Turret damage: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

{{Example|This is a work in progress. Some parts need to be rewritten and the layout is not complete.}}

{{Example|This is a work in progress. Some parts need to be rewritten, things will be added and the layout is not complete.}}

EVE rely on math to determine the outcome of events, like all computer games. A player can develop a feel for the workings of the game by experience and practice over time. Such knowledge is often powerful and can be used to tip the balance in pvp encounters, either by fitting a ship in a special way or by piloting in a certain way. Some, but not all, of this practical knowledge stems from the intuitive understanding of the math behind it. This article will look into the math that controls how guns and turrets work, hopefully this will give the reader insights into damage dealing that could otherwise take many weeks or months of playing to develop. The information here is all about numbers and theory though. So don't think that practical experience won't be needed, a pvp:er needs more than just an understanding of the math. A pvp:er need to be able to read and predict an opponents behaviour, to have a knowledge of various ships and fittings as well as to develop the nerves to stay calm in a battle that can go either way.

(is this text just silly?)

=Governing Equation=

Line 6:

Line 10:

[[File:TurretHitChance1.JPG]]

This equation can look a bit intimidating at first, but its very central to how turrets deal damage and as such its a good idea to develop an understanding for it. Its purpose is to calculate the chance ~~a turret has~~ to hit ~~its target, and hitting targets is what we want to do~~. ~~So what can we learn from it that we can apply in space?~~

This equation can look a bit intimidating at first, but its very central to how turrets deal damage and as such its a good idea to develop an understanding for it. Its purpose is to calculate the chance to hit with turrets.

To paraphrase Oli Geist, this can be abstracted to:

Line 12:

Line 17:

Chance to hit = 0.5 ^ (tracking term + range term).

Those who ~~remember~~ their math ~~can see~~ that this can also be ~~rewritten~~ as:

Those who know their math recognizes that x^(a+b) is the same as (x^a)*(x^b), so this can also be written as:

Chance to hit = 0.5^(tracking term) * 0.5^(range term)

From this we can see that tracking and range are treated entirely separetly and are then multiplied. So anything that effects range does not effect the tracking. In other words, excellent tracking can not make up for ~~long distances~~.

From this we can see that tracking and range are treated entirely separetly and are then multiplied. So anything that effects range does not effect the tracking. In other words, excellent tracking can not make up for a lack in range.

=General=

Line 26:

Line 31:

==Tracking==

What about tracking? Well, if ~~traversal~~ speed = 0, the tracking term evaluates to zero. So getting your target to ~~come~~ straight at you is ~~super if~~ you ~~can do it~~. If ~~he won't do that~~, the best way to minimize this term is some combination of: ~~keep~~ the target at '''longer''' range~~, lower~~ the ~~traversal~~ speed~~, increase~~ your turret's tracking speed~~, and/or increase~~ the target's signature radius~~. That~~'s ~~range~~, webs, tracking computers, and target painters~~, in concrete terms~~. You can also choose 'keep at range' on a target to minimize the traversal -- though bear in mind that your target will be able to hit you more easily, too. Note that as range ~~gets smaller, approaching 0~~, the ~~tracking term inflates toward infinity if there's any traversal speed at all -- so your chance~~ to hit ~~plummets toward zero~~.

What about tracking? Well, if the transversal speed is 0, the tracking term evaluates to zero (multiply with a zero and the answer is always zero). Since 0.5^0 = 1, this means that the tracking part of the equation will give you a 100% hit chance, as long as the target is also inside the optimal range the chance to hit will remain at 100%. So getting your target to fly straight to you, or straight away from you, is great. Because you will hit every time as long as the target remains inside optimal range. This is what makes the tactic known as kiting so effective. If the target makes sure to keep up the transversal speed, the best way to minimize this term is some combination of:

*Keep the target at '''longer''' range

*Lower the transversal speed

*Increase your turret's tracking speed

*Increase the target's signature radius

Modules that can help with these are AB's/MWD's, webs, tracking computers, and target painters. You can also choose 'keep at range' on a target to minimize the traversal -- though bear in mind that your target will be able to hit you more easily too. Note also that if the range should ever become zero, the equation makes a forbidden division with zero. This results in an error and the turrets will no longer be able to hit.

=Turret damage dealing=

Line 185:

Line 195:

**Compensating for resistance (20% thermal) the modified base damage is: 22.8308

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. The reason for the lower occurances 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 x 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 differance. So the expected number of occurances of the value 11.4 is only 34.6% of the average number, 15 recorded values / 34.6% = 43.4, close to average and ~~within acceptable~~ deviation. The upper interval is 67.8%, 33 times / 67.8% = 48.7, also close to average. (Note: 34.6%+67.8%=102.4%, which is impossible ofc, the error comes from rounding errors in the 4th decimal of the basedamage, awesome precision isn't needed for this ~~particular~~ calculation so ~~meh~~).

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 occurances 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 x 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 differance. So the expected number of occurances 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 impossible ofc, the error comes from rounding errors in the 4th decimal of the basedamage, awesome precision isn't needed for this comparative calculation since the natural random deviation is much larger anyhow, so good enough).

*Lowest damage random multiple

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{stub}}
-{{Example|This is a work in progress. Some parts need to be rewritten and the layout is not complete.}}
+{{Example|This is a work in progress. Some parts need to be rewritten, things will be added and the layout is not complete.}}
+EVE rely on math to determine the outcome of events, like all computer games. A player can develop a feel for the workings of the game by experience and practice over time. Such knowledge is often powerful and can be used to tip the balance in pvp encounters, either by fitting a ship in a special way or by piloting in a certain way. Some, but not all, of this practical knowledge stems from the intuitive understanding of the math behind it. This article will look into the math that controls how guns and turrets work, hopefully this will give the reader insights into damage dealing that could otherwise take many weeks or months of playing to develop. The information here is all about numbers and theory though. So don't think that practical experience won't be needed, a pvp:er needs more than just an understanding of the math. A pvp:er need to be able to read and predict an opponents behaviour, to have a knowledge of various ships and fittings as well as to develop the nerves to stay calm in a battle that can go either way.
+(is this text just silly?)
 =Governing Equation=
@@ Line 6: / Line 10: @@
 [[File:TurretHitChance1.JPG]]
-This equation can look a bit intimidating at first, but its very central to how turrets deal damage and as such its a good idea to develop an understanding for it. Its purpose is to calculate the chance a turret has to hit its target, and hitting targets is what we want to do. So what can we learn from it that we can apply in space?
+This equation can look a bit intimidating at first, but its very central to how turrets deal damage and as such its a good idea to develop an understanding for it. Its purpose is to calculate the chance to hit with turrets.
 To paraphrase Oli Geist, this can be abstracted to:
@@ Line 12: / Line 17: @@
   Chance to hit = 0.5 ^ (tracking term + range term).
-Those who remember their math can see that this can also be rewritten as:
+Those who know their math recognizes that x^(a+b) is the same as (x^a)*(x^b), so this can also be written as:
 Chance to hit = 0.5^(tracking term) * 0.5^(range term)
-From this we can see that tracking and range are treated entirely separetly and are then multiplied. So anything that effects range does not effect the tracking. In other words, excellent tracking can not make up for long distances.
+From this we can see that tracking and range are treated entirely separetly and are then multiplied. So anything that effects range does not effect the tracking. In other words, excellent tracking can not make up for a lack in range.
 =General=
@@ Line 26: / Line 31: @@
 ==Tracking==
-What about tracking?  Well, if traversal speed = 0, the tracking term evaluates to zero.  So getting your target to come straight at you is super if you can do it.  If he won't do that, the best way to minimize this term is some combination of: keep the target at '''longer''' range, lower the traversal speed, increase your turret's tracking speed, and/or increase the target's signature radius.  That's range, webs, tracking computers, and target painters, in concrete terms.  You can also choose 'keep at range' on a target to minimize the traversal -- though bear in mind that your target will be able to hit you more easily, too.  Note that as range gets smaller, approaching 0, the tracking term inflates toward infinity if there's any traversal speed at all -- so your chance to hit plummets toward zero.
+What about tracking?  Well, if the transversal speed is 0, the tracking term evaluates to zero (multiply with a zero and the answer is always zero). Since 0.5^0 = 1, this means that the tracking part of the equation will give you a 100% hit chance, as long as the target is also inside the optimal range the chance to hit will remain at 100%. So getting your target to fly straight to you, or straight away from you, is great. Because you will hit every time as long as the target remains inside optimal range. This is what makes the tactic known as kiting so effective. If the target makes sure to keep up the transversal speed, the best way to minimize this term is some combination of:
+*Keep the target at '''longer''' range
+*Lower the transversal speed
+*Increase your turret's tracking speed
+*Increase the target's signature radius
+Modules that can help with these are AB's/MWD's, webs, tracking computers, and target painters.  You can also choose 'keep at range' on a target to minimize the traversal -- though bear in mind that your target will be able to hit you more easily too. Note also that if the range should ever become zero, the equation makes a forbidden division with zero. This results in an error and the turrets will no longer be able to hit.
 =Turret damage dealing=
@@ Line 185: / Line 195: @@
 **Compensating for resistance (20% thermal) the modified base damage is: 22.8308
-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. The reason for the lower occurances 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 x 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 differance. So the expected number of occurances of the value 11.4 is only 34.6% of the average number, 15 recorded values / 34.6% = 43.4, close to average and within acceptable deviation. The upper interval is 67.8%, 33 times / 67.8% = 48.7, also close to average. (Note: 34.6%+67.8%=102.4%, which is impossible ofc, the error comes from rounding errors in the 4th decimal of the basedamage, awesome precision isn't needed for this particular calculation so meh).
+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 occurances 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 x 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 differance. So the expected number of occurances 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 impossible ofc, the error comes from rounding errors in the 4th decimal of the basedamage, awesome precision isn't needed for this comparative calculation since the natural random deviation is much larger anyhow, so good enough).
 *Lowest damage random multiple