open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Some questions on shield recharge/resistance
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2006.12.16 19:46:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 30/06/2007 15:42:27

Oh, and as to the exact value for the stacking penality multiplier, you can use the following "reverse engineered" formula, it corresponds with in-game displayed values perfectly (some insignificant decimal might be off a bit once in a while, have never seen it off myself though).

Penality mod for Nth module = 0.5 ^ [ ((N-1) / 2.22292081)^2 ]
or, aprox = 0.8691199806 ^ [ (N-1)^2 ] (thanks Thalia Andrakonis for a more easily human-readable form)

1 : 1.0000000000
2 : 0.8691199806
3 : 0.5705831430
4 : 0.2829551534
5 : 0.1059926494 <- not good
6 : 0.0299911664 <- already pretty worthless
7 : 0.0064101831 <- practically pointless
8 : 0.0010349205
9 : 0.0001262127
10 : 0.0000116268
11 : 0.0000008090 <- this can only be acheived with 8 mods and 3 rigs, but as you can see it's negligible anyway

Bottom line, don't use more than 4 modules/rigs affecting the same stacking-nerfed attribute, because, for all practical intents and purposes, you are just wasting that slot (i.e. almost anything else would be better there).

PictPunk
Intergalactic Jesters
Veritas Immortalis
Posted - 2006.12.20 11:29:00 - [32]
 

Know how this works with sig radius? For example If I were to use shield extenders + shield extender rig. Whilst the shield hp aren't stack nerfed, is the sig radius increase?

Ryoka
Caldari
Posted - 2006.12.20 11:57:00 - [33]
 

Akira T, i love you mate!!!! thank you for that formula!!! i always had to use expirience values before!! you made my life so much easier now, thank you!!!

just out of interest, how did you manage to reverse engeneer that formula?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2006.12.20 12:07:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 20/12/2006 12:10:04
Originally by: Ryoka
Akira T, i love you mate!!!! thank you for that formula!!! i always had to use expirience values before!! you made my life so much easier now, thank you!!!
just out of interest, how did you manage to reverse engeneer that formula?

Well, it was pretty simple actually, but a bit of work.
On the forums, you could already find a few attempts of how the formula might look like, so I used a spreadsheet where all of the "candidates" were auto-calculated, based on a "master hidden constant value" I needed to modify in one place only.
Then, I took a scorp, undocked/docked 8 times, each time adding one extra T1 EM hardner, and copy-pasted the exact resists value in ship showinfo with all fited ones on.
Next step, separate column for DIFFERENCE between each formula's calculated value and actual in-game value.
Then go and modify by hand each decimal for the constants up/down, even add extra decimals, until the difference for one formula got to practically zero for all values.

The formula that worked out in the end was 0.5 ^ [ ((N-1) / 2.22292081xxx)^2 ], and you can go further in making it even more precise, but the practical difference is already so small as to not warrant any more effort... heck, even 2.223 is a very good aproximation already... anything beyond the 4th decimal is negligible anyway.

Originally by: PictPunk
Know how this works with sig radius? For example If I were to use shield extenders + shield extender rig. Whilst the shield hp aren't stack nerfed, is the sig radius increase?


AFAIK, sigradius increase is not stacking-nerfed, so every shield rig and every target painter you have on you makes it a lot worse (larger) as a flat number (no nerf to percentage increase).
Theoretically, you could make a frigate titan-sig-sized with enough TPs on it.

Ryoka
Caldari
Posted - 2006.12.20 12:25:00 - [35]
 

yeah tested it, your formula had a deviation of less than 0.00006. so totally neglectible, kudos mate, thx

Cwixlaxle
Posted - 2006.12.22 18:39:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Cwixlaxle on 22/12/2006 18:39:08
I'm starting to see how this all works. Please check to make sure that I have it down.

I have 2 T2 shield hardners on my my Raven that give 55% each, along with the skill at level 3. (shield compensation)

Modifiers: 45% (first hardner damage taken), 52.2% (2nd hardner damage taken)

From this point I figure that I end up with 76.51% resist, that is if I got the math and understand what you are talking about correct.

45%*52.2% = 23.49% (damage taken) converts to 76.51% (resist)

The question that I have is where does the natural resist of the ship come into play? Raven 40% Kinetic resist (I think). Do you have to re-figure it again using the 40% and the 76.51%?

23.49%*60% = 14.09% (dmg taken) or 85.91% (resist)

And from there where does the other bonuses figure in like the Crystal implant set, 15% resist for all 5. (there is a 6th one that I don't remember what it did) Is it stack-nerfed as well?

I think that I'm starting to understand what is happening, I just don't know how the extra variables work into the equation.

Verg Ere
Posted - 2006.12.23 15:13:00 - [37]
 

One thing that doesn't seem to have been made absolutely clear. Resistance modules, do not work on the resistances you currently have. They work on the dmg you would take.

If you have 75% resistance, that means you take 25% damage. All resistance modules would affect this 25%. A 50% hardener would decrease the dmg taken 25%*.50 = 12.5%. So your overall resistance is now 75%+12.5% = 87.5%.

A second module would now work on the remaining 100%-87.5% = 12.5% but with a stacking penalty. So an additional 50% hardener would decrease the dmg taken 12.5%*.50*.86(penalty) = 5.375%. So your overall resistance is now 87.5%+5.375% = 92.875%.

I believe they cap at 95%.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2006.12.23 15:13:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 23/12/2006 15:22:35
"I have 2 T2 shield hardners on my my Raven that give 55% each, along with the skill at level 3. (shield compensation)
Modifiers: 45% (first hardner damage taken), 52.2% (2nd hardner damage taken)


So far, absolutely correct. Noteworthy, the four shield compensations do nothing for active shield hardners.

From this point I figure that I end up with 76.51% resist, that is if I got the math and understand what you are talking about correct.
45%*52.2% = 23.49% (damage taken) converts to 76.51% (resist)


Yes, that is corect. But only if you had 0% base resists where you use those two T2 hardners (EM shield resist for instance).

The question that I have is where does the natural resist of the ship come into play? Raven 40% Kinetic resist (I think). Do you have to re-figure it again using the 40% and the 76.51%?
23.49%*60% = 14.09% (dmg taken) or 85.91% (resist)


Yes, that is precisely what you'll get on a "base 40%" resist ship with two T2 hardners running.


And from there where does the other bonuses figure in like the Crystal implant set, 15% resist for all 5. (there is a 6th one that I don't remember what it did) Is it stack-nerfed as well?
I think that I'm starting to understand what is happening, I just don't know how the extra variables work into the equation.


The Crystal set (unless it was changed without any anouncement whatsoever, doubt that) still has a bonus to shield boost amount.
That's NOT extra resists nor shield HP, it simply means when you use shield boosters, you get more shield per activation cycle than a person that doesn't have Crystal implants.
The implant set works with all normal shield boosters, but has no effect on capital shield boosters.


The only things that affect shield resistances are:

- ship-given bonuses (apply to base shield values, without nerfs), like the moa/ferox/rohk (IGNORE the ones listed for assault frigates, those are already factored in showinfo, even if they're listed as bonuses above showinfo stats)

- damage control shield resist bonus (apply without nerf, only one damage control can be active at a given time, bonus given only when active)

- then stacking-nerf together all the bonuses from: shield resist rigs, shield resistance amplifiers (with relevant compenstion skill bonus applied before stacknerf calculations), "on" active shield hardners at exactly what is written on them, and finally (if you have any) 3%*level of relevant compensation skill for all "off" active hardners

And that's it Wink

Originally by: Verg Ere
I believe they cap at 95%.


Nope, there's no "highest" non-100% theoretically possible number you can get to with any of your resists... well, none other than 100%, but THAT one IS impossible.
Practically however, due to the modules themselves (limited number of slots) and the stacking-nerfs, each ship does have a maximum possible for each of the resists.

Just an example... the Claymore has 92.5% *base* armor EM resist.
Add on top of that one T2 damage control (15%) and two deadspace amror EM hardners (64%), and you get to aproximately 98.98% armor EM resist (in other words, only 1.02% EM damage taken when hit on armor).

Shadarle
Posted - 2006.12.24 05:50:00 - [39]
 

Wow... I must say this should be stickied. This is by far the best explanation of stacking/resists on the forums. I almost have to wonder if the OP is not in on this... just using this as a way to help explain the system to everyone. This isn't a bad thing at all if it's true and it may not be, I think this is the best post I've ever read on these forums.

I came into this thread expecting to see a lot of people explaining this poorly and confusing the poor soul asking the question. It was a nice change of pace to see everything explained perfectly. We definitely need to get this stickied so we can always refer questions to it.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2006.12.24 14:09:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 24/12/2006 14:13:10
Hehe, thanks.
It doesn't really need to be stickied (somebody would have to edit the thread title, for starters), you could just do the "viral sig" thing (link to thread in it if you have some leftover space) and every time you see a stacking-related thread... just post a "see sig".

To explain how this thread came to be... to be honest, I was simply a bit bored that day, and in a "helpful" mood, so I really took the time to explain it properly, and I got extremely lucky to have the OP both understand it well enough and ask pertinent questions back Wink
And well, since I wrote all this stuff down already and it got "a bit bigger" than the initial question, I thought it's worth linkify-ing it in my sig, even if it takes a lot of sig space Rolling Eyes

Shadarle
Posted - 2006.12.24 17:54:00 - [41]
 

You should copy/paste the whole thread as a Q/A with the OP's permission of course. Then you could submit it to some EVE websites as a guide or some such. Or at least to have it yourself to post again in the future incase this thread ever got lost to a DB error.

Doppler Shift
Posted - 2006.12.25 05:00:00 - [42]
 

Now, now, let's make it a bit more difficult...

Do boni from IMPLANTS or SKILLS get stack nerfed, or are they calculated independently?

Which means, for example. Let's say we have 2 BCU's for +10% rof bonus each. Also an implant for +10% rof. Also a skill at lvl2 for +10% rof.

Obviously, the 2 BCU's get stack nerfed. Does this make the implant useless? What about the skill?
To answer half my question, obviously the skill is not calculated for stack-nerfing. But I would really appreciate feedback on the implant. I think not, anyway.

I think "Boni to the same attribute from modules " is stack nerfed rather than "Boni to the same attribute"

Yorick Downe
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2006.12.26 21:33:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Yorick Downe on 26/12/2006 21:35:36
Originally by: Akita T

(...)
Penality mod for Nth module = 0.5 ^ [ ((N-1) / 2.22292081)^2 ]
(...)
11 : 0.0000008090 <- this can only be acheived with 8 mods and 3 rigs, but as you can see it's negligible anyway


Hmm, that begs a question: How does EVE decide which module is in position "N"? Where this comes into play are rigs: If, say, one were to use an EM Shield rig - yeah, I know, bad idea, just bear with me - and then use say 2 EM hardeners to boot, the outcome of that would vary greatly depending on whether the rig is '1' or '3'. If the rig is counted first, it'd actually decrease the value of the hardeners to the point where they are not so very useful any more, and your final resist may, paradoxically, be better _without_ the rig than _with_the rig.

A more useful example was the one with 2 EM hardeners and 2 invulns. Obviously, you'd want the EM hardeners counted first for that attribute, as they have a higher base value . Better for the EM on the invuln to be next to useless than for the actual EM hardeners to be next to useless. So - is that decided by order of modules in the slots, counting from bottom left to top right? Or top to bottom? Which is slot '1'?

(Edit)
From a player's perspective, the ideal solution would be "whatever has the highest base value is counted first, and we count down in descending order of base value from there". I don't think that's how it's implemented right now, though. I do think I saw someone complaining that his EM resist went _down_ with a rig, all other modules left untouched.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2006.12.26 23:59:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Doppler Shift
I think "Boni to the same attribute from modules " is stack nerfed rather than "Boni to the same attribute"

Yes, only bonuses from modules and rigs get stacking-nerfed.
Bonuses from generic skills, implants, ship skills and even the DC resist bonuses are NEVER stacking nerfed, they are always considered "base values".

Originally by: Yorick Downe
From a player's perspective, the ideal solution would be "whatever has the highest base value is counted first, and we count down in descending order of base value from there". I don't think that's how it's implemented right now, though.
I do think I saw someone complaining that his EM resist went _down_ with a rig, all other modules left untouched.


That's exactly how it is done (or at least that's how the devs tell us it's done and should be done).
It's what I already said in here (sort from high to low first before applying stack nerf penality).

If somebody's EM resist got LOWER from fiting an EM rig and all the rest of his setup remained the same, he should bug report it, it shouldn't have happened.

Krav
Order of the Redeeming Light
Posted - 2006.12.30 23:44:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Akita T
explanations and examples


You sir deserve a cookie. *Cookie*

Thanks for your input both in this thread an my own on the 29th.

Appreciate the added explanations and such, shame how crappy the hybrid cap use rig is compared to the cap recharge TIME rig Wink

Keep up the excellent work!
Krav

Jillien Rutgers
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2007.01.07 23:12:00 - [46]
 

Thank you very very much for your topic, Avera and your math Akita! Y'all have done a great service to the community.

Kimmie, glad to see the answers to my questions right here and posting the 4 four resist amounts into my toon's bio.

Kua
Posted - 2007.01.12 06:24:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Akita T

..."stack nerf" order (see the values listed above, the 1.0, 0.86 and so on) are applied in order of highest-to-lowest of the modifiers. So if you have for instance one 55%, one 50% and one 30% hardner, the first stays at 55%, the 50% one gets the *0.86 stackingnerf (becoming 43%), the 30% one gets hit hardest (with the *0.57 nerf) becoming a mere 17.1% one, and so on if you have more.


So in a way stacking hardeners of varying sizes is more beneficial than. Conversely, if the nerfs were applied to the smallest hardner 1st it would make more sense to have hardners of the same magnitude. Does that make sense to others? Razz

Kua
Posted - 2007.01.12 06:55:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Kua on 12/01/2007 06:53:50
Originally by: Shadarle
You should copy/paste the whole thread as a Q/A with the OP's permission of course.


Totally agree, this is an excellent description by someone who evidently understands about modifiers. This info. really should be made into a more neat format, to make it more attractive (and more likely to be stickied Razz).

Not least for me. TBH I got a bit bogged down part way through, although I will come back to it. If someone spent a bit of time making this into a 'proper' guide, I'm sure it could be made much more 'digestible'. Cool

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.01.12 08:13:00 - [49]
 

Well, I was kind of working on it but never got around to finish it (and I'll be away from the country starting this weekend, back at the end of month or only in early February).

ICommandoI
Posted - 2007.03.04 02:02:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: ICommandoI on 04/03/2007 02:01:37
Hi,

Would the resistance best and easiest be explained this way:

100 Resistance.

Add a 50% resistance module.

Total resistance 50% or 50/100, which now you have 50% left.

Add another 50% resistance module.

Total resistance 75%, why?
Because 50% of 50 is 25.

Add another 50% resistance module.

Total resist now 87.5, why?
Becaise 50% of 25 is 12.5... etc...

Would this be another correct way of looking at it but on a much simpler scale?

Would the above be correct or incorrect?

Ra'ita
Posted - 2007.03.04 10:20:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: ICommandoI
Edited by: ICommandoI on 04/03/2007 02:01:37
Hi,

Would the resistance best and easiest be explained this way:

100 Resistance.

Add a 50% resistance module.

Total resistance 50% or 50/100, which now you have 50% left.

Add another 50% resistance module.

Total resistance 75%, why?
Because 50% of 50 is 25.

Add another 50% resistance module.

Total resist now 87.5, why?
Becaise 50% of 25 is 12.5... etc...

Would this be another correct way of looking at it but on a much simpler scale?

Would the above be correct or incorrect?



Incorrect. That's exactly what the OP asked and what triggered the thread in the first place. While what you say is true, there's an additional drawback to stacking. The values are listed at the top of page 2.

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2007.03.12 08:10:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: PictPunk
Know how this works with sig radius? For example If I were to use shield extenders + shield extender rig. Whilst the shield hp aren't stack nerfed, is the sig radius increase?
i believe this is handled just like speed:
- extenders (nanofibers) with their absolute bonus dont get nerfed. it's just an addition
- istab's sig increase (speed rig's speed increase) on the other side do get nerfed. it seems to be the % factor, that's being stacking nerfed.
(tested for both)

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.03.14 17:36:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Freya Runestone
Originally by: GetergdeKaasboer
Originally by: HongHi Choi
3. What does tactical shield manipulation realy do?

3) basically shields leak damage to the armour when shield strength drops below 25%. TSM will reduce this leakage to 0 pts leakage at level 5, from 100% at lvl 1 and by 25% per additional level to 0% at level V. (yes its dumb you need level 2 to get any benefit IIRC) so its 100%lvl1, 75%lvl2, 50%lvl3, 25%lvl4 and 0%lvl5. so at lvl 5 your shield had to be down to take armour damage.

isn't it the point at which the leak happens?
lv1 20%
lv2 15%
lv3 10%
lv4 5%
lv5 0%
Thats what i always thought. the way you describe it doesn't make sense with the 5% bonus on the skill you seem to operate with 25% decrease.
can someone clarify?


When shield is UNDER 25% (down to almost no shield), without TSM there's a 25% of damage bleedthrough into armor.
Or in other words, armor takes some (25% on average) of the (raw) damage instead of the shield taking all the (raw) damage.

Damage reduction still applies separately, so if you take for instance an average 1000 explosive DPS and you have 95% shield explosive resistance (but only 10% armor eplosive resistance), and your shields are below 25% of maxshield, ON AVERAGE you get dealt 750 EXP DPS to shield (reduced to 37.5 shield damage/second) but you also get 250 EXP DPS on armor (which means 225 average armor damage per second).

Now, the only thing I am UNCERTAIN of is wether there's a (base, with TSM at L0) chance for a certain hit to go through, or wether a percentage of damage is applied to each shield/armor. On average, it doesn't matter... only for high alpha strikes and huge resist differentials.
My personal (anecdotal) experience seems to indicate a pure percentage (not chance-based) bleedthrough, but I haven't done any conclusive tests.
___

With TSM L1, you reduce the average chance of bleedthrough from 25% to 20%.
Now it STILL happends starting at 25% shields, but instead of 1/4 of raw damage belleding through (on average), it's only 1/5 of it.

With TSM L2, bleedthrough chance is reduced to 15%, then to 10% at L3 and a mere 5% (1/20) for TSM L4.
It still happends when shields are anywhere below 25%, just the chance is low.

The problem is TSM L5 seems to be OCCASIONALLY bugged and "reverts" to a 25% chance of bleedthrough, even if the description clearly says it's supposed to be 0% chance of bleedthrough (so if you had any remaining shield, your armor should remain untouched).

Vulpis Lenchov
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.04.01 12:38:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Ra'ita
Originally by: ICommandoI
Edited by: ICommandoI on 04/03/2007 02:01:37
Hi,

Would the resistance best and easiest be explained this way:

100 Resistance.

Add a 50% resistance module.

Total resistance 50% or 50/100, which now you have 50% left.

Add another 50% resistance module.

Total resistance 75%, why?
Because 50% of 50 is 25.

Add another 50% resistance module.

Total resist now 87.5, why?
Becaise 50% of 25 is 12.5... etc...

Would this be another correct way of looking at it but on a much simpler scale?

Would the above be correct or incorrect?



Incorrect. That's exactly what the OP asked and what triggered the thread in the first place. While what you say is true, there's an additional drawback to stacking. The values are listed at the top of page 2.



Resistance Modules undergo no stacking penalty. They are simply a multiplier, not an addition. Therefore CommandoI is corect.

As Akita said, it is best to think of this in terms of damage received, not damage stopped. A resist of 0% allows for 100% damage. A resist of 50% allows for 50% damage. A resist of 75% allows for 25% damage. Thus a resist of 50% is twice as good as a resist of 0%, and a resist of 75% is twice as good as a resist of 50%, because the damage you take at each level is halved.

In order to make this clear I will give another example. I am flying a ship with a 90% EM resist and a 50% EX resist. An enemy shoots me with a missile that has a raw damage of 300 points. If this missile were an EX type, then it would do 150pts of actual damage. If this missile were EM it would do 30pts of actual damage. 150pts is 5 times 30pts, thus a 90% resist is 5 times better than a 50% resist.


Resistances do not receive a stacking penalty, and nor do shield recharge or cap recharge modifiers. If in doubt typically a decreasing multiplier (something which reduces a stat) will tend not to be penalty stacked whereas an increasing multiplier (something which tends to increase a stat) is.


--------------


The other thing to consider when passive tanking is that additive modules recieve a natural penalty to being stacked up. Note I do not mean that addition modules undergo the penalty as described above (87% to 2nd mod, 58% to 3rd etc) but as an effect that as you increase a number by a set amount the relative difference decreases.

The basic guide to the raw passive tank of a shield is (SHIELD_HP / SHIELD_RECHARGE) * V - where V is a variable based upon how damaged the shield is. Thus there are 2 easy ways to increase your raw tank, you increase your hit points, or you decrease your recharge time.

To increase your hit points you could use a Shield Extender. These are an addative module, adding a set number to your shields, and as an addative module they receive no stacking penalty. However successive modules do show a decrease in performance to your tank.

I have a ship with 2000 shield, and each addition of a shield extender will add a further 2000. My recharge time is 500 seconds.

# Extenders - Shield HP - Raw Tank

0 : 2000 : 2000/500 = 4
1 : 4000 : 4000/500 = 8
2 : 6000 : 6000/500 = 12
3 : 8000 : 8000/500 = 16

Each extender adds 2000 shield and increases my tank by 4dps. However note that the first extender doubled my raw tank, whereas it too a second and third extender to double it again. This means that my first extender effectively gave me a x2 multiplier to my tank. The second gave a x1.50 multiplier and the third gave a 1.33 multiplier. Of course the values of these multipliers change based upon your base tank and waht each extender will give you, but it is worth noting that addative modules do suffer from being stacked as well (they just don't use a game mechanic to achieve it)

Strill
Posted - 2007.04.11 19:54:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Strill on 11/04/2007 19:53:29
I find it extremely hard to believe that any of you can adequitely measure the survivability of your ship by looking at percentages. To make things easier, consider the following: Each resistance boost you get effectively multiplies your hp by a certain amount. For example, 50% resistance is the same as doubling your hp. 60% is the same as multiplying it by 2.5 This applies no matter what your resistances were before. So a 50% explosive shield hardener would still double your hp vs explosive even though you start out with 60% resistance.

Use the following formula to convert your resistances to multipliers.

1 / (1 - resist) where resist is a decimal (i.e. 15% = .15)

So for example, with the stacking penalty, what is my effective shield hp vs EM with a 50% hardener, a 35% amplifier, and a 15% amplifier?


First set it up

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

apply the stacking penalty

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

simplify

2 * 1.437 * 1.0935 = 3.143

That means that with all those resistances, your shield HP vs EM is 3.14 times better than if you had no resistances. This technique makes it much easier to compare and quantify resist percentages into a usable figure. In fact, if you assume that each damage type is used equally by the population, taking the average of each of your resistance multipliers can give you a single number that tells you how survivable you are overall. This can be used to compare arbitrary module combinations so you can know absolutely that one combination is better than another.


Dyna Mite
Posted - 2007.04.24 06:29:00 - [56]
 

I have just made the formula a little bit simpler...
2.22292081 is exactly 40/18. So the formula looks like this:

Penality mod for Nth module = 0.5 ^ [ ((N-1) / (40/18))^2 ]
or
Penality mod for Nth module = 0.5 ^ [ ( 18* (N-1) / 40)^2 ]

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.04.24 07:12:00 - [57]
 

Strill : I always do look only at 1/(1-resist) too Laughing
Call it a "hardening factor" if you wish, that's what it is anyway.
Would be nice to have that displayed instead of resists, but nobody (at CCP) listens (or listened, whenever proposed).

It would make a lot more sense for, well, basically everything. T1 hardners would be *2 mods, T2 hardners would be *2.222 mods and so on.


Dyna Mite : 40/18 is exactly 2.222(2) and so on.
Coincidentally, that's the same number as the "hardening factor" for T2 hardners, but NOT the actual number in the stack-nerf formula.
It's a decent enough approximation though.

Still, for practical purposes, you should better 2.223 instead of 40/18, it's closer to the actual value and takes even less space (in writing and as calculations necessary).

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.05.04 12:38:00 - [58]
 

Please note that some attributes were changed from "not stacking nerfed" to "stacking nerfed" in the recent patches, the most notable ones being ship speed related percentage bonuses.

In case you have any doubts about an atribute being or not being stacking nerfed "at the moment", either test yourself, ask around... or simply always assume the attribute IS stacking nerfed and plan setup accordingly.

smallgreenblur
Minmatar
Irrepressible Mirth
Posted - 2007.05.23 10:27:00 - [59]
 

Question:

Do some modules with penalties also get stacking nerfed?

eg the shield recharger that gives 25% to recharge time but -15% to shield hp. I'm fairly sure the 25% is not stacking nerfed, but is the -15%? Same with cap flux coils?

sgb

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.06.03 07:31:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: smallgreenblur
Question:
Do some modules with penalties also get stacking nerfed?
eg the shield recharger that gives 25% to recharge time but -15% to shield hp. I'm fairly sure the 25% is not stacking nerfed, but is the -15%? Same with cap flux coils?

As previously said, the stacking-nerf is applied to an attribute's modifier, be it positive or negative... and which one is stacking-nerfed or not stacking-nerfed, it's determined by the attribute, not by the module generating that modifier... the only exceptions to that being "only one of a kind" modules (damage control, siege mode, afterburner/MWD, cloak) which get calculated first, separate from everything else.

What this means is that if the attribute itself (shield recharge time or shield amount) is not stacking nerfed, any modifiers of it get multiplied directly, with no adjustments (no stack nerfs) regardless of module causing that modification.
So, if you have a few T2 power diagnostics, a T2 shield flux coil and a T2 shield recharger, you get *1.05 (+5%) shield for each T2 PDS and *0.85 (-15%) shield for each flux coil... as for recharge time, same here, you just multiply all bonuses (in 100%-(bonus[%]) form) with eachother.

However, if the attribute itself IS stacking-nerfed and you get positive and negative modifiers (like, for instance, ship targetting range or sensor resolution), each of the modifiers do get stacking-nerfed, but all positive ones separate from the negative ones, and they all multiply directly in the end.
For instance, if you have three -48% maxrange remote sensor dampener on you and two +60% maxrange sensor boosters, you get the exact same effect as the non-stack-nerfed effect of a -48%, a -48%*0.87 and a -48%*0.57 dampner, combined with a +60% and a +60%*0.87 boost.

I hope that helped.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only