More actions
Naara elein (talk | contribs) m Final (?) polish |
Naara elein (talk | contribs) m Minor polish |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
=Introduction= | =Introduction= | ||
Difficulty: Advanced (requires a previous | Difficulty: Advanced (requires a previous knowledge of concepts such as tracking, falloff, DPS and more) | ||
This article takes a | This article takes a detailed look into how the damage from turrets (guns) is determined. The To-Hit-Equation (which determines the effects from falloff and tracking) is given a thorough explanation and a datatable is provided to show the practical consequences of it, the random damage distribution is also looked at, as well as its connection with the chance to hit. | ||
To be unbiased and as accurate as possible, there is some math. You will however not be required to do any calculations of your own unless you want to double check something, so if you don't like math you can just keep on reading, all of the important things are explained with words as well. | |||
Additional information about turrets can also be found on http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Turrets and tips and tricks for using turrets more effectively is at http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Gunnery_Guide | Additional information about turrets can also be found on http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Turrets and tips and tricks for using turrets more effectively is at http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Gunnery_Guide | ||
=Turret damage output= | |||
= | ==An initial look at the To-Hit-Equation== | ||
This is the To-Hit-Equation: | This is the To-Hit-Equation: | ||
| Line 50: | Line 53: | ||
Now lets look at the range part. Being inside optimal never incurs a hit penalty, so we must move out into falloff ranges too see any changes in the to-hit-equation's output values. Lets freeze everything apart from falloff. What we are left with is: a fixed number divided by Falloff. | Now lets look at the range part. Being inside optimal never incurs a hit penalty, so we must move out into falloff ranges too see any changes in the to-hit-equation's output values. Lets freeze everything apart from falloff. What we are left with is: a fixed number divided by Falloff. | ||
Did you see what they had in common? In the tracking term, we now have ''something / Turret tracking'', in the range term we have ''something / Falloff''. In both cases there is a value that is divided by the variable we are interested in. So the same thing happens in both cases. That means that tracking and falloff behave | Did you see what they had in common? In the tracking term, we now have ''something / Turret tracking'', in the range term we have ''something / Falloff''. In both cases there is a value that is divided by the variable we are interested in. So mathematically the same thing happens in both cases. That means that tracking and falloff behave the exact same way. So if you understand one of them, you have actually also understood the other. | ||
== | ===Tools=== | ||
== | |||
E-UNI member Junker Jan created a [https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ag79e9sxtWMcdGRVYXJCeWRDR2V2MTU1UmFEcTRSWkE&hl=en spreadsheet] primarily focused on determining your chance of hitting a target given a set of criterion. Made Public via Google Docs the document won't be editable when you click the above link, otherwise one accidental click could destroy all the carefully crafted formulae! You will need to either click '''File --> Download As''' to download the spreadsheet into your format of choice, or '''File --> Make a copy...''' to copy the document to your personal Google Docs store if you have a Google Account. | E-UNI member Junker Jan created a [https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ag79e9sxtWMcdGRVYXJCeWRDR2V2MTU1UmFEcTRSWkE&hl=en spreadsheet] primarily focused on determining your chance of hitting a target given a set of criterion. Made Public via Google Docs the document won't be editable when you click the above link, otherwise one accidental click could destroy all the carefully crafted formulae! You will need to either click '''File --> Download As''' to download the spreadsheet into your format of choice, or '''File --> Make a copy...''' to copy the document to your personal Google Docs store if you have a Google Account. | ||
The values you should input should be in their final state, i.e. after all implants, modules, boosters, or fleet boosts you want included for the calculations are activated. All of the required information is available from the ''Show Info'' context-menu of the turret or ship in question, so for an in-game test simply undock and turn on everything you want to get your real-world actual values. For NPC ships you could use a resource like [http://eveinfo.com/npcship EVE Info] to find out their signature radii or typical armor resistance values. | The values you should input should be in their final state, i.e. after all implants, modules, boosters, or fleet boosts you want included for the calculations are activated. All of the required information is available from the ''Show Info'' context-menu of the turret or ship in question, so for an in-game test simply undock and turn on everything you want to get your real-world actual values. For NPC ships you could use a resource like [http://eveinfo.com/npcship EVE Info] to find out their signature radii or typical armor resistance values. | ||
| Line 102: | Line 97: | ||
==Damage and DPS reduction | ==Damage and DPS reduction in the presence of a chance to miss== | ||
When a turret has less than 100% chance to hit the damage is reduced in two different ways. The first and obvious one is that it sometimes misses, the other is that the max damage on normal hits (e.g. not perfect ones) are reduced as well. Both of these effects will decrease the DPS output. | When a turret has less than 100% chance to hit the damage is reduced in two different ways. The first and obvious one is that it sometimes misses, the other is that the max damage on normal hits (e.g. not perfect ones) are reduced as well. Both of these effects will decrease the DPS output. | ||
