Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So with the bonus to the Phoon, how much better would it it be over a raven trying to do the same thing?

Already posted my opinion on that.
It would be really sad if i cant use them on a BS which dont have an AB fitted. You need atleast 1-2 TP's to get full dmg on a BS.

you need to get this condition true to get Full DMG:
(Sig/Er * Ev/Vel) > 1

All 5 Skills:
(Sig/425.7 * 87/Vel) > 1 <=> 4.893 * Sig/Vel > 1

That means if the radio of Sig/Vel is less then 0.2 then you will not do full dmg or if the Vel is 4.893 times higher then the Sig.
With Navigation at lvl 5 and 2 Shield Extender + 3 Shield Rigs with lvl4, you get the following Data:

GALLENTE
Hyperion:
max velocity: 143.75
Signature radius: 637.19
-> No Full DMG

Megathron:
max velocity: 152.5
Signature radius: 512.13
-> No Full DMG

Dominix
max velocity: 136.25
Signature Radius: 613.37
-> No Full DMG

MINMATAR
Maelstrom:
max velocity: 117.5
Signature radius: 607.41
-> Full DMG

Tempest:
max velocity: 150
Signature radius: 488.31
-> No Full DMG

Typhoon:
max velocity: 162.5
Signature radius: 452.58
-> No Full DMG

AMARR
Abaddon:
max velocity: 111.25
Signature radius: 619.32
->Full DMG

Apocalypse:
max velocity: 141.25
Signature radius: 512.13
-> No Full DMG

Armageddon:
max velocity: 125
Signature radius: 595.5
-> No Full DMG

CALDARI
Rokh:
max velocity: 111.25
Signature radius: 655,05
-> Full DMG

Raven:
max velocity: 141.25
Signature radius: 559.77
-> No Full DMG

Scorpion:
max velocity: 117.5
Signature radius: 631.23
-> Full DMG

So only 4(3) out of 12 ships you can do Full DMG without utility. Maelstrom, Abaddon, Rokh and Scorpion.
Without Shield-Tank there were 0 Ships out of 12.

Edit: As I already suggested, reduce the penalty from Fury Missiles to 50% and not 72% (Explosion Radius) and the 16% Penalty from Explosion Vel to 12.5%

Hmmm, the one problem I have with this formula is that it is solely dependant on velocity... While I agree that velocity would be a major factor in solving damage, it should never be a single standalone...

I realize that it "works" (to an extent) but then it really isn't a fair representation of all factors involved based on all of the trained skills available...

The idea being to create a formula that has many factors working in unison (since you will have many other factors working against them in game ie. webbers, painters, etc); the formula should be complex utilizing a wide range of factors without being complicated.

Like I said before, its not a simple solution...



Factoring in the velocity of missles into the equation wouldn't really be a good idea since they already fly faster than most ships anyways...

If I had to explain a possible increase for the velocity of missles... mag rails fitted onto lauchers for instantaneous acceleration out of the tubes (as well as the increase over normal jet power)

I like the flight time over instantaneous damage application, gives missle systems their flavour (besides you are always hitting with them and they can be destroyed; bullets and lasers can't be)

I think to balance out the "firewall" dilemma, you should give missles the resist bonus to their own type of damage like the bombs have (99% to their damage type)... gives you a one if four chance to start out with and then you can time your hits (I also like the idea of increasing missle speeds)

The Forumla is using all factors. Its what Y = Sig * Ev / Er is for.
It may appear different, but there is no difference, except it use a cosine function. Otherwise show me an example where the Formula behaves strange.

If you get webed or painted, your speed decrease or your Sig-Radius is increased. This facts will surly change the dmg you are doing.

I noticed, but the velocity in each of your parts is a stand alone factor, a whole number that isn't accurately presented in the relationship of skills... you are obtaining a number for Y then subtracting the ship's velocity or vice versa...

"(Y -vel) or (vel -Y)"

Whereas in the original formula it is a function of all parts working in unison (though not properly representative)


Don't get me wrong, I do like what you've done and were working towards... but what I am saying is that is should not be dependant on the speed of the target alone, since theoretically, these missles generally travel faster than the ship they are trying to hit...

Does that make sense?

you got something wrong here, this are 2 different parts of the formula, which do there jobs, but any of this parts have a good reason, that its written there. I will try to explain that to you later (see my next post), im busy now and dont want to write much atm.

Except my post in about 3-4 hours, i need to do some graphs and stuff to explain it properly.

Edit: besides Real missiles dont work like CCP is making them work in the game, so who cares if something is different, but the Formula works like this much better.

Its not about, that missiles are faster then any ships its about making them hit faster on long range targets but sill hit target within mid range not faster.

There actually isnt any.

This will be a long post about my Formula, if you dont want to bother then just skip it.

I will be using this side to plot my Formulas plz check them your self, i wont post a picture.
Link 1

The Formula from CCP
Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(sig/Er, 1, (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(drf) / log(5.5)))

My own Formula:
Real DMG = DMG * min(Sig/Er,max(min(Y-vel,1),cos(min((vel-Y)/(Y*DRF),3.1415))/2.222+0.55))

Y = Sig * Ev / Er
vel = ship's velocity
sig = ship's signature
Er = Explosion Radius of missile
Ev = Explosion Velocity of missile
DRF = Damage Reducing Factor

Lets get started, by making the Formula from CCP more simple. The bolted part is not necessary to understand the Formula.
Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(sig/Er, 1, (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(drf) / log(5.5)))
- sig/Er is important if you shoot at small targets, but not necessary, if you shoot targets, which are big
- ^(log(drf) / log(5.5)) is a modifier, you can adjust the dmg application curve with it. But the behavior is the same.

The damage only depends on:
MIN(1, Ev/Er * sig/vel)

Its the minimum of 1 or Ev/Er * sig/vel [Will be called part 2 now]. Whatever is smaller will be picked. Thats important, because this is just a modifier. If the modifier is 1 you get full DMG otherwise you do less. So you dont want it to get it bigger as 1. If Part 2 gets smaller then 1, then you do less dmg. Usually Ev, Er and Sig are fixed in a fight (unless you use painter), so the most important part of part 2 is vel, which can be greatly changed from 0 to 400 or even higher. If you use fixed values for Ev, Er and Sig then you can do a substitution, Y = Ev * Sig / Er, and get Y/vel. So Y/Vel is basically the function [f(x) = 1/x], which CCP is using to calculate dmg. See the following picture to understand:
f(x) = 1/x^2

Use 1/x to plot this function [Link 1].

Its not surprising that curve is crossing point (1,1) [I will call it "the break-even-point" now], its the key point to calculate the dmg application. If you now minimize this function with 1 and you will see the formula from CCP. Use min(1,1/x) to plot it. If you pass the break-even-Point then your dmg application will get worse. You can even switch the position of the break-even-point to another position. Use Y = Sig * Ev / Er to calculate this point.
- Sig = 478.26
- Er = 247.5
- Ev = 103.5
- Y = 478.26 * 103.5 / 247.5 = 200
Now adjust the Formula: min(1,200/x). The meaning of this formula is, if the target's speed pass Y [200], then you do less dmg. If the Target double its speed at the break-even-point, then you do only 50% dmg. The dmg is proportional to the speed. Thats a bad behavior because its not easy to fix missiles with this kind of behavior [Bad For PvP]. It would be much better, if the dmg application would be much smoother [Less depended on the break-even-point].

We need another function to calculate the modifier. See the cosine Function:
cos(x)
The cosine function is much better in my opinion, because it dont hurt that much if you barely pass the break-even-point. [Good for PvP]. Compare them with Link 1:
1/(x+1); [Needed some adjustment to move the function] [; is important, it separate the functions]
cos(x)

We need to know some basic knowledge of the cosine function:
- cos(0) = 1
- cos(PI) = -1
- cos(x + 2*PI) = cos(x)

First we need to adjust the cosine-function, so we can use it. We want to use the first part of the cosine function, until it starts to rise again [P1], we want it to produce only positive numbers [P2] and we want it to have only values between 0 and 1 [P3].
- cos(x) + 1, fixes P2
- (cos(x) + 1)/2, fixes P3
- (cos(min(x,PI)) + 1)/2, fixes P1

The first fixes are made, but we need the starting point of the cosine-function to be the break-even-point [P4].
- (cos(min(x - Y,PI)) + 1)/2, fixes P4
Now you may understand why we need to subtract Y from vel, to make it work, because the behavior of the cosine-function is different from the (1/x)-function. I may sound strange but there is no other way to do it, its just mathematics, no one care how it is calculated, many problems can be solved with strange formulas.

Lets compare the function we get so far: [Y = 200]
(cos(min(x - 200,PI)) + 1)/2;
min(1,200/x)
We got 2 more problems, it wont work like that.
- We need to set the Value at 1 before the break-even-pooint is reached. [P5]
- The Cosine function need to be scaled otherwise i will stop working at Y + 1. [P6]

The cosine-function produce any values from 1 to 0. Lets do the same trick CCP did:
- max(1, (cos(min(vel - Y,PI)) + 1)/2) -> wont work like that, because we need to stop it at the break-even-point
- max(min(Y-vel,1), (cos(min(vel - Y,PI)) + 1)/2) -> now it works [P5 fixed]
Plot it with: max(min(200-x,1), (cos(min(x - 200,PI)) + 1)/2) min(200-x,1)
Let me explain it, Y is the value of the break-even-point, if Y-Vel = 0 we reach the break-even point, if Y-Vel > 0 then we didnt reached the break-even-point. if Y-Vel < 0 then we passed the break-even-point. min(200-vel,1), will pick 1 if Vel is less then Y, 1 is => {Bigger or equal to} (cos(min(vel - Y,PI)) + 1)/2 and (cos(min(vel - Y,PI)) + 1)/2 > Y-vel after the break-even-point. So the formula will choose 1 and then (cos(min(vel - Y,PI)) + 1)/2, after it passed the break-even-point.

Now we just need to scale it, lets think about it:
- cos(x + 2*PI) = cos(x)
So the x must be scaled down. We could pick any number, but lets make the formula more dynamic:
- max(min(Y-vel,1), (cos(min((Vel - Y)/Y,PI)) + 1)/2), fixed P6
Plot it with: max(min(200-x,1), (cos(min((x - 200)/200,PI)) + 1)/2)

running out of characters: I will finish here, any questions?

There is no doubt that you just roll into a "solution" before prove "systematically changing the missile damage formula is the only(or the best) way to improve the current system".

If you don't prove the latter, why should people bother to go for the simpler solutions which may achieve better result at the same time?

What I'm actually asking is: why should the missile damage reduction curve be smoother? It changes all missiles. Why should ccp changes all missiles just because the cruise and/or torpedo has problem?