xyLoneZ Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) This is actually something that I started to investigate from the discussion on another rep farm thread. Mirage should theoretically be able to do better but there's no good light source at a nuking spot on the map; I've never seen one break 200%. At first, I thought the number 56% on my mirage build (+184% strength) represents the 568% damage boost on the eclipse. Maybe it was bugged and can't show 3 digits. But seeing the post above actually makes me wonder if it was true, so I went and check. The map used was Stephano, Uranus and Aphrodite, Venus (not included in the pics, but I assure you, both maps yield same results with the same setups). This is also tested with max TE (100% shared bonus to ally). Mirage build 1: +184% Power Strength (Max Intensify, BR, TF) -> +568% Damage Boost on Eclipse. Mirage build 2: +85% Power Strength (Max Intensify, TF) -> +370% Damage Boost on Eclipse Mirage build 3: +30% Power Strength (Max Intensify, TF) -> +260% Damage Boost on Eclipse Mirage build 4: +0% Power Strength (Max Intensify, TF) -> +200% Damage Boost on Eclipse So from this, you know that it's not because the GUI can't represents 3 digits like I originally thought, because it does show 113% on the 2nd build and 200% on the 4th build). So, what the hell is going on? I'm honestly lost here, as I can't make a single connection between all these numbers, especially when the 2nd build doesn't follow the logic (less power strength, more damage bonus). Possible Explanation about this phenomenon: Also the answer to your question is in the way that the % is stored, and more specifically the variable type used in the display. If we use one unsigned byte, the numbers that it can represent are integers from 0 to 255 so any value above that will not be displayed correctly.200% damage bonus is less than the 255 cap, and so is displayed normally.260% minus the 255 cap leaves a residual of 4% (we start counting again with 0 not 1) which is what is displayed. 370% minus the 255 cap leaves a residual of 114% (Not sure where the extra 1% went)568% minus twice (since we overflowed two times this time) the cap leaves 56% Edit 1. Added 4th build aka scenario. It's the only situation where the reading is correct. 2. Bolded important parts 3. Added JericoMason's explanation to #1 post. Edited January 24, 2015 by xyLoneZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthal Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) y = mx + c damage bonus = unknown x added power strength + base power strength From Nova, we know that not all frames start at 'power strength 100', as Nova starts at 30, with the mods adding a value rather than a percentage. With these numbers, the gains are proportional to the % added. The numbers line up well; damage bonus = 2 x added strength + 200 200%=2x0%+200% 260% = 2x30%+200% 370% = 2x85%+200% 568% = 2x184%+200% May be too tired to have thoroughly read your post, but there is a bug where the numbers show only display the first two digits. Essentially, 568 is the buff, but the number is getting cropped to 56_. This may be because a 5 is slightly wider than a 1. Edited January 23, 2015 by Kthal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyLoneZ Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 y = mx + c damage bonus = unknown x added power strength + base power strength From Nova, we know that not all frames start at 'power strength 100', as Nova starts at 30, with the mods adding a value rather than a percentage. With these numbers, the gains are proportional to the % added. The numbers line up well; damage bonus = 2 x added strength + 200 200%=2x0%+200% 260% = 2x30%+200% 370% = 2x85%+200% 568% = 2x184%+200% I know how it works and how much damage bonus they're supposedly give. Even wiki and WF builder have that. The problem is the "supposed" damage doesn't appear correctly in the status GUI. May be too tired to have thoroughly read your post, but there is a bug where the numbers show only display the first two digits. Essentially, 568 is the buff, but the number is getting cropped to 56_. This may be because a 5 is slightly wider than a 1. Yeah, maybe you are. Sorry for the long post, because I'm genuinely curious what's happening. I thought so as well, but I'm getting 113% (which is 3 digits) on the 2nd scenario. I just ran a 4th scenario where I literally take no power strength mods and get 200% on the readings. I'm gonna put it up on the #1 in just a sec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzk Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Hmm. The other scenarios aren't explained by a truncated display tho. The only explanation I see is varying light levels. Is the same % consistent throughout the well lit areas of each level, or different at different areas? If this turns into a bug thread, I'd also mention that it really should display the % amp/dr for you, not just other players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyLoneZ Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 Hmm. The other scenarios aren't explained by a truncated display tho. The only explanation I see is varying light levels. Is the same % consistent throughout the well lit areas of each level, or different at different areas? Oh, Darzk-senpai is here. On a serious note, that's the thing though. This is consistent throughout the whole missions. I thought it was bugged and somehow adding more power strength would decrease your dmg boost instead of increasing it, but if that were the case, the 3rd scenario is an oddball. If this turns into a bug thread, I'd also mention that it really should display the % amp/dr for you, not just other players. It's actually has been this way with a couple of buffs. The thing that immediately cross my mind is Volt's speed. No idea why they made some buffs not appearing on your status UI, but appears on your friend's UI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyLoneZ Posted January 24, 2015 Author Share Posted January 24, 2015 Bump. Still no idea what the number means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JericoMason Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) FWIW, I did similar testing back when total eclipse was first added and it should be noted that in the 568 scenario the Excalibur did more damage than in the lower scenarios, will test again and write down some numbers to see if I can check the percentages.Also the answer to your question is in the way that the % is stored, and more specifically the variable type used in the display. If we use one unsigned byte, the numbers that it can represent are integers from 0 to 255 so any value above that will not be displayed correctly.200% damage bonus is less than the 255 cap, and so is displayed normally.260% minus the 255 cap leaves a residual of 4% (we start counting again with 0 not 1) which is what is displayed. 370% minus the 255 cap leaves a residual of 114% (Not sure where the extra 1% went)568% minus twice (since we overflowed two times this time) the cap leaves 56%That's my guess from just passing by, anyways. Edited January 24, 2015 by JericoMason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyLoneZ Posted January 24, 2015 Author Share Posted January 24, 2015 FWIW, I did similar testing back when total eclipse was first added and it should be noted that in the 568 scenario the Excalibur did more damage than in the lower scenarios, will test again and write down some numbers to see if I can check the percentages. Also the answer to your question is in the way that the % is stored, and more specifically the variable type used in the display. If we use one unsigned byte, the numbers that it can represent are integers from 0 to 255 so any value above that will not be displayed correctly. 200% damage bonus is less than the 255 cap, and so is displayed normally. 260% minus the 255 cap leaves a residual of 4% (we start counting again with 0 not 1) which is what is displayed. 370% minus the 255 cap leaves a residual of 114% (Not sure where the extra 1% went) 568% minus twice (since we overflowed two times this time) the cap leaves 56% That's my guess from just passing by, anyways. This definitely makes sense. I guess I should change the title and ask mods to put this in the bug sub-forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
necrate Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 260% minus the 255 cap leaves a residual of 4% (we start counting again with 0 not 1) which is what is displayed. 370% minus the 255 cap leaves a residual of 114% (Not sure where the extra 1% went) You just forgot that the off-by-one was from the 0 representation that you mentioned in your previous calculation. 260 - 256 = 4; 370 - 256 = 114 I did similar calculations and posted it in a thread that started over a week ago on the same topic: https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/386439-total-eclipse-giving-extremely-low-boost/ It hasn't been addressed yet of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JericoMason Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Ahh but if you look at the screenshot it shows 113% rather than 114%, which is the extra percent that I was referring to. I chalked it up to rounding error in the formulas somewhere, but didn't go looking for it too hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authion Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) some test, all max mods4% intensify54% TF202% BR+Intensify252% BR+ TF56% BR+TF+intensify Edited January 28, 2015 by Authion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now