Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
PureMurder
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 17:27:00 -
[1]
I have a feeling turret sims aren't covering this (that I've seen) because they never list the base damage with the ammo...
However: If you shoot Fusion S (exp 10, kin 2) at a target with 100% resists for exp and kin, you still do damage, right?
|
Terianna Eri
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 17:31:00 -
[2]
No, but nothing you'll ever be shooting at has 100% resists anyway. ________________
Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
|
Lost Greybeard
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 18:33:00 -
[3]
To expand on the answer above, resists stack multiplicatively, not additively. If you have 50% resist, and then add another 50% resist (after stacking penalties), you have 75% total resist. Add another 50%, and you have 87.5%, and so on.
The only two theoretical ways to achieve 100% resists are:
(1) Find a hardener or other device that confers 100% resist
(2) Add an infinite number of resist modules
There aren't any of (1) in the game and (2) can't be achieved due to slot restrictions (and is moot due to diminishing returns multiplying the infinite series by another infinite series anyhow. ---
If you outlaw tautologies, only outlaws will have tautologies. ~Anonymous |
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 19:00:00 -
[4]
I'm fairly certain that the stacking penalty function converges, so even an infinite number of slots wouldn't get you to 100% resists.
|
VaMei
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 19:05:00 -
[5]
Edited by: VaMei on 21/04/2011 19:05:13
Originally by: Lost Greybeard If you have 50% resist, and then add another 50% resist (after stacking penalties), you have 75% total resist. Add another 50%, and you have 87.5%, and so on.
That's how it works before the stacking penalties. The stacking penalty means that your actual results will be worse than simple multiplicative stacking, and the more you use the worse it gets.
|
Lost Greybeard
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 20:42:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Lost Greybeard on 21/04/2011 20:42:47
Originally by: VaMei Edited by: VaMei on 21/04/2011 19:05:13
Originally by: Lost Greybeard If you have 50% resist, and then add another 50% resist (after stacking penalties), you have 75% total resist. Add another 50%, and you have 87.5%, and so on.
That's how it works before the stacking penalties. The stacking penalty means that your actual results will be worse than simple multiplicative stacking, and the more you use the worse it gets.
You're saying that stacking penalty is applied to your final equipment bonus? I was under the impression that it was applied to each module.... and in my experience, adding a 4th module generally still increases the stat in question, whereas if the penalty was applied to the final bonus the 4th module would actually reduce your overall resistance (57% multiplier -> 28% multiplier would more than offset the addition).
On reviewing the eve wiki, I stand by my math, my numbers are correct if 50% is the bonus _after_ stacking penalties are applied.
EDIT: Yeah, Aamrr, that was what I meant by that last parenthetical in my post. Sorry if it was unclear. ---
If you outlaw tautologies, only outlaws will have tautologies. ~Anonymous |
Sadayiel
Caldari Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 21:13:00 -
[7]
there is no 100% resist even CCP DEV ships like polaris frigate fly with 99%
|
Adacia Calla
Minmatar Firebird Squadron Terra-Incognita
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 21:14:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Terianna Eri No, but nothing you'll ever be shooting at has 100% resists anyway.
Loki with 4x EM armor hardeners can get 99.4% :D
|
ELECTR0FREAK
Eye of God United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 21:19:00 -
[9]
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 21/04/2011 21:19:28
Originally by: Aamrr I'm fairly certain that the stacking penalty function converges, so even an infinite number of slots wouldn't get you to 100% resists.
While it could be true that you would never get to 100% resists, the stacking penalty has nothing to do with it.
Infinity is infinity. It doesn't matter if the stacking penalty and the resistance formula are inverse exponential functions, the result is that with an infinite number of modules, you will arrive at 99.9999-infinite number of 9s. Not 100%, but practically so.
I think that all of it is probably moot anyhow, since CCP doesn't carry out calculations to an infinite number of places. I don't know how they handle their rounding, but the result is almost certainly that with a finite number of modules the resistance number would reach 100%, or with a finite number of modules the resistance number would reach 99%.
Even that point is a silly once since we're limited to 8 module slots. :)
Discoverer of the Original Missile Damage Formula |
PureMurder
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 22:02:00 -
[10]
Please let me redefine my question a little:
What do the base damages for shield and armor in ammo attributes do?
I assume that they're unresistable damage, thus you would damage someone even if you shot at them using damages that they were 100% resistant to. How do people resist vs the base damages, if at all? What are base damages?
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Emp_S
base shield: 10.4, base armor: 6.15
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 22:19:00 -
[11]
Originally by: PureMurder What do the base damages for shield and armor in ammo attributes do?
Very little.
They're an approximation of what kind of damage the ammo might do against very old, non-universal and (due to hardeners) very rare base resists on T1 ships.
Unless you're going after something like a freighter, they can safely be ignored (and even against freighters, they're of little use since the bulk of their HP lies in their enormous amounts of hull). 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 |
WhiteWarp
Amarr Lone Star Exploration
|
Posted - 2011.04.21 22:38:00 -
[12]
Edited by: WhiteWarp on 21/04/2011 22:39:02
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK you will arrive at 99.9999-infinite number of 9s. Not 100%, but practically so.
99.infinite 9's is equal to 100. It's not realistic because you can't reach infinity, and that's why it's properly represented as a limit methematically. But given that it's infinite, it is exactly equal to 100.
That's the entire concept of infinity as it's used in mathematics.
|
PureMurder
|
Posted - 2011.04.22 01:51:00 -
[13]
Edited by: PureMurder on 22/04/2011 01:52:44 Edited by: PureMurder on 22/04/2011 01:51:54
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: PureMurder What do the base damages for shield and armor in ammo attributes do?
Very little.
Did you actually mean "nothing" rather than "very little"?
Like, from what you said, they're the result of a calculation with fixed, wrong variables, that we could do better with our own well-researched variables, and since those base damages are results rather than inputs, they aren't actually part of the eve mechanics. Is this correct?
edit: Like, let's say that I hacked ccp's database and edited the entries to like 6000 instead of 10... would anything change when people shoot at eachother?
edit: I'm going to have ot try to take "like" out of my vocabulary. :(
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.04.22 01:53:00 -
[14]
Originally by: PureMurder Edited by: PureMurder on 22/04/2011 01:51:54
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: PureMurder What do the base damages for shield and armor in ammo attributes do?
Very little.
Did you actually mean "nothing" rather than "very little"?
Like, from what you said, they're the result of a calculation with fixed, wrong variables, that we could do better with our own well-researched variables, and since those base damages are results rather than inputs, they aren't actually part of the eve mechanics. Is this correct?
edit: Like, let's say that I hacked ccp's database and edited the entries to like 6000 instead of 10... would anything change when people shoot at eachother?
I've always ignored them. Should I continue doing so?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.22 02:40:00 -
[15]
Originally by: PureMurder Did you actually mean "nothing" rather than "very little"?
No, I mean "very little". They do give you a hint at how they'll perform against a baseline targetà
àit's just that this kind of target is very very rare. 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 |
Marko Riva
|
Posted - 2011.04.22 09:25:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Marko Riva on 22/04/2011 09:27:03
Originally by: PureMurder Please let me redefine my question a little:
What do the base damages for shield and armor in ammo attributes do?
I assume that they're unresistable damage, thus you would damage someone even if you shot at them using damages that they were 100% resistant to. How do people resist vs the base damages, if at all? What are base damages?
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Emp_S
base shield: 10.4, base armor: 6.15
They don't do anything at at all, they're just indicators of the damage that ammo will do based on generic shield and armor resists. It's not used in any equation but just CCP being stupid and non-logical.
And to answer the first bit, you'll never hit 100%. Resists aren't added to what you have but they're subtracted from the unresisted amount that's left, big difference. So if you have 25% resists that means you are not resisting 75%, if you then add 50% resists, you get 25%+(75/(100/50))=25+37.5=62.5%. This keeps going on and on and you'll never hit 100%.
Then there's stacking penalties making every extra bonus to something work less good. By the 3rd one you're down to ~57% effectiveness, 4th is about 28% so it goes down fast making it not useful to fit many of the same bonuses to a ship (7 Heat sink Geddons for instance).
--- I'm rebuilding my EVE tutorials, if you have requests or ideas feel free to tell me. |
Zaqar
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2011.04.22 09:53:00 -
[17]
Yeah CCP, why are those 'base shield' and 'base armor' damage vaues on ammo there? They don't even work for NPCs. Let's get them removed asap. Next patch, ok? --
Originally by: Brian Ballsack please learn to use english if your gonna post
|
PureMurder
|
Posted - 2011.04.22 19:59:00 -
[18]
Thanks guys, very much appreciated.
I got a lot more than I asked for here but the question was answered and thanks for your patience!
|
Hiroshima Jita
|
Posted - 2011.04.22 20:27:00 -
[19]
Wait. I thought the stacking penalty % was how much of the bonus you got after being penalized.
Wouldn't the stacking penalty need to diverge for an infinite number of hardeners to give a 100% result?
Its been too long since I did anything with infinite series. I feel dumb now that I forget...
|
Hiroshima Jita
|
Posted - 2011.04.22 20:59:00 -
[20]
I'm sure that for x(1)=.5 - (starting 50% resists) x(n+1)=1-(1-x(n)) * (1-.5) - (50% additional resist applied resulting in a 75% resist 100% resist - amount of damage getting through before * amount of damage getting through after adding a new resist = how much damage blocked) x converges to 1 - (reaches 100% resist) or x(infinity) = 1
This is the stacking penalty I found. S(n) = 0.5^[((n-1) / 2.22292081) ^2] and I read "Modules - Effect of nth module" to mean S(n) is multiplied with the normal effect of the module to determine the stacking penalized effect.
Wait does convergence mean the value of what S(n) when n->infinity or is it the sum of S(1)+S(2)+S(3)...S(N) when n -> infinity.
I need to go look it up. OK I'm back. Convergence is the value of S(n) when n->infinity. S(n) can be an infinite recurring function like S(n) = a(1)+a(2)+a(3)...a(N)
So in this case S(n) converges to 0.
x(n+1)=1-(1-x(n)) * (1-.5*S(n)) is what we want to know the convergence of. I could probably figure out how to do this eventually but right now I don't know. The question solving this equation would answer is whether an infinite number of resist mods would get to 100% resists before the stacking penalty prevented them from contributing anything.
|
|
stoicfaux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.22 21:50:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Hiroshima Jita
I could probably figure out how to do this eventually but right now I don't know. The question solving this equation would answer is whether an infinite number of resist mods would get to 100% resists before the stacking penalty prevented them from contributing anything.
Not to be pedantic*, but since numbers in a computer are finite representations, one answer is "no, you will not reach 100% resists." Assuming that Eve is 32 bit, I would go with the 74th module being zero in this case.
Column 1 is the number of 50% hardeners Column 2 is the final resist number Column 3 is the stacking penalty applied to the Nth module. 1 = 0.5 1 2 = 0.717279995200099 0.869119980800398 3 = 0.797937629736123 0.57058314351056 4 = 0.826524924286284 0.282955154023261 5 = 0.83571846575589 0.105992649742704 6 = 0.838181963181819 0.0299911665332805 ... *snip* ... 70 = 0.838795250505916 9.0910734425372e-291 71 = 0.838795250505916 3.09526786377389e-299 72 = 0.838795250505916 7.96050794040321e-308 73 = 0.838795250505916 1.5464745816083e-316 74 = 0.838795250505916 0 75 = 0.838795250505916 0 76 = 0.838795250505916 0 77 = 0.838795250505916 0 78 = 0.838795250505916 0 79 = 0.838795250505916 0
use strict;
my $final = 1.0; for(my $n=1; $n<=100; $n++) { my $stacking_penalty = exp(-1 * ($n-1)**2 / 7.1289); my $a = 1- .5 * $stacking_penalty; $final *= $a; print sprintf "%2d = ", $n; print 1.0-$final, " ", $stacking_penalty, "\n"; }
Eve Dev Wiki on Stacking which references Stacking Penalty Guide.
* Hell yes, I'm being pedantic.
----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
|
Ottersmacker
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.04.22 22:35:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Ottersmacker on 22/04/2011 22:35:53 to infinity and beyond tbh. the fortress of absurdity, J105934, boasted turrets with infinite tracking and a hit chance of over 1/1
just saying yo, never forget.
|
PureMurder
|
Posted - 2011.04.22 23:43:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ottersmacker Edited by: Ottersmacker on 22/04/2011 22:35:53 to infinity and beyond tbh. the fortress of absurdity, J105934, boasted turrets with infinite tracking and a hit chance of over 1/1
just saying yo, never forget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mage:_The_Ascension
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |