Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > The Academy
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 101
11-20-2010, 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raso
My thought has often been that with a turret up front and at the rear and a single beam up front and at the rear you could, potentially, always have at least 3 weapons on target along with lower power drain when firing all 4. At least that's been my hope.
I ran a couple of quick tests and I verified that you can determine the DPS of different weapon combinations by averaging the different results. So, for example, if you want to figure the DPS of 2 turrets and 2 beams, take the damage of 4 beams and 4 turrets, add them together and divide by two. The only thing to remember is that you need to take the figure for the total number of weapons being equipped, rather than the number of each (ex: average 4 turrets with 4 beams, not 2 turrets with 2 beams).

This average gets you in the right ball park, only +/- a few percent, which could very well be due to the small sample size of my quick verification tests. I even tried a very weird build of 1 turret, 1 beam, 1 cannon and 1 dual beam, and the calculated result was about 4% lower than the actual result (once again based only on a single test run). While this may not be 100% exact, it should provide results that are close enough to judge the effectiveness of a build.

Unfortunately since i haven't done any low power tests, it's hard to say right now how turrets vs beams would look at a lower power setting.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 102
11-20-2010, 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagorak View Post
math
interesting. that implies that you indeed could extrapolate your graphs to any weapon combination within an acceptable margin of error. to be precise the actual damage might not be correct but the relation to other extrapolations should be the same.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 103
11-20-2010, 05:15 AM
So, who is up to the task to write an app or excel sheet for this?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 104
11-29-2010, 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach View Post
Is (BASE + (SI x (STAT/100) ) x (WPOW/50) still the equation for determining weapon dammage?
The folowing is quoted from "the engines canna take it".
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBadB View Post
Damage Calculations
Based on the testing Iíve done so far, the damage of your weapons appears to be calculated as follows:

1.Your captainís total Stat Bonus for the weapon is applied as a percentage to the Standard Issue damage of the weapon
2.This is added to the base damage of the weapon
3.For energy weapons, the total damage is then modified by +2% for every point of weapon power over 50 or -2% for every point of weapon
This is the current damage displayed on the dynamic weapon tooltips on your hotbar or in the weapons tray, and for the mathematically-inclined can be summarised as:

(Base + (SI x Stat/100)) x (WPow/50)

Where Base is the base damage of the weapon, SI is the Standard Issue damage of the weapon type, Stat is the total Stat Bonus and WPow is the current weapon power level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagorak View Post
For example, it's confusing that ... weapons scale differently at different power levels.
Okay, I've been hesitant to comment because I didn't want to discourage people who have put in lots of effort to research the underlying mechanics of our game. But we have a problem. Either BigBadB's formula is obsolete, or Nagorik's charts include some form of error. This is because the formula we have can not produce results that scale differently at different power levels.

Since no powers are being used in the testing Stat = 0 and the middle factor drops out of the equation, leaving us: Damage = Base x (WPow/50). The base is thus modified by +/- 2% per point of power. So at power = 50 damage = base, and with power = 51 then damage = 1.02 x base, etc.

There is no way for this ratio to change as the power level increases. Each point of power will be worth 2% of the base regardless of whether it is the 100th point of power or the 125th point. Therefore any graph this formula produced would have exactly the same shape at 100 points as at 125 points and only differ in scale.

So either the devs have thrown us a fast one and changed things, or perhaps simply bugged it, or Nagorik has made an error in math. If Nagorik's data is correct (hard to know without the raw data and an undergrade degree in statistics) then we need a new formula. If the formula is correct, then I can suggest a possible mistake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagorak View Post
Even though the inventory damage rating is technically set at 50 energy, from this point forward, I'm going to refer to 100 weapon energy as delivering full damage. It's easy to envision 100 as being "100% damage"
Easy to envision, perhaps, but it might have led to this mistake. If you arbitrarily assign 100 as the new unit value and call it 100%, then it would be very easy to mistakenly call 125 power 125%, because 25 extra points of power is a 25% increase over 100. However 25 points of power is a 50% increase over 50, and 50 is the point you must use for comparison because only at 50 power is damage equal to base. Anything else will skew the numbers. It's a common enough mistake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagorak View Post
To be honest the whole thing is kind of a nightmare, because running individual tests is a very inefficient way of actually figuring anything out, but without the actual source code from the game it's hard to come up with something that models the results.
Assuming the formula is correct, and other factors like range or the recycle issues that Nagorik makes note of do not have any relevant effect, then weapon power would work like this:

- Discount the power drain of the firing weapon and total the rest. Remembering the cap at 135, you subtract the total weapon drain from your power level. (Note the post regarding the behaviour of beam overload for this slight variation). This gives you your effective power level. Subtract 50 from this level, then double the number. This is how much percentage bonus your weapon has while all the others are firing. Apply this bonus to the base. Do this individually for each weapon and total the results.

Of course if the formula is wrong then we have to go back to researching base numbers or cracking the source code. Neither do I have time for, so I leave it to others. Perhaps Nagorik could post his raw numbers. But currently the charts and the formula are incompatible.

And I can't say how sorry that makes me.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 105
11-30-2010, 01:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by richander View Post
Since no powers are being used in the testing Stat = 0 and the middle factor drops out of the equation, leaving us: Damage = Base x (WPow/50). The base is thus modified by +/- 2% per point of power. So at power = 50 damage = base, and with power = 51 then damage = 1.02 x base, etc.
He is not using powers, but I assume he is skilled in the weapons he is used, so the middle term is not removed.

What I am currently not sure about - what's the difference between "Base" and "SI"? Aren't they the same value?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 106
11-30-2010, 03:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by richander View Post
[... lot of text ...]
You made two huge errors.

First, the weapon power isn't a constant, While reading the guide (and while playing the game DOH) you should have noticed that weapon power is only constant for the first salve and for a rather limited amount of weapons before 'drain' sets in.
After that you need empirical data because we don't have the means to figure out the exact amount of weapon power each weapon is firing on.

Second, Base x (WPow/50):

100 (Nagorak's arbirtary choice) = Base x (100/50)
100 = Base x 2
100 / 2 = Base
50 = Base

Damage (125wp) = Base x (125/50)
Damage = 50 x 2,5
Damage = 125

q.e.d.

The first error is something understandable, the second one however makes me feel ashamed for you
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 107
11-30-2010, 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
He is not using powers, but I assume he is skilled in the weapons he is used, so the middle term is not removed.

What I am currently not sure about - what's the difference between "Base" and "SI"? Aren't they the same value?
Base and SI are different as BigBadB has described them. SI is the theoretical damage of a mark zero weapon before it is adjusted for mark. Base is the number you see on the weapon after adjustment for mark. What this means is that skill and powers are not effected by the mark of the weapon directly. Yes He has skill in the weapon, but the effect will be a constant rather than a variable, so what I was pointing out is that a constant shouldn't cause the relative differences we see between 100 power and 125.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dukedom View Post
You made two huge errors.
No, you made two unwarranted assumptions, though I won't trade insults with you for it, because people often don't pay attention to the details when confronted with a wall of text.

- First, I am aware that the purpose of the work is to determine the finer points of how weapon power effects damage. I want that to continue, which is why I was hesitant to post anything that might put a damper on it. But the fluctuations of timing in weapon fire and the 2% per point of power ratio implied by the formula should not produce such different shaped graphs at different power levels.

- Secondly, I am aware of the math. Yes it works out to the same value, if that is all that is involved. I haven't seen the rest of his analysis, so I don't know. It's just that when applying percentages to additional calculations it is important to make certain you are using the same unit value, so I made a suggestion as to where he could check... as he himself pointed out, it is confusing that it behaves the way it does at different power levels. That means there is an unknown... either a mistake, or an undetermined effect. A good mathematician first checks for mistakes. If it double checks clear, then we can try and determine the unknown factor(s).

You may note that I never accused Nagorath of being wrong. I simply concluded that there is something we haven't explained yet.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 108
11-30-2010, 09:45 PM
The reason weapon power affects DPS in a non-linear way is because the power drain is constant. So, firing 2 beams at 100 energy drains 10 power, and firing 2 beams at 50 energy drains 10 power. The thing is, 10 power is only 10% of 100, but it's 20% of 50. Which means, theoretically, ignoring all of the other quirks, two weapons firing at 100 power will do 90% damage of a single weapon, but two firing at 50 will only do 80% of the damage of a single weapon. So, the impact of the drain is bigger at lower power levels. This is one of my biggest criticisms of the current weapon power system, as it would be better if the drain was percentage based and thus resulted in the same basic curve at every energy level.

Now when you add the extra quirks of some weapons having more down time, some having more upfront damage, etc, the theory gets distorted a lot, which is why I haven't been able to figure out a way to calculate the results at different power levels.

I'm sure BigBadB's formula is accurate for a given weapon firing at a given energy level, but the drain itself is non-linear, which results in the different graph results.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 109
12-01-2010, 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by richander View Post
snipped
Given the age of the article, it may very well be obsolete at this point and no longer a valid equation for weapon damage calculations.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 110
12-01-2010, 08:01 PM
I've been double checking my own analysis of the numbers, looking for any place I might have made incorrect assumptions. Nagorik, you mentioned that your testing was done against negvars with low mark weapons so as to increase the sample size per combat... How much variation did you expect due to small range fluctuations? Did you do any testing at rest against immobile targets like satellites?

Also, and this might be important, was the test character highly skilled or low skill?
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:21 PM.