Talk:UFOs - Revision history

Magic9mushroom: /* Craft destruction */ stuffed my numbers, it's right now

2018-07-02T08:51:07Z

Craft destruction: stuffed my numbers, it's right now

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:51, 2 July 2018
Line 152:		Line 152:
	\|-		\|-
	!Medium Scout		!Medium Scout
	\|0%\|\|0%\|\|0.04%\|\|0%\|\|30.99%\|\|26.72%		\|0%\|\|0%\|\|0.04%\|\|0%\|\|15.99%\|\|26.72%
	\|-		\|-
	!Large Scout		!Large Scout
	\|0%\|\|0%\|\|0%\|\|0%\|\|5.23%\|\|8.26%		\|0%\|\|0%\|\|0%\|\|0%\|\|2.70%\|\|8.26%
	\|}		\|}

	The chances for the Small Scout are simply the probabilities to destroy in 1 hit, since all weapons except the Cannon will at least crash the Small Scout in 1 hit. This is also the case for the Medium Scout attacked with Fusion Balls. The others, however (Large Scout, and Medium Scout vs. Avalanche/Plasma Beam) are the chance that the first shot '''doesn't''' crash it multiplied by the conditional probability that the second shot destroys it outright. [[User:Magic9mushroom\|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom\|talk]]) 10:43, 2 July 2018 (CEST)		The chances for the Small Scout are simply the probabilities to destroy in 1 hit, since all weapons except the Cannon will at least crash the Small Scout in 1 hit. This is also the case for the Medium Scout attacked with Fusion Balls. The others, however (Large Scout, and Medium Scout vs. Avalanche/Plasma Beam) are the chance that the first shot '''doesn't''' crash it multiplied by the conditional probability that the second shot destroys it outright. [[User:Magic9mushroom\|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom\|talk]]) 10:43, 2 July 2018 (CEST)

Magic9mushroom: /* Craft destruction */ missed a decimal place

2018-07-02T08:44:16Z

Craft destruction: missed a decimal place

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:44, 2 July 2018
Line 149:		Line 149:
	\|-		\|-
	!Small Scout		!Small Scout
	\|0%\|\|58.33%\|\|100%\|\|58.3%\|\|100%\|\|100%		\|0%\|\|58.33%\|\|100%\|\|58.33%\|\|100%\|\|100%
	\|-		\|-
	!Medium Scout		!Medium Scout

Magic9mushroom: /* Craft destruction */ new section

2018-07-02T08:43:20Z

Craft destruction: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:43, 2 July 2018
Line 136:		Line 136:

	Not if you're using Firestorms against Terror ships or using Interceptors at all. One Plasma Beam takes (obviously) twice as long to down a UFO, so there's a higher chance it'll escape before you can down it. I don't think we should advise people to use just one Plasma Beam; there are clearly advantages to mounting two on anything not named the Avenger (and the Avenger WILL be squaring off against Battleships on a regular basis so it's largely a moot point). Opinions? [[User:Magic9mushroom\|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom\|talk]]) 09:23, 14 August 2014 (EDT)		Not if you're using Firestorms against Terror ships or using Interceptors at all. One Plasma Beam takes (obviously) twice as long to down a UFO, so there's a higher chance it'll escape before you can down it. I don't think we should advise people to use just one Plasma Beam; there are clearly advantages to mounting two on anything not named the Avenger (and the Avenger WILL be squaring off against Battleships on a regular basis so it's largely a moot point). Opinions? [[User:Magic9mushroom\|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom\|talk]]) 09:23, 14 August 2014 (EDT)

			== Craft destruction ==

			I just tested the mechanics of interception with a craft with two weapons of the same type. Specifically, I used an Avenger with twin Fusion Balls to attack a Medium Scout, and the Medium Scout was crashed. This implies that simultaneous hits are impossible, even with matching weapons, as it is impossible for two Fusion Balls (damage range 115-230, cannot miss) to do less damage than the Medium Scout's hull strength of 200.

			This means that, in order to destroy a craft, a weapon must take it from 50% damage or less to 100% damage or more in a single hit. This is clearly impossible for anything bigger than a Large Scout, as no weapon can deal more than 230 damage per hit.

			For interest's sake, here are the probabilities of destroying the various destructible craft with the various weapons:

			{\| class="wikitable"
			!UFO/Weapon!!Cannon!!Stingray!!Avalanche!!Laser Cannon!!Plasma Beam!!Fusion Ball
			\|-
			!Small Scout
			\|0%\|\|58.33%\|\|100%\|\|58.3%\|\|100%\|\|100%
			\|-
			!Medium Scout
			\|0%\|\|0%\|\|0.04%\|\|0%\|\|30.99%\|\|26.72%
			\|-
			!Large Scout
			\|0%\|\|0%\|\|0%\|\|0%\|\|5.23%\|\|8.26%
			\|}

			The chances for the Small Scout are simply the probabilities to destroy in 1 hit, since all weapons except the Cannon will at least crash the Small Scout in 1 hit. This is also the case for the Medium Scout attacked with Fusion Balls. The others, however (Large Scout, and Medium Scout vs. Avalanche/Plasma Beam) are the chance that the first shot '''doesn't''' crash it multiplied by the conditional probability that the second shot destroys it outright. [[User:Magic9mushroom\|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom\|talk]]) 10:43, 2 July 2018 (CEST)

Magic9mushroom: oops

2014-08-14T13:23:51Z

oops

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 14 August 2014
Line 129:		Line 129:

	:You are right. Failing to down a Battleship with 3 unharmed craft would be ''extremely'' unlucky. The absolute minimum damage from 12 FBLs is 1380. The probability of getting below 1600 on the total of 12 independent random values is far less than 16% in fact, I would guess it's well below 1%. You are right, I was thinking of the (quite likely) case with Interceptors when one Interceptor is destroyed by return fire and so only 10 FBLs hit, average damage 1725. Not sure what the original author was doing saying 4 craft are required.[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:00, 14 February 2010 (EST)		:You are right. Failing to down a Battleship with 3 unharmed craft would be ''extremely'' unlucky. The absolute minimum damage from 12 FBLs is 1380. The probability of getting below 1600 on the total of 12 independent random values is far less than 16% in fact, I would guess it's well below 1%. You are right, I was thinking of the (quite likely) case with Interceptors when one Interceptor is destroyed by return fire and so only 10 FBLs hit, average damage 1725. Not sure what the original author was doing saying 4 craft are required.[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:00, 14 February 2010 (EST)

	~~== Single Plasma Beams ==~~

	~~"Only a single Plasma Beam is necessary, except against Battleships."~~
	~~"With a Plasma Beam you will always have stand off range advantage against anything short of a Battleship, making dual Plasma Beams unnecessary."~~

	Not if you're using Firestorms against Terror ships or using Interceptors at all. One Plasma Beam takes (obviously) twice as long to down a UFO, so there's a higher chance it'll escape before you can down it. I don't think we should advise people to use just one Plasma Beam; there are clearly advantages to mounting two on anything not named the Avenger (and the Avenger WILL be squaring off against Battleships on a regular basis so it's largely a moot point). Opinions?

	== Single Plasma Beams ==		== Single Plasma Beams ==

Magic9mushroom: /* Single Plasma Beams */ new section

2014-08-14T13:23:21Z

Single Plasma Beams: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 14 August 2014
Line 136:		Line 136:

	Not if you're using Firestorms against Terror ships or using Interceptors at all. One Plasma Beam takes (obviously) twice as long to down a UFO, so there's a higher chance it'll escape before you can down it. I don't think we should advise people to use just one Plasma Beam; there are clearly advantages to mounting two on anything not named the Avenger (and the Avenger WILL be squaring off against Battleships on a regular basis so it's largely a moot point). Opinions?		Not if you're using Firestorms against Terror ships or using Interceptors at all. One Plasma Beam takes (obviously) twice as long to down a UFO, so there's a higher chance it'll escape before you can down it. I don't think we should advise people to use just one Plasma Beam; there are clearly advantages to mounting two on anything not named the Avenger (and the Avenger WILL be squaring off against Battleships on a regular basis so it's largely a moot point). Opinions?

			== Single Plasma Beams ==

			"Only a single Plasma Beam is necessary, except against Battleships."
			"With a Plasma Beam you will always have stand off range advantage against anything short of a Battleship, making dual Plasma Beams unnecessary."

			Not if you're using Firestorms against Terror ships or using Interceptors at all. One Plasma Beam takes (obviously) twice as long to down a UFO, so there's a higher chance it'll escape before you can down it. I don't think we should advise people to use just one Plasma Beam; there are clearly advantages to mounting two on anything not named the Avenger (and the Avenger WILL be squaring off against Battleships on a regular basis so it's largely a moot point). Opinions? [[User:Magic9mushroom\|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom\|talk]]) 09:23, 14 August 2014 (EDT)

Magic9mushroom: /* Single Plasma Beams */ new section

2014-08-14T13:23:08Z

Single Plasma Beams: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 14 August 2014
Line 129:		Line 129:

	:You are right. Failing to down a Battleship with 3 unharmed craft would be ''extremely'' unlucky. The absolute minimum damage from 12 FBLs is 1380. The probability of getting below 1600 on the total of 12 independent random values is far less than 16% in fact, I would guess it's well below 1%. You are right, I was thinking of the (quite likely) case with Interceptors when one Interceptor is destroyed by return fire and so only 10 FBLs hit, average damage 1725. Not sure what the original author was doing saying 4 craft are required.[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:00, 14 February 2010 (EST)		:You are right. Failing to down a Battleship with 3 unharmed craft would be ''extremely'' unlucky. The absolute minimum damage from 12 FBLs is 1380. The probability of getting below 1600 on the total of 12 independent random values is far less than 16% in fact, I would guess it's well below 1%. You are right, I was thinking of the (quite likely) case with Interceptors when one Interceptor is destroyed by return fire and so only 10 FBLs hit, average damage 1725. Not sure what the original author was doing saying 4 craft are required.[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:00, 14 February 2010 (EST)

			== Single Plasma Beams ==

			"Only a single Plasma Beam is necessary, except against Battleships."
			"With a Plasma Beam you will always have stand off range advantage against anything short of a Battleship, making dual Plasma Beams unnecessary."

			Not if you're using Firestorms against Terror ships or using Interceptors at all. One Plasma Beam takes (obviously) twice as long to down a UFO, so there's a higher chance it'll escape before you can down it. I don't think we should advise people to use just one Plasma Beam; there are clearly advantages to mounting two on anything not named the Avenger (and the Avenger WILL be squaring off against Battleships on a regular basis so it's largely a moot point). Opinions?

Ufo.mesh at 13:14, 30 August 2010

2010-08-30T13:14:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:14, 30 August 2010
Line 129:		Line 129:

	:You are right. Failing to down a Battleship with 3 unharmed craft would be ''extremely'' unlucky. The absolute minimum damage from 12 FBLs is 1380. The probability of getting below 1600 on the total of 12 independent random values is far less than 16% in fact, I would guess it's well below 1%. You are right, I was thinking of the (quite likely) case with Interceptors when one Interceptor is destroyed by return fire and so only 10 FBLs hit, average damage 1725. Not sure what the original author was doing saying 4 craft are required.[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:00, 14 February 2010 (EST)		:You are right. Failing to down a Battleship with 3 unharmed craft would be ''extremely'' unlucky. The absolute minimum damage from 12 FBLs is 1380. The probability of getting below 1600 on the total of 12 independent random values is far less than 16% in fact, I would guess it's well below 1%. You are right, I was thinking of the (quite likely) case with Interceptors when one Interceptor is destroyed by return fire and so only 10 FBLs hit, average damage 1725. Not sure what the original author was doing saying 4 craft are required.[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:00, 14 February 2010 (EST)

	~~== XcomUtil 9.7 (and probably later) ==~~
	Using XcomUtil 9.7 I found that it doesn't remove a Small Scout from the Battlescape as it was said in this article. Maybe, there's any flag for it, but I didn't look for it. And I don't remember if XcomUtil ever asked me about the removal during the install and setup. Maybe, this info must be corrected or tested by someone else. --[[User:Ufo.mesh\|ufo.mesh]] 09:13, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

Ufo.mesh at 13:13, 30 August 2010

2010-08-30T13:13:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:13, 30 August 2010
Line 129:		Line 129:

	:You are right. Failing to down a Battleship with 3 unharmed craft would be ''extremely'' unlucky. The absolute minimum damage from 12 FBLs is 1380. The probability of getting below 1600 on the total of 12 independent random values is far less than 16% in fact, I would guess it's well below 1%. You are right, I was thinking of the (quite likely) case with Interceptors when one Interceptor is destroyed by return fire and so only 10 FBLs hit, average damage 1725. Not sure what the original author was doing saying 4 craft are required.[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:00, 14 February 2010 (EST)		:You are right. Failing to down a Battleship with 3 unharmed craft would be ''extremely'' unlucky. The absolute minimum damage from 12 FBLs is 1380. The probability of getting below 1600 on the total of 12 independent random values is far less than 16% in fact, I would guess it's well below 1%. You are right, I was thinking of the (quite likely) case with Interceptors when one Interceptor is destroyed by return fire and so only 10 FBLs hit, average damage 1725. Not sure what the original author was doing saying 4 craft are required.[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:00, 14 February 2010 (EST)

			== XcomUtil 9.7 (and probably later) ==
			Using XcomUtil 9.7 I found that it doesn't remove a Small Scout from the Battlescape as it was said in this article. Maybe, there's any flag for it, but I didn't look for it. And I don't remember if XcomUtil ever asked me about the removal during the install and setup. Maybe, this info must be corrected or tested by someone else. --[[User:Ufo.mesh\|ufo.mesh]] 09:13, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

Spike: Cesium is right

2010-02-14T19:00:55Z

Cesium is right

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:00, 14 February 2010
Line 127:		Line 127:
	----		----
	Spike: " (It's possible with 3 craft, but if you are even moderately unlucky the interception will fail).". I don't think the calculations show that. Damage is 50-100%, and we need 1600 damage. 2302230.58=1600. So there's a 16% chance of failure if all crafts survive. Possibly you meant this only for 3 interceptors which might not survive long enough to fire all their ammo? [[User:Cesium\|Cesium]] 13:03, 14 February 2010 (EST)		Spike: " (It's possible with 3 craft, but if you are even moderately unlucky the interception will fail).". I don't think the calculations show that. Damage is 50-100%, and we need 1600 damage. 2302230.58=1600. So there's a 16% chance of failure if all crafts survive. Possibly you meant this only for 3 interceptors which might not survive long enough to fire all their ammo? [[User:Cesium\|Cesium]] 13:03, 14 February 2010 (EST)

			:You are right. Failing to down a Battleship with 3 unharmed craft would be ''extremely'' unlucky. The absolute minimum damage from 12 FBLs is 1380. The probability of getting below 1600 on the total of 12 independent random values is far less than 16% in fact, I would guess it's well below 1%. You are right, I was thinking of the (quite likely) case with Interceptors when one Interceptor is destroyed by return fire and so only 10 FBLs hit, average damage 1725. Not sure what the original author was doing saying 4 craft are required.[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:00, 14 February 2010 (EST)

Cesium at 18:03, 14 February 2010

2010-02-14T18:03:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 14 February 2010
Line 124:		Line 124:

	::Ok, error located in the edit log. Zombie redid the table a bit ago and he changed the headings. "Crashed" and "Destroyed" are actually the POINTS that X-COM is assigned for doing such to the relevant craft. So X-COM gets 75 points for shooting down a Medium Scout, but earns 150 points if they vaporize the thing. I'll correct this immediately. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft\|Arrow Quivershaft]] 02:19, 19 March 2009 (EDT)		::Ok, error located in the edit log. Zombie redid the table a bit ago and he changed the headings. "Crashed" and "Destroyed" are actually the POINTS that X-COM is assigned for doing such to the relevant craft. So X-COM gets 75 points for shooting down a Medium Scout, but earns 150 points if they vaporize the thing. I'll correct this immediately. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft\|Arrow Quivershaft]] 02:19, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

			----
			Spike: " (It's possible with 3 craft, but if you are even moderately unlucky the interception will fail).". I don't think the calculations show that. Damage is 50-100%, and we need 1600 damage. 2302230.58=1600. So there's a 16% chance of failure if all crafts survive. Possibly you meant this only for 3 interceptors which might not survive long enough to fire all their ammo? [[User:Cesium\|Cesium]] 13:03, 14 February 2010 (EST)