| Line 110: | Line 105: | ||
==Tracking | ==Detailed DPS loss from Tracking and Falloff== | ||
The table below shows how damage and DPS goes down as a result of lower hit chance. The decrease is identical for tracking and falloff so either one can be used. If you wish to combine the effects of tracking and falloff, look them up individualy and then multiply them (note: this only works for the columns Hit Chance and Relative DPS; the | Since it was established earlier that Tracking and Falloff behave exactly the same way. We can use the same data table and the same graphs to describe both, but only one at the time. | ||
The table below shows how damage and DPS goes down as a result of lower hit chance. The decrease is identical for tracking and falloff so either one can be used. If you wish to combine the effects of tracking and falloff, look them up individualy and then multiply them (note: this only works for the columns Hit Chance and Relative DPS; the column Reduction in DPS by % can not be used for this). | |||
The true strength with the table and graphs below are not to calculate what your DPS might be in a given situation. But rather to see how much you can push your falloff and tracking while still maintaining a decent DPS output. | |||
Now consider the following values, they are especially notable because they are easy to calculate. They are one third, one half and one full of either your tracking or your falloff value: | |||
*Below 0.333 parts into ... : the DPS loss is at most 10%, a very small effect, being at 0.333 or below means pretty much that you have nearly top performance, you are still in a really sweet spot. | |||
*Below 0.333 parts into ... : the DPS loss is at most 10%, a very small effect, being at 0. | *Above 0.50 parts into... : the DPS loss is now 22% and noticeable, you can try manual piloting to rectify this unless you have a tactical reason for keeping the current conditions, for example a situation where your opponant have an even higher loss of DPS. | ||
*Above 0.50 parts into... : the DPS loss is now 22% | |||
*Above 1.0 parts into... : at this point the DPS loss is 60% or more. Some damage is still better than no damage, but keep in mind that you have a pretty lousy performance under these circumstances. | *Above 1.0 parts into... : at this point the DPS loss is 60% or more. Some damage is still better than no damage, but keep in mind that you have a pretty lousy performance under these circumstances. | ||
Especially the 0.333 value is good to remember (one third of your tracking or falloff). If you want to maintain a high DPS, this is how deep you can go into either tracking or falloff (if you are pushing both of them at once use 0.25 instead). If you go above this, your DPS will start dropping fairly quickly and if you go further in there is only a small increase in damage. This is kind of the golden limit that comes out from studying the To-Hit-Equation. Like all guidelines, this one comes with an exception too, see the next section for that. | Especially the 0.333 value is good to remember (one third of your tracking or falloff). If you want to maintain a high DPS, this is how deep you can go into either tracking or falloff (if you are pushing both of them at once use 0.25 instead). If you go above this, your DPS will start dropping fairly quickly and if you go further in there is only a small increase in damage. This is kind of the golden limit that comes out from studying the To-Hit-Equation. Like all guidelines, this one comes with an exception too, see the next section for that. | ||
| Line 217: | Line 215: | ||
'''Example:''' A Rifter is attacking a Hurricane. The angular velocity is about 0.3 rad/sec and the Hurrican has a tracking of 0.15. From the Hurricane pilots view, the Rifter is already 2.0 parts into tracking from just its speed. But this is not entirely true, since the signature resolution and the signature radius has not been accounted for yet. The guns have a signature resolution of 125m and the rifter has a radius of 35m. The ratio here is 125/35 = 3.57. So the Rifter counts as if being 3.57 times deeper into tracking just because of its smaller size. Taking this into account means that the Rifter is actually 7.14 parts into tracking under the mentioned conditions, and impossible to hit. The Hurricane must rely on its drones to fend off the Rifter. With luck the Rifter will die before it can kill all the drones. | '''Example:''' A Rifter is attacking a Hurricane. The angular velocity is about 0.3 rad/sec and the Hurrican has a tracking of 0.15. From the Hurricane pilots view, the Rifter is already 2.0 parts into tracking from just its speed. But this is not entirely true, since the signature resolution and the signature radius has not been accounted for yet. The guns have a signature resolution of 125m and the rifter has a radius of 35m. The ratio here is 125/35 = 3.57. So the Rifter counts as if being 3.57 times deeper into tracking just because of its smaller size. Taking this into account means that the Rifter is actually 7.14 parts into tracking under the mentioned conditions, and impossible to hit. The Hurricane must rely on its drones to fend off the Rifter. With luck the Rifter will die before it can kill all the drones. | ||
'''Example:''' A shield tanked and an armor tanked Rifter are fighting. The angular velocity is very high at about 0.5 and they both have a tracking of 0.49 with their 200mm autocannons. So we say one full part into tracking. They are using small guns which always has a Turret Signature Resolution of 40m. The shield tanked Rifter has a signature radius of 48m and the armor tanked one has 35m. From the shield tanked Rifters point of view, his opponant counts as being 1 x 40m/35m = 1.14 parts into tracking, where the DPS loss from turrets are about -70%. From the armor tanked Rifters point of view, his opponant counts as if being 1x 40m/48m = 0.833 parts into tracking, where the DPS loss from turrets are about -50%. The shield tanked Rifter pilot is at a disadvantage from just being bigger, his guns do roughly half the damage compared to his opponant. If he doesn't compensate for this by flying in a way that reduces the angular velocity, he | '''Example:''' A shield tanked and an armor tanked Rifter are fighting. The angular velocity is very high at about 0.5 and they both have a tracking of 0.49 with their 200mm autocannons. So we say one full part into tracking. They are using small guns which always has a Turret Signature Resolution of 40m. The shield tanked Rifter has a signature radius of 48m and the armor tanked one has 35m. From the shield tanked Rifters point of view, his opponant counts as being 1 x 40m/35m = 1.14 parts into tracking, where the DPS loss from turrets are about -70%. From the armor tanked Rifters point of view, his opponant counts as if being 1x 40m/48m = 0.833 parts into tracking, where the DPS loss from turrets are about -50%. The shield tanked Rifter pilot is at a disadvantage from just being bigger, his guns do roughly half the damage compared to his opponant. If he doesn't compensate for this by flying in a way that reduces the angular velocity, he is likely to loose. | ||
| Line 269: | Line 267: | ||
=Answers to some questions= | =Answers to some questions= | ||
== | ==Do rails suck?== | ||
They are worse than beam lasers and artillery, but they don't really suck. | They are worse than beam lasers and artillery, but they don't really suck. | ||
| Line 276: | Line 274: | ||
It isn't enough to just look at the guns. One must also look at the ammo each type of turret use. Lasers use crystals, changing them is immediate and they never run out of ammo. Projectiles use various ammo types that deal different damage types, which makes it easier to match the damage with the target. The hybrid ammo on the other hand is stuck with the same two damage types (like lasers are) and have a reload time (like projectiles do), if one feel a little mean one could say that hybrid ammo combines the worst of the other two types. | It isn't enough to just look at the guns. One must also look at the ammo each type of turret use. Lasers use crystals, changing them is immediate and they never run out of ammo. Projectiles use various ammo types that deal different damage types, which makes it easier to match the damage with the target. The hybrid ammo on the other hand is stuck with the same two damage types (like lasers are) and have a reload time (like projectiles do), if one feel a little mean one could say that hybrid ammo combines the worst of the other two types. | ||
Beam lasers and artillery cannons have drawbacks too of course. Generally speaking: The beam lasers uses a lot of capacitor energy and require immense amounts of power grid, they will only really work on Amarr ships. The artillery cannons also needs a lot of power grid and are designed to be used on ships with a bonus for projectil firing speed, otherwise it takes forever before they can shoot again. So for Gallente and Caldari ships, the railguns will still be the overall prefered pick | Beam lasers and artillery cannons have drawbacks too of course. Generally speaking: The beam lasers uses a lot of capacitor energy and require immense amounts of power grid, they will only really work on Amarr ships. The artillery cannons also needs a lot of power grid and are designed to be used on ships with a bonus for projectil firing speed, otherwise it takes forever before they can shoot again. So for Gallente and Caldari ships, the railguns will still be the overall prefered pick. | ||
==Do small targets take less damage from big guns?== | ==Do small targets take less damage from big guns?== | ||
| Line 294: | Line 292: | ||
==+0.49? It says +0.5 on EVEonline wiki== | ==+0.49? It says +0.5 on EVEonline wiki== | ||
Yes it does and the differance isn't exactly noticeable. But the test that was made to ensure the validity of this article showed a small deviance, and it should be noted in case anyone wants to reproduce the numbers. The test has too much data to present all of it here, so the method and results will be presented instead. Should you wish to check for yourself feel free to follow this procedure | Yes it does and the differance isn't exactly noticeable. But the test that was made to ensure the validity of this article showed a small deviance, and it should be noted in case anyone wants to reproduce the numbers. The test has too much data to present all of it here, so the method and results will be presented instead. Should you wish to check for yourself feel free to follow this procedure: | ||
A frigate (named 'Ouch') was abandoned at a safespot. An Osprey was fitted with lasers (infinite ammo, perfect for afk:ing), a remote shield transfer and shield transfer drones. The guns and the ammo were chosen so that the damage would never go below 10.0 and to give as large of a damage interval as possible (an interval of at least 10.0 units (resistances must be accounted for) is needed to get a precision of at least 1% in the damage values) -- this ensured that the data would be good enough to draw accurate conclusions. The damage was only done to the shields, they where never allowed to drop below 25% since a bleed through into armor can happen that can mess with the observed damage numbers. Finally, the ships were positioned within optimal range and their speeds set to zero to ensure that the chance to hit is 0.5^0 = 100% and nothing less. | A frigate (named 'Ouch') was abandoned at a safespot. An Osprey was fitted with lasers (infinite ammo, perfect for afk:ing), a remote shield transfer and shield transfer drones. The guns and the ammo were chosen so that the damage would never go below 10.0 and to give as large of a damage interval as possible (an interval of at least 10.0 units (resistances must be accounted for) is needed to get a precision of at least 1% in the damage values) -- this ensured that the data would be good enough to draw accurate conclusions. The damage was only done to the shields, they where never allowed to drop below 25% since a bleed through into armor can happen that can mess with the observed damage numbers. Finally, the ships were positioned within optimal range and their speeds set to zero to ensure that the chance to hit is 0.5^0 = 100% and nothing less. | ||