Wow. You like numbers don't you.
Thanks btw. You make my min/maxin' and powergaming self all warm and fuzzy. Me and the time spent crunching your charts would like to thank you for all the test work and reporting you do.
Thanks!
Ouch. You gave me a headache and made blood run from my ears. 
I am confused about when the deduction takes place when you go over the softcaps. From the formulas they gave before this went live in various posts (there is a compilation in the guides, I'll try to find it and edit this with the URL /edit Here is the post with the compilation of quotes. I was wrong he didn't give a formula, however he stated once your skill was over 70% it would then be reduced), they made it sound that for sched A that as soon as you hit 70% then it would kick in. And with Sched B it would happen when you hit 40% and everything after would then be calculated at a different rate. However, the examples they showed, especially for schedule B, shows that if the enhancement would bring you over the cap, then the whole enhancement gets hit.
Here is a quote from the Schedule B example:
Schedule B Enhancements (20%, 10%, 5%) are:
Range, Defense Buff, Resist Damage, To Hit Buff
These bonus types start to see reduction when the bonus is 40% or more, and a severe reduction at 60% bonus or greater. So your bonuses when slotting in multiples of the same Single-Origin Enhancement work out to:
1 SO: +20%
2 SO: +40%
3 SO: +56%
4 SO: +59%
5 SO: +62%
6 SO: +65%
You note that the 3rd enhancement takes the correct hit, but that's because the 2nd enhancement hit the softcap perfectly. However, the 4th enhancement, if it calculates after 60, should at the very least be 60%. But it's not. They seem to calculate it on the assumption you went over 60% so the whole enhancement is effected not just the remainder.
Maybe I am just confused and that's what your calculations state, if so I apologise.
-Voodoo Joe, Triumph
You bring up a valid point tigerr and it was a concept that I was concerned that my post would not properly convey. Turns out it didn't. Basically it doesn't calculate after each enhancement, it calculates the total potential bonus and then decides the reduction. I know that makes no sense so here is an example: 3 Type B SO's give a bonus of 56% as you said. Now when the fourth is added the game doesn't look and say that 4.44444...% of the new enhancement will still be under the 60% cap (4.4444*0.9=4) and then the rest of the potential are above the cap and are hit with the -85% penalty. Instead the game looks at the potential of ALL the enhancements and then calculates. So here is how it actually goes: 3 Type B SO's have a potential of 60% therefore anything added after that will be penalized at the +60% level. So the fourth SO gets a benefit of 20%*0.15=3% which is added to the 56% for 3 SOs = 59%.
The way to use the formulas is to use your potential bonus to decide which formula to use.
I am 100% confident that my formulas will always work. These will give exact amounts which is something that other ED formulas out there do not do. The most important concept that these formulas show is that there are actually three softcaps, not two! Type A has caps at 70% 90% and 100% and type B has caps at 40% 50% and 60%. People are trying too hard to interperet what the Devs have said that they are missing this critical point. Anyways. I want to get this out there so please keep asking questions if it doesn't make sense.
Ian Moore
Edit. just reread your post. If you test my formulas you will find that they work the way they should.
CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN THIS IS LAYMENS TERMS?
If I six slot with damage, will my power still be maxed?
Or is it maxed at 3-4 slots, and use the others for RANGED or whatever...
Essentially, anything over 3 slots of the same type of enhancement is a complete waste (well, effectively).
Cheers,
system crashes
[ QUOTE ]
Essentially, anything over 3 slots of the same type of enhancement is a complete waste (well, effectively).
[/ QUOTE ]
This is correct. 6-slotting for damage WILL still give you more damage than 3-slotting. But it's such a little boost that it's really not worth it. (like 5% per slot, as opposed to the normal 33% per slot)
Great info, any chance of forumlae for schedule C (interrupt, 40/20/10) and D (knockback, 60/30/15) enhancements as well?
[ QUOTE ]
Great info, any chance of forumlae for schedule C (interrupt, 40/20/10) and D (knockback, 60/30/15) enhancements as well?
[/ QUOTE ]
Red, the formulas you want should look like:
Schedule C:
y = x ; [0%,80%]
y = 8% + 0.9x ; (80%,100%]
y = 28% + 0.7x ; (100%,120%]
y = 94% + 0.15x ; (120%,INFINITY)
and Schedule D:
y = x ; [0%,120%]
y = 12% + 0.9x ; (120%,150%]
y = 42% + 0.7x ; (150%,180%]
y = 141% + 0.15x ; (180%,INFINITY)
------------------------------
Anyone can feel free to check, and a confirmation would be good, but that should be right.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great info, any chance of forumlae for schedule C (interrupt, 40/20/10) and D (knockback, 60/30/15) enhancements as well?
[/ QUOTE ]
Red, the formulas you want should look like:
Schedule C:
y = x ; [0%,80%]
y = 8% + 0.9x ; (80%,100%]
y = 28% + 0.7x ; (100%,120%]
y = 94% + 0.15x ; (120%,INFINITY)
and Schedule D:
y = x ; [0%,120%]
y = 12% + 0.9x ; (120%,150%]
y = 42% + 0.7x ; (150%,180%]
y = 141% + 0.15x ; (180%,INFINITY)
------------------------------
Anyone can feel free to check, and a confirmation would be good, but that should be right.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, it's been a long day at work and frankly my capacity for thinking was used up over 5 hours ago.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Essentially, anything over 3 slots of the same type of enhancement is a complete waste (well, effectively).
[/ QUOTE ]
This is correct. 6-slotting for damage WILL still give you more damage than 3-slotting. But it's such a little boost that it's really not worth it. (like 5% per slot, as opposed to the normal 33% per slot)
[/ QUOTE ]
Please note that if you choose to add more than three enhancements of the same type in a power, you may as well use a TO in that slot rather than an SO. The enhancement from the TO exceeds the amount allowed, so using a DO or SO is a complete waste.
For example, under Schedule A, Enhancements 4-6 give only a benefit of 5%. Schedule A Traning Enhancements give 8.5%, which is, of course, greater than the 5% cap. Adding three extra slots will give you a benefit of 15%, and you should only use TO's in those slots.
LOCAL MAN! The most famous hero of all. There are more newspaper stories about me than anyone else. "Local Man wins Medal of Honor." "Local Man opens Animal Shelter." "Local Man Charged with..." (Um, forget about that one.)
Guide Links: Earth/Rad Guide, Illusion/Rad Guide, Electric Control
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Essentially, anything over 3 slots of the same type of enhancement is a complete waste (well, effectively).
[/ QUOTE ]
This is correct. 6-slotting for damage WILL still give you more damage than 3-slotting. But it's such a little boost that it's really not worth it. (like 5% per slot, as opposed to the normal 33% per slot)
[/ QUOTE ]
Please note that if you choose to add more than three enhancements of the same type in a power, you may as well use a TO in that slot rather than an SO. The enhancement from the TO exceeds the amount allowed, so using a DO or SO is a complete waste.
For example, under Schedule A, Enhancements 4-6 give only a benefit of 5%. Schedule A Traning Enhancements give 8.5%, which is, of course, greater than the 5% cap. Adding three extra slots will give you a benefit of 15%, and you should only use TO's in those slots.
[/ QUOTE ]
Erm, no. Adding three SOs will add an extra 15% (or very close to it). Adding three TOs will only provide about 3.825% extra damage. If you're going die hard damage, it's better to get +~115% than +~103.825%.
So since it tells you how much of a buff enhancers are giving you since ED came out I decided it would be very easy to come up with the exact formulas for how much any combination of enhancements would end up giving you. Turns out it was very easy. here are the results:
-Variables-
y - the % bonus your chosen enhancements will actually benefit you.
x - the % bonus that you would have gotten before ED was introduced. There is a chart after the formulas to help determine this value if necessary.
-Formulas-
For the 8.3% - 16.7% - 33.3% enhancement types:
y = x ; [0%,70%]
y = 7% + 0.9x ; (70%,90%]
y = 25% + 0.7x ; (90%,100%]
y = 80% + 0.15x ; (100%,229.77%]
Basically this says that the first 70% count as normal, the next 20% are 90% effective, the next 10% are 70% effective and everything above 100% is 15% effective.
For the 5% - 10% - 20% enhancement types:
y = x ; [0%,40%]
y = 4% + 0.9x ; (40%,50%]
y = 14% + 0.7x ; (50%,60%]
y = 47% + 0.15x ; (60%,138%]
So the first 40% count as normal, the next 10% are 90% effective, the next 10% after that are 70% effective and everything after 60% is 15% effective.
OK so here is a chart of the % bonus each enhancement gives to make finding x easier (yes I know it's ugly):
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre> | -3 | -2 | -1 | 0 | +1 | +2 | +3
-----------------------------------------------------------
TO | 05.81 | 06.64 | 07.47 | 08.3 | 08.715 | 09.13 | 09.545
DO | 11.69 | 13.36 | 15.03 | 16.7 | 17.535 | 18.37 | 19.205
SO | 23.31 | 26.64 | 29.97 | 33.3 | 34.965 | 36.63 | 38.295</pre><hr />
Now for an example:
A power slotted for damage with a +2 SO, an even SO, a -1 DO and a +3 TO.
36.63 + 33.3 + 15.03 + 5.81 = 90.77% so:
y = 25 + 0.7(90.77) = 88.539, displayed as 88.5
Ok. A few more points to ponder. The enhancement bonuses are exactly 8.3, 16.7 and 33.3. Not 100/12, 100/6 and 100/3. The unsimplified formulas are (in case anybody besides me cares):
y = x
y = 70 + 0.9(x - 70)
y = 70 + 0.9(90 - 70) + 0.7(x - 90)
y = 70 + 0.9(90 - 70) + 0.7(100 - 90) + 0.15(x - 100)
and
y = x
y = 40 + 0.9(x - 40)
y = 40 + 0.9(50 - 40) + 0.7(x - 50)
y = 40 + 0.9(50 - 40) + 0.7(60 - 50) + 0.15(x - 60)
Now this last part really is useless. Here is the observations I recorded from my in-game tests:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>Pre ED - observed actual amount (number of enhancements and relative level)
Note: all DOs
.
Type A (8.3, 16.7, 33.3)
.
060.120 - 60.1 (-,-,-,-)
061.790 - 61.8 (0,-,-,-)
063.460 - 63.5 (0,0,-,-)
065.130 - 65.1 (0,0,0,-)
066.800 - 66.8 (0,0,0,0)
067.635 - 67.6 (+,0,0,0)
068.470 - 68.5 (+,+,0,0)
069.305 - 69.3 (+,+,+,0)
070.140 - 70.1 (+,+,+,+)
075.150 - 74.6 (-,-,-,-,-)
076.820 - 76.1 (0,-,-,-,-)
078.490 - 77.6 (0,0,-,-,-)
080.160 - 79.1 (0,0,0,-,-)
081.830 - 80.6 (0,0,0,0,-)
083.500 - 82.1 (0,0,0,0,0)
084.335 - 82.9 (+,0,0,0,0)
085.170 - 83.7 (+,+,0,0,0)
086.005 - 84.4 (+,+,+,0,0)
086.840 - 85.2 (+,+,+,+,0)
087.675 - 85.9 (+,+,+,+,+)
090.180 - 88.1 (-,-,-,-,-,-)
091.850 - 89.3 (0,-,-,-,-,-)
093.520 - 90.5 (0,0,-,-,-,-)
095.190 - 91.6 (0,0,0,-,-,-)
096.860 - 92.8 (0,0,0,0,-,-)
098.530 - 94.0 (0,0,0,0,0,-)
100.200 - 95.0 (0,0,0,0,0,0)
101.035 - 95.2 (+,0,0,0,0,0)
101.870 - 95.3 (+,+,0,0,0,0)
102.705 - 95.4 (+,+,+,0,0,0)
103.540 - 95.5 (+,+,+,+,0,0)
104.375 - 95.7 (+,+,+,+,+,0)
105.210 - 95.8 (+,+,+,+,+,+)
.
Type B (5, 10, 20)
.
36.000 - 36.0 (-,-,-,-)
37.000 - 37.0 (0,-,-,-)
38.000 - 38.0 (0,0,-,-)
39.000 - 39.0 (0,0,0,-)
40.000 - 40.0 (0,0,0,0)
40.500 - 40.5 (+,0,0,0)*
41.000 - 40.9 (+,+,0,0)
41.500 - 41.3 (+,+,+,0)*
42.000 - 41.8 (+,+,+,+)
45.000 - 44.5 (-,-,-,-,-)
46.000 - 45.4 (0,-,-,-,-)
47.000 - 46.3 (0,0,-,-,-)
48.000 - 47.2 (0,0,0,-,-)
49.000 - 48.1 (0,0,0,0,-)
50.000 - 49.0 (0,0,0,0,0)
50.500 - 49.3 (+,0,0,0,0)*
51.000 - 49.7 (+,+,0,0,0)
51.500 - 50.1 (+,+,+,0,0)*
52.000 - 50.4 (+,+,+,+,0)
52.500 - 50.8 (+,+,+,+,+)*
54.000 - 51.8 (-,-,-,-,-,-)
55.000 - 52.5 (0,-,-,-,-,-)
56.000 - 53.2 (0,0,-,-,-,-)
57.000 - 53.9 (0,0,0,-,-,-)
58.000 - 54.6 (0,0,0,0,-,-)
59.000 - 55.3 (0,0,0,0,0,-)
60.000 - 56.0 (0,0,0,0,0,0)
60.500 - 56.1 (+,0,0,0,0,0)
61.000 - 56.2 (+,+,0,0,0,0)*
61.500 - 56.2 (+,+,+,0,0,0)
62.000 - 56.3 (+,+,+,+,0,0)
62.500 - 56.4 (+,+,+,+,+,0)
63.000 - 56.4 (+,+,+,+,+,+)* </pre><hr />
* - There is a strange rounding problem. When you end up with a number like xx.x5 it seems to choose at random if it will round it up or down. These data points are examples of these that I found. I have no idea what is causing this.
Also I did numerous other tests coming up with as many troublesom enhancement combos I could think of to make sure that the ONLY thing that matters is the % before ED is applied. And I am happy to report that it is.
I think that that is the end then. If you read this far I admire your patience. The end.
Ian Moore