| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sean Faust
Swarm of Angry Bees
   |
Posted - 2008.03.18 12:43:00 -
[1]
I read a (probably outdated) article on eve-wiki that alluded to a hidden resistance cap of 85%, meaning that any resistance beyond 85% is meaningless and a waste. I don't know if this is true or not as I have not been able to find any other information that backs this information up.
I imagine there probably would be a hidden cap or else it would be possible to achieve 100% against certain damage types and I doubt CCP would allow that. The question is, if not 85%, what is it? Certain t2 ships have base resists of upwards of 90%. If 85% is true, then that would mean some of these ships' base resists are wasted.
Can anyone help out with this? I'd like to know because If there is a hidden resistance cap, it would change the way I tank my ships as I don't want any "wasted" resistance where I could better use those slots.
|
Tseran
VSP Corp.
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 12:47:00 -
[2]
No hidden cap. And no, no ship can ever get 100% resist. This is because when you see a mod that gives 30% resist, what that means is 30% of the difference between your ship's resists and 100%. It is a stacking penalty that makes 100% resist impossible.
|
Dechmeister
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 12:49:00 -
[3]
85% isn't true.
Very easy to test out, get a corp mate to test your tank @ 85% & then at 90% resist, you will see the damage reduction.
Also, it IS impossible to reach 100%, because resist modules/rigs are always a percentage of the remaining "unresisted" portion of said resist. Even if you had 95% resist, a 55% resist module would only give you 2.75% resist, and the subsequent 55% resist module would give 1.23%, etc... so the point where you would need an impossible amount of mid or low slots depending on wether you shield or armor tank.
|
SoftRevolution
Complicity.
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 13:05:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Tseran
No hidden cap. And no, no ship can ever get 100% resist. This is because when you see a mod that gives 30% resist, what that means is 30% of the difference between your ship's resists and 100%. It is a stacking penalty that makes 100% resist impossible.
This.
It's very easy to see that there isn't a cap of 85%. Just slap an active hardener on the strong resist of a T2 ship.
EVE RELATED CONTENT |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 13:55:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 18/03/2008 14:01:14
Slap a 50%,say, EM hardener on a ship with 0% EM resist.
Result:
EM resist: 50%.
You just halved incoming EM damage. (you're getting 50% of incoming damage rather then 100%).
Now slap another 50% one (let's ignore the stacking penalities on modules).
Result:
EM resist: 75%
You again halved incoming damage (you're getting 25% of incoming damage rather then 50% with just one hardener)
Let's slap another one (again, ignoring stacking penalities).
Result:
EM resist: 87.5
Again, you halved incoming damage (12.5% of it rather then 25%).
...
I hope you get it, couldn't do it any simpler then that.
Stacking penalities, of course, mean that every hardener you put in is less effective then the one before, generally meaning more then 3 is a waste.
Btw, it's not stacking penalities that make 100% impossible. Matemathically, it takes a infinite number of hardeners to get to exact 100%.
Practically, assuming you want 99% resist, it'd mean (starting with 0% resist), 7 unstacknerfed 50% hardeners to get to 99.21875% resist.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Omarvelous
Destry's Lounge
XIII Legio
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 14:05:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 18/03/2008 14:01:14
Slap a 50%,say, EM hardener on a ship with 0% EM resist.
Result:
EM resist: 50%.
You just halved incoming EM damage. (you're getting 50% of incoming damage rather then 100%).
Now slap another 50% one (let's ignore the stacking penalities on modules).
Result:
EM resist: 75%
You again halved incoming damage (you're getting 25% of incoming damage rather then 50% with just one hardener)
Let's slap another one (again, ignoring stacking penalities).
Result:
EM resist: 87.5
Again, you halved incoming damage (12.5% of it rather then 25%).
...
I hope you get it, couldn't do it any simpler then that.
Stacking penalities, of course, mean that every hardener you put in is less effective then the one before, generally meaning more then 3 is a waste.
Btw, it's not stacking penalities that make 100% impossible. Matemathically, it takes a infinite number of hardeners to get to exact 100%.
Practically, assuming you want 99% resist, it'd mean (starting with 0% resist), 7 unstacknerfed 50% hardeners to get to 99.21875% resist.
Hmmmm.... so what you're saying is its time to start saving up for 7 Estamel's Modified Invulnerability Fields... 
__________________________________________________
Sup brosef!
Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.
|
ThaDollaGenerale
Endless Destruction
Total Eclipse Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 14:12:00 -
[7]
Stacking penalties in eve are like xeno's paradox.
|
Terianna Eri
FMP Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 15:11:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Tseran
No hidden cap. And no, no ship can ever get 100% resist. This is because when you see a mod that gives 30% resist, what that means is 30% of the difference between your ship's resists and 100%. It is a stacking penalty that makes 100% resist impossible.
Argh.
There is a difference between 'stacking penalty' and this, which looks like (but isn't) 'diminishing returns'.
Example:
No stacking penalty:
0% EM Shield resist
1 t1 EM hardener --> 50.0% EM resist
2 t1 EM hardeners -> 75.0% EM resist
3 t1 EM hardeners -> 87.5% EM resist
In this example there is no stacking penalty applied. Each EM hardener is exactly as effective as the others, each serving the purpose of halving incoming EM damage.
With stacking penalty:
0% EM shield resist
1 t1 EM hardener --> 50.0% EM resist
2 t1 EM hardeners -> 71.7% EM resist
3 t1 EM hardeners -> 79.8% EM resist
The first hardener works just fine but the second one doesn't provide a further 50% resistance to EM damage - it provides maybe a 45% resistance which is why the total resistance is less than 75%.
__________________________________
|
Gartel Reiman
Civis Romanus Sum
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 15:23:00 -
[9]
To the OP: I believe you're thinking of Oblivion, which incidentally does have such a cap at 85% resistance. 
The other posters have covered how resistances work in EVE and how there is no resistance cap, save the natural mathematical asymptote.
|
J'Mkarr Soban
Proxenetae Invicti
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 15:49:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Gartel Reiman
To the OP: I believe you're thinking of Oblivion, which incidentally does have such a cap at 85% resistance.
The other posters have covered how resistances work in EVE and how there is no resistance cap, save the natural mathematical asymptote.
Hahaha! That's the first thing I thought of too! 
-----------------------------
"Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow."
"Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?"
"..." |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 19:23:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Sean Faust
I read a (probably outdated) article on eve-wiki that alluded to a hidden resistance cap of 85%, meaning that any resistance beyond 85% is meaningless and a waste
Link please ? I'm sure somebody would be more than glad to change that ASAP.
And by the way, the fact some ships had even a 92.5% base value for some resist (*cough* former EM armor resist for several T2 Minmatar ships) should have been a dead giveaway.
1|2|3|4|5. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |