though, about the skill Target Navigation Prediction.
"Proficiency at optimizing a missile's flight path to negate the effects of a target's speed upon the explosion's impact. 10% decrease per level in factor of target's velocity for all missiles"
How does this skill affect the calculation? Is it just lowering the target speed with "skill level * 10%"?
Were your test numbers run without this skill?
|
Marn Prestoc
Minmatar
Maelstrom Crew
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 13:17:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Ardakke
Thanks for all the work in extracting the formula.
I have a question though, about the skill Target Navigation Prediction.
"Proficiency at optimizing a missile's flight path to negate the effects of a target's speed upon the explosion's impact. 10% decrease per level in factor of target's velocity for all missiles"
How does this skill affect the calculation? Is it just lowering the target speed with "skill level * 10%"?
Were your test numbers run without this skill?
Adds the bonus to explosion velocity.
-
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |