| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company
General Tso's Alliance
814
   |
Posted - 2013.10.06 23:10:00 -
[31] - Quote
J Lav wrote: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.
It makes sense for it to be damage coming in since shield tanks are supposed to be more reliant upon hardners!
|
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company
General Tso's Alliance
814
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 23:19:00 -
[32] - Quote
Meeko Fent wrote:Go tanks!
These are active, right?
So my Sica can only be survivable for like thirty seconds right?
Sad Panda.
For a standard hull it isn't bad, assuming +1 H&L slot per level, a shield tank could run two pairs of hardners in series for 60 secs of engagement time, and would only require approx 25 secss downtime to reach operating proficency! |
CharCharOdell
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
1077
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 00:38:00 -
[33] - 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.
good thing there's no laser av. hahaha |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
969
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 00:39:00 -
[34] - Quote
I think my brain just left my skull. |
True Adamance
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
2643
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 00:45:00 -
[35] - Quote
CharCharOdell 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. good thing there's no laser av. hahaha
AMARR HAV ME CCP! |
J Lav
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
239
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 09:55:00 -
[36] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:J Lav wrote: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. It makes sense for it to be damage coming in since shield tanks are supposed to be more reliant upon hardners!
It would make sense, but when running tests, the math lines up with the modifier being applied to the shield value, and not the attack.
ie. my Limbus takes about 4 shots from a proto swarm with no damage modules, at 20% shield and 50% armour resistance. According to your math, it should take more like 7-8. But then maybe I'm looking at it wrong. |
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company
General Tso's Alliance
819
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 14:08:00 -
[37] - Quote
J Lav wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:J Lav wrote: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. It makes sense for it to be damage coming in since shield tanks are supposed to be more reliant upon hardners! Maybe, but I might be too, unless CCP tells us we need a large amount of data to extrapolate the real effects! We can meet up in game to test it prehaps? It would make sense, but when running tests, the math lines up with the modifier being applied to the shield value, and not the attack. ie. my Limbus takes about 4 shots from a proto swarm with no damage modules, at 20% shield and 50% armour resistance. According to your math, it should take more like 7-8. But then maybe I'm looking at it wrong.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |