MinMax Spaz

MinMax-Games.com

The water cooler of outer space
  
It is currently Tue 23 Jan, 2018 1:24 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Comparitive Ship DPS Spreadsheet for Cannon Builds
PostPosted: Thu 06 Oct, 2011 9:37 pm 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
** Likely out of date! **

I changed the thread title to more accurately reflect what this thread is about. The link to the spreadsheet is as follows:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnKC37EZnWTmdHJQXzBOd2huUUNYSXhKdFN6YlhLdUE&hl=en_GB

** Thanks to P51mus for the original idea of using a spreadsheet and making the earlier versions for me. There have been a number of changes since but without that initial idea there wouldn't be a nice and easy way of using my working outs. **

You will have to download the spreadsheet to edit the fields.

Please note that the spreadsheet will not provide accurate results for huge ships when using many weapons due to the RoF cap (unless you turn it off!; see the "RoF cap / Cascade" section at the bottom of this post). Medium ship sizes and below the spreadsheet works fine for. Large ships might encounter the RoF cap or they might not so I can not say for sure whether the spreadsheet will be accurate for them.

Highest ingame dps (as well as highest range and projectile speed) for cannon-only builds for huge ships will come from using one huge turret (tripple-split) under AI control with the rest of the slots using as many cannon boosters as you can with reactor boosters used as required to keep power from draining too fast. This is due to the RoF cap.

You can use the spreadsheet to compare huge ships if using this setup (triple-split huge cannons, rest boosters) because with the RoF cap it largely just comes down to which of the ships being compared has the highest booster value, again, because of the RoF cap. To compare booster values of the ships in the spreadsheet simply fill in all the available slots that the ship would have with boosters and look at the range or projectile speed - the higher the result the greater the booster value of that ship. The higher booster value ships (like the carrier) should also have the greater dps.


Developer quotes regarding numbers and mechanics:

Quote:
reload speed + 10% (was 25% in 1.001)
projectile speed + 10% (was 0 in 1.001)
projectile range + 10% (was 0 in 1.001)
projectile damage + 15% (was 0 in 1.001)

This will also be modified by any specialists and subsystem research giving booster bonuses. Boosters can also be used cumulatively. If a booster is 1 size smaller than the size of a ship, so a medium booster in a large ship, it will only be half effective. A small booster in a huge ship will be only 1/8th effective.


Quote:
For combining boosters, there is a slight diminishing return. So say a booster boosts a stat 10%, then the first booster will boost it 10%, the second will boost it (1.0 * (1 - 0.10) = 0.90 * 10% boost) this continues. so the next boost will contribute about 81% of its booster power etc etc. It is easiest to assume you just lose about 10% each time. So 2 boosters that give you a 10% bonus will not give a 20% bonus, they will give about a 19% bonus.


Quote:
Actually the boosters are taken in whatever order their attach point is on the ship. So all ships will always have the same result given the same set of boosters (it isn't random) but the index of the booster determines in what order it is added. In general the bigger weapons tend to have the lowest indexes because they are the showcase weapons of the ship, so assume they go big to small.


This information has been used in the creation of this thread and the spreadsheet.


------------ Booster Overdrive and Specialists --------------------

Booster Overdrive is the name given to the multiplier subsystems gives to boosters. Without any points in subsystems Overdrive is set at 100%, so there is no change. At max rank it is set at 200%, so it doubles the power of your boosters. You can find out what your overdrive is at by hovering over the subsystems tech/skill.

Some specialists can give boosts to your boosters. These usually come with a + sign, so say +10%. If you had 3 specialists with these respective values: +15%, +21%, +12% the total would be 15% + 21% + 12% = 48%.

You can modify these values in the spreadsheet and they are defaulted to no subsystems tech (100%) with no specialists (+0%) - change them as necessary.


---------------- Range and Projectile Speed ----------------------

Range increases helps start combat earlier, leading to an earlier kill in real time if all else is equal. Extra range is also quite useful when using hit and run tactics like against a station or a big slow-moving enemy ship. Range increases tend to be less important if your ship is fast and more important if your ship is slow. It may also be worth noting that small cannons will have a vastly shorter range than huge cannons and thus it may be worth converting those small cannons into boosters even if the dps would be slightly higher otherwise (if you gave up your range advantage and got in close).

If a combination of cannons and boosters is quite close in DPS to a slightly different combination it is likely to be worth considering the range increase the combination with more boosters would give you.

Projectile speed increases will decrease the distance between the target and the spot you have to fire at to hit that target. This may make you more accurate, or it may not. Note that its more difficult to miss a big a ship than a small one so projectile speed tends to become less of a factor the further in the game you are (as the ships get larger). Furthermore, the higher tech cannons tend to have a pretty fast projectile speed already.

A similar, although much smaller, consideration for projectile speed increases should be given as to that given to range increases.


----------------------- Energy Drain --------------------------------

With the overcharge reactor and max reactor skill energy drain is usually not a problem, and when it is usually only a small change is needed. The exception to this is when using mass drivers - they will kill your energy. They will also kill your enemy fast with only a few needed to do the job, at least once the shields are down. Either way, you'll probably need to have at least some reactor boosters in you build to support mass drivers, and you'll probably only want a few mass drivers max (one triple-turret is enough).

The lower the number of cannons you have the greater the percentage difference to the energy drain adding one cannon has.

The lower the number of cannons you have the smaller the percentage difference to the energy drain adding one cannon booster has.

If you are having energy problems (like as in you are empty very quickly) and have filled all the slots as optimal;-

  • If you have a low number of cannons (less than or equal to 4) consider replacing the smallest cannon with a cannon booster. If you still have problems consider using that slot for something else like a shield booster. If you still have problems, consider using that slot for a reactor booster. If after changing that slot to a reactor booster you still have problems go through the process again with another slot.

  • If you have a fair number of cannons (around 5) try replacing the smallest cannon with a cannon booster or vice versa (see if either works). If you still have problems (which you probably will in this case) try replacing one of the slots with a shield or reactor booster like above. Again, repeat with another slot if needed.

  • If you have a high number of cannons (greater than or equal to 6) you could consider replacing the smallest cannon booster with a cannon. However, small cannons are generally useless because they have a really small range, so in this case you might want to replace the largest cannon booster slot with a cannon. If you can't do that or still have problems try replacing the smallest cannon booster slot with a shield or reactor booster like above. Once more, repeat the process with another slot if needed.

-------------------------- RoF Cap / Cascade -----------------------------

The Rate of Fire cap is a hardcap that comes about because of the cascade affect. A cascade is a wave of fire, with each weapon delaying until the previous one has fired (which eventually results in the RoF cap, but is needed for some people's computers to handle the game). You can add a command line argument to the steam version by rightclicking on the game in the library, selecting properties, then selecting "Set Launch Options...", and finally typing in "-Cascade=0" without the quotes.

For non-steam versions I'm going to steal, erm, use what Palandas said in another thread:

Palandus wrote:
For a command-line other than Steam, you'd have to Create Shortcut of the executable or create a Batch file (.bat) to do it. Shortcut is easier. Right Click Shortcut -> Properties -> Target Field. In the target field it'll have something like:
"C:\Program Files\SPAZ\" -Cascade=0
Make sure there is a SPACE between the " and the -.


Cascade=0 means turning cascade off, which results in each weapon firing whenever their individual rates of fire come up meaning no RoF cap (meaning far stronger ships). It however only works on the ship you are controlling. Note that the game is not balanced around this and that launching all your weapons at the same time from cloak (and therefore with the bonus) is ludicrously strong.

If you do play normally (so cascade is on) the cap basically means that once the cap is reached there is no dps increase in adding more cannons - they will all shoot at a slower rate to compensate for the additional cannon. Note that the continous nature of beams means the RoF cap does not seem to affect them.

I want to quote a post that conKORD posted in another thread. He himself quotes another user (crucci) that has links for you to see the effect:

conKORD wrote:
To illustrate the problem (CLICK THE UNDERLINED LINKS TO SEE):
crucci wrote:
1 huge: 16 cannonballs | test view | hangar view
1 large: 13 cannonballs | test view | hangar view
2 large: 26 cannonballs | test view | hangar view
3 large: 26 cannonballs | test view | hangar view

The double turret is not bottlenecked, achieving exactly twice the fire rate of the single large turret. However, the triple turret is not any better than the double turret in this scenario.


When turret under manual control - yes. But under AI control turret have better rate of fire.
It is because in manual mode here is small UI generated delay between shots. It is no matter when ship's weapon have low ROF, but it late stages of game it limites firepower of ship under player control. AI ships can fully utilise their firepower. Missiles also affected by this thing.

Ships, in which I have encountered this problem:
The Crawler, The Flora, The Big Bus and all huge ships.


I must note here that when split-turrets are under AI-control the AI has no problem with seperate guns of that one turret. However, there will still be rof issues with respects to guns of different turrets whether or not they are under AI-control. Another way of saying this is that the cascade effect is in play for guns of different mounts but it is not in play for guns of the same mount, at least when they are under AI-control. It is probably a bug.

I'll add my own observations about the pictures: you can clearly see with one large turret gun and two large turret guns the distance between any two "cannonballs" from the same gun is the same, hence the rof of the guns is the same in both cases. This means they are not being capped. With the three large turret guns the distance between shots from any one of those guns is larger. This is due to the artificially added delay and clearly shows that each turret gun has slowed down its rof because the rof cap has been reached. Again though, if this turret mount was under AI-control the three turret guns on that mount would not be rof capped.

One thing I would like to examine is that crucci hasn't put anything in the front two huge boosters. Those two slots would give a large rof increase, larger than probably all the other boosters put together. Other users (and myself) have observed that a carrier with all the slots as cannon boosters except the turret mount reach the rof cap with only one turret gun (if not under AI control). This means a second turret gun not under AI-control would provide no extra dps. In fact, it would be a dps loss instead because it would be replacing a booster. This is why putting the turret mount under AI-control is a must if you are going to use even just two guns within the turret when using ships like the carrier.

Again note, that beams are not seemingly affected by the rate of fire cap and thus having beams in more than one slot is perfectly viable, assuming the beam/booster comparison works out for them which is probably does.

----------------------- Boosters vs. Weapons -------------------------

The spreadsheet allows you to test where the equilibrium with boosters and cannons is. If the cascade effect is removed (either manually or in a patch) and thus no RoF cap the spreadsheet would pretty much show that the best results with the limited number of weapon slots we have on ships compared to the non-weapon slots will always result in (when regarding cannons) as many cannons as possible with only non-weapon slots as boosters! This is largely because there are already enough boosters in the non-weapon slots making diminishing returns largely affect using additional boosters in the weapon slots. The large number of non-weapon slot boosters would also be made weaker by using less weapons for them to boost.

If the rof cap is removed via removing the cascade effect it would be nice in my oppinion to limit weapon boosters to weapon slots. This would make refining the ratio of weapons to boosters more interesting because you would actually have to make a choice on what to put in each weapon slot (the spreadsheet would help a lot here). Make weapons more powerful to compensate for the loss of dps if necessary (this doesn't affect the weapon to booster ratio because the boosters are percentage based of the weapons anyway), although the removal of the cascade effect might be enough to counter it by itself.


Last edited by Aimeryan on Fri 04 May, 2012 9:43 pm, edited 99 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Fri 07 Oct, 2011 6:08 pm 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
I'll be using this space for working out stuff. I'll enclose it in spoilers to reduce scroll down time.


Notes on the first formula, i.e. without accounting for size and diminishing returns | Click to toggle: +
---------------------- DPS -------------------------

Ignoring speed and range, and also size difference, the damage per second percentage (of just one cannon by itself) with one cannon and one booster can be worked out as thus:

DPS% = 100 + (((1 + 0.2)*(1 + 0.3) -1) *100)

For multiple boosters with one cannon we can use:

DPS% = 100 + (((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100)

Where b = number of boosters.

For one booster with multiple cannons we can use:

DPS% = 100*c + ( c* ((1 + 0.2)*(1 + 0.3) -1) *100)

Where c = number of cannons.

To combine multiple boosters with multiple cannons it should be:

100*c + ( c* ((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100) = DPS%


Where c = number of cannons and b = number of boosters.

This formula works with any number of cannons and/or boosters - 0, 1, or many. Try it - it even works copy and pasting into the calculator! I have an idea on how to work boosters of different sizes into it, and cannons of different sizes should fit too. Just need to know what I asked Blorfy up top.


So 2 boosters and 3 cannons all of the same size as each other and the ship (so say its a small ship with small cannons and small boosters, like the colt), the DPS% should be:

100*c + ( c* ((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100) = DPS%

Copy and paste the next line directly into the windows calculator/Google if you like.

100*3 + ( 3* ((1 + 0.2*2)*(1 + 0.3*2) -1) *100) =

100*3 + ( 3* ((1 + 0.4)*(1 + 0.6) -1) *100) =

100*3 + ( 3* ((1.4*1.6) -1) *100) =

100*3 + ( 3* (2.24 -1) *100) =

100*3 + ( 3* 1.24 *100) =

100*3 + 372 =

300 + 372 =

672 = DPS%

I did this the long way to show you the maths at each step, but you can just copy and paste the 2nd line into the windows calculator, i.e. copy:

100*3 + ( 3* ((1 + 0.2*2)*(1 + 0.3*2) -1) *100) =

You should get 672!

So, 2 boosters and 3 cannons all of the same size as each other and the ship do 672% of the damage of what one cannon would do by itself. For comparison, 5 cannons would do 500% damage of what one cannon would do by itself. What about if we used 3 boosters and 2 cannons?

100*2 + ( 2* ((1 + 0.2*3)*(1 + 0.3*3) -1) *100) =

*copies and pastes into calculator*

DPS% = 608

Ok, so we know 3 cannons and 2 boosters is better, what about 4 cannons and 1 booster?

100*4 + ( 4*((1 + 0.2*1)*(1 + 0.3*1) -1) *100) =

DPS% = 624

So 3 cannons and 2 booster seems to be best. However, without taking into account size and diminshing returns the formula at this point is highly inaccurate.


Accounting for size differences | Click to toggle: +
-- Cannon size differences. --


** Although the general maths in this section and the "diminishing returns" section is fine, there may be some nesting (use of brackets) errors that make the formula not do the right thing. I had this problem with the spreadsheet which resulted in me partitioning several parts of it to sort out where the brackets go. See the spreadsheet "Working-Out Section" on the spreadsheet to compare. **

100*c + ( c* ((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100) = DPS%

Quote:
All weapons (roughly) follow the formula that as you increase their size, you increase their damage by 1.5. Range and velocity change too, but damage wise it mostly sticks to that to keep things sane tuning wise. For example, here are the base cannon damages: 10, 15, 23, 35 for small to huge.


Ok, so going up a weapon size yields roughly 150% of the dps; going down a weapon size yields roughly 66% of the dps: 15/10 = 1.5, and, 10/15 = 0.66 (recurring of course). So I can either start at the smallest size and work up or start at the largest size and work down. I'll go with the latter I think.

So the cannon part of the formula is the "100*c + ( c*"

"100*c" refers to 100% damage times the number of cannons. Now we need to mod that for size. With 100*c we are missing out the effectiveness part because it basically equals 1 if size isn't accounted for. The effectiveness part we need to add in is (2/3^n) where n equals the number of sizes down from the largest. In the case of the largest cannon this is simply 0.

I'll use cH, cL, cM, cS for huge, large, medium, small cannons respectively. This allows a comparison between ships of different sizes since the cannon dps part isn't affected by ship size (the booster part is). This will mean that a colt for example with 5 small cannons wont be 500% like it was in the original formula, it will now be (100*(2/3)^3)*5 = 148.148%. Where as 5 huge cannons would be 500%.

(100*(2/3)^0)*cH + (100*(2/3)^1)*cL + (100*(2/3)^2)*cM + (100*(2/3)^3)*cS + ...

Now we need to account for the size differences in the cannons for the boosting part. Unfortunately I can't think of a way of adding together the dps all the different parts without just making it long... perhaps I'll write a program that does it all and people just put the numbers in the correct places... or someone else can do that using this!

...( ((2/3)^0)*cH * ((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100) + ((2/3)^1)*cL * ((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100) + ((2/3)^2)*cM * ((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100) + ((2/3)^3)*cS * ((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100)

What we've now got is a formula that accounts for differences in cannon size, if not yet booster size... or diminishing returns. It is fairly long.

(100*(2/3)^0)*cH + (100*(2/3)^1)*cL + (100*(2/3)^2)*cM + (100*(2/3)^3)*cS + ( ((2/3)^0)*cH * ((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100) + ((2/3)^1)*cL * ((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100) + ((2/3)^2)*cM * ((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100) + ((2/3)^3)*cS * ((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100)


-- Boosters size differences. --

100*c + ( c* ((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100) = DPS%

The part that refers to boosters in the formula is "((1 + 0.2*b)*(1 + 0.3*b) -1) *100)".

"0.2*b" is the ROF increase without accounting for size. If I added the size account and this was a huge boost in a huge ship it would be 0.2*(0.5^0)*bSomething.

I'll use bA, bB, bC, bD for boosters. The reason I can't use bH, bL, bM, bS like I did for cannons because the effectiveness is not dependent on the size of the booster purely but on its size compare to the ship size. A small booster in a small ship is 100% effective. A huge booster in a huge ship is 100% effective. A small booster in a huge ship is 2.5% effective.

bA = booster same size as ship, bB = one size down, bC = two sizes down, bD = three sizes down

((1 + (0.2*(0.5^0)*bA) + (0.2*(0.5^1)*bB) + (0.2*(0.5^2)*bC) + (0.2*(0.5^3)*bD) * (1 + 0.3*(0.5^0)*bA) + (0.3*(0.5^1)*bB) + (0.3*(0.5^2)*bC) + (0.3*(0.5^3)*bD) -1) * 100)

Finally, the formula now account for size difference is:

(100*(2/3)^0)*cH + (100*(2/3)^1)*cL + (100*(2/3)^2)*cM + (100*(2/3)^3)*cS + ( ((2/3)^0)*cH * ((1 + (0.2*(0.5^0)*bA) + (0.2*(0.5^1)*bB) + (0.2*(0.5^2)*bC) + (0.2*(0.5^3)*bD) * (1 + 0.3*(0.5^0)*bA) + (0.3*(0.5^1)*bB) + (0.3*(0.5^2)*bC) + (0.3*(0.5^3)*bD) -1) * 100) + ((2/3)^1)*cL * ((1 + (0.2*(0.5^0)*bA) + (0.2*(0.5^1)*bB) + (0.2*(0.5^2)*bC) + (0.2*(0.5^3)*bD) * (1 + 0.3*(0.5^0)*bA) + (0.3*(0.5^1)*bB) + (0.3*(0.5^2)*bC) + (0.3*(0.5^3)*bD) -1) * 100) + ((2/3)^2)*cM * ((1 + (0.2*(0.5^0)*bA) + (0.2*(0.5^1)*bB) + (0.2*(0.5^2)*bC) + (0.2*(0.5^3)*bD) * (1 + 0.3*(0.5^0)*bA) + (0.3*(0.5^1)*bB) + (0.3*(0.5^2)*bC) + (0.3*(0.5^3)*bD) -1) * 100) + ((2/3)^3)*cS * ((1 + (0.2*(0.5^0)*bA) + (0.2*(0.5^1)*bB) + (0.2*(0.5^2)*bC) + (0.2*(0.5^3)*bD) * (1 + 0.3*(0.5^0)*bA) + (0.3*(0.5^1)*bB) + (0.3*(0.5^2)*bC) + (0.3*(0.5^3)*bD) -1) * 100)

Ok, so its slightly long... but its going to get longer, oh yes.


Diminishing returns | Click to toggle: +
-- Booster diminishing returns --


** Although the general maths in this section and the "accounting for size" section is fine, there may be some nesting (use of brackets) errors that make the formula not do the right thing. I had this problem with the spreadsheet which resulted in me partitioning several parts of it to sort out where the brackets go. See the spreadsheet "Formula Working-Out Section" to compare. **

Been looking at how to apply diminishing returns to the formula.

Obviously there has to be a cumulative total in it somewhere. My first thoughts are:

(booster stuff) * 0.9^(cumulative total - 1)

So you get one booster, cumulative total = 1, result would be

0.9^(1 - 1) = 0.9^0 = 1

This is fine; there is no difference made because there is no diminishing returns on one booster.

The cumulative total would have to have to add the number of boosters so far. We have bA, bB, bC, bD for the different possible sizes to the ship. So lets say we have a huge ship and one of each size of

booster, so one huge, one large, one medium, one small:

1st booster (huge): 0.9^(bA - 1) = 0.9^(1 - 1) = 0.9^0 = 1
2nd booster (large): 0.9^(bA + bB - 1) = 0.9^(1 + 1 - 1) = 0.9^1 = 0.9
3rd booster (medium): 0.9^(bA + bB + bC - 1) = 0.9^(1 + 1 + 1 - 1) = 0.9^2 = 0.81
4th booster (small): 0.9^(bA + bB + bC + bD - 1) = 0.9^(1 + 1 + 1 + 1 - 1) = 0.9^3 = 0.729

Now since each of those would be within their own part of the formula (the formula for each of booster) this is fine. You just multiply and you got the right value that that one booster of that size is giving.

The next problem is how to do this for multiple boosters of the same size. I could make the formula much much longer and have each booster of one size have its own formula (up to say 8 possible of each size),

but that seems really really messy. Maybe something like the mean of the diminishing returns would work:

* ((0.9^(cumulative total without this size) + 0.9^(cumulative total with this size - 1)) / 2)

so for the 1st it would be:

(0.9^(0) + 0.9^(bA - 1) / 2) = (0.9^(0) + 0.9^(1 - 1) / 2) = (0.9^0 + 0.9^0) / 2 = 1

and for the 4th it would be:

(0.9^(bA + bB + bC) + 0.9^(bA + bB + bC + bD - 1) / 2) = (0.9^(1 + 1 + 1) + 0.9^(1 + 1 + 1 + 1 - 1) / 2) = (0.9^3 + 0.9^3) / 2 = 0.729

Ok so still works for 1 of any size, now if the 4th had 2 boosters instead:

(0.9^(bA + bB + bC) + 0.9^(bA + bB + bC + bD - 1) / 2) = (0.9^(1 + 1 + 1) + 0.9^(1 + 1 + 1 + 2 - 1) / 2) = (0.9^3 + 0.9^4) / 2 = 0.69255

For reference, 0.9^4 would be 0.6561, so this is definitely in between those two. What about if the 4th had 3 boosters instead:

(0.9^(bA + bB + bC) + 0.9^(bA + bB + bC + bD - 1) / 2) = (0.9^(1 + 1 + 1) + 0.9^(1 + 1 + 1 + 3 - 1) / 2) = (0.9^3 + 0.9^5) / 2 = 0.659745

For reference, 0.9^5 would be 0.59049 so again there is some difference. Lets work out what sort of difference this would lead to if we multiplied those 3 boosters by instead of the correct value for each one

added together. I'm not sure if using one arbitrary number compared to another will affect the results, so I'll do it more than once with different arbitrary numbers.

0.025 * 3 * ((0.9^3 + 0.9^5) / 2) = 0.049480875

(0.025 * 1 * 0.9^3) + (0.025 * 1 * 0.9^4) + (0.025 * 1 * 0.9^5) = 0.04938975

Now I don't know about you but thats pretty damn close. Enough so that the slight inaccuracy isn't going to make that much difference. Either way, its better than having a formula without diminishing returns

accounted for at all, which would be:

0.025 * 3 = 0.075

For reference, if we had decided not to use the mean and just go with the booster value * number of boosters * 0.9^(cumulative total -1) we would have had:

0.025 * 3 * 0.9^5 = 0.04428675

That is further off, so obviously in this case the mean worked better; I expect it will for any case but I say I'll try another arbitrary number to see how it turns out. I chose 0.025 because 0.025 is 0.2 *

(0.5^3), i.e. the rof booster effectiveness of a small booster on a huge ship (ok so it wasn't totally arbitrary then!). It was the smallest multiplier I could think of that would actually be used.

I'll use 0.3 this time; that is the damage booster effectiveness of a huge booster of a huge ship, i.e its pretty much the largest multiplier you are going to get. We'll also use 6 boosters this time. The

cumulative total without this size will be 0, because there is nothing bigger than huge.

0.3 * 6 * ((0.9^0 + 0.9^5) / 2) = 1.431441

(0.3 * 1 * 0.9^0) + (0.3 * 1 * 0.9^1) + (0.3 * 1 * 0.9^2) + (0.3 * 1 * 0.9^3) + (0.3 * 1 * 0.9^4) + (0.3 * 1 * 0.9^5) = 1.405677

So with this one its no where near as close as before, although still relatively close. Without the diminishing being accounted for it would be

0.3 * 6 = 1.8

If we used booster value * number of boosters * 0.9^(cumulative total -1) we would have had:

0.3 * 6 * 0.9^5 = 1.062882

So I'm happy to put it in the formula. The inaccuracies should be relatively small, probably never giving a different combination as being best without it being so close you would want to account for the range

and projectile speed difference anyway (which the inaccuracies lean towards thankfully).

Now I've just got to figure out where it slots into the formula. I'm also going to change a few other things.

* ((0.9^(cumulative total without this size) + 0.9^(cumulative total with this size - 1)) / 2)

I'm going to use search and replace on the formula using these:

bA = bA * ((0.9^(0) + 0.9^(bA - 1)) / 2)
bB = bB * ((0.9^(bA) + 0.9^(bA + bB - 1)) / 2)
bC = bC * ((0.9^(bA + bB) + 0.9^(bA + bB + bC - 1)) / 2)
bD = bD * ((0.9^(bA+ bB + bC) + 0.9^(bA + bB + bC + bD - 1)) / 2)

(2/3) = csel
0.5 = bsel
0.2 = brof
0.3 = bdam
0.9 = bdr

(100*csel^0)*cH + (100*csel^1)*cL + (100*csel^2)*cM + (100*csel^3)*cS + ( (csel^0)*cH * ((1 + (brof*(bsel^0)*bA * ((bdr^(0) + bdr^(bA - 1)) / 2)) + (brof*(bsel^1)*bB * ((bdr^(bA) + bdr^(bA + bB - 1)) / 2)) + (brof*(bsel^2)*bC * ((bdr^(bA + bB) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC - 1)) / 2)) + (brof*(bsel^3)*bD * ((bdr^(bA+ bB + bC) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC + bD - 1)) / 2)) * (1 + bdam*(bsel^0)*bA * ((bdr^(0) + bdr^(bA - 1)) / 2)) + (bdam*(bsel^1)*bB * ((bdr^(bA) + bdr^(bA + bB - 1)) / 2)) + (bdam*(bsel^2)*bC * ((bdr^(bA + bB) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC - 1)) / 2)) + (bdam*(bsel^3)*bD * ((bdr^(bA+ bB + bC) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC + bD - 1)) / 2)) -1) * 100) + (csel^1)*cL * ((1 + (brof*(bsel^0)*bA * ((bdr^(0) + bdr^(bA - 1)) / 2)) + (brof*(bsel^1)*bB * ((bdr^(bA) + bdr^(bA + bB - 1)) / 2)) + (brof*(bsel^2)*bC * ((bdr^(bA + bB) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC - 1)) / 2)) + (brof*(bsel^3)*bD * ((bdr^(bA+ bB + bC) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC + bD - 1)) / 2)) * (1 + bdam*(bsel^0)*bA * ((bdr^(0) + bdr^(bA - 1)) / 2)) + (bdam*(bsel^1)*bB * ((bdr^(bA) + bdr^(bA + bB - 1)) / 2)) + (bdam*(bsel^2)*bC * ((bdr^(bA + bB) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC - 1)) / 2)) + (bdam*(bsel^3)*bD * ((bdr^(bA+ bB + bC) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC + bD - 1)) / 2)) -1) * 100) + (csel^2)*cM * ((1 + (brof*(bsel^0)*bA * ((bdr^(0) + bdr^(bA - 1)) / 2)) + (brof*(bsel^1)*bB * ((bdr^(bA) + bdr^(bA + bB - 1)) / 2)) + (brof*(bsel^2)*bC * ((bdr^(bA + bB) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC - 1)) / 2)) + (brof*(bsel^3)*bD * ((bdr^(bA+ bB + bC) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC + bD - 1)) / 2)) * (1 + bdam*(bsel^0)*bA * ((bdr^(0) + bdr^(bA - 1)) / 2)) + (bdam*(bsel^1)*bB * ((bdr^(bA) + bdr^(bA + bB - 1)) / 2)) + (bdam*(bsel^2)*bC * ((bdr^(bA + bB) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC - 1)) / 2)) + (bdam*(bsel^3)*bD * ((bdr^(bA+ bB + bC) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC + bD - 1)) / 2)) -1) * 100) + (csel^3)*cS * ((1 + (brof*(bsel^0)*bA * ((bdr^(0) + bdr^(bA - 1)) / 2)) + (brof*(bsel^1)*bB * ((bdr^(bA) + bdr^(bA + bB - 1)) / 2)) + (brof*(bsel^2)*bC * ((bdr^(bA + bB) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC - 1)) / 2)) + (brof*(bsel^3)*bD * ((bdr^(bA+ bB + bC) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC + bD - 1)) / 2)) * (1 + bdam*(bsel^0)*bA * ((bdr^(0) + bdr^(bA - 1)) / 2)) + (bdam*(bsel^1)*bB * ((bdr^(bA) + bdr^(bA + bB - 1)) / 2)) + (bdam*(bsel^2)*bC * ((bdr^(bA + bB) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC - 1)) / 2)) + (bdam*(bsel^3)*bD * ((bdr^(bA+ bB + bC) + bdr^(bA + bB + bC + bD - 1)) / 2)) -1) * 100) = DPS% compared to one huge cannon, where one huge cannon = 100%

** As I mentioned before, its likely this formula has nesting (bracket) errors that make the result wrong. I changed the formula some what in the spreadsheet when I seperated repeated functions into there own sections and during this I sorted out the nesting errors.

In fact, since writing this the spreadsheet has gone under a lot of changes and the end result of the spreadsheet is as you can see if you open it up - as well as changing the formula around to not be so repetitive I've broken down the various multipliers and user inputs into their own fields so that their own results can be seen as well as adding in some other relevant fields like tech bonuses and specialist bonuses. This means the formula above is largely outdated (and probably even now wrong); I have however left it there for those that are interested. **


Notes on range, projectile speed, energy drain, and ROF cap | Click to toggle: +
------------------ Range and Projectile Speed ----------------------

These do have a value but its hard to quantify. They wont increase dps past the max (i.e. any segment of time where all your cannon fire hits the target), but extra range lets you start combat earlier (which will mean the target may die earlier in real time - although it wont decrease actual combat time).

Faster projectile speed means you don't have to shoot as far ahead of the target (this is called leading the target), which may help you score extra hits. For reference beam speed is extremely fast, so much so that the lead on the target at the speeds ships can go is within the target (i.e. you point at target and shoot :P). Again, both of these are hard to quantify but they do have some importance.

There is also two extra things that push the usefulness of boosters - energy drain and the rate of fire limit.


---------------------- Energy Drain and Rate of Fire ------------------------

Energy drain is fairly simple at first glance - if you haven't got any energy your not firing all your guns as fast as you can, therefore your not doing you maximum dps. The complex part is the interaction between boosters on energy drain and cannons on energy drain.

First, only the rate of fire makes any difference to the energy drain (as far as I know), and its proportional percentage IF you forget about shield regen and engine use (they don't seem to use much energy though so its fairly reliable to use a 1:1 ratio percentage).


If you have one cannon and no boosters:

Add one cannon and you increase your rate of fire by 2 times. This means you increase your energy drain by 2 times.

Add two cannons instead and you increase your rate of fire by 3 times. This means you increase your energy drain by 3 times.

In respective to one cannon, each cannon you add increases rate of fire and energy drain by 100%.

If you have two cannons and no boosters:

Add one cannon and you increase your rate of fire by 1.5 times. This means you increase your energy drain by 1.5 times.

Add two cannons instead and you increase your rate of fire by 2 times. This means you increase your energy drain by 2 times.

In respective to two cannons, each cannon you add increases rate of fire and energy drain by 50%.


Ok, so from that small sample you can see that the rate of fire and energy drain increase as a percentage of adding one cannon is respective to how many you already have. However, the absolute value for each cannon added is the same, regardless of how many you have. Lets look at this:

We will use rate of fire (ROF) as meaning the number of projectiles per second.

Say a cannon fires 1 projectile ever 2 seconds. That is a ROF of 0.5.

If we have two cannons we now fire 2 projectiles (one from each) every 2 seconds. That is a ROF of 1.

If we have three cannons we now fire 3 projectiles every 2 seconds. ROF of 1.5.

So the rof of fire in this case is equal to 0.5 times the number of cannons.

If we have 1 cannon, a ROF of 0.5, adding one cannon gives a ROF of 1, thats a 100% increase. If we have 10 cannons, a ROF of 5, adding one cannon give a ROF of 5.5, thats a 10% increase. Remember that ROF and energry drain are proportional.

This means that the more the cannons you have the less of a percentage difference to the energy drain adding another cannon has.


So what about boosters? Well boosters increase (with max subsystems and no specialists) the ROF by a flat 20% PER cannon. Using the above example, adding a booster to one cannon would increase the ROF to 0.6, a 20% increase. That is a energy drain increase of 20%. The dps increase though would be about +56%. So dps% per energy drain% is higher for adding a booster to one cannon than adding a cannon to one cannon - but the dps% for this one slot would be lower. What does this mean? It means if your approaching energy starvation and have only a few cannons you should only add, or replace existing cannons with, boosters.

However, since the energy drain% (and ROF) is per cannon, the more cannons you have the higher the percentage difference to the energy drain% will be by adding one booster - at 10 cannons you would add an overall increase to ROF and energy drain by 200%!

So, if your reaching energy starvation and have lots of cannons you should probably not add a booster!

Most ships don't have that many cannons available. The greatest number without splitting turrets is probably carried by the crawler, although they are all small and its a large ship (I'm pretty certain energy drain per projectile is smaller for smaller weapon sizes... but I don't know by how much). The Hammerhead I think would probably have the most cannons if you split both huge turrets, but they would again be of different sizes to the ship.

Once I know if weapon booster effectiveness is based on ship size or weapon size I'll start doing ship by ship calculations for pure cannon builds

Then I'll test the optimum dps% builds for the ships and see if there is energy problems and approach them case by case.


----------------------- Rate of Fire Cap ------------------------

I'll write more on this when I've done some testing. Unfortunately I'm not entirely sure why the ROF cap exists - is it an oversight, a technical limitation, or a design choice? If its an oversight the devs might not know what the ROF cap exactly is either and thus can't give me hard info.

What I do know is that in the last patch there was an obvious point where cannons were not firing at the rate they should do in certain cases, basically limiting the number of projectiles per second. Since some projectile (huge cannons, different cannons like ion and mass drivers) did more damage in some situations than others this mean you could actually do less dps if you added say a small cannon to the a fully boosted huge cannon. There is a thread regarding the ROF cap already and its pretty informative so if your interested please take a look: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2045

What this means to the optimum builds is as such - if the cap still exists and is fairly reachable we would want to cut out the lower damage cannons in otherwise optimum builds until we are below the cap and replace them with boosters for the damage increase per cannon instead. Again, once I'm able to ascertain if this is going to be a problem or not I'll deal with it then.

*Got information on the cap post-patch and I will add that information into the main post along with how it affects the spreadsheet and the game.*


Last edited by Aimeryan on Fri 17 Feb, 2012 7:36 am, edited 14 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Fri 07 Oct, 2011 9:52 pm 
Offline
Hatchet

Joined: Fri 13 May, 2011 7:51 am
Posts: 170
Are you assuming that damage multiplier bonuses are added together, THEN multiply the base damage, or are you assuming that each multiplier is applied separately? I really don't know which bonuses are +NN%, and which are *NN%.

It's a pretty huge difference by the end. If its entirely additive, you'll end up with a total damage effect of around 700% (and boosters aren't nearly as worthwhile if you have max tech/specialization bonuses).


On the other hand, if they all multiply in sequence (which I think you are assuming) you can end up with bonus damage well over 1000%, and boosters are equally beneficial regardless of your weapon tech/specialization.

It even matters whether your boosters themselves are added together then multiplied, or whether each booster is multiplied in sequence (likewise with specialists!).

Now fire RATE bonuses, because they are negative percentages, pretty much HAVE to all multiply in sequence. If they were additive then applied, you could end up with infinite fire rates. Which would be bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Sat 08 Oct, 2011 12:38 am 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
I assuming increases from boosters of the same type add together before being applied to the weapon, mostly due to the quote "Boosters can also be used cumulatively" that Blorfy gave. It would indeed be a fair difference otherwise and I'll ask Blorfy I guess.

One booster to one cannon gives (with max subsystems) a 20% bonus to rate of fire and 30% to damage. Then these multiply together to give a 56% increase to the dps of that cannon.

I'm assuming two boosters to one cannon give 40% bonus to rate of fire and 60% bonus to damage. Then these multiply together to give a 124% increase to the dps of that cannon.

If on the other hand two boosters multiplied everything, i.e. gave 1.2*1.3*1.2*1.3 this would give a 143.36% increase to the dps of that cannon; this would become an even greater differences the more boosters that were in play.

Furthermore to complicate things; I've had recent information that weapon boosters have diminishing effects as well:

Quote:
For combining boosters, there is a slight diminishing return. So say a booster boosts a stat 10%, then the first booster will boost it 10%, the secong will bost it (1.0 * (1 - 0.10) = 0.90 * 10% boost) this continues. so the next boost will contribue about 81% of its booster power etc etc. It is easiest to assume you just lose about 10% each time. So 2 boosters that give you a 10% bonus will not give a 20% bonus, they will give about a 19% bonus.
-Blorfy

Unfortunately he didn't say weapon boosters specifically (although the question was regarding them). It may be that he was just talking about boosters in general and that weapon boosters are different... but I don't want to bug him again with pretty much the same question!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Sat 08 Oct, 2011 6:28 am 
Offline
Developer
User avatar

Joined: Fri 25 Feb, 2011 3:39 am
Posts: 1767
Hi, I admire the work you are doing hehe. All boosters work according to the same rules as listed above. All the boosters are also cumulatively added together as mentioned above before being applied to the weapons that they boost.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Sat 08 Oct, 2011 6:55 am 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
Awesome, that clears a lot up many thanks ^^


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Sat 08 Oct, 2011 7:28 pm 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
Right, going to start on adapting the formula to different sizes of stuff. Then I'll work on adding diminishing returns to it.

One thing about diminishing returns though; what order does the game apply the diminishing returns?

------------

Assuming max subsystems and one cannon, huge ship, scenario 1; diminishing returns start with largest booster and ends with smallest:

1 Huge, 1 Large, 1 Medium, 1 Small:

Formula will be (booster% as decimal * size effectiveness as decimal * diminishing returns as decimal)*100 to get back to % // Note: anything to the power of 0 equals 1.

Huge: (0.2*(0.5^0)*(0.9^0)*100 rof, (0.3*(0.5^0)*(0.9^0)*100 damage) = 20% increase rof, 30% increase damage
Large: (0.2*(0.5^1)*(0.9^1)*100 rof, (0.3*(0.5^1)*(0.9^1)*100 damage) = 9% increase rof, 13.5% increase damage
Medium: (0.2*(0.5^2)*(0.9^2)*100 rof, (0.3*(0.5^2)*(0.9^2)*100 damage) = 4.05% increase rof, 6.075% increase damage
Small: (0.2*(0.5^3)*(0.9^3)*100 rof, (0.3*(0.5^3)*(0.9^3)*100 damage) = 1.8225% increase rof, 2.73375% increase damage

Total = 34.8725% rof increase & 52.30875% damage increase.

------------

Assuming max subsystems and one cannon, huge ship, scenario 2; diminishing returns start with smallest booster and ends with largest:

1 Small, 1 Medium, 1 Large, 1 Huge:

Formula will be (booster% as decimal * size effectiveness as decimal * diminishing returns as decimal)*100 to get back to % // Note: anything to the power of 0 equals 1.

Small: (0.2*(0.5^3)*(0.9^0)*100 rof, (0.3*(0.5^3)*(0.9^0)*100 damage) = 2.5% increase rof, 3.75% increase damage
Medium: (0.2*(0.5^2)*(0.9^1)*100 rof, (0.3*(0.5^2)*(0.9^1)*100 damage) = 4.5% increase rof, 6.75% increase damage
Large: (0.2*(0.5^1)*(0.9^2)*100 rof, (0.3*(0.5^1)*(0.9^2)*100 damage) = 8.1% increase rof, 12.15% increase damage
Huge: (0.2*(0.5^0)*(0.9^3)*100 rof, (0.3*(0.5^0)*(0.9^3)*100 damage) = 14.58% increase rof, 21.87% increase damage

Total = 29.68% rof increase & 44.52% damage increase.

------------

So, as you can see the order the diminishing returns are applied in is important. @Blorfy: I need to know which way the diminishing returns are applied; huge to small or small to huge? (or if its done another way altogether, like the order you put boosters in?) Thanks for any help again!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Sun 09 Oct, 2011 2:06 am 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
Right, I worked out the formula to account for cannon and booster size... its long, very long. If any mathematicians think they can shorten it I would be interested! If I was writing a program I would make the repeated code into a function and just input variables.

Anyway, its in the first post and there is an explanation of how it works in the second post.

I'll probably write that program. For now though you can do a search and replace for each of the variables; i.e. copy formula to notepad, search cH and replace all with 2, search cL and replace all with 1, etc.

Also, bump for the diminishing returns order question since I can't work on that until I know how it decides what gets diminished in what order.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Sun 09 Oct, 2011 6:04 am 
Offline
Gyro

Joined: Fri 07 Oct, 2011 4:29 am
Posts: 103
You could make a spreadsheet, put the formula in one cell, and have all the variables point to other cells you can modify as needed. That would work much better than search/replace anyway.

I'd make a google docs version right now, but my connection is currently barely good enough to use these forums.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Sun 09 Oct, 2011 6:12 am 
Offline
Developer
User avatar

Joined: Fri 25 Feb, 2011 3:39 am
Posts: 1767
@Aimeryan

Actually the boosters are taken in whatever order their attach point is on the ship. So all ships will always have the same result given the same set of boosters (it isn't random) but the index of the booster determines in what order it is added. In general the bigger weapons tend to have the lowest indexes because they are the showcase weapons of the ship, so assume they go big to small.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Sun 09 Oct, 2011 6:46 am 
Offline
Gyro

Joined: Fri 07 Oct, 2011 4:29 am
Posts: 103
Okay, I managed to make a google docs spreadsheet version of your formula. So it has the same limitations your formula does.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... E&hl=en_US

Should be able to download it, I forget if people without edit access can change it on their end just not save it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Sun 09 Oct, 2011 8:55 pm 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
Ah awesome, yeah thats probably the easiest way, good thinking ^^.

Looks like they have to download it before they can edit. Just tried it using Hammerhead and it works nicely, although it lacks diminishing returns. I'll try and work out how to add that in tonight.

Thanks Blorfy for the information. Must say I don't fully understand what you mean; I think your saying you order the boosters manually by giving the mounts an index that determines their order - but if you say its ok to just to assume it works from big to small that'll be good enough for me!

I assumed that would be the case anyway because the reverse could end up with you losing dps when you added in smaller boosters, if my mind has it worked out right.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Sun 09 Oct, 2011 11:16 pm 
Offline
Turtle head
User avatar

Joined: Tue 09 Aug, 2011 5:35 am
Posts: 414
This is becoming quite the resource, thank you. :)

I can't resist shilling for the SPAZ Wiki here. It still needs a lot of content, especially actual mechanics details and analysis like this.

_________________
SPAZ Wiki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Mon 10 Oct, 2011 11:47 pm 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
I've done the diminishing returns part of the formula now; notes and explanation of it in second post.

I also replaced the static numbers with variables so that if they change in the future the formula will still be viable.

I'll go about updating the excel document some point soon, unless p51mus does it first.


Last edited by Aimeryan on Tue 11 Oct, 2011 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 2:03 am 
Offline
Gyro

Joined: Fri 07 Oct, 2011 4:29 am
Posts: 103
Spreadsheet should now be updated properly for your new formula.

Booster rate of fire and damage bonuses are currently entered in for max subsystems.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 3:14 am 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
Awesome, much appreciated. Its pretty much finished then. Still need to find out if the rate of fire cap can be reached using optimum builds but otherwise people shouldn't have any problem using this!

Actually, if you could make a slight modification to the spreadsheet to allow people to specify the booster "overdrive" they have that would be awesome. Use default as 200% for max subsystems and no specialists. Then just multiply that overdrive bonus by 0.1 for rof and 0.15 for damage in their respective fields, as you are no doubt aware.

I'll write up how to work out the booster overdrive (its the name the spaz wiki gives it) in the main post so people can change it to suit their situation.

I'll make the modifications if you like, just thought I'd let you do it since its your work ^^.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 4:08 am 
Offline
Gyro

Joined: Fri 07 Oct, 2011 4:29 am
Posts: 103
K, 200% is max for booster overdrive right? Should be easy to enter it in now.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... n_US#gid=0


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 4:28 am 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
Well, that name applies to what the subsystems skill/tech calls it. With nothing in the skill/tech it is 100%, i.e. there it has no affect on the booster values. At rank 10 it is 200%, so it doubles booster value.

There are also specialists that do the same, except they give a +%. I think specialists call it "Optimizer: Booster Power" as thats what the wiki lists it as.

I'm trying to think of how to best apply it. I was going to write how people could work out what value they should put in the Booster Overdrive field as a result of subsystems and specilists. Maybe though it would be better to keep them seperate. In that case 200% would be the max yeah, and they can find that out via hovering over their subsystems tech/skill.

The new field would have to multiply the respective rof and damage fields as well of course. If the specialist gave +10% "Booster Power" I think you would want to multiply by 110%?

By the way, % works in formulas:

=0.1*A13%


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 4:39 am 
Offline
Gyro

Joined: Fri 07 Oct, 2011 4:29 am
Posts: 103
Easy enough, specialist field is currently set as if you don't have a specialist. Don't think I've seen a booster specialist myself yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Tue 11 Oct, 2011 4:51 am 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
That looks great. I'll write in the main post where people can find the booster overdrive and specialist power. Thanks for helping P51mus!

P.S. I made a few graphical changes to it so I've posted a new link. Also made it so people can just type in the +xx% specialist powers without having to convert it. They will still have to add individual specialist powers though.


Last edited by Aimeryan on Wed 12 Oct, 2011 11:44 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Wed 12 Oct, 2011 12:19 am 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
@Kloreep: I'm happy for you to use any of this for the wiki. I've used the wiki many times for looking up stuff its very useful ^^. I couldn't see anywhere to put this kind of information though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Wed 12 Oct, 2011 11:44 am 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
Update: There was a *ahem* small fault in the formula the spreadsheet was using; I've since cleared it up. It was a simple problem with the number and placement of brackets "()". I say simple, but I actually ended up completely changing the spreadsheet to sort it out - its really hard trying to find something like that in a stupidly long formula :P.

Anyway, it works now.

@Moderators: May I request that this be given a sticky so others can use it without having to search through the forum pages? If you think this is the wrong subforum for this post please move it to where it would be appropriate. Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Wed 12 Oct, 2011 5:54 pm 
Offline
Hound
User avatar

Joined: Fri 25 Feb, 2011 3:21 am
Posts: 1998
Done, should be sticky now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Wed 12 Oct, 2011 8:05 pm 
Offline
Gyro

Joined: Fri 07 Oct, 2011 4:29 am
Posts: 103
I see notes, better organization, and some subcalculations done in their own cells in the new spreadsheet. Good stuff. Much easier to get an idea of what the calculations are doing. It really is a monster of a formula not broken down into manageable bits, mostly because of having to deal with booster diminishing returns.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon DPS Compendium
PostPosted: Thu 13 Oct, 2011 5:15 am 
Offline
Boomerang
User avatar

Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2011 12:00 am
Posts: 255
Location: England
Indeed, couldn't see how I was going to sort out the nesting problem without breaking it down into manageable bits. It is fairly useful to be able to see what the results of the subcalculations are as you can more easily spot errors that way.

Thanks Richard for the sticky ^^.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group