mathematical formulaes

[Suicide Junkie]

If one uses it only as a quick and dirty way to compare weapons, it can be useful. But we should keep in mind that it is only one way of comparing the relative strengths of weapons ...

It gives a very useful BASE strength.
To me, Range, Accuracy, Damage Type and others are all special features which "make up for" any deficit in base strength.
These special features all have variable value as tactical, strategic and technological situations vary. As such, they are not fit to be included in the base rating.

Weapons technology: The art and science of persuading the enemy ships to explode.

[tbontob]

Hmmmm....

I suspect we are all saying the same thing with respect to the formula for as Fyron has said....

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
But, the raw damage is the primary factor when determining the strength of a weapon. All the formula does is to create a base from which to compare weapons of different sizes and rates of fire.

[Fyron]

Ehem...

Originally posted by tbontob:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, it would be bad. ROF is how many turns it takes to recharge and fire the gun. 1 means it can fire every turn, 2 means it fires every other turn, 3 every 3rd turn, and so on.

Quite right.

Bringing the divisor up to the numerator changes it, from rol to 1/rol.

---

What you posted appears to be some confused mathematics to me. I was merely trying to help alleviate the confusion. It seems as if you are saying to change ROF to 1/ROF, which would be an indication of you thinking it is x/(y/z). Maybe this is simply a result of me being confused by the wording of your post. I don't know.

I will argue that x/(y*z) is not easier than x/y/z. Use a calculator. Fewer keystrokes with x/y/z.

[tbontob]

[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ehem...

Originally posted by Fyron:
What you posted appears to be some confused mathematics to me. I was merely trying to help alleviate the confusion. It seems as if you are saying to change ROF to 1/ROF, which would be an indication of you thinking it is x/(y/z). Maybe this is simply a result of me being confused by the wording of your post. I don't know.

I will argue that x/(y*z) is not easier than x/y/z. Use a calculator. Fewer keystrokes with x/y/z.

Actually, it is algebra.

But yes, if you are dependant on a calculator to do the computations, it may be quicker to do it as you have described.

But if you do it in your head, my formula is easier.

[ December 27, 2002, 07:45: Message edited by: tbontob ]

[Fyron]

Your algebra looked fishy to me...

It is faster to reduce complex fractions to decimals with a calculator than in your head.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Your algebra looked fishy to me...

It is faster to reduce complex fractions to decimals with a calculator than in your head.

Well, whether it looks fishy to you or not, the proof is in the pudding.

And like I said in an earlier posting, it is much easier to multiply than to divide. This of course applies to mental calculations.

[Fyron]

I will submit to you that division is simply multiplying fractions. It is the same process either way.

[Dralasite]

Sure, but using the combat simulator isn't going to give you a nice table of numerical weapon comparisons. The combat simulator takes a lot longer, and the results would only be valid for those ships going 1-on-1 with the same ship strategies.

[Taera]

this would not prove much. certain weapons are strong with one tactic but weak with all other tactics, and then the subject of counter-weapons comes.

[BBegemott]

I think it is possible to determine which weapon is stronger using Combat Simulator. You should create ships with the same base components (Master Computer, Engines, Quantum Reactor) and add a single weapon, varying per different ship. Then you should arrange a certain number on combats one-on-one. Repeat the same number with switched sides in order to neglect "first shot" factor. The ship, which wins more combats in two rounds has a better weapon. The larger the number of combats, the larger accuracy of results.

[ December 27, 2002, 12:08: Message edited by: BBegemott ]