Pilot Archive

---

Rowgue wrote:

Yeah that's it I must be fighting inferior pilots because I can manage to kill them. I never said that I killed every A wing I came across just that they present no more of a challenge than any other ship I fight.

This is the scenario you are describing here.

You are fighting against a ship (A wing) that is much faster and much more agile than any ship available to either of the other two factioins. You get the jump on him and rain enough fire on him to drain your capacitor down to nothing. The pilot in the A wing avoids all of this fire and cannot manage to take you out before you let your capacitor recharge and unload a second barrage on him.

Now who's fighting against inferior pilots. Anybody I've ever fought in an A wing that managed to survive a full volley from me that would drain my capacitor down to nothing would reduce me to space dust long before I was able to recharge my capacitor. The simple matter of things is that PvP is currently designed in a way that whoever gets the jump on the other guy first wins, it's that simple. I would contend that someone that survives your initial onslaught and is actually aware of the threat and lets you survive long enough to empty your cap and let it recharge is not my idea of a good pilot.

---

And even if the two partys are fully aware of each other, he who makes the first mistake dies.

Mistakes might be a bad turn, bad trick maneovure, or just assuming your target is unaware of you due to fighting a good few NPC's

---

TheSkankinSpiv wrote:
I'd test that before I made any sweeping statements. I'll yell at rapax and we'll take a look at it but frankly I don't think it will have much of an effect on pvp.

---

You just wanna use me as target practice

---

Eaca wrote:

---

Rowgue wrote:

---

Rowgue wrote:

No Eaca because if they fix it the damage multiplier will stay the same, as that is what the program is intended to do.

---

Imaridril wrote:

Not necessarily true. There is some evidence that WO4 does LESS damage per shot that WO3 currently does, meaning that the damage multipliers may also be messed up. Personally I think the math for the Weapon Overloads needs to be reworked all together. The damage bonuses should be 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%, respectively, and the energy efficiency mods should be .7, .5, .3, and .1. This would make Weapon Overload follow the same pattern as Engine Overload.

---

Well I have to disagree with you there as I have tried all of the weapon overload programs and WO4 is designed to do 4x damage at 10x the cap cost per shot. As far as I can tell it works as intended (of course this could never be proven beyond a doubt since there is no actual numbers that show you this is the case). WO3 is definately bugged, but it's not the damage multiplier it is the cap cost per shot that is bugged.

---

Currently WO commands are as follows:

WO1: +25%

WO2: +50%

WO3: +100%

WO4: -50%

These numbers have been verified 100% correct using a L1 331.4-334.1 damage crafted gun, using a min damage powerup, experimented for min damage, to reduce the damage variance to less than 1%. I gave this gun to my friend, then dueled them in space, had them shoot me once with no overload, and once with each overload. Before they shot me I opened my ship status window, using V and selected my engine. As soon as they hit me I selected my shields, and since the screen does not dynamically update, it takes a freeze frame for that moment, showing actual numbers that prove beyond a doubt exactly what each WO command does.

---

I'll try to replicate this on Bria.

---

Rowgue wrote:

Eaca please.

Those numbers are anecdotal at best.

I don't know what game you are playing but when I get hit it doesn't show me how much damage I take from the shot. It also doesn't show me what damage my guns will do when I run the overload programs.

How you can claim that you have proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt eludes me. You did not quote any numbers from these so called freeze frames from the ship status window that show a 50% damage reduction using overload 4. I have also experimented with each overload because when I was getting them there was nothing on the forums that explained what each one was supposed to do as far as the amount of damage modifiers. From my experience overload 4 appears to run exactly as intended. I'm not going to pretend that I can prove this 100% without a doubt, but you are apparently having a much different experience with these programs than I have.

There is a very easy way to prove this without all of the level one gun and freeze frame semantics. Just go find a tier 5 and use a modest weapon, not a 4200 damage beast. shoot it without any overloads running and see how many shots it takes. Then run overload 4 and see if it takes you more shots or less to kill it. In my experience it takes me far fewer shots to kill it with overload 4 running then without.

---

ACTUAL NUMBERS TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO THE MULTIPLIERS OF ALL WEAPON OVERLOAD AND WEAPON TUNING COMMANDS

First off, the following guns were done using this gun and this shield.

Using the guns min, max, and vs shield/armor values, we get:

average damage per shot (ADPSh) = ((min + max) / 2) * vs = ((331.5 + 334.1) / 2) * .477 = 158.7

However since we are doing PvP testing in normal/non deepspace, we need to apply the 25% reduction, which leaves us with 119 damage per shot, rounded to the nearest whole number. With the damage range being 2.6 difference between min and max, we're looking at a damage variance of +/- 0.4%, which for our purposes today, we will call negligable.

We will now apply the gun to the shields for this result. Notice damage is 118, which due to game rounding is acceptably close to the expected 119 to not invalidate our results.

The following is a list of the different damages, and % increase or decrease, for all weapon overload and tuning commands
WT4: 8 damage (-99.3%)
WT3: 26 damage (-78.0%)
WT2 is broken, and would not run in any way for me. Unable to preform this test. Likely I'm the first person to ever try to run a tuning program, I mean why would you want to make yourself weaker?
WT1: 89 damage (-24.6%)
WO1: 146 damage (+23.7%)
WO2: 179 damage (+51.7%)
WO3: 237 damage (+100.8%)
WO4: 297 damage (+151.9%) ***note: last time I preformed this same test WO4 did -50% damage, so it seems they fixed WO4 at least***

There you have it, proof.

Message Edited by Eaca on 01-14-2005 11:20 PM

*Thumbs Up*
Good job buddy, I'll still try to do my own tests(not that I don't belive yours).

---

Rowgue wrote:

---

Rowgue wrote:

No Eaca because if they fix it the damage multiplier will stay the same, as that is what the program is intended to do.

---

Imaridril wrote:

Not necessarily true. There is some evidence that WO4 does LESS damage per shot that WO3 currently does, meaning that the damage multipliers may also be messed up. Personally I think the math for the Weapon Overloads needs to be reworked all together. The damage bonuses should be 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%, respectively, and the energy efficiency mods should be .7, .5, .3, and .1. This would make Weapon Overload follow the same pattern as Engine Overload.

---

Well I have to disagree with you there as I have tried all of the weapon overload programs and WO4 is designed to do 4x damage at 10x the cap cost per shot. As far as I can tell it works as intended (of course this could never be proven beyond a doubt since there is no actual numbers that show you this is the case). WO3 is definately bugged, but it's not the damage multiplier it is the cap cost per shot that is bugged.

---