Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Ladyah Liandri
Soapbox Pilots
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 07:59:00 -
[1]
I started playing EVE (again) in February (RMR) this year with two accounts ("The Power Of 2"). Recently I got the feeling that the two weeks younger main character of the second account was a significantly better learner than the main of the first account.
So I compared the two characters attribute points and discovered an alarming situation:
The older character carries a total sum of 96 attribute points. 14 gained through implants, 16 through advanced learning skills and 23 through basic learning skills. That means that I started with a total amount of 43 attribute points.
The younger character on the other hand carries a total sum of 103 attribute points. 17 gained through implants, 16 through advanced learning skills and 23 through basic learning skills. That means that here I started with a total sum of 47 attribute points.
Assuming that in RMR all new characters were suppose to start with the same amount of character attribute points I wonder why, when and where I lost 4 points?
Now I asked a comrade to check his two accounts and bingo! Similar thing: one character started with 47 the other with 45 attribute points.
So I already petitioned on this but I thought it would be worth posting here as well to see if other fellow players are having the same problem.
|
Nicocat
Caldari New Age Solutions
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 08:11:00 -
[2]
Did one account manage to train Learning 3-4 levels higher than the other? ----------------------------
Originally by: Splagada SEED ME DADDY
WTB: Friggin' portrait |
Ladyah Liandri
Soapbox Pilots
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 08:22:00 -
[3]
Older character has learning on 4 Younger character has learning on 5
Even if that influences the amount of attribute points there should only be a 2% difference, right?
|
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 08:50:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Ladyah Liandri Older character has learning on 4 Younger character has learning on 5
Even if that influences the amount of attribute points there should only be a 2% difference, right?
Afaik its a rounding thing. Younger character gets rounded up the other down. _______________ |
|
Ladyah Liandri
Soapbox Pilots
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 08:54:00 -
[5]
Ah - OK. So if it's really a rounding issue bringing learning to 5 on the older char should even things out then.
Still: if it's really the difference in learning I should see only a 2% gap. How's the base formula on that anyway?
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 08:59:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ladyah Liandri Ah - OK. So if it's really a rounding issue bringing learning to 5 on the older char should even things out then.
Still: if it's really the difference in learning I should see only a 2% gap. How's the base formula on that anyway?
Skill training formula thread
Also read Skills in Revelations
:)
--- Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 09:06:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Tuxford on 07/12/2006 09:06:38 I'm not really an expert on this but here's how I things seem to work for me. Learning skills modifies the attributes and the attributes are rounded down. They are only rounded down in the display menu though, for example my character on the dev server has 6 perception and all learning skills at level 5 which means it has perception attribute at
(6+5+5)*1.1 = 17.6 but the display shows it at 17
Lets make an example for you lets say you have 6 perception and spatial awareness at level 4. That means without the learning skill you have perception at level 10. If you have learning level 4 the actual value of the attribute is 10*1.08 = 10.8 which gets rounded down to 10 on the info. If you train learning to level 5 your actual perception attribute is 10*1.1 = 11 which just stays as 11.
Note that the attribute that is used to calculate training times is using the full floating point number and not just an integer so its just a display discrepancy.
Edit: you should always give Jim time to post simple links _______________ |
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 09:08:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Tuxford
Edit: you should always give Jim time to post simple links
Yes.
--- Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
Lynja Liandri
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 09:10:00 -
[9]
Thanks McGregor!
Now the plot thickens. Using the base formula given in that thread I should get the following results assuming that both characters started with 39 points really:
Younger: (39+23+16+17)*(1+0.02*5) = 104,5. Actual value: 103
Older: (39+23+16+14)*(1+0.02*4) = 99,36. Actual value: 96
So that obviously is not a rounding issue. What am I missing here?
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 09:12:00 -
[10]
Tux, go on.... --- Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
|
Ladyah Liandri
Soapbox Pilots
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 09:15:00 -
[11]
Before I forget: many thanks to you Tuxford for your swift answer! I feel special now.
|
Tachy
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 09:18:00 -
[12]
You have to adjust the attributes because you'd get some points accounted for twice using the formula.
For each 11 points in an attribute, reduce the max by 1.
I'd love it if the char sheet did show the base attributes and those currently in effect in a way like (9)24.7.
The first number is the base attribute, the second the effective attribute used for calculating the training speed including skill, booster and implant effects. --*=*=*--
The cause for this is not yet known, but we do have a possible fix in testing. by Sharkbait | 2006.09.20 |
Ladyah Liandri
Soapbox Pilots
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 09:30:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Ladyah Liandri on 07/12/2006 09:34:35
Originally by: Tachy You have to adjust the attributes because you'd get some points accounted for twice using the formula.
For each 11 points in an attribute, reduce the max by 1.
Ok maybe it is because it's quite some time since I had a math class but that I totally do not get.
Even if you are right it does NOT explain the huge difference between younger and older, right?
Originally by: Tachy I'd love it if the char sheet did show the base attributes and those currently in effect in a way like (9)24.7.
The first number is the base attribute, the second the effective attribute used for calculating the training speed including skill, booster and implant effects.
/SIGNED !
|
Nezz Jaran
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 09:38:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Lynja Liandri Thanks McGregor!
Now the plot thickens. Using the base formula given in that thread I should get the following results assuming that both characters started with 39 points really:
Younger: (39+23+16+17)*(1+0.02*5) = 104,5. Actual value: 103
Older: (39+23+16+14)*(1+0.02*4) = 99,36. Actual value: 96
So that obviously is not a rounding issue. What am I missing here?
What are your actual stats?
If you adjust each stat by your learning, round everything down, and then add that up, do you end up with 103?
For example (using the numbers you provided, I realize it's not your stats) (39+23+16+17)*(1+0.02*5) = 104,5.
vs
(39*1.1) = 42.9 (42); (23*1.1) = 25.3 (25); (16*1.1) = 17.6 (17); (17*1.1) = 18.7 (18)
Without any rounding: 42.9 + 25.3 + 17.6 + 18.7) = 104.5 With rounding: 42 + 25 + 17 + 18 = 102
|
Kldraina
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 10:02:00 -
[15]
With 5 attributes, losing 4 points to rounding is quite possible, as each attribute can have as much as .9 unlisted, and .9 * 5 = 4.5 So basically, you can expect an error range of 0 to 4 points when just adding up the stats as displayed. |
Tachy
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 10:07:00 -
[16]
You can be off by 3 points for each attribute. 2 from learning being applied twice in the formula but not in the client, and (nearly) 1 from truncation.
3-11(13?) Base + 10 AttribSkills + 5 Implants + 10% LearningSkill Each attribute can have a value from 3 to 28.6. Decimals are just truncated in the char sheet, but they do influence the training speed.
If and by how much depends on each single attribute. --*=*=*--
The cause for this is not yet known, but we do have a possible fix in testing. by Sharkbait | 2006.09.20 |
Ladyah Liandri
Soapbox Pilots
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 10:12:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Kldraina With 5 attributes, losing 4 points to rounding is quite possible, as each attribute can have as much as .9 unlisted, and .9 * 5 = 4.5 So basically, you can expect an error range of 0 to 4 points when just adding up the stats as displayed.
I see what you mean. So in order to validate the results I would have to know the actual starting attributes to be able to proof the calculation.
Who does still remember their starting attributes?
|
Xanath Fireheart
Caldari Under Heavy Fire
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 10:21:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Xanath Fireheart on 07/12/2006 10:23:31 Edited by: Xanath Fireheart on 07/12/2006 10:21:52 * ignore *
Ingnore me that is.... not the thread... k.. carry on..
/me goes and gets some caffiene and waits until his brain is awake.
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 10:27:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Max Teranous on 07/12/2006 10:27:51
Quote: I see what you mean. So in order to validate the results I would have to know the actual starting attributes to be able to proof the calculation.
Who does still remember their starting attributes?
You can see your starting stats by downloading the xml from the charater section from the link on the left. Inside the XML itself you can read them.
Max
--------------------
|
Thor Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 10:37:00 -
[20]
You have to train Learning to 5 to make it worth training at all.
~Thor Xian, Chief Administrator
"For all your Material Needs, Vertigo One."
Corp/Alliance Services |
|
Cotton Tail
Perkone
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 11:23:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Thor Xian You have to train Learning to 5 to make it worth training at all.
Why do you say that? Tux just said that the display value does not show the integers which do affect training times, and are boosted by the learning skill. Learning 5 gives exactly the same benefit as learning 1,2,3 & 4.
|
Ladyah Liandri
Soapbox Pilots
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 11:34:00 -
[22]
Okey. So just to let everyone know I threw in some voodoo pills, did high-complex reverse mathematics and was able to caclculate back to the starting values.
Those then led me to my current values based on the given formula.
So everything was really just strange coincidence.
Thanks to all who contributed to this thread.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |