POE #4: Things all players should know

Published on 07. Jan, 2010 ... written by Ecaf Ersa, Tags: Articles, Latest, Proverbs of EVE

Fitting Window

Stacking

Stacking refers to the use of multiple modules or ship modifications (rigs) that affect the same attribute, eg. optimal range, kinetic shield resistance, tracking speed, etc.

The modules involved do not have to be the same or even of the same type. For example, the benefit to kinetic armour resistance granted by an Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane module stacks onto the benefit from a Armor Kinetic Hardener module.

Whilst stacking modules is often necessary and desirable there are in most cases drawbacks to it.

  • Diminishing Returns

    This only applies when the module affects an attribute with a definite limit. The most common example of this is shield and armour resistance modifiers – there is an absolute ceiling of 100% resistance that the module moves you towards. In cases like this the gain that the module grants is the stated percentage of the difference between your current value and the logical maximum.

    For example, if your armour has a base 40% resistance to EM damage and you fit a module that grants 50% to EM resistance, your actual gain is 50% of 60% = 30% (60% being the difference between your starting 40% and the maximum of 100%) giving you a new value of 70%.

    If your armour has a base 60% resistance to EM damage and you fit a module that grants 50% to EM resistance, your actual gain is 50% of 40% = 20% giving you a new value of 80%.

    So we can see clearly that the closer your starting value is to the maximum, the lower the actual benefit you receive.

  • The Stacking Penalty

    You may have seen the wording “Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized.” in the description of various modules.

    This functions in addition to the diminishing returns we see above and also applies to modules that affect attributes that do not have an absolute limit, for example the hybrid weapon damage module Magnetic Field Stabilizer.

    The stacking penalty reduces the base effect of the module by a fixed percentage depending on how many modules affecting the same attribute have been fitted.

    First module: 100% of stated value
    Second module: 86.9% of stated value
    Third module: 58.9% of stated value
    Fourth module: 32.4% of stated value
    Fifth module: 14.3% of stated value
    Sixth module: 5.0% of stated value
    Seventh module: 1.3% of stated value
    Eighth module: 0.3% of stated value

    So the highly detrimental effect of using multiple modules with a stacking penalty affecting the same attribute is clear. This is even more considerably pronounced when combined with diminishing returns. Using our EM resist example again with a base value of 40%, a fourth 50% EM resistance hardener would only actually add 1.7% resistance giving a total of 89.6%. An eighth would add 0.005% making a total of 90.3%.

But there are examples of modules that do not suffer either of these drawbacks. Any module that does not have a stacking penalty and the affected attribute does not have a logical maximum will stack normally.

The classic example of this is cargo expanders. A ship with a base 100m3 cargo bay and one Beta Hull Mod Expanded Cargo module, which grants a 25% bonus, would have 125m3. If a second module were added it would grant an additional 125 x 25% = 31.25 making a total of 156.25m3.

  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MisterWong
  • Technorati
  • Yigg

Tags: , , ,

6 Responses to “POE #4: Things all players should know”

  1. tongues

    07. Jan, 2010

    welcome back.
    can’t wait for moon mining part 2.

  2. Kanuo

    02. Feb, 2010

    Your view on diminishing returns is not quite right. It is only the armor resistance value which always getting less and less increased. But when you look at EHP then you see, that a 50% resistance mod always doubles this value.

    E.g.: Increasing the armor resistances from 40% to 70% or from 90% to 95% always doubles your EHP.

  3. Ecaf Ersa

    02. Feb, 2010

    Thanks for your comment. Feedback is always appreciated whether in support of or in contradiction to what we have written (as long as it is constructive and polite)

    I can see what you mean that a 50% mod will reduce the effective amount of damage that makes it through by 50% which results in a doubling of the effective hp but that only works if you take one damage type in isolation.

    A base hp of 2,000 and base resists all at 50% gives an ehp of 4,000. Adding 2 EM 50% mods gives an ehp of 4,923 against an even split across the 4 damage types. This of course ignores the stacking penalty.

    Adding a 50% EM mod and a 50% therm mod gives 5,333.

    Note here that, as far as I am aware, EVE calculates your ehp based on the lowest resist but EFT uses the average.

    You make a completely valid point but as we all know with EVE any attempt at calculating any particular scenario to an absolute is generally fruitless and it often forces us to take a step back to a level that is uncomplicated by all the potential additional factors. You can never know for sure exactly what damage spread you will be facing. Even with missions the different ship types can deal different proportions of the recognised damage types for that faction.

    There are also a couple more examples where there is an absolute maximum. Take stasis webifiers for example. A 50% webber will reduce the speed of a ship doing normally 200 m/s to 100 m/s but a second webber only reduces this to 50 m/s. So in this example the net effect of the second webber, when compared to your ship’s speed or your turret’s tracking speed, is half of what is was for the first webber.

    So in this instance I stand by what I wrote but thank you very much for your input. You made me think hard and play with the numbers for a while!

    Ecaf

  4. kEwL dOOd

    15. Feb, 2010

    Ecaf wrote:
    Take stasis webifiers for example. A 50% webber will reduce the speed of a ship doing normally 200 m/s to 100 m/s but a second webber only reduces this to 50 m/s. So in this example the net effect of the second webber, when compared to your ship’s speed or your turret’s tracking speed, is half of what is was for the first webber.

    I disagree. One 50% web would double the time to travel a given distance. A second 50% web, reducing speed to 25% (1/2 * 1/2) would again double the time to travel a given distance. The same exact principle applies to resistances (i. e. 95% is twice the protection of 90%). To look at this correctly, one must look at the incoming damage percentage, not the resistance levels. The simple (or perhaps oversimple) math is to take 1-(resist) to determine the incoming damage, and from my earlier example, 1-(90%) vs. 1-(95%) equals out to 10% vs. 5% for an obvious 50% reduction in oncoming damage.

    Yea this is simplified to overlook the stacking penalty, and to only look at one damage type/resistance, though it seems that this fundamental element was overlooked and I want to make sure it is not misunderstood.

    Non-confrontationally,

    kEwL dOOd

    Also, where is the new content? Over a month?!?

  5. Ecaf Ersa

    15. Feb, 2010

    Hey kEwL

    I love to debate these finer points, particularly when CCP maths are involved! So I take no offence at your valid and well reasoned arguments.

    Your logic is without flaw regarding the resistance example and I think both “view points” are valid as long as both are considered together.

    I also agree with the logic on the webber example as long as you look at the effect on the target ship in isolation. Yes any number of webbers would each cause the ship to take twice as long to cross any given distance. But if you introduce another element that doesn’t change then this fact is no longer relevant as you compare to an absolute and not the “previous value” from the webber before it.

    As an example, you are in a battleship with slow tracking large turrets and a fast frigate came in to orbit you inside your webber range. The object here would be to slow the frigate down to the point where your turrets could track it. Lets say your turrets could track an object with a transversal velocity of 200 m/s at the range that the frigate is at.

    A frigate able to orbit at 1000 m/s would be slowed to 500 m/s by a single webber. That’s a significant impact whichever way you calculate it, but a second webber will only slow the frig to 250 m/s. Regardless of the fact that this still isn’t good enough to allow constant tracking the net effect to you in your BS is half that given by the first webber. Without diminishing returns, ie. if the webber had an absolute effect, say -400 m/s, instead of a percentage, the second webber would have been enough.

    We may just be quibbling over semantics here and could probably carry the discussion on for some time. This for me demonstrates one of the beauties of EVE in that opposite view points can be just as valid or invalid when viewed from different angles.

    I cannot comment on the new content point right now but you can be sure you have not heard the last from Smak and myself.

    Cheers

    Ecaf

  6. kEwL dOOd

    20. Feb, 2010

    Thanks for your quality response Ecaf, looking forward to the new content – my preference as you probably know from my unpublished comments is for practical guides rather than fiction (especially over fiction with numerous male anatomy references).

    Keep up the good fight, and as soon as I finish some volunteer work for one of the more prolific authors (something about fighting spacecraft) I’d like to connect about your interest in my work as a possible contributor.

    Much respect!

    kEwL dOOd

Leave a Reply