PvP Optimal shield resistance mix for PvP (FDL)

[Herbrand]

Also don't forget about the wonder of SLFs. A good PvP player can swap to SLF very quickly and pour fixed beams on you with almost permanent fire thanks to heat sinks.

Ah yes, SLFs would be annoying. I suppose it would boil down to run away really fast, deal with the fighter, get close again. Rinse and repeat 16 times.
Did I say that nobody uses big ships because they'd lose? Scratch that, they'd eventually lose and it would be the most boring fight ever - for both.

For such tediously long fights, I'd imagine a Bi-Weave should be mandatory.

 

[StiTch]

For such tediously long fights, I'd imagine a Bi-Weave should be mandatory.

Not quite...shield tanky fights do happen, trust me; I'm just saying that you can't expect to beat an apex cutter because you brought a TLB weapon.

It gets bad enough that our legendary truesilver above has previously employed phasing weapons, and won fights by slowly punching the hull down through the shield before it drops.

That to me is just...why?!

 

[Sebastian Rooks]

Of course you are all correct.

'Sys resistance' has nothing to do with resistance to damage types. We really ought to call it something else.

Example: 60% thermal resist reduces laser damage 40 to 16 (40*.4)

4 pips would then reduce that to 6.4 (40*.4*.4)

That appears to be an approximate 86.5 % reduction. Suspiciously close to that 90% someone mentioned earlier...

Rooks o7

 

[jasonbarron]

I would imagine that anyone with the know-how to build a highly engineered Cutter/Corvette would certainly be well aware of Plasma's most deadly secondaries - hence the almost non-existent amount of such ships doing PvP.



Nope, that would be 543:

https://www.screencast.com/t/wc3g6grSy

I'd be a fool to not max the Thrusters - in fact, if I had to choose one module and one only to top, that would be it.

That makes a lot more sense, haha! Yeah, that FdL is a beast for sure. Personally, I would give the nod to the speedier 5x Phasing build, but your ship would still take a long time to whittle down.

 

[Truesilver]

Of course you are all correct.

'Sys resistance' has nothing to do with resistance to damage types. We really ought to call it something else.

Example: 60% thermal resist reduces laser damage 40 to 16 (40*.4)

4 pips would then reduce that to 6.4 (40*.4*.4)

That appears to be an approximate 86.5 % reduction. Suspiciously close to that 90% someone mentioned earlier...

Rooks o7

Yes indeed, that is because the theoretical maximum reduction is 90%.

Maximum damage type reduction divides damage by 4, maximum Sys pips reduction divides damage by 2.5.

.25*.4 = .1

(or, put another way 100% divided by 4 divided by 2.5 = 10%)

@jgm (sadly no longer playing, I think) coded Coriolis to do the simple arithmetic I am setting out above automatically. That is why Herbrand cited Coriolis as going up to almost 90%.

The reason for the 'almost' is that the diminishing returns make the theoretical maximum of 75% damage type reduction actually unachievable. You can almost get there but not quite (iirc).

 

[StiTch]

The reason for the 'almost' is that the diminishing returns make the theoretical maximum of 75% damage type reduction actually unachievable. You can almost get there but not quite (iirc).

Is this a technical issue or is my understanding skewed? I was under the impression that the diminishing returns are not based on a true diminishing returns curve, but a simplified "all resistances beyond 50% are halved", meaning 100% resistance on equipment becomes 75% exact actual resistance, with no convergence point - so all resistances above 100% in outfitting are entirely ignored.

 

[Truesilver]

Is this a technical issue or is my understanding skewed? I was under the impression that the diminishing returns are not based on a true diminishing returns curve, but a simplified "all resistances beyond 50% are halved", meaning 100% resistance on equipment becomes 75% exact actual resistance, with no convergence point - so all resistances above 100% in outfitting are entirely ignored.

Hmmm...

OK, two 'wrinkles', neither of which undermine your point Mr Stitch:

1. Devs said on here right when they introduced the diminishing returns that the 75% could not currently be reached;

2. The game actually does not count any mod on the base vehicle (shield or bulkheads) towards the diminishing returns - in other words, your shield or bulkheads get 'free' resistance buffs before the >50% diminishing returns kick in on subsequent mods.

The two points above are kinda in opposition to one another - the latter would actually make the 75% easier to reach, the former says we can't.

Now, that said, I've just taken a look at a 'destruction test' on the 3rdP sites and it looks to me as if 75% should be easily reached in edge cases, e.g., I just looked at a T-10 with kinetic resistant reactive bulkheads + endless stacked kinetic resistant HRP's ... unless there is a curve.

Arrghh ... head hurts ... where are Frenotx, jgm, Taleden and Morbad when we need them...?

Has anyone actually got a right panel screen of 75% resists? Or is it just that in practice no realistic build would ever result in them??

 

[Herbrand]

Is this a technical issue or is my understanding skewed? I was under the impression that the diminishing returns are not based on a true diminishing returns curve, but a simplified "all resistances beyond 50% are halved", meaning 100% resistance on equipment becomes 75% exact actual resistance, with no convergence point - so all resistances above 100% in outfitting are entirely ignored.

AFAIK, this only applies to shield booster stacking. Or at least I hope so, because some of my PvE ships' loadout are based on being able to achieve more than 75%.

A testing protocol would go like this:
-take my Anaconda "Saint Mary", that according to the currently understood calculations should have 87.24% Thermal Resistance and 1,042.7 Mj worth of shield;
-fire with a known configuration of exclusively thermal weapons, the higher sustained DPS the better;
-count how long it takes to reach 90%, 80%, 50%, 0%.

Even taking into account shield regeneration (does it even happen under sustained fire?), the difference between 75% and 87.24% should be extremely noticeable.

 

[Truesilver]

AFAIK, this only applies to shield booster stacking. Or at least I hope so, because some of my PvE ships' loadout are based on being able to achieve more than 75%.

A testing protocol would go like this:
-take my Anaconda "Saint Mary", that according to the currently understood calculations should have 87.24% Thermal Resistance and 1,042.7 Mj worth of shield;
-fire with a known configuration of exclusively thermal weapons, the higher sustained DPS the better;
-count how long it takes to reach 90%, 80%, 50%, 0%.

Even taking into account shield regeneration (does it even happen under sustained fire?), the difference between 75% and 87.24% should be extremely noticeable.

May I offer a refined version ... for science...?

If anyone wants to do a test, the following is the "Truesilver's Tests" method, as originally devised by Cmdr StarLightBreaker and subsequently taken forwards by me:

A. Target brings SCB's.
B. Shooter brings a weapon that has 'countable' shots on vid, i.e. not a beam laser.
C. Target puts 0 pips to Sys.
D. Shooter gets beneath fall-off range for weapon.
E. Both switch off thrusters.
F. Shooter fires weapon until target's Sys cap is completely empty.
G. Target uses SCB's to bring shield back up to full.
H. Shooter checks in left panel that shield on target is at 100%.
I. Target keeps Sys pips at 0 and test commences.
J. Test is recorded. Target's shield health % checked at intervals and at conclusion in left panel.
K. On playback of vid, shots are counted and compared to damage observed.

The above method results in a shield that begins at full strength yet cannot regenerate. The use of 'counting' of shots avoids the inaccuracies that creep into trying to work out damage 'per second'. Because the game UI tells us the precise damage per shot we can work out exactly what resistances are operating by reference to anticipated damage / number of shot compared to actual damage / number of shots.

Anyway, @Herbrand, what does your Annie show in right panel defence stats?

 

[Herbrand]

May I offer a refined version ... for science...?

I thought of exactly that same protocol... until I realized that without 4 pips to sys you cannot achieve a resistance beyond 75%.

Anyway, @Herbrand, what does your Annie show in right panel defence stats?

Need to check. I believe however that the right panel ignores pips resistance.

 

[Truesilver]

I thought of exactly that same protocol... until I realized that without 4 pips to sys you cannot achieve a resistance beyond 75%.

Need to check. I believe however that the right panel ignores pips resistance.

Oh, OK. Now we are talking about two different things again though. We don't need to test Sys reductions, we know what they are. See my posts above, e.g.:

Of course you are all correct.

'Sys resistance' has nothing to do with resistance to damage types. We really ought to call it something else.

Example: 60% thermal resist reduces laser damage 40 to 16 (40*.4)

4 pips would then reduce that to 6.4 (40*.4*.4)

Sys reduction at 4 pips is Damage/2.5. It has nothing to do with resistances or diminishing returns.

The only thing that needs to be ascertained is the resistances. Then divide by 2.5 (if required).

 

[Herbrand]

Oh, OK. Now we are talking about two different things again though. We don't need to test Sys reductions, we know what they are. See my posts above, e.g.:.

Ok - in this case I will have to engineer the most useless items ever added to the game: Kinetic Resistant Shield and Shield Boosters, something like this: https://bit.ly/2I4vFdY

And repeat the test using your protocol. I need to do some more farming to get there, I'll let you know when I have them at hand.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

i remember that the DEVs had written down the exact equation somwhere in a beta discussion

what i find strange, is always reading this "resistances after 50% are not worth it because they get hit by the diminishing returns"
this totally ignores that any resistances after 50% have more impact on the total effective hitpoints then the ones below

50% resist = 2x effective hitpoints
75% resist = 4x effective hitpoints

ofc, this follows a curve