EVE Search - New Missile Damage Formula

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

New Missile Damage Formula

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.10.19 03:12:00 - [1] Well I have figured a formula which worked for me and I would like to share. I used old data from last night (PST) before the new explosion velocities. I did a quick test now and it still holds. This has only been tested using my heavy missiles against a number of different ship sizes and speeds. It is: Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1),(Ev/Er)^n * (sig/vel)^n) Where sig = ship's signature vel = ship's velocity Er = Explosion Radius of missile Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile n = magic constant The magic constant was 0.64321 yesterday and is now 0.604 I am betting it is linked to the new missile attribute and probably the other missile attributes also. I need to try some other missiles other than my heavy ones and see how the constant changes (if it does at all). Will do so tomorrow. My data from yesterday compared to the formula can be found at http://eve-files.com/dl/176080(Excel file)
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.10.19 04:05:00 - [2] Just tested a cruise raven against a afterburner stabber and found the formula still holds. And the magic constant above is still about 0.6 (I got 0.60284 for cruise missiles). My data was: Base_damage = 356.7 Explosion Velocity = 54.6 Explosion Radius = 453 Ship signature = 124 Velocity = [141 187 220 375 508 673 780] Damage = [94.2 79.5 72 52.3 43.5 36.7 33.6] and the formula gives (with n=0.6) 95.127 80.303 72.842 52.895 44.088 37.241 34.086 I put the errors down to rounding when reading off attributes like explosion velocity, ship signature which I take from the show info window. I cannot test T2 missiles so now I will try light missiles.
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.10.19 04:22:00 - [3] Edited by: Stafen on 19/10/2008 04:22:57 My final result for the day, a light missile caracal verses a afterburner claw. Formula still holds. (n still 0.6) Base Damage (in resists) = 82.282 Explosion Radius = 45 Explosion Velocity = 176.8 ship signature = 24 Velocities = [299 518 1105] Damage = [40.9 29.4 18.6] And the formula gives: 41.034 29.461 18.659 So that is the three main T1 missile types verified.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.10.19 11:25:00 - [4] Awesome work. Now I can test balance just with a spreadsheet, without having to faff about with ship fits, resists etc.
C4rnag3 Flawless. Resurgency	Posted - 2008.10.19 11:45:00 - [5] thx!
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.10.19 11:49:00 - [6] If would be awesome if you could check that this holds for HAMs and torps as well, please.
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.10.19 12:23:00 - [7] Originally by: Gypsio III If would be awesome if you could check that this holds for HAMs and torps as well, please. Well the stats on HAMs and trops are exactly the same as Heavy and cruise respectively. I might test torps and HAM later. First I want to find someone with T2 missile skills and see how the "damage reduction factor" alters the constant "n" above.
