|
Post by drspendlove on May 13, 2018 15:02:16 GMT -5
I'm trying to make sense of the armor damage mitigation formula on the wiki: damage multiplier = 1 - 0.6 × armor ÷ (1 + 0.6 × |armor|) When I plug this into wolfram alpha to determine what armor is required for a multiplier of 0.4 (the minimum), I get an armor rating of 2.5 which is WAY lower than is actually required to reduce damage by that much. Is there an error in this formula as listed in the wiki? Or am I at error in some fashion?
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on May 13, 2018 17:34:39 GMT -5
Sorry, I don't understand the question. I can try to help, I did my best to copy the exact math from C++ into the Wiki. I double checked, it is all correct. The C++ calculates the way I expected it to, when I checked it with my calculator. I'm not sure about wolfram alpha, sorry
|
|
|
Post by drspendlove on May 13, 2018 20:59:32 GMT -5
Ah, no worries. I have no qualms with the formula. I just don't think I understand the underlying math.
How does the ship's base armor of 4 or maybe 7 convert to % damage reduction?
How is it modified by a say +3% armor modifier from some piece of equipment?
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on May 14, 2018 8:49:32 GMT -5
Items that list something like +6% Armor Modifier are using the post conversion descriptor. I can see why this is confusing. I will try to fix.
If you have 1 Armor, you have a Damage Reduction of 5.6% If you have 2 Armor, you have a Damage Reduction of 10.7% If you have 3 Armor, you have a Damage Reduction of 15.2% If you have 6 Armor, you have a Damage Reduction of 26.4% If you have 12 Armor, you have a Damage Reduction of 41.8% If you have 22 Armor, you have a Damage Reduction of 56.9%
So if an item says +15% Armor, it has 3 Armor points.
|
|
|
Post by drspendlove on May 14, 2018 10:17:38 GMT -5
Aha! So is each point 5.6% reduced, after applying every previous point? So 1.00 damage * 0.944 = 0.944 damage, then the second point is 0.944 * 0.944 = 0.8911 ... ah, I guess not. That doesn't exactly add up.
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on May 14, 2018 10:50:34 GMT -5
No, it is not 5.6%. It is all just the same formula that is posted. Let me try another way.
=1-(0.06*X)/(1+0.06*X)
1 94.34% 2 89.29% 3 84.75% 4 80.65% 5 76.92% 6 73.53% 7 70.42% 8 67.57% 9 64.94% 10 62.50% 11 60.24% 12 58.14% 13 56.18% 14 54.35% 15 52.63% 16 51.02% 17 49.50% 18 48.08% 19 46.73% 20 45.45%
|
|
|
Post by drspendlove on May 14, 2018 10:54:59 GMT -5
AHA! We were missing a 0. In the wiki it was using 0.6*X not 0.06*X. Will fix.
|
|
Netu
Curator
Posts: 54
|
Post by Netu on May 14, 2018 10:59:15 GMT -5
AHA! We were missing a 0. In the wiki it was using 0.6*X not 0.06*X. Will fix. Thanks so much for fixing that! :-) If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. It seems like you're pretty solid on this now?
|
|
|
Post by drspendlove on May 14, 2018 11:00:00 GMT -5
Cory, that's cause I just fixed it a minute ago.
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on May 14, 2018 11:00:34 GMT -5
Thumbs up. Thanks for fixing!
|
|
Netu
Curator
Posts: 54
|
Post by Netu on May 14, 2018 11:06:15 GMT -5
AHA! We were missing a 0. In the wiki it was using 0.6*X not 0.06*X. Will fix. I saw you fixed the shield page, too, and wanted to thank you personally, again! :-) You're awesome!
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on May 14, 2018 11:06:34 GMT -5
Looks like you also got the Shield page. +1
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on May 14, 2018 11:13:46 GMT -5
Good catch. Thanks a bunnnnch!
|
|
|
Post by drspendlove on May 14, 2018 11:17:44 GMT -5
While I have your attention, can you verify that shielding above 60% behaves identically to armor above 60%?
|
|
|
Post by fallen on May 14, 2018 11:55:28 GMT -5
While I have your attention, can you verify that shielding above 60% behaves identically to armor above 60%? Confirmed.
|
|