EVE Search - The TSM Debate Ended.

All Channels

Skill Discussions

The TSM Debate Ended.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zyphore Gallente The Real Black Thorn Fall From Grace.	Posted - 2010.09.20 12:14:00 - [1] Edited by: Zyphore on 20/09/2010 12:14:48 Assume basic Raven PvE fit. Resists for shield are 77%,81%,40%,50%. Resists for armor are 50%,45%,25%,10%. Assume said Raven is taking 100% EM damage. What ho?! Your tank has almost failed and you're warp scrambled, that's not good! For the sake of argument let's say you're at 10% shields and with TSM 4 you pass on 5% of damage you take to armour (that's right, armour). This may not be the exact amount but I'd say it's a good minimum. 10% of said Raven's shields is 937.5 HP. Oh noes! Incoming volley! Brace for impact! Before applying resists the volley consists of 3900 whole hitpoints of damage! So, in the case of TSM 5, after resists your shield takes 897 damage and you're left with 40.5 hp in shield. That's not good! In the case of TSM 4, 5% of the damage is absorbed by your armour, so you take 852.15 damage to shields and 97.5 damage to armour. HANG ON A SEC!! Isn't that more damage than when you had TSM 5?! Why yes, 97.5+852.15 = 949.65 which is bigger than 897! In the case of TSM 4 you're on 85.35 hp of shields which is 0.9% and for TSM 5 you're on 40.5 hp which is 0.4%. I think I'd quite happily say that no matter your fit the passive recharge rate difference is negligible. The important thing to note is that you're (with a fairly small bleed percentage, it's probably a lot bigger than 5%) taking 6% more damage with TSM 4 than you would be with TSM 5. It only gets worse as the damage that goes to armour increases. Before you instantly jump on the TSM 5 is useless bandwagon please read the entire post again or you might end up looking like a fool. If you do, however, still have a valid point that I may have missed; point it out and I'll address the issue with another thrilling post! I hope I have you all on the edge of your seats. EDIT: Punctuation corrected.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.09.20 13:42:00 - [2] àor you could just read this. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Zyphore Gallente The Real Black Thorn Fall From Grace.	Posted - 2010.09.20 14:27:00 - [3] Originally by: Tippia àor you could just read this. That thread is the exact reason I started a new one.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.09.20 14:32:00 - [4] Originally by: Zyphore Originally by: Tippia àor you could just read this. That thread is the exact reason I started a new one. Worst reason ever. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Skippermonkey Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2010.09.20 16:05:00 - [5] Isnt all this arguing pointless to begin with. You are argueing over tiny amount of damage that occur 'past the point of no return' on your tank. If the skill is having an impact on your tank, your tank is broken and you are dead. THAT should be /thread forever... but you wont listen Originally by: CCP Capslock OH GOD THE TESTING
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.09.20 19:43:00 - [6] Originally by: Zyphore Originally by: Tippia àor you could just read this. That thread is the exact reason I started a new one. That thread has reports of several tests proving exactly what the difference between TSM IV and TSM V is. It is the best thread on TSM on these forums in many years and as far as I am concerned, the definitive thread on TSM. Your rant added nothing new to the discussion.
Aerilis Gallente Percussive Diplomacy	Posted - 2010.09.21 14:33:00 - [7] I started the definitive thread on TSM! WHOohoo! Anyways, back on topic, I'm going to politely show you where you're wrong Zyphore. Yes, that SINGLE VOLLEY did more damage on the TSM4 ship than the TSM5 ship. No argument there. HOWEVER, you're forgetting that the TSM 4 ship still has shield left. So the next volley will hit the TSM5 ship for full armor, doing FULL DAMAGE to the weaker resists. The difference in the first volley will be made up in the second volley (and third, since your TSM5 ship still had shield after the first volley). Think of it this way: If there is no such thing as passive recharge, then your shield, armor, and structure are just pure buffer. In order for you to die, every percent of shield, armor, and structure has to be taken away piece by piece. The order in which this is done or the resist level in each area is irrelevant (asuming incoming damage type stays constant). In this scenario, the difference between TSM4 and TSM5 is merely the order in which your shield and armor are destroyed. Now where TSM4's (miniscule) benefit kicks in is when you factor in passive shield recharge. At any point in time, the TSM4 ship can ONLY have a HIGHER shield than the TSM5 ship, never lower. Thus, and any point in time, the TSM4 ship can only have a higher passive recharge than the TSM5 ship. The only situation where TSM5 is preferable over TSM4 is if you were taken under 5% shield and then suddenly incoming DPS decreased to the exact point where your tank is stable between 0-5% (i.e. a friend constantly shooting you with a single railgun whenever you approached 5%, then stopped when you got down to 1%). In this scenario, it is possible that you could be killed entirely by bleed through, where as if you had TSM5 you would not bleed through at all, and tank the incoming damage.
Zyphore Gallente The Real Black Thorn Fall From Grace.	Posted - 2010.09.21 21:46:00 - [8] Edited by: Zyphore on 21/09/2010 21:49:46 EDIT: It would seem that my entire reply was replaced with a quote of your post Aerilis. I have no wish to type it all out again but I'll tell you the conclusions I reached. 1) TSM5 in fact puts you at a slight advantage. 2) the advantage is so slight that it's not worth the training time. I'm thinking of writing a simulation with all the correct maths to test these hypotheses for passive tanks as well as armour tanks and again for active shield tanks to be rigorous. Let me know if you want to help out. Knowing how to Python is recommended.
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.09.21 21:55:00 - [9] Originally by: Zyphore 1) TSM5 in fact puts you at a slight advantage. No amount of simulation can disprove reality. Actual ingame tests have proven that the opposite is the case. The reports of the tests are in the thread which has been linked to above. Free universal jumpclone service: 10.000 users!
Aerilis Gallente Percussive Diplomacy	Posted - 2010.09.21 22:30:00 - [10] I don't know anything about python, but if there's anyway that I can help with your model sure. But like Estel said, TSM5 does not provide any advantage in the way you claim it does. This does not need models or simulations, it is simple logic. I believe I have laid out this logic pretty well, and you seem like an intelligent person. Follow the logic, read the other thread, and I believe you will be able to understand how it all works.
NoNah	Posted - 2010.09.22 02:03:00 - [11] I've got some experience with python, but honestly there's no reason to waste your time with it. While Aerilis isn't technically correct in his statements it's just a question of semantics, TSM 4 offers a better tank than TSM 5 in exactly the manner he explained. Problem is there's a heap of variables and functions we're not aware of so you'll never get a perfect simulation. Shield recharge being the very core of the argument is only a function we've approximated through plotting graphs and guestimating functions that appear similiar. While that work(god bless you dust puppy) has proven rather close to the actual truth it's not exact. And if it's just the principle you're after then well, try it logically with only variables and no known constants. Resistances are irrelevant, damage and shield absolutes are irrelevant. Actual shield recharge formula is irrelevant with the exception that higher shield means higher recharge, for the sake of simplicity lest call it that recharge is (remaining) shield ^ 2(which it's obviously not). Lets also pretend that damage = shield = armor = hull So total hp is hull + armor + shield, after taking damage with TSM 4 you will have hull + 0.95 armor + 0.05 shield. After 1 unit of time you will have hull + 0.95 armor + (0.05 Shield)^2. With TSM 5 you'd instead have hull + armor + 0 shield after the first volley. After one unit of time after that you'd have hull + armor + (0 * shield) ^2, which of course equals hull + armor. Say shield = 1000, then it'd mean the shield would after one unit of time have (0.05 * 1000)^2 = 250 hit points left, while the TSM 5 would have... 0. Dig up the actual shield recharge formula aswell as the tickrate for shields and I'll help you with the actual pythonage of it. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 383397
Zyphore Gallente The Real Black Thorn Fall From Grace.	Posted - 2010.09.22 08:53:00 - [12] Edited by: Zyphore on 22/09/2010 08:56:31 Well, after a lot of maths and two sides of A4 I came up with a general formula for damage to armour. I'll state my assumptions first, 1) The Shield is always low enough to allow bleeding to armour. 2) The Shield is always low enough for the proportion of damage which bleeds through to armour is approximately constant. 3) The Shield is always low enough to ignore passive recharge rate. 4) The damage per volley is such that the damage that the shield takes in the first volley is equal to the strength of the shield before the first volley. i.e. with TSM5 the shields will be 0 after the first volley. I think they're all reasonable but anyway the formula for total damage taken to armour after 't' volleys is (after a lot of cancelling): A(t) = (p^t)+t-1 , where t = 0,1,2,3... (N.B. This is a multiplier after cancelling actual damage per volley and resistances) A number of interesting things to note about this result: 1) It is minimum when p = 0 (i.e. TSM 5) 2) However after only three volleys the curve is almost a flat line between 0 and 0.25. 3) I actually ended up with a summing series. In this series every term except the first (i.e. the first volley) is minimum when p is larger than 0 (i.e. not TSM 5). So it's in the first volley that the difference is made. Conclusions: Taking into account all assumptions made, it is better to have no damage bleeding through the shields. I do have a bit of a problem with assumption 4 but I think the conclusion still stands when the damage per volley is less than the shields you start with. I will now draw up a similar model which does not require assumption 4) since I think that's the weakest assumption to make. There is a situation where TSM4 is preferable though (although very very marginally): Assuming you only enter combat with 100% shields (or there abouts), if you were to face an enemy which could strip your shields in one hit (and also damage armour with TSM5) then it would be better to minimise your TSM level. I think this only applies to frigates however, possibly cruisers.
Zyphore Gallente The Real Black Thorn Fall From Grace.	Posted - 2010.09.22 09:01:00 - [13] I do now, by the way, agree that this skill needs to have better benefits for a rank 4 skill. I suppose T2 hardeners is one thing but it still makes no sense for it to have such a high training time with next to no benefit.
Zyphore Gallente The Real Black Thorn Fall From Grace.	Posted - 2010.09.22 09:06:00 - [14] Originally by: Estel Arador Originally by: Zyphore 1) TSM5 in fact puts you at a slight advantage. No amount of simulation can disprove reality. Actual ingame tests have proven that the opposite is the case. The reports of the tests are in the thread which has been linked to above. The difference is so slight that no number of in-game tests could provide useful evidence one way or the other. On top of that, I believe that if you were to test two identically fitted ships with identically skilled pilots (minus TSM5 for one of them) both ships would die in the same number of volleys and ergo the same amount of time.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.09.22 09:06:00 - [15] Originally by: Zyphore I do now, by the way, agree that this skill needs to have better benefits for a rank 4 skill. I suppose T2 hardeners is one thing but it still makes no sense for it to have such a high training time with next to no benefit. It's not particularly high, though. You need 181K SP to get T2 shield hardeners. Compare this with the 512K SP you need for T2 armour hardeners ù almost three times more to get the same kind of modules. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Zyphore Gallente The Real Black Thorn Fall From Grace.	Posted - 2010.09.22 09:12:00 - [16] Edited by: Zyphore on 22/09/2010 09:12:27 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Zyphore I do now, by the way, agree that this skill needs to have better benefits for a rank 4 skill. I suppose T2 hardeners is one thing but it still makes no sense for it to have such a high training time with next to no benefit. It's not particularly high, though. You need 181K SP to get T2 shield hardeners. Compare this with the 512K SP you need for T2 armour hardeners ù almost three times more to get the same kind of modules. Good point mate, I was mainly referring to the reason behind TSM5 being included in one of the certificates though (I think it is). Also to everyone else, I've made one big error in the last post, can you spot it?
Aerilis Gallente Percussive Diplomacy	Posted - 2010.09.22 12:09:00 - [17] Too much maths. I confuse. Just keep it simple! EHP is EHP, All TSM does is change the exact order in which your EHP is taken away. 100k EHP under 1k DPS will take 100 seconds to fail, it doesn't matter whether shield or armor goes first, or if they go at the same time. The only difference TSM makes is the exact level the shield is at at any given moment, and that level will be higher with TSM4. Higher shield = higher shield recharge rate = more EHP.
Zyphore Gallente The Real Black Thorn Fall From Grace.	Posted - 2010.09.22 12:55:00 - [18] Originally by: Aerilis Too much maths. I confuse. Just keep it simple! EHP is EHP, All TSM does is change the exact order in which your EHP is taken away. 100k EHP under 1k DPS will take 100 seconds to fail, it doesn't matter whether shield or armor goes first, or if they go at the same time. The only difference TSM makes is the exact level the shield is at at any given moment, and that level will be higher with TSM4. Higher shield = higher shield recharge rate = more EHP. Okay to put it really simply you do technically lose a little EHP because there is always part of the shield which isn't removed (although it gets very small very quickly). So that EHP doesn't really count because it never absorbs any damage. Makes sense?
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.09.22 13:01:00 - [19] Originally by: Zyphore Okay to put it really simply you do technically lose a little EHP because there is always part of the shield which isn't removed (although it gets very small very quickly). So that EHP doesn't really count because it never absorbs any damage. Makes sense? àbut as tests have shown, that's an extreme edge case that will happen with a frequency of somewhere between never and once in a million years (and when it does, it will be counteracted by (re)gaining more EHP through the shield regen anyway). ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Zyphore Gallente The Real Black Thorn Fall From Grace.	Posted - 2010.09.22 15:26:00 - [20] Edited by: Zyphore on 22/09/2010 15:26:44 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Zyphore Okay to put it really simply you do technically lose a little EHP because there is always part of the shield which isn't removed (although it gets very small very quickly). So that EHP doesn't really count because it never absorbs any damage. Makes sense? àbut as tests have shown, that's an extreme edge case that will happen with a frequency of somewhere between never and once in a million years (and when it does, it will be counteracted by (re)gaining more EHP through the shield regen anyway). It happens every time the shield goes down. Scenario: Shield has 100 EHP as does armour and hull. Say a volley deals 395 effective damage and x% bleeds to armour. The ship is destroyed with x EHP in shields. Without the bleeding it'd have x EHP of structure left, small but the difference between life and death in this example. This does of course assume that, as I understand, the shield will bleed to armour no what percentage the shield is at initially and that the bleeding occurs as the shield falls. Either way TSM5 has no disadvantage over TSM4.
Zyphore Gallente The Real Black Thorn Fall From Grace.	Posted - 2010.09.22 15:30:00 - [21] By the way, I just noted that in the model I used above, assumptions 1 and 2 are unnecessary because "p" could also be a function which describes the way the shield bleeds as a function of shield percentage and will still be minimum at p=0. I believe 4 is also unnecessary but I'm not sure yet. With regards to 3 I don't believe that (at least in an active tanking scenario) the difference in passive recharge between 0% shields and 1% shields is significant never mind several volleys later when the difference is even smaller.
RaTTuS BIG Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.09.22 15:40:00 - [22] so what's the current conclusion --
NoNah	Posted - 2010.09.22 16:02:00 - [23] Originally by: Zyphore It happens every time the shield goes down. Scenario: Shield has 100 EHP as does armour and hull. Say a volley deals 395 effective damage and x% bleeds to armour. The ship is destroyed with x EHP in shields. Without the bleeding it'd have x EHP of structure left, small but the difference between life and death in this example. This does of course assume that, as I understand, the shield will bleed to armour no what percentage the shield is at initially and that the bleeding occurs as the shield falls. Either way TSM5 has no disadvantage over TSM4. Without bleeding, it'd still be dead, but I'm going to assume you meant 295 points of damage. And you do have a point, in that if you take an insane amount of instant damage, TSM 5 will be better than TSM 4, however if you're instead taking small amounts of damage, say 10 effectige damage per volley, TSM4 will instead be vastly superior. Even more so if there's a noticable difference between resistances in shield vs armor. So I guess you'll just have to ask yourself which scenario is most common, getting volleyed to <5% of your structure or taking tens of volleys to die. And of course, after that first volley(or the first 20 or whatever) which one leaves you in the best situation. If the options are A) Being at 50% armor and 0 shield when taking slow damage/Being at 5% hull 0 armor and shield when taking fast damage or B) Being at 5% shield when taking slow damage/Being dead when taking fast damage, I know what I'd take =P Parrots, commence! Postcount: 597496
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.09.22 16:07:00 - [24] Edited by: Estel Arador on 22/09/2010 16:07:51 Originally by: Zyphore The difference is so slight that no number of in-game tests could provide useful evidence one way or the other. You believe your theoretical model based on dodgy assumptions would be better evidence than actual ingame tests? Originally by: RaTTuS so what's the current conclusion Training TSM to V leads to a slightly worse tank due to the fact that (compared to TSM IV) your shields will be slightly lower when taking damage in the 0% to 5% shield range and thus your shield recharge will be slightly lower. Free universal jumpclone service: 10.000 users!
stoicfaux	Posted - 2010.09.22 17:46:00 - [25] Do we actually know how much bleed through occurs? With TSM IV and 0% < shield% <= 5%, what percentage of damage actually passes through? And has anyone actually plugged the numbers into the shield recharge formula to determine just how many additional shield points you'd gain by the improved recharge rate? And has anyone actually determined how small the incoming damage would have to be and for how long before the differences in TSM IV and TSM V would be significant? And does anyone actually think that shields hover in the 0-5% range long enough for TSM IV/V to make a non-trivial difference? Would TSMIV/V make a difference in an (under-gunned?) frigate versus passive shield tanked Rattlesnake scenario? ----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
Lost Greybeard	Posted - 2010.09.22 23:22:00 - [26] Edited by: Lost Greybeard on 22/09/2010 23:24:27 Buffer tank: If your armor resist to the damage type is higher than your shield resist, then TSM causes you to briefly take more total damage during the cross-over range than you would otherwise. Active Armor Tank: You're an armor tank? Why do you give a ***? Active shield tank/passive shield tank: Damage rollover to your armor is damage you cannot heal. So, in a wave-based or prolonged engagement, total damage doesn't matter so much as the fact of taking damage you can't active-tank away. EDIT: for passive shield tank I guess the amount of absolute shield damage you've taken alters your recharge rate, so that's a consideration as well if you're taking oddly steady damage. There. It's not bloody hard. Here is the buffer tank calculation in algebra 1 form for you Rs = 1 - Shield resistance (the multiplier applied to damage against shield) Ra = 1 - Armor resistance D = Damage p = proportion leaked to armor Total damage = D(1-p)Rs + DpRa = D(Rs + p(Ra-Rs)) for skill level 5, p = 0, so Total damage = DRs Total damage at full skill ?? Total damage DRs ?? D(Rs + p(Ra - Rs)) Rs ?? Rs + p(Ra - Rs) 1 ?? 1 + p(Ra/Rs - 1) 0 ?? p(Ra/Rs - 1) since p is necessarily positive and nonzero, we get 0 ?? Ra/Rs - 1 1 ?? Ra/Rs Rs ?? Ra So, if Rs > Ra, then TSM 5 damage taken > lower TSM damage taken if Rs < Ra, then TSM 5 damage taken < lower TSM damage taken since Rs and Ra are the multipliers (1- resistances), then this means that your shield resists being lower than armor resists results in higher damage taken with TSM 5 than without. Now, the million dollar question: WTF kind of stupid shield tank are you running that has lower resists than your armor on a relevant resist? --- If you outlaw tautologies, only outlaws will have tautologies. ~Anonymous
Aerilis Gallente Percussive Diplomacy	Posted - 2010.09.23 03:06:00 - [27] Originally by: Lost Greybeard Stuff Except if you read the thread, you would see that it's already been established that resists don't make squat difference. Why? Just convert all your numbers to EHP, and then suddenly poof! Resists are out of the equation! Now what?
RaVeN Revenge	Posted - 2010.09.23 08:54:00 - [28] [Quote] "Except if you read the thread, you would see that it's already been established that resists don't make squat difference" [End Quote] This is where I have to disagree. Of course resists make a difference. Thats why increasing them also increases EHP, and decreasing them is bad . Taking damage in lesser resists is bad. Taking damage in your highest resist is the real goal. (rat specific tank comes to mind) But for the sake of this thread, I think it gets down to where your better resists are. If you shield tank, TSM keeps that damage where it belongs for longer. And TSM 5 lets you use 100% of your high resist shield hitpoints. Shields will fail at 75% unless you train TSM up a few levels. (this concept kinda bugs me when i see it in print) If you armor tank, bleed thru might be a good thing. In that case, you probly dont want TSM at all. Optimal regen is better at 75% and the bleed goes to higher resists. The math should revolve around : Passive regen rate at 75-100% vs damage rate in armor resists. And the stats would/should change on every different ship tested.
Skippermonkey Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2010.09.23 09:31:00 - [29] GO ON I DARE YOU, BEAT IT SOME MORE! Originally by: CCP Capslock OH GOD THE TESTING
NoNah	Posted - 2010.09.23 11:04:00 - [30] Originally by: RaVeN Revenge [Quote] "Except if you read the thread, you would see that it's already been established that resists don't make squat difference" [End Quote] This is where I have to disagree. Of course resists make a difference. Thats why increasing them also increases EHP, and decreasing them is bad . Taking damage in lesser resists is bad. Taking damage in your highest resist is the real goal. (rat specific tank comes to mind) But for the sake of this thread, I think it gets down to where your better resists are. If you shield tank, TSM keeps that damage where it belongs for longer. And TSM 5 lets you use 100% of your high resist shield hitpoints. Shields will fail at 75% unless you train TSM up a few levels. (this concept kinda bugs me when i see it in print) If you armor tank, bleed thru might be a good thing. In that case, you probly dont want TSM at all. Optimal regen is better at 75% and the bleed goes to higher resists. The math should revolve around : Passive regen rate at 75-100% vs damage rate in armor resists. And the stats would/should change on every different ship tested. Yes, resistances matter, just not in the comparisson of TSM4 vs TSM5. X = Y is equivalent to 0.5x = 0.5Y no mattter if x or 0.5x is best in practice. That said, there are some minor impacts also in the comparisson which however only arise when the resistances are highly polarized. basically when 5% shield EHP > armor and hull combined. Meaning.. resistances does not have any real impact on the comparisson. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 593542

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.