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.10.19 14:55:00 - [8] Well I found that Torps have a different "Damage Reduction Factor" attribute then the other missiles I tested (and I can use torps) so I gave then a go against my trust afterburner claw. Torp Raven vs AB claw. The numbers are: Base Damage (inc resists) = 493.69 Explosion Radius = 533 Explosion Velocity = 54.6 ship signature = 24 Damage Reduction Factor = 3.2 Velocities = [304 513 546] Damage = [18.4 12.9 12.4] So now using my formula with n = 0.67579 (different from before), I get 19.036 13.366 12.815 which is close enough Now from the other runs I have: Reduction factor / n 3 / 0.64321 2.8 / 0.6 3.2 / 0.67579 This I conclude n = 0.21 * Reduction Factor (the value 0.21 probably needs to be found with a bit more accuracy though) So the full formula is: Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1),(Ev/Er)^(0.21rf) (sig/vel)^(0.21*rf)) Where sig = ship's signature vel = ship's velocity Er = Explosion Radius of missile Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile rf = Damage Reduction Factor
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.10.19 18:49:00 - [9] Finally the last one I can do (except for rockets): HAMs on a caracal vs an afterburner thrasher Base Damage (inc resists) = 111.3 Explosion Radius = 166 Explosion Velocity = 140.4 ship signature = 82 Damage Reduction Factor = 3.2 Velocities = [204 371 474 533 606] Damage = [53.2 35.4 30.0 27.7 25.3] and the formula gives: 53.294 35.431 29.975 27.668 25.347 so all is still good :-) (PS. some of my previous posts have now old and outdated attributes for the missiles as Dev's are still at work tuning )
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2008.10.19 20:16:00 - [10] Edited by: Roemy Schneider on 19/10/2008 20:16:04 so er... speed effect: ( (Ev/vel) * (sig/Er) ) ^ 0.604 check i'm so gonna fly steatlh bombers from now on - putting the gist back into logistics

Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.10.19 20:37:00 - [11] A basic feature of the new formula is that your target must have a sig radius greater than the explosion radius of your missile for full damage to be dealt. This is the same as the current TQ formula. However, the converse is not true - if your taregt is going faster than your missile's explosion velocity, then full damage can still be dealt if the target's sig is sufficiently bigger than your missile's explosion radius - achievable by painting or MWD sig bloom. Cruise missiles now have an explosion radius of 533 m (400 m with GMP V). This makes a Cruise Raven pretty crappy in its antisupport role - a Falcon will get a much greater reduction in damage than currently the case.
Latex Sandals	Posted - 2008.10.20 03:58:00 - [12] Edited by: Latex Sandals on 20/10/2008 03:58:50 I've never seen an inty with an AB. What do the numbers look like for a real pvp fit? Put a MWD on that claw and run the numbers. :) Edit: Please.
Rip Striker	Posted - 2008.10.20 09:24:00 - [13] Originally by: Gypsio III ... Cruise missiles now have an explosion radius of 533 m (400 m with GMP V). This makes a Cruise Raven pretty crappy in its antisupport role - a Falcon will get a much greater reduction in damage than currently the case. Perhaps heavy missile (with increased time and velocity) ships will fulfill that role? To me it seems that CCP wants to: Cruise missile Raven - Anti support BC/BS Heavy missile Cerberus - Anti support Cruiser Imo, as is should be...that is, no way a cruise Raven should outperform a heavy Cerberus when taking out cruiser sized ships. Fly safe!
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.10.20 10:22:00 - [14] Originally by: Rip Striker Perhaps heavy missile (with increased time and velocity) ships will fulfill that role? To me it seems that CCP wants to: Cruise missile Raven - Anti support BC/BS Heavy missile Cerberus - Anti support Cruiser Imo, as is should be...that is, no way a cruise Raven should outperform a heavy Cerberus when taking out cruiser sized ships. Your logic is sound in principle. However, the problem is that there aren't really any support BC/BS (well the Cruise Raven itself is one) - it's typically HACs and Recons doing the stand-off DPS and ewar support. Now certainly the Cerberus should be more effective than a Cruise Raven against those ships - but currently I believe that the gap in effectiveness is too much - ~70% damage reduction on a Falcon from Cruise is too much.
Darth Felin	Posted - 2008.10.20 12:13:00 - [15] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: Rip Striker Perhaps heavy missile (with increased time and velocity) ships will fulfill that role? To me it seems that CCP wants to: Cruise missile Raven - Anti support BC/BS Heavy missile Cerberus - Anti support Cruiser Imo, as is should be...that is, no way a cruise Raven should outperform a heavy Cerberus when taking out cruiser sized ships. Your logic is sound in principle. However, the problem is that there aren't really any support BC/BS (well the Cruise Raven itself is one) - it's typically HACs and Recons doing the stand-off DPS and ewar support. Now certainly the Cerberus should be more effective than a Cruise Raven against those ships - but currently I believe that the gap in effectiveness is too much - ~70% damage reduction on a Falcon from Cruise is too much. Did you try to use target painting on it? Maybe so Hyena or something like it.
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.10.20 12:18:00 - [16] Edited by: Stafen on 20/10/2008 12:21:03 Originally by: Latex Sandals Edited by: Latex Sandals on 20/10/2008 03:58:50 I've never seen an inty with an AB. What do the numbers look like for a real pvp fit? Put a MWD on that claw and run the numbers. :) Edit: Please. Well the point of all the above posts was to find and verify the formula, not to actually try any useful fits. From my data I do have one inty MWD dataset, but it is a couple of days old. Heavy missile caracal Vs MWD claw. Base Damage = 190.8 Explosion Radius = 141 Explosion Velocity = 210.6 (has since changed to 105.5!!) Damage Reduction Factor = 3.0 (it is not 2.8) Ship Signature = 177 Velocity = [300 400 500 590 750 1000 1200 1400 1600 2000 3000 4000 5000] Damage = [175.440 145.890 126.110 113.670 97.890 80.560 71.440 64.890 59.440 51.890 39.440 33.220 28.780] But you could just get the missile attributes from Sisi and plug them into the formula (see the above spreadsheet) Edit: forgot Signature
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.20 12:30:00 - [17] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 20/10/2008 12:30:37 Originally by: Darth Felin Originally by: Gypsio III ~70% damage reduction on a Falcon from Cruise is too much. Did you try to use target painting on it? Maybe so Hyena or something like it. Did you try clicking show info on a target painter and seeing why it's impossible? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.10.20 15:17:00 - [18] I did the math on all my results so far (about 100) to find the constant in the equation with a bit more accuracy. I got the following: Damage ~ ( Ev/Es * s/v )^(0.21447 * rf) Graph of the fit can be found at: missileconstantfo8.png Will edit the first post to have the full equation.
Wannabehero Caldari Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2008.10.21 21:14:00 - [19] Awesome work Stafen, thanks for your efforts. Out of curiosity I plug in your formula for a stealth bomber firing regular cruise missiles at a microwarp-driving crusader at 5000 m/s. I came up with a damage reduction of ~90.21%. Very interesting. -- Don't harsh my mellow
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.27 21:40:00 - [20] Stafen, still confident on the values of the 'Damage Reduction Factor' you found for the various missiles? Most interesting if these still stand, most interesting... -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'

Kadoes Khan	Posted - 2008.10.28 01:30:00 - [21] Originally by: Wannabehero Edited by: Wannabehero on 21/10/2008 21:18:54 Awesome work Stafen, thanks for your efforts. Out of curiosity I plugged in your formula for a stealth bomber firing regular cruise missiles at a microwarp-driving crusader at 5000 m/s. I came up with a damage reduction of ~90.21%. Very interesting. Edit: That same crusader, if using an Afterburner and only moving at 1700 m/s has a damage reduction of ~93.62%. The inty will take less damage from a stealth bomber when using an afterburner instead of a MWD. Yes for avoiding damage you essentially want to get sig/velocity as low as possible, which an AB does better as it doesn't cause massive sig bloom, while still raising speed.
dojocan81	Posted - 2008.10.28 07:17:00 - [22] Edited by: dojocan81 on 28/10/2008 07:24:35 hi Stafen great job on doing this ... i did my math as well and worked a little bit with excel too .... and thats what excel showed me up after a made some graphs from your data "From In-Game" and "From formula" which i like to share from formula from in-game the graphs are showing, on which velocity&signature you'll receiving dmg area-wise edit: is there a was to expand your excel sheet up to 650 signature ? i would like to manage all missiles against all shiptypes
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.10.28 12:34:00 - [23] Originally by: dojocan81 Edited by: dojocan81 on 28/10/2008 08:30:59 hi Stafen great job on doing this ... i did my math as well and worked a little bit with excel too .... and thats what excel showed me up after a made some graphs from your data "From In-Game" and "From formula" which i like to share from formula from in-game the graphs are showing, on which velocity&signature you'll receiving dmg area-wise I like the graphs, they look kind of cool. Am I right in assuming the 'holes' in the in-game graph are due to missing data points?
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.10.28 12:39:00 - [24] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Stafen, still confident on the values of the 'Damage Reduction Factor' you found for the various missiles? Most interesting if these still stand, most interesting... The Damage Reduction factor can be found in-game if you 'show info' on a missile, it is not something I made up. The Devs change the values every so often, I think they have fixed them for now. I have not checked the formula in-game for a while, but it held up over a few days as devs were changing the missile attributes. I am assuming the devs are happy with the formula and are only changing the stats of the missiles. I will recheck when they are finished though.
dojocan81	Posted - 2008.10.28 12:49:00 - [25] Originally by: Stafen Originally by: dojocan81 Edited by: dojocan81 on 28/10/2008 08:30:59 hi Stafen great job on doing this ... i did my math as well and worked a little bit with excel too .... and thats what excel showed me up after a made some graphs from your data "From In-Game" and "From formula" which i like to share from formula from in-game the graphs are showing, on which velocity&signature you'll receiving dmg area-wise I like the graphs, they look kind of cool. Am I right in assuming the 'holes' in the in-game graph are due to missing data points? yes, so i had to interpolate the data with excel ... those "holes" are the result of the missing data and not to mention that excel cannot make more than 4 datastreams with the current grph settings can you maybe post all missiles stats here (sig r & explo v)? so i can go and make some better graphs at all ... i would like to do it by myself, but iam currently at work until 20 cet :(
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.10.28 15:10:00 - [26] Originally by: dojocan81 can you maybe post all missiles stats here (sig r & explo v)? so i can go and make some better graphs at all ... i would like to do it by myself, but iam currently at work until 20 cet :( Well I did some more testing on Sisi just now and it seems the devs have changed the magic constant above. I tested a Stealth Bomber verses an afterburner Wolf. Base Damage = 114.28 Explosion Radius = 42 Explosion Velocity = 89.7 Damage Reduction Factor = 4.5 Ship Signature = 33 Velocity = [132 197 313 545 602 809 911] Damage = [64.600 45.500 30.200 18.600 17.000 13.100 11.800] Now putting this into the formula gives the magic constant of 0.19750 and the formula damages become: Damage = [ 65.430 45.838 30.375 18.555 16.985 13.062 11.753] The fit of this curve and data is plotted at MissileConst.png I also have this spreadsheet I found on the SHC forums by Tarminic which plots % damage for various settings. I updated it to have current missile stats and the new constant. I will update the first post with the new constant.
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.10.28 16:30:00 - [27] Well I did a bit more testing with heavy, light and cruise missiles. It looks like the devs have changed how the damage reduction factor works. For heavy and light missiles it does seem to be like ^(3/14 drf) but for cruise missiles on a raven and stealth bomber it is ^(0.1975 drf) This is using the drf number you get from show info. I will hold off doing anymore testing and wait till changes are final or let someone else figure it out.
Endless Subversion The Accursed	Posted - 2008.11.04 19:41:00 - [28] So is the info in the OP up to date or not? If it isn't would someone mind posting the most recent crack at the missile dmg formula?
Akyla Bears Inc Violent-Tendencies	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:34:00 - [29] How do these skills work in that formula? "guided missile precision" 5% decreased factor of signature radius for light, heavy and cruise missile explosions per level of skill "target navigation prediction" 10% decrease per level in factor of target's velocity for all missiles ________________________________ All your honey are belong to us!
dojocan81	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:46:00 - [30] Originally by: Akyla How do these skills work in that formula? "guided missile precision" 5% decreased factor of signature radius for light, heavy and cruise missile explosions per level of skill "target navigation prediction" 10% decrease per level in factor of target's velocity for all missiles Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(k * drf) ) Er = Explosion Radius of missile Er = Base_Er(1-gmp_lvl0,05) Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile Ev = Base_Ev(1+0,1tmp_lvl)

Akyla Bears Inc Violent-Tendencies	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:55:00 - [31] Originally by: dojocan81 Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(k * drf) ) Er = Explosion Radius of missile Er = Base_Er(1-gmp_lvl0,05) Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile Ev = Base_Ev(1+0,1tmp_lvl) Hmm... I guess that's quite obvious. I'm slow today... got a cold :S ________________________________ All your honey are belong to us!
Bladen Kerst Caldari Locked and Loaded	Posted - 2008.11.12 08:24:00 - [32] bump
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.11.12 16:52:00 - [33] I have been testing the six types of T1 missiles on Sisi and after the testing I have to update the formula slightly. The update explains why the cruise missiles (and other high Damage Reduction Factor missiles) don't quite fit in cleanly. I first tested the 6 T1 missile types (light, rocket, heavy, ham, cruise and torp) and fitted the data to the equation: Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^c ) where 'c' is a constant which was different for each missile. The all fitted the equation nicely but with different values of c dependent on the drf. missile / drf / c light 2.8 0.603838 rocket 3 0.639119 heavy 3.2 0.679911 ham 4.5 0.881599 cruise 4.5 0.879992 torp 5 0.939506 The numbers seem to fit the equation: c = K * log(drf) as you can see from this graph Thus my best guess for the formula is now: Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(0.586 * log(drf)) (log is the natural logarithm) There needs to be more testing with T2 missiles (which I cannot use) to get more values for drf to compare against. Also the number 0.586 is only my best guess. Thank you everyone who reads this and for those of you who have tested it. I will update the first post.
Mikhale Romanov Black Hats Delta	Posted - 2008.11.12 17:35:00 - [34] hehe.. Now.. just out of sheer curiosity.. would anyone say that someone at CCP forgot a few 0's in their math?~ Just a thought ZOMG Communism!
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.11.12 17:35:00 - [35] Quote: missile / drf / c light 2.8 0.603838 rocket 3 0.639119 heavy 3.2 0.679911 ham 4.5 0.881599 cruise 4.5 0.879992 torp 5 0.939506 The numbers seem to fit the equation: c = K * log(drf) Thanks, Stafen Just to clarify, the log function is the natural logarithm, to the base e, often denoted as ln.
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.11.12 17:41:00 - [36] Originally by: Gypsio III Quote: missile / drf / c light 2.8 0.603838 rocket 3 0.639119 heavy 3.2 0.679911 ham 4.5 0.881599 cruise 4.5 0.879992 torp 5 0.939506 The numbers seem to fit the equation: c = K * log(drf) Thanks, Stafen Just to clarify, the log function is the natural logarithm, to the base e, often denoted as ln. Correct, but I use matlab (octave) for my maths and I am a mathematician so logarithm are normally base e :-) My pocket calculator uses ln though.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.11.12 17:49:00 - [37] Just running the modified formula though my spreadsheet. The difference relative to the previous iteration appears to be minimal - except for Rage and Fury, which do somewhat more damage then previously modelled in absurd situations such shooting Rage torps against an interceptor.
dojocan81	Posted - 2008.11.12 17:53:00 - [38] good work on that!!! posting some graphs later
Celeritas 5k Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2008.11.12 19:22:00 - [39] Thanks! It might be clearer to write it as (Ev/vel * sig/Er), rather than (Ev/Er * sig/vel). Makes the relationships between the numbers more obvious... that's just me though :D - Always be Happy, Never be satisfied.
Wannabehero Caldari Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2008.11.12 19:41:00 - [40] Stafen is the one on the right -- Don't harsh my mellow

Leeluvv Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.11.12 22:59:00 - [41] Edited by: Leeluvv on 12/11/2008 23:03:12 Edited by: Leeluvv on 12/11/2008 22:59:40 I've tried to simplify the formula into english so luddites like me can understand what it means in game terms (it isn't perfect as the last bit of the formula isn't a value that is easy to describe verbally). If the target ship's Signal Radius is less than missile's Explosion Radius, damage is reduced by the ratio of them, otherwise the damage is reduced by the ratio of the missile's Explosion Velocity to the ship's Velocity to the power of (constant x damage reduction factor) It may be wrong, but I needed a description to be able to relate the formula to what this meant in the game. I'll post some of the working to explain how I came up with it: Original formula: Damage multiplier = MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^c ) but, (Ev/Er * sig/vel) = (Ev/vel * sig/Er) Formula can now be expressed as: Damage multiplier = MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/vel * sig/Er)^c ) sig/Er is now common to both values being compared, so the formula can be expressed as: Damage multiplier = MIN(sig/Er,1) * (Ev/vel)^c Lee == Sig to follow
Kaven Kantrix Two Brothers Mining Corp. Kraftwerk.	Posted - 2008.11.13 01:48:00 - [42] Looking at your spreadsheet, assuming I am reading it right (since I cant do the formula in my head), if you want to increase damage on a target, even if the target is going very very fast, you can do so simply by increasing it's signature radius. Or, in other words, applying a target painter to a fast moving target will increase damage no matter what. Even if my missile has an explosion velocity of 80, and my target has a velocity of 1000, my target painting will increase damage applied. Is that right?
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.11.13 01:54:00 - [43] Yes. To do full damage, your target must have a sig radius greater than the explosion radius of your missile. This is the same as the old mechanics. However, if your target is going faster than the explosion velocity of your missile, then you can still deal full damage if the target's sig is sufficiently greater than your missile's explosion radius. This can be achieved increasing the target's sig using Painters or the 500% self-painting effect of a MWD, or by decreasing the explosion radius of your missile, such as by using Rigour rigs, Crash or by training Guided Missile Precision.
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.11.13 02:01:00 - [44] Originally by: Kaven Kantrix Looking at your spreadsheet, assuming I am reading it right (since I cant do the formula in my head), if you want to increase damage on a target, even if the target is going very very fast, you can do so simply by increasing it's signature radius. Or, in other words, applying a target painter to a fast moving target will increase damage no matter what. Even if my missile has an explosion velocity of 80, and my target has a velocity of 1000, my target painting will increase damage applied. Is that right? That is correct, if you are not getting full damage from your missiles a target painter will always increase your damage (by how much is the question) (using the old formula pre-QR that was not the case when speed tanking) As % damage received is the minimum of the following values: 1 s/Er (Ev/Er * s/v)^c 1 is full damage (so TP no help), other two numbers both get larger if the target signature increases. The spreadsheet I linked in the first post uses an old formula which has been outdated but it is almost correct.
Allen Ramses Caldari Typo Corp	Posted - 2008.11.13 02:10:00 - [45] Edited by: Allen Ramses on 13/11/2008 02:12:02 Originally by: Leeluvv Damage multiplier = MIN(sig/Er,(Ev/vel)^c ,1) <= I don't know if that's a correct use of MIN, as I didn't even know what it was until I read this thread and hit F1 in Excel. Yes, that is the correct usage of MIN, but that is not the correct equation. Basically, to break it down, it is this. MIN( <---Hello World. Er/Sig; <---Damage multiplier directly proportional to signature radius ((Ev/Er) * (Sig/Vel)) <---Stage 1 variable reduction. The product of two ratios. This sets the reference damage multiplier. ^(0.586 * log(drf)); <---Stage 2 variable reduction. Uses exponential multiplication to alter the reference damage multiplier. The lower the number, the closer to 1 the above number will effectively be. This is like a falloff. 1) <---Damage multiplier is not to exceed one. Goodbye World. Anyway, that should clear that up. However, one thing I am unclear on is the logarithmic function. To use LN(drf) gives me a much different result from using LOG(drf). Which is correct? EDIT: Damn forum colors... ____________________ Pimped out Raven to run level 4 missions quickly: 210 Mil ISK. Realizing your 120 Mil ISK Drake gets the job done faster: Priceless. Made a reality by speed and missile nerf.
dojocan81	Posted - 2008.11.13 06:31:00 - [46] Originally by: Allen Ramses Anyway, that should clear that up. However, one thing I am unclear on is the logarithmic function. To use LN(drf) gives me a much different result from using LOG(drf). Which is correct? EDIT: Damn forum colors... LN(drf)is the correct one
Skie Ankora	Posted - 2008.11.13 18:14:00 - [47] I built a quick spreadsheet to draw graphs comparing missile damage against target speed for both current and pre-quantum rise missile damage formulas (using the formula in this thread and one from 2005 I found here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=198863). There is a dropdown where you can select the missile type and the target ship class and whether or not they have a MWD active. It is very quick and dirty at the moment, and may well contain errors, but I thought I would post a link to it here in case anyone else wants to take a look or do further work on it. Link to spreadsheet: http://eve-files.com/dl/178366
Viktor Del'Grande	Posted - 2008.11.13 19:10:00 - [48] Hi guys, today i made some test on sigularity and collected some data. The collected curves shows that Stafen's formula is right. Here is my Scilab file and a screenshot of the diagram: Scilab File Diagram The Data is not DPS wise, its the single hit at 0% Resists. The data got collected at a Ishkur. The Resists of the AF and the fitting of the firing raven is documentated in the scilab file.
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.11.13 19:12:00 - [49] Originally by: Skie Ankora I built a quick spreadsheet to draw graphs comparing missile damage against target speed for both current and pre-quantum rise missile damage formulas Nice spreadsheet, a nice quick way to test things. (I suck at making spreadsheets) Also I thought I should post data to backup my claims. First my data, QR_missile_data.png As you can see out of my tests of all T1 missiles the biggest error I get is 0.82%. Would like to know how it works with T2 missiles. The data plotted to find the constant in the formula: QR_missile_const.png Also some interesting maths regarding Target painters: 1) All damage increases is capped by by the base missile of the missile of course. 2) If the target is stationary or not fast enough to speed tank the damage increase in % is the same as the signature radius bonus. I.E. unbonused T1 painter gives 25% damage increased. 3) If the target is in the speed tanking range (which is most of the time) the damage increase for a missile is: (TP bonus)^(0.586log(drf)) so for a T1 TP and cruise missile: 1.25^(0.586log(4.5)) = 1.2173 so 22% for T1 TP and torps: 1.25^(0.586*log(5)) = 1.2342 so 23% nice and simple and tested in-game :-)
Javius Rong Caldari Sigillum Militum Xpisti	Posted - 2008.11.13 19:19:00 - [50] Thanks for all the hard work. Upon reviewing the formula and the shape of the damage reduction factor pre and post, I am very surprised at how fast the new one falls off (width and slope). I would have expected a wider shape to the curve with less slope. Does this curve look similar to a rail gun tracking fall off with transversal speed?

Viktor Del'Grande	Posted - 2008.11.13 22:17:00 - [51] I did a update and now you see Stafens theoretical data and my collected data in two diagrams and they match really good New Scilab File New Diagram
Diziet Montoya	Posted - 2008.11.13 22:41:00 - [52] When I click "Show Info" on loaded cruise missile (fitting screen) it says explosion velocity 96.6 m/s. When I do same for a torp it says 99.4 m/s. Surely the figure for cruise should be higher than torps?
Kaven Kantrix Two Brothers Mining Corp. Kraftwerk.	Posted - 2008.11.14 00:43:00 - [53] Originally by: Stafen 1) All damage increases is capped by by the base missile of the missile of course. Uh...so I am guessing the bolded text should be "by the base damage"?
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.11.14 00:48:00 - [54] Originally by: Kaven Kantrix Originally by: Stafen 1) All damage increases is capped by by the base missile of the missile of course. Uh...so I am guessing the bolded text should be "by the base damage"? Yep, thanks, did not proof read it carefully enough.
Stafen Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.11.14 00:57:00 - [55] Originally by: Viktor Del'Grande I did a update and now you see Stafens theoretical data and my collected data in two diagrams and they match really good New Scilab File New Diagram Nice program scilab, but I have not much experience using it. I am guessing most of the errors between theoretical and measured damage is due to the high resists of the target (which makes the damage inflicted small thus rounding plays a bigger role) and the complexity of the setup of the attacker and target. But I like the test as it tries a large amount of modules which effect missile damage thus showing how everything works together.
Skie Ankora	Posted - 2008.11.14 01:40:00 - [56] Originally by: Javius Rong I am very surprised at how fast the new one falls off (width and slope). I would have expected a wider shape to the curve with less slope. As am I - it seems like in most situations missile damage will be significantly less than it was pre-nerf even when using the correct weapon type. For example using heavy missiles against a cruiser sized target, the damage is 35% less than pre-nerf levels at speeds of 200m/s (which can be achieved easily without using an afterburner). Fitting an afterburner helps reduce damage as expected, but not as much as it should compared to a ship moving unaided at full speed. AB typically reduces damage by a further 15% or so on most ships, so 50% reduction in total. The exception is when the target activates the MWD, when the damage is similar or even more than pre-speed nerf levels, as expected. 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.
Allen Ramses Caldari Typo Corp	Posted - 2008.11.14 02:30:00 - [57] Originally by: Skie Ankora As am I - it seems like in most situations missile damage will be significantly less than it was pre-nerf even when using the correct weapon type. That's quite the understatement. As it is now, assuming max skills, a torpedo will deal only 40% damage to a typhoon going 162m/s. No, not after resists. ____________________ Pimped out Raven to run level 4 missions quickly: 210 Mil ISK. Realizing your 120 Mil ISK Drake gets the job done faster: Priceless. Made a reality by speed and missile nerf.
Viktor Del'Grande	Posted - 2008.11.14 07:06:00 - [58] Originally by: Stafen Originally by: Viktor Del'Grande I did a update and now you see Stafens theoretical data and my collected data in two diagrams and they match really good New Scilab File New Diagram Nice program scilab, but I have not much experience using it. I am guessing most of the errors between theoretical and measured damage is due to the high resists of the target (which makes the damage inflicted small thus rounding plays a bigger role) and the complexity of the setup of the attacker and target. But I like the test as it tries a large amount of modules which effect missile damage thus showing how everything works together. As i saw the data, this was my tought too. Today i will do the more "important" test against speed tanked cruiser. Maybe i can get a thired char which remote reps the "poor target"
Murina The Scope	Posted - 2008.11.14 08:15:00 - [59] Gunships have a min/max range (optimal+fallof) lets say 0-30km, now in that 30km they need to use their weakest long range ammo and even that suffers from dmg reduction at some of the 0-30km ranges. Or if they want to use the highest dmg ammo for the range the target ship is at they need to swap ammo every time the target ship moves to another range. And on top of that theirs the whole transversal issue. Now missiles may receive a dmg reduction due to speed/sig but they do not get one in regards to range or transversal and not needing to swap ammo or just use the lowest dmg type because of a range issue is a great benefit. Both systems have down sides deal with it. POST NERF PVP SKILLS: "shall we engage?" "hmmm how many ships do they have?" "more than us" "lets not bother then" "WOW great job FC!!!!" ".................
Skie Ankora	Posted - 2008.11.14 08:52:00 - [60] I updated my post above ^^^ for clarity, and to add some information I omitted about the negative effects of shooting missiles at a smaller ship class (e.g. cruise missiles against frigates), which is now significantly reduced on pre-patch levels even if the target activates a MWD.

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]

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