Ability efficiency percent is wrong and it bugs me. Bad math and bad civilization.

[DatDarkOne]

6 minutes ago, zhellon said:

Razorwing already has a vacuum.

It does now.  Previously it didn't.  I think it took about a year for DE to add it to her RW mode or at least let the mods work while in RW.  

3 minutes ago, CopperBezel said:

If they regularly have full energy as Titania to have that problem, then they do not have that problem.

Agreed.  As in RW mode you will be constantly using energy. Which is about the same for all the channeled frames.  Some just drain at a faster rate than others.  

[(PSN)Crixus044]

On 2020-01-03 at 6:21 AM, taiiat said:

yes, Ability Efficiency is nonsensically good compared to most Mod effected mechanics.

it wasn't always that way, in the early years Efficiency was an Additive Bonus just like almost any other Stat. but it was made straight Multiplicative somewhere along the line (i don't remember where anymore so i'm going to ballpark early 2014). that ofcourse meant that everybody could Cast a lot more Abilities, since for the same number of Mod Slots worth of Efficiency as anyone had before, they could now usually cast 2-3x as many Abilities.

This has nothing to do with additive or multiplicative. Those are incorrect terms for what you're describing.

I do understand what you mean though, and i understand the OP's gripe. Efficiency use to follow the same formula as reload speed, aka the logical statement of "+100% more efficient means it's 2x as efficient, meaning half the cost." This would follow the formula

Energy cost/(1+efficiency bonus).

This was changed, due to the lack of effect that efficiency bonus mods gave while negative efficiency would have a much more powerful impact. This is the current dilemma with duration on drain based abilities. Blind rage's -55% efficiency would've been a steep price to pay. 100 energy ability (the standard cost of an ult at that time) would cost 223. This would make +efficiency mods mandatory. With streamline, cost is still 133, causing mods like fleeting expertise to be mandatory, thus causing narrow minded to be mandatory, causing overextended to be mandatory, etc. We had no prime mods, 6 slots (we had 10, but each ability took up a slot), no exilus mods, no arcanes, no focus schools, and kill rates were much lower. This is why they changed the formula and why a maxed out fleeting expertise by itself is a net zero gain for drain ability efficiency.

While I agree the wording should be changed to something like "-60% ability cost" and arsenal stats be "40% ability cost", it's a well established fact in the community on how it works. I believe we have bigger fish to fry than this.

Just my 2 cents

Edited January 9, 2020 by (PS4)Crixus044

[CopperBezel]

OP's problem is, indeed, that it's stated wrong in the Arsenal, and that OP played for several months as Mesa without a full efficiency build without ever noticing. OP does not want a nerf to ability efficiency. OP likes her Mesa and Khora just fine as they are thanks. X ]

But yes, it's additive either way, it's just that the stat you're adding to (subtracting from) is the cost, not efficiency (which, as you say, would work like reload speed and be barely worth bothering with.)

Edited January 9, 2020 by CopperBezel

[DatDarkOne]

51 minutes ago, (PS4)Crixus044 said:

This is why they changed the formula and why a maxed out fleeting expertise by itself is a net zero gain for drain ability efficiency.

I had thought you might have been slightly off with that, but then I double checked in game.  You are absolutely correct.  A max Fleeting is a net zero gain for Drain Abilities.  I knew there was a reason I had gotten a second Fleeting so I cold have one that wasn't maxed.  I had just never really looked deeply into why. 

[taiiat]

1 hour ago, (PS4)Crixus044 said:

This has nothing to do with additive or multiplicative. Those are incorrect terms for what you're describing.

no it isn't. you're just cutting words off.

Additive bonus. bonus.
bonus.
bonus.

and then Multiplicative since 75% less is exactly dividing by 4 which is a Multiplicative operator.

>.>

Edited January 9, 2020 by taiiat

[CopperBezel]

1 hour ago, DatDarkOne said:

I had thought you might have been slightly off with that, but then I double checked in game.  You are absolutely correct.  A max Fleeting is a net zero gain for Drain Abilities.  I knew there was a reason I had gotten a second Fleeting so I cold have one that wasn't maxed.  I had just never really looked deeply into why. 

Notice though that any duration you add at that point has a greater effect too. Primed Continuity all by itself gives you a 65% cost for ongoing-drain abilities, while PC + FE will reduce you to a 42% cost for them, and of course, still 40% cost for one-and-done casts.

Normally the use of Fleeting Expertise is to max efficiency at 75% (25% cost) in conjunction with Streamline, in which case you want a rank 4 FE (and you can actually use a Rank 4 Streamline for the same effect if you need it to fit a build, 50% + 25%.) With no other mods, that'd leave you with a 50% cost for ongoing-drain abilities that you could bring down to that 25% with a Primed Continuity (= 105% duration).

Notice too that the efficiency cap of 75% for ongoing-drain abilities is separate from the one-and-done casting cost, and the latter is what's displayed as your Ability Efficiency. (I mean ... poorly displayed as. The one that your casting cost % is the difference with from 200. Thus the thread.) This means that if your ability efficiency is lower than +75% you can make up for it with a higher duration than 100%, or vice versa, for the purposes of ongoing drain abilities.

Edited January 10, 2020 by CopperBezel

[Atsia]

So TL:DR, you just don't like that the UI has base 100% for the stat? I don't know why this is suddenly going into the value of the stat and energy economy.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Atsia

[CopperBezel]

It doesn't have base anything, as the displayed number is entirely fictional and not used in any calculation. The % cost reduction has 100% added to it in the Arsenal display. It begins, obviously, at 0.

But yes, the point of the thread was originally that the arsenal display is wrong. However, others either didn't understand how the system worked, or had even more information including how the system used to work, so those things are also being discussed.

Edit: To have base 100, you would need to represent either the casting cost, in which case the signs on all the %s on the cards are reversed, or the true efficiency, which is 100% / cost, which means the additive stacking of the cards wouldn't make sense. Casting cost would start at 100% and be 25% with full efficiency, 70% with just Streamline, and 155% with just Blind Rage. Actual efficiency (how much you get out for how much you get in) would start at 100% and be 400% with full efficiency, or 65% with Blind Rage.

Edited January 10, 2020 by CopperBezel

[DatDarkOne]

8 hours ago, CopperBezel said:

Notice too that the efficiency cap of 75% for ongoing-drain abilities is separate from the one-and-done casting cost, and the latter is what's displayed as your Ability Efficiency. (I mean ... poorly displayed as. The one that your casting cost % is the difference with from 200. Thus the thread.) This means that if your ability efficiency is lower than +75% you can make up for it with a higher duration than 100%, or vice versa, for the purposes of ongoing drain abilities.

This I knew.  I just never went far enough under 90% duration on any finished Ivara build to bother checking the actual In-game number for the drain for Duration that low.   

Edited January 10, 2020 by DatDarkOne