Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar E.A.R.T.H. Federation
347
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 00:00:00 -
[31] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Val'Dore wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Celeste Benal wrote:Resist modules are not stacking penalized. However, resists added to a certain damage type are reduced by the current resist percentage. Otherwise, it would be hilariously easy to get resists beyond 100% on tech 2 and 3 ships.
So adding a 30% bonus on top of a 25% resist will get you .30*(1-.25)+.30 = .525 = 52.5% resist, not 55%.
Also, inb4 moved to ships and modules.
Resists are penalized, unless they're explicitly stated not to. Like the damage control module. although the mod description says 'penalty', i think resist mods are really more like diminishing returns, rather than the stacking penalty mechanic? the damage control is just additive to the resist rather than multiplicative? There is the native penalty involved that this thread covered and the arbitrary penalty added to curb multiplier stacking. Wasn't really needed for resists, but they did it anyway. Resists are double penalized, nothing else gets that treatment. Resists aren't "double penalised".
Okay, they are subject to two stacking penalties. Still a knit picker, I see.
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
990
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 00:06:00 -
[32] - Quote
This thread has been moved to Ships & Modules.
I have also removed a rule breaking post. The rules: 5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Ezwal Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
2057
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 01:27:00 -
[33] - Quote
Val'Dore wrote:Okay, they are subject to two stacking penalties. Still a knit picker, I see.
No they aren't. They're subject to one stacking penalty just like everything else. The fact that they are calculated multiplicatively has nothing at all to do with stacking penalties. |
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
837
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 03:14:00 -
[34] - Quote
Val'Dore wrote:
Okay, they are subject to two stacking penalties. Still a knit picker, I see.
here is a helpful hint. The difference between 50% resistance and 55% resistance is 10% less damage taken, 10% more maximum damage perma tanked and 10% longer time to die if not repaired. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
255
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 08:51:00 -
[35] - Quote
Rei Kuroki wrote:Thanks for all the answers, so that was whats going on :O
EVE math is really confusing at some parts :S The key with resists is that Resistances are only the "customer facing" statistic... The real system is apparently known as Resonance. A 0% resistance is actually a 100% Resonance, a (theoretical) 100% resistance would be a 0% Resonance and the scale continues to 200% Resonance (which would display as -100% resistance but which actually means double damage). The resist mods change the resonance - a 30% resist mod reduces your ship's resonance with a specific damage type by 30% of its current value. So if you have a ship with an EM Resonance of 100% (0% EM resist) and you slap on a T1 hardener (50% resist bonus) its resonance is reduced by 50% of its initial value (100 x 50% = 50), the Resonance becomes 50% (your ship takes half the EM damage it normally would) and this is then displayed by the client as a 50% resistance. If you have a ship with a 60% Kinetic Resonance (40% kinetic resist) and you slap on a T1 Invuln (25% resist bonus) the Resonance is reduced by 25% (60 x 25% = 15), becoming 45% Resonance (displayed in the client as 55% resist).
Personally I found Resonances clicked when I first read about them (I wish I could remember which Dev posted the full explanation) in a way resistances never had. |
Old Phill
Republic University Minmatar Republic
56
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 11:16:00 -
[36] - Quote
if resist mods didnt do this god that would be bad hello godmode ship which has 100% resist everything |
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar E.A.R.T.H. Federation
348
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 15:31:00 -
[37] - Quote
Zhilia Mann wrote:Val'Dore wrote:Okay, they are subject to two stacking penalties. Still a knit picker, I see. No they aren't. They're subject to one stacking penalty just like everything else. The fact that they are calculated multiplicatively has nothing at all to do with stacking penalties.
Tauranon wrote:Val'Dore wrote:
Okay, they are subject to two stacking penalties. Still a knit picker, I see.
here is a helpful hint. The difference between 50% resistance and 55% resistance is 10% less damage taken, 10% more maximum damage perma tanked and 10% longer time to die if not repaired.
You aren't telling me anything I haven't already known since 2004. When stacking penalties were introduced to stop the Gankageddon, resist mode were not OP, meaning had no need of being nerfed with the arbitrary penalty we all know and love today, because of the 'native' stacking penalty they have from being what they are.
Sure, virtually immune ships existed... well no, they didn't. Not in any meaningful way. Though it was fun to use a Geddon's 8 lows to type tank other Gankageddons. It served no practical purpose to do it normally.
Anyway, carry on with the picking of knits.
|
Benny Ohu
Beneath the Ashes Margin of Silence
2687
|
Posted - 2014.03.16 17:32:00 -
[38] - Quote
ok first of all it's 'nitpicking', not 'knit picking' |
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
844
|
Posted - 2014.03.16 21:44:00 -
[39] - Quote
Val'Dore wrote:Zhilia Mann wrote:Val'Dore wrote:Okay, they are subject to two stacking penalties. Still a knit picker, I see. No they aren't. They're subject to one stacking penalty just like everything else. The fact that they are calculated multiplicatively has nothing at all to do with stacking penalties. Tauranon wrote:Val'Dore wrote:
Okay, they are subject to two stacking penalties. Still a knit picker, I see.
here is a helpful hint. The difference between 50% resistance and 55% resistance is 10% less damage taken, 10% more maximum damage perma tanked and 10% longer time to die if not repaired. You aren't telling me anything I haven't already known since 2004. When stacking penalties were introduced to stop the Gankageddon, resist mode were not OP, meaning had no need of being nerfed with the arbitrary penalty we all know and love today, because of the 'native' stacking penalty they have from being what they are.
You should probably look up authority fallacy. Adding one to your false assertion, won't make your false assertion suddenly true.
|
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar E.A.R.T.H. Federation
350
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:08:00 -
[40] - Quote
Resist mods have a depreciating cumulative effect. You can Democrat it all you want, the result is each one does less than the previous one.
|
|
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
312
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 12:54:00 -
[41] - Quote
Val'Dore wrote:Resist mods have a depreciating cumulative effect. You can Democrat it all you want, the result is each one does less than the previous one. Only because you choose to look at it from the perspective of resist percent. Turn it around and look at it from the perspective of EHP. Take for sake of example a fictional ship with 0% base resist and 100HP. Now apply a 50% resist module to it. That doubles the EHP, a net gain of 100 EHP. Now apply a second hardener. If you ignore the actual stacking penalty for a moment, it will double your EHP again for a net gain of 200 EHP. So while you consider the multiplicative stacking to be a penalty because the second module "only" gives you an additional 25% increase to your resistance instead of 50%, the second module actually had a bigger impact on your EHP than the first.
(Note: Even if you don't ignore the actual stacking penalty in the formula, the second module still increases your EHP by more than the first. That's easily testable in PyFA, Osmium, EFT, etc.) |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |