Isn't maths fun!!

Wouldn't it be nice to have a system where you could quantify, in every sense of the word, every single ship in ares that was ever made... perfectly and unarguably?

Yes, so I think. Here goes:

For working out weapon damage
{
P = Damage weapon is capable of doing over time
I = Damage instantly done
S = Distance (see following equation)
NG = Not Guided (if guided then disregard bracket)
D = Damage Rating (otherwise, just value)
A = Accuracy
T = Turreted
R = Turn Rate of ship
X = Total Rating
W = Random firing difference for weapon
F = Reload Time

(((P*20) + I) / F) * S * (NG, (360 - W) as a percentage of 360) = D(IF T = X)
IF NOT T:
(D * (R / 3)) = X
}

For working out distance
{
I = Initial velocity
W = Acceleration
M = Max velocity
A = Age
S = Value 1
T = Value 2
U = Value 3

(((M * (W * 20 + I)) / (A / 20) = Distance

}

For working out ship effectiveness
{
F = Total Weapon
H = Health
T = Turn rate
A = Acceleration
V = Max velocity
M = All-round maneouvrability
D1 = All round weapon effectiveness from first equation (weapon 1)
D2 = All round weapon effectiveness from first equation (weapon 2)
D3 = All round weapon effectiveness from first equation (weapon 3)

D1 + D2 + D3 = F

T * (A * 20) * V = M.

F + M + H = Total ship effectiveness (use to work out price, time)
}

I chose '3' for working out non-turreted weapons, because if your turn rate is 3 then turreted weapons are not more effective than straight ones. I'm not so sure about my calculations for distance, but I can't check them (and they're only approximate). You're right, darkk, they aren't accurate ***(adjusts them).

(This message has been edited by Count Altair El Alemein (edited 06-08-2001).)

Personally, I don't think those formulas are necissarily valid.
Balencing via simply throwing the ships into battle and adjusting until they're evenly matched seems to work just fine.

Besides, these formulas don't take into account AI and its stupidity.

------------------
Formerly-Rampant Human-Coded AI

Adjust the error range on the AI ships to 1:1

So.... according to your logic, the Gateship is the least powerfull ship in the game, and the Cantharan gunship is obscenely powerfull. Sorry kid, but you left out Jamming weapons and Bimodal weapons.

------------------
Time is the best teacher, yet it kills all of it's students.

(This message has been edited by Slug (edited 06-25-2001).)

It occurs to me that no numerical formula we can produce will be able to accurately measure how ships will perform in the chaos of battle. And how do you include the fact that certain combinations (ie, small fast vs bulky, non-turreted) will completely overturn these ratings?

Maths may be fun, but as a description of anything even approaching life's complexity, it doesn't stand up to the pressure.

------------------
Sundered Angel ,
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy

An interesting opinion Slug, but I never checked it with that maths, because, quite simply, that maths is totally, hopelessly flawed.

Yes, you say, it is. However that is no deterrent to my making a NEW set of equations. This old piece of junk is an insult to my algebraic nature, and I would like it locked for it's sheer defacement of algebra. Simply put, you can't calculate to every atom of it's relevance how good a ship is. Instead, you must make it so the maths does not need to calculate that, by allowing for ships and races to have certain preset advantages. In truth, only Distance and Damage equations (the revised ones) are useful, but only as a backdrop to constant testing.