EVE Search - stacking penalty explained

All Channels

Ships and Modules

stacking penalty explained

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Face Lifter	Posted - 2004.12.30 19:30:00 - [1] People often ask about it, since the module description is unacceptably vague. Here's the formula: (mod1mod2...*modn)^((1/n)^0.25) where 'n' is the number of mods that effect that attribute. Note that with this system, you get slightly more benefit from positive mods (like +11% damage) and slightly less from negative mods (like +10.5% rof). +11% damage means multiplying weapon damage by 1.11 4 damage mods would give 1.518 multiplier, then the stacking penalty is applied to that. You can see it's more that simply 1.44 +10.5 to rate of fire is negative because it reduces firing delay, the multiplyer is 0.895. 4 of those give 0.641641050625, then stacking penalty is applied. Cap recharge mods are all negative. Here's an example of stacking penalties. Imagine a mod that gives a 10% to something, they stack as follows: 2 positive mods: 17.385% vs 16.238% negative mods 3 positive mods: 24.266% vs 21.351% negative mods 4 positive mods: 30.941% vs 25.770% negative mods 5 positive mods: 37.532% vs 29.693% negative mods
Face Lifter	Posted - 2004.12.30 19:30:00 - [2] People often ask about it, since the module description is unacceptably vague. Here's the formula: (mod1mod2...*modn)^((1/n)^0.25) where 'n' is the number of mods that effect that attribute. Note that with this system, you get slightly more benefit from positive mods (like +11% damage) and slightly less from negative mods (like +10.5% rof). +11% damage means multiplying weapon damage by 1.11 4 damage mods would give 1.518 multiplier, then the stacking penalty is applied to that. You can see it's more that simply 1.44 +10.5 to rate of fire is negative because it reduces firing delay, the multiplyer is 0.895. 4 of those give 0.641641050625, then stacking penalty is applied. Cap recharge mods are all negative. Here's an example of stacking penalties. Imagine a mod that gives a 10% to something, they stack as follows: 2 positive mods: 17.385% vs 16.238% negative mods 3 positive mods: 24.266% vs 21.351% negative mods 4 positive mods: 30.941% vs 25.770% negative mods 5 positive mods: 37.532% vs 29.693% negative mods
Face Lifter	Posted - 2004.12.30 19:30:00 - [3] People often ask about it, since the module description is unacceptably vague. Here's the formula: (mod1mod2...*modn)^((1/n)^0.25) where 'n' is the number of mods that effect that attribute. Note that with this system, you get slightly more benefit from positive mods (like +11% damage) and slightly less from negative mods (like +10.5% rof). +11% damage means multiplying weapon damage by 1.11 4 damage mods would give 1.518 multiplier, then the stacking penalty is applied to that. You can see it's more that simply 1.44 +10.5 to rate of fire is negative because it reduces firing delay, the multiplyer is 0.895. 4 of those give 0.641641050625, then stacking penalty is applied. Cap recharge mods are all negative. Here's an example of stacking penalties. Imagine a mod that gives a 10% to something, they stack as follows: 2 positive mods: 17.385% vs 16.238% negative mods 3 positive mods: 24.266% vs 21.351% negative mods 4 positive mods: 30.941% vs 25.770% negative mods 5 positive mods: 37.532% vs 29.693% negative mods
Def Antares	Posted - 2004.12.30 20:27:00 - [4] Edited by: Def Antares on 30/12/2004 20:28:34 thx =)
Def Antares	Posted - 2004.12.30 20:27:00 - [5] Edited by: Def Antares on 30/12/2004 20:28:34 thx =)
Def Antares	Posted - 2004.12.30 20:27:00 - [6] Edited by: Def Antares on 30/12/2004 20:28:34 thx =)
Farjung	Posted - 2004.12.30 20:43:00 - [7] Minor correction: +11% damage would be multiplying weapon damage by 1.11, not 1.1. So 4 damage mods would give 1.11^4 = 1.5181 damage mod before stacking penalty, or 1.5181^(0.25^0.25) = 1.3434 once the stacking penalty's taken into account. There's been two other topics relating to this in the past day, a stickied thread really ought to be made ¼_¼ Someone really needs to keep me away from the Taranis
Farjung	Posted - 2004.12.30 20:43:00 - [8] Minor correction: +11% damage would be multiplying weapon damage by 1.11, not 1.1. So 4 damage mods would give 1.11^4 = 1.5181 damage mod before stacking penalty, or 1.5181^(0.25^0.25) = 1.3434 once the stacking penalty's taken into account. There's been two other topics relating to this in the past day, a stickied thread really ought to be made ¼_¼ Someone really needs to keep me away from the Taranis
Farjung	Posted - 2004.12.30 20:43:00 - [9] Minor correction: +11% damage would be multiplying weapon damage by 1.11, not 1.1. So 4 damage mods would give 1.11^4 = 1.5181 damage mod before stacking penalty, or 1.5181^(0.25^0.25) = 1.3434 once the stacking penalty's taken into account. There's been two other topics relating to this in the past day, a stickied thread really ought to be made ¼_¼ Someone really needs to keep me away from the Taranis
Face Lifter	Posted - 2004.12.30 21:09:00 - [10] ok I corrected my mistake
Face Lifter	Posted - 2004.12.30 21:09:00 - [11] ok I corrected my mistake
Face Lifter	Posted - 2004.12.30 21:09:00 - [12] ok I corrected my mistake
SwitchBl4d3	Posted - 2004.12.31 17:09:00 - [13] STICKEH "Teh lord of Nonni"
SwitchBl4d3	Posted - 2004.12.31 17:09:00 - [14] STICKEH "Teh lord of Nonni"
SwitchBl4d3	Posted - 2004.12.31 17:09:00 - [15] STICKEH "Teh lord of Nonni"
nefiru	Posted - 2005.03.09 15:53:00 - [16] hmm is this correct for shield hardners aswell? fe 2 em hardners and an invulnerably hardner thats (1.51.51.32)^((1/3)^0.25) 2.97^.7598 = 2.28 or hardning of 128 pct? and second q for shield again :) if you have fe base 40 pct resist in specific part how do you put that pct in the calculation?
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2005.03.09 16:03:00 - [17] Edited by: Dust Puppy on 09/03/2005 16:08:28 Hey you stole my thread's name similar to what Face Lifter says but with pics Edit: woops it was me that stole the name __________ Capacitor research
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2005.03.09 16:07:00 - [18] Originally by: nefiru hmm is this correct for shield hardners aswell? fe 2 em hardners and an invulnerably hardner thats (1.51.51.32)^((1/3)^0.25) 2.97^.7598 = 2.28 or hardning of 128 pct? and second q for shield again :) if you have fe base 40 pct resist in specific part how do you put that pct in the calculation? No what you do is you take the multiplier and with hardeners you are always looking at the damage that leaks through. (0.50.50.68)^((1/3)^0.25) = 0.260 so the hardening you get for the combined hardners is 1-0.26 = 0.74 or 74%. __________ Capacitor research
James Lyrus	Posted - 2005.03.09 17:02:00 - [19] So really it's not so much a penalty, as not having a geometric improvement. I can live with that. I misunderstood the 'penalty' thing on first parse, and assumed it meant that I'd be worse off by having two.
Beanz	Posted - 2005.03.31 17:37:00 - [20] Confused!! I have fitted one 50% EM hardener to my prophecy which has a standard EM armour resistance of 62%, and the total resistance only goes to 81%, shouldn't this give a true 50% boost and make it 93% total?? Also when i fit two 50% EM hardeners i get a total boost of 88%, but when using your equation i should be getting 68.83% extra boost, taking it to a total of 104.67%. Am i calculating this wrong or is it not working right? I have talked to other people and theirs are the same as mine, not just for prophecy's but other ship classes to.
Alaria Wildman	Posted - 2005.03.31 18:16:00 - [21] Beanz.. look here for hardener stacking a little more clearly.. in your case, pay particualr attention to the formula of how to apply the stacked hardening % after calculating it.Linkage
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.31 18:18:00 - [22] shield and armor hardeners work in different way from other mods all their percentages apply only on damage percentage you take in. In other words, if your armor EM resistance is 62, the damage percentage you take in is 100-62 = 38. So in that case, a 50% harder would operate on 38%, which gives you extra 38*0.5 = 19% resistance. Add the extra resistance boost to your natural resistance, you get 62+19 = 81%. The way this system works makes hardener stacking penalty pretty bad, so in general stacking them is a bad idea unless you start very low natural resistance, 0% or 10% for example.
Alaria Wildman	Posted - 2005.03.31 18:21:00 - [23] question: is this the correct stacking equation for 3 shield boost amplifiers: (1.31.31.3)^(1/3^0.25)? I come out with a 81% bonus.. meaning each is giving a 27% bonus rather than a 30%.. deosn't seem much of a penalty.. please confirm i have worked this out right.. got a mean ass scorp setup in mind if I have...
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.31 18:26:00 - [24] that's not correct because every hardener operates on percentage of unresisted damage. so if you have natural resistance of 0 and you add 2 of those hardeners, the first one will operate on 100%, the 2nd one will operate on what's left unresisted from the first one. So the resistance boost it adds becomes much smaller
Alaria Wildman	Posted - 2005.03.31 18:27:00 - [25] I wasn't talking about resistance increasing mods dude, was taliking about shield boost amplifiers..
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.31 18:29:00 - [26] ah, sorry about that you are right then, they stack normally
Alaria Wildman	Posted - 2005.03.31 18:30:00 - [27] These boost shield boosting, the standard ones by 30%.. assume the stacking would be similar to the "postive" dmg bonuses you talked about at the top of your post
Alaria Wildman	Posted - 2005.03.31 18:36:00 - [28] Edited by: Alaria Wildman on 31/03/2005 18:37:54 genereally, this post has been excellent :) thnx! would disagree about stacking hards being less worth it on higher natural resists tho.. although the resist number will go up by much less if you have a higher natural resist, you are still reducing the damage you take in that type just as much as if you had a low natural resist.. a 50% hard does exactly what it says.. reduces the dmg you take by 50% in that type.. the same is true of the % of stacked hards, which you work out with the stacking fromula given in the post i linked (derived from yours here, so thnx again :))... if u stack 3 50% hards of the same type, you get a 79.4% resist bonus.. this will still mean you take 79.4% less dmg of that type whether you apply it to a 10% natural resist or a 70% natural resist..
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.31 18:47:00 - [29] Edited by: Face Lifter on 31/03/2005 18:48:07 I consider stacking hardeners a bad idea cause there are many other important modules you could fit in your med/low slots.
Alaria Wildman	Posted - 2005.03.31 20:18:00 - [30] Edited by: Alaria Wildman on 31/03/2005 20:20:02 Yes, you are right, absolutely All depends on circumstance I guess.. recently I have spent much time out hunting big sansha rats in 0.0, and this has probably coloured my experience.. when you know for sure what dmg types your enemies are doing (for Sansha, it's EM and Thermal) then stacking is much more worth it. My query wasn't really questioning the wisdom or not of stacking in general, just the claim that it's less worth it if you have a high natural resist.. anyhoo.. it's all good
Beanz	Posted - 2005.03.31 20:24:00 - [31] Thanks for that, i understand now :o)
Frank Horrigan	Posted - 2005.04.29 00:06:00 - [32] Im trying to figure out what passive recharging a rattle snake would do.. With max skills it has 10200 sheild and 1500 second recharge... Now 6x -27.5% sheild relays in low and 6x -15% sheild rechargers in med... anyone feel like figuring this out? as me and my friends have no idea what that formula means lol Originally by: Oveur Originally by: Bhaal What has turned out better than expected? Everything. Remember, we're from Iceland. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This i
Drofier Ilmatti	Posted - 2005.04.29 00:25:00 - [33] Edited by: Drofier Ilmatti on 29/04/2005 00:26:26 With 20% in lows and 15% in meds (best in game I believe), you get a 148 second recharge time. That's 68.92 shield per second at normal rate. With the curve, more like 180. BTW, shield rechargers don't suffer from stacking penalty like hardeners do. They just suffer from simple mathematics penalties, if you will.
Spy4Hire	Posted - 2005.05.20 07:07:00 - [34] Edited by: Spy4Hire on 20/05/2005 07:07:17 Originally by: nefiru hmm is this correct for shield hardners aswell? fe 2 em hardners and an invulnerably hardner thats (1.51.51.32)^((1/3)^0.25) 2.97^.7598 = 2.28 or hardning of 128 pct? Hardeners work using their percentage based on the balance you have left between 0% and 100%, but can never be better than 95% resistances. The same applies whether their active or passive. Thus: Shield EM base = 0% 1 Active hardener = 50%, gives your ship 50% EM resist to shields. Adding a second gives 50% of the remaining 50% which is another 25%, thus 75%, minus the stacking penalty (which I can't calculate being a mathematics idiot). A third would give you 50% of that remaining ~25%, or 12.5% overall without stacking penalties. The same applies with armour hardeners.
Epais Tete	Posted - 2005.06.09 04:18:00 - [35] A noob question: Armour hardners work all the time or just when the shields are down. I have never had my armour damaged when my shields where up. I have never used hardners because I wanted to use speed to keep out of harms way. Now that I am flying a Raven against big boys. I think I will reconsider that. Once I figure out how they work.
Jet Collins	Posted - 2005.08.04 15:10:00 - [36] Sorry I'm still a little confused as to the Negative penalties. For the 10% or 10.5 % Rof stacking pentalties for example. I just can't get those #'s. Please brake it down Barny lvl for me please. Thanks
Fredou	Posted - 2005.08.28 18:17:00 - [37] a little script.... not bug free how to use... if you got 3 mod and each mod give +10% 3 [enter] 10 [enter] 10 [enter] 10 [enter] that will give 1.24266....... so ~24% '-------------------start 'put that in a file called anything.vbs dim total_mod, mod_attr(), total_attrib total_mod = inputbox("How many mod?","Mod",0) if total_mod <> "" and total_mod <> 0 then redim mod_attr(total_mod) for i = 0 to total_mod - 1 mod_attr(i) = inputbox("attrib mod for item #" & i+1 & "?","Attrib mod",0) next total_attrib = 1 for i= 0 to total_mod - 1 total_attrib = total_attrib * (mod_attr(i) / 100 + 1) next total_Mod = total_attrib ^ ((1/total_mod) ^ 0.25) end if msgbox total_Mod '-------------------end
Aliksr	Posted - 2005.08.29 00:44:00 - [38] Edited by: Aliksr on 29/08/2005 01:45:13 edit: nevermind figured it out (i was multiplying by the stacking penalty, you have to raise it to the power of the stacking penalty) making a spreadsheet for hardeners needs some funky tricks
Spartan III	Posted - 2005.09.26 18:10:00 - [39] I just plain and simply need to be told that the stacking penalty is. Is the stacking penalty .25? or .25^.25? _______________________________________________ Member - [CHRST] Christian Fellowship Foundation Fan - [EVOL] Movies (Keep up the great work!)
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.09.26 18:45:00 - [40] Originally by: Spy4Hire Hardeners work using their percentage based on the balance you have left between 0% and 100%, but can never be better than 95% resistances. The same applies whether their active or passive. Where'd you get the 95% from? Seen higher on my Vaga's EM res. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Spartan III	Posted - 2005.09.26 19:25:00 - [41] Anyone feel like answereing my question?? _______________________________________________ Member - [CHRST] Christian Fellowship Foundation Fan - [EVOL] Movies (Keep up the great work!)
Dimitri Forgroth	Posted - 2005.09.26 19:27:00 - [42] Edited by: Dimitri Forgroth on 26/09/2005 19:26:55 Originally by: Spartan III I just plain and simply need to be told that the stacking penalty is. Is the stacking penalty .25? or .25^.25? Dont think it was answered, because its answered by READING. Multiply mods like you would normally, then if number of mods used in that multiplicaiton is n, you raise the result to the power (n^-0.25) Originally by: DrunkenOne Ahhh yes the ECM Apoc, very deadly. Oh wait... wtf... DPS Sheet
Spartan III	Posted - 2005.09.26 19:33:00 - [43] Sorry, I am 16 and don't understand a bit of calculus even if I should... _______________________________________________ Member - [CHRST] Christian Fellowship Foundation Fan - [EVOL] Movies (Keep up the great work!)
Spartan III	Posted - 2005.10.24 18:50:00 - [44] Edited by: Spartan III on 24/10/2005 18:52:03 Since this isn't sticky and its been a month since last post its time for a bump [Edit] Whoops my bad it is part of a sticky _______________________________________________ Member - [CHRST] Christian Fellowship Foundation Fan - [EVOL] Movies (Keep up the great work!)
papaPadla	Posted - 2005.10.25 00:02:00 - [45] yeah... my head is about to explode... now ... we have base resists, a skill resist... Im trying to calculate... using this formula the armor rezist and damn if i can getit right ok... simple enough to factor in the skills, the first hardener is not a problem... but the third one... dang... im doing sumthing wrong... of sorts pls help ------------------------------------- As good as any and better than most.
Stephen HB	Posted - 2005.10.25 00:23:00 - [46] Originally by: Spartan III Sorry, I am 16 and don't understand a bit of calculus even if I should... Technically this is exponentials, but you could solve it by calculus. Say you had two and then three mods that gave +10% damage. That would be 1.1^2 = 1.21 or 1.1^3=1.331x mod. (You can actually do this without a calculator using pascal's triangle 1,1.1,1.21,1.331,1.4641) Now apply the stacking penalty formula: (mod1mod2...modn)^((1/n)^0.25), in this case (mod1mod2...modn)=1.21 \|\| 1.331 and n=2 \|\| 3 1.21^((1/2)^0.25) = 1.21^0.84 = 1.174 \|\| 1.331^((1/3)^0.25) = 1.331^0.76 = 1.242 So, the 1st mod has given the full 10% (1>1.1), the 2nd has given 6.7% (1.1>1.174), and the 3rd 5.8% (1.174>1.242). This bonus is calculated over the previous. If you wish to calculate the actual damage increse, compare it to the basic value. So 1 mod obviously gave 10% (1>1.1), 2 mods gives 17.4%, so the 2nd gave 7.4% bonus to basic value, the 3 gives 24.2%, so the 3rd gave 6.8% over basic damage. --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Who is the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?" Obi-Wan Kenobi
Matrices Reborn	Posted - 2006.02.13 23:35:00 - [47] Dumb Question What does ^ mean???????!!!! argh!
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.02.13 23:43:00 - [48] Originally by: Matrices Reborn What does ^ mean???????!!!! argh! "power", a^2 is aa and a^3 is a^2a or aaa This thread's outdated though, new stacking penalty is different... see more recent threads in the sticky, or look Jim Hsu's thread and original research. I might be a bit complex, so here's a summary of how it works (trying to keep it simple): (editing, posted in a few minutes). Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
Bellatrix VanFeldt	Posted - 2006.04.20 20:33:00 - [49] There is a simpler way to calculate the constants for the stacking penalties. Given k=-ln(2)/(ln(10)^2) (about -0.130735666) then the mod effectiveness c(i)=exp(k (i-1)^2). If you're wondering, the values come out to be about 1, 0.877, 0.592, 0.30, and 0.12 Bella
Trelyn Thorn	Posted - 2006.04.21 04:53:00 - [50] evegeek.com - has a quick and dirty stacking penalty calculator
Teblin	Posted - 2006.05.09 22:57:00 - [51] This thread is redundant as the stacking penalty was changed. It's confusing to keep it about. i'll see about getting it removed from any stickies it's currently in and a more recent thread inserted, perhaps. Someone linked to the thread from another post so as a precaution, I'm locking it. forum rules \| [email protected]

Pages: 1 2 :: [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.