Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company General Tso's Alliance
812
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 12:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
Concerning the active hardener there are some serious pseudo numbers on the shield tank, if I am correct in my calcs!
In chemistry you often measure one variable to better observe the changes in another. Here I will use hardners to create pseudo shield values, instead of calculating av change. The pseudo values better illustrate my point!
If I am correct a single shield hardner provides 60% resistance, all in incoming damage is multiplied by 0.4, now with 2 hardners you instead get,
0.4 +ù 0.35 = 0.14-á
Which is a 86% resistance, now to see the pseudo values we do this calculation,
1 ++ 0.14 = 7.14
What this means is that adding 86% resistance is equivalent to multiplying health by 7 times, which is a massive amount! This means with 2 hardners the base shield levels of ~2000 become,
2000 +ù 7.14 = 14,280
14,000 is a lot, especially considering av has confirmed to be re balanced! But this value is improved again when you add a Shield booster to the mix. A complex booster restores ~1200 in 1.5 secs, under 2 hardners this becomes,
1,200 +ù 7.14 = 8,568
In both circumstances this is a considerable proportion of the shield tanks health, over 50% of it! Meaning a shield tank will be capable of sustaining nearly 23,000 dmg while its modules are active, this is assuming the shields don't passively regenerate at any time while the modules are active. Furthermore, if the tanker is prepared to spend a little extra time out of battle this only uses a single complex mod, leaving room for better mods in the low slots.
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance
3693
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 12:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
How does this compare to armour hardening? |
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company General Tso's Alliance
812
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 12:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:How does this compare to armour hardening?
Well thats the thing armour hardening only provides 40% protection, a 0.6 multiplier. This means the pseudo values are only 1.6 times higher.
4000 +ù 1.6 = 6,400
Which is only an increase of 2,400, while better than a complex plate, the trade off for 600 hp, isn't worth it. Armour hardners only really become worth it when the passive health of the HAV is increased by at least ~80%, or two plates!
Until that point the limited time of the hardner is not worth the extra health, and the higher fitting costs! But it is much more preferable to put a repper in that 3rd low slot instead.
Saying that though 2 reppers at 400 each provide 10% health per second, meaning 2 reppers and a hardner could allow for some bad ass buffer tanking, oooh maths! I'll get back to you on that theory!
But basically, armour tankers are more effecient with higher overall EHP, while shield modules make it logical to keep it as low as possible! |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
435
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 13:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
As far as I know the game mechanics have never been fully explained, but based on my understanding I believe there are a few errors here.
Monkey MAC wrote: 0.4 +ù 0.35 = 0.14-á
Calculating the damage reduction with one hardener in effect is easy enough.
1*(1-.6)=.4
The second hardener will apply to whatever damage got through the first. Using .87 as the stacking penalty mod
.4*(1-.6*.87)=0.1912
Which isn't really a huge difference, but it's a difference.
The bigger factor is that those hardeners can only be active for (with max skills) 30 seconds at a time. Then they're on cooldown for 45 seconds (max skills, prototype mod). So pretty much in keeping with CCP's vision of making vehicles very strong for thirty seconds, and then they die.
Quote:How does this compare to armour hardening?
Doubling up on armor hardeners gives you about a 60% resistance. So instead of turning 1000 hp into 5000 ehp like a shield hardener, it'd turn it into 2500 ehp. On the plus side, it can do it for longer. In fact, with max skills the prototype hardener has a shorter cooldown than activation time, so if you're running two of them you can alternate and always have at least one running. It should also be noted that there is typically much more armor to harden. |
J Lav
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
237
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 13:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
Your math is wrong. This is an area CCP hasn't been very clear in their wording. Think of it this way:
If my shields are 60% more durable, then 1000 shields requires 1600 damage to get the shields down, 1800 against explosive damage. This is based on observable in game tests. The math is not based on the incoming attack. |
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company General Tso's Alliance
812
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 13:12:00 -
[6] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote:As far as I know the game mechanics have never been fully explained, but based on my understanding I believe there are a few errors here. Monkey MAC wrote: 0.4 +ù 0.35 = 0.14-á
Calculating the damage reduction with one hardener in effect is easy enough. 1*(1-.6)=.4 The second hardener will apply to whatever damage got through the first. Using .87 as the stacking penalty mod .4*(1-.6*.87)=0.1912 Which isn't really a huge difference, but it's a difference. The bigger factor is that those hardeners can only be active for (with max skills) 30 seconds at a time. Then they're on cooldown for 45 seconds (max skills, prototype mod). So pretty much in keeping with CCP's vision of making vehicles very strong for thirty seconds, and then they die. Quote:How does this compare to armour hardening? Doubling up on armor hardeners gives you about a 60% resistance. So instead of turning 1000 hp into 5000 ehp like a shield hardener, it'd turn it into 2500 ehp. On the plus side, it can do it for longer. In fact, with max skills the prototype hardener has a shorter cooldown than activation time, so if you're running two of them you can alternate and always have at least one running. It should also be noted that there is typically much more armor to harden.
Thank you, like you said that was my interpretation, and are values are pretty similar anyway! Jlav based on the information given on the post by CCP the multipliernis 0.4 it would lower values of shields, this is based on the information there. Also this is a rework, they may do it differently, it also fits the goal better my way!
|
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
435
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 13:14:00 -
[7] - Quote
J Lav wrote:Your math is wrong. This is an area CCP hasn't been very clear in their wording. Think of it this way:
If my shields are 60% more durable, then 1000 shields requires 1600 damage to get the shields down, 1800 against explosive damage. This is based on observable in game tests. The math is not based on the incoming attack.
Let's imagine you have 1600 ehp after a 60% resist has been applied, and you want to know what your base hp is. Since by definition the base HP is 40% of the eHP, the answer is obvious:
1600*(1-.6)=640
In other words
eHP*(1-resist)=baseHP
Some simple algebra then gives us
eHP = baseHP/(1-resist)
In other words, when you make something 60% more durable you don't multiply by 1.6, you divide by .4. |
cranium79
ZionTCD
68
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 13:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
this is why i love this community. there aren't too many other game forums where people use math like this. i (being a nerd myself) enjoy nerd talk. |
Cody Sietz
Bullet Cluster
1109
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 13:32:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote:As far as I know the game mechanics have never been fully explained, but based on my understanding I believe there are a few errors here. Monkey MAC wrote: 0.4 +ù 0.35 = 0.14-á
Calculating the damage reduction with one hardener in effect is easy enough. 1*(1-.6)=.4 The second hardener will apply to whatever damage got through the first. Using .87 as the stacking penalty mod .4*(1-.6*.87)=0.1912 Which isn't really a huge difference, but it's a difference. The bigger factor is that those hardeners can only be active for (with max skills) 30 seconds at a time. Then they're on cooldown for 45 seconds (max skills, prototype mod). So pretty much in keeping with CCP's vision of making vehicles very strong for thirty seconds, and then they die. Quote:How does this compare to armour hardening? Doubling up on armor hardeners gives you about a 60% resistance. So instead of turning 1000 hp into 5000 ehp like a shield hardener, it'd turn it into 2500 ehp. On the plus side, it can do it for longer. In fact, with max skills the prototype hardener has a shorter cooldown than activation time, so if you're running two of them you can alternate and always have at least one running. It should also be noted that there is typically much more armor to harden. The pilot suit should help with that. I think that's why cool down times are being raised. |
Harpyja
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
611
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 13:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Shhhhh! Don't let the infantry start crying OP before we even get our hands on these changes! |
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
1283
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 13:52:00 -
[11] - Quote
Thats if the maths are right
TBH i have no clue
It looks good on paper but in game its different |
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company General Tso's Alliance
813
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 13:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
cranium79 wrote:this is why i love this community. there aren't too many other game forums where people use math like this. i (being a nerd myself) enjoy nerd talk.
Thats because maths is awsome, but when you look at it, either way if the hardners work like I believe they do, with abu's help refining the numbers sheild tanks are looking pretty powerful.
A hardened shield tank is likely to be able to survive its entire engagement on hardners, but like cinderrela the majic only lasts for a short while!
It means shield tanks with a missile or blaster turret will be ideal for punching holes, solo, but they need support if they are to escape without loosing the tank!
However I might think that prehaps armour tanks need a little more ehp per plate to make up for it, just a little! Maybe 2200 at complex 120mm plates? |
DUST Fiend
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
6787
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 14:00:00 -
[13] - Quote
I get the strong feeling that my derpship is only going to die to stupid things like RDVs and suicide derpships.
It's going to be glorious
|
Mortedeamor
Internal Rebellion
366
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 14:08:00 -
[14] - Quote
J Lav wrote:Your math is wrong. This is an area CCP hasn't been very clear in their wording. Think of it this way:
If my shields are 60% more durable, then 1000 shields requires 1600 damage to get the shields down, 1800 against explosive damage. This is based on observable in game tests. The math is not based on the incoming attack. yup |
Aqil Aegivan
The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine
223
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 14:13:00 -
[15] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote: However I might think that prehaps armour tanks need a little more ehp per plate to make up for it, just a little! Maybe 2200 at complex 120mm plates?
Why would armour tanks need more HP when they make up for the lower resistance by having a longer duration? |
Mortedeamor
Internal Rebellion
366
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 14:14:00 -
[16] - Quote
has ccp mentioned giving havs a base res...it makes no sense that logi lavs come with 30% res naturally but tanks start with 0 a better way over all to balancing tanks is really simple give all tanks a base res stat that equates out to it be able to tank its tier of current av...i do not care enough to run numbers so i couldnt tell you what that base stat should be.
it seems to me the answer is simple really..they logi lavs because of that base stat resistance are balanced vs their tier of av...so why do tanks and durps not have the same but higher as they are of a diff class of vehicle..ccp is wasting time to completely overhaul vehicles its stupid this game is progressing to slow.
they could balance the fits they have here vs the av they have here by applying one stat that they ALREADY HAVE IN FOR LOGI LAVS..to all vehilces..instead they are gunna make this a slow and painfull process that may or MAY NOT come out balanced and will ruin what is left of the already fragile dust 514 vehicles community |
Ryder Azorria
Amarr Templars Amarr Empire
629
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 14:17:00 -
[17] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Thats if the maths are right
TBH i have no clue
It looks good on paper but in game its different The maths is correct.
However, there is still some ambiguity as to what the listed multiplier for armour and shield hardeners actually is, it could either be damage reduction (ie. a listed value of 0.4 results in 40% resists, actual damage = incoming damage * [1 - 0.4]) or a damage multiplier (ie. a listed value of 0.4 results in 60% resists, actual damage = incoming damage * 0.4).
In practice it means that we're not quite sure what value armour and shield hardeners will get - we know that one gets 40% resists and the other 60%, and we think that shields get 60% and armour 40% - but it could easily be the other way around. |
DUST Fiend
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
6787
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 14:19:00 -
[18] - Quote
On the topic of resists, I always thought logistics dropships should get +3 or 4% base resists per level to their primary tank (shield for calamari, armor for Gallente)
The current bonuses are worthless. Well, maybe vaguely useful for calamari, but it's just a joke on the Prometheus. Kind of happy they're being taken out, so long as CCP doesn't take the lazy path, and actually gives them a logistical purpose for their role, like in so many of their promotional videos. |
Ryder Azorria
Amarr Templars Amarr Empire
629
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 14:19:00 -
[19] - Quote
Mortedeamor wrote:J Lav wrote:Your math is wrong. This is an area CCP hasn't been very clear in their wording. Think of it this way:
If my shields are 60% more durable, then 1000 shields requires 1600 damage to get the shields down, 1800 against explosive damage. This is based on observable in game tests. The math is not based on the incoming attack. yup Nope, it might seem that way at first glance, but it is completely wrong. |
Aqil Aegivan
The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine
223
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 14:23:00 -
[20] - Quote
Ryder Azorria wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Thats if the maths are right
TBH i have no clue
It looks good on paper but in game its different The maths is correct. However, there is still some ambiguity as to what the listed multiplier for armour and shield hardeners actually is, it could either be damage reduction (ie. a listed value of 0.4 results in 40% resists, actual damage = incoming damage * [1 - 0.4]) or a damage multiplier (ie. a listed value of 0.4 results in 60% resists, actual damage = incoming damage * 0.4). In practice it means that we're not quite sure what value armour and shield hardeners will get - we know that one gets 40% resists and the other 60%, and we think that shields get 60% and armour 40% - but it could easily be the other way around.
I think the duration stats are less ambiguous, so I just assumed that the better bonus would be associated with the shorter active duration. It seems reasonable that that the hit and run tank should hit harder, otherwise you'd run into some pretty obvious balance issues. |
|
Ryder Azorria
Amarr Templars Amarr Empire
629
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 14:26:00 -
[21] - Quote
Aqil Aegivan wrote:Ryder Azorria wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Thats if the maths are right
TBH i have no clue
It looks good on paper but in game its different The maths is correct. However, there is still some ambiguity as to what the listed multiplier for armour and shield hardeners actually is, it could either be damage reduction (ie. a listed value of 0.4 results in 40% resists, actual damage = incoming damage * [1 - 0.4]) or a damage multiplier (ie. a listed value of 0.4 results in 60% resists, actual damage = incoming damage * 0.4). In practice it means that we're not quite sure what value armour and shield hardeners will get - we know that one gets 40% resists and the other 60%, and we think that shields get 60% and armour 40% - but it could easily be the other way around. I think the duration stats are less ambiguous, so I just assumed that the better bonus would be associated with the shorter active duration. It seems reasonable that that the hit and run tank should hit harder, otherwise you'd run into some pretty obvious balance issues. True, it does make sense for shield hardeners to have the higher resists - but nobody ever accused CCP of making sense |
Aqil Aegivan
The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine
223
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 14:36:00 -
[22] - Quote
Ryder Azorria wrote:True, it does make sense for shield hardeners to have the higher resists - but nobody ever accused CCP of making sense
That and I'm not a tanker so there could easily be some other factor I'm not thinking of since resistance amount compared to duration is one small part of the overall equation of vehicle balance.
I do think that there are some coincidental symmetries between module stats that make comparison useful, e.g. the fact that a militia armour mod's base stats give you one second of activity for every 2.5 seconds of recharge which is the same as the base stats for a proto shield resistance mod.
Armour mods aren't just faster charging, they're more time efficient to make up for the lower resistance they offer. |
Patrick57
GunFall Mobilization Covert Intervention
460
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 15:01:00 -
[23] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Concerning the active hardener there are some serious pseudo numbers on the shield tank, if I am correct in my calcs!
In chemistry you often measure one variable to better observe the changes in another. Here I will use hardners to create pseudo shield values, instead of calculating av change. The pseudo values better illustrate my point!
If I am correct a single shield hardner provides 60% resistance, all in incoming damage is multiplied by 0.4, now with 2 hardners you instead get,
0.4 +ù 0.35 = 0.14-á
Which is a 86% resistance, now to see the pseudo values we do this calculation,
1 ++ 0.14 = 7.14
What this means is that adding 86% resistance is equivalent to multiplying health by 7 times, which is a massive amount! This means with 2 hardners the base shield levels of ~2000 become,
2000 +ù 7.14 = 14,280
14,000 is a lot, especially considering av has confirmed to be re balanced! But this value is improved again when you add a Shield booster to the mix. A complex booster restores ~1200 in 1.5 secs, under 2 hardners this becomes,
1,200 +ù 7.14 = 8,568
In both circumstances this is a considerable proportion of the shield tanks health, over 50% of it! Meaning a shield tank will be capable of sustaining nearly 23,000 dmg while its modules are active, this is assuming the shields don't passively regenerate at any time while the modules are active. Furthermore, if the tanker is prepared to spend a little extra time out of battle this only uses a single complex mod, leaving room for better mods in the low slots.
I've always hated math... |
Zatara Rought
TeamPlayers EoN.
1264
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 15:26:00 -
[24] - Quote
I been thinking more and more lately how I wish tanks were setup so they were more tanky but had soft spots that rewarded accuracy and poor poisitional judgement by the tanker. stuff like adding in a spot that if hit receives 200% dps. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
437
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 15:39:00 -
[25] - Quote
There are little fuel tank looking things on the back of HAVs that forge guns get 200% efficiency on. |
Ryder Azorria
Amarr Templars Amarr Empire
629
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 16:00:00 -
[26] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote:There are little fuel tank looking things on the back of HAVs that forge guns get 200% efficiency on. Same for the engines on Dropships. |
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company General Tso's Alliance
813
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 16:08:00 -
[27] - Quote
Ryder Azorria wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Thats if the maths are right
TBH i have no clue
It looks good on paper but in game its different The maths is correct. (EDIT: Nope, not the bit about double hardeners but the method of getting EHP from resist values is - Derp.) However, there is still some ambiguity as to what the listed multiplier for armour and shield hardeners actually is, it could either be damage reduction (ie. a listed value of 0.4 results in 40% resists, actual damage = incoming damage * [1 - 0.4]) or a damage multiplier (ie. a listed value of 0.4 results in 60% resists, actual damage = incoming damage * 0.4). In practice it means that we're not quite sure what value armour and shield hardeners will get - we know that one gets 40% resists and the other 60%, and we think that shields get 60% and armour 40% - but it could easily be the other way around.
You'll have to forgive me on the double hardnerners, im working of a tablet, and did most of the calculations in my head! I had assumed hardners stacked multiplicativly, because of the multiplier modifier type!
We aren't exactly sure how it works but, this is theory crafting, gets people talking, making fits, etc etc! |
J Lav
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
238
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 22:54:00 -
[28] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote:J Lav wrote:Your math is wrong. This is an area CCP hasn't been very clear in their wording. Think of it this way:
If my shields are 60% more durable, then 1000 shields requires 1600 damage to get the shields down, 1800 against explosive damage. This is based on observable in game tests. The math is not based on the incoming attack. Let's imagine you have 1600 ehp after a 60% resist has been applied, and you want to know what your base hp is. Since by definition the base HP is 40% of the eHP, the answer is obvious: 1600*(1-.6)=640 In other words eHP*(1-resist)=baseHP Some simple algebra then gives us eHP = baseHP/(1-resist) In other words, when you make something 60% more durable you don't multiply by 1.6, you divide by .4.
Your formula would be correct if you were calculating the actual resistance of a shield, however it is based on the assumption that CCP is mathematically calculating the amount of resistance, and not applying a modifier to the shield itself.
For example, if your math is correct, then 60% of the damage from a weapon would be absorbed. In that case, the value of the attack needs to be known to calculate the damage, and the value of the shields is inconsequential.
In my mathematical example, the known value at time of the vehicles build is the shield value, and the modifier is applied to the shield value, not the attack.
Now, this is where CCP's wording is confusing, because they haven't specified which it is. Is it 60% less damage, or 60% harder shields?
So try it out and fire a proto swarm at a tank and you will see that with the known value of the attack and the shields/armour, you can verify that the modifier is applied to the shield/armour value, and not the attack.
It would help if CCP could verify this one way or the other, but it is a simple matter of applying your math to the wrong value. |
J Lav
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
238
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 23:05:00 -
[29] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote:J Lav wrote:Your math is wrong. This is an area CCP hasn't been very clear in their wording. Think of it this way:
If my shields are 60% more durable, then 1000 shields requires 1600 damage to get the shields down, 1800 against explosive damage. This is based on observable in game tests. The math is not based on the incoming attack. Let's imagine you have 1600 ehp after a 60% resist has been applied, and you want to know what your base hp is. Since by definition the base HP is 40% of the eHP, the answer is obvious: 1600*(1-.6)=640 In other words eHP*(1-resist)=baseHP Some simple algebra then gives us eHP = baseHP/(1-resist) In other words, when you make something 60% more durable you don't multiply by 1.6, you divide by .4.
After examining the math more accurately, I think you're right, but that CCP hasn't published if the resistance modifier is applied to the attack or the shields/armour. That is where the value needed to overcome the shields would change. |
Meeko Fent
DUST University Ivy League
1074
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 23:09:00 -
[30] - Quote
Go tanks!
These are active, right?
So my Sica can only be survivable for like thirty seconds right?
Sad Panda. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |