| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Otoky
DIOS EX.
0
   |
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
So, I will show my question trough an example:
If I use a Complex Light Damage Modifier that's give me 10% bonus damage.
But if I use 2 of them thats only 19,6% (according to this wiki )
Thats clear. But what if I use a Complex Light Damage Modifier (10%) and an Enchanted Light Damage Modifier (5%)?
The stacking penalties rule still working in this case or not? |
5aEKUXeRJGJ27kCDnDVYak4q
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yes |
Otoky
DIOS EX.
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
5aEKUXeRJGJ27kCDnDVYak4q wrote:Yes
Thank you. |
5aEKUXeRJGJ27kCDnDVYak4q
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 14:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
You are very welcome. |
hydraSlav's
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
Noir. Mercenary Group
87
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 17:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
You can use this tool here:
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=67188&find=unread
It takes all stacking penalties into account. If you click on 'Advanced Fitting Tool' sheet, you can see the actual calculations
When the modules are giving different coefficient (value) of the increase, the modules are arranged in order of highest coefficient to lowest, when it comes to deciding which one is "first", "second", "third", etc module for the stacking penalty
So with two 10% modules, it's
(1+(0.1 * 1)) * (1+*(0.1 * 0.87)) = 1.1 * 1.087 = 1.1957 ~ 19.57%
With one 10% and one 5% module, it's
(1+(0.1 * 1)) * (1+*(0.05 * 0.87)) = 1.1 * 1.0435 = 1.14785 ~ 14.78% |
Otoky
DIOS EX.
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 18:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
hydraSlav's wrote:You can use this tool here: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=67188&find=unreadIt takes all stacking penalties into account. If you click on 'Advanced Fitting Tool' sheet, you can see the actual calculations When the modules are giving different coefficient (value) of the increase, the modules are arranged in order of highest coefficient to lowest, when it comes to deciding which one is "first", "second", "third", etc module for the stacking penalty So with two 10% modules, it's (1+(0.1 * 1)) * (1+*(0.1 * 0.87)) = 1.1 * 1.087 = 1.1957 ~ 19.57% With one 10% and one 5% module, it's (1+(0.1 * 1)) * (1+*(0.05 * 0.87)) = 1.1 * 1.0435 = 1.14785 ~ 14.78%
Wow, thanks. Realy helpful :) |
Galrick M'kron
Sand Mercenary Corps Inc.
62
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 19:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
Otoky wrote:So, I will show my question trough an example: If I use a Complex Light Damage Modifier that's give me 10% bonus damage. But if I use 2 of them thats only 19,6% (according to this wiki ) Thats clear. But what if I use a Complex Light Damage Modifier (10%) and an Enchanted Light Damage Modifier (5%)? The stacking penalties rule still working in this case or not?
Wait, "Enchanted" light damage mod? Give me one of those! |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion
RISE of LEGION
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 00:50:00 -
[8] - Quote
How are the modules ordered? If you apply the penalty to the 10% instead of 5% module, then it changes the answer. |
hydraSlav's
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
Noir. Mercenary Group
88
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 02:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote:How are the modules ordered? If you apply the penalty to the 10% instead of 5% module, then it changes the answer.
hydraSlav's wrote:When the modules are giving different coefficient (value) of the increase, the modules are arranged in order of highest coefficient to lowest, when it comes to deciding which one is "first", "second", "third", etc module for the stacking penalty
I guess my original explanation was a little wordy.
They are arranged from highest bonus to lowest, before the stacking is applied.
Edit: nevermind, i see the nevermind |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion
RISE of LEGION
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 03:24:00 -
[10] - Quote
I've created and added a quick calculator to wiki.dust514.info. Seems to give the correct results for a couple of test cases, but let me know if it doesn't work. |
|
|
hydraSlav's
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
Noir. Mercenary Group
88
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 06:01:00 -
[11] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote:I've created and added a quick calculator to wiki.dust514.info. Seems to give the correct results for a couple of test cases, but let me know if it doesn't work.
Nice one, did some testing and worked out correct.
However it doesn't accept negative numbers.
And also there is a note about stacking penalty not working for damage mods: Devs confirmed that it is working, it is only a display bug in fitting tool |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion
RISE of LEGION
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 07:47:00 -
[12] - Quote
hydraSlav's wrote:
Nice one, did some testing and worked out correct.
However it doesn't accept negative numbers.
Thanks for the tip. One simple change and now it allows negative values. However, I'm not quite sure that the way it works is correct for negative values. Do you know any example cases where you know what the answer should be?
Quote:And also there is a note about stacking penalty not working for damage mods: Devs confirmed that it is working, it is only a display bug in fitting tool
Thanks, I've added that note to the wiki. If you have a link to the dev confirmation handy, I can put that in as the reference. Though I suppose many of these little bugs will be obsolete in a couple of weeks :)
|
hydraSlav's
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
Noir. Mercenary Group
89
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 02:27:00 -
[13] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote:However, I'm not quite sure that the way it works is correct for negative values. Do you know any example cases where you know what the answer should be?
I've used a Basic Armor Plate (-3% sprint) and 'Goliath' Basic Armor Plate (-5% sprint).
This is the only Dropsuit module that i could find that has a negative attribute and is displayed on the fitting screen to be verified. If someone knows of any vehicle bonus modules that provide a negative attribute as a "bonus" please let me know.
My base speed = 7.84
After the -5% module (no stacking) = 7.45
After both modules = 7.27
This is consistent with the -5% module getting the penalty. So, at least in this scenario -0.03 > - 0.05, which could imply the formula is using simple mathematics.
This however just poses more questions:
- 1) Can we trust the in-game fitting screen? It's wrong for damage mods, could be here too.
- 2) The -5% module ('Goliath') is the "better" module for the armor bonus, but in here for speed penalty, it is treated as the second module. This means that module's multiple attributes are calculated separately for staking purposes. So according to this, the sorting arrangement is done in such a way that you get the best bonus, and the least penalty. But is this intentional?
- 3) Does the game really distinguish between a bonus and a penalty? Unfortunately in this particular case, the negative attribute to sprint is a penalty. What happens when the negative attribute is a bonus, such as for Scan Enhancers? Will the game realize that it's a bonus and put -0.05 > - 0.03? Or will it apply the same calculation as above? Currently there is no way to tell with any Dropsuit modules.
Once again, if someone knows some vehicle modules that can be used for this test, please let me know. But even then, there is still point 1) that's throwing us a wrench.
Quote:
Thanks, I've added that note to the wiki. If you have a link to the dev confirmation handy, I can put that in as the reference. Though I suppose many of these little bugs will be obsolete in a couple of weeks :)
I've got no link, but every time i tried to get confirmation for my spreadsheet on this subject, i've got a unanimous answer that dev(s) in IRC confirmed this was a display bug only. |
Altina McAlterson
Not Guilty
EoN.
484
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 22:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
As for the fitting screen I think it can be trusted for the most part. All of it was put together at the same time and it displayed all values correctly with the stacking penalty. The only exception was of course the damage modifier which always stayed at x1.00 no matter what damage mods you put on there. It is a reasonable assumption that because the damage mod display code was added to the game at a different time than everything else it is most likely the only one that is in error.
As for the armor plate penalty, and this is just a guess but I think it is reasonable, it is probably just simple mathematics. I don't think the game purposefully maximizes bonus and minimizes penalties. There is no stacking penalty on the amount of armor you get from the mod so the game is only concerned with the values that have a stacking penalty. It then simply puts them in order with basic logic operators. The values that do not have a stacking penalty do not enter in to the calculation at all so it is only a coincidence that the benefit is maximized while the detriment is minimized.
Again this is just a guess but it makes a lot of sense from a programming standpoint. |
hydraSlav's
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
Noir. Mercenary Group
90
|
Posted - 2013.04.22 01:02:00 -
[15] - Quote
Altina McAlterson wrote:
Again this is just a guess but it makes a lot of sense from a programming standpoint.
Yes it does. This is also the way it works in my spreadsheet (unintentionally, but because it's using simple shared logic)
Unfortunately this means that modules that provide a negative value as a bonus (for example Scan Enhancers, and the like) get unintentional effect of having the best module penalized the most. However i don't know of a Dropsuit module that can be used right now to verify this.
As there any vehicle modules we could test it with?
|
Eurydice Itzhak
Militaires Sans Jeux
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 05:57:00 -
[16] - Quote
Do active/passive modules have a stacking penalty?
For instance a 30% active shield hardener on a tank and a 15% passive shield hardener on a tank?
If they do have a stacking penalty, is it applied constantly or only when you activate the 30% module? |
hydraSlav's
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
Noir. Mercenary Group
92
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 13:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
Eurydice Itzhak wrote:Do active/passive modules have a stacking penalty?
For instance a 30% active shield hardener on a tank and a 15% passive shield hardener on a tank?
If they do have a stacking penalty, is it applied constantly or only when you activate the 30% module?
The stacking penalty is per attribute, not module per se. If two or more modules (doesn't matter which module) affect the same attribute, they are stacking penalized.
I don't have access to in-game right now, but if the module says that it is stacking penalized, then it will be. So provided the description of active and passive shield hardeners both say that they are stacking penalized.
With passive fitted, and active not activated, you get full 15% from passive.
With passive fitted and active activated, you get full 30% from active, and penalized 13.05% from passive, total 46.96%
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |