Difference between revisions of "Talk:Turret damage"
m (Error observed in equation) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ==Experiment to determine the damage interval around base damage== | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | This was at the end of the article. I don't think it is the right place for it so I moved it here. [[User:Hirmuolio pine|Hirmuolio pine]] ([[User talk:Hirmuolio pine|talk]]) 07:22, 8 February 2017 (CST) | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | This test has too much data to show all of it here, so the method and the 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 AFKing), 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<sup>0</sup> = 100% and nothing less. | ||
| + | |||
| + | After 10,656 shots at the poor frigate, enough data was collected to make some conclusions about how the random damage distribution looks like. The data ends up in the My Documents\EVE\gamelogs folder (in Windows), and was easily copied into a prepared Excel sheet for analysis. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Base damage | ||
| + | **The ammo type dealt: 7 EM and 5 Thermal | ||
| + | **The base damage on the lasers were: 24.9063 | ||
| + | **Compensating for resistance (20% thermal) the modified base damage is: 22.8308 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Analysis of the data and interpretation of some reduced frequencies of min and max results in the normal damage span: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Of the 10,656 shots the lowest recorded damage was 11.4 (recorded 15 times) and the highest non-perfect was 34.0 (recorded 33 times), perfect hits dealt 68.5 damage (recorded 101 times). On average, each damage number (anything between 11.5 to 33.9) was recorded 46.7 times (standard deviation = 7.02). The reason for the lower occurrences of the min and max results on normal hits comes from rounding effects. Any damage in-between has an interval of 0.1 units (22.2500 to 22.3499 both produce the 22.3 in the log). However the min and max values do not have that span. The lowest theoretical number is Base Damage × 0.5 = 11.415, hence the interval to get 11.4 in the log is between 11.415 and 11.4499, that is only 0.0345 difference. So the expected number of occurrences of the value 11.4 is only 34.6% of the average number, 15 recorded values / 34.6% = 43.4, close to average and inside the standard deviation. The upper interval is 67.8%, 33 times / 67.8% = 48.7, also close to average and inside the standard deviation. (Note: 34.6% + 67.8% = 102.4%, which is of course impossible—the error comes from rounding errors in the 4th decimal of the base damage, awesome precision isn't needed for this comparative calculation since the natural random deviation is much larger anyhow, so this is good enough, the objective was to explain the lower frequencies of the end points which now has been done). | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Lowest damage random multiple | ||
| + | **Modified base damage × 0.51 = 11.6 | ||
| + | **Modified base damage × 0.50 = 11.4 | ||
| + | **Modified base damage × 0.49 = 11.2 | ||
| + | **The lowest observed damage is 11.4, thus 50% | ||
| + | *Highest non-perfect random multiple | ||
| + | **Modified base damage × 1.50 = 34.2 | ||
| + | **Modified base damage × 1.49 = 34.0 | ||
| + | **Modified base damage × 1.48 = 33.8 | ||
| + | **The highest non-perfect damage is 34.0, thus 149% | ||
| + | *Perfect hits deal 68.5 damage | ||
| + | **Modified base damage × 3 = 68.5 | ||
| + | |||
| + | The collected data shows that the normal damage is distributed within 50%–149%. Since the first 1% unit is used for critical rolls (this is most likely, if the last % unit was used additional calculations will be needed if the to hit chance is less than 1%), the constant added to the damage roll should be 0.49. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==merge== | ||
| + | Is there need for both [[turret damage]] and [[turret mechanics]]? Maybe turret damage could be merged to turret mechanics that would conatin both mathematics and less mathematical descriptions. [[User:Hirmuolio pine|Hirmuolio pine]] ([[User talk:Hirmuolio pine|talk]]) 05:45, 8 February 2017 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
There's something borked here - the term Tr appears on both the top and bottom of the speed/ tracking term - I'm not feeling too sharp right now, but I'm pretty sure this should equate to unity and so be removed from the equation.<BR> | There's something borked here - the term Tr appears on both the top and bottom of the speed/ tracking term - I'm not feeling too sharp right now, but I'm pretty sure this should equate to unity and so be removed from the equation.<BR> | ||
| − | On further investigation, it seems likely that one of those Tr's should be a Tt - I'll look into updating this once I'm back in my right mind! | + | On further investigation, it seems likely that one of those Tr's should be a Tt - I'll look into updating this once I'm back in my right mind!<P> |
| + | Or, alternatively, I can let someone else do the work for me ;-) - this link to a [http://wiki.eve-id.net/Tracking Tracking article on eve-id.net] confirms that the bottom "Tr" should be "Tt". I'll update the main article. | ||
| + | --[[User:Pewpew layzorz|Pewpew layzorz]] 12:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | I will start to clean this up very soon, if anyone has objections or similar plans, please let me know. | ||
| + | --[[User:Cede forster|Cede forster]] ([[User talk:Cede forster|talk]]) 15:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:22, 8 February 2017
Experiment to determine the damage interval around base damage
This was at the end of the article. I don't think it is the right place for it so I moved it here. Hirmuolio pine (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2017 (CST)
This test has too much data to show all of it here, so the method and the 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 AFKing), 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 0.50 = 100% and nothing less.
After 10,656 shots at the poor frigate, enough data was collected to make some conclusions about how the random damage distribution looks like. The data ends up in the My Documents\EVE\gamelogs folder (in Windows), and was easily copied into a prepared Excel sheet for analysis.
- Base damage
- The ammo type dealt: 7 EM and 5 Thermal
- The base damage on the lasers were: 24.9063
- Compensating for resistance (20% thermal) the modified base damage is: 22.8308
Analysis of the data and interpretation of some reduced frequencies of min and max results in the normal damage span:
Of the 10,656 shots the lowest recorded damage was 11.4 (recorded 15 times) and the highest non-perfect was 34.0 (recorded 33 times), perfect hits dealt 68.5 damage (recorded 101 times). On average, each damage number (anything between 11.5 to 33.9) was recorded 46.7 times (standard deviation = 7.02). The reason for the lower occurrences of the min and max results on normal hits comes from rounding effects. Any damage in-between has an interval of 0.1 units (22.2500 to 22.3499 both produce the 22.3 in the log). However the min and max values do not have that span. The lowest theoretical number is Base Damage × 0.5 = 11.415, hence the interval to get 11.4 in the log is between 11.415 and 11.4499, that is only 0.0345 difference. So the expected number of occurrences of the value 11.4 is only 34.6% of the average number, 15 recorded values / 34.6% = 43.4, close to average and inside the standard deviation. The upper interval is 67.8%, 33 times / 67.8% = 48.7, also close to average and inside the standard deviation. (Note: 34.6% + 67.8% = 102.4%, which is of course impossible—the error comes from rounding errors in the 4th decimal of the base damage, awesome precision isn't needed for this comparative calculation since the natural random deviation is much larger anyhow, so this is good enough, the objective was to explain the lower frequencies of the end points which now has been done).
- Lowest damage random multiple
- Modified base damage × 0.51 = 11.6
- Modified base damage × 0.50 = 11.4
- Modified base damage × 0.49 = 11.2
- The lowest observed damage is 11.4, thus 50%
- Highest non-perfect random multiple
- Modified base damage × 1.50 = 34.2
- Modified base damage × 1.49 = 34.0
- Modified base damage × 1.48 = 33.8
- The highest non-perfect damage is 34.0, thus 149%
- Perfect hits deal 68.5 damage
- Modified base damage × 3 = 68.5
The collected data shows that the normal damage is distributed within 50%–149%. Since the first 1% unit is used for critical rolls (this is most likely, if the last % unit was used additional calculations will be needed if the to hit chance is less than 1%), the constant added to the damage roll should be 0.49.
merge
Is there need for both turret damage and turret mechanics? Maybe turret damage could be merged to turret mechanics that would conatin both mathematics and less mathematical descriptions. Hirmuolio pine (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2017 (CST)
There's something borked here - the term Tr appears on both the top and bottom of the speed/ tracking term - I'm not feeling too sharp right now, but I'm pretty sure this should equate to unity and so be removed from the equation.
On further investigation, it seems likely that one of those Tr's should be a Tt - I'll look into updating this once I'm back in my right mind!
Or, alternatively, I can let someone else do the work for me ;-) - this link to a Tracking article on eve-id.net confirms that the bottom "Tr" should be "Tt". I'll update the main article. --Pewpew layzorz 12:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I will start to clean this up very soon, if anyone has objections or similar plans, please let me know. --Cede forster (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
