Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus [Archive]

tbontob

March 19th, 2003, 06:17 PM

The thread, "Frequently Asked Questions for Newbies" has this to say:
========================================
2.5.2.1.1.2 At max tech, Stealth Armor is worth using in place of some shield generators or standard armors if:
15% of the total firepower an enemy must use to kill your ship is greater than 165 points of damage. This includes misses!
2.5.2.1.1.3 EG: if enemy ships are attacking with an accuracy of 30%, and your ship has 600 shield points, the enemy must fire on average 600/0.30 = 2000 damage worth of ordnance at you in order to kill your ships. 15% of 2000 is 300, which is greater than 165.
Therefore, by removing some shield generation and adding stealth armor, you will increase your ship's survival time. (Suicide Junkie)
2.5.2.1.2 Scattering armor
2.5.2.1.2.1 The situation with scattering armor is very similar to that of Stealth armor. The difference is that the scattering armor is less efficient. If given the choice of ONLY Stealth or Scattering armor, go for the stealth armor first.
2.5.2.1.2.2 At max tech, the value of scattering armor can be calculated similarly to that of stealth armor.
The only difference in this case is that you should use 290 in place of 165.
Using the example given for stealth armor, you can see that scattering armor would only barely be worthwhile. (Suicide Junkie)
===============================================

What does this mean?

I thought stealth and scattering armor gave the ship a 15% defensive bonus, thus making it harder to hit. And once hit, a ships damage is calculated normally.

Where did 165 and 290 damage points come from? And what is the explanation for their use?

Unknown_Enemy

March 19th, 2003, 06:29 PM

You may prefer my own rule :
both stealth and scattering armors are mandatory on all ships whith 2 exceptions.

Exception 1 : you are fighting ships with talisman.

Exception 2 : You are fighting a missile race.

spoon

March 19th, 2003, 06:32 PM

What does this mean?

I thought stealth and scattering armor gave the ship a 15% defensive bonus, thus making it harder to hit. And once hit, a ships damage is calculated normally.

Where did 165 and 290 damage points come from? And what is the explanation for their use?I believe it is wrong, and you can safely ignore it. The 15% is additive, so the benefit you get on it varies based on the probability of being hit. If we knew what the average chance to hit was in SE4, then you could apply a system like this to figure out how much damage the stealth armor saves you from.

Bottom line should be: put both armors on all your attack ships, with a few exceptions. For example: Ships designed solely for worm-hole defense might want to skip them in lieu of more weapons. Ships designed to fight a race with Talismans don't need them, either).

tbontob

March 19th, 2003, 06:59 PM

Hey guys, I hear what you are saying and you basically mirror my own thought/beliefs at the moment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But Suicide Junkie has been around for a long time and I respect his opinions/findings although I may not necessarily agree with them all the time.

So, in order to formulate my own opinion about what he has said, I need to know what he means by what he said.

And at the moment, I am at a loss as to what he means.

Other questions like ascertaining the probability of a hit would be questions to ask after we fully understand his position.

Suicide Junkie

March 19th, 2003, 08:42 PM

The 290 and 165 values are the break-even points of shields vs scattering and stealth armor, respectively.

If 15% (in the case of level 3 armor) of the total firepower the enemy must aim at you in order to breach your shields/armor is bigger than the break-even point, then the ECM effect of the armor is worth more than the extra shielding would be.

To figure out whether it is worth putting the armor on instead of more shield generator, do the following:
1) Take the shield points currently generated.
2) divide by the typical to-hit chance the enemy has against you. (30% accuracy means divide by 0.30)
The result there is the amount of weaponry/ammo the enemy usually has to fire at you to get enough hits for a kill.
3) Multiply the result in (2) by the ECM ability of your armor (0.05 = 5%, 0.10 = 10%, 0.15 = 15%)

If the answer you get is bigger than 165, then stealth armor is worthwhile. If it is bigger than 290, then scattering armor is also worthwhile.
If the number is less, then keeping the shields will make your ship Last longer.

Note: Odd situations will keep things dicey.
If the enemy has a super-huge gun (battlemoon, say) that kills in one shot, then you'll always want to go with the ECM, since hitpoints don't matter anymore.
Missiles and talismans will push the results the other way, since ECM is useless.

tbontob

March 19th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Hi SJ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Still trying to get my brain around the logic of how shields and stealth/scattering armor can be compared.

The former prevents damage whereas the later helps to prevent a hit.

Maybe it would clear up if you could provide the formula by which the 290 and 165 values are derived.

Gryphin

March 19th, 2003, 09:25 PM

So what the others were thinking is basicaly correct.
Since you will be recieving 15 to 30 percent fewer hits you need fewer shield gnerators.

spoon

March 19th, 2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Gryphin:
So what the others were thinking is basicaly correct.
Since you will be recieving 15 to 30 percent fewer hits you need fewer shield gnerators.Except that the math he uses only applies to situations where the enemy has base 100% to hit (before armor modifications). If the enemy had a base 30% to hit, adding both armors would mean you would only be hit 1% of the time, which is not correctly reflected in his formulae.

Best advice is to put the armor on everything, unless you don't care about being hit, or your enemy is going to hit you 100% of the time anyway.

Fyron

March 19th, 2003, 10:07 PM

Yes it is. You dived the decimal representation of their average chance to hit into the shield points you have. If you have 1000 shields and they have 100% to hit, they have to do an average of 1000 damage worth of shots to breach your shields. If they have a 50% to hit chance, they have to do an average of 2000 damage worh of shots to breach your shields. His formula reflects the base/average chance to hit very well.

tbontob

March 19th, 2003, 11:00 PM

OK Guys http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

So what is the formula?

Fyron

March 19th, 2003, 11:15 PM

Go read SJ's post again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The values would be how many shield points an equivalent size of shield generators make.

tbontob

March 19th, 2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Go read SJ's post again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The values would be how many shield points an equivalent size of shield generators make.I feel I have read it a hundred times and am still lost.

I am hoping the formuala will help me make sense of all this.

If it is so easy, why cannot someone give it to me?

spoon

March 19th, 2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Go read SJ's post again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The values would be how many shield points an equivalent size of shield generators make.Oh I see, step 2 includes the defensive value of the armor. I thought he was adding it in step 3. Sorry SJ. Go formula!

Fyron

March 19th, 2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Go read SJ's post again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The values would be how many shield points an equivalent size of shield generators make.I feel I have read it a hundred times and am still lost.

I am hoping the formuala will help me make sense of all this.

If it is so easy, why cannot someone give it to me?<hr /></blockquote>SJ's post is the formula. Follow it step by step, and you will achieve the results.

tbontob

March 19th, 2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Go read SJ's post again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The values would be how many shield points an equivalent size of shield generators make.I feel I have read it a hundred times and am still lost.

I am hoping the formuala will help me make sense of all this.

If it is so easy, why cannot someone give it to me?<hr /></blockquote>SJ's post is the formula. Follow it step by step, and you will achieve the results.<hr /></blockquote>Fyron, humour me.

Show me step by step, what SJ has posted on the site will provide me with the formula which yielded the derived 290 and 165 values.

gregebowman

March 19th, 2003, 11:57 PM

I always try to put as much weaponry on a ship, and do the armor as an afterthougt. NOw I may have to rethink that. Is it better to be more armed, or armored?

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 12:00 AM

Show me step by step, what SJ has posted on the site will provide me with the formula which yielded the derived 290 and 165 values.
That is not what the forumla calculates. I already said where I think those values came from.

Originally posted by gregebowman:
I always try to put as much weaponry on a ship, and do the armor as an afterthougt. NOw I may have to rethink that. Is it better to be more armed, or armored?That all depends on the situation. It is better to be phase-shielded than armored (stealth and scattering armor do not count as "armored" because they are not structural armors; their entire purpose is ECM-defense, not hit point-defense). It is always better to have some armor/shields than none. But how much is best varies depending on the game situation. Try testing various designs in the Combat Simulator to see which function best in certain situations.

[ March 19, 2003, 22:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Show me step by step, what SJ has posted on the site will provide me with the formula which yielded the derived 290 and 165 values.
That is not what the forumla calculates. I already said where I think those values came from.<hr /></blockquote>Finally you got it! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

So what is the formula which will give me the 290 and 165 values? I am sure SJ didn't pull them out of thin air.

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 12:09 AM

You just worded your question poorly.

As I have already stated:

The values would be based on how many hit points (from shield points) an equivalent size of shield generators make that you give up.

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You just worded your question poorly.

As I have already stated:

The values would be based on how many hit points (from shield points) an equivalent size of shield generators make that you give up.No, it was not worded poorly. And it is the same question in my third post of this thread.

Unfortunately, you choose to interprete it to refer to something else.

Take a look at my third post at the beginning of this thread, and you will see that my question asks for the formula as to how the 290 and 165 values were derived.

So if you do not know the formula which will give the 290 and 165 values, just say so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 19, 2003, 22:27: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Gryphin

March 20th, 2003, 12:30 AM

tbontob
I think it has something to do with
comparing the cost per kT of protection between Standard Shields and the two armors.

I can't do the math but I think it is in there

PvK

March 20th, 2003, 12:33 AM

As I think Spoon said, however, such a formula can't reduce the choice of to-hit modifiers versus shields to a simple exchange rate, especially given the way SE4 adds to-hit chances.

Since SE4 to-hit mods aren't true factors, but additive modifiers, any such formula would only apply to specific examples requiring all the other factors to be known. Unless you are only fighting one type of enemy unit, and they always fire at the same range, etc, the formula will give different values in each case.

PvK

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Gryphin:
tbontob
I think it has something to do with
comparing the cost per kT of protection between Standard Shields and the two armors.

I can't do the math but I think it is in thereYes, I think you are right about the kT. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But I don't think the formula I am asking for is in the SJ's posting to the Newbie thread.

I also suspect the protection given by the armor is probably factored in too.

So, it may be a complicated formula. I have dealt with many a complicated formula and one more should'nt throw me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I am asking for it because the formula will help me to understand the relationship between shield and scattering/stealth armor.

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 12:41 AM

That was quite a while ago...
I don't remember how exactly I got those numbers.

PSG: 375/40 = 9.375
StA: 100/30 = 3.333
ScA: 150/50 = 3.000

Lets see if I can't figure out what I was thinking...
Due to its use, it has to be related to the change in firepower required to kill your ship.

Perhaps a much simpler way would be to:
A) Use steps 1 and 2 to find out how much ammo the enemy will need to throw at you if you use shields.
B) Use steps 1 and 2 to find out how much ammo they have to use if you replace some shields with Stealth/Scattering armor.
C) The ship design which gives the bigger number is stronger.

[ March 19, 2003, 22:46: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

spoon

March 20th, 2003, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
Since SE4 to-hit mods aren't true factors, but additive modifiers, any such formula would only apply to specific examples requiring all the other factors to be known. Unless you are only fighting one type of enemy unit, and they always fire at the same range, etc, the formula will give different values in each case.

Yup. Step (2) has the problem of being extraordinarily difficult to calculate, esp. for a newbie. It's probably best to simply advise players to always research armor up to 6, and to always put def. armors on all attack ships.

Also, I think I'm reversing my reversal, and going back to thinking the formula SJ gives is wrong. Death to SJ! Down with the formula!

-Spoon

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
As I think Spoon said, however, such a formula can't reduce the choice of to-hit modifiers versus shields to a simple exchange rate, especially given the way SE4 adds to-hit chances.

Since SE4 to-hit mods aren't true factors, but additive modifiers, any such formula would only apply to specific examples requiring all the other factors to be known. Unless you are only fighting one type of enemy unit, and they always fire at the same range, etc, the formula will give different values in each case.

PvKPvK, I suspect you and Spoon may be right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But we will not be able to determine that with any certainty until we have the formula.

But if so, then the values of 290 and 165 should be used with some care.

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
That was quite a while ago...
I don't remember how exactly I got those numbers.

PSG: 375/40 = 9.375
StA: 100/30 = 3.333
ScA: 150/50 = 3.000

Lets see if I can't figure out what I was thinking...
Due to its use, it has to be related to the change in firepower required to kill your ship.

Perhaps a much simpler way would be to:
A) Use steps 1 and 2 to find out how much ammo the enemy will need to throw at you if you use shields.
B) Use steps 1 and 2 to find out how much ammo they have to use if you replace some shields with Stealth/Scattering armor.
C) The ship design which gives the bigger number is stronger.Just a thought, was the formula discussed in a thread?

[ March 19, 2003, 22:50: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 01:03 AM

Possibly in the thread we submitted the stuff in.

spoon

March 20th, 2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

Perhaps a much simpler way would be to:
A) Use steps 1 and 2 to find out how much ammo the enemy will need to throw at you if you use shields.
B) Use steps 1 and 2 to find out how much ammo they have to use if you replace some shields with Stealth/Scattering armor.
C) The ship design which gives the bigger number is stronger.That's a good way to go about it. Don't forget to add in the armor value of the defensive armors, too.

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Possibly in the thread we submitted the stuff in.Hmmmm

Did a search with SJ's number and "stealth" and no results except for our current discussion.

Tried it again with "scattering" and ditto.

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 01:40 AM

Hitpoints / chance to be hit = average firepower thrown at your ship. (Toughness)
Overkill, cripplings, and internals being ignored.

Lets see there.
As a random example:
500 shield points, and typically 40% to hit.
That gives 500/.4 = 1250
1250*.15 = 187.5, pretty close to that 165 number.

Sacrifice 280 shield points to put on a stealth armor...
220+100 = 320 @ 40-15 = 25%
320/.25 = 1280, which goes to show stealth is slightly better.

1000 shield points, at 80% to hit.
1000 /.8 = 1250
--&gt 187.5 just like before...
1000-280+100 = 820 @ .65
--&gt 1261, but still better.

Now, 30kt* (Shield points/kt - Armor points/kt) = 181.26
The 165 may have come from 30*(350/40 - 100/30) = 162.5
In that case, I was probably did not have the data files in front of me and used the wrong value.

To test:
181.26 / .15 = 1208.4 effective hitpoints.
To hit it with a toughie right away, lets say the base to-hit is 15%.
1208.4*.15 = 181.26 shield points.

Sacrifice 280 shields, add 100 stealth armor hitpoints gives you basically zero.
But since you've got a 15-15 = 0% to hit rate, it balances out http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

1208.4 * .65 = 785.46
Sacrifice 280 add 100, you get 605.46.
605.46 /.50 = 1211
And it just barely breaks even again...

A little less than 180:
1130 * .15 = 169.5 (&lt 180)
226/.2 = 1130 shields only
226-180= 46 /.05 = 920 with stealth armor.

452/.4 = 1130 shields only
452-180 = 272 /.25 = 1088 with stealth armor.

--

So it seems I may have been using the wrong value for the shields/kt, and the true values to compare to should be:
size* (Shields/kt - Armor/kt)
30 * (9.375 - 3.333) = 180 for stealth armor
50 * (9.375 - 3.000) = 320 for Scattering armor

[ March 19, 2003, 23:41: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 01:52 AM

So it seems I may have been using the wrong value for the shields/kt, and the true values to compare to should be:
size* (Shields/kt - Armor/kt)
30 * (9.375 - 3.333) = 180 for stealth armor
50 * (9.375 - 3.000) = 320 for Scattering armorWhich is precisely what I have been saying all along.

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 02:02 AM

New, improved, and simplified Method!

1) Take the shield points currently generated.
2) Estimate the typical hit rate that your enemy has against your ship.
3) Multiply your answers from (1) and (2), then divide by 100.
4) If the answer you get is:
less than 1200 : Do not bother with Stealth or Scattering armor.
from 1200 to 1670 : Add a Stealth armor only.
1670 or higher : Add both Stealth and Scattering armor.

1200 - comes from: 30x(9.375 -3.333)/.15
1670 - comes from (80 x (9.375 - [3.333*30 + 3*50]/80) ) /.3
= 80x (9.375 - 3.125)/.3
Which, again is: Size * (shields/kt - armor/kt)
And then divided by the ECM power to get us up to effective hitpoints.

Which is precisely what I have been saying all along.Yes, I see you were.
Maybe you need to use more Greek letters (or at least basic math symbols) next time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 20, 2003, 00:04: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 02:18 AM

Yes, I see you were.
Maybe you need to use more Greek letters (or at least basic math symbols) next time That was a jab at tbontob, not you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I guess he didn't like having to insert his own greek letters and basic math symbols. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Yes, I see you were.
Maybe you need to use more Greek letters (or at least basic math symbols) next time That was a jab at tbontob, not you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I guess he didn't like having to insert his own greek letters and basic math symbols. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>Maybe you need to use more Greek letters (or at least basic math symbols) next time [/QUOTE]That was a jab at tbontob, not you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I guess he didn't like having to insert his own greek letters and basic math symbols. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif [/QB][/QUOTE]

LOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron that was a tongue in cheek remark. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And thanks SJ for the time and effort you have put into this.

I'll have to digest it and will get back to you.

[ March 20, 2003, 00:51: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Slick

March 20th, 2003, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

1) Take the shield points currently generated.
2) Estimate the typical hit rate that your enemy has against your ship.
3) Multiply your answers from (1) and (2), then divide by 100.
4) If the answer you get is:
less than 1200 : Do not bother with Stealth or Scattering armor.
from 1200 to 1670 : Add a Stealth armor only.
1670 or higher : Add both Stealth and Scattering armor.

1200 - comes from: 30x(9.375 -3.333)/.15
1670 - comes from (80 x (9.375 - [3.333*30 + 3*50]/80) ) /.3
= 80x (9.375 - 3.125)/.3
Which, again is: Size * (shields/kt - armor/kt)
And then divided by the ECM power to get us up to effective hitpoints.

You are the MAN. Awesome. No doubt about it. I will be copying this to the FAQ.

Slick.

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Slick:
You are the MAN. Awesome. No doubt about it. I will be copying this to the FAQ.It is just algebra. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Yes, I see you were.
Maybe you need to use more Greek letters (or at least basic math symbols) next time That was a jab at tbontob, not you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I guess he didn't like having to insert his own greek letters and basic math symbols. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>Maybe you need to use more Greek letters (or at least basic math symbols) next time <hr /></blockquote>That was a jab at tbontob, not you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I guess he didn't like having to insert his own greek letters and basic math symbols. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>
LOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron that was a tongue in cheek remark. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Guess you missed it.

And thanks SJ for the time and effort you have put into this.

I'll have to digest it and will get back to you.

EDIT: Repaired the UBB quote tag fragments.

[ March 20, 2003, 00:59: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 03:00 AM

Sorry guys, I kinda screwed up the multiple Posts and was trying to correct it.

Seems I posted rather than edited.

EDIT: Thanks SJ for fixing up my messed up post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 20, 2003, 01:04: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 03:18 AM

There is a preview button. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Remind me again what "tongue in cheek remark" means.

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
There is a preview button. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Remind me again what "tongue in cheek remark" means.Well, in this situation the person (not me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )superficially and with some irony agreed with your statement but really didn't.

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 03:25 AM

I'd like to know where that phrase came from...
I find it really hard to speak clearly if I do put my toungue over onto the inside of my cheek. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 03:26 AM

You don't need to quote the post when it is just before yours...

I don't really see much of that in SJ's post, but whatever. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 20, 2003, 01:27: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You don't need to quote the post when it is just before yours...

I don't really see much of that in SJ's post, but whatever. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Let's just say I reserve my right to quote a person. My choice, not yours, however much you may dislike it.

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 03:33 AM

It makes the post unnecessarily long, and waste's everyone's time (esp. low-bandwidth Users).

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
I'd like to know where that phrase came from...
I find it really hard to speak clearly if I do put my toungue over onto the inside of my cheek. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Yeh! Worse, I am likely to bite my tongue. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Chris Woods

March 20th, 2003, 06:55 AM

http://www.wordorigins.org/

Great place to find out where strange words or phrases come from.

----
Tongue in Cheek:
The commonly told tale about this phrase is that it derives from the acting practice of thrusting one's tongue into your cheek to keep from laughing at an inappropriate moment. There is no evidence to support this story or the idea that the phrase comes from the theater.

The phrase dates to 1748 when it was fashionable to signal contempt for someone by making a bulge in your cheek with your tongue. By 1842 the phrase had acquired its modern, ironic sense.
----

Chris Woods

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 06:56 AM

SJ's supposedly toungue in cheek post was not very ironic (well, not ironic at all, really). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It makes the post unnecessarily long, and waste's everyone's time (esp. low-bandwidth Users).My reply is the same:

Let's just say I reserve my right to quote a person. My choice, not yours, however much you may dislike it.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

And if you are really sincere in what you say, you will elimate all that extraneous stuff below your actual message.

So I will watch and see if you do. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Otherwise it is all B.S.

[ March 20, 2003, 05:55: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 08:10 AM

No, it is not BS. I have condensed my signature as much as possible, while still conveying the necessary information. You can not use my signature as any sort of argument, until you remove your own. It takes about as much space as mine does, but mine has lots of useful links in it; yours does not.

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, it is not BS. I have condensed my signature as much as possible, while still conveying the necessary information. You can not use my signature as any sort of argument, until you remove your own. It takes about as much space as mine does, but mine has lots of useful links in it; yours does not.Nope, I've read it. Don't need to read it again.

Just eliminate it please.

Because as someone just said:

"It makes the post unnecessarily long, and waste's everyone's time (esp. low-bandwidth Users)." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 08:17 AM

You have left in your sig in every post, so you can not use my sig as an argument. You have no ground to stand on there.

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 08:22 AM

Yes I do.

Sounds like your are retracting your:

"It makes the post unnecessarily long, and waste's everyone's time (esp. low-bandwidth Users)." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 08:26 AM

No, you do not. Your sig is useless. Mine has a function. I am tired of repeating myself, so I will refer you to my previous Posts.

Stop using my words out of context. "it" is quoting the post immediately preceding your post. Do not try to use that case in other cases; it will not work.

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, you do not. Your sig is useless. Mine has a function. I am tired of repeating myself, so I will refer you to my previous Posts.

Stop using my words out of context. "it" is quoting the post immediately preceding your post. Do not try to use that case in other cases; it will not work.Nope, yours is useless too. We have all read it.

So please remove it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 08:53 AM

Ok, now you are just being petulant (well, you have been doing that for a while now, but now I point it out). It is obvious that you have no argument, so I am going to end this post-inflation fest now.

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok, now you are just being petulant (well, you have been doing that for a while now, but now I point it out). It is obvious that you have no argument, so I am going to end this post-inflation fest now.No, I am not being petulant.

I have a valid point which you are dismissing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 09:09 AM

Your constant use of http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif exemplifies your current petulance very well.

Your point is not valid, and I will not waste time or space repeating why. I have dismissed it because it is invalid.

[ March 20, 2003, 07:13: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Your constant use of http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif exemplifies your current petulance very well.

Your point is not valid, and I will not waste time or space repeating why. I have dismissed it because it is invalid.No, it is just pointing out your arguement is not realistic.

You claim to be concerned about peoples time when you say:

"It makes the post unnecessarily long, and waste's everyone's time (esp. low-bandwidth Users)."

but will not change your behaviour to help these people.

So, it is all B.S. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 09:19 AM

My signature has not been read by everyone. Even if it has, people would still find it useful when looking for the things linked in it. This is why it is not pointless. Your quoting of Posts that were made just before your post is useless. It serves no useful purpose what-so-ever. Only someone with an IQ of, say, 0, would not be able to tell that you were responding to the post immediately preceding your post. This is why it is a waste of time and space.

Your argument that my sig is a waste of space holds no ground because yours is more of a waste of space than mine is (as it has no useful links or info in it), and you do not ever remove it from your Posts. You can not use my use of my signature as an argument against my own.

Also, I will ask you again to stop using my statements out of context. My statement about your excessive quoting wasting space has absolutley nothing to do with signatures at all. Do not use it there, for it only makes you look foolish.

If you want to continue your arrogant stubbornness and unwillingness to admit when you are wrong, go right ahead. I am through with this "debate".

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 09:24 AM

I never claimed my sig was useful. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

There are other ways you can advertise your products.

It doesn't have to be in a sig where "It makes the post unnecessarily long, and waste's everyone's time (esp. low-bandwidth Users)."

So since you are not willing to help the people you are so concerned about, it is all B.S. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ March 20, 2003, 07:25: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 10:06 AM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ March 20, 2003, 08:07: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 03:30 PM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

primitive

March 20th, 2003, 04:02 PM

Welcome to the “Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus” Arena, where today we follow the ongoing championship match in “I want the Last word”.

Today’s contestants are. In the blue corner, reigning champion and ruler of the world: Imperator Fyron. In the red corner, the challenger, master of the quotes: Tbontob.

Sports fans around the forums all ask the same eternal question. Who is willing to waste most bandwidth with useless Posts, quotes and sigs.

We join the match in progress. Several pages are already wasted. Some unlucky spectators looking for info on Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus have already left the arena searching for info elsewhere.

There goes Fyron with and empty post but it is easily countered by the quoting Canadian with several smileys. Fyron have another go, but is once again thwarted.

The match seems to have gone into a lull, with only smileys being exchanged. We take a small commercial break, but will be back later with the conclusion of this exciting (yawn) match. Don’t go away.

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Welcome to the “Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus” Arena, where today we follow the ongoing championship match in “I want the Last word”.

Today’s contestants are. In the blue corner, reigning champion and ruler of the world: Imperator Fyron. In the red corner, the challenger, master of the quotes: Tbontob.

Sports fans around the forums all ask the same eternal question. Who is willing to waste most bandwidth with useless Posts, quotes and sigs.

We join the match in progress. Several pages are already wasted. Some unlucky spectators looking for info on Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus have already left the arena searching for info elsewhere.

There goes Fyron with and empty post but it is easily countered by the quoting Canadian with several smileys. Fyron have another go, but is once again thwarted.

The match seems to have gone into a lull, with only smileys being exchanged. We take a small commercial break, but will be back later with the conclusion of this exciting (yawn) match. Don’t go away.ROFLOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I got tears in my eyes, I am laughing so hard and my parrot is laughing with me.

Primitive, you have done it again! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 06:50 PM

For those who are looking for Stealth/Scattering armor info, this was all the way back on page 3!

New, improved, and simplified Method!

1) Take the shield points currently generated.
2) Estimate the typical hit rate that your enemy has against your ship.
3) Multiply your answers from (1) and (2), then divide by 100.
4) If the answer you get is:
less than 1200 : Do not bother with Stealth or Scattering armor.
from 1200 to 1670 : Add a Stealth armor only.
1670 or higher : Add both Stealth and Scattering armor.

1200 - comes from: 30x(9.375 -3.333)/.15
1670 - comes from (80 x (9.375 - [3.333*30 + 3*50]/80) ) /.3
= 80x (9.375 - 3.125)/.3
Which, again is: Size * (shields/kt - armor/kt)
And then divided by the ECM power to get us up to effective hitpoints.

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Hitpoints / chance to be hit = average firepower thrown at your ship. (Toughness)
Overkill, cripplings, and internals being ignored.

Lets see there.
As a random example:
500 shield points, and typically 40% to hit.
That gives 500/.4 = 1250
1250*.15 = 187.5, pretty close to that 165 number.
Hi SJ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I'll take this step by step and try not to do it all at once. (please correct me if I am in error).

As I interpret it so far:

1250 represents the amount of firepower (which has a 40% chance of hitting) that is necessary to destroy shields which have a total of 500 shield points.

I hear you when you say the 187.5 value is the break-even point for stealth armor/no stealth armor.

And I understand the mathematics on how you got the 187.5 value, but intuitively, I do not see how it relates to being a break-even point.

Is there a way of explaining this connection?

If there isn't, I'll just take it as provisionally true and continue.

[ March 20, 2003, 16:56: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Ragnarok

March 20th, 2003, 06:52 PM

LOL! Primitive, that was hilarious! I'm still laughing from that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Nice play-by-play there too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

DirectorTsaarx

March 20th, 2003, 06:57 PM

There is one valid reason to quote the post immediately preceding your reply: there are a number of cases where multiple replies are added at once; since there may not be an indication that such an event is in progress until after the fact, there are two possible ways to handle it. The first requires crafting a post without the quote, posting the reply, and then editing the quote back in once one determines that an intervening simul-post has confused matters. The second method is to go ahead and quote the immediately preceding post, and deleting said quote afterwards (or at least editing the unnecessary portions out) if a simul-post did not occur.

Besides, I think the graphics on each page (especially the various avatars) use more bandwidth than some extra text. After all, when I'm on dialup, the text generally appears first, and quite quickly, while sometimes it takes up to a minute for all the avatars, buttons, etc. to appear.

Edit: just to prove my point, by the time I crafted & posted this reply, there were 3 (!!!) new Posts to this thread - from SJ, tbontob and Ragnarok...

[ March 20, 2003, 16:59: Message edited by: DirectorTsaarx ]

geoschmo

March 20th, 2003, 07:09 PM

Quoting a previous post, even one that immedietly preceeds yours, is not always a bad thing. It can help in making your point more clearly understood, and as Director Tarsx points out it doesn't use all that much bandwith.

However Tbontob, I am not taking sides, but you could use a little bit of editing in what you quote. It's not nessecary to include the entire text of the Last 5 comments in the thread. This has an unfortunate effect on the formatting of the page because of the way the forum software indents nested quotes.

It's not even neccesary to include the entire text of post you are quoting. This can actually make the meaning of your post less clear. It would be better to quote only the cogent points to which you are responding directly.

EDIT: Although I know that you know this and are simply "Fyron baiting". This is a popular past-time in our little forum here, one that I have partaken in myself a time or two. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

[ March 20, 2003, 17:12: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

spoon

March 20th, 2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

1) Take the shield points currently generated.
2) Estimate the typical hit rate that your enemy has against your ship.
3) Multiply your answers from (1) and (2), then divide by 100.
4) If the answer you get is:
less than 1200 : Do not bother with Stealth or Scattering armor.
from 1200 to 1670 : Add a Stealth armor only.
1670 or higher : Add both Stealth and Scattering armor.
I thought you were dividing by the hit rate in (2). Is this the correct formula you propose, where:
s = shield points
h = percent of being hit (decimal)

x = (s)(1/h)(1/100)

Maybe if you go through an example for me, I will be enlightened. Say 500 shield points, 60% chance of being hit, after armor bonuses added (lvl 6, both armors).

Thanks!
-Spoon

[ March 20, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: spoon ]

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
As I interpret it so far:

1250 represents the amount of firepower (which has a 40% chance of hitting) that is necessary to destroy shields which have a total of 500 shield points.

I hear you when you say the 187.5 value is the break-even point for stealth armor/no stealth armor.

And I understand the mathematics on how you got the 187.5 value, but intuitively, I do not see how it relates to being a break-even point.

Is there a way of explaining this connection?

If there isn't, I'll just take it as provisionally true and continue.The 187.5 value is in units of Size x Hitpoints per ECM%, apparently.
I don't believe its worth thinking about, and it hurts my brain to try to understand what it really means.

IMO, it is much better to just use the 1200, which is easy to understand as:
- the amount of effective-hitpoints needed to break even on Stealth armor vs more shields.

IE: the point where subtracting 180 HP and adding 15% ECM gives you no change in effective-hitpoints.

DirectorTsaarx

March 20th, 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Hitpoints / chance to be hit = average firepower thrown at your ship. (Toughness)
Overkill, cripplings, and internals being ignored.

Lets see there.
As a random example:
500 shield points, and typically 40% to hit.
That gives 500/.4 = 1250
1250*.15 = 187.5, pretty close to that 165 number.
Hi SJ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I'll take this step by step and try not to do it all at once. (please correct me if I am in error).

(snipping text to save bandwidth http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif )
I hear you when you say the 187.5 value is the break-even point for stealth armor/no stealth armor.
(snipping more text to save more bandwidth http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )<hr /></blockquote>I don't think SJ was claiming the 187.5 value was the break-even point, that was just a specific value for the effect of an extra 15% combat defense bonus, and he was comparing that to the break-even point he'd originally referenced. That effect needs to be compared to the size and structure of the component providing that bonus (i.e., stealth armor or scattering armor) and also compared to the size, structure, etc. of the components removed from the design to make room for the stealth/scattering armor.

In other words, this is a fairly straightforward cost/benefit analysis:

Cost of armor: 30 kT space (or 50 kT space)
Benefit of armor: 100 kT structure/HP (or 150 kT structure/HP) PLUS 5/10/15% combat defense bonus (depending on level of armor researched).

The next step is figuring out what benefits are lost when you add armor instead of (for instance) a shield generator (or a shield REgenerator, or a weapon, or a supply storage component, or a solar sail, or whatever). SJ's example assumes that you'd replace shield generator(s) with the stealth/scattering armor.

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 07:23 PM

Geo.

Fyron and I were both participants in the nested quotes. I just happened to be the Last one.

If you look carefully, it was not so much the nested quotes themselves but the fact I screwed up the nested quotes which SJ tried to correct but didn't eliminate the duplications.

You'll have to take a look at the quote to see what I mean.

And yes, I do try not to include the entire text and at times I include the entire text at time when it may be better not to.

But I am human and I make human mistakes.

I just don't like having someone ragging my *** if I should happen to overstep the line somewhat when the real issue is something else.

geoschmo

March 20th, 2003, 07:34 PM

Tbontob, as I said I wasn't taking sides. Please don't take this as an admonishment. I understood the reasons for your Posts. Yes we are all human, but I wasn't even suggesting you made a mistake. I was assuming you did it intentionally to goad Fyron a bit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I know he can be annoying at times. "Ragging" is something he seems to particularly enjoy. My prefered method of pointing it out to him is to speak to others about him in a slightly disapointed, patronizing way. The way you would speak about a particularly rambunctious child to other adults. Discussing it with him standing right there, but not directly acknoledging him as if he isn't. He hates that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geoschmo

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 07:42 PM

The next step is figuring out what benefits are lost when you add armor instead of (for instance) a shield generator (or a shield REgenerator, or a weapon, or a supply storage component, or a solar sail, or whatever). SJ's example assumes that you'd replace shield generator(s) with the stealth/scattering armor.I think that's a fair assumption, since what the algorithm does is to optimize the defensive strength of ship using only the space already allocated to shields.

I don't think SJ was claiming the 187.5 value was the break-even point, that was just a specific value for the effect of an extra 15% combat defense bonus, and he was comparing that to the break-even point he'd originally referenced. That effect needs to be compared to the size and structure of the component providing that bonus (i.e., stealth armor or scattering armor) and also compared to the size, structure, etc. of the components removed from the design to make room for the stealth/scattering armor.Actually I was. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That number takes into account the change in hitpoints, and the ECM bonus of 15%.

[ March 20, 2003, 17:51: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

1) Take the shield points currently generated.
2) Estimate the typical hit rate that your enemy has against your ship.
3) Multiply your answers from (1) and (2), then divide by 100.
4) If the answer you get is:
less than 1200 : Do not bother with Stealth or Scattering armor.
from 1200 to 1670 : Add a Stealth armor only.
1670 or higher : Add both Stealth and Scattering armor.
I thought you were dividing by the hit rate in (2). Is this the correct formula you propose, where:
s = shield points
h = percent of being hit (decimal)

x = (s)(1/h)(1/100)

Maybe if you go through an example for me, I will be enlightened. Say 500 shield points, 60% chance of being hit, after armor bonuses added (lvl 6, both armors).

Thanks!
-Spoon<hr /></blockquote>Aw, man. Can you believe I'm in a math program at university?

1) Take the shield points currently generated.
2) Estimate the typical hit rate that your enemy has against your ship.
3) Divide your answer from (1) by your answer from (2), then multiply by 100.
4) If the answer you get is:
less than 1200 : Do not bother with Stealth or Scattering armor.
from 1200 to 1670 : Add a Stealth armor only.
1670 or higher : Add both Stealth and Scattering armor.

[ March 20, 2003, 17:48: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

tbontob

March 20th, 2003, 08:12 PM

Geo

I did take what you said as "constructive criticism". In a very real and very positive sense.

If I cannot take an honest opinion and reflect on it, then I am not being honest with myself. Worse, I could be living a lie.

I wasn't so much as goading as I was determined not to let Fyron off the hook this time. Fyron uses a number of tactics to prove to himself he is right and to give the impresssion to others he is always right.

One of his Favorites is the subject change. When he feels he is losing the arguement, he will change the subject or throw it in a new direction where he can come out on top.

Unfortunately, most participants in the conversation don't realize he is doing this. They are always put in a position of "losing" and there is often bewilderment and anger over it.

