## Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

The projects speaking tube.
alfred007
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Bethrezen wrote:The same holds true for the light cannon increase the damage by 10 but decrease the rate of fire proportionally now i figured that reducing the rate of tire by 15 would be enough to maintain the right balance but if not then it could always be turned down a touch more to say 40
With two damage upgrades, the one-third-rule doesn't take place for the light cannon. As you calculated it's doing a damage of 17 per round against hard structures, one-third would be 11. So because of the one-third-rule, it's not necessary to change the light cannon values. If you want to increase the base damage of the light cannon to 30 we have to decrease the ROF to 30. With a ROF of 40 and a base damage of 30, the light cannon would have a base damage per minute of 1640 and the lancer have 1760 as I calculated in my last post. So we would have some problems to make the medium cannon stronger than the light cannon but weaker than the lancer. If you want to reduce the ROF to 40, a base damage of 25 would give the light cannon a damage per minute of 1280.
So useful values would be a damage and ROF of 30 or damage of 25 and ROF of 40. Or we stay with the current values with a damage of 20 and a ROF of 60.
All damages per minute are calculated against half-tracked scorpion body tanks. I think we should mainly calculate the damage against units instead of structures because the key point of the game is to fight units and not structures.

So if you really want to increase the base damage for the light cannon I suggest the following values for cannons:

Light cannon
damage 25
firePause 15 = ROF of 40

Medium cannon
damage 50
firePause 30 = ROF of 20

Heavy cannon
damage 75
firePause 45 = ROF of 13

This would make the medium cannon with two damage upgrades slightly weaker than the lancer with one upgrade, the heavy cannon would be a viable alternative in alpha 12 against hovers and would be slightly weaker than the lancer after the other two damage upgrades in beta 1.

Bethrezen
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

With two damage upgrades, the one-third-rule doesn't take place for the light cannon. As you calculated it's doing a damage of 17 per round against hard structures, one-third would be 11
true but if you increase the damage of flamers and heavy machine-guns slightly to avoid invoking the one third rule then you have to increase the light cannon by the same amount or the heavy machine-guns ends up stronger then light cannons.
I think we should mainly calculate the damage against units instead of structures because the key point of the game is to fight units and not structures.
True but the flaw in that is when units have less armour then structures you might not invoke the one third rule vs units but you would still be invoking it vs structures so you need to balance vs the most heavily armoured target on the level and then work backwards

so on alpha 5 the most heavily armoured target is there structures not there units.
This would make the medium cannon with two damage upgrades slightly weaker than the lancer with one upgrade, the heavy cannon would be a viable alternative in alpha 12 against hovers and would be slightly weaker than the lancer after the other two damage upgrades in beta 1.
if i where you I'd test those values on alpha 10 because you may find that those values are a bit to weak, i mean i know from using lancers at 256 damage on alpha 10 that its still tricky to knock off there units without loosing your own and that's when heavy cannons are underpowered if heavy cannons are almost as strong as lancers then actually you might end up with a real up hill battle on your hands on alpha 10 with those values

also heavy cannons with a base of 75 and rate of fire of 13 is to low the damage value should be closer to 120 and the rate of fire should be around 15 if you are trying to make the heavy cannon mimic the performance of the lancer.

now obviously i haven't calculated that out but common sense tells you if the lancer has a base of 120 and a rate of fire of 10 then the there is no way the heavy cannon can only have a base damage of 75 and a rate of fire of 13 because that wouldn't even come close to matching the lancer you would need to either significantly increase the rate of fire or increase the upgrades or increase the base damage and or / a combination of all 3

alfred007
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Bethrezen wrote:
I think we should mainly calculate the damage against units instead of structures because the key point of the game is to fight units and not structures.
True but the flaw in that is when units have less armour vs structures you might not invoke the one third rule vs units but you would still be invoking it vs structures so you need to balance vs the most heavily armoured target on the level and then work backwards

so on alpha 5 the most heavily armoured target is there structures not there units.
That's why I said mainly and not exclusively. And also against structures in alpha 05, the one-third-rule doesn't take place for the light cannon with two damage upgrades as you have calculated yourself but only for the HMG because of the modifier for hard structures.
Bethrezen wrote:
This would make the medium cannon with two damage upgrades slightly weaker than the lancer with one upgrade, the heavy cannon would be a viable alternative in alpha 12 against hovers and would be slightly weaker than the lancer after the other two damage upgrades in beta 1.
if i where you I'd test those values on alpha 10 because you may find that those values are a bit to weak, i mean i know from using lancers at 256 damage on alpha 10 that its still tricky to knock off there units without loosing your own and that's when heavy cannons are underpowered if heavy cannons are almost as strong as lancers then actually you might end up with a real up hill battle on your hands on alpha 10 with those values.
Yes, it will be tricky not to lose units in alpha 10, especially when the tracked, mantis body, heavy cannon units of the NP comes in. But I played the campaign from alpha 01 until beta 06 with a base damage for the lancer of 120 and could win the level. And heavy cannons in alpha 10 are weaker than the lancer. The reason why they are a viable alternative in alpha 12 is that of the modifier of 120 for cannons against hovers. Lancers have only a modifier of 80 against hovers. Against tracked units, they are weaker. That they are a viable alternative to the lancer in beta 01 is because of the two other damage upgrades for the cannons in beta 01.

How I usually play alpha 10:
At the LZ of the NP in the NE, SE and S, I place each a group of 8 lancers attached to a commander. To achieve that I set the rally points of three of my factories near to the LZ of the NP, recycle my units at the end of alpha 09 and build my combat units new. During alpha 06 I had already built a ring of repair facilities at all these three NP LZ so that my units can get repaired very soon. At the LZ in the west and the northwest, I built walls so that the cyborgs can't move in the direction of my base. Behind the walls, I set the other two rally points of my factories and produce trucks there during alpha 09. Behind these trucks are some repair facilities so that the trucks can't be destroyed and the trucks immediately repair the walls when the cyborgs attack them. After my three combat groups destroyed the NP reinforcements I recycle some of the lancers and build new bombards and a sensor. With the bombards, I destroy the cyborgs and use the time to get prepared for alpha 11. I admit that it is difficult not to lose units in the SE corner because of the small space you have to manoeuvre.

If you think lancers are too weak in alpha 10 we can give the lancer the third damage upgrade during alpha 09. But this would mean that medium cannons are no longer a viable alternative to the lancer in alpha 10 and 11. With a base damage of 120 and three damage upgrades of each 25 %, the damage of the lancer would be 210 per rocket before modifier and enemy armour.

Edit:
Bethrezen wrote:now obviously i haven't calculated that out but common sense tells you if the lancer has a base of 120 and a rate of fire of 10 then the there is no way the heavy cannon can only have a base damage of 75 and a rate of fire of 13 because that wouldn't even come close to matching the lancer you would need to either significantly increase the rate of fire or increase the upgrades or increase the base damage and or / a combination of all 3
That's right but as I wrote above, in alpha 10 and 11 the heavy cannon is weaker than the lancer. And the project get the heavy cannon during alpha 11 so that the player will use it at the earliest in alpha 12. And as I also wrote above even that the heavy cannon is weaker than the lancer, because of the modifier against hovers it's a viable alternative in alpha 12. And during beta 01 the cannons get two more damage upgrades so that the heavy cannon can match the lancer. And with the current values in the camBalance mod we don't have these problems. It was a suggestion because you wanted to change the current values. I'm still of the opinion that we should move on with the current values in the camBalance mod.

Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Posts: 627
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

alfred007 wrote:I'm still of the opinion that we should move on with the current values in the camBalance mod.
Yeah, I too think the weapons are good right now. Light cannon is more than capable and takes down the NP units and hardcrete in a fair amount of time. Machine-guns and flamer are better suited for anti-personnel purposes and weaker structures, and there are plenty of those things in Alpha.

I do not want flamer and machine-gun being really great against hard structures. They may not be the best choice, and it will take some more time to destroy those structures with those weapons than with something better for the job (and flamers can destroy a hardpoint many, many times faster with this mod). And in Alpha 6 we get the best anti-structure weapon, bunker-buster, for that purpose. Flamer/HMG will still play an important role with keeping cyborgs in check later.

Also, I think there is one more MG damage upgrade to be given yet ("R-Wpn-MG-Damage04"). Which I don't believe was unlocked in Alpha campaign ever. Only a bonus for getting to Beta campaign.

So with that there is only a matter of checking all the research, particularly the defenses, for the remainder of Alpha 5 (technically Alpha 6 since most of the research can not be used on Alpha 5 anyway).

alfred007
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

I tested alpha 05 with the latest camBalance mod and I think it is good now as it is. I used 10 half-tracked light cannon tanks to fight the ground reinforcements, 16 mortars attached to a sensor with a lot of repair units as cannon fodder to fight the NP and 4 mortars attached to a sensor to fight the newly produced scavengers of the southern factory. I was able to research everything. In the log files are some new info messages. In the attached file are two wzlog-files. The file from yesterday is the one I played alpha 05 yesterday from the end of alpha 04 on until the end of alpha 05. The file from today I restarted from the beginning of beta 05 and stopped after my transport has landed just to reproduce the info messages.

So I think, if Bethrezen agrees, we can move on to alpha 06.
Attachments
logs alpha 5.zip

Bethrezen
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Ok so I have been playing about and if I understand this right then the one third rule is triggered when the damage that you would deal is either 0 or less then one third of your base damage.

With the current values the heavy machine-gun has

Damage of 30
Rate of fire of 107
A hard modifier of 25

So one third of 30 is 10

30 - 15 = 15
15 / 100 x 25 = 3.75

So that triggers the one third rule which means the modifier is to low

So that means that for the heavy machine gun with its current damage value the hard modifier can't be lower then 74 which gives

15 / 100 x 74 = 11.1 (rounded to 11)

otherwise it will just deal the default one third damage anyway.

flamers have

damage 36
rate of fire 34
hard modifier 40

So one third of 36 is 12

36 - 15 = 21
21 / 100 x 40 = 8.4

so the modifier is to low again which means that the hard modifier can't be lower then 62 which gives

21 / 100 x 62 = 13.02 (rounded to 13)

or to will just deal the default one third damage anyway.

light cannons have

damage 32
rate of fire 60
hard modifier 100

So one third of 32 is 10.66666667 (rounded to 11)

32 - 15 = 17

so that's fine as is and doesn't trigger the one third rule on there hard points.

So from this we can conclude that it might be a good idea to go though the modifiers for the machine-gun flamer light and medium cannons and double check them to make sure they haven't been set to low, because clearly the modifier for hard structure for machine-guns and flamer is to low.

alfred007
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Bethrezen wrote: Damage of 30
Rate of fire of 107
A hard modifier of 25

So one third of 30 is 10

30 - 15 = 15
15 / 100 x 25 = 3.75

So that triggers the one third rule which means the modifier is to low

So that means that for the heavy machine gun with its current damage value the hard modifier can't be lower then 74 which gives

15 / 100 x 74 = 11.1 (rounded to 11)
To calculate the real damage you have to multiplicate the damage with the modifier and then subtract the armour from this result. What you did is subtracting the armour from the damage and multiplicate this with the modifier. Or in a formula

What you did:
(damage - armour) x modifier

The real calculation is:
(damage x modifier) - armour

The result for the HMG is still the same that the one-third-rule takes place. But the calculated modifier is wrong. If you say the modifier should as high that the calculated damage is as high as the one-third-rule damage the formula is the following for the hardpoints in alpha 04.

30 x X - 15 = 10
X represents the searched modifier

The formula after rearrangement

X = (10 + 15) / 30
X = 0.833 or a modifer of 83.
Bethrezen wrote:So from this we can conclude that it might be a good idea to go though the modifiers for the machine-gun flamer light and medium cannons and double check them to make sure they haven't been set to low, because clearly the modifier for hard structure for machine-guns and flamer is to low.
Yes the modifers are as low that the one-third-rule takes place. But the weapons still deal a damage. Going through the modifiers would be a lot of work because you would have to do this for every weapon in every level because with every armour upgrade and every damage upgrade for the weapons the calculated minimum modifier changes. And to be honest I don't see the necessity to change the modifier that way that the calculated damage is as high as the one-third-rule damage. This would make no difference in gameplay because the damage would be still the same. So this would be a lot of work of calculation with no benefit. If you have a good reason you have not called us right now, you're welcome to convince me. At the moment I'm not convinced that this would be helpful.

Bethrezen
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

I don't see how that can possibly be right because for a start modifiers are always applied last that's way they are called modifiers.

So taking the heavy machine-gun as an example

Damage of 30
Rate of fire of 107
A hard modifier of 25

that would be

30 x 107 = 3210 damage per minute

next we work out what 75% of 3210 is

3210 /100 x 75 = 2407.5

so the final damage per minute would be

3210 - 2407.5 = 802.5 damage per minute before you subtract armour

next we subtract armour

802.5 - 15 = 787.5 damage per minute after subtracting armour

and then to figure out what that would be per shot we do

802.5 /107 = 7.5 without subtracting armour
787.5 / 107 = 7.359813084 (rounded to 7.4) after subtracting armour

doing things this way everything adds up correctly because 25% of 30 is

30 /100 x 25% = 7.5

that's also something else the game gets wrong when calculating damage you only apply rounding when all your calculations are finished because if you apply rounding when you are still doing calculations then the answer you get will end up to high or to low due to rounding errors.

(damage x modifier) - armour

I can't see how you can possibly make the sums add up again taking the heavy machine-gun as an example

Damage of 30
Rate of fire of 107
A hard modifier of 25

30 x 0.25 = 7.5
7.5 - 15 = -7.5
-7.5 x 107 = -802.5 damage per minute

some how I highly doubt the heavy machine-gun is doing -802.5 damage per minute vs one of the new paradigms hard points, so i can only assume that what you say

(damage x modifier) - armour

what you actually mean is

(damage x rate of fire x modified) - armour

with regards to the modifiers i worked out above just half them and that should give you about the right answer so

heavy machine-gun
1/3 of 30 is 10 so 30 / 100 x 37 = 11.1

Flamer
1/3 of 36 is 12 so 36 / 100 x 34 = 12.24

so for the sake of simplicity we give both a hard modifier of 45 gives both a very slight boost against hard structures with out them being uber strong and avoid the issue of only dealing 1 third damage

alfred007
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Apparently, I wasn't clear enough
Bethrezen wrote:Doing your sums this way

(damage x modifier) - armour

I can't see how you can possibly make the sums add up again taking the heavy machine-gun as an example

Damage of 30
Rate of fire of 107
A hard modifier of 25

30 x 0.25 = 7.5
7.5 - 15 = -7.5
-7.5 x 107 = -802.5 damage per minute

some how I highly doubt the heavy machine-gun is doing -802.5 damage per minute vs one of the new paradigms hard points, so i can only assume that what you say

(damage x modifier) - armour

what you actually mean is

(damage x rate of fire x modified) - armour
It is right, that the HMG would do a theoretical negative damage if you do the usual calculation. That's why the one-third-rule takes place. Instead of doing the negative damage the HMG is doing a damage of one-third of the damage you see in the design screen. In this case, the HMG is doing a damage of 10 per round.

The formula (damage x modifier) - armour is the damage per round. If this calculated damage is lower than one-third of the damage shown in the design screen the weapon is dealing the damage of one-third of the damage shown in the design screen. So the real dealt damage per minute is either

((damage x modifier) - armour) x ROF

or

damage x 1/3 x ROF

whichever is higher.

That gives us for the HMG a dealt damage per minute to the hardpoints of the NP in alpha 04 of 10 x 107 = 1070.

You can see the formula in the beta guide here

And that's the reason why I don't understand why you want to increase the modifier for the machine gun so high that you reach the one-third damage with the calculated damage. In the game, the HMG would deal the same damage to the hardpoints as if you didn't change the modifier. So it would be additional work with no benefit or even changes in gameplay.

nearo
Rookie
Posts: 19
Joined: 31 Mar 2010, 17:50

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

alfred007 wrote:((damage x modifier) - armour) x ROF

or

damage x 1/3 x ROF

whichever is higher.
The 1/3 rule uses the modifier too. The formula in the link is a bit misleading, because it says "BASE DAMAGE", but the modifier is already applied there. So to be exact the real DPM is:

((damage x modifier) - armor) x ROF
or
damage x modifier x 1/3 x ROF

whichever is higher.

alfred007
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

nearo wrote:
alfred007 wrote:((damage x modifier) - armour) x ROF

or

damage x 1/3 x ROF

whichever is higher.
The 1/3 rule uses the modifier too. The formula in the link is a bit misleading, because it says "BASE DAMAGE", but the modifier is already applied there. So to be exact the real DPM is:

((damage x modifier) - armor) x ROF
or
damage x modifier x 1/3 x ROF

whichever is higher.
Oops, missed that

Thank you nearo.

Ok, then the one-third damage per round of the HMG against the hardpoints would be

30 x 25 % x 1/3 = 2.5 In the beta guide it's said this would be always rounded down so the dealt damage per round would be 2, the dealt damage per minute 214.

In this case, it makes sense to work on the modifiers, but in a different way we thought. Sorry Bethrezen, my fault.

Bethrezen
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

For me this it's simply about fixing errors if you are invoking the one third rule then you obviously have your settings wrong and they should be fixed.

I mean for the sake of argument assume for a minute that the one third rule didn't exist what would you do if weapons where dealing no damage or negative damage ? you'd fix it right.

which that is all I'm preposing here making sure that settings for weapons are set correctly because in my opinion relying on the one third rule to cover bad balancing is not good practice, yes its a bit of a pain but if something is worth doing its worth doing properly

I don't know maybe its just me but I was always taught that if you are going to do something take your time and do it correctly first time because if you don't then all that happens is it gets sent back to you and you get told to do it again and you keep getting told to do it again till you do it right therefore you may as well just do it properly the first time.

ok so I've been looking at alpha 1 again using ((damage x modifier) - armour) x ROF to work out the damage and here is what i have so far

Machine gun

1/3 of 12 is 4

at the end of alpha 1 the machine gun has the following

damage 12
rate of fire 150

the most heavily armoured structure the scav's have has an armour value of 7
its armour type is medium therefore i use the medium value of the anti personnel modifier which has a value of 65

12x0.65=7.8
7.8-7=0.8
0.8x150=120 per minute

however 1/3 of the machine-guns damage would be

4x150=600

600 before applying any modifiers or subtracting armour

600x0.65= 390
390 - 7 = 383

383 after applying the modifier and subtracting armour.

383/150=2.5 per shot

which equates to 2.5 per shot

so in order to not trigger the one third rule the medium anti personnel modifier for the machine-gun on alpha 1 should be 100 after collecting the upgrades or 120 before you collect the upgrades

10 x 1.2 = 12
12-7=5
5 x 150 = 750 per minute

12x1=12
12-7=5
5 x 150 = 750 per minute

flamer

12 / 3 = 4

On alpha 1 the flamer has the following since it does get any upgrades till alpha 02

damage 12
rate of fire 27

the most heavily armoured structure the scav's have has an armour value of 7
its armour type is medium therefore i use the medium value of the flamer modifier which has a value of 140

12x1.4=16.8
16.8-7= 9.8
9.8x27= 264.6 per minute excluding the DOT

since one third of the flamers base damage is 4x27=108 before applying any modifiers or subtracting armour

then the flamer is fine and can be left as is so only the machine-gun needs its modifier fixing.

alfred007
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Bethrezen wrote:ok so I've been looking at alpha 1 again using ((damage x modifier) - armour) x ROF to work out the damage and here is what i have so far

Machine gun

1/3 of 12 is 4

at the end of alpha 1 the machine gun has the following

damage 12
rate of fire 150

the most heavily armoured structure the scav's have has an armour value of 7
its armour type is medium therefore i use the medium value of the anti personnel modifier which has a value of 65

12x0.65=7.8
7.8-7=0.8
0.8x150=120 per minute
You're doing the same mistake as me. If you want to calculate the damage of the one-third-rule you have to include the modifier. The one-third-damage for the machine gun against medium structures is:

12 x 0.65 x 1/3 = 2.6 rounded down by the game to 2.

So the formula for the minimum modifier is

(12 x X) - 7 = 2

Rearranging the formula gives us:

X = (2 + 7) / 12 = 0.75 or an modifer of 75
I mean for the sake of argument assume for a minute that the one third rule didn't exist what would you do if weapons where dealing no damage or negative damage ? you'd fix it right.
Or you would implement the one-third-rule as the fixing result. Before we start to change the modifiers we should have a look at all the other levels we have tested so far and made then a decision. In alpha 01 you have no problems to win the level so this is in my eyes no good example of a decision to change the modifier.

Bethrezen
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

You're doing the same mistake as me. If you want to calculate the damage of the one-third-rule you have to include the modifier.
yeah except this isn't calculating the 1/3 rule

12x0.65=7.8
7.8-7=0.8
0.8x150=120 per minute

this first set of equations is using ((damage x modifier) - armour) x ROF to calculate its damage when the one third rule isn't being used.

this is calculating the one third rule

1/3 of 12 is 4x150=600

600x0.65= 390
390 - 7 = 383 per min
383/150=2.5 per shot

and as you can see i do include the modifier and it gives more or less the same answer you get when you do

12 x 0.65 x 0.333333333 = 2.599999997

and now to that we know that the minimum shot damage per shot should be 3 to avoid invoking the one third rule we can again do ((damage x modifier) - armour) x ROF

10 x 1 = 10
10-7=3
3 x 150 = 450 per minute

so before upgrades the modifier should be 100

12x0.85=10.2
10.2-7=3.2
3 x 150 = 450 per minute

after upgrades it should be 85

i think
10 x 1.2 = 12
12-7=5
5 x 150 = 750 per minute

12x1=12
12-7=5
5 x 150 = 750 per minute
is a typo because 1/3 of 12 is 4 so in order not to trigger the one third rule you would want that to be 1 point higher which is 5 however that is before you have applied the the modifier or deducted armour after applying the modifier and deducting armour that should actually be 3
In alpha 01 you have no problems to win the level so this is in my eyes no good example of a decision to change the modifier.
maybe not but if we are going to tackle this then it make sense to start at the beginning as it will have knock on effects on the later levels.

alfred007
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

### Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Bethrezen wrote:this is calculating the one third rule

1/3 of 12 is 4x150=600

600x0.65= 390
390 - 7 = 383 per min
383/150=2.5 per shot
No, it's not. You have included the armour of the medium structure and this is not included in the calculation of the one-third-damage.
See this post from nearo or look here in the formula site of the beta guide.

The formula of the one-third-rule for the damage per minute is still

(damage x modifier) x 1/3 x ROF

and thus the one-third-damage of the machine gun against medium structures is as I calculated in my last post.

Edit:
Bethrezen wrote:12 x 0.65 x 0.333333333 = 2.599999997

and now to that we know that the minimum shot damage per shot should be 3 to avoid invoking the one third rule we can again do ((damage x modifier) - armour) x ROF
And as you can also see on the formula site of the base guide the one-third damage will always be rounded down, even if it's 2.6 it's not rounded up to 3.