DUST Search - Tank Resistances

All Channels

General Discussions

Tank Resistances

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.18 13:23:00 - [1] - Quote Hi, When I have no mods on my tank, it has 10% armor resists, due to my skills. When I add a 15% resistance plate, it jumps to 23.5%, iirc. However, I don't understand why. If it uses the full 15% added, then it would be 25%. If we multiplied, it would be 26.5%. If we count the 10% from skills as a stacking penalty, it's 24.99%. If we assume that it counts the 10% first, rather than reducing the bonus in order from largest to smallest, it's 24.34%. Basically, I can't figure out why it's 23.5% (or whatever it is, I can't quite remember). Is the displayed value wrong? Or is it calculated in a way I haven't considered yet? Did a search, couldn't find an existing thread discussing this, though I expect such do exist. Thanks
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.18 14:24:00 - [2] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Stacking penalties. Seems stupid, and I think it is, but that is how it goes. Not sure if it applies to active hardeners as well, but I suspect it does. As mentioned in my OP, stacking penalties don't give the same result as what the game displays in game. I'm trying to work out if it's using some other method, or if it's a display bug.
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.18 23:42:00 - [3] - Quote Anyone understand why?
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.19 04:18:00 - [4] - Quote This is perhaps the philosopher in me coming out, but 'math' is not the reason, even if the things you calculate show the reason why CCP has done it this way. Same goes when some cry, 'Science!', or 'Because of science!'. Mathematics is in some sense the ways of calculating what results from particular assumptions about numbers. And in this case, if we simply added the resists, we would get an undesirable game mechanic, and so CCP made different constraints on its implementation. And the details of your analysis are correct for the one plate situation. I was aware of this way of handling resists from Diablo 3, but for some reason had not thought to consider that that might be what was going on in Dust 514. I should have realised, though... So given your calculation we can recover the 23.5%. Now there's other situations I still cannot calculate. New scenario: 2x 15% resistance plates, plus standard 10%, is listed as 33.47% in game. If I do each plate separately, taking 10%, then 15% of the remaining, then 15% of the remaining, I get 34.975% (order doesn't matter). This is higher than 33.47%, of course :) If I calculate the 15% as a resist on the remaining 0.9 after applying 10% damage reduction, it gives 13.5%. If I then add these together using the stacking penalty, it comes up with a total resist of 25.77%. This gives a final resist of 33.19%. Closer to 33.47%, but still not correct. So not quite sure how to deal with situations where there are multiple resistance modules. Quote: - Each additional reduction bonus (resistance for example) has lesser effect, even without any balancing penalties The raw number is smaller, but the bonus is the same. Taking into account your current defenses, whatever that is, then a 50% reduction will drop that damage in half. Add another one, and it drops whatever damage you now normally take in half again. So the effect is the same -- or at least, in Diablo 3 it's the same. 10% damage reduction is always a 10% damage reduction -- it reduces the damage you would currently take by 10%, rather than increasing the value of your total damage reduction attribute by 10.
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.19 06:09:00 - [5] - Quote Aqil Aegivan wrote: Can someone who uses a tank tell me if the resistance figures here (in column E) are accurate? I can't check the others right now, but the first two are right. So it is just a basic stacking penalty, but the stacking penalty calculator I made didn't let me see this. I'll modify it to give more info when I can -- that is, split it up to show the individual bonuses as well as total. I may also create a resistances calculator. We shall see. Aqil, one more test case: With 10% damage reduction from skills, a 15% module, and a 10% module, the game shows 29.56% as my final resists.
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.19 06:29:00 - [6] - Quote So I've modified the calculator, and get the same results now for the 2x 15 plates situation. But not quite the same as for the 15% + 10% resistance case. However, if I change the order and apply the smaller penalty for stacking to the 10% plate, and the larger to the 15% plate, then I get back 29.56% which is what the game reports. So it seems like the game might be calculating it incorrectly for multiple plates -- that is, applying the bigger penalty to the higher resist plate. Edit: which I see Aqil that you have now discovered, also.
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.19 06:48:00 - [7] - Quote Yep, I think we've figured it out. The only question that remains is whether it is a display bug, an actual bug, or working as intended. I have been ordering from best to worst in order to apply stacking penalty, as this appears to be the way that EVE Online does it (check conclusion 2 here). I'll post a bug report on the appropriate subforum here.
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.19 06:53:00 - [8] - Quote Bug report posted.
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.20 09:17:00 - [9] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Ok, as I don't have access to games resistance results, I checked your value of 10%skill and 2x 15% res mod ==> 33,47% res I tested with stacking penalty values from http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Stacking_penalty and found out that: Base: 10% skill = 1-0,10 = 0,90 1st 15% res mod = 1-0,15 = 0,85 2nd 15% res mod WITH stacking penalty = (1- 0,15*0,87) = 0,8695 All those multiplied are 0,6651675 and 1-0,6651675 = 33,48325% resistance after skill, unpenalised mod and first penalised mod This is so close to value (33,47%) you reported it is possible that it's some rounding issue. Yep, that one works correct, as you can see from the preceding conversation. There is a problem with a scenario where you have 1x15% and 1x10%, as discussed above.
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.20 10:17:00 - [10] - Quote Altina McAlterson wrote: I've looked through the thread and I don't know what problem you're talking but I'm going to infer that it has to do with the order the values are calculated when using modules with varying bonuses. It's always done in whatever order will yield the maximum total bonus. If using a 15% reduction module and a 10% reduction module the penalty should apply to the 10%. Correct. That's my understanding of how it should be, too. But in order to obtain the value that is shown in game for me, you would have to apply the penalty to the 15% rather than 10% module. So that's the bug -- it appears the penalty is applied to the wrong module. But it may be a display bug, an actual bug in resistances, or working as intended (contrary to the way it normally works for other modules).

Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.20 13:15:00 - [11] - Quote shaman oga wrote: I can accept this (not sure how can I not accept it XD), but the 10% bonus you gain with the skill, should not be retracted from the total damage, because we have spent about 1 million SP to have an advantage. Not quite sure what you're saying, but whatever damage you currently take, if you later raise the skill from 0 to 10% damage, you will take 10% less damage than you did prior to raising the skill.
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.20 13:17:00 - [12] - Quote Altina McAlterson wrote: As as to the OP's question, when you are doing your calculations are you applying the stacking penalty to the modifier of the module or it's compliment? My OP question has been answered. I was doing things wrong in my OP, and wrong in the next thing I did, also. But I'm quite sure I'm doing it right for the case where I have 10% from skills, 15% module, and 10% module. For that situation, the game applies the stacking penalty to the 15% module, where it should apply it to the 10%. If you're not sure, then work it out yourself for that scenario and see what you get.
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.20 14:22:00 - [13] - Quote Altina McAlterson wrote: Here's what I got for each module when I switched the penalty. 10% - 29.57% 15% - 30.16% Applying the penalty to the 15% module is the correct choice. You have these backwards to what I calculate. When I apply the stacking penalty to the 15% module, it works out to 29.56%. if I apply the penalty to the 10% module, I get 30.15%. And you have stated yourself that it should give us whatever is best. In game, it displays my resists as 29.57%, and not 30.16%, so it is not choosing the best option.
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 124	Posted - 2013.06.21 13:43:00 - [14] - Quote Garth Mandra wrote: I wonder if the code works correctly for modules that increase numbers (damage mods etc) and that the bug is that modules that reduce numbers (resistance mods) are treated the same way, ie. in the opposite order. If the code orders the modules largest number first then: For damage mods, if you had one of each: complex 10% = 1.1 - no penalty enhanced 5% = 1.05 - 1st penalty basic 3% = 1.03 - 2nd penalty For resistance mods (I'll make up some numbers): basic 3% = 0.97 - no penalty since it has the largest number enhanced 5% = 0.95 - 1st penalty complex 10% = 0.9 - 2rd penalty since it has the smallest number Not sure, and I'm not in a position to check at the moment. But I do think that we've done enough research to demonstrate to CCP that there is something here that needs to be checked, and they can go do the rest of the research :) Edit: this suggestion you make was also mentioned earlier in the thread though I can't remember who said it. Vyzion, I think?

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.