| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Altina McAlterson
Not Guilty
EoN.
551
   |
Posted - 2013.06.20 11:28:00 -
[31] - Quote
EDIT: Post under construction to remove stupid and compensate for lack of sleep. |
Bendtner92
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
610
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 11:40:00 -
[32] - Quote
shaman oga wrote:it's not a good thing, it should have a total of 25% of resistance, why a skill should decrease the efficiency of our modules?
your logic
first module
100-10=90
15*90%= 13.5
10+13.5=23.5
second module
100-10-15=75
(15*87%)*75%= 9.7875
10+13.5+9.7875= 33.28
instead of
first module
25%
second module
15*87%= 13.05
25+13.05= 38.05
That's just the way it works. It's not resistance added on top of 0% resistance, but resistance retracted from total damage (100%).
Also if it was resistance added on top of 0%, the bonuses would be multiplied, since that's the way it works in that case. So it would be 10% from skill * 15% module * 13,05% module with stacking penalty = about 43% resistance.
CCP is balancing the resistance stuff based on the way they work. If they were to change the way they work, they would also have to rebalance them. |
shaman oga
Nexus Balusa Horizon
DARKSTAR ARMY
188
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 12:20:00 -
[33] - Quote
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. |
Altina McAlterson
Not Guilty
EoN.
551
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 12:29:00 -
[34] - Quote
shaman oga wrote:it's not a good thing, it should have a total of 25% of resistance, why a skill should decrease the efficiency of our modules?
your logic
first module
100-10=90
15*90%= 13.5
10+13.5=23.5
second module
100-10-15=75
(15*87%)*75%= 9.7875
10+13.5+9.7875= 33.28
instead of
first module
25%
second module
15*87%= 13.05
25+13.05= 38.05
All bonuses are calculated the exact same way so even though in this case you get less of a bonus things like weapon damage and shield recharge rate actually get a larger bonus so in the end it all works out.
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? |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion
RISE of LEGION
124
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 13:15:00 -
[35] - 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 -
[36] - 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. |
Altina McAlterson
Not Guilty
EoN.
551
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 14:01:00 -
[37] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote: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.
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. |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion
RISE of LEGION
124
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 14:22:00 -
[38] - 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. |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
475
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 00:24:00 -
[39] - Quote
Yea the 'traditional' ccp ideology of the order of applying stacking penalties is indeed
- Best first (unpenalized)
- Second best then (first stacking penalty
- Third mod (second penalty)
etc
If that's not the case in dust then we can say that's a bug, or say "That's Dust". |
Altina McAlterson
Not Guilty
EoN.
553
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 02:14:00 -
[40] - Quote
After further research my statement that modules are ordered so that you receive the maximum possible bonus. In fact the poster above is correct in that module are ordered by magnitude starting with the highest value module and moving to the lowest.
It would seem I was confused and after I finally tracked down the source for my information I found that the actual statement was that modules are ordered as stated about because that method consistently results in the player getting the maximum bonus possible.
So this issue with the resistance mods is unique in that applying the penalty to the larger value module would result in a higher bonus but the game nonetheless applies the penalty to the smaller module same as it always does. This quirk would most likely only affect reduction bonuses due to how the math works out. |
|
|
Garth Mandra
The Southern Legion
RISE of LEGION
19
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 02:55:00 -
[41] - Quote
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
|
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion
RISE of LEGION
124
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 13:43:00 -
[42] - 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? |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
489
|
Posted - 2013.06.25 16:29:00 -
[43] - 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
Hmm, I don't think that's the case as it's possible to calculate resistances without using the 1-x style (0,85) which I used in order to explain things easier.
But I won't be checking that as well.
As above poster, I hope CCP has a quick look at how dust handles.
they have the real values and they know how they intend things to be. Just hoping that they shed some light on it.... |
Altina McAlterson
Not Guilty
EoN.
564
|
Posted - 2013.06.25 20:13:00 -
[44] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:
Hmm, I don't think that's the case as it's possible to calculate resistances without using the 1-x style (0,85) which I used in order to explain things easier.
But I won't be checking that as well.
As above poster, I hope CCP has a quick look at how dust handles.
they have the real values and they know how they intend things to be. Just hoping that they shed some light on it....
I plugged the formulas in to excel and when when I went back and looked they appeared to be correct but I guess I cut a paste something somewhere. Anyway, calculator agrees with you.
When I looked at it for a minute I had to laugh because it's so simple I can't believe I didn't see it earlier and it's been staring us in the face the whole time. In fact it may not be a bug at all as just to be on the safe side they purposefully left out the additional code needed for you to end up with the higher resistance.
Basically we hate negative numbers and don't use them. We say that the 15% modules has higher resists than the 10% and that's true. And when I wrote out the formula it looked like this:
...( 1 - x ) * ( 1 - ( y * .87 ) ) ...
Though this formula will give you the right answer it's not not actully correct and is not the way the game would do it. The percent change is the difference of the initial value to the final value all divided by the initial value. You can rewrite that to find the final value(damage taken) given the initial value (damage dealt) and the percent change (% resistance). Not going to type those out though, don't need them. Graph these values for any given amount of incoming damage and each % resistance and you get a line that goes from the initial value to zero and has a slope of -1.
y = (-1) * x + 1
That is the simplified to:
y = 1 + ( -x )
Even though in arithmetic all those equations for any given number would be the same because you're dealing with addition and subtraction , doesn't matter what it is. Here things do matter in the sense that a particular term might consist of a product or quotient and will be different than either other the individual terms themselves. In this case x represent the % bonus of the module the rate of change in the graph is given by negative x because the graph is decreasing.
So for resistance mods the rate of change for a 15% resistance module is -.15 but if it was a 15% increase then the rate of change would be .15.
So the equation the game will use in this calculation is:
( 1 + ( -.1 ) ) * ( 1 + ( -.1 ) ) * ( 1 + ( -.15 * .87 ) ) = .7043
Even though the 15% module would appear to be the larger module the rate of change is actually less than that of the 10% module because -.15 < -.1.
The game just puts them in order from smallest to largest and is correctly applying the penalty to the smaller value.
EDIT: Rate of Change isn't the right word but I'm tired and I really don't what it should. My explanation there as a little off you still understood it enough. I know it's long and mathy and maybe it's stuff you already understand I just did it this way because trying to explain it without using math was impossible for me tonight. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |