How does this compare to armour hardening?

0.4 +ù 0.35 = 0.14-á

How does this compare to armour hardening?

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.



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.



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.

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.

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.



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.



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.

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.

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.

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?

Thats if the maths are right

TBH i have no clue

It looks good on paper but in game its different

yup

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

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.

There are little fuel tank looking things on the back of HAVs that forge guns get 200% efficiency on.

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.

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.

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.

Go tanks!

These are active, right?

So my Sica can only be survivable for like thirty seconds right?

Sad Panda.

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

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.