question about eldritch battery
|
How can two additive 100% Increases ever amount to a x4 multiplier. Just think about that for a second.
Mark's post does not contain actual math. If you actually did exchange his words for numbers, you'd end up with: (Mana * %mana increases) + (ES * (%ES increases + %mana increases)) (1000 * 100) + (1000 * (100 + 100)) = 300000 Which is clearly nonsense. However, if you read his words, you can tell that 100% Increased ES and 100% Increased Mana is additive, and thus ends up as a +200% modifier to your ES value: 1000 + 200% = 1000 + (1000 * 2) = 3000 Alternatively: 1000 * (1 + (200/100)) = 1000 * 3 = 3000 Alternatively: 1000 * (1 + (100/100) + (100/100)) = 1000 * 3 = 3000 | |
|
Guys, guys, it's not rendemar's fault. Look at the wiki again. The wiki itself is wrong.
The wiki says "C = e * [(1 + N/100) + (1 + F/100)]" When in fact, it should say "C = e * [(1 + N/100 + F/100)]" This latter calculation matches up with a) what mark said, b) what vipermagi said, and c) reality. If we look at the former calculation, it's fundamentally obvious why it must be wrong. Say we have 0% increased ES and Mana, 1000 base ES, and 1000 base mana. In the former calculation (which is on the wiki as of this writing), C = 1000 * (1 + 0 + 1 + 0) = 2000, so T = 1000 + 2000 = 3000. In other words, fucking stupid. So yeah, go easy on the guy, he's bad at math and so didn't understand how wrong the wiki was. | |
|
The wiki is now fixed. Didn't realise the wiki was wrong; I never read those formulae on the wiki because I just can't stand the novel worth of "let X stand for Y under circumstances Z".
| |
|
im not bad with path, also i wont read the wiki because i got direct words from mark saying what the formula was. and on the comment that i added both totals instead of both increases, yes i know that but if i added increases i would end up with 3k mana, which is even more retarded than 6k!
so can anyone of you rocket scientists show how to use marks formula and get 5k, i would appreciate it | |
|
...
I have done as such, in both of my posts. The first post covers the entire thing, whereas I confined my second post only to the ES-Mana portion (because straight Mana is easy to grasp). (1k Mana * (1+1)) + (1k ES * (1+1+1)) = 5k Mana. Last edited by Vipermagi on Feb 27, 2015, 4:10:14 PM
| |
|
(Mana * %mana increases) + (ES * (%ES increases + %mana increases))
this is what mark wrote. since mana and es are 1000 both: (1000 * %mana) + (1000 * (%es+%mana)) now, you can either use 100% or 200% as mana increase, depending on how you read it (and this needs clarifying, does the initial 100% count or not). with %mana and %es 100%: (1000 * 1) + (1000 * (1+1)) = 1000 + 2000 = 3000 with %mana and %es 200%: (1000 * 2) + (1000 * (2+2)) = 2000 + 4000 = 6000 it cant be 5k no matter what you do with the formula. you vipermagi used the wrong formula. and i ofc reported the guy who called me stupid, no reason to add hostility to this ;) | |
|
Rendemar, honestly what Vipermagi is telling you is correct.
Whenever you have anything with increased you add the original 100% to it too. ie. 50% increased mana you take your orginal mana and times it by 1.5, not 0.5. So when you're adding the 100% inc mana and the 100% inc ES, you take the original 100% only once, then add the 100% from es and mana, which results in 3x not 2x or 4x as you suggest in your previous response. I'm sure I didn't explain that all that well, but it truly is 5k mana in the scenario you presented. | |
" im not saying he might not be right, im not a stubborn person! but i would really appreciate someone showing me IN MARK'S FORMULA, because the (1+1+1) in the formula he used makes no sense in this one. i dont want logic, i just want someone to tell me what i did wrong in the formula i copypasted from marks post (which is in my last post) | |
" I'm just glad you saw it before GGG deleted it! :) Seriously, your math is ridiculous. There is a base value of 100% = 1.0. increases just get directly added to this 100%. There is only a single "base", for all multiplications, ever, no matter what. Your "3000" value is attempting to remove the concept of a "base". Your 6000 value is attempting to count the base _twice_, when it is only correct to count it once. If you have 100% _increased_ ES and 100% _increased_ mana, then the total amount of Mana you get with 1000 base mana and 1000 base ES is: From original mana: 1000 * (1.0 (BASE VALUE) + 1.0 (INCREASED MODIFIER TO MANA)) = 1000 * 2 = 2000 From ES: 1000 * (1.0 (BASE VALUE) + 1.0 (INCREASED MODIFIER TO ES) + 1.0 (INCREASED MODIFIER TO MANA)) = 1000 * 3 = 3000 Total mana: 2000 + 3000 = 5000 It doesn't get any more explicit than this. The only thing Mark doesn't explicitly mention is the base value, which is irrelevant because Mark was assuming people would remember that base values existed (otherwise, when you had 0% increased everything, you would have 0 total ES and Mana, which would be _stupid_). It is for the reasons I listed (no base vs. double-counting base) that your equations _do not make any sense at all_. Run your calculations with 0% increased mana and ES (with the same bases of 1000 ES and mana). The first one you used will get you ZERO MANA. The second one you used will get you 3000 mana. The obviously correct answer is 2000 mana, and that results from Vipermagi's equation (and mine, and mark's, and the wiki's). PLEASE JUST VERIFY THIS BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING ELSE. Last edited by codetaku on Feb 27, 2015, 5:28:53 PM
| |
" this is what mark said: (Mana * %mana increases) + (ES * (%ES increases + %mana increases)) this is what you said: 1000 * (1.0 (BASE VALUE) + 1.0 (INCREASED MODIFIER TO ES) + 1.0 (INCREASED MODIFIER TO MANA)) = 1000 * 3 = 3000 notice the bold part. this difference has nothing to do with math, but with poe mechanics. it was poorly written and it would be _stupid_ to think this has anything to do with math |
