| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bass Indy
   |
Posted - 2009.03.10 23:35:00 -
[1]
I am not quite understanding how this works. With several different types of equipment it says if more than one module of the same type is activated there is a negative modifier.
Does this mean that instead of 100% performance plus the modules bonus you would end up at less than 100%. Or does it mean that you recieve 100% plus the first module at 100% plus second module at less than 100%? So that there is diminishing returns.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.03.10 23:40:00 -
[2]
It is called stacking penalty. Modules are affected according to effect.
Can't remember the exact numbers but something like this.
module 1: 100%
module 2: ~87%
module 3: ~52%
So if you have a hardener giving you 50% resistance and add a second hardener of the same type, you total bonus to resistance becomes: 50% + (0.87*50%)
General rule of thumb is to never use more than three modules to get any effect, 4th and following have such a low power that another module is usually better.
|
Bass Indy
|
Posted - 2009.03.10 23:41:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
It is called stacking penalty. Modules are affected according to effect.
Can't remember the exact numbers but something like this.
module 1: 100%
module 2: ~87%
module 3: ~52%
So if you have a hardener giving you 50% resistance and add a second hardener of the same type, you total bonus to resistance becomes: 50% + (0.87*50%)
General rule of thumb is to never use more than three modules to get any effect, 4th and following have such a low power that another module is usually better.
Thank you that was the information I needed.
|
Cmndr Griff
Capitalistic Tendencies
Red Dwarf Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.10 23:42:00 -
[4]
Full list below though to be honest few ships use anymore than three of a module as usually something else would benefit more.
*** Stacking Penalities ***
1st mod: c(1) = 100,000% effectiveness
2nd mod: c(2) = 86,9119842% effectiveness
3rd mod: c(3) = 57,1037996% effectiveness
4th mod: c(4) = 28,2469117% effectiveness
5th mod: c(5) = 10,5988834% effectiveness
6th mod: c(6) = 2,9989473% effectiveness
7th mod: c(7) = 0,5134081% effectiveness
8th mod: c(8) = 0,2106917% effectiveness
|
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 00:17:00 -
[5]
Furthermore, this is why ships with a resistance bonus are screwed vs. ships with a damage bonus. If you add a resistance mod to a punisher, it only reduces a percentage of the remaining 100% after the base resistance. Adding a Gyro to a Rifter gets the full benefit of the module AND full benefit of the ship bonus. 
and yes...I am mad.
Make ship resistance bonuses a linear addition!!!
Patri
A fool usually thinks he is a genius |
Lincoln Armm
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 00:23:00 -
[6]
I don't agree. Ship res bonuses are absolute bonuses to defense which is a good thing. Yes it lessens the impact of using hardeners but it lessens the need for them by exactly the same amount.
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 00:31:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Ki Tarra on 11/03/2009 00:31:54
Originally by: Patri Andari
Furthermore, this is why ships with a resistance bonus are screwed vs. ships with a damage bonus. If you add a resistance mod to a punisher, it only reduces a percentage of the remaining 100% after the base resistance. Adding a Gyro to a Rifter gets the full benefit of the module AND full benefit of the ship bonus.
No!
Ship resistance bonuses do not suffer from stacking penalties.
Fitting a Tech 1 active hardener on a Punisher will reduce the incoming damage to one half, the same as it does on any other ship.
Stacking penalties also don't apply to Damage Control modules. It doesn't matter what your other resistances are, you always get the same bonus from a DC.
Most likely your misunderstanding comes from the way resistances are displayed.
A 80% reistance is twice as good as an 60% reistances, because a 20% vulnerablity is twice as good as a 40% vulnerablity.
Stacking penalties don't apply to ship resistance bonuses any more than they apply to weapon damage bonuses.
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 00:32:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Patri Andari
Furthermore, this is why ships with a resistance bonus are screwed vs. ships with a damage bonus. If you add a resistance mod to a punisher, it only reduces a percentage of the remaining 100% after the base resistance. Adding a Gyro to a Rifter gets the full benefit of the module AND full benefit of the ship bonus.
and yes...I am mad.
Make ship resistance bonuses a linear addition!!!
Ironicly, if they were you'd rather quickly end up with >100% resistances. Interesting huh?
And your way of thinking on the resistance bonuses is a tad flawed. Yes, it's true, but there's also that all modules work this way. For the sake of proving a point, imagine a ship fitted with 2 non-stacking penalized hardeners. The first one would deduct 50% of the incoming damage(after base resistances) the second one would deduct 25%. Now, they are stacking penalized and the second one does instead deduct 21.somethingsomething percent. With gunmods it's often the other way around. If the first one were to add 50% alpha, the second would add 75%, for a total of 125%. Now they're stacking penalized so it wouldn't increase that much. If they were additive(what you suggest) the damage mods would add 50% then 50% for a total of 100%.
Of course this only works for positive bonuses, such as damage or alpha bonuses, Rate of Fire bonuses are already identical in their behavior to resistances, they both remove a portion of the remainder and they're both stacking penalized.
So you could say a resistance bonus is better than a damage bonus from a mathematical standpoint, since it delays a penalty that is quite noticable from the second module while damage modules are only noticable at the third.
Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 544753
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 00:35:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ki Tarra
Edited by: Ki Tarra on 11/03/2009 00:31:54
Originally by: Patri Andari
Furthermore, this is why ships with a resistance bonus are screwed vs. ships with a damage bonus. If you add a resistance mod to a punisher, it only reduces a percentage of the remaining 100% after the base resistance. Adding a Gyro to a Rifter gets the full benefit of the module AND full benefit of the ship bonus.
No!
Ship resistance bonuses do not suffer from stacking penalties.
Fitting a Tech 1 active hardener on a Punisher will reduce the incoming damage to one half, the same as it does on any other ship.
Stacking penalties also don't apply to Damage Control modules. It doesn't matter what your other resistances are, you always get the same bonus from a DC.
Most likely your misunderstanding comes from the way resistances are displayed.
A 80% reistance is twice as good as an 60% reistances, because a 20% vulnerablity is twice as good as a 40% vulnerablity.
Stacking penalties don't apply to ship resistance bonuses any more than they apply to weapon damage bonuses.
I think the point he's making is...
If you take 100 EM damage on raw armor, you take 50 damage. Now add a 25% resistance bonus from the ship, you take 37.5 damage. Now add a t1 EM hardener, you take 18.75 points of damage, 18.75 points were canceled by the hardener.
If you didn't have that bonus, the hardener would have canceled 25 points of damage. Thus even if it's not stacking penalized it renders the hardener less effective, in a very very odd perspective.
Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 517523
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 00:36:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Patri Andari
Furthermore, this is why ships with a resistance bonus are screwed vs. ships with a damage bonus. If you add a resistance mod to a punisher, it only reduces a percentage of the remaining 100% after the base resistance. Adding a Gyro to a Rifter gets the full benefit of the module AND full benefit of the ship bonus.
and yes...I am mad.
Make ship resistance bonuses a linear addition!!!
This is erroneous and I will tell you why.
Resistance bonuses cannot be a "linear addition", because of the nature in which damage is reduced by your resistance. A 25% resistance bonus equals 25% less damage. If you had 50% resistance to start with, taking 25% less damage means having a new resistance of 62.5%. If you add 25% onto the initial 50% resistance for a total of 75%, you are actually taking 50% less damage from a 25% bonus. This would be horrendously overpowered, and would also make it possible to create 100% resistance fits, which should not exist.
In other words, your maths is weak.
--
Don't harsh my mellow |
|
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 00:48:00 -
[11]
Originally by: NoNah
Thus even if it's not stacking penalized it renders the hardener less effective, in a very very odd perspective.
I realize that you understand how resistances really work. However, that "very very odd perspecitive" is comparable to how General Relativity allows you to see the Earth as the stationary center of the universe from a "very very odd perspective": even if you understand that perspective, it is useless for any practical application.
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 00:59:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ki Tarra
Originally by: NoNah
Thus even if it's not stacking penalized it renders the hardener less effective, in a very very odd perspective.
I realize that you understand how resistances really work. However, that "very very odd perspecitive" is comparable to how General Relativity allows you to see the Earth as the stationary center of the universe from a "very very odd perspective": even if you understand that perspective, it is useless for any practical application.
Ironicly a earthcentred way of explaining the universe worked very well in most aspects, and you could still make it work based upon extended version of the charts and tables used at the time. In the end this is a very finite enviroment in which we're placed in the middle of it. We don't know why things are the way they are, we don't know how resistances are calculated. In fact they could be linear and additive with a very complex stacking penalty algorithm, based individually per module. We just chose this way of explaining it for simplicity. All we are setting out to do is really to find ways of anticipating output based on the input we feed through combinations of modules on the hardware level and then do the same in space in tactical combat. We have little to no way of explaining how things actually work, short of accepting the most rational and logical reason. Heck, even the source code to all of it wouldn't explain it all, we'd have to dig down through not only compilers and API's but through ALU's and basic instruction sets. For all we know the kind of charts used in explaining the earthcentred universe could be quite similar to tables used to enforce static figures and algorithms in game.
With limited view of scenarios it doesn't really matter what we consider the origin or the reason, as long as we can predict the result and optimize based on it.
It being a very very odd perspective is my reflection on his reasonings, not me arguing for it being a rational or logic way of doing so. As implied in the post above, it's alot easier for me to do it the other way around, the same way you suggest.
Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 152979
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |