Number 1 is correct. As I explain in my original post, overloaders and item bonuses add in like augmenters without AT. Everything else (modifications, class skills, bar skills, etc.) multiplies, with a few important exceptions (e.g. Multifiring, SD RoF). Number 3 used to be the correct calculation before the big rebalance some years ago.

Ah okay, I did hear about some sort of aug nerf, I assumed it was just the stats of augs lol. I always used to calculate bonus' with #3 long time ago, was a bit surprised when I came back and couldn't get the numbers to match. Thanks for the clarification.

[Edit: So that's what happened to those 8x Tractor Auged Forgones! Was wondering why the tractors were so weak now ]

So, when you say SD RoF is an exception, you mean that it's an add in like augmenters?

Most class- and subskill bonuses multiply together, but I believe the RoF bonuses from Speed Demon Class and Speedy Firing actually add, giving +140% instead of +188% at level 20. Contrast this with the speed bonus from SD Class and Speedy Movement, which is attained multiplicatively to result in +96% at level 20. I should qualify this claim by saying that I haven't tested the RoF bonus myself, but was informed of the fact by a trusted player.

This and MF are the only examples I'm aware of in which class- and subskill bonuses do not multiply.

Interesting, so the hull capacity bonus for support focus isn't 180%? and instead (1.09^20 - 1 )*100% = 460.44%? Or, what would be the correct number?

[Edit: Nvm, I'm guessing you're just referring to skills adding same area of bonus being multiplied together]

To many number everywhere. *faints*

how about a excel spreadsheet with this stuff in it XD

Make your own

It really calculates everything this way? Why is it so complicated?

It should be simple. +25% and -25% should cancel each other out because they're adjusting base damage, not each other. If you have a weapon that does 100 damage, and two augs that add +25% and -25% damage respectively, it should calculate the bonus damage each one gives, add them together, and apply the result. It's the most intuitive way. One aug wants to add 25 damage, the other subtract 25 damage, and the result is +0 damage, or 100 damage total. If it were +25% and -20%, it would be +5 damage, or 105 damage total.

Isn't that really a better way of calculating it? The current system seems flawed.



It would correspond to that if it was being calculated properly ingame. For 10,000 shields, -25% would be -2,500 shields. +25% would be +2,500 shields. The end result is +0 shields.

I use multiples of 10 for my examples because they're the easiest to see.

If things worked the way you are suggesting, two negative bonuses of -50% each would result in a complete -100%, which is not an intended mechanic. You are not supposed to be able to attain absolute zero visibility or absolute zero range, for example. Obviously, it is necessary to make the effect of multiple negative bonuses diminish, and the most intuitive way to do this without completely mucking up calculations is the way I have described. Any other method would make combining the effects of negative and positive bonuses very convoluted, even compared to the current state of things.

Very good point, but disallowing absolute zero values by complicating the calculations makes everything counterintuitive.

It would be better if the absolute minimum value anything can be is 1 (visibility an exception which should be able to go lower than 1), so that two negative bonuses of -50% and -50% would be 1, not 0.

If you used two tinted augmenters, that's -140% visibility and -100% radar. Total radar would be 1, and visibility would depend on whatever the lowest value is determined to be, maybe .1 (or whatever). Stealth augs would work the same, two of them would drop you to whatever the lowest value possible for visibility would be.

I'm admittedly not good at math. I can get by but when complicated formulas come into play mild dyscalculia kicks in. I even transpose numbers when watching sports, like an NFL score of 35-28 becomes 38-25 and I get all screwed up with what the losing team needs to score to win. That augmenter calculation wiki page is greek to me.

In the current system, what are results of using two tinted augmenters? If -140% visibility does not take you to the absolute minimum visibility allowed ingame, then maybe those augmenters shouldn't be saying they reduce visibility -70% each.

I actually feel that arbitrary caps are a worse solution (and yes, I think MF 6 should be possible). Furthermore, you've forgotten an important negative stat: electric tempering. But let's take a look at this supposedly complicated system.



I understand not everyone is good at math, but you should be able to work through this example to find out the vis bonus of two Tinted augmenters. With no aug tweaking, it's -82.4%. Sure, that number seems to come out of nowhere, but even if you are not comfortable enough with math to go through my explanation of its provenance, you should recognize that the calculation is really not so complicated, especially since I have provided examples for every possible quirk of the system.

In the end, I feel that the current system has achieved a very good balance to the way augmenter bonuses are handled, and that the calculations behind it are not convoluted enough to warrant a change to the system you propose. Furthermore, your proposal would completely unbalance certain effects (again, electric tempering), which would necessitate a second widespread augmenter rebalance. Even if your suggested system were better (and I dispute this), it's just not worth it to change anything.

On the other hand, I would very much appreciate continued feedback on my exposition. In what ways could I improve the original guide to make it easier for you to easily and correctly calculate augmenter bonuses?

So you're saying -70% visibility and -70% visibility = -82.4% visibility?

I cannot give you any constructive criticism other than maybe adding some more examples with various aug values (yeah I see that example and my eyes glass over), but I would suggest that the displayed negative values ingame be changed because apparently no negative aug actually does what it says it does especially with multiple negative augs.

Yes, that's correct. I'd rather not just add more examples since that part of the guide is already quite long, but perhaps when I get around to it I will put this on the wiki and room can be made there.



This is the one case where the negative bonus is taken at face-value. Under the current system, there is no one value that the aug could display which would be correct in all cases. This would obviously still be true under any hard-cap system.

I must say that you have presented a puzzling case. You are not comfortable enough with math to do the above calculation, and yet you care enough about the exact numbers to want the displayed values of augs to be changed. Most people in your situation are happy to rely on conventional wisdom (e.g. 2 Gen Ops 1 Def Ops is good for Droners) and heuristics (e.g. multiple resistance augs on a Dread are not worth it). Over time, these methods have become quite good, although players who want to get the extra edge will always benefit from calculating things out for themselves.

Oh I calculated it for myself afterward. Now my concern is seeing these actual values ingame.

I'm going to post a suggestion for a "preview" mode for augmenters and somewhere to see the actual values of all your augs, perhaps under the Ships tab.

Good work on these formulas btw. I envy everyone who can come up with formulas like this (so imagine me watching A Beautiful Mind ).

Would be very nice.