Mindforce implants decay info is redundant

@edit:
read whole thread before responding - there are more info appearing later
@edit-end.

After recent changes to how mindofrce implant work the info on Entropedia->Mindforce section is shown in missleading way in some cases.

Example:
now when you choose Attack chips and choose any implant the dmg/pec info is not correct (becasue it is counted in old way: chip_decay + implant_decay + mindforce_used).
If no implant is selected and markup is not counted into calculation it is now counted corectly by accident.

To correct this - folowing changes have to be made:
the decay column in implant information is redundant at the moment and should be removed. Instead we should have new column: [% absorbed]. For now all known unlimited implants have those value set to 2% but probably in future new implants will drop with different % value.
This also leads to some changes in all places where mindforce chips appear (weapons, healing tools and of course other mindforce chips). Basicly every place where it is possible to choose implant from dropdown list. The way eco is counted should be changed and also the 2% absorbtion curently saves small amount on the markup on the chip used (so this should also be changed properly when counting "[x] include markup").

Probably you are aware already of this and working on it but this post will be also warning for anyone who checks the Entropedia->mindforce section that for now info there may not be accurate due wrong numbers on implants decay.

I tried to "qucik fix it" by setting decay on all implants to 0 so at least TT eco would be conted properly but then all eco calculations disspear so i undo my actions.

Falagor

Bump to this.

NeoPsion 10 Mindforce Implant + Regeneration Chip II:

Before use, fresh new from TT:

TT is exactly 21.99 PED


After one click of Regen Chip II:

So, decay is 0.021 PEC

Exactly 2% of the Regen Chip decay (1.068 PEC):
1.068 x 0.02 = 0.02136 PEC

At this rate the implant has 2199 / 0.02136 = 102949 uses

Easy right? let's update the entropedia !

Angel O2 Mercer said:

Bump to this.

NeoPsion 10 Mindforce Implant + Regeneration Chip II:

Before use, fresh new from TT:

TT is exactly 21.99 PED


After one click of Regen Chip II:

So, decay is 0.021 PEC

Exactly 2% of the Regen Chip decay (1.068 PEC):
1.068 x 0.02 = 0.02136 PEC

At this rate the implant has 2199 / 0.02136 = 102949 uses

Easy right? let's update the entropedia !

Click to expand...

It is not easy... if you would use chip with higher decay - the implant would decay more too and will have less total uses.

So we need another column for this - can't be done without it. And decay info on implant as it is now is not necesary (and actually misleading).

Falagor

Why not just calculate the decay as 2% of the chip used when u select one? is it possible? All the implants decay the same with the same chip used.

No need for an extra column.

Angel O2 Mercer said:

Why not just calculate the decay as 2% of the chip used when u select one? is it possible? All the implants decay the same with the same chip used.

No need for an extra column.

Click to expand...

Check out Entropedia how it is now:

• at implants info - there is decay column (i.e. NeoPsion has 0.457pec decay value per use). This info is not corect and typing in any value in decay column is wrong (because each chip used with implant decays the implant in different value).
• at any place where you can choose implant (i.e. Attack chips) - there is dropdown box {Select implant}. If no implant is selected the cost per use is counted like this: chip_decay + mind_mind_essence_cost. Based on the cost the dmg/pec is also counted. If someone chooses implant from the dropdown box the cost per use is counted like this: chip_decay + mind_mind_essence_cost + implant_decay. This value is in no way corect now. So both cost per use and eco is counted wrong. For counting eco without markup the only good way to do it now is not selecting implant at all (but counting eco when including markup is not possible now).
• if there would be [% absorbtion] column instead of decay it could be used to actually count corectly both eco for TT eco and markup eco. And probably in future there will be (L) chips with higher absorbtion value than 2% and the column i sugest would also fit for that.

Now i hope you will see that without the column much info about counting cost and eco in many places on Entropedia are counted in wrong way (and providing missleading information).

Falagor

I understand what you say, my point was: if you put the "decay" column of the implant as "2%" (if possible, that's why I was asking) then problem solved, you just need to adjust the formula and use that 2% instead of a fixed decay (in pecs).

Again, I don't know if it can work like that.

Thanks for the info btw, I'm not a wiki expert

Angel O2 Mercer said:

I understand what you say, my point was: if you put the "decay" column of the implant as "2%" (if possible, that's why I was asking) then problem solved, you just need to adjust the formula and use that 2% instead of a fixed decay (in pecs).

Again, I don't know if it can work like that.

Thanks for the info btw, I'm not a wiki expert

Click to expand...

It can't be done for now, and thats why we have this thread. It needs wiki side changes, not simply inputing a % value.

Ok since there is absolutly no response and no fix (for nearly 3 months) in this subject on wiki i will be:
1) bumping this ocasionally in here untill there is actual fix.
2) change all decay values on implants to 0.001 (seems total 0 can't be set because it does not calculate the cost of use for chips at all).

Why change to 0.001? Because there are people who actually can't understand how 2% absorbtion works and already changing values on wiki to wrong values (based on using certain one chip). Zero value would be temporaly solution because this would actually count eco of chips as it is now (not including markups on chips). 0.001 seems closesed possible value to 0 so...

If you do not agree with my decision of course please state any arguments why - because mayby my decision is not good and i just don't see it. But i really do not like the state of wiki as it is now and need to take things in my hands if noone is doing anything.

@edit:
now i know why it has not been edited yet:
Witty - Last activity on forum: 10-07-2012 20:14
hope he will get back soon

Falagor

I entered the fruit-tested decay for the Lacerating Strike Nanochip I (L) recently after looting one. Decay was 0.275 on the chip, so that's what I entered. I didn't think about the implant decay. So was 0.275 the right thing to enter, or should I have entered the total of chip and implant decay (presumably 0.280)?

Oleg said:

I entered the fruit-tested decay for the Lacerating Strike Nanochip I (L) recently after looting one. Decay was 0.275 on the chip, so that's what I entered. I didn't think about the implant decay. So was 0.275 the right thing to enter, or should I have entered the total of chip and implant decay (presumably 0.280)?

Click to expand...

I think just enter chip decay is good, when you use weapon compare tool in entropedia it will ask you to select a implant you use.

Oleg said:

I entered the fruit-tested decay for the Lacerating Strike Nanochip I (L) recently after looting one. Decay was 0.275 on the chip, so that's what I entered. I didn't think about the implant decay. So was 0.275 the right thing to enter, or should I have entered the total of chip and implant decay (presumably 0.280)?

Click to expand...

cute781217 said:

I think just enter chip decay is good, when you use weapon compare tool in entropedia it will ask you to select a implant you use.

Click to expand...

I asked myself the same question as you Oleg. And to be honest i think the value you should have entered is not like cute sugested but rather total decay (chip + implant).

My argument why is that: because sooner or later they might appear new implants that will absorb other values (i.e. 5%) then this info will not be correct (becasue the chip you used as example would decay more with curent implants comapred to "new implant 5%").
I know it is kinda hard to actually put good info now (because i am not even sure how game truncates values after 0.001pec. So best thing to do would be i guess ussing chip at least exactly 50 times (round number divided by 50 so 2% wont truncate anything if so) and put corect value. Other method would be using chip once, then "unequip implant" and measure with fruit test both decay on implant+chip.

And as a side note: we need some kind of standard what values to put into entropedia! ​As you can see - simple problem and so many different interpretations.
There is so many inacurate or misleading info there that my head actually hurts when i try to even think of fixing it. (i.e. the chips decay Oleg mentioned, other: the decay on mining finders - shoudl it be put as using all o/e/a or mayby just one? and i am sure i could find some more).

Falagor

I missed the news about the 2% change and just had a little WTF moment looking at the implants stats on entropedia (came here by the Falagor's link in the changes history) . So, do I understand right that eco isn't applicable to the implants anymore and if I, say, have a chip for which Neo10 is enough - I can as well use it with any other implants up to the 55 without any additional costs? And basically can just insert a Neo55 and don't bother with switching implants anymore?

Svarog said:

I missed the news about the 2% change and just had a little WTF moment looking at the implants stats on entropedia (came here by the Falagor's link in the changes history) . So, do I understand right that eco isn't applicable to the implants anymore and if I, say, have a chip for which Neo10 is enough - I can as well use it with any other implants up to the 55 without any additional costs? And basically can just insert a Neo55 and don't bother with switching implants anymore?

Click to expand...

All implants now absorb 2% of the chip decay rather than have a set decay/use. Therefore, all implants currently have the same eco.

Eco is now also higher than before the implant rebalance, and the implants last longer (especially when using nanochips).

Nighthawk said:

All implants now absorb 2% of the chip decay rather than have a set decay/use. Therefore, all implants currently have the same eco.

Click to expand...

Thanks Wonder what's the point of having 5 different implants now, especially when tt of the Neo30 is less that Neo20's.

Svarog said:

Thanks Wonder what's the point of having 5 different implants now, especially when tt of the Neo30 is less that Neo20's.

Click to expand...

Well you still need the correct implant to be able to use higher lvl chips... NP30 can use bigger chips than an NP20 but breaks faster

I will bump this up...

Also a question (general wandering) again:
what info would be corect on chip decay info. I think it should be chip + implant decay because it truelly shows chips decay (before absorbtion).

I ask because i just bought Lacerating Attack Nanochip I unlimited and wanted to put the info there and again stumbeled with this problem.

Falagor

Falagor said:

I ask because i just bought Lacerating Attack Nanochip I unlimited and wanted to put the info there and again stumbeled with this problem.

Falagor

Click to expand...

We won't know before there is at least one implant with different specs. Or MA speaks up.

OK - another problem:
from start i was wondering "how" the 2% absorbtion will work on chips that decay can't be rounded only to 5th digit after coma (system only keeps track 0.00001ped as smalest possible value).
Now i had this possibility to check it:
i keep my logs very detailed (as detailed as possible) and i had counted my decay on chip and implant based on syntetic ME used (based on nr of shots made). So i had the formula made:

(actual decay of chip) = (ME used)/(use of ME per shots)*0.98*(fruit test decay of chip+implant)

this: (fruit test decay of chip+implant) is static value equal to 0.00175ped for Lacerating Attack Nanochip I (unlimited).

However after 3300 shots i have got true value of 5.67600ped decay (fruit test) instead of 5.65950ped - result from formula. I know people wil say - "give it a break it is fraction of pec difference". Well it is - but to fully understand system you have to know this things too.

So i made another test for 1 shoot on this weapon fruit test. Result was:
0.00172ped decay on chip
0.00003ped decay on implant
Notice this is NOT exactly 2% absorbtion but less:
98.(285714)% for chip and (should be exactly 98%)
1.(714285)% for implant (should be exactly 2%)

Conclusions:

• the absorbtion rate is slightly under 2%. It really matters for chips with high markup that decay very little - basicly any limited nanochip.
• the absorbtion is probably different for each chip even though it should be 2% on all chips (rounding to 0.00001 value is cause of this difference) - which makes testing decay based only on chips (without uneqiping implant) impossible to do now (or nearly impossible to get exact values).

I hope that anyone who is not yet convinced what decay value on chip should be put on entropedia - now is convinced . It is always:
decay on chip + implant

[square]

Sorry for long and boring numbers that practically do not matter .

Falagor

Bump this...

Since it seems that Entropedia admin does not care (or mayby just don't have time anymore) to properly maintain this section i have decided to get all the information on chips i can get in my own personal speedsheet (when i find enough info i will make it public in google sheets).

Obviously i have nearly no chance to test things on most unlimited chips (because i simply can't afford to get them) so much info will be missing there.

In my sheet i will distinguish [chip decay] and [implant decay] considering we have only 2% absorbtion implants.
Example:
Lacerating Attack Nanochip XI (L) will have 0.498pec decay in [chip decay] and 0.010 in [implant decay].
Those are actual resuls for fruit testing them.

Of course i will also try to update Entropedia too when possible and as decay i will be puting sum of those - but the info in this way is not 100% true.

I will start with getting info on all cryogenic and lacerating chips first (because those i am interested with the most). Later i will be also using other chips and whenever i find some info i will put in the sheet too.

Sheet will become public (for view not edit) as soon as i complete all cryogenic and lacerating (L) chips info.


Public notice:
if you have chips you would like to see proper decay test done (and you are not sure how to do it) - add me through player register. I will do the test (i can provide colateral but for high end chips i just might not have cash to provide it) and let you know then fill my sheet and entropedia too.


Also another quite important matter/question:
here is link to how the info in columns "should" be counted based on Effective damage (this is the damage that includes also MISSes and crits):
<click>
for some reason i am seeing different values in columns when i check entropedia (difference is small but still visible), example (i am not choosing implant from the drop box - so this is not influencing this):

Lacerating Attack Nanochip XI (L) has: 48.4 dmg/sec and 2.909 dmg/pec
Based on the effective damage formula described it should have: 48.29 dmg/sec and 2.903 dmg/pec

Lacerating Attack Nanochip X (L) has: 43.9 dmg/sec and 2.909 dmg/pec
and it should have based on that formula: 43.85 dmg/sec and 2.903 dmg/pec

It is not rounding problem and it is obvious that described formula differs from the one used in counting dmg/sec and dmg/pec columns. It is not consistent aproach to provide public formula and then use different one for calculations. I would like to understand the difference and why it occurs (for my sheet use)?

Please anyone, who knows this, could explain it too me or just indicate where i undersant it wrong?

Falagor

Ok... now since the new (L) implant 10% absorbtion has drop:

it is mandatory to update the structure of entropedia in implant/mindforce section!

Link to discovery : <click>

Also - now whenever you decay test any chip - keep in mind to also test implant decay and include it in the chip decay info. This is mandatory too as soon the entropedia strucutre is rebuild. Otherwise you will be putting missleading and false information.

So formula now is: chip decay = actual chip decay + actual implant decay

@edit:
Witte has been pmed about needed changes. I hope he will find time to fix this.

Falagor

Is Witte the only one who can do this?
I thought the Trusted User group could add/edit/remove columns as well (although I'm not sure what limits are set on that).

Serica said:

Is Witte the only one who can do this?
I thought the Trusted User group could add/edit/remove columns as well (although I'm not sure what limits are set on that).

Click to expand...

To be honest - i have no idea (neither i have no idea who has admin rights - mayby Witte is not the only one).

Anyhow - if there is someone else who can edit this - please do. If you have doubts "how" it should be done - please read this thread for clues and/or ask me or comunity for feedback and help.

Falagor

Bump this...
and to confirm that correct info that should be put on entropedia on decay info that should be chip decay + implant decay as chips decay is this:

I just bought Arsonistic III TEN edition ul and decay tested it. Result was:
10.29pec decay on chip
0.21pec decay on implant
total: 10.50pec

Recently toad has edited decay info on entropedia based on Arkadia official info that this chip decays 10.50pec. Link to history on entropedia on this chip: <click> -> click "History" tab

So anyone who is not sure how to properly decay test mindforce chips - please do not update entropedia on mindforce section - its already mess there anyway.


And someone with site construction edit rights - please fix this as soon as possible.
Whats necesery to add is:

• absorb information column in implant section.
• few editions of dropdown menus and corelation between eco calulations in few places.
• place with good information on "how to properly add chip decay information and how to test it".

If you have rights to add/edit columns and have acces to construction of the site but you are not sure how properly edit it - please contact me. I am willing to help and give any information on how it should look like.

If you think that one person (me) should not decide "how" it should look like we can discuss few versions together then ask community here on PCF in public poll what version is best and then implement it on site. I do not consider myself any form of dictator but this mess needs to be cleared somehow.

Thx in advance.

Falagor