Printable View
I missed Ramorak's Nuke Table and I got tired of hoping someone would find him to fix his site or that someone might find the time to put one up in its place, so I hacked something together by starting with Ramorak's Nuke Table page.
My calculations may be off. I don't have anywhere near as much experience with these calculations, but hopefully my results are more or less correct:
http://nano.exofire.net/nukes.html
or mirrored at
http://nano.byethost12.com/nukes.html
Finally.
I was really saddened when Ram's table died. This looks just as good. Fantastic job!
Edit: Just noticed that even after putting in my level as 215, it still gave me results for a 216 nuke. (Izgimmers Inferno)
DM damage seems a bit high, also could use a spot for +damage add, otherwise very nice and should be good for determining the best nuke to use at a given level.
Ok. Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't understand that the requirement is "Greater than" and not "Greater than or equal to".Quote:
Originally Posted by Raggy
I've fixed it and added a level column in the output.
As for the damage being high: I know that's going to be a problem because my computations are too simplistic. I take a lot of short cuts:
1) Nanos that do multiple damage (such as Detonation Matrix or Power Surge) I assume that the target has all of the other nanos running that cause additional damage.
2) I do adjust for target AC, but I do not take into account target Def/NR which means every nuke will land for the average damage, which is simply computed as (maxdmg-mindmg)/2 + mindmg. In my calculations you never miss / your target never resists.
I forgot about the new add damage (points instead of percent) that now affects nukes. I can add that, but it will further skew the already over-estimated damage.
Howdy
Rolled my first NT just a few days ago & was looking at his broken page-- it happens.
Thank you & thanks to him as well!
Thanks for making a replica of the old "Ramorak's Nuke Table"!
I stickied for easier access. This is very helpful to all NTs. Thank you for doing this!
Woot! I got a sticky!
Ok. Thanks to Edta for finding me some way to incorporate Nano Resist into my calculations (from this thread: (http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...=559857&page=2)
I've updated the nuke table calculation with "Target NR". Although Ebag333's formula was derived from tests at full def, I don't believe it should significantly for anyone at full agg (I don't think the aggdef bar affects your attack ratings, only your inits and defense skills).
I now multiply the average damage by the nuke land rate, which significantly (in some cases) reduces the total damage of the nuke.
As such, I've also added a +damage field for damage buffing items -- the difficulty is that damage is added to nukes on a per-damage-type basis. I don't want to have fields for each type of damage and check what type do damage each nuke does. Just stick in an average +damage value in that field.
While the attacker's aggdef bar status does not (or only slightly) affect the land rate, the defenders aggdef bar does matter a lot. I thought he was talking about the defenders aggdef bar, but in hindsight, it doesn't actually say that. Either way, Ebag333's calculator also took the defenders aggdef bar into account. The formula I gave you is for the defender being full def.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lliers
It's hard to tell how accurate it is. For one, Ebag's calculations were pvp tested, might be different pvm.
I don't think it's an issue the calculations are only for one defenders aggdef bar setting. After all we don't know the nr of mobs. We just have to take a guess anyway.
I did notice a bug with your damage calculations: damage is being subtracted rather than added. Also, the highest number you can enter seems to be 99, would be good to get 1 more digit in that field.
Fixed and fixed. ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Edta
your nano init calculator is wrong. Says Implacability of the second law will be capped at full def @ 2600 nano init which is not true.
FYI up to 1200 nano init, every 200 init decreases cast time by 1 second. After 1200 init this increases to 600 per second. Nanos have cast time reduced by 1 second at full aggro and have one second added at full def and no change at neutral (88%~)
This is the formula I'm using to adjust attack time for nano init:
if init is less than or equal to 1200, then attack time is reduced by 1 second for every 200 nano init.Code:if ( document.forms[0].ni.value <= 1200 )
at -= document.forms[0].ni.value / 200;
else
at -= (1200 + ((document.forms[0].ni.value-1200)/3.0))/200;
else attack time is reduced by 1 second for every 600 nano init over 1200 nano init with an additional 6 seconds of reduction for the first 1200 nano init.
This is the formula I'm using to adjust attack time for agg def bar:
Which works out to 1.25 second reduction at 100% agg and 0.25 second penalty at 100% def (the values goes from -100 for all def to +100 all agg) and scales linearly in between.Code:at = -(1.5*document.forms[0].aggdef.value+100)/200;
I searched around for some definitive answer to how the aggdef bar affects nano init, and this was the formula that seemed to be in the middle of the all the various estimates and guesses. The "neutral 88% position" (which translates to 75% agg position) that is correct for weapon inits does not appear to be true for nano init.
I apply aggdef adjustment before nano init adjustment. If you have references for me for better formulas or specific corrections, I'd be happy to make changes, but just telling me that my computation is incorrect doesn't help me figure out what's correct.
I never asserted my calculations were correct. In fact if you scroll up to the OP, you'll see that I fully expect my calculations to be off. I just cobbled together formulas that I found to give results that at least sort the the nanos in the correct order in terms of DPM. I know for a fact my damage estimates are way off in many cases.
http://anarchyonline.wikia.com/wiki/...ated#Nano_Init
seems I was wrong as well but I believe these are the correct numbers.
Those aggdef numbers seem lifted directly from the aggdef numbers for weapon init adjustments. That's one of about three or four different values I've seen.
Does everyone agree on those numbers?
well i tested it in game with the example it gave. At 2424 I could instant cast layers but when i took my nanite board off and was at 2324 it was not instant.
Ok then. I'll adjust the code and the AOU guide. Thanks.
I've been checking in on the forums here from month to month to see if anything good had ever started developing from the FC end. The new GM brings me much hope, and I started downloading a new copy of the client.
That being said, this rebuild of yours is a thing of glorious beauty. Thank you VERY VERY much. If you need another mirror site, I'm happy to host it on a site I host, if the overhead is low. :-)
Freezing Lancets is incorrectly stated as having 1s recharge (making it appear to do a bit less than double the damage of Enfraam's Glacial Encasement). This is wrong - while AUNO says recharge is capped at 1 second this is impossible, as recharge is never reduced by inits (and its true recharge is always 2.92s).
Yea, I don't know why they even hint toward recharge time being "capped at 1 sec". It's not possible to reduce it in any way, obviously.
I took the nano database from xyphos's now defunct website because I don't have a database parser of my own, and that's what the recharge was listed as there. I'll change the recharge from 1.00 to 2.92 when I get around to it. Thanks.