EVE Search - What's up with stacking penalty?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

What's up with stacking penalty?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Alex Sinai Constantly Causing Problems Everyone Enjoys 95	Posted - 2012.05.18 09:42:00 - [1] - Quote Hi there, I was and is wondering what's up with that "bright" idea of stacking penalty? If i have 2 computers they both work at full capacity and not like stack to 1.2 or 0.4 of their full power. Same everywhere else. Its not like 2 nuclear reactors "stack" up to 1.2 or whatever else number of their full capacity. What's up with this nonsense and why everyone tolerates it. It simply does not makes any sense. I think its time to remove this thing from the game.
Himnos Altar An Errant Venture 39	Posted - 2012.05.18 09:43:00 - [2] - Quote it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty
Gorki Andropov Kerensky Initiatives 443	Posted - 2012.05.18 09:44:00 - [3] - Quote Your first fail was drawing a comparison with real life. Your second fail was not noticing that the stacking penalties actually provide a kind of in-built 'balancer' to the game. And your third fail is actually a kind of success, as I have just noticed your corp name. Congratulations!
Alex Sinai Constantly Causing Problems Everyone Enjoys 95	Posted - 2012.05.18 09:45:00 - [4] - Quote Himnos Altar wrote: it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily.
Alex Sinai Constantly Causing Problems Everyone Enjoys 95	Posted - 2012.05.18 09:47:00 - [5] - Quote Gorki Andropov wrote: Your first fail was drawing a comparison with real life. Your second fail was not noticing that the stacking penalties actually provide a kind of in-built 'balancer' to the game. And your third fail is actually a kind of success, as I have just noticed your corp name. Congratulations! Thanks :) Still stacking does not makes sense. In any world. It's either on everything or on nothing. Why torpedo launchers dont have stacking? They use cpu. Why reactors have stacking? It's not comparison to real world. Its comparison to basic logic.
Himnos Altar An Errant Venture 39	Posted - 2012.05.18 09:47:00 - [6] - Quote Alex Sinai wrote: Himnos Altar wrote: it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. you just want 90-100% resists too easily. NO. EVE is hard mode. Even in hi sec (see Suicide Gankers/War Dec griefers, Shiny mission ship gankers, ninjas, incursion griefers).
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 256	Posted - 2012.05.18 09:48:00 - [7] - Quote 2 people will run a mile faster than 1 person and if we get 10,000 people we can build a house in about 2 minutes.
Kaaeliaa Ministry of War 25	Posted - 2012.05.18 09:48:00 - [8] - Quote It won't be going anywhere without a significant overhaul of the entire game. Just as an example, an Apocalypse Navy Issue has 8 low slots. Fill them up with Imperial Navy Heat Sink modules. You now have +100% damage if there's no stacking penalty. That's why the stacking penalty exists; damage and resistances would be off the wall without it.
Alex Sinai Constantly Causing Problems Everyone Enjoys 95	Posted - 2012.05.18 09:55:00 - [9] - Quote Kaaeliaa wrote: It won't be going anywhere without a significant overhaul of the entire game. Just as an example, an Apocalypse Navy Issue has 8 low slots. Fill them up with Imperial Navy Heat Sink modules. You now have +100% damage if there's no stacking penalty. That's why the stacking penalty exists. Damage and resists would be off the wall without the penalty. Thank you, quite clear explanation. Also it fuels economy on destroyed items since to make the item effective you need to stack 2-3 items there. I wasn't actually referring to resists. More toward dampeners but resists argument also works. CCP should come with overhaul or whatever else because "stacking" makes no sense and contradicts logic in so many cases in world of EVE and real world.
TheBlueMonkey Natural Progression Hedonistic Imperative 165	Posted - 2012.05.18 09:55:00 - [10] - Quote Alex Sinai wrote: Himnos Altar wrote: it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. Two computers working side by side would indeed process the data twice as quick. But the computing power required is expenential. It's not that there's a penaltiy, it's more than getting 100% resist is insanely difficult. Going from 25% resist to 47% requires the computing power of one invuln but to get to 69% would take more than twice the processing power because the maths is more difficult. Is that close enough to some kinda plauseable lore for you or do I have to say things like higsboson and mention then hiesnburge differential or some crap? can you shut up and **** off now?
Gorki Andropov Kerensky Initiatives 444	Posted - 2012.05.18 09:57:00 - [11] - Quote Our ships fly in a space that's more akin to oil than vacuum, and you complain about this?!
Destiny Corrupted Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company 469	Posted - 2012.05.18 09:57:00 - [12] - Quote Kaaeliaa wrote: It won't be going anywhere without a significant overhaul of the entire game. Just as an example, an Apocalypse Navy Issue has 8 low slots. Fill them up with Imperial Navy Heat Sink modules. You now have +100% damage if there's no stacking penalty. That's why the stacking penalty exists. Damage and resists would be off the wall without the penalty. Actually, it would be, uh, 523%. Alex Sinai wrote: This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. Sounds to me like you should quit and find a more realistic video game.
Alex Sinai Constantly Causing Problems Everyone Enjoys 95	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:00:00 - [13] - Quote TheBlueMonkey wrote: Alex Sinai wrote: Himnos Altar wrote: it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. Two computers working side by side would indeed process the data twice as quick. But the computing power required is expenential. It's not that there's a penaltiy, it's more than getting 100% resist is insanely difficult. Going from 25% resist to 47% requires the computing power of one invuln but to get to 69% would take more than twice the processing power because the maths is more difficult. Is that close enough to some kinda plauseable lore for you or do I have to say things like higsboson and mention then hiesnburge differential or some crap? can you shut up and **** off now? Can i ask just one question concerning it? Then why having two torpedo launchers not causing stacking? What about not possible to fit two Damage Controls? Or how about fitting 6 salvagers not causing "stacking" due to higher requirements of power and cpu? Stacking is a good excuse but bad solution. Thank you for attempting to explain it within the lore but no thank you for being rude.
Kaaeliaa Ministry of War 25	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:00:00 - [14] - Quote Son of a biscuit. I forgot they were multiplicative. Fortunately, it doesn't change my argument.
Shpenat Pafos Technologies 12	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:01:00 - [15] - Quote Alex Sinai wrote: So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. 2 completely separate computer sure does work at their full capacity. But engineer would be called moron if he puts 2 completely separate computer into an aircraft. usually you want some level of interoperability. Or at very least use the very same set of input and output devices (for the cost sake). And at that point you get "stacking penalty" in real aircraft as well.
Alex Sinai Constantly Causing Problems Everyone Enjoys 95	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:01:00 - [16] - Quote Destiny Corrupted wrote: Kaaeliaa wrote: It won't be going anywhere without a significant overhaul of the entire game. Just as an example, an Apocalypse Navy Issue has 8 low slots. Fill them up with Imperial Navy Heat Sink modules. You now have +100% damage if there's no stacking penalty. That's why the stacking penalty exists. Damage and resists would be off the wall without the penalty. Actually, it would be, uh, 523%. Alex Sinai wrote: This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. Sounds to me like you should quit and find a more realistic video game. I will think about quitting right after you quit dear and please dont forget to contract your stuff to me while door hits you in the ***.
Baneken Hyvat Pahat ja Eric The Polaris Syndicate 122	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:02:00 - [17] - Quote So with that logic if I put two engines in my car in theory that should give it 2x the speed, strangely this doesn't happen. Or if I put 2 barrels in my gun I can kill two people with one shot ? No that didn't work either; Oh darn it looks like adding 1 + 1 isn't always 2 in RL.
Alex Sinai Constantly Causing Problems Everyone Enjoys 95	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:03:00 - [18] - Quote Shpenat wrote: Alex Sinai wrote: So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. 2 completely separate computer sure does work at their full capacity. But engineer would be called moron if he puts 2 completely separate computer into an aircraft. usually you want some level of interoperability. Or at very least use the very same set of input and output devices (for the cost sake). And at that point you get "stacking penalty" in real aircraft as well. Surprise. Boeing uses 5 to 7 completely separate backup systems that backs each other in case of fault and no they dont have any "stacking" penalties.
Alex Sinai Constantly Causing Problems Everyone Enjoys 95	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:04:00 - [19] - Quote Baneken wrote: So with that logic if I put two engines in my car in theory that should give it 2x the speed, strangely this doesn't happen. Or if I put 2 barrels in my gun I can kill two people with one shot ? No that didn't work either; Oh darn it looks like adding 1 + 1 isn't always 2 in RL. If you put two barrels you get twice the firepower. If you add two engines you spend twice on fuels. Depends on point of view. :p
Kaaeliaa Ministry of War 25	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:05:00 - [20] - Quote I feel bad now, because I totally responded to what is now becoming an obvious troll thread.
Alex Sinai Constantly Causing Problems Everyone Enjoys 95	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:06:00 - [21] - Quote I already got the answer kindly provided by Kaaeliaa and thanks very much to her for excellent explanation. But still i think that CCP should come with more logical stuff then "stacking" that makes so low sense in logic. It's plausible but that is exactly it. Just plausible not sound.
Destiny Corrupted Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company 470	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:08:00 - [22] - Quote Alex Sinai wrote: Surprise. Boeing uses 5 to 7 completely separate backup systems that backs each other in case of fault and no they dont have any "stacking" penalties. 8/10
Tor Gungnir Agenda Industries 72	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:12:00 - [23] - Quote Posting in a troll thread.
Jagga Spikes Spikes Chop Shop 69	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:12:00 - [24] - Quote Alex Sinai wrote: Shpenat wrote: Alex Sinai wrote: So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. 2 completely separate computer sure does work at their full capacity. But engineer would be called moron if he puts 2 completely separate computer into an aircraft. usually you want some level of interoperability. Or at very least use the very same set of input and output devices (for the cost sake). And at that point you get "stacking penalty" in real aircraft as well. Surprise. Boeing uses 5 to 7 completely separate backup systems that backs each other in case of fault and no they dont have any "stacking" penalties. actually, backup system are example of stacking penalty. most of the time, there is no benefit from that much safety.
Alex Sinai Constantly Causing Problems Everyone Enjoys 95	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:13:00 - [25] - Quote Jagga Spikes wrote: Alex Sinai wrote: Shpenat wrote: Alex Sinai wrote: So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. 2 completely separate computer sure does work at their full capacity. But engineer would be called moron if he puts 2 completely separate computer into an aircraft. usually you want some level of interoperability. Or at very least use the very same set of input and output devices (for the cost sake). And at that point you get "stacking penalty" in real aircraft as well. Surprise. Boeing uses 5 to 7 completely separate backup systems that backs each other in case of fault and no they dont have any "stacking" penalties. actually, backup system are example of stacking penalty. most of the time, there is no benefit from that much safety. If there wouldn't they would put 1 more system. Not 5.
TheBlueMonkey Natural Progression Hedonistic Imperative 166	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:30:00 - [26] - Quote Alex Sinai wrote: TheBlueMonkey wrote: Alex Sinai wrote: Himnos Altar wrote: it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. Two computers working side by side would indeed process the data twice as quick. But the computing power required is expenential. It's not that there's a penaltiy, it's more than getting 100% resist is insanely difficult. Going from 25% resist to 47% requires the computing power of one invuln but to get to 69% would take more than twice the processing power because the maths is more difficult. Is that close enough to some kinda plauseable lore for you or do I have to say things like higsboson and mention then hiesnburge differential or some crap? can you shut up and **** off now? Can i ask just one question concerning it? Then why having two torpedo launchers not causing stacking? What about not possible to fit two Damage Controls? Or how about fitting 6 salvagers not causing "stacking" due to higher requirements of power and cpu? Stacking is a good excuse but bad solution. Thank you for attempting to explain it within the lore but no thank you for being rude. Monkey rude, deal with it. Torpedo launchers are self contained units as are salvagers so although the command from the bridge is "fire" each individual unit is self contained and tracks\launches\salvages on it's own but as a group "note weapon grouping". Each gun is working on a seperate problem to the same standard, or working in parallel. This allows for guns to be destroyed and the others not be effected. As for a damage contol, it's a central system that monitors all systems. Multiple damage controls would be detrimental as it would cause them to "fight" each other for control of systems and most likely result in jetisning morons into the cold harsh vacume of monkies heart... I mean space.
Generals4 Caldari State 724	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:35:00 - [27] - Quote Alex Sinai wrote: Jagga Spikes wrote: Alex Sinai wrote: Shpenat wrote: Alex Sinai wrote: So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. 2 completely separate computer sure does work at their full capacity. But engineer would be called moron if he puts 2 completely separate computer into an aircraft. usually you want some level of interoperability. Or at very least use the very same set of input and output devices (for the cost sake). And at that point you get "stacking penalty" in real aircraft as well. Surprise. Boeing uses 5 to 7 completely separate backup systems that backs each other in case of fault and no they dont have any "stacking" penalties. actually, backup system are example of stacking penalty. most of the time, there is no benefit from that much safety. If there wouldn't they would put 1 more system. Not 5. Euhm, you sure have little knowledge about this kind of stuff. Why they use 5 is because even though there is a stacking penalty something going wrong can cause so much damage it's better to be 99.9999% sure rather than 99.999% And you may wonder how the stacking penalty works, well it's simple. Lets say the systems have 10% chance to fail, if you add a backup the chances for everything to fail (main+backup) are 1%, so you gain 9% safety. Now add an other back up system and your chances are reduced to 0.1% which is only a gain of 0.9% safety, etc. That's stacking penalty right there *-Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.*
Xhaiden Ora University of Caille Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:37:00 - [28] - Quote ITS REAL TO ME, DAMMIT.
Abdiel Kavash Paladin Order Fidelas Constans 483	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:42:00 - [29] - Quote One woman can give birth to one child in nine months. Nine women can give birth to nine children in nine months. By that logic, nine women should be able to give birth to one child in a single month. EVE is a game first, a simulation second. The stacking penalties are there for game balance reasons. Don't look for an in-depth roleplay / physical / technological explanation behind them, there is none.
Rodj Blake PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 879	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:48:00 - [30] - Quote Alex Sinai wrote: Himnos Altar wrote: it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. If you have two computers solving the same problem, you do not solve the problem in half the time. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Arec Bardwin Perkone Caldari State 442	Posted - 2012.05.18 10:58:00 - [31] - Quote Gorki Andropov wrote: Our ships fly in a space that's more akin to oil than vacuum, and you complain about this?! Aaand let's finish off the thread with this...
Kaaeliaa Ministry of War 25	Posted - 2012.05.18 11:00:00 - [32] - Quote Rodj Blake wrote: Alex Sinai wrote: Himnos Altar wrote: it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. If you have two computers solving the same problem, you do not solve the problem in half the time. This is why CPU clock speed is preferable to parallel processing. The only reason Intel and AMD are slapping more cores on everything is because they have no choice, since we've reached the end of practical clock speed increases. Since our ships are presumably highly dependent on computer automation...well, there you go, OP.
Imryn Xaran Coherent Light Enterprises 38	Posted - 2012.05.18 11:01:00 - [33] - Quote If you want a real world example of a stacking penalty just look at an SLI or Xfire rig. You have 2 x GPU's so you get double the performance of 1 GPU right? Nope.
Serge Bastana GWA Corp Unified Church of the Unobligated 510	Posted - 2012.05.18 11:01:00 - [34] - Quote A wizard did it. WoW holds your hand until end game, and gives you a cookie whether you win or lose. EVE not only takes your cookie, but laughs at you for bringing one in the first place...
AureoBroker Natural Inventions 44	Posted - 2012.05.18 11:03:00 - [35] - Quote ITT: Lack of basic computer science knowledge, but performing high-tier trolling.
Ptraci 3 R Corporation The Irukandji 509	Posted - 2012.05.18 11:14:00 - [36] - Quote "If I have 2 computers" You are neglecting a few things in your imaginary set up: 2 computers means twice the room. You will need another desk, because it also means another mouse, another keyboard and another monitor. Another desk means you need a bigger room. Another desk means you now have to swivel with your office chair to access one or the other computers. It also means more cables. You could need another plug - certainly another power-bar. And you will be drawing more amps from the breaker box. 3 computers you definitely need more room. Possibly cooling solutions. Your cables must be organized or they will be an unholy mess. Remember to clean up regularly because 3 computers are now dust magnets (quite literally, thanks to static). 4 computers - now I don't want to see your electric bill. I hope you have surge supression too because one voltage spike will now cost you a hell of a lot of money. By the way, you did run in a seperate power cable with a separate circuit breaker, right? Made sure it was a heavy gauge wire so your house doesn't burn down? Etc. Oh now you can make all sorts of arguments about racks and virtualization, but you are only arguing against yourself. Diminishing returns is an important part of both science, economic and business theory. It's part of life. Eve attempts to simulate this. Deal with it.
Savage Angel Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2012.05.18 11:14:00 - [37] - Quote Alex Sinai wrote: Himnos Altar wrote: it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. You do realize that two or more computers working on the same problem will have a stacking penalty? On independent problems they will not duplicate work or resources, but if on the same problem you will not solve it twice as fast by running extra processors, unless the job is uniquely suited to be completely parallel.
Plentath Sudden Buggery 11	Posted - 2012.05.18 11:19:00 - [38] - Quote Real life physicists need to work out this "stacking penalty" thing because it's not very realistic. Why is it that when I double the horsepower of my car the performance to top speed and acceleration isn't linear also? It's not very realistic. Before posting these kinds of threads, ask 2 questions: 1) Woud the game actually be better? 2) Can I honestly say casting real life aspersions on the situation is valid?
Harristotle Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance 1	Posted - 2012.05.18 12:16:00 - [39] - Quote Life is sometimes strange! x = 0.999 10x = 9.999 10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999 9x = 9 x = 1 For my next trick I will prove that black equals white.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 37	Posted - 2012.05.18 12:28:00 - [40] - Quote Because iirc, scorpions use to be able to fit an ungodly (all hardeners) tank back in the day for one reason. Now, they can still put up a tank but not one that was OP.
RubyPorto Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 1536	Posted - 2012.05.18 12:34:00 - [41] - Quote Stacking Penalties weren't always here. Back in the days of Yore with the Cavalry Raven (Torps had awesome range, too) launching Torps, warping to Target, launching again and having both volleys land at the same time. Everything was Nano. And ridiculous. Doesn't matter how slow the base ship is with 8 lows filled with pe-nerf Nanos. Battleships and HACs were literally faster than interceptors. And drones. And most missiles. And the ships were crazy agile. But even before that, before RMR, there was no stacking penalty. And that was worse. Sniping with Arty from across the grid for Dread* sized alpha? Tracking comps and lows full of gyros and you got it. DPS of a Titan* on a small gang of battleships? Sure, why not. Defensive mods didn't scale quite as well. They didn't exist yet, but... Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox*. 5 words. That's what makes it special.
Abel Merkabah Caldari Provisions Caldari State 9	Posted - 2012.05.18 12:46:00 - [42] - Quote Harristotle wrote: Life is sometimes strange! x = 0.999 10x = 9.999 10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999 9x = 9 x = 1 For my next trick I will prove that black equals white. Eh wrong... 10x = 9.99 10x != 9.999 10x - x = 8.991 Nice troll though...lol "To destroy is always the first step in any creation." - E. E. Cummings
RubyPorto Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 1536	Posted - 2012.05.18 12:49:00 - [43] - Quote Abel Merkabah wrote: Harristotle wrote: Life is sometimes strange! x = 0.999 10x = 9.999 10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999 9x = 9 x = 1 For my next trick I will prove that black equals white. Eh wrong... 10x = 9.99 10x != 9.999 10x - x = 8.991 Nice troll though...lol I assume he meant the 9s to be repeating. x=.9999[repeating] 10x=9.99999[repeating] 10x-x=9.999[r]-.9999[r] 9x=9 x=1 1=.99999[repeating] Single-Shard, *Player Driven-áSandbox*. 5 words. That's what makes it special.
Rajan Marelona Hedion University Amarr Empire 3	Posted - 2012.05.18 12:52:00 - [44] - Quote Alex Sinai wrote: Surprise. Boeing uses 5 to 7 completely separate backup systems that backs each other in case of fault and no they dont have any "stacking" penalties. Does the boeing fly 5 to 7 times better compared to 1 computer ? I say it flies the same. That means it has infinite stacking penalty.
Harristotle Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance 1	Posted - 2012.05.18 12:53:00 - [45] - Quote RubyPorto wrote: Abel Merkabah wrote: Harristotle wrote: Life is sometimes strange! x = 0.999 10x = 9.999 10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999 9x = 9 x = 1 For my next trick I will prove that black equals white. Eh wrong... 10x = 9.99 10x != 9.999 10x - x = 8.991 Nice troll though...lol I assume he meant the 9s to be repeating. x=.9999[repeating] 10x=9.99999[repeating] 10x-x=9.999[r]-.9999[r] 9x=9 x=1 1=.99999[repeating] Correct I did mean them to be repeating, thanks for the clarification.
Pinstar Colton Sweet Asteroid Acres 75	Posted - 2012.05.18 13:12:00 - [46] - Quote The stacking penalty encourages diversity. In an old MMO I used to play (City of Heroes) they didn't have a stacking penalty, so everyone just took the same enhancements for their powers to maximize them. It got rather dull. Then they introduced a stacking penalty and builds got a lot more diverse and interesting. Given the huge variety of modules available to us, it would be a shame if 95% of them fell by the wayside in favor of spamming and stacking the popular 5% of them on every single ship build. I don't make minerals. I just make ore 20% cooler.
Effect One Selective Hearing Nearly Feared 3	Posted - 2012.05.18 13:24:00 - [47] - Quote Because back in the day my 2000dps 'geddon was OP :(
JamesCLK Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners 179	Posted - 2012.05.18 13:42:00 - [48] - Quote Effect One wrote: Because back in the day my 2000dps 'geddon was OP :( Poor 'geddon
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 6880	Posted - 2012.05.18 13:50:00 - [49] - Quote Parallelisation is always GÇ£stacking penalisedGÇ¥ due to data sharing and synchronisation overhead. Serialisation is always GÇ£stacking penalisedGÇ¥ due to increased resistance and noise. Even setting aside the balancing argument, stacking penalties are quite realistic and make sense to anyone who has actually had to build something that uses two of the same part. So there. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Shift-click does nothing GÇö why the Unified Inventory isn't ready for primetime.
Thabiso Merchants of the Golden Goose 11	Posted - 2012.05.18 14:54:00 - [50] - Quote Alex Sinai wrote: Hi there, I was and is wondering what's up with that "bright" idea of stacking penalty? If i have 2 computers they both work at full capacity and not like stack to 1.2 or 0.4 of their full power. Same everywhere else. Its not like 2 nuclear reactors "stack" up to 1.2 or whatever else number of their full capacity. What's up with this nonsense and why everyone tolerates it. It simply does not make any sense. I think its time to remove this thing from the game. When you have two computers computing something that is embarrasingly parrallel, then yes, you (theoretically) get twice the throughput, however, most things are not embarrasingly parrallel. For a real world example, look at how well multiple GPUs are doing, generally you won't get speedups of more than 1.5, it is bloody dificult to balance the polygons between the two powerhouses that are your GPUs. And on top of that, when you start having multiple computers working on the same problem, you start getting trouble with communication, you need all machines to be on the same page at the same time exchanging data so processors tend to spend a lot of time waiting for data; it's actually a very interesting topic for computer science geeks. Tl;dr: Here is a bucket and a spoon, go and play in the sandbox.
Gillia Winddancer Aliastra Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2012.05.18 15:52:00 - [51] - Quote Why there are stacking penalties? The same reason as to why SLI/Crossfire cards have stacking penalties. 'nuff said.
Xercodo Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Dark Matter Coalition 1085	Posted - 2012.05.18 16:21:00 - [52] - Quote Btw the comparison to the several backup systems on a Boeing doesn't apply here. Being back up systems only one or two of them is ever running at one time. The thing you probably haven't realized yet is that things kinda like the stacking penalty really does occur in real life, ESPECIALLY on computers. This is why it's actually not a very good idea to go nuts on this multi-core stuff and why AMD has created a heterogeneous mutli-core system in the form of the APU. The basic concept is that the more cores you cram into a processor the more time you have to spend in processing just to figure out which core does what. In the end your performance gains level off as you add more cores and in the end you need to add 100s to gain 1% or something. I've also seen the same thing in a similar regard. I've been working with someone that is developing a new 8-bit processor (yes people still use those, small stuff like TV remotes and digital clocks) and this processor has better performance than most of the standard 8-bits used today. Just like with multi-core we find that the performance gain our processor has over the other levels out at a certain number of instruction cycles. In regard to Co-processors in EVE their stacking penalties would make a LOT of sense in real life given the examples above. It can then be extrapolated to pretty much everything in EVE that has a stacking penalty. For resistance modules you can make a claim that the way resistance works in the EVE universe works on mechanics of physics that create the same curve with a falloff of efficiency. For heat sinks I would imagine the same is true in real life. You can only add so many heat sinks or change the heat sinks so much before you start dropping off heat dissipation potential they have. Another guy in this thread had a good analogy too, 1000s people can't build a house in two minutes. CCP has even said the same thing about artists. They can't just crank out new ships or even updated versions of existing ships just by throwing more art guys at it. Having two art guys working on the same bit of concept art will not go well. So see the concept of a stacking penalty is very much a real life thing and makes a LOT of sense for these things in EVE. It just has the added benefit of giving the game balance to ensure things don't get too overpowered. In fact I'd be willing to say that there could be a universal stacking penalty equation that we could apply to real life to give someone the %loss in efficiency based on how difficult, involved, or creatively taxing a task is and how many people or "units" you throw at it. The Drake is a Lie
Knot'Kul Sun Rebirth. THE GOD SQUAD 40	Posted - 2012.05.18 16:25:00 - [53] - Quote Stacking condoms doesn't mean two 99.9%'s make 199.8%
Pok Nibin Viziam Amarr Empire 144	Posted - 2012.05.18 16:56:00 - [54] - Quote Gorki Andropov wrote: Your first fail was drawing a comparison with real life. So what fairy land do you drift into when you boot your computer? I want some of what he's smokin'. Don't fight it.-á Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs.-á You know you want to.
Shea Valerien House of Valerien 27	Posted - 2012.05.18 17:03:00 - [55] - Quote Vaal Erit wrote: and if we get 10,000 people we can build a house in about 2 minutes. The critical path disagrees with you.
Gorki Andropov Kerensky Initiatives 451	Posted - 2012.05.18 17:42:00 - [56] - Quote Pok Nibin wrote: Gorki Andropov wrote: Your first fail was drawing a comparison with real life. So what fairy land do you drift into when you boot your computer? I want some of what he's smokin'. In a game that's so obviously out of touch with reality, trying to equate such-and-such in the real word with this-and-that in a game that exists in 'fluidic' space, where things can be and are seemingly invented, from scratch, repeatedly, where capital ships can be jumped from one point of the 'universe' to another but you can't have an in-space call with your mission agent and time-dilation affects the lowliest mission runner in Dodixie is so, utterly, bat-**** insane you shouldn't even try. Back under your bridge, young troll-let.
Orlacc 161	Posted - 2012.05.18 17:46:00 - [57] - Quote If you don't get why I feel bad for you. (Not really)
Abel Merkabah Caldari Provisions Caldari State 10	Posted - 2012.05.20 04:30:00 - [58] - Quote Harristotle wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Abel Merkabah wrote: Harristotle wrote: Life is sometimes strange! x = 0.999 10x = 9.999 10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999 9x = 9 x = 1 For my next trick I will prove that black equals white. Eh wrong... 10x = 9.99 10x != 9.999 10x - x = 8.991 Nice troll though...lol I assume he meant the 9s to be repeating. x=.9999[repeating] 10x=9.99999[repeating] 10x-x=9.999[r]-.9999[r] 9x=9 x=1 1=.99999[repeating] Correct I did mean them to be repeating, thanks for the clarification. My Apologies, I stand corrected. Whenever you work with infinite concepts Math can get screwy... "To destroy is always the first step in any creation." - E. E. Cummings
I Love Boobies All Hail Boobies 108	Posted - 2012.05.20 06:20:00 - [59] - Quote There are stacking penalties in real life. For instance... try stacking too many breakable objects on top of each other. Gravity will eventually take over, making the pile collapse or fall over. The penalty is something will break and you won't have as many as you began with. Besides... would you really want to try to shoot a rookie ship that has 100% resists on everything, and alphas you with its civilian modules? ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) The world would be a better place if boobies ran the world instead of boobs.
Jake Warbird Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1181	Posted - 2012.05.20 06:44:00 - [60] - Quote Next week on the myth busters....
Sri Nova Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 88	Posted - 2012.05.20 07:16:00 - [61] - Quote Alex Sinai wrote: Thanks :) Still stacking does not makes sense. In any world. It's either on everything or on nothing. Why torpedo launchers dont have stacking? They use cpu. Why reactors have stacking? It's not comparison to real world. Its comparison to basic logic. Dont matter CCP learned several years ago that stacking penalties were needed . it is a simple solution to a problem and it works. to argue against this is pretty much arguing that the basic game mechanics need to be changed.
Poetic Stanziel The Fancy Hats Corporation 868	Posted - 2012.05.20 07:21:00 - [62] - Quote Alex Sinai wrote: Himnos Altar wrote: it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. Maybe they never quite got multi-threading right in New Eden? The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks
Solhild Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 689	Posted - 2012.05.20 08:15:00 - [63] - Quote Gorki Andropov wrote: Our ships fly in a space that's more akin to oil than vacuum, and you complain about this?! The space our ships fly in is an EM field infused vacuum. The warpcore in our ships creats a massive well that drags against the EM field. *I'm still thinking of a reason for projectile charges that travel at infinite speed and instantly hit targets at any distance
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 6918	Posted - 2012.05.20 08:57:00 - [64] - Quote Poetic Stanziel wrote: Maybe they never quite got multi-threading right in New Eden? Multi-threading is the ultimate example of a real-life stacking penalty. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Shift-click does nothing GÇö why the Unified Inventory isn't ready for primetime.
RubyPorto SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT 1559	Posted - 2012.05.20 19:45:00 - [65] - Quote Abel Merkabah wrote: Harristotle wrote: RubyPorto wrote: Abel Merkabah wrote: Harristotle wrote: Life is sometimes strange! x = 0.999 10x = 9.999 10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999 9x = 9 x = 1 For my next trick I will prove that black equals white. Eh wrong... 10x = 9.99 10x != 9.999 10x - x = 8.991 Nice troll though...lol I assume he meant the 9s to be repeating. x=.9999[repeating] 10x=9.99999[repeating] 10x-x=9.999[r]-.9999[r] 9x=9 x=1 1=.99999[repeating] Correct I did mean them to be repeating, thanks for the clarification. My Apologies, I stand corrected. Whenever you work with infinite concepts Math can get screwy... I see it as is proof that the Universe has a Rounding Error. Single-Shard, *Player Driven-áSandbox*. 5 words. That's what makes it special.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 1505	Posted - 2012.05.20 23:34:00 - [66] - Quote Drinking beer has a stacking penalty. More than one condom at a time has a stacking penalty. I could go all day.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE 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 EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online 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, EVE-Search.com. 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.