Well I didn't realize that vulnerabilites were broken. I wonder if the formula works for NPC weapons too? I know droidika's rip me to shreds as if I had no armor, or is it just that they have AP3 electricity weapons or something?
As far as figuring in accuracy, that kind of math would be entirely conjecture. You could do it, but it wouldn't represent anything since the only curve you can use is the base weapon accuracy, skill based accuracy mods, and shooter vs target status (kneeling, standing, etc). The problem is that your accuracy is extremely dynamic during a fight and any math put to it would merely be academic. I guess you could do an accuracy curve for each variable, but why? We know the FT is not accurate and just figure it in mentally when you look at Volsted's data.
bikebum wrote: Well I didn't realize that vulnerabilites were broken.
Funny thing about that word "broken."
As near as I can tell, Vulnerabilities work exactly like the Devs think they should. Every time I've seen a Dev describe how Vulnerabilities work, the description has been 100% in accordance with what I described above.
So, to use an old chestnut from EQ, Vulnerabilities seem to be "working as intended."
It's just that I don't think they really realize the full ramifications of their intentions.
The way it works right now, if I found a critter that had no armor and was 40% resistant to Energy damage, it would take MORE damage from my T21 than a critter with no armor that was "vulnerable" to Energy damage.
Which means that vulnerable critters are actually resistant. And resistant critters are actually vulnerable. Ho ho ho.
Well, no, it is also a function of the weapon. Some weapons have negative accuracy modifiers across the board (melee weapons mainly), and others can have some nice bonuses at ideal range. But since it still is very player-dependent, there's little motivation to include this complication into any analysis since it would be easier to calculate on a personal level.
Griivak Master Weaponsmith 15 seconds west of Apotheon Shuttleport
Also, as long as I'm at it, I thought I'd provide a generic note of caution to everybody:
My original post is not meant to be the Ultimate Weapon Comparison Bible(tm), with the list of ratings inscribed in stone as some sort of holy writ. The list of weapons I presented was done solely to illustrate how the Effectiveness Ratings formula worked in practice. I think most people understand this, but I've gotten a few /tells and a few private messages from folks which suggest that some people are taking that list and assuming that it's the Absolute Last Word on Weapon Comparisons. And it's not.
All of those weapons are stock weapons from ONE weaponsmith out of dozens (if not hundreds) on ONE server out of 20. And the quality of those weapons will be naturally different from the quality of weapons you get from your favorite weaponsmith on your particular server. A Scout Blaster may be better than a DX2 on Tempest, due to the resources, but may be worse on Gorath, for example, due to the differentiation between resources on the various servers.
Different weaponsmiths on the same server may produce different quality weapons, either because they experiment differently, or because some have stockpiles of better quality material that others don't have access to.
And, of course, slicing your weapons makes a huge difference as well, and will change their rating considerably.
So don't look at my list of weapon ratings and say "Ah HAH! The FWGS is always superior to the Scout Blaster!" Because it may not be true on your server. I realize that I am mostly to blame for this confusion, due to the way I wrote my original post. So I'm taking this opportunity to clarify the issue.
The most important part of that message is the formula for the Effectiveness Rating itself.
With that formula, you can rate any weapon you have, regardless of the quality of materials on your server (which may be, on average, better or worse than the materials on my server), regardless of the expertise used to create it, and regardless of whether or not it's sliced.
And if you don't want to do the math yourself, there are at least two places on the web now where you can get tools to do the calculations for you. All you have to do is plug in the numbers:
You will need a specific plug in to use the first URL, and you will need MS Excel (or a viewer of some kind) to use the second. But both will do all the calculations for you.
Great post but after all the corrections I think the fatal flaw in the concept of rating the weapons as you have is specials drastically change the effectiveness of a weapon; therefore leaving them out hinders your calculations because they're not useful in game to compare across different gun types (IE. FWG5 vs T21) but helps compare 1 gun type to another of the same type (IE. FWG5 vs Scout Blaster).
By leaving this out, your shown speed caps are flawed as well because rarely does anyone use auto-fire when playing.
Here's a list I've compiled of a few specials (bear in mind some may be wrong, and many are missing, but have to start somewhere)
Headshot 1: Damage x1.5, Time x1.5 Headshot 2: Damage x2.5, Time x1.75 Head Shot3: Damage x3.0, Time x2.0 Flushing Shot1: Damage x2.0, Time x2.1 Flushing Shot2: Damage x4.0, Time x2.5 Startle Shot1: Damage x2.0, Time x2.1 Startle Shot2: Damage x4.0, Time x2.5 Strafe Shot2: Damage x5.0, Time x2.5
BodyShot2: Damage x2.1, Time x1.8 BodyShot3: Damage x2.5, Time x2.4 KipUpShot: Damage x2.5, Time x1.55 Double Tap: Damage x2.8, Time x2.1 Fan Shot: Damage x4.0, Time x2.4 Stopping Shot: Damage x4.7, Time x4.0 Last Ditch: Damage x6.0, Time x4.0
Crippling Shot: Damage x5.0, Time x4.0
With these, and some others (I Have yet to see a complete listing, though I know pistoleers have a few more of theirs on their forum; I took the ones I saw as relevent only. I have yet to find Commando/BH/*most* Carbineer/Brawler(all types) Specials though still looking; anyone know some of them?) I think a re-calculated list of weapons, specials, and their effectiveness could be created to calculate cross-type comparisons, of course the only way to do this is to have a "set" level at where you compare, so what I would use as your values is Master Marksman/Master Brawler of the profession of choice + master of chosen gun type (BH, Pistoleer, etc).
Its a daunting task where you will most likely run into innumerable problems the first of acquiring the actual specials and their respective dmg/time values
good luck if ya take the offer up and I'll be willing to help if you are interested.
Each day you live in rebellion, you there by guarantee yourself another day of freedom. Another to live and another day to choose who your gonna be. The only thing they can't take away from you is your will to survive. Today's rebellion is tomorrow's freedom
insecure wrote: Great post but after all the corrections I think the fatal flaw in the concept of rating the weapons as you have is specials drastically change the effectiveness of a weapon; therefore leaving them out hinders your calculations because they're not useful in game to compare across different gun types (IE. FWG5 vs T21) but helps compare 1 gun type to another of the same type (IE. FWG5 vs Scout Blaster).
Since the original purpose of the Effectiveness Rating was to allow you to compare weapons for your own benefit to help you decide which one to buy, it was assumed that you would, in the main, be comparing within the same class of weapon (i.e. pistol, rifle, carbineer, heavy weapon).
insecure wrote: >By leaving this out, your shown speed caps are flawed as well because rarely does anyone use auto-fire when playing.
Ah, but that's the beauty of the Effectiveness Rating.
Generally, when modelling physical or mathematical behavior, you don't start off with trying to analyze complex behaviors. You start off by trying to analyze simple behaviors. If you can model simple behaviors, then you can add in increasing levels of complexity for increasingly complex behaviors.
For example, when I was taking my low-level physics classes and we were discussing the behavior of gravity, the questions always specified the simplest of all possible cases: a perfect sphere, falling near the Earth's surface (where Earth is also assumed to be a perfect sphere of a specific radius), in a vacuum.
Now, the Earth is obviously not a perfect sphere, and there aren't a whole lot of places near the surface of the earth where one can readily find vacuum conditions in which one can drop smaller perfect spheres to see how they behave. Nonetheless, it is useful to understand how gravity works in this instance because it is the least complex situation. It is the "base case."
As you learn more physics and more mathematical tools, you can add in extra layers of complexity, such as wind resistance, or objects that aren't perfect spheres, or dropping the ball while on top of Mount Everest, or even factoring in the miniscule effects of centripetal force from the Earth's rotation. You can, with suitable tools, make any (or all) of these calculations IF you have a base case.
What I have hopefully provided is a tool which will let you see how weapons stack up in the base case for SWG combat: Fighting against a critter with no armor and no applicable resistances or vulnerabilities, using autofire, with 100% accuracy. That is the SWG combat equivalent of "a perfect sphere falling in a vacuum near the surface of the earth." Will combat in SWG always meet the inherent conditions for the base case? No. There are many places where it will not. But that doesn't mean it isn't useful to examine the base case.
Understanding the base case for SWG combat, just like understanding the behavior of a perfect sphere falling in a vacuum near the surface of the earth, can give us insight into more complex situations. Furthermore, the rating as it exists now (both the Effectiveness Rating and the Volsted Ratings) can be easily modified to incorporate new factors.
For instance, if someone were to devise a formula that would tell you how often you hit or missed, on average, as a percentage, you could easily incorporate it into the Effectiveness Rating by simply multiplying the base Effectiveness Rating by the hit/miss ratio. So if you have a weapon with a base Effectiveness Rating of, say, 75.3, and you calculate that you hit your opponent 85% of the time, on average, you can factor this into the Effectiveness Rating by: 75.3 * 0.85 = 64.0
And voila, the rating now reflects your accuracy.
This can be done for any aspect of combat.
Want to take into account Actual Fire Rate? Divide the Effectiveness Rating by [1 - (Weapon Speed Skill/100)].
Want to determine the Volsted Ratings for a specific special attack? Multiply the Volsted Ratings by the Special Damage Mod, then divide the resulting number by [1 - (Weapon Speed Skill)/100] * (Special Delay Mod) * (Special HAM Mod).
This latter bit has some very useful applications, as it happens. It's a great way to show which one of your specials gives you the best "bang for your buck," assuming you know the Speed, Damage, and HAM mods. Riflemen on the Riflemen board have already determined that Headshot 2 is superior to both Headshot 1 and Headshot 3 in the "Bang for the buck" department as a consequence of these calculations.
So the fact that the Effectiveness Rating and the Volsted Ratings are simple, rather than complex is (as they say) a "feature" rather than a "bug." It was meant to be that way from the beginning, so that others can add in whatever level of complexity they feel it warrants.
Each day you live in rebellion, you there by guarantee yourself another day of freedom. Another to live and another day to choose who your gonna be. The only thing they can't take away from you is your will to survive. Today's rebellion is tomorrow's freedom
