It's an actual 90. If you want to say any other number it would be 50%.
115% DR from BA and heavy melee works out as 82% actual DR due to the 140% out of cover damage bonus. For every 1% of actual DR you need 1.4% of stat DR out of cover.
Stat DR = what it says the DR value is.
Actual DR = what the value means in the context of the game.
115% DR from BA and heavy melee works out as 82% actual DR due to the 140% out of cover damage bonus. For every 1% of actual DR you need 1.4% of stat DR out of cover.
Stat DR = what it says the DR value is.
Actual DR = what the value means in the context of the game.
How much effective DR does a Human Adept with 0 stat DR have out of cover?
The "effective DR" thing needs to die.
edit: To elaborate...
The issue centers directly around interpreting the "enemy damage" values incorrectly. They are scaled because of the out of cover bonus. That list should be updated or discarded.
Incidentally, you can find that the difficulty multipliers were also incorrectly quoted in old threads (even though I found it odd that nobody just looked them up to begin with since they were sitting in the bin files).
If I have 40% stat DR from Tech Armor, and I am out of cover, I simply have 0% DR.
If I am a Human Adept with 0 stat DR and I am out of cover, I simply have -40% DR.
115% DR from BA and heavy melee works out as 82% actual DR due to the 140% out of cover damage bonus. For every 1% of actual DR you need 1.4% of stat DR out of cover.
Stat DR = what it says the DR value is.
Actual DR = what the value means in the context of the game.
So .... if the enemy does 1000 damage before taking into account out-of-cover and DR, is the final damage 250 (1000 * (1.40 -1.15)) or 180 (1000 * (1 - 0.82))?
According to Cyonan's formula, it should be the former which means the effective DR is 75%.
So .... if the enemy does 1000 damage before taking into account out-of-cover and DR, is the final damage 250 (1000 * (1.40 -1.15)) or 180 (1000 * (1 - 0.82))?
According to Cyonan's formula, it should be the former which means the effective DR is 75%.
Base*(Difficulty_Multiplier)*(1+ Sum_Damage_Taken)
To illustrate the point.
Phantom Thanix Base: 250
Platinum Multiplier: 3
Out of cover damage penalty: 0.4
Various DR effects get a negative sign put in front of them and are added into the sum at the end of the formula.
A Phantom Thanix on Platinum thusly does 750 damage. If you have 0 stat DR and are out of cover, you take 1050 damage.
Base*(Difficulty_Multiplier)*(1+ Sum_Damage_Taken)
To illustrate the point.
Phantom Thanix Base: 250
Platinum Multiplier: 3
Out of cover damage penalty: 0.4
Various DR effects get a negative sign put in front of them and are added into the sum at the end of the formula.
A Phantom Thanix on Platinum thusly does 750 damage. If you have 0 stat DR and are out of cover, you take 1050 damage.
Thanks. This is clear. It is Bridgeburner's numbers that I am not clear about.
Thanks. This is clear. It is Bridgeburner's numbers that I am not clear about.
I don't remember offhand which way he is calculating it.
I remember having a discussion about this way back when Cyonan found the cover damage taken penalty.
Really it all has to do with how you want to interpret the "correct" amount of enemy attacks for any difficulty. If you define the Platinum Phantom Thanix damage as 1050, and say that a Human Adept has 0DR, therefore when an out of cover Turian Sentinel takes X damage, he must therefore have Y effective DR.
IIRC, all of the enemy damage values were first discovered using mem tests to see what the applied damage was to any character. It was assumed that characters with 0DR would indeed have 0DR, and so the value applied ended up being the enemy damage value.
When calculating the difficulty multipliers for the different levels, they ended up being scaled by 1.4. So if you find an old thread you might see that Platinum difficulty multiplier is listed as 4.2. If you divide 4.2/1.4 you get 3, which you can actually find in the Platinum difficulty handler. Likewise for Gold and down the line, they ended up being scaled by 1.4.
Also way back when there were tests based on the shield bar of characters with DR that made it appear that they were taking more damage then their stat DR would lead you to believe. And with these tests came the first notion that you needed something like 137? (I forget the original hypothesized number it was in the 130's) to be immune out of cover.
edit:
This was the most up to date of Cyonan's threads on DR, IIRC.
The whole point I'm trying to make is that 1.4* damage is the base damage you take, not 1.0* damage +.4, so defining DR values as "0" because they remove a preexisting multiplier but do actually reduce damage you take is very misleading and very confusing.
Telling a player, that max blade armour actually gives them 0% DR out of cover is misleading, as damage taken is still being reduced.
1.4 is the base value we should work off, as the actual game works off 1.4 as the base damage.
Example: (StatName="CoverDamageReduction",StatRange=(X=0.9f,Y=0.9f)
Cover damage reduction for players is NOT .50, it is infact .90 Damage testing has showed, that base damage taken in cover is 50% of the actual damage enemies are supposed to do before the out of cover multiplier. The out of cover damage bonus persists through the entire game (1.4 - 0.9 = 0.5), so using 1.0 as base damage is pretty pointless, as ALL calculations regarding damage taken and applicable DR sources use 1.4 as the "base" multiplier.
Ergo, the damage values you take were scaled and balanced accordingly around 1.4 being the base.
1.0 should not be taken as the base damage, 1.4 should be, therefore 1.4 points of stat DR per point of actual DR (which demonstrably reduces damage taken) is required.
If 1.4 is the base, then .4 + .75 damage reduction equals 82% actual DR. Instead of your way of thinking of it which would be 115%, calling it 115% DR states that you take no damage at all, when in fact you still take 18% of the damage you otherwise would, which is why converting DR sources into an "actual" DR % is better than simply stating what % they reduce damage by. Imagine how confused players might be if they learned that BA + HM gives 115% DR, and yet they still take damage, despite being mathematically immune to damage.
Just picking in to say that your whole argument can be condensed in this: how do you define the damage enemies do? Do you pick the one out of cover, or the one in cover? We've been over this before...
Because cover DR is set to be 0.9, it's the out of cover one you should consider base, as the enemies NEVER use 1.0 as a base multiplier ever.
Just picking in to say that your whole argument can be condensed in this: how do you define the damage enemies do? Do you pick the one out of cover, or the one in cover? We've been over this before...
You should just define it differently based on if you are in cover or out of cover.
Although if you want to talk base damage then that's the damage they do while you are in cover. Base damage is supposed to be the damage something deals without modifiers such as the out of cover bonus(if you want to get technical you would take out the difficulty modifier as well).
You should just define it differently based on if you are in cover or out of cover.
Although if you want to talk base damage then that's the damage they do while you are in cover. Base damage is supposed to be the damage something deals without modifiers such as the out of cover bonus(if you want to get technical you would take out the difficulty modifier as well).
That's just semantics. One could argue that since the damage values everyone uses on these boards are the ones you dug out empirically and are with the 40% bonus included, one should use them as the "base" damage instead. Both arguments are reasonable, and which one you choose depends on you. As a result, wheter you think batarians in heavy melee have 75 or 82 DR is up to you. I think the numbers are 75 and 82, can't be bothered to check. The point is, there are 2 of them anyway
It is semantics, but for me "base damage" has always been the damage you deal before modifiers while total damage is the more relevant one that you're actually dealing.
Although when it comes to any kit's heavy melee the only realistic DR is the out of cover one, considering that it's impossible to be both in cover as well as using a heavy melee at the same time.
The whole point I'm trying to make is that 1.4* damage is the base damage you take, not 1.0* damage +.4, ..
The first quote was "the DR stacks with blade-armor DR, so most players get an effective 90%" and if he wasn't talking about Blade Armor + Charge, then I misunderstood and made an error.
But as for the rest, cover does not just add or remove a 1.4 multiplier. It adds or removes a 0.4 bonus to the sum of Damage_Taken, which is the exact same place that damage reduction effects subtract from.
I find the version of the damage formula I posted more elegant than other iterations, and also find it easier to simply use the correct amount of enemy damage applied rather than manipulating DR or actual shields into distorted values.
Because cover DR is set to be 0.9, it's the out of cover one you should consider base, as the enemies NEVER use 1.0 as a base multiplier ever.
Pretty sure this is incorrect. If you are docked in cover and are being hit from the side or behind, you do not get the 0.9 cover DR. If you do have 100% stat DR, you can get hit from behind while docked in cover and not take damage. This is testable with a Sentinel in SP using Tech Armor, Barrier, and the melee synergy fitness perk. RedCaesar ran it back when the patch ported mp balance into SP.
In any event, the "1.0 multiplier" would also exist for a standard character docked, but leaning out of cover firing at the enemy.
edit: more maths
The thread with the Guantlet DR test is here.
It's been asked about a decent amount today so here's the results of being shot while using the heavy melee of the Batarian Gauntlet:
750.000000
705.000000 // 45 damage
660.000000
615.000000
570.000000
525.000000
480.000000410.000000 // 70 damage
Target was a bronze Assault Trooper who does 50 damage * 1.4 for being out of cover = 70 damage. This means I was taking 25 less damage.
Since DR doesn't account for cover bonus, the Batarian Gauntlet gear grants you 50% damage reduction during the animation.
You can conceptualize it as above if you want, however let's see how simple it is if you add the various damage taken modifiers together.
First order of business is base damage. AI Hornet is in bioai.ini ("sfxgamecontent.sfxweapon_ai_hornet")
Base Damage: 40
Bronze Multiplier: 1.25
Out of Cover Penalty: 0.4
Base_Damage*(Difficulty_Multiplier)*(1+Sum_DamageTaken)
0 DR, In Cover
40*(1.25)(1) = 50
^ That is what is defined in the quote as Bronze CAT damage above. More precisely, it is either leaning out of cover, or being hit from behind while docked in cover.
0 DR, out of cover
40*(1.25)(1+0.4) = 70
^ 70 is given above as the usual number for CAT damage if you are out of cover
50% DR (Gauntlet), out of cover
40*(1.25)(1+0.4-0.5) = 40*(1.25)(0.9) = 45
^ Same as above. You can either conceptualize it as Cyonan did saying the fraction of damage increased by being out of cover isn't modified by DR, or you can simply say all damage taken effects are added before they multiply with the base and difficulty product.
If you do the later you can say your effective DR was in fact 10%, as you reduced 50 to 45. The only catch is that for normal characters with no DR bonus, you just have to say their effective DR is -40% instead of 0 if they are out of cover.
It is semantics, but for me "base damage" has always been the damage you deal before modifiers while total damage is the more relevant one that you're actually dealing.
Although when it comes to any kit's heavy melee the only realistic DR is the out of cover one, considering that it's impossible to be both in cover as well as using a heavy melee at the same time.
The first quote was "the DR stacks with blade-armor DR, so most players get an effective 90%" and if he wasn't talking about Blade Armor + Charge, then I misunderstood and made an error.
But as for the rest, cover does not just add or remove a 1.4 multiplier. It adds or removes a 0.4 bonus to the sum of Damage_Taken, which is the exact same place that damage reduction effects subtract from.
I find the version of the damage formula I posted more elegant than other iterations, and also find it easier to simply use the correct amount of enemy damage applied rather than manipulating DR or actual shields into distorted values.
Pretty sure this is incorrect. If you are docked in cover and are being hit from the side or behind, you do not get the 0.9 cover DR. If you do have 100% stat DR, you can get hit from behind while docked in cover and not take damage. This is testable with a Sentinel in SP using Tech Armor, Barrier, and the melee synergy fitness perk. RedCaesar ran it back when the patch ported mp balance into SP.
In any event, the "1.0 multiplier" would also exist for a standard character docked, but leaning out of cover firing at the enemy.
edit: more maths
The thread with the Guantlet DR test is here.
You can conceptualize it as above if you want, however let's see how simple it is if you add the various damage taken modifiers together.
First order of business is base damage. AI Hornet is in bioai.ini ("sfxgamecontent.sfxweapon_ai_hornet")
Base Damage: 40
Bronze Multiplier: 1.25
Out of Cover Penalty: 0.4
Base_Damage*(Difficulty_Multiplier)*(1+Sum_DamageTaken)
0 DR, In Cover
40*(1.25)(1) = 50
^ That is what is defined in the quote as Bronze CAT damage above. More precisely, it is either leaning out of cover, or being hit from behind while docked in cover.
0 DR, out of cover
40*(1.25)(1+0.4) = 70
^ 70 is given above as the usual number for CAT damage if you are out of cover
50% DR (Gauntlet), out of cover
40*(1.25)(1+0.4-0.5) = 40*(1.25)(0.9) = 45
^ Same as above. You can either conceptualize it as Cyonan did saying the fraction of damage increased by being out of cover isn't modified by DR, or you can simply say all damage taken effects are added before they multiply with the base and difficulty product.
If you do the later you can say your effective DR was in fact 10%, as you reduced 50 to 45. The only catch is that for normal characters with no DR bonus, you just have to say their effective DR is -40% instead of 0 if they are out of cover.
No, what I'm saying is, is that players get .9 DR when in cover, which when calculated against the base damage of 1.4, gives 0.5.
Cover DR is 90%, just the same as the base damage taken by players is 1.4, so using 1.0 as a base for anything is pointless.
You don't get 90% DR while leaning out of cover or being shot from behind cover.
In the above if the heavy melee perk wasn't active to give 100% stat DR, he would be gunned down by that turret because the 90% cover dr doesn't apply for shots from that direction.
The base damage taken is not 1.4 for players, it just happens to be what it is out of cover. Remember that this is a cover based shooter, and that is why we have the multitude of penalties for being out of cover. You could claim that we need to multiply all the weapon accuracy and stability numbers by 1.5 since that is what most of us usually get since we spend time out of cover. But that wouldn't be base accuracy or base stability, nor would it apply when docked in cover.
You don't get 90% DR while being shot from behind cover.
Yes, you do, it just "translates" into 50% DR off the base damage.
Try turning the cover DR stat down to 0, and run some tests on damage values, you might see you'll still take 1.4 * theoretical base damage
Yes, you do, it just "translates" into 50% DR off the base damage.
Try turning the cover DR stat down to 0, and run some tests on damage values, you might see you'll still take 1.4 * theoretical base damage
Set level5 cover DR to 0. Left the out of cover damage bonus at 0.4
Repeated Red's test with the SP Sentinel. Took Tech Armor (50), Barrier (30) and Sentinel Fitness 6a (20 for 30s after heavy melee kill).
After killing an enemy with heavy melee, I was invulnerable in cover. It did not matter if I was against a wall getting shot or meleed. It did not matter if I was leaning out of mid cover getting shot in the face by a turret. This makes sense because I had 100% DR. As soon as the 30s were up, I would start taking damage again. But since I had 80% DR, I could tank a ton of damage
If you have other data, please post them up. I have never read anywhere that the cover DR (that is the real DR cover grants, not the imagined DR that is an artifact of the out of cover penalty) applies all the time. It is always characterized as frontal cone, and you can see that when you are hiding in cover getting shot over the top of it by units at mid to long range who are standing on ground level. It goes to 0 as you lean out of cover.
@.@
I'm so confused...
I'm waiting for the smoke to clear and someone to translate all this nerd talk to something idiot-proof.
Cyonan basically did the original form of the modern DR formula in the thread I linked earlier, which I will link again.
http://forum.bioware...uction-formula/
The form I posted is basically a rearrangement that sobit did in that thread. It is simple algebra. He used a variable for the cover bonus as 1.4 (this is the out of cover penalty). I changed it since there is one game effect that handles all of them, and in the difficulty handler it is clearly defined as 0.4.
The 90% DR value is not seen all that often in reality. I don't know why Annomander thinks it is always applied. From the linked thread:
Actually being in cover gives 90% additional DR in a frontal cone(so it doesn't work against flankers and most of the time things shooting at you are going to hit your cover rather than you).
Leaning out to fire(or blind firing) rapidly reduces the bonus to 0% over about 0.5-1 seconds.
If you actually pull yourself out of hard cover, the DR is instantly removed.
What I found against a Scion is that if I had another DR effect such as Tech Armour, I coullean out and fire one shot and get hit but take almost no damage(This occurred even on Gold).
If I didn't have a DR effect, I'd lose somewhere between about 30% and 75% of my shields depending on when I was hit. This was on Bronze and the Scion will probably still take you to shield gate without additional DR on Gold/Plat. It's worth noting that nothing hits as hard as the Scion does shot for shot, though =P
Retour en haut
