Maybe a collection of all the special formulas? There’s also the resistance formula, probably the “optimal range” math, etc… As a bonus, format with latex so order of operations is clear.
Resistances are already there. Some formulas cannot be published.
But those that can be, yes, they will surely be added.
can we expect a little patch thursday?
Yes, there will be some small, but interesting changes, as far as I know. (cannot elaborate what though)
Someone on the dev team posted how the matchmaker rated players when placing them in queues (that 29, 32, 36 thing on the graph)
That’s two different things. The number on the graph is calculated as follows:
MM value = 15 + tier + 2 * ship rank
Despite claims to the contrary module quality does not matter.
DSR is allegedly taken into account (not for the number, but see quote below) although I have my doubts whether that is true considering these days I’m always the highest ranked player on the field yet still get matched against T1 players occasionally.
The only relevant official post on match-making I remember was this one:
Back to matchmaking, I was wrong. It is ±3. Yet T3 cannot get into battle with real T1. In PvP your Tier is defined by the highest ranking ship in a battle slot. So in cases of T1 vs. T3 - those are not actually T1, they are T2. Moreover, T3s that are matchmaked with T2 can only have a low rating - so they are almost of same efficiency as T2 they are matched with,
Matchmaker is going to be modified, but not now - as this would make Tier ques deserted and it would take more time to get in the battle. Yet, I have a straight answer that there is a problem with it and there are now discussions on going on on how this may be improved. No dates though.
The no T1 vs T3 thing he posted was clearly wrong, there is no special limitation, it’s +/- 3 ranks at any rank.
One thing i remember is something about ingame when looking at map (tabbed) and seeing the ship lists, you have several tabs to choose from. One of them shows simply the currently flown ship, score and before all this a number. What is that? Does it have any ties to MM?
Yes, there will be some small, but interesting changes, as far as I know. (cannot elaborate what though)
Hum…
I fear the nerfhammer.
I’ve seen some discussions you had here on the topic on Gauss cannon, so, after Kostyan asked me of it once again, I gave him some figures, and I think you guys should have them, too.
So the math for this weapon (and others with charge time) is simple:
1st charge = a*b
2nd charge = 2a*b/2
3rd charge = 3a*b/3
Where a is crit chance and b is crit damage.
So if you want to do more damage while charged - use implants to crit damage increase.
As for gauss: mathematecally, if your crit chance is below 33% then it doesnt matter how exactly you’re dpsing, overall dps should stay the same
Some more info:
laser weapons have 5% chance to crit and 50% damage multiplier
plasma have 5% chance to crit and 75% damage multiplier
kinetic have 7% chance to crit and 50% damage multiplier
as already mentioned, that doesn’t seem to make much sense since a*b = 3a*b/3…
not even sure what is going on there, but you’re calculating crit chance as damage instead? :\
also, there is no actual damage variable? only crit chance and damage…
if a = 0.9, and b = 1.0, then 3(0.9)*(1)/3 = 0.9 ??
or if you want to represent them as increases:
if a = 1.9 and b = 2.0 then 3(1.9)*2/3 = 3.8 ??
which is incidentally the same as a*b = 1.9*2 = 3.8…
even if they are multipliers, none of this makes any sense.
why would crit chance be calculated as damage instead of an actual ‘chance’… and where is damage?
yea, i think you may want to get the actual formulas :\
One thing i remember is something about ingame when looking at map (tabbed) and seeing the ship lists, you have several tabs to choose from. One of them shows simply the currently flown ship, score and before all this a number. What is that? Does it have any ties to MM?
Isn’t that just the number of ships that you have hidden?
as already mentioned, that doesn’t seem…
A and B are of course in %. So there can’t be 1, 2, 3 as in your calculatoins below.
if a = 0.9, and b = 1.0, then 3(0.9)*(1)/3 = 0.8 ??
Wrong calculation.
yea, i think you may want to get the actual formulas :\
Formulas are working as intended.
There is a note though: if A>33% then some of the damage may be lost due to the cap of crit (as A cannot be higher than 100%). In any other case everything works perfectly.
A and B are of course in %.
Wrong calculation.
Formulas are working as intended.
so which is the correct formula?
if a = 1.9 and b = 2.0 then 3(1.9)*2/3 = 3.8 ??
which is incidentally the same as a*b = 1.9*2 = 3.8…
3.8 doesn’t correspond to anything… so it’s not this formula either…
they might be working as intended, but the way you described it doesn’t make sense. also, this formula doesn’t work as intended (r2 neurocontroller): [http://forum.star-conflict.com/index.php?/topic/20744-rr2-neurocontroller-oculus-bug/](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/20744-rr2-neurocontroller-oculus-bug/)
Yes, there will be some small, but interesting changes, as far as I know. (cannot elaborate what though)
Neat!
I hope it has something to do with “less grind” and permanent color options. :yes_yes:
About that picture…
I think that guy was in a squad. ±3 Rank spread is hefty enough imo, especially in cross-tiers.
Let’s just plug what we’ve been given in and see what happens, yes?
Let a = 7% and b = 50%
a*b = 3.5%.
2a*b/2 = 14%*25% = 3.5%
3a*b/3 = 21%*16.6667% = 3.5%
So, what does this mean?
In lamen’s terms, your overall damage is unchanged. You get fewer critical hits firing rapid, but when you do get a critical they cause more damage. By contrast, the longer you charge the shot the more chance of a critical you have, but your critical damage is reduced.
so which is the correct formula?
3.8 doesn’t correspond to anything… so it’s not this formula either…
they might be working as intended, but the way you described it doesn’t make sense. also, this formula doesn’t work as intended (r2 neurocontroller): [http://forum.star-conflict.com/index.php?/topic/20744-rr2-neurocontroller-oculus-bug/](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/20744-rr2-neurocontroller-oculus-bug/)
Niether A nor B cannot be higher than 1 as these are percents. Your calcualations are wrong in case of:
if a = 0.9, and b = 1.0, then 3(0.9)*(1)/3 = 0.9 ??
Neat!
I hope it has something to do with “less grind” and permanent color options. :yes_yes:
About that picture…
I think that guy was in a squad. ±3 Rank spread is hefty enough imo, especially in cross-tiers.
Let’s just plug what we’ve been given in and see what happens, yes?
Let a = 7% and b = 50%
a*b = 3.5%.
2a*b/2 = 14%*25% = 3.5%
3a*b/3 = 21%*16.6667% = 3.5%
So, what does this mean?
In lamen’s terms, your overall damage is unchanged. You get fewer critical hits firing rapid, but when you do get a critical they cause more damage. By contrast, the longer you charge the shot the more chance of a critical you have, but your critical damage is reduced.
So you can either charge the weapon, or spam 1st charges in overall DPS you will have the same results.
So you can either charge the weapon, or spam 1st charges in overall DPS you will have the same results.
My assessment of the figures is that the point of the charge shot is to maximise your initial hit damage by (hopefully) landing a charged critical, then you follow up with regular fire. If you count DPS from the instant you engage to the point where the engagement ends, it seems the best way to max out your damage output is to hit with a max-charge crit as the opening shot and then follow up with rapid fire.
My assessment of the figures is that the point of the charge shot is to maximise your initial hit damage by (hopefully) landing a charged critical, then you follow up with regular fire. If you count DPS from the instant you engage to the point where the engagement ends, it seems the best way to max out your damage output is to hit with a max-charge crit as the opening shot and then follow up with rapid fire.
To further improve the damage output while using charge mechanics of Gauss Cannon it is better to fit into crit damage modifiers, instead of crit chance mods - as I have pointed out above A cannot be more than 100%, but should you have more than this surplus crit chance will be cut due to the cap.
Resistances are already there. Some formulas cannot be published.
But those that can be, yes, they will surely be added.
Heh, like how much % loot really has?! 
just kidding. 
____
I played yesterday for couple of hours (until i fell from my seat into my bed), did not change my fits, and my first try was if my Engineer fit is still viable (Alligator Mk3 as offensive support). My impressions were positive for the most part about ingame feeling in T3.
I agree that the ping or/maybe even and fps seemed to have suffered a bit. The warp in lags were noticable almost every game now. I did not experience harder lags, but overall, it seemed like the graphics engine was a bit more demanding and the ping seemed to have suffered too, but only a tiny bit. This is more a subjective “feeling”. I started with over 1k ppl online and when I stopped it was under 800 - for me however the overall feeling did not change.
The meta did not feel different. Therefore the squad change was really just an artificial limitation with no benefits in my eyes, I still see this as the biggest “no-no” in this patch. I was playing solo however, this time, really focusing on trying out the patch.
I cannot say that much about the weapons, except I had no problems with my positron cannon, and maybe a bit less overkills with my torpedoes (the EM ones), as fighters seemed to dodge them better (or maybe people start to know my Gator)
The meta of sector conquest is still frustrating for me. I would rather see unbalanced matches which mean something, like the knowledge one sector is at heavy war, where the sides are really playing together, while other sectors try to offer more balanced fights, or similar. I see much more potential in that. This is by far the most expandable part of this game, and could even be externalized to be visible off-game too at some point. Players do care about the war of the 3 empires.
Also, some kind of mix of custom battles to arcade queues would fit this game I think (e.g. set up a custom game and make it public, so that roamers join), but I know, this is hard at the moment, with all the different players and their expectations. I would however really like if focus was not in creating “overbalanced games”, because this seems still to fail - and will always be that way. One of the more interesting games I had was a Captain game which ended in a Draw (29-29). Both groups were cheering in the chat about it, and I felt, at least both could have gotten one loot or two for such battles, but it also showed, how little loot counts if the game was fun - and finally, that a draw might be a win for the MM system at some point, but actually, it would really be bad if we had too many of them
The synergy rewards do not feel really cohesive to the gameplay. I got more synergy out of less interesting battles, and less synergy out of really intense battles, or where I clearly made some important moves for victory.
I wonder what happens if my excess synergy is reaching the integer cap for that particular field, and I only bother about free synergy from now on. The new gui indication of synergy levels in the ship hangar is however very well done.
Niether A nor B cannot be higher than 1 as these are percents. Your calcualations are wrong in case of:
you still haven’t explained what the correct calculation is. thanks.
as per your example, B can be higher than 1 if plasma have a75% crit damage rate…
furthermore, in that example neithr A nor B were higher than 1 ;\ in the second example they were, to illustrate percentages as increases on 100.
A cannot be more than 100%
that makes more sense…
but still, you haven’t really explained the significance of the result :\
nor a base damage variable into the equation, or explained why crit chance is being calculated as damage…
you still haven’t explained what the correct calculation is. thanks.
As someone had 0.8 redacted to 0.9
As someone had 0.8 redacted to 0.9
oh that yea. i changed that 15 secs later. i mixed the 0.8 and 0.9 in the formulas in op, haha…
but still, i fail to see the significance of this.
crits seem to be applied randomly in the game, so reality says crit chance is not calculated as damage, but you mixed them both in one formula.
therefore your formula can only represent DPS, and not damage per shot. but that’s not what you said.
As for gauss: mathematecally, if your crit chance is below 33% then it doesnt matter how exactly you’re dpsing, overall dps should stay the same
maybe i just read it incorrectly… in any case, we don’t need a DPS formula 
unless each shot just does damage multiplied by its crit rate (in which case i’m either going insane, or blind).
because then you’d be saying that crit chance is actually a misnomer and is just another crit damage multiplier :\
at least in the case of charged shots.
if that is the case… you can’t do that lol… it’s like breaking physics… using acceleration for example as a velocity variable instead :\ then other stuff starts breaking real fast.