| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Barachan Otaared
   |
Posted - 2007.12.25 16:58:00 -
[1]
So there has been a nerf to RSD's as I have read so far (rookie) - I now would like to know, how to calculate with this new values? I only find tables and calculators for RSD's before they got nerfed.
Has somebody a hint or can give me a formular how to calculate the effectiveness of several fitted RSD's running with Tracking Range Dampener Scripts?
Thanks a lot for your help!
|
NoRhustlaa
NorCorp Security
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 17:02:00 -
[2]
Edited by: NoRhustlaa on 25/12/2007 17:03:15
well when you check info for I.E. T2 RSD's they have -17% to range and scan resolution.
when you then put in a scan resolutin script that 17% gets a 100% boost from the script so woy get 34% out of the RSD ;)
Edit: but then you lose the 17% targeting range that the RSD would give if you didnt have any script loaded!
|
Barachan Otaared
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 17:12:00 -
[3]
thank - yes I mean more the stacking penalty - what happens if I use three or four of them?
|
Hannobaal
Gallente
Igneus Auctorita
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 17:18:00 -
[4]
Stacking penalties are always calculated in the exact same way on all modules that have them.
|
Cain Calzon
Caldari
Genco
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 19:36:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Cain Calzon on 25/12/2007 19:36:33
module 1: 100%
module 2: 87%
module 3: 57%
module 4: 28%
module 5: 11%
thats what the estimated stacking penalty is like, the percentage is how effective ur modules will be like.
formula would be, 17+(17*0.87)+(17*0.57)+(17*0.28)=46.24% thats how effective ur Sensor Dampeners will be like without any scripts loaded and of course no skill bonus too.
|
Barachan Otaared
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 21:12:00 -
[6]
Thanks a lot Cain, that is exactly what I wanted to know!
/closed
|
Horchan
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 21:13:00 -
[7]
Actually, since RSDs have a diminishing effect, the math is a little different. For a single damp focusing on range, the formula is:
Base_Range*(1+Range_Modifier) = Modified_Range
(I have a '+' instead of a '-' because Range_Modifier is negative to begin with)
When it comes to stacking damps, it looks like this:
(((Base_Range*(1+Range_Modifier))*(1+(Range_Modifier*0.87)))*(1+(Range_Modifier*0.57)))
Or, since even colors don't clear up all the parentheses:
Mod1: Base_Range*(1+Range_Modifier) = Modified_RangeA
Mod2: Modified_RangeA*(1+(Range_Modifier*0.87)) = Modified_RangeB
Mod3: Modified_RangeB*(1+(Range_Modifier*0.57)) = Modified_RangeC
In other words, the second module doesn't modify the base range, it modifies the range that's been modified by the first module.
---
 Originally by: VJ Maverick
Jita is closed on Sundays. It's a holy day.
|
Hannobaal
Gallente
Igneus Auctorita
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 21:43:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Horchan
In other words, the second module doesn't modify the base range, it modifies the range that's been modified by the first module.
But that's a given. That's just the way they work normally, with or without stacking penalties.
|
Horchan
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.26 00:05:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Hannobaal
But that's a given. That's just the way they work normally, with or without stacking penalties.
That's what you'd think if you're very familiar with the mechanics in EVE. However, if you're not too familiar, then it's not obvious at first glance, especially with resistance stacking as it works in a similar way.
---
Originally by: VJ Maverick
Jita is closed on Sundays. It's a holy day.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |