Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue!)

Tactics and Action Reports.
Post Reply
Safehold
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:08 pm

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by Safehold » Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:38 pm

The list is pretty useful, thanks.

User avatar
AlanF5
Posts: 1492
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:14 pm

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by AlanF5 » Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:52 pm

Glad to be helpful. :) Your join date is new (welcome to the boards! :thumbsup: ), I don't know how long you've been playing or how far back in the thread you've read, but I think my old caveat bears repetition:

While having this information may tempt people to spreadsheet and mathcraft (kinda defeating the spirit of the game), hopefully they can also see that the factors describing a weapon are so complicated that the supremacy of a weapon is situational.
Download my zombie outbreak mini-sim: unfortunately, it's not Fort Zombie.

Winner of the "Guess what the zerker discs are an homage to?" race. (The Mandarin's ten rings)

Safehold
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:08 pm

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by Safehold » Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:51 am

I played SOTS when it came out and never read the background information found outside the manual.

I'm playing the recent upgrades, ANY, now.

Because of the random research tree, there's not exactly a lot of room to test things out, especially without a simulator system for tactical battles. So it helps to have a general data on how weapons compare with each other. Rather than, say, waiting until one has built a huge fleet using a design principle that gets defeated by the simple fact that enemy mass drivers are higher in DPS.

User avatar
DervMan
Posts: 2774
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:23 pm

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by DervMan » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:19 am

Except... not a good example, surely? The weapon statistics are just a small part of the game. Some weapons may feel essential until you discover a workaround, right?
Image

ZedF
Board Ninja
Board Ninja
Posts: 12582
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:13 pm

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by ZedF » Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:33 am

Safehold wrote:Because of the random research tree, there's not exactly a lot of room to test things out, especially without a simulator system for tactical battles. So it helps to have a general data on how weapons compare with each other. Rather than, say, waiting until one has built a huge fleet using a design principle that gets defeated by the simple fact that enemy mass drivers are higher in DPS.

So... don't build a huge fleet all on the same principle if you aren't comfortable with your feel for the various weapons, then? There lots of room in SotS for you to research a new weapon, build some ships, send them to fight something to try the weapons out, and observe the weapon effects (how accurate are they compared to where you aimed? Any shots seeming to bounce off? etc.) There is also a post-combat card that tells you which weapons did how much damage in a fight, which should give you a bit of guidance in that direction.

SotS tends to be more about learning by doing, than about learning by reading. While SotS2 will have some more information available off the bat, to a large degree you will still need to try stuff out (or send a scout to get a closer look) to learn what it does.
Zed's TARs (sample):
Fractious Allies -- Hiver vs. Hiver, with allies
Who Let The Bugs Out -- Hiver vs. Tarka and Zuul
Tarka Ascendant -- Tarka vs. Hiver and Zuul

Strategy & Tactics Forum Archive -- More posts on strategy, tactics, and TARs

Safehold
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:08 pm

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by Safehold » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:28 am

Efficient testing requires stable conditions and battlefield conditions. This requires controlling both the design aspects of the OPFOR and the allied side. It's not available during regular gameplay. Such simulations can only be done using one's own ships to test weapon effects against one's own fleet, or controlling the design, build, and attack strategies of two empires at once so that they are able to test for specific variables against controlled variables. Simulated tactical battle is filled with too many unpredictable elements for experience to be of much initial use. With a hypothetical 10 variables in play given the different interactions between weapons, techs, ship sizes, and various movement issues, one needs 10 tests to learn each variable, then 10 tests against each different enemy ship type. Data analysis using surface level information, unit card and weapon stats, cuts down the time needed for actual experience to be integrated and made useful. Post battle report data can be said to be equal to weapon damage number data. Both are just data. Except, they're data about different things. More data is better as it produces a more accurate conclusion from analysis.

The card does not separate out friendly damage from enemy damage, thus it's a guesstimate of what really happened to whom. Mostly it gives a general impression of what the number 1,2 and 3 most damaging weapon categories were. Any finer point of detail is unanalyzable given the level of data available.

So... don't build a huge fleet all on the same principle if you aren't comfortable with your feel for the various weapons, then?

That runs against the whole "experience" requirement. Weapon arcs and data for how they work in fleet engagements can only be obtained from actual simulations, tests, and experiences. Creating a new weapon on a destroyer works a little differently than when the requirement is to test formation 3 dreadnoughts. And if it requires using up a dreadnought each time to test a new dreadnought design, sometimes the enemy fields some units and not others, which means the new design works well against X but not D. Yet, it's not that easy to tell why a new design is working or not working: the variables are often random and chaotic, rather than controlled in a safe laboratory environment. An entire battle fought using one fleet doctrine at least can attribute blame or credit one way or another. Having isolated the problem, a solution can then be generated. SotS has enough tactical variations that trying to learn by testing each variation, takes so long that it begins to become irrelevant to the actual designing of counter-enemy strategies in ship design.

If the learning curve for tactical fights wasn't so high, that wouldn't be necessary. Rock, paper scissors. Learn it after 3=9 times. Not that hard given the RPS already controls for several variables.

Damage information is generalized and not specific in the post battle report. Without that specificity, future designs cannot be created to counter-act known threats. Specific weapon breakdowns provide a hard line data of damage per second, or dps, in ideal situations. This allows a comparison to be made against known threats to see whether performance is below ideal or at ideal, and whether the result is good enough in ideal conditions to warrant the use of money and time. Because obviously if the result is barely marginal in ideal situations, then it's not a feasible weapon to use to counter a current enemy threat.

I tend to agree that learning how a weapon functions is not that hard. One lost battle should demonstrate that issue either way. Learning how a weapon functions relative to enemy weapons that blow up your ships faster and better, is both more important as well as more difficult to achieve.

One of the more interesting and less manpower intensive method I've used for testing is to build and design ships, then play as another race to observe how my race does in tactical battles using my ship designs, without anything being changed (Maintain). That way, I can generally know that it isn't due to command error, as the AI is pretty consistent in what it does. So if it can win with the same losses as I would, or with lower losses, then the design works and should be mass produced until the enemy changes designs.

Initially, before any patch or update came out, playing SOTS was like making a bunch of ships and then sending them to their deaths to see what random combination would or wouldn't work. Even with the addition of a new weapon, it was not very clear whether that new weapon even did anything unless it was fielded in large enough numbers. Then there was that little issue with beam weapons being very inaccurate when the ship was set to close combat, becoming a lot more damaging and accurate when the ship is still. A test fight conducted with beam ships on close combat would turn out very differently from a test fight conducted using absolutely motionless ships and manual targeting.

In general, destroyers and cruisers are easier to figure out and test with than using dreadnoughts. It gets pretty obvious how effective a design is when one round of fire blows up an entire section. The fission/fusion era techs are relatively easy to figure out. Things get more difficult with dreadnoughts. That's where the extra data can come in and help.

ZedF
Board Ninja
Board Ninja
Posts: 12582
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:13 pm

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by ZedF » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:49 am

You're making this sound a lot harder to figure out than it actually is. :roll:
Zed's TARs (sample):
Fractious Allies -- Hiver vs. Hiver, with allies
Who Let The Bugs Out -- Hiver vs. Tarka and Zuul
Tarka Ascendant -- Tarka vs. Hiver and Zuul

Strategy & Tactics Forum Archive -- More posts on strategy, tactics, and TARs

User avatar
DervMan
Posts: 2774
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:23 pm

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by DervMan » Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:19 am

...very much so. And the game is designed such that taking apart the metrics is way less useful than "fuzzy investigation," that is, meeting with the enemy.

When I worked in the financial services, I used to fire up SotS to get away from analysis and shoot at aliens. Running the slide rule over a set of engagement parameters can be fun, but one subtle change in the baddies' design and all my work is discounted.
Image

User avatar
AlanF5
Posts: 1492
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:14 pm

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by AlanF5 » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:23 pm

That's a lot of words, Safehold, but I mostly agree with you.

I think you put too much emphasis on testing and not enough on playing, but I agree that more data = more informed decision, as long as the data does not lead to false conclusions. Extracts from the .gob do give you more detail at the expense of context. It’s easier to reach a conclusion, but also easier to frame that conclusion in a context that doesn’t really exist.

I agree that the battles are complex and chaotic, which can make it difficult to draw any conclusions. The .gob data can help explain what you’ve seen, but I feel it must be tempered with experience to predict what you haven’t seen.

I agree that DPS provides a performance benchmark for theoretical ideal conditions, but I feel that experience is required to weigh the other aspects of a weapon. Actual deployment is never in ideal conditions; experience lets you understand how factors like range, accuracy, shot speed, and armor deflection move the conditions away from ideal. Nor do I feel that DPS is the only, or even most important, benchmark. Alpha strike is important; quickly killing or crippling an enemy, especially at range, deprives them of the steady hammering that many high-DPS weapons require to reach their potential.

I agree that many weapons’ performance is heavily tied to the intricacies of maneuver. Therefore, the computer-controlled ships, though consistent, will consistently fail to reach many weapons’ full potential, so I don’t think they mean that much for testing.

I agree that the .gob data is more useful in the DN era because maneuver and accuracy are less important and alpha-strike kills are more difficult, moving the condition closer to the theoretical ideal of DPS. I also agree that it is more difficult to experiment with DNs, because their construction time and cost are high so you build fewer of them. Unlike you, I find DE and CR fights harder to follow, because they are more chaotic. This is offset by the reduced options for weapons and ship sections. The environment may be chaotic and detailed conclusions difficult to reach, but the experimental variables that I have to commit to are much smaller. (…in terms of research and design, at least. Maneuver can be experimented with pretty freely from one fight to the next; there’s no committed cost like research or design)
Download my zombie outbreak mini-sim: unfortunately, it's not Fort Zombie.

Winner of the "Guess what the zerker discs are an homage to?" race. (The Mandarin's ten rings)

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38677
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by Mecron » Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:33 am

Some games are not very good for..."obsessive" type personailities. This is why chess will always be at the pinnacle of predictive gaming. SotS, on the other hand, is about war. And war is messy, chaotic and involves a fair amout of luck, both good and bad.

My first response to this...

"Initially, before any patch or update came out, playing SOTS was like making a bunch of ships and then sending them to their deaths to see what random combination would or wouldn't work."

...was somewhat uncharitable. But a second pass made it somewhat less...colorful.

"Pre update SotS prime was actually terribly easy to interpret and master. Almost distrubingly so, given the relatively smaller pool of weapon groups and behaviours. In order NOT to see the difference between lasers and gauss rounds in your scout duel one would have to be so disturbed by actual movement and facing that it comepletly blinded one to the GLARING attributes and behaviours of first evergy vs ballistic and what the relative tactical merits of either were. From there ther general weapon stat values, while of limited use, clearly allowed on to juggle relative worth of weapons withing the same class and make useful generalizations across class."

User avatar
BlueTemplar
Posts: 3131
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:15 am

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by BlueTemplar » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:13 pm

An interesting observation : if you use them for damage only Inertial Cannons are worse than double green lasers, but Heavy Inertial Cannons are better than Heavy Plasma Cannons (and are a fission tech too).

I updated my WeaponStatSheet:
2,4
- Added pop damage / sec

2,5
- Fixed infra/ch damage (x100)
- Added Infra/Sec, Infra/Pop, Clim/Pop damages
- Fixed weapons affected by Quantum Capacitors

2,5b
- Fixed weapons affected by Quantum Capacitors again according to this post :
viewtopic.php?p=302743#p302743

fredNN
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:29 am

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by fredNN » Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:42 pm

I think I find error in data in WeaponStatSheet 2.5b.ods

Burster shrapnel is "the rounds from Mass Drivers" (http://sots.rorschach.net/Bursters). WeaponStatSheet 2.5b.ods use data from Gauss Cannon.

User avatar
BlueTemplar
Posts: 3131
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:15 am

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by BlueTemplar » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:31 pm

I think this needs to be tested... 12 Mass driver rounds seems a bit high for a Large turret! I think that's why I assumed they were Gauss rounds... and I seem to recall the graphics from gauss, not mass drivers!
But maybe you're right, because right now that means Bursters do the same DPS as Heavy Stormers, but over a MUCH larger volume, meaning the ship is hit by only a few % of rounds... so gauss would seem too weak for that!
Also, there's a problem on the wiki, because it says
The damage listed below is per Burster submunition.
, then lists a damage of 25, which is a lot less than even Gauss! (45). I assumed that was the damage from the round itself (like for Corrosive missile).

ZedF
Board Ninja
Board Ninja
Posts: 12582
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:13 pm

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by ZedF » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:36 pm

They are definitely mass driver rounds. The 25 damage listed on the wiki is for the actual burster shell itself before it splits up. So yes, the wiki is incorrect.
Zed's TARs (sample):
Fractious Allies -- Hiver vs. Hiver, with allies
Who Let The Bugs Out -- Hiver vs. Tarka and Zuul
Tarka Ascendant -- Tarka vs. Hiver and Zuul

Strategy & Tactics Forum Archive -- More posts on strategy, tactics, and TARs

User avatar
BlueTemplar
Posts: 3131
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:15 am

Re: Exact Weapon Damage, the info You seek is Here (Hot Glue

Post by BlueTemplar » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:50 pm

Ok, I'm going to correct that then... and I'm also adding "Burst" damage.
Btw, are you certain these rounds are exactly the same as regular Mass Driver rounds (in damage, deflection, speed, etc...)?

Post Reply

Return to “T.A.R.”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests