Damage Resistance Magnitude, Debuffs, Injuries, and Bonus Resistance

rbaker82 · May 2014

Continuing on the work from the other thread, I have found a more comprehensive model of how Damage Multipliers appears to work in the game, incorporating these four factors.
Because most other sources only factor Damage Resistance Magnitude into the calculations (the wiki), I thought I would summarise my findings here.

I have also included a few special cases I found (Reactive Deflection, Subspace Field Modulator, Elachi Disruptor, and Nanite Disruptor), which fit in this model in unexpected ways.

Corrections, comments, and combat log data for the Ablative Generator are welcome.

----

What is the Damage Multiplier?
The Damage Multiplier for an attack is the Effective Damage (damage actually dealt) by the attack divided by the Base Damage of the attack.
(Note: this assumes the target's shield facing the attack is already depleted)

Where can I see/calculate the Damage Multiplier (DM) of an attack?
1: Look at your character sheet Damage Resistance values. (not very precise)
Example:

Game Text: Kinetic Resist: 19.8%
DM = 1 - 19.8% = 0.802

2: Look at Combat lines in the game Chat window. (sometimes more precise)
Example:

Game Text: [Combat (Self)] Cube deals 7515 (9374) Kinetic Damage to you with Plasma Torpedo.
DM = 7515/9374 = 0.8016855131

3: Look at damage numbers from the game's combat log using the command '/combatlog 1'. (most precise)
Example:

Combat Log: Kinetic,,7515.07,9374.49
DM = 7515.07/9374.49 = 0.8016510765

What factors are known to affect the Damage Multiplier?
r: Damage Resistance Magnitude
Example Sources: Engineering consoles, resistance skills, damage taking accolades, Attack Pattern Omega
Example Calculation:

Antiproton Damage Taking Accolade: 2
Starship Threat Control skill 0/0: 0
Starship Hull Plating skill 6/84: 12.6
4x Parametallic Hull Plating Mk XI Rare consoles: 140
r = 154.6 (versus antiproton)

d: Debuffs
Example Sources: Attack Pattern Beta/Delta, Fire On My Mark, Sensor Scan, Disruptor Breach
Example Calculation:

Attack Pattern Beta 3, with Starship Attack Patterns skill 9/99: 49.634
Fire On My Mark III: 41.5
d = 91.134

i: Injuries
Example Sources: Hull Stress (2), Hull Fracture (5), Hull Breach (10)
Example Calculation:

Hull Stress: 2
Hull Breach: 10
i = 12

b: Bonus Resistance
Example Sources: Advanced Hull Reinforcement trait (10), Crucial Component Redistribution trait (20, antiproton), Ablative Generator (900, not tested)
Example Calculation:

Advanced Hull Reinforcement trait: 10
Crucial Component Redistribution trait: 20 (antiproton)
b = 30 (versus antiproton)

Using values of r, d, i, and b, how can I calculate what my Damage Multiplier will be?
First, I must define two helper formulas:

m(x) = (1/4) + (3 * ((75/(150+x))^2))
N(r,i,b) = (m(r)/m(i)) * (100/(100+b))

Then, the final formula can take form:

Damage Multipler = M(r,d,i,b) = N(r,i + (d*N(r,i,b)), b)

Example Calculation:

r=154.6, d=91.134, i=12, b=30
Damage Multiplier = M(154.6, 91.134, 12, 30) = N(154.6, 12 + (91.134*N(154.6, 12, 30)), 30) = N(154.6, 45.9036384058, 30) = (m(154.6)/m(45.9036384058)) * (100/(100+30)) = 0.4816789143

In many situations, this complicated formula M for the damage multiplier simplifies:

Against a target with no debuffs, injuries, or bonus resistance (most NPCs attacking most players)

d=0, i=0, b=0
M(r,0,0,0) = m(r)

Against a target with no DRM, injuries, or bonus resistance (a player attacking most NPCs):

r=0, i=0, b=0
M(0,d,0,0) = 1/m(d)

Against a target with no injuries or bonus resistance (simple PVP situations)

i=0, b=0
M(r,d,0,0) = m(r)/m(m(r)*d)

Below are some of the data points that helped me arrive at the above formula.

DRM Sources
Antiproton Accolade: 2
Threat Control 3/54: 5.4
Hull Plating 3/54: 8.1
(Base DRM: 15.5)
Parametallic Hull Plating Mk XI Rare: 35

Debuff Sources
Fire On My Mark III: 41.5

Injury Sources
5x Hull Breach: 50
3x Hull Fracture: 15

Bonus Sources
Advanced Hull Reinforcement: 10
Crucial Component Redistribution: 20

Data
Base + Injuries + Bonuses (15.5, 0, 65, 30):
Combat Log: AntiProton,,714.649,659.765 (DM = 1.0831871954)
Expected DM = M(15.5, 0, 65, 30) = 1.0831864451

Base + FOMM + Injuries + Bonuses (15.5, 41.5, 65, 30):
Combat Log: AntiProton,,903.833,677.945 (DM = 1.3331951707)
Expected DM = M(15.5, 41.5, 65, 30) = 1.3331955422

Base + Console + Injuries + Bonuses (15.5+35, 0, 65, 30):
Combat Log: AntiProton,,575.94,687.561 (DM = 0.8376565861)
Expected DM = M(15.5+35, 0, 65, 30) = 0.8376557606

Base + Console + FOMM + Injuries + Bonuses (15.5+35, 41.5, 65, 30):
Combat Log: AntiProton,,698.398,705.586 (DM = 0.9898127230)
Expected DM = M(15.5+35, 41.5, 65, 30) = 0.9898122159

Special Cases

Reactive Deflection

1% Chance when hit to reduce all incoming damage by approximately 99% for 2 seconds. This cannot occur more frequently than once every 30 seconds.

This is the 3-piece set power granted by the Assimilated Console, Cutting Beam, and Omega Torpedo. As discussed in the other thread, this appears to simply add 10000 to r for the duration of the effect, which grants no more than 75% damage resistance.

Subspace Field Modulator

+34 All Damage Resistance Rating for 15 sec
-400 Proton Resistance Rating for 15 sec
+15% Defense for 15 sec

The '+34' part seems to do what one would expect - it just adds 34 to the r value used for 15 seconds. But how about the '-400 Proton' part? There are three guesses to what it might to under this (r,d,i,b) model:
Guess 1: r is decreased by 400 (probably incorrect, because this would make r negative in most cases)
Guess 2: d is increased by 400
Guess 3: i is increased by 400

DRM Sources
Hull Plating 5/64: 9.6
Neutronium Mk XI Common: 15
Neutronium Mk X Common: 13.75 (the tooltip says '13.8', but that is rounded)
(Base DRM = 38.35)
Subspace Field Modulator: 34

Debuff Sources
APB1, Starship Attack Patterns 9/99: 29.9 ( 20 * 1.495 )

Data
Base (38.35, 0, 0, 0):
Combat Log: Proton,,1092.37,1505.32 (DM = 0.7256729466)
Expected DM = M(38.35, 0, 0, 0) = 0.7256774157

Base + APB1 (38.35, 29.9, 0, 0):
Combat Log: Proton,,1343.12,1522.17 (DM = 0.8823718770)
Expected DM = M(38.35, 29.9, 0, 0) = 0.8823687486

Base + SFM (38.35+34, 0, 0, 0):
Combat Log: Proton,,2722.99,1408.11 (DM = 1.9337906840)
Guess 1 Expected DM = M(38.35+34-400, 0, 0, 0) = 0.7847039075
Guess 2 Expected DM = M(38.35+34, 400, 0, 0) = 1.6292334837
Guess 3 Expected DM = M(38.35+34, 0, 400, 0) = 1.9337962045

Base + SFM + APB1 (38.35+34, 29.9, 0, 0):
Combat Log: Proton,,2991.84,1495.99 (DM = 1.9999064165)
Guess 1 Expected DM = M(38.35+34-400, 29.9, 0, 0) = 0.9677776467
Guess 2 Expected DM = M(38.35+34, 29.9+400, 0, 0) = 1.6738046235
Guess 3 Expected DM = M(38.35+34, 29.9, 400, 0) = 1.9999088733

It appears that Guess 3 is correct - Subspace Field Modulator causes a decrease in Proton resistance by applying an injury of magnitude 400, and not a debuff.

Elachi Disruptor

2.5% Chance: Ignore 100% of targets' shields and 50% of targets' damage resistance

A developer has confirmed in another thread that only the first shot is affected by the proc, and my tests were consistent with that statement. However, there is still the question of what the '50%' bypass does. A natural guess is that it simply divides whatever damage resistance the target has by 2. In my tests, the target had no shields. The target switched between an uninjured ship with 4 engineering console slots and an injured one with 3 slots.
Guess 1: r is halved

DRM Sources
Disruptor Accolade: 2
Threat Control 3/54: 5.4
Hull Plating 3/54: 8.1
(Base DRM = 15.5)
4x Diburnium Hull Plating Mk XI Rare: 140 (on ship with 4 console slots)
3x Diburnium Hull Plating Mk XI Rare: 105 (on ship with 3 console slots)

Debuff Sources
Attack Pattern Beta 2, Starship Attack Patterns 6/84: 37.772 ( 26.6 * 1.42 )

Injury Sources
5x Hull Breach: 50
6x Hull Fracture: 30

Bonus Sources
Advanced Hull Reinforcement: 10

Data
Base + Elachi (15.5, 0, 0, 0):
Combat Log: Disruptor,,318.211,246.853 (DM = 1.2890708235)
Guess 1 Expected DM = M(15.5/2, 0, 0, 0) = m(7.75) = 0.9281176459

Base + 4x Consoles + Elachi (15.5+140, 0, 0, 0):
Combat Log: Disruptor,,141.564,220.779 (DM = 0.6412022883)
Guess 1 Expected DM = M((15.5+140)/2, 0, 0, 0) = m(77.75) = 0.5753321702

Base + 4x Consoles + AHR + Elachi (15.5+140, 0, 0, 10):
Combat Log: Disruptor,,269.149,461.731 (DM = 0.5829129948)
Guess 1 Expected DM = M((15.5+140)/2, 0, 0, 10) = m(77.75) * (100/110) = 0.5230292456

Base + 3x Consoles + Injuries + Elachi (15.5+105, 0, 80, 0):
Combat Log: Disruptor,,270.747,262.081 (DM = 1.0330661131)
Guess 1 Expected DM = M((15.5+105)/2, 0, 80, 0) = 1.1102736479

Base + 3x Consoles + Injuries + AHR + Elachi (15.5+105, 0, 80, 10):
Combat Log: Disruptor,,218.746,232.918 (DM = 0.9391545522)
Guess 1 Expected DM = M((15.5+105)/2, 0, 80, 10) = 1.0093396799

Base + 3x Consoles + Injuries + APB2 + AHR + Elachi (15.5+105, 37.772, 80, 10):
Combat Log: Disruptor,,237.703,228.25 (DM = 1.0414151150)
Guess 1 Expected DM = M((15.5+105)/2, 37.772, 80, 10) = 1.1848071074

Clearly, Guess 1 was incorrect. When I saw these results, my eye was drawn to the first case, with r=15.5, d=i=b=0. The Damage Multiplier for that case was 1.2890708235, which is greater than 1. If the proc simply reduced the amount of DRM, clearly the DM should never exceed 1 in that case, as there other injuries or debuffs on the target. After some brainstorming, I came up with a different guess:
Guess 2: i is increased by 50

Base + Elachi (15.5, 0, 0, 0):
Guess 2 Expected DM = M(15.5, 0, 50, 0) = 1.2890718413

Base + 4x Consoles + Elachi (15.5+140, 0, 0, 0):
Guess 2 Expected DM = M(15.5+140, 0, 50, 0) = 0.6412049036

Base + 4x Consoles + AHR + Elachi (15.5+140, 0, 0, 10):
Guess 2 Expected DM = M(15.5+140, 0, 50, 10) = 0.5829135487

Base + 3x Consoles + Injuries + Elachi (15.5+105, 0, 80, 0):
Guess 2 Expected DM = M(15.5+105, 0, 80+50, 0) = 1.0330670057

Base + 3x Consoles + Injuries + AHR + Elachi (15.5+105, 0, 80, 10):
Guess 2 Expected DM = M(15.5+105, 0, 80+50, 10) = 0.9391518234

Base + 3x Consoles + Injuries + APB2 + AHR + Elachi (15.5+105, 37.772, 80, 10):
Guess 2 Expected DM = M(15.5+105, 37.772, 80+50, 10) = 1.0414137466

Aha. The Elachi Disruptor proc simply applies an additional injury of magnitude 50, and has no effect on the target's DRM. Just like Reactive Deflection from the Borg set, the tooltip misrepresents what the mechanic actually is.

Now that we know what Elachi Disruptors actually do, a natural question is how much more damage will you do because the game adds 50 to i instead of what it says it does of halving r.
Because the Elachi Disruptor proc is mainly important in PVP, I will simplify the situation by setting i=0 (one does not expect a player to participate in PVP with injuries), and further setting b=0, so only r and d are variable.
Against a target with no debuff (d=0), you will always do more damage than advertised. For r=0 and infinitely large, you will do 1/m(50) = 1.4883720930 times as much damage as the tooltip says. This multiplier reaches a minimum when r is approximately 191.39, where you will still deal 1.1096254960 times as much damage.
With both r and d variable, the curve becomes more complicated, and there are some points where halving r would deal more damage, but for all values of d less than about 77.43 (and r=166.67), halving r results in less damage than adding 50 to i.

Nanite Disruptor

2.5% Chance: -5 All Damage Resistance and increase Shield Bleedthrough by 2% for 15 sec

I only analysed the Damage Resistance component and not the shield bleedthrough component of this proc. One might expect it to behave like the normal disruptor proc, but with a debuff magnitude of 5 instead of 10. For comparison, here is the game text for normal disruptors:

2.5% Chance: -10 All Damage Resistance for 15 sec

Guess 1: d is increased by 5

In this test, I tested against an NPC structure with no shields (r=0, b=0) with a mix of normal Disruptor and Nanite Disruptors.

Debuff Sources
Fire On My Mark III: 41.5
Disruptor Breach: 10

Data
Disruptor Breach (0, 10, 0, 0):
Combat Log: Disruptor,,616.757,560.743 (DM = 1.0998924641)
Guess 1 Expected DM = M(0, 10, 0, 0) = 1/m(10) = 1.0998925886

Disruptor Breach + FOMM (0, 10+41.5, 0, 0):
Combat Log: Disruptor,,912.365,607.286 (DM = 1.5023646190)
Guess 1 Expected DM = M(0, 10+41.5, 0, 0) = 1/m(51.5) = 1.5023646594

Nanite Cloud (0, 0, 0, 0):
Combat Log: Disruptor,,645.939,615.188 (DM = 1.0499863456)
Guess 1 Expected DM = M(0, 5, 0, 0) = 1/m(5) = 1.0499863425

Disruptor Breach + Nanite Cloud (0, 10, 0, 0):
Combat Log: Disruptor,,812.542,703.739 (DM = 1.1546070347)
Guess 1 Expected DM = M(0, 10+5, 0, 0) = 1/m(15) = 1.1496437055

Disruptor Breach + Nanite Cloud + FOMM (0, 10+41.5, 0, 0):
Combat Log: Disruptor,,937.557,596.332 (DM = 1.5722064219)
Guess 1 Expected DM = M(0, 10+41.5+5, 0, 0) = 1/m(56.5) = 1.5486246195

The first two cases match, indicating that the normal disruptor proc stacks wth Fire On My Mark as debuffs. In the third case, with the Nanite proc acting on its own, Guess 1 also matches. But in the final two cases where Nanite Cloud is in effect in conjunction with the others, Guess 1 seems to underestimate the damage multiplier. Perhaps the Nanite proc is an injury, and not a debuff?
Guess 2: i is increased by 5

Nanite Cloud (0, 0, 0, 0):
Guess 2 Expected DM = M(0, 0, 5, 0) = 1/m(5) = 1.0499863425

Disruptor Breach + Nanite Cloud (0, 10, 0, 0):
Guess 2 Expected DM = M(0, 10, 5, 0) = 1/m(5 + (10/m(5))) = 1.1546062042

Disruptor Breach + Nanite Cloud + FOMM (0, 10+41.5, 0, 0):
Guess 2 Expected DM = M(0, 10+41.5, 5, 0) = 1/m(5 + (51.5/m(5))) = 1.5722057813

Indeed, the Nanite proc appears to be implemented as an injury of magnitude 5, and not a debuff of magnitude 5. What implications does this have? Consider the hypothetical PVP situation below:

DRM Sources
Disruptor Accolade: 2
Starship Threat Control 6/84: 8.4
Starship Hull Plating 9/99: 14.85
4x Advanced Neutronium Alloy Mk XII: 4 * 21.25 = 85 (the tooltip says '21.2', but I believe this is a rounded value)
(Total DRM = 110.25)

If the attacker shoots at this target using normal disruptors and lands a Disruptor Breach, the multiplier will be:
DM = M(110.25, 10, 0, 0) = m(110.25)/m(10*m(110.25)) = 0.5240591815

If the attacker had instead used Nanite Disruptors and landed a Nanite Cloud, the multiplier would be:
DM = M(110.25, 0, 5, 0) = m(110.25)/m(5) = 0.5241015344

So the attacker would deal more damage with Nanite Disruptors than normal disruptors, even without considering increased shield bleedthrough. Indeed, against any uninjured target with m(r) * (100/(100+b)) less than 0.5 (for example r=109.808, b=0), increasing i by 5 will always result in a higher damage multiplier that increasing d by 10.

frtoaster · May 2014

It's nice to see another post from you, rbaker82. It will take me some time to read through all of it. In another thread, guriphu claimed that your earlier formula did not working with multiple debuffs. He never gave me his data, so I don't know what he tested.

http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=16869361&postcount=11
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=16875711&postcount=12

Edit: OK, I just read what you said about certain debuffs adding to the injury variable i instead of the debuff variable d. That might explain what guriphu was seeing.

rbaker82 wrote: »

First, I must define two helper formulas:
m(x) = (1/4) + (3 * ((75/(150+x))^2))
N(r,i,b) = (m(r)/m(i)) * (100/(100+b))

Then, the final formula can take form:
Damage Multipler = M(r,d,i,b) = N(r,i + (d*N(r,i,b)), b)

How did you ever figure this out? Did you basically guess the formula and check your guesses against the data? I don't know of a systematic way to reverse engineer a multivariable non-linear formula like this from the data.

rbaker82 · May 2014

frtoaster wrote: »

In another thread, guriphu claimed that your earlier formula did not working with multiple debuffs. He never gave me his data, so I don't know what he tested.

That is interesting. He claimed that there would not only be no diminishing returns for stacking debuffs, but that there would be increasing returns. That is not the behaviour I have seen.
A Tactical character can easily get data for the stacking of APB3, FOMM, and Disruptor Breach. My expected DM on a target affected by all three (with r=0, b=0, i=0, and Starship Attack Patterns 9/99) would be 1/m(41.5 + 49.634 + 10) = 1.9321165318. A combat log line I got with these debuffs active was Disruptor,,837.469/433.446, which gives DM = 1.9321184184.
guriphu did not give any details of his test (Which debuffs? What kind of resistances did the target have? What were the relevant skill values?), and until he does, there is no way we can investigate his claim further.

frtoaster wrote: »

Edit: OK, I just read what you said about certain debuffs adding to the injury variable i instead of the debuff variable d. That might explain what guriphu was seeing.

Indeed, if his test involved stacking the Nanite Cloud injury with FOMM/APB, then he would see increasing returns.

frtoaster wrote: »

How did you ever figure this out? Did you basically guess the formula and check your guesses against the data? I don't know of a systematic way to reverse engineer a multivariable non-linear formula like this from the data.

The formula for r came from the wiki, and it is easy to test r independently of the other factors, using tooltips or damage numbers in space.

It is also easy to test d independently (by debuffing NPCs), and the formula is the wiki formula, modified with a minimal amount of insight (just 1/m(d)).

i is also easy to test independently. If you view your ship's resistances while on ground, it factors in injuries and equipped consoles, but not skills or accolades, so you can remove all armour consoles and get the formula for i (just 1/m(i)).

From this, you can test r and i together, in space. The natural guess of m(r)/m(i) turns out to be correct.

The formula for r and d together is not as easy to see immediately, but once you see that increasing r appears to 'debuff' the effect of d, m(r)/m(m(r)*d) is a reasonable guess.

The idea for the formula for b came from looking at the wiki description of the Ablative Generator, from watching that one episode of the STOked podcast, and from following the discussion on the previous thread. AHR, with a magnitude of 10, would have to give a multiplier of approximately 0.9, and the Ablative Generator would have to give a multiplier of approximately 0.1, and these would have to act independently of r. m(b) might be a guess that fit with data with only AHR active (m(10) = 0.9091796875, and 100/110 = 0.9090909091, which are very close), but clearly it would not fit with AG, because m(900) is still above 0.25. The fact that AHR, CCR, and AG all affect 'bonus resistance' suggests that they should all work the same way. 100/(100+b) was a basic formula that fit this requirement.

How about r, i, and b? If only r debuffs the effect of d, then (m(r)/m(d))*(100/(100+b)) would be a good guess. If both r and b debuff d, then (m(r) * (100/(100+b)))/m((m(r) * (100/(100+b)))* d) is the other guess. There are only two guesses to test at this stage.

For r, d, and i: If only r debuffs d, then m(r)/(m(i) * m(m(r)*d)) is a guess. If both debuff d, then m(r)/(m(i) * m((m(r)/m(i))*d)) is a guess. As I have shown above, neither is correct, and the 'debuffed' value of d is added to i (hence the two step calculation with the N formula). Perhaps the developers wanted to make sure that the multiplier was never more than 4 (if the formula were m(r)/(m(i) * m((m(r)/m(i))*d)), then the damage multiplier could be up to 16 on a very injured, very debuffed target).

Similar reasoning puts b in its place in the final formula with the other three factors.

I suppose the 'systematic' way is to not test all factors simultaneously, but rather to test as many of them independently as possible, and combine them one by one.

tk79 · May 2014

This is some incredible information, thank you.

I am trying to come up with similar tests for ground for a calculator I'm working on. There are additional mechanics that apply, for example, dodge. But everything else I guess is the same. For now your data has given me an idea that buffs that have a negative effect on self (like crouch [-100 melee DRM], Adrenal Release [-100 all DRM], etc) apply such penalties as "temporary injuries", given how Subspace Modulator works. I'll try to test those when I have the chance.

frtoaster · June 2014

In the thread below, borticuscryptic explains that certain damage resistance debuffs apply only to the attacker who triggered it and not to everyone shooting the target. These abilities say that a portion of the target's damage resistance is "ignored". I wonder whether these abilities are counted as injuries or whether it differs on a case-by-case basis.

http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=1111591

virusdancer · June 2014

frtoaster wrote: »

In the thread below, borticuscryptic explains that certain damage resistance debuffs apply only to the attacker who triggered it and not to everyone shooting the target. These abilities say that a portion of the target's damage resistance is "ignored". I wonder whether these abilities are counted as injuries or whether it differs on a case-by-case basis.

http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=1111591

Bort went on to explain that the "ignored" was poor wording on his part in trying to present it in the simplest terms.

frtoaster · June 2014

virusdancer wrote: »

Bort went on to explain that the "ignored" was poor wording on his part in trying to present it in the simplest terms.

Yes, but I think the tooltips still say "ignore". Basically, we should interpret "ignore" in the tooltips to mean that the ability is an individual debuff, not a team debuff. (I'm not sure whether this is the best way to explain it.)

virusdancer · June 2014

frtoaster wrote: »

Yes, but I think the tooltips still say "ignore". Basically, we should interpret "ignore" in the tooltips to mean that the ability is an individual debuff, not a team debuff. (I'm not sure whether this is the best way to explain it.)

I like when he called it an "inline enhancement"...made me think of how a pull is a -repel instead of an actual pull.

rbaker82 · June 2014

frtoaster wrote: »

In the thread below, borticuscryptic explains that certain damage resistance debuffs apply only to the attacker who triggered it and not to everyone shooting the target. These abilities say that a portion of the target's damage resistance is "ignored". I wonder whether these abilities are counted as injuries or whether it differs on a case-by-case basis.

This is the tooltip for the Tactical Advantage trait:

Your selected target receives a damage resistance debuff to your attacks based on its current health. This debuff increases as your selected target's health decreases. This debuff effect activates when the selected target's health is at 50% or less in space combat.

To Target: -0 to 15 Damage Resistance Rating based on target's current health

In a recent test, I equipped the Tactical Advantage trait and attacked an NPC structure with no DRM and no shields. I stacked Fire On My Mark III (d=41.5) on the NPC to distinguish between TA adding to i and TA adding to d.
Below are the final combat log lines for that test.

Combat Log:

:08.8:: ... AntiProton,,3626.94,2575.7 (DM = 1.4081375937, Implied Debuff = 41.4998604202)
:09.3:: ... AntiProton,,2763.21,1962.31 (DM = 1.4081414252, Implied Debuff = 41.5002624976)
:09.7:: ... AntiProton,,2962.41,2103.78 (DM = 1.4081367824, Implied Debuff = 41.4997752823)
:10.2:: ... AntiProton,Critical,5579.62,3962.41 (DM = 1.4081379766, Implied Debuff = 41.4999006093)
:10.2:: ... AntiProton,,2774.57,1970.38 (DM = 1.4081395467, Implied Debuff = 41.5000653706)
:10.7:: ... AntiProton,,2968.65,1970.9 (DM = 1.5062408037, Implied Debuff = 51.9165110111)
:11.4:: ... AntiProton,,3811.84,2525.01 (DM = 1.5096336252, Implied Debuff = 52.2814438185)
:11.9:: ... AntiProton,,3504.33,2314.62 (DM = 1.5139979781, Implied Debuff = 52.7513689706)
:12.4:: ... AntiProton,Critical,7509.69,4947.08 (DM = 1.5180045603, Implied Debuff = 53.1832650460)
:12.9:: ... AntiProton,,3207.09,2100.85 (DM = 1.5265678178, Implied Debuff = 54.1079562640)
:13.4:: ... AntiProton,,3169.5,2071.27 (DM = 1.5302205893, Implied Debuff = 54.5030662630)
:13.7:: ... AntiProton,,3363.51,2198.06 (DM = 1.5302175555, Implied Debuff = 54.5027379356)
:13.9:: ... AntiProton,Critical,5634.33,3673.38 (DM = 1.5338271565, Implied Debuff = 54.8935759709)
:14.2:: ... AntiProton,,3524.58,2292.19 (DM = 1.5376474027, Implied Debuff = 55.3076561168)
:15.3:: ... AntiProton,,3501.43,2261.85 (DM = 1.5480381104, Implied Debuff = 56.4361983295)
:15.8:: ... AntiProton,,3929.04,2531.6 (DM = 1.5519987360, Implied Debuff = 56.8672538050)
:15.9:: ... AntiProton,Critical,7648.74,4928.32 (DM = 1.5519974352, Implied Debuff = 56.8671121568)
:16.4:: ... AntiProton,,3161.86,2020.27 (DM = 1.5650680355, Implied Debuff = 58.2931950552)
:16.9:: ... AntiProton,,3202.58,2041.64 (DM = 1.5686311005, Implied Debuff = 58.6829024655)
:17.2:: ... AntiProton,,3986.17,2541.18 (DM = 1.5686295343, Implied Debuff = 58.6827310754)
:17.5:: ... AntiProton,,3052.8,1941.7 (DM = 1.5722305196, Implied Debuff = 59.0770067202)
:17.7:: ... AntiProton,,3168.62,2009.64 (DM = 1.5767102566, Implied Debuff = 59.5680926264)
:19.2:: ... AntiProton,,3859.92,2437.29 (DM = 1.5836933644, Implied Debuff = 60.3349350181)
:19.5:: ... AntiProton,,3396.95,2144.96 (DM = 1.5836892063, Implied Debuff = 60.3344779244)
:19.7:: ... AntiProton,Kill,4031.35,2538.62 (DM = 1.5880084455, Implied Debuff = 60.8096071432)

As expected, before Tactical Advantage took effect, the target was taking damage with a debuff of 41.5 (from FOMM).
While TA was active, the DM was 1.5062408037 to 1.5880084455, implying an additional debuff of approximately 10.4 to 19.3.
If TA were implemented as an injury, the DM would have started at M(0,41.5,10,0) = 1.5407616283 at 50% hull and have increased to M(0,41.5,20,0) = 1.6683313918 at 0% hull.
We can also see that the game only recalculates the debuff of Tactical Advantage periodically, which is why there are repeated values (in blue).
It also appears to apply a debuff of 0 to 20 (and it would apply 0 when the target is at full health, but because the trait only takes effect once the target is at half health, it starts out at 10), and not 0 to 15 as stated by the tooltip. This is a change introduced with Season 9, and was mentioned explicitly in Season 9 Dev Blog #5. However, the tooltip still has not been changed.

Vanquish, the ground version of this trait, also still says 0 to 15.

frtoaster wrote: »

Yes, but I think the tooltips still say "ignore". Basically, we should interpret "ignore" in the tooltips to mean that the ability is an individual debuff, not a team debuff. (I'm not sure whether this is the best way to explain it.)

I have not seen the word in any TA tooltips. Even if the tooltip did say 'ignore', I do not believe the developers or the tooltips have been using the word in a consistent way. For Elachi Disruptors, it means add an injury. For Tactical Advantage, it means add a debuff.
If anything, 'ignore' means 'ignore this description and do a test, because this description is wrong.'

virusdancer · June 2014

rbaker82 wrote: »

If anything, 'ignore' means 'ignore this description and do a test, because this description is wrong.'

He was just trying to explain it in a simple manner...and...it kind of backfired.

borticuscryptic wrote: »

No, afraid not. Partly my fault. It's actually reducing values, and they can go negative. But portraying it as an "ignore" seemed easier to understand.

borticuscryptic wrote: »

Please see my further response. I was attempting to make it easier to understand, and ended up incorrectly portraying the Trait's actual functionality.

rbaker82 · June 2014

virusdancer wrote: »

He was just trying to explain it in a simple manner...and...it kind of backfired.

That is interesting. He suggests there that debuffs 'reduce' DRM, but as we have seen, debuffs and DRM are handled separately, and are not simply subtracted or added. Does this mean he doesn't understand how debuffs and DRM interact?

virusdancer · June 2014

rbaker82 wrote: »

That is interesting. He suggests there that debuffs 'reduce' DRM, but as we have seen, debuffs and DRM are handled separately, and are not simply subtracted or added. Does this mean he doesn't understand how debuffs and DRM interact?

I think they tend to try to simply things as much as possible when explaining things - trying to give the gist of things, since overall...well...they majority of players just aren't into the depth of mechanics that others are. Hell, the stuff you've done has caused more than a few braincells to seize up in awe.

There's also going to be the issue of terms that might be coming into play. DRM, DRR, DR, DM, DRM...if it was in regard to what he was saying about taking numbers into the negative.

It was like the discussions on damage boosts, base damage boosts, bonus damage boosts, pre-weapon power, post-weapon power, and generally just running into all sorts of issues with the language in trying to explain things. What Tom called a final modifier, what Jerry called a final modifier, what Cryptic called a final modifier...it could get downright tedious.

Then there were the posts with how they looked at it.

Base
Base Magnitude
Damage Strength
Bonus Damage

Things got a bit easier to deal with at that point.

We've still got folks going to the wiki where sometimes it's just called Damage Resistance, which leads to the confusion vs. Damage Resistance - since one's a Damage Resistance Rating and the other is actually Damage Resistance. Then there are mentions of each buff to DRR as DRM as well - while the tooltips state DRR.

There was a post a wee while back, where adjudicatorhawk ran into a similar issue of trying to explain things to the masses with Disruptor Breach. He was just trying to get the gist across and folks went literal on him...it was kind of a mess that was straightened out and did lead to a better understanding of the bug that existed at the time with Disruptor procs.

So it could simply be a language issue - Jeremy trying to get the gist across and folks going literal on him...

frtoaster · June 2014

rbaker82 wrote: »

I have not seen the word in any TA tooltips. Even if the tooltip did say 'ignore', I do not believe the developers or the tooltips have been using the word in a consistent way. For Elachi Disruptors, it means add an injury. For Tactical Advantage, it means add a debuff.
If anything, 'ignore' means 'ignore this description and do a test, because this description is wrong.'

OK, so I was wrong about the tooltips. I feel that the damage resistance mechanics are overly complicated and the related tooltips are difficult to interpret. If you hadn't come along, we would still be puzzled about many things.

rbaker82 wrote: »

That is interesting. He suggests there that debuffs 'reduce' DRM, but as we have seen, debuffs and DRM are handled separately, and are not simply subtracted or added. Does this mean he doesn't understand how debuffs and DRM interact?

While I believe that borticus is familiar with the damage resistance mechanics, I'm not sure he keeps the whole formula in his head. The devs work with multiple systems; I imagine that sometimes it is hard to keep it all straight.

virusdancer wrote: »

I think they tend to try to simply things as much as possible when explaining things - trying to give the gist of things, since overall...well...they majority of players just aren't into the depth of mechanics that others are. Hell, the stuff you've done has caused more than a few braincells to seize up in awe.

In order to explain damage resistance properly, the devs would have to write a long post like rbaker82's. Sometimes, I think they are reluctant to explain the details because it would take too much time.

lordhavelock · June 2014

This sort of info is amazing. It's too crunchy even for my standards... but I'd like to subscribe and try to decipher it.

defcon1776 · December 2014

Gonna take a bit to digest this. It usually does after my head explodes. :rolleyes:

Damage Resistance Magnitude, Debuffs, Injuries, and Bonus Resistance

Comments