|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
hydraSlav's
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
Noir. Mercenary Group
87
   |
Posted - 2013.04.19 17:56:00 -
[1] - 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% |
hydraSlav's
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
Noir. Mercenary Group
88
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 02:49:00 -
[2] - 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 |
hydraSlav's
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
Noir. Mercenary Group
88
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 06:01:00 -
[3] - 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 |
hydraSlav's
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
Noir. Mercenary Group
89
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 02:27:00 -
[4] - 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. |
hydraSlav's
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
Noir. Mercenary Group
90
|
Posted - 2013.04.22 01:02:00 -
[5] - 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?
|
hydraSlav's
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
Noir. Mercenary Group
92
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 13:44:00 -
[6] - 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%
|
|
|
| |
|