View Single Post
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 2
03-26-2013, 06:05 AM
That *looks* correct, but it's been awhile since I've dug up the formulae for shield resists.

That being said, based on your operating assumptions (IE: multiplicative instead of additive stacking, and zero shield power based resists) the equation as intended will get you to a 34.1 % shield resist number.

Though upon further review I believe you are missing a set of parenthesees around the entire resistance portion.

I believe it should be:

1-(((1-0.15)*(1-0.05))*((1-0.02)*(1-0.02)*(1-0.02)*(1-0.02)*(1-0.02)*(1-0.02)*(1-0.02)*(1-0.02)*(1-0.02)*(1-0.02)))

To contain all the resistances into a single multiplicative operation. Elsewise you get a .7752 number that doesn't really jive with anything (too high to be a resist, and too low to make sense given the additive stacking value of 40%).

Hope that was in some way helpful.

EDIT: Just for kicks I ran the equation as though the ADAPT was a single resist number. At 10 stacks it works out to a 35.4% resist (assuming a 20% resist "chunk" as opposed to single modifiers). Only a 1.3% difference.

Last edited by stirling191; 03-26-2013 at 06:15 AM.