DUST Search - Snowball's Chance in Hell

Son-Of A-Gun wrote:

One Eyed King wrote:

Son-Of A-Gun wrote:

One Eyed King wrote:

@ OP

There is a spreadsheet in the Development Discussions Archive under Charlie EWAR

There is also a good spreadsheet on the first page of the Barbershop in the Locker room.

This will give you a good idea of what you were talking about, as well as other math you didn't cover, like medium frame profile and precision.

Also, you have to take into account rounding, which is why the numbers on both spreadsheets are whole numbers.

Yup, I can already see that the math is off, in the first link you gave.

The first link was directly given by CCP Rattati himself HERE.

So unless they changed something, you may want to check your math.

Well as I said, base values have changed from 36 to 35.

Beyond that you can tell that it is bad math because of the following info:

(Rattati has the following info in his spreadsheet)

Cal scout

One Damp plus cloak = 18.1

Two damps = 18.5

This is just bad info. Two complex damps > complex damp + proto cloak.

Get Rattati in here so I can chastise him.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1428	Posted - 2014.11.05 05:38:00 - [1] - Quote Let's talk about scanning. I am a Gal scout (to which I affectionately refer to as the Ganja) and I'd like to run some numbers by you people (seeing as how I had to run them for myself anyway) and get your opinions on these stats, and not just for the Ganja but for all scouts. So, here goes: First a small explanation for some of these numbers. As far as I am aware CCP rounds there numbers up a "6" for example: a skill that increases your PG from say (oh lets take an arbitrary number) 50 to 52.6, well then by CCPs math that number would then be rounded up to become 53. If the increase had been from 50 to 52.59 then the number then the number would be rounded down to become 52. A long time (well over a year ago) I read that this was the case somewhere on some EVE Wiki. I am a cautious mathematician, so naturally I set about finding ways of testing this in game. I ran many tests on this bit of info, a few even had a very small margin for error (we're talking only a few hundredths of a point margin of error - maybe .03 or something. Well I was satisfied and continued on secure in the work that I had done and info I had learned. Fast forward many months A good friend of mine from my old corp, whom I trusted a great deal, took it upon himself to do some testing on dampeners (they were not something that I had investigated deeply) and he reported something odd: the dampeners were rounding up at less than .6. This whole thing with my friend happened shortly before I took my first break from Dust, so I never got to investigate the mater further - all I have is his word to go on. Now, my whole point for going through all of this is that I cannot do the math without proper statistics. Also I did all of my testing when I was still skilling my character. Now that my character is almost completely skilled, at least as far as core skills go, and I no longer have corpmates to help me run field tests. It would be rather difficult for me to run further trials. So, here is what I am asking for: Either Dev confirmation of the exact figures that CCP uses, or for another player, skilled in the use of mathematics to, who as done such testing on dampeners, to make their findings available to me here in this thread, in as detailed a manner as possible. * So, lets proceed along to the numbers now. (All numbers assume max skills) Gal/Cal Scout No dampeners: 26.77 1 comp damp: 20.08 (does not beat the focused scanner) 1 comp damps + adv cloak active: 19.2 (beats focused scanner, if round down at .59) 1 comp damps + proto cloak active: 18.33 (beats focused scanner) 2 comp damps: 15.72 (does not beat Gal logi focused scanner) 2 comp damps + adv cloak active: 15.27 (does not beat Gal logi focused scanner) 2 comp damps + proto cloak active: 14.82 (does not beat Gal logi focused scanner, if round up at .6) 2 comp damps + 1 basic damp: 14.37 ( beats Gal logi focused scanner, if round down at .59) So, what do you guys think about these numbers? Should it take three lows full of damps for a scout to be completely invisible? * Min/Amr scout No dampeners: 31.5 1 comp damp: 23.62 (does not beat the focused scanner) 1 comp damp + adv cloak active: 22.6 (does not beat the focused scanner) 1 comp damp + proto cloak active: 21.57 (does not beat the focused scanner) 2 comp damps: 18.49 (does not beat Gal logi focused scanner) 2 comp damps + adv cloak active: 17.96 (does not beat Gal logi focused scanner) 2 comp damps + proto cloak active: 17.44 (does not beat Gal logi focused scanner) 3 comp damps: 15.85 (does not beat Gal logi focused scanner) 3 comp damps + adv cloak active: not worth mentioning (does not beat Gal logi focused scanner) 3 comp damps + proto cloak active: not worth mentioning (does not beat Gal logi focused scanner, if round up at .6) *** Amr scout only 4 comp damps: 14.73 (does not beat Gal logi focused scanner, if round up a .6) 4 comp damps + adv cloak active: not worth mentioning (does not beat Gal logi focused scanner, if round up at .6) 4 comp damps + proto cloak active: 14.57 (beats Gal logi focused scanner, if round down at .59) So how do these numbers look to you? Thanx for reading. {:)}{3GÇó>
Joel II X Bacon with a bottle of Quafe 4331	Posted - 2014.11.05 05:47:00 - [2] - Quote This is why I use 3x CPX Dampeners on a Gk.0 when I get serious. Unfortunately, I haven't used it in a long time.
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1428	Posted - 2014.11.05 05:48:00 - [3] - Quote Joel II X wrote: This is why I use 3x CPX Dampeners on a Gk.0 when I get serious. Unfortunately, I haven't used it in a long time. if your feelin frogy, two and a proto cloak "should" work work. {:)}{3GÇó>
137H4RGIC Bloodline Rebellion Capital Punishment. 265	Posted - 2014.11.05 05:48:00 - [4] - Quote I think one should sacrifice quite a lot to be completely invisible. D.U.S.T. Don't Underestimate Stupid Tryhards...
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1428	Posted - 2014.11.05 05:52:00 - [5] - Quote error. never mind {:)}{3GÇó>
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1428	Posted - 2014.11.05 06:34:00 - [6] - Quote OP now fully edited. {:)}{3GÇó>
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 5482	Posted - 2014.11.05 06:53:00 - [7] - Quote @ OP There is a spreadsheet in the Development Discussions Archive under Charlie EWAR There is also a good spreadsheet on the first page of the Barbershop in the Locker room. This will give you a good idea of what you were talking about, as well as other math you didn't cover, like medium frame profile and precision. Also, you have to take into account rounding, which is why the numbers on both spreadsheets are whole numbers. 1.9 Where cloaked scouts give way to tanked scouts. Problem solved?
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1428	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:01:00 - [8] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: @ OP There is a spreadsheet in the Development Discussions Archive under Charlie EWAR There is also a good spreadsheet on the first page of the Barbershop in the Locker room. This will give you a good idea of what you were talking about, as well as other math you didn't cover, like medium frame profile and precision. Are the sheets current. last time I checked, the scout's base profile (maybe a week ago I think) was 36. Now, today, I checked again and it is at 35. Plus I usually don't like to rely on other peoples math (I can be sure that mine is accurate). Are any of these sources you mentioned written or contributed to by the Devs? I would be inclined to trust the Devs. {:)}{3GÇó>
Ghost Kaisar Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 7373	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:02:00 - [9] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: @ OP There is a spreadsheet in the Development Discussions Archive under Charlie EWAR There is also a good spreadsheet on the first page of the Barbershop in the Locker room. This will give you a good idea of what you were talking about, as well as other math you didn't cover, like medium frame profile and precision. Also, you have to take into account rounding, which is why the numbers on both spreadsheets are whole numbers. I swear, the Barbershop has provided enough resources for every scout in the game to take advantage of. Looking back, It's quite an accomplishment. Bullet Hell and Duct-Tape? Count me in! FA recruits get free officer BPO's. Enlist today. Must be a scrub to enter.
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1428	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:09:00 - [10] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: @ OP There is a spreadsheet in the Development Discussions Archive under Charlie EWAR There is also a good spreadsheet on the first page of the Barbershop in the Locker room. This will give you a good idea of what you were talking about, as well as other math you didn't cover, like medium frame profile and precision. Also, you have to take into account rounding, which is why the numbers on both spreadsheets are whole numbers. Yup, I can already see that the math is off, in the first link you gave. {:)}{3GÇó>

Magnus Amadeuss Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1211	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:12:00 - [11] - Quote Check out the signature. Save a copy, you can modify the fields for quick calculations. EWAR tool
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 5485	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:15:00 - [12] - Quote Son-Of A-Gun wrote: One Eyed King wrote: @ OP There is a spreadsheet in the Development Discussions Archive under Charlie EWAR There is also a good spreadsheet on the first page of the Barbershop in the Locker room. This will give you a good idea of what you were talking about, as well as other math you didn't cover, like medium frame profile and precision. Also, you have to take into account rounding, which is why the numbers on both spreadsheets are whole numbers. Yup, I can already see that the math is off, in the first link you gave. The first link was directly given by CCP Rattati himself HERE. So unless they changed something, you may want to check your math. 1.9 Where cloaked scouts give way to tanked scouts. Problem solved?
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1428	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:18:00 - [13] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Son-Of A-Gun wrote: One Eyed King wrote: @ OP There is a spreadsheet in the Development Discussions Archive under Charlie EWAR There is also a good spreadsheet on the first page of the Barbershop in the Locker room. This will give you a good idea of what you were talking about, as well as other math you didn't cover, like medium frame profile and precision. Also, you have to take into account rounding, which is why the numbers on both spreadsheets are whole numbers. Yup, I can already see that the math is off, in the first link you gave. The first link was directly given by CCP Rattati himself HERE. So unless they changed something, you may want to check your math. Well as I said, base values have changed from 36 to 35. {:)}{3GÇó>
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1428	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:27:00 - [14] - Quote Son-Of A-Gun wrote: One Eyed King wrote: Son-Of A-Gun wrote: One Eyed King wrote: @ OP There is a spreadsheet in the Development Discussions Archive under Charlie EWAR There is also a good spreadsheet on the first page of the Barbershop in the Locker room. This will give you a good idea of what you were talking about, as well as other math you didn't cover, like medium frame profile and precision. Also, you have to take into account rounding, which is why the numbers on both spreadsheets are whole numbers. Yup, I can already see that the math is off, in the first link you gave. The first link was directly given by CCP Rattati himself HERE. So unless they changed something, you may want to check your math. Well as I said, base values have changed from 36 to 35. Beyond that you can tell that it is bad math because of the following info: (Rattati has the following info in his spreadsheet) Cal scout One Damp plus cloak = 18.1 Two damps = 18.5 This is just bad info. Two complex damps > complex damp + proto cloak. Get Rattati in here so I can chastise him. {:)}{3GÇó>
Jack Boost Zarena Family 491	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:27:00 - [15] - Quote How about this ? (from devblog 1.9) "* An Active Cloak now also reduces the player's Passive Scan Radius by 85% in addition to Signature Profile." Not much time left...
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1429	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:29:00 - [16] - Quote Jack Boost wrote: How about this ? (from devblog 1.9) "* An Active Cloak now also reduces the player's Passive Scan Radius by 85% in addition to Signature Profile." Not relevant. {:)}{3GÇó>
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 5485	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:35:00 - [17] - Quote Son-Of A-Gun wrote: One Eyed King wrote: Son-Of A-Gun wrote: One Eyed King wrote: @ OP There is a spreadsheet in the Development Discussions Archive under Charlie EWAR There is also a good spreadsheet on the first page of the Barbershop in the Locker room. This will give you a good idea of what you were talking about, as well as other math you didn't cover, like medium frame profile and precision. Also, you have to take into account rounding, which is why the numbers on both spreadsheets are whole numbers. Yup, I can already see that the math is off, in the first link you gave. The first link was directly given by CCP Rattati himself HERE. So unless they changed something, you may want to check your math. Well as I said, base values have changed from 36 to 35. Any source? If that is true, we obviously need to update Barbershop spreadsheets, and the only EWAR changes I heard about were to cloaked scouts. 1.9 Where cloaked scouts give way to tanked scouts. Problem solved?
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 5485	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:37:00 - [18] - Quote Son-Of A-Gun wrote: Son-Of A-Gun wrote: One Eyed King wrote: Son-Of A-Gun wrote: One Eyed King wrote: @ OP There is a spreadsheet in the Development Discussions Archive under Charlie EWAR There is also a good spreadsheet on the first page of the Barbershop in the Locker room. This will give you a good idea of what you were talking about, as well as other math you didn't cover, like medium frame profile and precision. Also, you have to take into account rounding, which is why the numbers on both spreadsheets are whole numbers. Yup, I can already see that the math is off, in the first link you gave. The first link was directly given by CCP Rattati himself HERE. So unless they changed something, you may want to check your math. Well as I said, base values have changed from 36 to 35. Beyond that you can tell that it is bad math because of the following info: (Rattati has the following info in his spreadsheet) Cal scout One Damp plus cloak = 18.1 Two damps = 18.5 This is just bad info. Two complex damps > complex damp + proto cloak. Get Rattati in here so I can chastise him. I think that is a typo, because lower on that same portion he has 2 Damps getting Cal to 15.7 1.9 Where cloaked scouts give way to tanked scouts. Problem solved?
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1429	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:42:00 - [19] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Son-Of A-Gun wrote: One Eyed King wrote: Son-Of A-Gun wrote: One Eyed King wrote: @ OP There is a spreadsheet in the Development Discussions Archive under Charlie EWAR There is also a good spreadsheet on the first page of the Barbershop in the Locker room. This will give you a good idea of what you were talking about, as well as other math you didn't cover, like medium frame profile and precision. Also, you have to take into account rounding, which is why the numbers on both spreadsheets are whole numbers. Yup, I can already see that the math is off, in the first link you gave. The first link was directly given by CCP Rattati himself HERE. So unless they changed something, you may want to check your math. Well as I said, base values have changed from 36 to 35. Any source? If that is true, we obviously need to update Barbershop spreadsheets, and the only EWAR changes I heard about were to cloaked scouts. Well, I'm staring at big'ol "35" in my dropsuits fittings screen, via show info, on a 55" HD plasma TV, right now. how much more proof do you want? {:)}{3GÇó>
Blueprint For Murder Immortal Guides 203	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:48:00 - [20] - Quote Did you add the 10% from the damp skill itself? 21 day fast started 10/31 in respect to the discipline of Gahndi. Wizard Talk

Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1429	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:49:00 - [21] - Quote Blueprint For Murder wrote: Did you add the 10% from the damp skill itself? My math is flawless. {:)}{3GÇó>
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1429	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:51:00 - [22] - Quote Son-Of A-Gun wrote: Blueprint For Murder wrote: Did you add the 10% from the damp skill itself? My math is flawless. If the math is not being applied the way I have detailed it here, in the game, then the math is not being done correctly. {:)}{3GÇó>
Magnus Amadeuss Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1212	Posted - 2014.11.05 07:59:00 - [23] - Quote OH and to the OP, the 5/10% dampening of the proto cloak is not stacking penalized, that is probably why your numbers are coming out wrong. The amarr/minmatar scout with 3 dampners is 35 (base) * 0.9 (lvl 5 damp) * 0.75 (1st dampner) * 0.783 (2nd damp) * 0.857 (3rd damp) = 15.854 Now take that 15.854 * 0.9 = 14.27 which beats proto focused on a gallogi Or in the case of an advanced cloak 15.854 * 0.95 = 15.06 which gets scanned. Hope this helps EWAR tool
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1429	Posted - 2014.11.05 08:21:00 - [24] - Quote Magnus Amadeuss wrote: OH and to the OP, the 5/10% dampening of the proto cloak is not stacking penalized, that is probably why your numbers are coming out wrong. The amarr/minmatar scout with 3 dampners is 35 (base) * 0.9 (lvl 5 damp) * 0.75 (1st dampner) * 0.783 (2nd damp) * 0.857 (3rd damp) = 15.854 Now take that 15.854 * 0.9 = 14.27 which beats proto focused on a gallogi Or in the case of an advanced cloak 15.854 * 0.95 = 15.06 which gets scanned. Hope this helps I'll concede to this. interesting that they would choose to do it this way. I thought that for sure they would apply stacking to the cloak as well (not sure that I agree with that decision). But still, that typo 18.5 needs to be changed. maybe there's others; I didn't look (s'why I don't like other people's math). {:)}{3GÇó>
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1430	Posted - 2014.11.05 08:38:00 - [25] - Quote OP has Been edited to reflect new information {:)}{3GÇó>
Son-Of A-Gun Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1430	Posted - 2014.11.05 08:41:00 - [26] - Quote Magnus Amadeuss wrote: OH and to the OP, the 5/10% dampening of the proto cloak is not stacking penalized, that is probably why your numbers are coming out wrong. The amarr/minmatar scout with 3 dampners is 35 (base) * 0.9 (lvl 5 damp) * 0.75 (1st dampner) * 0.783 (2nd damp) * 0.857 (3rd damp) = 15.854 Now take that 15.854 * 0.9 = 14.27 which beats proto focused on a gallogi Or in the case of an advanced cloak 15.854 * 0.95 = 15.06 which gets scanned. Hope this helps I still say that my post is more comprehensive/detailed and easier to process, at least when it comes to scanner Vs. scout profile. {:)}{3GÇó>
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 5501	Posted - 2014.11.05 21:15:00 - [27] - Quote Son-Of A-Gun wrote: Well, I'm staring at big'ol "35" in my dropsuits fittings screen, via show info, on a 55" HD plasma TV, right now. how much more proof do you want? Well, one of three things happened, all of which have happened before. 1) They made the change without telling anyone. 2) It is a typo, and doesn't actually reflect what is in game. 3) It is a typo AND reflects what is in game. Just like the super fast hill ramping tanks when 1.7 first started... 1.9 Where cloaked scouts give way to tanked scouts. Problem solved?
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 18718	Posted - 2014.11.05 21:38:00 - [28] - Quote All scouts can be completely unscannable, even to Gallogis with focused scanners, if they choose. /thread You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.


Pages: 1 :: [one page]