...to clarify weapons maths

[Marvin]

Vice has, indeed, changed the default numbers since early beta.

More than once. It's called tweaking. And Vice never stops.

[Triton83]

Sorry Maarshalk but your calculation have no mathematical sense...

You should read carefully what I said, maybe it isn't very clear because english isn't my native language I can try to reformulate some unclear things if you tell me which ^^

Your equation gives a strange result which is "DPS per ms of cycle rate"

Well, English or should I say American is not my Native language either!....I understand what you are trying to say!...LOL

I do not think you understand the point I'm trying to make.
Maybe another example will help!

Take another 2 examples from my tables on SeeJay's Website
These tables by the way are actual results of the slider settings in the games Weapons lab. Do not think about the calculations being right or wrong just look at the end results of the calulations to compare their results when you test them in the field, these 2 are almost 2 extremes of the cycle rate 30 Versus 9.

1. Rail Particle Cannon #11 of the table:
Sliders set at: 100%, 0%, 100%, 0%
Yield=77, H/S=162, E/S=21, RPM/C=287/30
Your Calculation gives RPMxY=287x77=22,099
My Calculation gives (R/M/C)xYx1000=12,277.2

2. Fusion Particle Cannon #10 of the table:
Sliders set at: 0%, 100%, 0%, 100%
Yield=27, H/S=76, E/S=11, RPM/C=437/9
Your Calculation gives RPMxY=437x27=11,799
My Calculation gives (R/M/C)xYx1000=21,850

Again almost 2 x the ratio difference between the 2 calculations.
Your calculations are saying that the Rail Cannon #11 is 2x the better Cannon of the 2. When I tested these 2 guns, in game the first time, I used your calculations thinking exactly like you that this was 2x better than the Fusion Cannon.

But I found out to my Surprise that the Fusion Cannon #10 Destroyed the Target 2 x Faster and this did not make sense Just like the previous 2 Examples of 412/12 at yield 15 and 465/5 at yield 12 did not make sense with also almost 2x the difference the first time I tested them using simply RPMxY.

But when using my calculations even if it is wrong all the results matched. Remmember programers use different formulas that do not nescesarely make sense or they only make sense to the programmer!.....

I hope I'm clear with what I'm trying to say or explain here.
If not blame it on my Dutch interpretation of the American Language!.....:P

Maarschalk you conviced me.
I have craft and test your both designs on a lying still Shrike ship (thanks ReaxBe) with depleted shields.

The Rail Cannon deals far more damages !

In fact, your Fusion Cannon design was so lame that I couldn't even kill my target because of its shield recharger ! The Rail Cannon did not have any problem with it !

Maybe you should test it

I have the two guns stored in a hangar, if you want we'll test them together You take the FC I take the RC

[-splosives-]

it is possible that the rail cannon is better, but that doesn't mean the calculations are correct.

[Triton83]

it is possible that the rail cannon is better, but that doesn't mean the calculations are correct.

Maarschalk was saying the FC wins over RC.

Field experiment confirmed the RPM x Y calculation !

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[-splosives-]

oh yeah, and taken shield resistance into account into account (reduced damage per shot) the low rpm high yield cannons will have an even greater advantage.

[Maarschalk]

Sorry Maarshalk but your calculation have no mathematical sense...

You should read carefully what I said, maybe it isn't very clear because english isn't my native language I can try to reformulate some unclear things if you tell me which ^^

Your equation gives a strange result which is "DPS per ms of cycle rate"

Well, English or should I say American is not my Native language either!....I understand what you are trying to say!...LOL

I do not think you understand the point I'm trying to make.
Maybe another example will help!

Take another 2 examples from my tables on SeeJay's Website
These tables by the way are actual results of the slider settings in the games Weapons lab. Do not think about the calculations being right or wrong just look at the end results of the calulations to compare their results when you test them in the field, these 2 are almost 2 extremes of the cycle rate 30 Versus 9.

1. Rail Particle Cannon #11 of the table:
Sliders set at: 100%, 0%, 100%, 0%
Yield=77, H/S=162, E/S=21, RPM/C=287/30
Your Calculation gives RPMxY=287x77=22,099
My Calculation gives (R/M/C)xYx1000=12,277.2

2. Fusion Particle Cannon #10 of the table:
Sliders set at: 0%, 100%, 0%, 100%
Yield=27, H/S=76, E/S=11, RPM/C=437/9
Your Calculation gives RPMxY=437x27=11,799
My Calculation gives (R/M/C)xYx1000=21,850

Again almost 2 x the ratio difference between the 2 calculations.
Your calculations are saying that the Rail Cannon #11 is 2x the better Cannon of the 2. When I tested these 2 guns, in game the first time, I used your calculations thinking exactly like you that this was 2x better than the Fusion Cannon.

But I found out to my Surprise that the Fusion Cannon #10 Destroyed the Target 2 x Faster and this did not make sense Just like the previous 2 Examples of 412/12 at yield 15 and 465/5 at yield 12 did not make sense with also almost 2x the difference the first time I tested them using simply RPMxY.

But when using my calculations even if it is wrong all the results matched. Remmember programers use different formulas that do not nescesarely make sense or they only make sense to the programmer!.....

I hope I'm clear with what I'm trying to say or explain here.
If not blame it on my Dutch interpretation of the American Language!.....:P

Maarschalk you conviced me.
I have craft and test your both designs on a lying still Shrike ship (thanks ReaxBe) with depleted shields.

The Rail Cannon deals far more damages !

In fact, your Fusion Cannon design was so lame that I couldn't even kill my target because of its shield recharger ! The Rail Cannon did not have any problem with it !

Maybe you should test it

I have the two guns stored in a hangar, if you want we'll test them together You take the FC I take the RC

Did you make sure you where in weapons range with both of them?

The Fusion Cannons range at those settings was 670 m while the rail Cannon range was 780 m!

Sure would like to try it out when I get a chance!.....


[Edited on 1-24-2013 by Maarschalk]

[Maarschalk]

oh yeah, and taken shield resistance into account into account (reduced damage per shot) the low rpm high yield cannons will have an even greater advantage.

This is very good to know. Now formulate a formula that includes shield resistance so you can calculate the effectiveness of the Weapons that matches the results of the slider settings when tested in the field!....

[Triton83]

Did you make sure you where in weapons range with both of them?

The Fusion Cannons range at those settings was 670 m while the rail Cannon range was 780 m!

Sure would like to try it out when I get a chance!.....


[Edited on 1-24-2013 by Maarschalk]

Range 200-300m (or whatever the unit is)

[Munshine]

I think the hull resistance factor would be more appropriate for particle cannons. Remember that particle cannons are less effective against shields than beams.
So you confirmed that a higher yield rail cannon deals more damages than a lower yield fusion cannon at the same range.



[Edited on 1-25-2013 by Munshine]

[Triton83]

I think the hull resistance factor would be more appropriate for particle cannons. Remember that particle cannons are less effective against shields than beams.

I'm not sure to understand what are you calling hull resistance factor ? Hull armor seems to be simulated by classic hitpoints.

So you confirmed that a higher yield rail cannon deals more damages than a lower yield fusion cannon at the same range.

No ! DPS also depends on your RPM ! I just tested the two designs Maarschalk was talking about, which were like extrem opposite design types.

The important thing I confirmed is that you should use Y x RPM to compare your damages over time, whatever your designs are.

To compare efficiently particle guns you'll need to calculate 3 things:
1. yield over time = RPM x Y (Y/min)
2. energy consumption = RPM x E (E/min)
3. heat production = RPM x H (H/min)
Those 3 results are with the range the only numbers you will need (as far as I know)

[Munshine]

I think the hull resistance factor would be more appropriate for particle cannons. Remember that particle cannons are less effective against shields than beams.

I'm not sure to understand what are you calling hull resistance factor ? Hull armor seems to be simulated by classic hitpoints.

Maars wanted to include into the formula for particle cannons the shield resistance. But Vice in his email was comparing beams against shields and particle cannons against hull.
So it does make sense to take into account the hull resistance.

We can't tell how hull armor is simulated as we don't have a rough estimate .

[Edited on 1-25-2013 by Munshine]

[Triton83]

I think the hull resistance factor would be more appropriate for particle cannons. Remember that particle cannons are less effective against shields than beams.

I'm not sure to understand what are you calling hull resistance factor ? Hull armor seems to be simulated by classic hitpoints.

Maars wanted to include into the formula for particle cannons the shield resistance. But Vice in his email was comparing beams against shields and particle cannons against hull.
So it does make sense to take into account the hull resistance.

We can't tell how hull armor is simulated as we don't have a rough estimate .

[Edited on 1-25-2013 by Munshine]

What I understand from what Vice said is that the effective damage you deal to your enemy with particule cannon is a bit inferior to the one you calculate with the DPS formula. Indeed, shield is recharging between two hits so you have to subtract some "shield-absorbed-damages" for each hit.

Moreover, as Splosives said, maybe the "shield resistance" Vice mentioned is another shield feature like reducing damage of each shot, whatever your shield charge is. In this case, low RPM high yield designs would be favorised (less lowered damages).

The armor seems to be calculated with hitpoints without "resistance" (i.e. lowered damages).

EDIT : Maybe the shield resistance is the little red shield array who remains when you are using beam. In this case, the resistance would apply for your first particule fired rounds only.

[Edited on 25/1/2013 by Triton83]

[-splosives-]

oh yeah, and taken shield resistance into account into account (reduced damage per shot) the low rpm high yield cannons will have an even greater advantage.

This is very good to know. Now formulate a formula that includes shield resistance so you can calculate the effectiveness of the Weapons that matches the results of the slider settings when tested in the field!....

Considder the case where shield resistance is a fixed value of yield that gets deflected on every hit.
the correct formula would be:
RPM * (yield - shield resistance) * hit fraction = damage done per minute

Where hit fraction is the fraction of shots that actually hit the target (going from 0 to 1 where 1 means all shots hit).


It is also possible that shield resistance is a fraction of the yield, in this case the formula would be slightly different.

Considder "shield resistance" the fraction of yield that gets through:
RPM * yield * shield resistance * hit fraction = damage done per minute

If "shield resistance" would be the fraction that gets deflected:
RPM * (yield - yield * shield resistance) * hit fraction = damage done per minute


It is possible that none of these assumptions are actually how shield resistance works.
In this case, the equation remains unknown.



[Edited on 1-25-2013 by -splosives-]

[Triton83]

Maybe firing beam with particule while hitting hull can reduce the shield resistance (but I doubt it is worth the energy cost)

[-splosives-]

Considder the case where shield resistance is a fixed value of yield that gets deflected on every hit.
the correct formula would be:
RPM * (yield - shield resistance) * hit fraction = damage done per minute

Where hit fraction is the fraction of shots that actually hit the target (going from 0 to 1 where 1 means all shots hit).

If this is actually how shield resistance works, then you'll see that

RPM * (yield - shield resistance) = RPM * yield - RPM * shield resistance

As we can see, as the RPM gets higher and the yield gets lower, the first term might remain the same, but the second term will increase, resulting in less damage done

[-splosives-]

Another assumption:

Consider shield resistance being a fraction of yield that increases over time as shields regenerate. so the shield resistance would be dependent on RPM, as a high RPM gives less time for the shield to regenerate.

Consider increase in shield resistance a linear equation of the first degree.

S = a*t
where S is the fraction of yield deflected, t is time and a is an unknown constant.

In this case, t can be substituted with the time inbetween each shot, or the cycle rate.
We know that C = (1/RPM)*60000 = 60000/RPM

then the equation will be as follows

RPM * (yield - yield*((a*60000)/RPM)) = Damage done/minute

Assuming every shot hits.

The only unknown value would be "a", which represents how fast shield resistance regenerates.
"a" has a unit of "1/ms", making S a dimentionless number.

[zex]

"a" might be determined by shield class, shield reserve energy, or some combination of the two in that scenario.

You guys at splosivescorp are doing some interesting science! Thanks for sharing it with the community!

[-splosives-]

I think "a" might be dependent on shield battery, because I think that is what causes shield regeneration.
Not sure though.

[zex]

Maybe, I thought the battery was more of a capacity thing, higher battery == more reserve.

[Munshine]

You are right for the shield resistance for particle cannons. But it seems you can't apply this formula for beams which are a kind of continuous shots (no interval between rounds).
I assume that there would be some hull resistance for beams because unlike particle cannons they are doing minor damages against hull whatever their yield.

[Nubarus]

Can you actually make a better cannon suited for long range combat then the flarebeam or icespear?

So basicly the same range but with better damage?

I have been tinkering with the sliders but always come out short so at this time I am still using the icespear.

[Triton83]

You are right for the shield resistance for particle cannons. But it seems you can't apply this formula for beams which are a kind of continuous shots (no interval between rounds).
I assume that there would be some hull resistance for beams because unlike particle cannons they are doing minor damages against hull whatever their yield.

In fact there is an interval between "laser shots". Your beam cannon has its own cyclerate. Vice has state that the minor damage done to hull by laser beams have their own equation. It is probably your usual beam yield greatly reduced by a coefficient (which could be called hull resistance), but I'm not sure.

Can you actually make a better cannon suited for long range combat then the flarebeam or icespear?

So basicly the same range but with better damage?

I have been tinkering with the sliders but always come out short so at this time I am still using the icespear.

The maximum range for crafted weapons is 790. But you can make weapon with far more damage and better energy use than the "basic" weapons.

We know that C = (1/RPM)*60000 = 60000/RPM

Don't forget the shot time ! The period is not C but (C+t) with t = shot time (cf post #1 and #15 in this thread)

C = 60000/RPM - t

Then your equation will be :

RPM x (Y - ((Y x 60000 x a / RPM) - t)) = Damage done per minute

Maybe S can be a coefficient and not a fraction of yield as in
Damage/min = RPM x Y x S = RPM x Y x a(t+C)

[Edited on 25/1/2013 by Triton83]

[zex]

RPM needs a modifier to reflect cannon relay and heatsink.

[Nubarus]

So what settings do I use to make a low energy use, long range weapon that does more dmg then the icespear?

[-splosives-]

Don't forget the shot time ! The period is not C but (C+t) with t = shot time (cf post #1 and #15 in this thread)

C = 60000/RPM - t

Then your equation will be :

RPM x (Y - ((Y x 60000 x a / RPM) - t)) = Damage done per minute

Maybe S can be a coefficient and not a fraction of yield as in
Damage/min = RPM x Y x S = RPM x Y x a(t+C)

[Edited on 25/1/2013 by Triton83]

for 2 ships standing still, the period should be equal to C
C = 60000/ RPM, because C is independent of fire distance or fire time, as it calculates shots when fired, not when hit.

I would recommend removing the "shot time" from calculations because it makes things even more complicated, and it's not really necessary to get an idea of DPS.

RPM x Y x (60000 x a / RPM) would be reasonable, but the meaning of "a" wouldn't be the same as in my calculation.