XR57

Alpha, DPS, heat modules and YOU:

Recommended Posts

What the heck is DPS and alpha ??

Let's not look at heat weapons yet. First, let's take a simple, single-shot weapon that can fire as soon as it loads. Now, graphing its damage out on the Y axis, and time spent firing on the X:

414255880_alphaisbdpsism.png.cebb077805a

Each time the stairsteps go up, a shot is being fired. As they go to the right, reload time elapses.

  • The true alpha of this weapon, i.e. the damage of the first shot, its instantaneous damage, is the length of the green line. Or the height at which the red line intersects the Y axis; all of these are the same thing. Alpha is valuable in its own right for getting damage out earlier.
  • The DPS (damage per second) of this weapon, is the slope of that same red line. However, bear in mind that a weapon's "damage-in-one-second" may be higher than its extended "damage per second" value, by virtue of an alpha addition; for example, a weapon with 50% more DPS but no alpha (like a laserbeam, with perfectly gradient damage), will not have dealt more damage than the orange staircase until after x=2, where the damage lines would intersect. So, don't take the name to an overly literal degree; what it really means is "total damage output accumulated per second." 

Nomenclature aside, what's important to take away from this is that one "y=mx+b" line is all you need with simple, single-shot weapons. Or more specifically, that the constants m and b can entirely describe a single-shot weapon's damage output over time all on their own (perks notwithstanding, etc).

Suppose you're instead given the tools to modify the height H and length L of steps though. How do changes to these variables alter your damage output, in terms of m and b?

  • First, b is quite simply equal to the value of H. But, H does more than just raise B.
  • The slope will have its rise dictated by H, and run dictated by L, with the slope itself being equal to rise/run=H/L.

So, as an example, suppose you were given the choice to double H, or to halve L; these would both have the same effect on DPS, but doubling H would also come with the benefit of doubling your alpha, making the option to double H superior regardless of what the variables may be.

The values H and L correspond to your damage per shot and reload time, respectively. So next, suppose you have a scorpion hover. You're wondering if equipping a colossus engine is the next priority, or if another scorpion would give you more DPS per unit of energy. A second scorpion obviously gives you double alpha, but it also doubles your DPS, at the cost of 6 energy, for a flat 16.667% DPS bonus per point. Meanwhile, the colossus engine boosts your reload speed by 20%. However, speed is not time: speed is the denominator of time, and adding 20% to that denominator divides time by 1.2, thus decreasing the time and increasing your DPS by 16.667%. It offers DPS no more efficiently a second scorpion, and less alpha, in exchange for some movement speed. There's also the powerscore difference though: the colossus has less than a 10th the powerscore of a second scorpion, so measured in terms of that, a colossus on a solo scorp can look efficient. Plus, a colossus would be a priority over a third scorp DPS wise if that were an option, so it makes sense to equip after two.

But what about heat ??

Now what if I told you, you can put your stairstep equation, in another stairstep equation:

847612280_doublestaggeralphaandslopes.th

It might look complicated, but it's just another staircase, so it's just another "y=mx+b" line. We just have a second m and a second b now: the steeper m is the DPS within a heat cycle, the flatter m is your DPS overall, the shorter is your alpha, and the taller b is your damage per heat cycle, which we'll call your second alpha. Here's a labeled diagram, to make sense of it:

1620271952_doublestaggeralphaandslopesla

"Check frame" refers to a frame of delay at the end of each cycle, I'm not sure if it's the game's rounding or computational or what, but I've accounted for it.

  • ais just a1 times the shots per clip.
     
  • The rise of m1 is a2 minus a1, i.e. minus the first shot. Or, you could say the rise is a1 times all but one shot, to write it in those terms instead.
  • The run of m1 is just the individual shot time, times all shots but the last, i.e. the time it takes to overheat.
  • m1 itself equals its rise/run, so that's  a1(shots-1)/reloadtime(shots-1); cancel out the "shots-1" and you're left with or m1=a1/reloadtime.
     
  • The rise of m2 is just a2, your damage per heat cycle.
  • The run of m2 is just the total cooling time (including that one frame), plus the total firing time (see the labels on the first just upward? take them and put them on the next one for a triangle).
  • m2 itself equals a2 divided by (cooling time+1frame+(reloadtime×shots)).

How heat-based hardware actually works:

(...with respect to the two elements aand m2—damage per heat gague, and overall DPS, respectively):

COOLERS increase your cooldown speed. An epic cooler with its perk active will increase your cooling speed by 100%, doubling it, and thus halving the time taken to cool down. Their speed effects are summed additively, but this only adds to the denominator of time, thus the actual time saved per unit of speed decreases as total speed bonus flatly rises. For example, if you already have 200% cooling speed, and raise it to 300% with another addition, then your time-taken will only go down from one half to one third, rather than from a half down another half to zero, or even from down to half of the half to a quarter. You go down to only a third the original time, meaning you have severe diminishing returns when stacking the effect.

  • The first 100% cooler bonus lowers cooling time to 50%, or 1/2.
  • A 200% cooler bonus lowers cooling time to 66.666%, or 2/3rds; this is only an additional 1/6th or 16.666% of the base time being removed, i.e. only a third the original cooler's effect.

Spoiler alert: these aren't worth stacking. Furthermore, unlike with single-shot reload-based weapons, it takes a while for you to finish shooting, which takes away from the time the cooler is active, hence why coolers have much larger bonuses than reload-rate engines. Ignoring the one frame of delay that coolers won't effect, that means lowering cooling time to 50% on something that cools half the time on its curve (something which takes as long to heat up as cool down) is only like a 25% increase to DPS. On the same gun, a rare cooler would be adding 50% to speed, thus removing a third of the original time, thus adding 16.667% DPS, like a colossus.

RADIATORS increase the time you can fire before overheat, without altering total cooldown time. An epic radiator with its perk active will increase time till overheat by 100%, thus doubling your damage per heat cycle. Their effects are summed additively, so while the first radiator will double your time, the next one will only be adding 100 to 200%, which is just a 50% increase from the present value, unlike multiplicative 100% which in-principle would double your 200 to 400% (i.e. not standard multiplicative).

  • The first 100% radiator bonus increases damage per heat cycle by 100%, which also increases DPS by 100%.
  • A second 100% radiator increases your damage per heat cycle by the same literal 100% value, but now this value is proportionally only 50% of what was already there (of 200%).
  • A third 100% radiator increases your damage per heat cycle by the same literal 100% value, but now this value is proportionally only 33.333% of what was already there (of 300%).
  • A fourth 100% radiator increases your damage per heat cycle by the same literal 100% value, but now this value is proportionally only 25% of what was already there (of 400%).

So, one radiator will add more to m2, AND it adds to a2, which coolers don't effect if you're just squeezing the trigger. And it has a lower powerscore too, because why not?

The (diminishing) case for coolers:

First and foremost: tapfire. If you're pausing every few shots to recover accuracy, and you bring your heat all the way back down in that time, then you'll never overheat in the first place, in which case a cooler can be as good as infinitely many radiators regarding a2. By this point you'll have raised m2 to m1's steepness, meaning from there on all you can do is add guns to raise your alpha and DPS. Usually the short breath of air you're taking in between bursts isn't enough for that though, due to the delay before cooldown begins, etc. You have to be tap firing up to a rather high level of inaccuracy (for coming down to make much cooling time at all)... which is practically hypocritical. When you combine that "subjectivity" with the poor stacking, it's still clearly not worth having more than one cooler. Maybe you equip one instead of a radiators on an autocannon build, if that's your thing.

Secondly, and less-foremost: inter-module stackingTap-fire aside, a radiator is an objectively better choice than a cooler—for your first heat module. But, radiators only stack flatly onward, rather than at a proportional rate. However coolers will not only be undiminished thus far, but they'll actually stack proportionally by new total granted by your first radiator, since they're now cooling off twice as many degrees per second. This is still never a cause to stack them, but it means a cooler might be a better second, third, or fourth pick depending on how much time the gun spends using it. Let's look at shotguns, which don't tap fire much but pop their heat off pretty quickly. Green is two 100% rads, blue is one rad and one cooler:

1413767603_1and1bluevs2radgreenlowerimag

The first curve I've been posting was actually the damage of three lupras, divided by 10 on the Y axis.

All the division does is squish the whole image down though—and for that reason, the comparison lines above it actually represent the comparison lines of all similar shotguns (ignoring perks), provided they have the same time between shots, base shots per cycle, and base cooling time.

You can see that while the radiators give you more a2, the DPS of the coolers does meet it after three heat cycles. Except... that intersect is already at 178.759 on the Y axis, which I just said is divided by 10, so you've already dealt 1770 damage by then, with your... three lupras. That's already a kill/degun, more certainly so if we start using stronger weapons. Even if we're degunning two typhoons/pulsars, only 1900 damage is needed.

But instead of that point, look at this point:

1647568625_1and1bluevs2radgreenupperimag

Actually, it's the point before the "THIS point" at which the blue rake's stagger rises above the green line completely: where you cease to ever drop below the blue curve ever again. But, it's five cycles in. Here's a clearer shot of the capital THIS though:

reshoot.png.dcbeabe0cb6aafdb8592577d5c5f

If you haven't killed your target long before that, they'll have killed you twice over. So at most, you can vouch for adding the cooler on after two rads then?

Well, here's 2 rads and a cooler, vs 3 rads:

1302828248_2and1bluevs3radgreenimage.thu

Oh gee, the 178.759 moved down to 175.729. I instead of having to wait until the nth heat cycle to permenantly rise above at a jillion damage, I can now permanently rise above the radiator curve in... the 4th, at 2908. Which will be higher with higher damage guns, and is still well above the health of two mammoths. And we're shooting with shotguns, which have a very small amount of base fire time compared to their base time spent cooling, so this should be worse for other weapon classes. At best you might prefer the blue curve if you're trying to kill two people in a row, aren't getting degunned in it, and just feel like you have enough alpha2 to cripple people properly. But you can see (I didn't highlight the point) that a2 is just 864 damage on the blue curve, so it won't be enough against pulsar/typhoon health weapons. Although this is with just 3 lupras, but again: higher damage numbers means all the other numbers stretch up too. Multiplying 864 by a number big enough to reach 950, multiplies all your other values by that same number: you'll be doing around 3200 damage by the "true" breakpoint, which is higher than the original 3059.

So there you have it: don't equip more than one cooler, and don't equip it at all unless you either A) plan to tap fire up to high inaccuracy values, and/or B) want to kill multiple people in a row and already have ~2 rads or more equipped (assuming THOSE radiators were even worth it over equipping more guns), if not a bit of both options i.e. already have 1 rad and tap for long periods.

ALSO, certain perks do just favor coolers and/or just disfavor radiators. The breaker perk is an obvious example, since it adds a fixed amount of damage to each cycle that doesn't grow with cycle size. The spectres can also gain the ability to cool off without dropping their perk stack. The aspect has weird implications for both modules; it practically contains the breaker perk, but in addition to that, coolers will cause you to recede further down the perk slope as you tap. Meanwhile the Favorite cabin's perk outright denies cooler use by skipping cooling periods entirely when activated, while at the same scaling its effect off the damage-per-heat-cycle radiators add. Infact, heat-based miniguns more or less require radiators in order to have their perks used. Fidgets might actually disfavor radiators quite a bit, since their perk is basically already a radiator, pushing the rad scaling further ahead by default. But generally, the best response to perks that favor coolers, is to just put your energy towards more guns themselves instead of their preferred modules. Which brings us back to where we were at the end of the reload section, with the scorpion example:

When do I just equip more guns?

Since radiators are generally better than coolers, we'll start on those.

Put simply, starting from one gun, adding a second gun is doubling your alpha1, alpha2, m1, and m2, and giving you a second gun to lose. Adding a radiator just gives you double the alpha2, and m2. In fact, the relation from coolers to radiators, is analogous to the relation from radiators to guns: coolers-vs-rads was "just m2" vs "aAND m2", whereas rads-vs-guns is "just-2's" vs "1's AND 2's" (and health). As you can probably predict, much like coolers, rads shouldn't be picked until you already have two or three of the next thing up (guns). Although, the difference in energy cost changes things, and radiators don't have the denominator-additive scaling of coolers.

If these were 2-energy goblins we were stacking, second gun would increase "1's and 2's" by 100% of their current value, or 50% per unit of energy, while the radiator raises the "2's" by 100% for just a point, but it's just the 2's and no health. I'd call that a win for the goblin, with health and the 1's generally being more important per-percent than the 2's. But, maybe then you can add a rad with the third goblin and call it a tradeoff, and then add more on top after that until you need the next rad. And maybe, eventually, you might stack enough guns, to stack enough rads, for a cooler to be worth it. If you're running an apollo gen.

If these were 3-weapons we were stacking, second gun would increase "1's and 2's" by 100% of their current value, or 33.333% per unit of energy, plus it adds health, while the radiator raises the "2's" by 100% for just a point. The tradeoff is definitely at least on the third gun now, depending on how important health is. With 4-energy weapons, you should almost definitely equip one alongside your third gun. That's either three fours or four threes: twelve energy either way. Which gets back to two scorpions and a colossus being 12 energy to one module. With an epic cab and apollo gen, ~12 on guns leaves 4 energy. So maybe last or second to last point of energy, your 15th or 16th point, you can put a cooler on a non-tap weapon. Or with 5-energy guns like breakers, with their cooler-favoring perk, maybe you equip three breakers for 15 and again spend the last point on a cooler.

There's also powerscore. Powerscore also changes things, but this actually favors guncount if there are just rare weapons we're talking about, like goblins. Though, the higher your guncount is, the more segmented your health pool becomes. This makes each segment added to the pool gradually becomes less advantageous, as explained here (alongside me explaining how much cabin health you need to match your guns):

As a final note, regarding rarity, rare radiators aren't worth using over epics. Even without the perk active, the seal adds a smidge more a2 per unit of powerscore than the chill does, and it adds much more benefit per energy spent to boot. "About the same in one category, can't even compete in another/several others/any other" should sound familiar by now: just use epic rads.

For coolers, it's different though; their powerscore scales in terms speed rather than the actual decrease in cooling time they provide, so via backtracking their denominator-additive scaling, you get a more PS efficiency with a taymyr: It removes a third of your cooltime for 270 PS, which is ~12.4% per PS. A shiver with the perk active is 13% per PS, but without is just 10.7%, so if you don't expect to keep it active, you can trade energy efficiency for lower PS efficiency. This is why you might see someone in raids using a growl, gas gen, and four vectors with a seal and a taymyr, but not so much with a chill and a shiver. Particularly if the cooler is fused.

Calculator link and video on the subject (with its own calculator):

Spoiler

Tweakable graph used in the prior images: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/6ynllsyluh

Video: 

 

 

Edited by XR57
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best uses for coolers are getting the cooling rate high enough to keep the spectre bonus, and now to use the breaker perk more often.

for the rest, radiators all day long. allows you to unload your weps for ages, and if you only tap fire your mgs there is no disadvantage difference in dps.

conveniently, epic radiator is also a little less ps than epic cooler. but i guess thats mostly because it is smaller and has less structure.

Edited by forc3dinduction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Epic radiator + 3 MG or mini guns, constantly on the move. Tap to shoot unless enemy is too close. Just have to keep an eye on the heat. Works for me.:002:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@XR57

You can see that you really enjoy creating this kind of "Guides" and I think you spend a lot of time on it. Compliments for the attempt.

2 small points of criticism:

1. Far too much text to tell something very basic.

2. Old wine in new bottle.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, forc3dinduction said:

best uses for coolers are getting the cooling rate high enough to keep the spectre bonus, and now to use the breaker perk more often.

for the rest, radiators all day long. allows you to unload your weps for ages, and [even] if you only tap fire your mgs there is no disadvantage difference in dps.

Practically speaking that's correct: I don't even think 5-shot MG bursts are enough for coolers to significantly increase a2 compared to radiators. If you already have 1 rad though, the combination of rad stacking and tap fire could maybe justify picking a cooler over radiator #2 though. Which is convenient with the spectre perk.

The same goes for stuff like whirlwinds. With four shot bursts, standing still, and recovering the entirety of my accuracy, even a taymyir gets me up to 16 shots per heat gauge. The first blue rad gets me up to 20, but if we're looking at epics and there's already a radiator equipped, you could equip a cooler then as a second pick. Probably not worth equipping a second module in the first place though; you definitely want at least three guns first if you do it at all.

Fidgets are weird and can actually can straight up prefer equipping a cooler over a radiator from the get-go, if you're tap firing up to just before max inaccuracy then coming all the way down, and actually hitting stuff. You're going to be just squeezing sometimes though, so it's better to say the first pick could go either way, but I definitely wouldn't put a second radiator on before a cooler. The fidget perk decreases the amount of heat per shot, so a lot of your "base" a2 comes from the perk and not the actual base a2 which radiators multiply, making them effectively pre-stacked for rads. They also get higher a2's than imps for this reason, until you're stacking like 6+ imps on a leviathan. 

2 hours ago, Qurzo said:

1. Far too much text to tell something very basic.

2. Old wine in new bottle.

To this day I'll still see people use bogus secondary-properties like DPM and DPG with slopes and alphas bleeding into them, when they should just be using the two sets of slopes and alphas for most guns. And even in the linked video, you still can see stuff like cooler stacking, when people should be comparing N-many radiators to a cooler plus N-minus-1 rads to see when the cooler becomes a good pick (typically 2 to 3 base rads without tap fire, or 1 with if the bursts are long enough) and using one cooler tops even with breakers. When I come across someone who can count on their fingers, it's a pleasant surprise.

2 hours ago, Qurzo said:

Compliments for the attempt.

...aren't you the guy who had to PM me asking where the firing range was? I'm not so sure you're in a position to be condescending. If it feels very basic, that's likely either because I just explained it well, or because you're assuming it's more basic than it really is.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XR57 said:

...aren't you the guy who had to PM me asking where the firing range was? I'm not so sure you're in a position to be condescending. 

*grin*  I told you why I didn't know there was also a shooting range in the old garage. Slightly weak argument, but I think it's fine if you need arguments like this to make a point

1 hour ago, XR57 said:

If it feels very basic, that's likely either because I just explained it well, or because you're assuming it's more basic than it really is.

The whole story about coolers and radiators is really not that complicated, you just make it look complicated. Looks pretty impressive but it is nothing more than recycling old news in a semi-scientific sauce :) You come with examples of weapons that you have never used yourself. And certainly not in practice, at most in a garage with builds from exhibition. Perhaps that is also the reason why it is not that basic for you?
By the way, I still think it is a really nice attempt, especially for someone who has never owned a radiator.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Qurzo said:

*grin*  I told you why I didn't know there was also a shooting range in the old garage. Slightly weak argument, but I think it's fine if you need arguments like this to make a point

at least I don't have to tell people when I'm grinning

1 hour ago, Qurzo said:

The whole story about coolers and radiators is really not that complicated, you just make it look complicated.

Hello dunning kruger

1 hour ago, Qurzo said:

never used yourself

So? You can walk on legs your whole life and still not know how they work. Not everyone with biology is a biologist, experience garuntees nothing. Logic and rationale comes first.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, XR57 said:

So? You can walk on legs your whole life and still not know how they work. Not everyone with biology is a biologist, experience garuntees nothing. Logic and rationale comes first.

That is a nice description, only you are a biologist who was born without legs and apparently cannot imagine that you do not need all that knowledge to walk. The same with coolers and radiators, if you use them you will soon discover that it is not that complicated.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Qurzo said:
22 hours ago, XR57 said:

So? You can walk on legs your whole life and still not know how they work. Not everyone with biology is a biologist, experience garuntees nothing. Logic and rationale comes first.

That is a nice description, only you are a biologist who was born without legs and apparently cannot imagine that you do not need all that knowledge to walk. The same with coolers and radiators, if you use them you will soon discover that it is not that complicated.

The fact that they can be used with ignorance, doesn't make their properties go away. Details don't go away if you choose to not to not see them. The fact that you walked around without those details doesn't mean this experience is "true" in any way, or that "reality" is as low-detail as your own perception is. That's just you. You can walk without knowledge of death and still die; not-seeing doesn't make it go away. Thanks for granting that I'm the more educated party though. 

Edited by XR57
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XR57 said:

The fact that they can be used with ignorance, doesn't make their properties go away. Details don't go away if you choose to not to not see them. The fact that you walked around without those details doesn't mean this experience is "true" in any way, or that "reality" is as low-detail as your own perception is. That's just you. You can walk without knowledge of death and still die; not-seeing doesn't make it go away. Thanks for granting that I'm the more educated party though. 

You still can't walk with all that knowledge. You must first learn to use your legs. If you have learned that, you might be able to go to a higher level with that knowledge, but you could also find that all those hours you spent on getting to know that knowledge were wasted if you had known how easy walking is.

1 hour ago, XR57 said:

 Thanks for granting that I'm the more educated party though. 

You have misunderstood something, I said that you were a biologist who was born without legs, I did not tell anything about myself, perhaps I am a biologist with legs who is concerned with more useful matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, lot of this stuff you can figure out by intuition and experience and you can draw some summaries out of those. If you just use Radiators and Coolers and try different combinations, you'll quickly realize stacking rads is more beneficial and if you want a cooler, most likely you'll ever need one. I can often figure out how but not necessarily why. Enter someone like XR57 who can explicitly explain what's going on with the why part.

 

Sure his guides can be pretty text-heavy and you'll likely can't comprehend it all on first read unless you're a math-head. But that's why the summaries are there (hint: it's the red part). They give you the key points on what's going on. Later if you read it again with the knowledge you gained from comprehending the summary part the rest of the text start to come together too.

 

There's nothing wrong with figuring things out with intuition. But also there's nothing wrong with wanting to get into the nitty gritty details of why and wanting to share it with the rest. Try not to discourage either option.

 

When someone figures out an answer via intuition and someone else comes to the same conclusion backing it up with hard science, it means you've come very very close to something that resembles an objective truth. That's a rare treat in these internet times when everybody cares about their subjective ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2019 at 9:24 AM, Qurzo said:

That is a nice description, only you are a biologist who was born without legs and apparently cannot imagine that you do not need all that knowledge to walk. The same with coolers and radiators, if you use them you will soon discover that it is not that complicated.

Do you tell your kids they don't need to learn to read too because you can live without it?
I'm not sure I understand the logic, if you don't want to do maths (I don't want to myself) you can just ignore the topic instead of going all "hurr durr didn't need all that maths boi just be a real man and think with your biceps". That sounds kinda anti-intellectual, counter-productive, and no matter how I look at it I can't see a single good reason to go that way.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so...radiator nerf/cooler buff when?

mgs etc could lose accuracy as they heat up (instead of how long they fire), which would make coolers very interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Qurzo said:

You still can't walk with all that knowledge. You must first learn to use your legs. If you have learned that, you might be able to go to a higher level with that knowledge, but you could also find that all those hours you spent on getting to know that knowledge were wasted if you had known how easy walking is.

You can construct prosthetics with it. You can do all sorts of things. But perception, is just a lie your mind tells you to make the world feel easier: and it leads to constant fallacy. I've already explained the kind of mistakes "intuitive" people make, which in-fallacy you've ignored (being one of them):

On 8/14/2019 at 2:59 PM, XR57 said:

To this day I'll still see people use bogus secondary-properties like DPM and DPG with slopes and alphas bleeding into them, when they should just be using the two sets of slopes and alphas for most guns. And even in the linked video, you still can see stuff like cooler stacking, when people should be comparing N-many radiators to a cooler plus N-minus-1 rads to see when the cooler becomes a good pick (typically 2 to 3 base rads without tap fire, or 1 with if the bursts are long enough) and using one cooler tops even with breakers. When I come across someone who can count on their fingers, it's a pleasant surprise.

 
10 hours ago, Spedemix said:

There's nothing wrong with figuring things out with intuition. But also there's nothing wrong with wanting to get into the nitty gritty details of why and wanting to share it with the rest. Try not to discourage either option.

When someone figures out an answer via intuition and someone else comes to the same conclusion backing it up with hard science, it means you've come very very close to something that resembles an objective truth. That's a rare treat in these internet times when everybody cares about their subjective ones.

This implies that there's an issue with facts when they don't match perception. But what that really means, is that there's an issue with perception, not facts.

If you're just saying that perceptual knowledge is valuable in its own right, then I agree. Even if we take a fully-delusional example like seeing an oasis in a desert, I'm sure we can all agree it'd be nice to know why the brain tells it's body such vast lies. But, that doesn't turn those lies-themselves into knowledge. They are a subject on which you would want knowledge, but they are not knowledge-themselves.

But the real kicker, is that you can think you understand that distinction, without really having the knowledge of the difference. It's self-applicable.

Take this image for example:

sk-2017_04_article_main_desktop.jpg

You might call it an optical illusion. I'll often hear that the image looks like it's moving. People claim to understand it though, on account of the fact that they can recognize and address it as an optical illusion. But, by virtue of the fact that they recognize and address IT rather than THEMSELVES as the source of the illusion, you now understand that they don't really get it. Because what's really happening to make the image vibrate, is that your eyes are moving. Even without the image they're constantly jittering, then being fed through a kind of neurological dampener to take the jitter out; the image just makes your own vision more apparent by exceeding what the dampener can take.

The takeaway though, is that there is no way which this image looks, moving or otherwise. What people take to be the-way-the-image-looks, is instead just the way their eyes see. As such, commenting on "your experience," is largely just commenting on "you." Even if you create a consensus, everyone agreeing that they see the oasis doesn't make it pop into reality.

(As a disclaimer, this doesn't ascribe blameworthiness to people via their perception. I don't mean to say you can go up to someone who's poor, and tell them "everything's all in your head." You can also be poor outside of your head. But the former isn't what proves the latter or grants knowledge of it.)

If you didn't live in Finland, I'd tell you to go smoke some pot. Seriously. It shakes things up just enough to see some of the patterns your brain is caking overtop of the world. "Rule of thirds" is a favorite of mine, I think most people know what that is. You'll walking around and think "wow, isn't it interesting that the tree to my left, and the post to my right, are juxtaposed each 1/3rd from the left and right ends of my vision?" Except, that isn't a matter of the tree, or the post. It's just where your brain chose to stop walking forward. And you'll feel that decision-itself, just as you can feel the vibrating of the image. Some day that pretty tree will be gone like the end of a book; I just stepped outside and saw the tree I was talking about getting cut down. Even a seashell's spiral is just how your eyes twist, as is the spiral pattern you take your eyes to have, ad-infinitum. Don't trust intuition. 

10 hours ago, Spedemix said:

There's nothing wrong with figuring things out with intuition. But also there's nothing wrong with wanting to get into the nitty gritty details of why and wanting to share it with the rest. Try not to discourage either option.

 

When someone figures out an answer via intuition and someone else comes to the same conclusion backing it up with hard science, it means you've come very very close to something that resembles an objective truth.

 

6 hours ago, forc3dinduction said:

so...radiator nerf/cooler buff when?

Compared to things like (epic) engines, radiators aren't so bad, and coolers are at least okay if not stacked, or if stacked behind one or two radiators. At most coolers would need a change to their stacking, but an epic already takes out half the time spend reloading. Obviously you can't let a second cooler take out the next remaining half as an additive time subtraction, so while I'd appreciate a change, there's really not much room to buff it imo. At best you could change the buff from a 100% speed addition to a 50% time division, so that instead of the time going down to 50%, 33%, 25% remaining, it would go to 50%, 25%, 12.5% (removing half of the numerator repeatedly instead of adding a flat 100% to the denominator).

The bigger issue is just reload-based weapons being typically better than heat-based ones modules or otherwise though.

Edited by XR57
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, XR57 said:

But perception, is just a lie your mind tells you to make the world feel easier: and it leads to constant fallacy. I've already explained the kind of mistakes "intuitive" people make, which in-fallacy you've ignored (being one of them):

Perception, yes it is a difficult thing, while you wrote this down and then ascribed certain characteristics to me, did you not notice then that you only did that on the basis of your own perception instead of facts?

Again, I have no problems at all with the fact that you have worked out a basically simple story down to the last detail.

Because let's face it, it's about these 2 elements and their effect on weapons.

Cooler: weapon cooling rates increases by X% the effect stacks
Radiator: reduce weapon heating rate by X% the effect stacks

Everyone who can read and can count reasonably understands this.

You start with the calculation in ideal circumstances and you still have to start with practice. That is your personal preference, nothing wrong with that. 

Others start with the basics, read the description craft or buy cooler and / or radiator and start working with it in practice and then continue calculating and experimenting to improve effectiveness in different circumstances. For the people who find the calculations difficult, your calculations in your guide can help them with that. Your recommendations and conclusions in your guide, on the other hand, are much less valuable because they are based on ideal circumstances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Qurzo said:

Perception, yes it is a difficult thing, while you wrote this down and then ascribed certain characteristics to me, did you not notice then that you only did that on the basis of your own perception instead of facts?

Oh, ad infinitum, infact.

4 minutes ago, Qurzo said:

Cooler: weapon cooling rates increases by X% the effect stacks
Radiator: reduce weapon heating rate by X% the effect stacks

Except that describes in no-way how the effect stacks, lmao. From those descriptions alone you can't decide which is superior, which means they aren't enough.

5 minutes ago, Qurzo said:

Your recommendations and conclusions in your guide, on the other hand, are much less valuable because they are based on ideal circumstances.

No, they're based off of ALL occurrences. There are ZERO circumstances in which the details I've mentioned are not present. You simply choose to look away from those details sometimes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, XR57 said:

No, they're based off of ALL occurrences. There are ZERO circumstances in which the details I've mentioned are not present. You simply choose to look away from those details sometimes.

You are talking about your calculations, you know I was talking about really using them, in battle against opponents, different builds etc etc. I had expected a slightly more sensible answer, not so. Never mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Qurzo said:
Quote

No, they're based off of ALL occurrences. There are ZERO circumstances in which the details I've mentioned are not present. You simply choose to look away from those details sometimes.

You are talking about your calculations, you know I was talking about really using them, in battle against opponents, different builds etc etc.

Oh really? And tell me, under which circumstances do the details I presented fail to be there?

None, because they're always there, as I said. There's no weapon like spark that zaps radiators to change them into something else: they are precisely what I said they are, and they are that way, in all scenarios, as-I-said. Maybe you need to re-read the guide; I doubt you did before commenting.

Edited by XR57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, XR57 said:

Oh really? And tell me, under which circumstances do the details I presented fail to be there?

None, because they're always there, as I said. There's no weapon like spark that zaps radiators to change them into something else: they are precisely what I said they are, and they are that way, in all scenarios, as-I-said. Maybe you need to re-read the guide; I doubt you did before commenting.

Calm down, it is not necessary at all to be so defensive, of course your calculations do not change under different circumstances. Calculations! What does change under different circumstances in the game and the game style used is the optimum combination. That is what my feedback is about, your recommendations and conclusions.

Again I do not question your calculations at all, they can be a useful tool for people who have difficulty making the calculation themselves.

p.s. Spark has an indirect, speed-reducing effect on vehicle, influence on epic radiators and coolers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Qurzo said:

Calm down, it is not necessary at all to be so defensive, of course your calculations do not change under different circumstances.

Not calculations: details. As in, the-reality. Because I'm talking about reality, while you're just talking about experience. That's the difference.

9 hours ago, Qurzo said:

That is what my feedback is about, your recommendations and conclusions.

No, it was about calling everything that went over your head "extraneous." In your state of intimidation, you gave yourself permission to critique others so as just to feel more knowledgeable than them. It's not constructive criticism: it's pathetic piggybacking. Someone throws out a number, you say your number is just theirs-plus-one. Someone makes a building, you say you'vde done it a little differently or a little better, like you're their judge or instructor when in reality you're not even a peer. So step off.

9 hours ago, Qurzo said:

Spark has an indirect, speed-reducing effect on vehicle, influence on epic radiators and coolers.

Emphasis on indirect because they still work the same way when sparked. A car going at 30kmph while sparked is the same as a car going at 30kmph otherwise; the radiators/coolers themselves still have the same relation between inputs and outputs.

Edited by XR57
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

coldfire found in his tests that after firing stops, it takes an additional .1s before cooldown starts. so radiators are better off again since they allow for less cooldown periods

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, XR57 said:

Not calculations: details. As in, the-reality. Because I'm talking about reality, while you're just talking about experience. That's the difference.

No, it was about calling everything that went over your head "extraneous." In your state of intimidation, you gave yourself permission to critique others so as just to feel more knowledgeable than them. It's not constructive criticism: it's pathetic piggybacking. Someone throws out a number, you say your number is just theirs-plus-one. Someone makes a building, you say you'vde done it a little differently or a little better, like you're their judge or instructor when in reality you're not even a peer. So step off.

Apparently the only reality you know is in the stats, you are even more disturbed than I thought. Those stats were already there, you really haven't discovered any new details. And if you don't want feedback or find it difficult to deal with it, and don't want to discuss it in a normal way, you shouldn't publish Guides based solely on stats and give gameplay advice without trying them out yourself because apparently you are convinced that stats or details as you call them tell the whole story. Or is it because of the simple fact that you do not understand how this game works and therefore try to explain it from stats.
Since you do not want to respond to feedback or criticism in terms of content and only come up with unfounded personal attacks, I wish you further enjoyment in your own reality.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, forc3dinduction said:

coldfire found in his tests that after firing stops, it takes an additional .1s before cooldown starts.

That's in the OP's math...

 
1 hour ago, Qurzo said:

Those stats were already there, you really haven't discovered any new details.

Oh really? Because earlier, you were saying that the details weren't necessarily, or weren't in all scenarios. But now you've changed your mind, and are claiming you knew the same things I knew, all along. Except, you're doing so in such a fashion that establishes yourself as some kind of expert. Hence my previous post:

4 hours ago, XR57 said:

In your state of intimidation, you gave yourself permission to critique others so as just to feel more knowledgeable than them. It's not constructive criticism: it's pathetic piggybacking. Someone throws out a number, you say your number is just theirs-plus-one. Someone makes a building, you say you'vde done it a little differently or a little better, like you're their judge or instructor when in reality you're not even a peer. So step off.

This is no different from our argument about dunning kruger. First, you say the DK effect isn't real. Then, I provide actual data and citation. Afterward, you change you position to "oh, the DK effect is tooootally real," but then you pretend to somehow understand it better, despite not having even believed in it until after I'd shown you. So, you're welcome for the information. But, please stop posting if you're going to deceitfully weasel around every time. Every time I post data, I post it, and it stays. And that's what reality is: what stays, not what is simply "experience." Every time you post your "experiences," they change to agree with the data. And then you revise yourself and claim they agreed all along. When dealing with dishonest and deceptive people such as yourself, I can't expect a fair argument from you; any fairness I afford will simply be abused, as demonstrated by your own actions. So, yes, I'm going to make it personal, and target your own actions. That's how you eliminate unproductive people from discourse. If you were really smiling, and not lying, you wouldn't have to write the word *grin* at the top of your post. "Fraud" is not simply a position or occupation of yours: it's one of your key personality traits.

Edited by XR57
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, XR57 said:

That's in the OP's math...

 

Oh really? Because earlier, you were saying that the details weren't necessarily, or weren't in all scenarios. But now you've changed your mind, and are claiming you knew the same things I knew, all along. Except, you're doing so in such a fashion that establishes yourself as some kind of expert. Hence my previous post:

This is no different from our argument about dunning kruger. First, you say the DK effect isn't real. Then, I provide actual data and citation. Afterward, you change you position to "oh, the DK effect is tooootally real," but then you pretend to somehow understand it better, despite not having even believed in it until after I'd shown you. So, you're welcome for the information. But, please stop posting if you're going to deceitfully weasel around every time. Every time I post data, I post it, and it stays. And that's what reality is: what stays, not what is simply "experience." Every time you post your "experiences," they change to agree with the data. And then you revise yourself and claim they agreed all along. When dealing with dishonest and deceptive people such as yourself, I can't expect a fair argument from you; any fairness I afford will simply be abused, as demonstrated by your own actions. So, yes, I'm going to make it personal, and target your own actions. That's how you eliminate unproductive people from discourse. If you were really smiling, and not lying, you wouldn't have to write the word *grin* at the top of your post. "Fraud" is not simply a position or occupation of yours: it's one of your key personality traits.

Here is some data that stayed, looks like you see weird things in data.

On 7/19/2019 at 12:31 AM, Qurzo said:

We already know you can google, but still don't understand it do you? Statistics like DK effect are interesting but they don't say anything about a individual. Thats why it doesn't exist for an individual person. 

Sorry I interrupted your roasting Sigma thing. Stage is for you again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.