I cannot recall the number of times he has used this tactic on me. I recognize it and usually stop participating. Since he has the Last word, he believes he has won the issue, which couldn't be further from the truth. I just refuse to go along with the subject change. This time I didn't.

Fyron has yet to learn there is no shame in being wrong and openly admitting it. Then real growth can take place.

I do consider Fyron a friend. I am just getting tired of the tactics being used on me. So this time I took it to the limit...to the amusement of everyone around us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And yes, there was an element of goading. The fact I did it in the manner that I did is an indication of how annoyed I was becoming with the tactics being used. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ward

March 20th, 2003, 08:18 PM

To that formula:

This is a formula that counts with: Space reqired by component's, damage dealt, different % to hit and of course overall defense points. It works also with many extreme examples.

Abbreviations used in examples and formula:

su = Space used. Total of space the components take up on ship.
sr = Space required for components. Count in kt. Add ALL components.
dd = Damage dealt. Pick any number bigger than 1.
mp = Modified percent. Attacker's percent to hit(again, choose any number) minus your defense adjustment(count OLNY bonus from component).
dv = Defense value. Add damage resistance(in kt) and additional points(shield or armor).

How it works?

1: (dd*mp1/100) - (dv1*sr2/sr1)
Count.

2: (dd*mp2/100) - dv2
Count.

Compare. Smaller wins.

Example1:

Let's say you have 50 kt of free space on ship. Enemy can deal you 1000 points of damage and he hits 60% of time. First ship has an armor and second a shield generator.

Armor requires 50 kt's adds 150 armor points and 15% to defend.
Shield generator reqires 40 kt and adds 375 shield points.

sr1 = 50
sr2 = 40
dd = 1000
mp1 = 45
mp2 = 60
dv1 = 200
dv2 = 415

1: 1000*45/100 - 200*40/50 = 290
2: 1000*60/100 - 415 = 185

Shield wins.

Example2:

Let's say you have 210 kt of free space on ship. Enemy can deal you 1000 points of damage and he hits 60% of time. First ship has 4 shield generators and 1 armor and second has 5 shield generators.

Armor requires 50 kt's adds 150 armor points and 15% to defend.
Shield generator reqires 40 kt and adds 375 shield points.

sr1 = 210
sr2 = 200
dd = 1000
mp1 = 45
mp2 = 60
dv1 = 1850
dv2 = 2075

1: 1000*45/100 - 1850*200/210 = -1312
2: 1000*60/100 - 2075 -1475
Shield wins(but slightly).

This is not a failure. Here really the shield wins. After all, if the armor gives you 15% to defense it is as if it gave you one sixth more defense. That also means that on average only after 6 shields it pays off to have an armor.
Try to slightly increase the % of shield. You'll see the results you probably want to see.

Of course this formula does NOT include all possibilities but it covers most common situations.

Ward

March 20th, 2003, 08:22 PM

I almost forgot: The break even point is easy find. Just give those two sides into eqation. That't the exact break-even point.

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 08:39 PM

Is your damage dealt supposed to be the effective hitpoints of the ship, rather than just any number?

DirectorTsaarx

March 20th, 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I don't think SJ was claiming the 187.5 value was the break-even point, that was just a specific value for the effect of an extra 15% combat defense bonus, and he was comparing that to the break-even point he'd originally referenced.
(yadda yadda yadda - editing my own original quote... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )
Actually I was. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That number takes into account the change in hitpoints, and the ECM bonus of 15%.<hr /></blockquote>Great. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Now I'M getting confused by the whole thing. And I'm an engineer - I should be used to arcane cost-benefit analysis formulas!

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 08:45 PM

I know he can be annoying at times. "Ragging" is something he seems to particularly enjoy. My prefered method of pointing it out to him is to speak to others about him in a slightly disapointed, patronizing way. The way you would speak about a particularly rambunctious child to other adults. Discussing it with him standing right there, but not directly acknoledging him as if he isn't. He hates that. If I was as petty as Geo, I would respond (with more than this not-such-a-response) to that. As I am not, all you get is http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Ward

March 20th, 2003, 08:59 PM

Suicide Junkie:
That depends on what you want to calculate. The damage dealt is the damage your enemy deals you. I intenionally left it there so that you can also include enemy's firepower(that also an answer to your question). This can give you more accurate view. Yes, the formula works with amplifying and decreasing basic damage. At first I thought two things that later turned out to be false: That I can't use "virtual hit points" instead of to hit(ot to defend) %. With the second I will not bother anyone until someone finds that possibility(It has something to do with very big or low chances of hitting). I hope I answered your question well enough.

[ March 20, 2003, 19:03: Message edited by: Ward ]

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 09:17 PM

If you are trying to maximize the defense strength of your ship (using a given amount of space, of course), then the amount of damage the enemy fires at you per round dosen't matter for shields and stealth/scattering armor.

And whenever the to-hit chances get locked at 1% or 99%, then our formulae will certainly be off.

PvK

March 20th, 2003, 09:29 PM

These are good formulae if you know enough math to appreciate what they are saying as a general principle. In practice though, you almost never have a reliable figure for enemy's chance to hit you, and even if you had full information, it's not a single number, but a probablility distribution, and a different one for each enemy design, experience level, weapon, etc.

So, this illustrates the theory, and would be a reasonable system for an improved AI to use, and if you're really confused and think this will help your designs, it'll give you something to give you advice, but there isn't really a valid formula that will tell you what the best thing to do is.

PvK

Ward

March 20th, 2003, 09:32 PM

Suicide junkie:

If you are trying to maximize the defense strength of your ship (using a given amount of space, of course), then the amount of damage the enemy fires at you per round dosen't matter for shields and stealth/scattering armor.
Yes, you are right. But you can eliminate it if you wish. Just make an equation you know is right and cut the "damage dealt" off. The formula was meant to be as universal as possible. It could certainly use much refining but I thought this should suffice for your comparisons.

And whenever the to-hit chances get locked at 1% or 99%, then our formulae will certainly be off. Again you are right. But if you begin to count the formula for such extreme circumstances, you should also count how many times enemy fires at you (and the math of many chances - two chances of 5% aren't one chance of 10% - is much more difficult and I think it's useless in this example).

You showed some interest in that so tomorrow I'll post here a complete Version taking everithing into consideration (I'll look at it at home. Now am at work and I don't have much time).

P.S.: Excuse my English, please. :-))

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 09:40 PM

True, although hulls and most weapons have no accuracy bonuses, and designs will typically include the maximum attack bonuses possible with the available tech.

Given the range your ships fight at, and some knowledge of the enemy's tech level, you can get a pretty accurate baseline.

The true break-even point will be a fuzzy region around the calculated point, but if you are well on one side or the other, you can be fairly certain which of the two options (ECM-armor or shields) is best.

There are also missiles, talismans and rammers to worry about, as well as one-shot-one-kill weapons.

Given the complexity of the game, formulae like this will be a guide, rather than a law.
Before I went through the formula, I had no idea when it would be worth putting Stealth armor on a ship http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Gryphin

March 21st, 2003, 01:17 AM

So, in short you can micro manage ship design or do as Unknown_Enemy suggested and put 1 of each on each ship worthy of it.
Or, I guess if you did it enough you would get an relyable gestimate for when it was worth it.

I'm too lazy, I'm going with Unknown_Enemy.
Enjoy

Ward

March 21st, 2003, 03:35 PM

Here comes the post I promised yesterday.

This formula works with statistics. That means it doesn't matter if you hit 1% of time with stength 100 or 100% of time with 1 damage(with little refinement you can make it matter). I will not give you a complete formula, but rather only pieces that hold together. I have also counted with tactical and strategical elements(different magnitude of weapons depending on range, movement, strategy chosen), effectivity of separate components and component's resource cost but then I decided not to include them here(I got to a point where it would be easyer to ask programmers for source code http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). If someone is interested I can post it too(but the post will be thrice this long). If you find a mistake, please check if it is a mistake of principle or just hitting the wrong key(I wrote this late at night) before you accuse me of something wrong.

Abbreviations:
!: "faktorial"; I don't know the right word here. 5! means 5+4+3+2+1, 1! is 1, 10! is 10+9+8...+2+1. (3!)! is (3)+(2)+(1). Just substitute the number with the Last one minus 1.
AAW: "All active weapons" Sum of all weapons that can fire this turn. Used to calculate how much you actually hit after substracting efficiency.
ATH: "Attacker's to hit" Sum of all attacker's positive attack modifiers (experience, weapons) esxcept CAM.
CAM: "Constant attack mofifier" The bonus(penalty) you recieve from modifiers that don't change(ship size, ?).
CDM: "Constant defense modifier" The bonus(penalty) you recieve from modifiers that don't change(ship size, event predictor).
DD: DP*HE; "Damage dealt" HE-CDM has can be 0-1.
DP: "Damage potential" Sum of all weapons' damage. Do not apply anything except bonuses for mounts.
DRRA: "Damage resistance of remaining armor" Sum of all. The difference between DRRA and DRRS can be important if you implement weapons that bypass certain defenses.
DRRC: "Damage resistance of remaining components" Sum of all components' damage resistance. Do not include any armor.
DRRS: "Damage resistance of remaining shields" Sum of all. The difference between DRRA and DRRS can be important if you implement weapons that bypass certain defenses.
DTD: "Defenders to defend" Sum of all defenders' positive defense modifiers (experience, components) except CDM.
E: RSDR/OSDR; "Effectivity" This represents the proportion of your functionality.
ED: DRRC+DRRA+DRRS; "Effective defense"
HE: ((TH sqared with AAW)!)/(100 sqared with AAW!))*AWW +CAM -CDM + E; "Hit efficiency" This value can be 0-1. First you determine pure chances of attack. Then you add all constant modifiers and how damaged you are. This is the value that modifies the damage you deal.
OSDR: "Original ship damage resistance."
RESULT: ED-DD
RSDR: "Remaining ship damage resistance" DRRA+DRRC+DRRS
TH: ATH-DTD; "To hit"

This is a core from which you can derive anything about effectivity about whole ships. Now if you search for a break-even point just give wanted values to each side and give there an equation(of course leave some values as unknown). One equation is for 1 situation. For optimization purposes it's best to make a clumsy design that includes the type of components you want to include. Then Count higest and lowest numbers and find a golden heart.

Just a rough example(If this works well): A hi-end battleship +20 kt comuter core +50 kt engines(100kt) +240 kt of shields(375 shields) + 10 multiplex +10 senzors(65%) +10 ECM(60%) +30 Stealth(100 armor,15%) +50 Scattering(150 armor,15%) +20 kt Quantum +20 Sail +40 PD +300 Energy(90,135dmg/1round). It has overall +65% to attack and +90 to defense. It's components' damage reduction is 770, 2250 are shields, 250 armor. It can cause maximum damage of 5*135=675 kTs. It's overall defense is 3270 pionts. If this value drops to 770 the ship is beginning to take serious damage. 3270-770=2500/675=3.7 This means that it can take 3 full hits until it takes damage to internal systems. Let's optimize this ship. We just want to switch combat parts. ECM, Senzors and Multiplex are left on the ship. We have 800-420=380 space left. We want to have RESULT as high as possible. Now the effectivity of that weapon(on that range) is 3,75. Effectivity of shield is 10,375. That indicates Shields are much more efficient in this example. For simplicity let's assume HE is 0.2; TH=0.2(I know that this break a little bit this example, but it't O.K. for illustrating). DD=DP*0.2; ED=? Result "is bigger than" 0 (intead of zero I should have inserted the RESULT value of previous desigh, againg simplifing) DP*0.2 -ED "is bigger than" x; DP*0.2"is smaller than"x- ED; Maximum ED is 380(free space)-60(At least one weapon)/40 (space used by maximu shields, round down)*(value of each shield)=3000 Minimum is 0. Maximum DP is 380/60=6*135=810. Now we search a value that best fits these requrements. DP*0.2"is smaller than"3000; DP "is smaller than"15000 The best value that approaches this apparent no-sense is 810. This no-sense indicates also when it would be more effective to add weapons instead of armor. No surprise; the component effectivity values indicated that. Using these guidelines you can count any combination. Adding components with % is somewhat more complicated. You count the component effectivity and add the percent to overall ED or HE. This requires a bit math or an hour with Excel. If someone is willing to make that small program, you may know your answer to what universal combination is best.

WARD