57 replies to this topic

[TehSBGX]

Considering PGI isn't explaining this well at all, and we're all a it confused by the term multiplier... I'm calling it, Paul's Folly is getting the axe after a few months.

[Yalan]

GingerBang, on 16 July 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

And nobody believes me when i say PGI can't do basic arithmetic. They can't even do vocabulary. Seriously, ANY respectable game studio has a mathematician. It is pathetic that PGI does not, but then again if they refuse to admit they have made any mistake ever, i'm sure they also think their math and vocab is 100% accurate.

Could you please explain to me how you "do vocabulary"?

Sprouticus, on 16 July 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

You can argue that is is a multiplier


Penalty = (multiplier * # of weapons fired over max)

so step off your high horse for a sec and relax,

Atleast some people actually understand the term.

Devari, on 16 July 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Except that's not how they explained it. The basic operation they're using is addition here, so the heat generated is not multiplied by anything. Just because you can use a multiple of something, doesn't mean an addition to that value suddenly becomes a "multiplication". Sorry, but what you're saying is like having someone claim they're using an exponential scale, and then claiming the exponent is "1". It doesn't work like that, at least not if you know what you're talking about and are trying to convey a concept accurately.

Yes. Mutiplication is by no means simply repeated addition! That would be RIDICULOUS! Oh wait...

Sprouticus, on 16 July 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

ok so if it is heat additive:


1 LL = 7 heat
2 LL= 14 heat
3 LL= 23.8 heat (13% penalty)
4 LL = 33.6 (20% penalty)
5 LL = 43.4 (24% Penalty)

The amusing part is that the % penalty goes DOWN as you use more. Not that it matters really since by the time the % penalty gets low the # of weapons is absurdly high.

Well if you look at AC/20s:

1 AC/20 = 6 heat
2 AC/20 = 36 heat (200% penalty)
3 AC/20 = 66 heat (73% penalty)

The penalty is pretty severe for AC/20s. The penalty is just low on LLs overall. Any weapon where scaling heat << base heat will not really see the effect as severely. As you stated, the penalty does decrease in percentage as you use more but the absolute value is still increasing. I would have used a cumulative penalty for each previous shot within 0,5s if it were my choice.

1 LL = 7 heat
2 LL = 16.8 heat (2.8 penalty) (16.7% penalty)
3 LL = 29.4 heat (8.4 penalty) (28.6% penalty)
4 LL = 44.8 heat (16.8 penty) (37.5% penalty)
5 LL = 63 heat (28 penalty) (44.4% penalty)

The values could be adjusted to account for the change (such as something like 1.0 for LL) but this would be better for nerfing large alphas.

Edited by Yalan, 16 July 2013 - 01:41 PM.

[Roland]

Folks, I don't really care about screaming at PGI over this.

I'm just asking for clarification about how it works.

And yes, I could test it myself, but I'm still at work... and honestly, I don't really feel like testing something that they can just explain.

There isn't any utility in hiding game mechanics from the players. Those "hidden" mechanics are always uncovered anyway, and then become common knowledge. If you just expose them transparently to the user, you'll skip the time wasting and get to maximally efficient testing most quickly.

[blinkin]

Roland, on 16 July 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

Folks, I don't really care about screaming at PGI over this.

I'm just asking for clarification about how it works.

And yes, I could test it myself, but I'm still at work... and honestly, I don't really feel like testing something that they can just explain.

There isn't any utility in hiding game mechanics from the players. Those "hidden" mechanics are always uncovered anyway, and then become common knowledge. If you just expose them transparently to the user, you'll skip the time wasting and get to maximally efficient testing most quickly.

a little clarification would be nice, so we can tell if things are working as intended.

[Roland]

Basically, here's the question, phrased into specifics... folks seem to be making various assumptions of how it works, but I think they may be mistaken.

Imagine I fire 9 medium lasers.

Now, I think that the heat penalty is ONLY applied to those guns fired over the limit, which is 6... Someone mentioned that it is not in fact exponential growth.

So, this would make the overall heat calc:
6*4 + 3*(4+1)=
24+3(5)=
24+15=
39

Which is really quite minor compared to the original 36 that it was yesterday.

But some folks seem to think that it applies to ALL of the weapons fired, so that would increase the penalty by an additional 6, boosting the heat to 45.

Additionally, there was the suggestion earlier by the devs that it'd be some kind of exponential heat growth.


Can we can some clarification as to which of these mechanisms, if any of them, are the actual way it works in game?

[Devari]

Yalan, on 16 July 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

Yes. Mutiplication is by no means simply repeated addition! That would be RIDICULOUS! Oh wait...

Except they call it a "scale multiplier". That implies a BASE VALUE is being SCALED with MULTIPLICATION. You're just flat out wrong here because PGI is using an incorrect term and you're trying to make excuses for them. It's really rather pathetic how people are trying to use faulty logic to claim PGI is somehow correct even when they're clearly using the wrong term. "But they're adding multiple times, so now it's a multiplier"! Really? I mean, this is why people go to school to get degrees. That way when people try to use a ridiculous attempt at "logic" to claim they're "technically right" when they're misusing a term, anyone who understands the terms will immediately tell them they're wrong. Using your logic, I can claim that they're using an "exponential scale" with an exponent of one, right? Because I'm "technically right" I can misrepresent something as exponential when it's not? Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way.

[blinkin]

Devari, on 16 July 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Except they call it a "scale multiplier". That implies a BASE VALUE is being SCALED with MULTIPLICATION. You're just flat out wrong here because PGI is using an incorrect term and you're trying to make excuses for them. It's really rather pathetic how people are trying to use faulty logic to claim PGI is somehow correct even when they're clearly using the wrong term. "But they're adding multiple times, so now it's a multiplier"! Really? I mean, this is why people go to school to get degrees. That way when people try to use a ridiculous attempt at "logic" to claim they're "technically right" when they're misusing a term, anyone who understands the terms will immediately tell them they're wrong. Using your logic, I can claim that they're using an "exponential scale" with an exponent of one, right? Because I'm "technically right" I can misrepresent something as exponential when it's not? Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way.

ok we have established that their wording was not clear. why do we have to dedicate half of this thread to semantics?

what the OP wants to know is WTF is the actual system they use.

[Roland]

Exactly.
I don't CARE about the terminology they used, I just want to know what it actually means.

[Yalan]

Devari, on 16 July 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Except they call it a "scale multiplier". That implies a BASE VALUE is being SCALED with MULTIPLICATION. You're just flat out wrong here because PGI is using an incorrect term and you're trying to make excuses for them. It's really rather pathetic how people are trying to use faulty logic to claim PGI is somehow correct even when they're clearly using the wrong term. "But they're adding multiple times, so now it's a multiplier"! Really? I mean, this is why people go to school to get degrees. That way when people try to use a ridiculous attempt at "logic" to claim they're "technically right" when they're misusing a term, anyone who understands the terms will immediately tell them they're wrong. Using your logic, I can claim that they're using an "exponential scale" with an exponent of one, right? Because I'm "technically right" I can misrepresent something as exponential when it's not? Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way.

1) I don't actually care one bit about PGI being right or wrong.
2) I find it hilarious how bent out of shape you are getting because of their terminology.
3) You assume this is meant to follow terminology of any form other than their own when it is in PGIs patch notes
4) Neither of us have their actual formulas/code (to my knowledge) so it is all guesswork. Nothing is "clear" as you put it.
5) I know you may have a difficult time imagining this but in the format of HEAT_PENLTY = EXTRA WEAPONS * HEAT SCALE MULTIPLIER to calculate the heat penalty in a 0.5s interval in a discussion about the heat penalty, it is amazingly a multiplier. They never claimed this is how their formula was written or anything. You assumed that.
6) I have a degree in Mathematics and Physics, kid. So go back to your College Math 101 class and pretend to be intelligent there. The personal insults are not needed.

Edited by Yalan, 16 July 2013 - 02:39 PM.

[Devari]

Yalan, on 16 July 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

6) I have a degree in Mathematics and Physics, kid. So go back to your College Math 101 class and pretend to be intelligent there. The personal insults are not needed.

The fact that you claim to have a degree in mathematics/physics, but don't understand how they're misusing the term "scale multiplier" leads me to doubt your qualifications and/or the quality of the education you received. Sorry, but if you find that insulting then I suggest you re-read your mathematics textbooks before trying to make claims about terminology that simply aren't accurate.

[Yalan]

It means that in a 0.5s intervarval, if you fire more than "Max No-Heat Penalty Alpha" shots with the same weapon, each additional one will use "scale multiplier" more heat. They definitely should have explained it better and provided an example. For a formula:

zhajin, on 16 July 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

nh + (n-p)m = heat

n = number of weapon fired
h = heat of weapon
p = number allowed before heat penalty
m = penalty multiplier (thus it is a multiplier)

[Deathlike]

Math and "terminology": Things PGI are not good at.

[Chemie]

PGI fail at math.

adder vs multiplier

[blinkin]

Chemie, on 16 July 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

PGI fail at math.

adder vs multiplier

and if they had used the word "adder" people would be complaining because it adds MULTIPLE times.

[Roland]

From some testing, it does appear to only affect the "extra" weapons fired... that is, firing 8 medium lasers doesn't seem to generate significantly more heat with the new system than it did before. Would seem to indicate that it can't be adding more than 2-3 heat.

[Devari]

blinkin, on 16 July 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

and if they had used the word "adder" people would be complaining because it adds MULTIPLE times.

Seriously? I can't believe someone actually said that. It's like saying, "we're adding $5000 to each person's salary". And you think someone would actually say "wait, you're adding that to each person's salary, that means you're doing it MULTIPLE times? I thought you said you were adding?" I mean, did you even read what you just wrote? This thread is so full of fail when it comes to basic terminology and logic, I really don't know what to say. Could someone please insert another witty internet picture? I just don't know what else to do.

Edited by Devari, 16 July 2013 - 04:27 PM.

[blinkin]

Devari, on 16 July 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Seriously? I can't believe someone actually said that. It's like saying, "we're adding $5000 to each person's salary". And then you're saying "wait, your adding that to each person's salary, that means you're doing it MULTIPLE times? I thought you said you were adding?" I mean, did you even read what you just wrote? This thread is so full of fail when it comes to basic terminology and logic, I really don't know what to say. Could someone please insert another witty internet picture? I just don't know what else to do.

maybe, but when you look at the basic math, one of the primary functions is multiplication. and when describing an equation it is common to use the highest order operation. ab² would generally be described as an exponential equation despite the fact that it also has multiplication. (a - b)c would be described as multiplication and is probably also the basic function that determines boating penalties.

and let me continue with no one gives a **** what it is called. for those of us who aren't OCD-bags WHAT ACTUALLY MATTERS is whether it works or not and the basics of how it operates.

Edited by blinkin, 16 July 2013 - 04:35 PM.

[Ningyo]

Copying this here since its relevant (originally posted in the feedback thread), and it seems many people are under the mistaken impression that the numbers Paul gave have any kind of logic behind them. If you have a 9ML or 2 AC20 mech you should test some in game as well. The heat scale is just screwed up completely.

OK did some testing in game, its all slightly inexact since I have to account for only having 1% increments of heat show up on the heat gauge, and differences in temperature. However most of this has been accounted for and these should be close to accurate.

Firing 1 gauss produces 1 heat
Firing 2 PPC + 2 ERPPC produces 38 heat

Firing
1 PPC = 8 heat
2 PPC = 16 heat
3 PPC = 32 heat (additional 8)
4 PPC = 54 heat (additional 14)

1 ERPPC = 11
2 ERPPC = 22
3 ERPPC = 40 (additional 7)
4 ERPPC = 62 (additional 11)

1 LRM 15 = 5
2 LRM 15 = 10
3 LRM 15 = 16.5 (additional 1.5)
4 LRM 15 = 24.5 (additional 3)

Oh and all these numbers should be within 1 and probably within 0.25 of being correct, but again I cannot guarantee truly exact figures do to testing limitations.


Overall I cannot fathom what equation they are using, it just makes no sense at all.