View Single Post
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,400
# 3
03-26-2013, 07:52 AM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by stirling191 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)))
It worked when I plugged it into Excel, but Excel probably fixed it for me.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stirling191 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.
Yes, thank you.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stirling191 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.

Good call! I didn't even think to try that as a comparison. Thanks again!

Last edited by ussultimatum; 03-26-2013 at 07:54 AM.