These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

What's up with stacking penalty?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alex Sinai
Doomheim
#21 - 2012-05-18 10:06:41 UTC
I already got the answer kindly provided by Kaaeliaa and thanks very much to her for excellent explanation.

But still i think that CCP should come with more logical stuff then "stacking" that makes so low sense in logic. It's plausible but that is exactly it. Just plausible not sound.

Don't let them fly safe!
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#22 - 2012-05-18 10:08:28 UTC
Alex Sinai wrote:
Surprise. Boeing uses 5 to 7 completely separate backup systems that backs each other in case of fault and no they dont have any "stacking" penalties.

8/10

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Tor Gungnir
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2012-05-18 10:12:06 UTC
Posting in a troll thread.

Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you.
Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
#24 - 2012-05-18 10:12:07 UTC
Alex Sinai wrote:
Shpenat wrote:
Alex Sinai wrote:



So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily.


2 completely separate computer sure does work at their full capacity. But engineer would be called moron if he puts 2 completely separate computer into an aircraft. usually you want some level of interoperability. Or at very least use the very same set of input and output devices (for the cost sake). And at that point you get "stacking penalty" in real aircraft as well.



Surprise. Boeing uses 5 to 7 completely separate backup systems that backs each other in case of fault and no they dont have any "stacking" penalties.


actually, backup system are example of stacking penalty. most of the time, there is no benefit from that much safety.
Alex Sinai
Doomheim
#25 - 2012-05-18 10:13:46 UTC
Jagga Spikes wrote:
Alex Sinai wrote:
Shpenat wrote:
Alex Sinai wrote:



So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily.


2 completely separate computer sure does work at their full capacity. But engineer would be called moron if he puts 2 completely separate computer into an aircraft. usually you want some level of interoperability. Or at very least use the very same set of input and output devices (for the cost sake). And at that point you get "stacking penalty" in real aircraft as well.



Surprise. Boeing uses 5 to 7 completely separate backup systems that backs each other in case of fault and no they dont have any "stacking" penalties.


actually, backup system are example of stacking penalty. most of the time, there is no benefit from that much safety.



If there wouldn't they would put 1 more system. Not 5.

Don't let them fly safe!
TheBlueMonkey
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-05-18 10:30:18 UTC
Alex Sinai wrote:
TheBlueMonkey wrote:
Alex Sinai wrote:
Himnos Altar wrote:
it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty



So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily.


Two computers working side by side would indeed process the data twice as quick.
But the computing power required is expenential.
It's not that there's a penaltiy, it's more than getting 100% resist is insanely difficult.
Going from 25% resist to 47% requires the computing power of one invuln but to get to 69% would take more than twice the processing power because the maths is more difficult.


Is that close enough to some kinda plauseable lore for you or do I have to say things like higsboson and mention then hiesnburge differential or some crap?

can you shut up and **** off now?



Can i ask just one question concerning it? Then why having two torpedo launchers not causing stacking? What about not possible to fit two Damage Controls? Or how about fitting 6 salvagers not causing "stacking" due to higher requirements of power and cpu? Stacking is a good excuse but bad solution.

Thank you for attempting to explain it within the lore but no thank you for being rude.




Monkey rude, deal with it.

Torpedo launchers are self contained units as are salvagers so although the command from the bridge is "fire" each individual unit is self contained and tracks\launches\salvages on it's own but as a group "note weapon grouping".
Each gun is working on a seperate problem to the same standard, or working in parallel.
This allows for guns to be destroyed and the others not be effected.

As for a damage contol, it's a central system that monitors all systems. Multiple damage controls would be detrimental as it would cause them to "fight" each other for control of systems and most likely result in jetisning morons into the cold harsh vacume of monkies heart... I mean space.
Generals4
#27 - 2012-05-18 10:35:05 UTC
Alex Sinai wrote:
Jagga Spikes wrote:
Alex Sinai wrote:
Shpenat wrote:
Alex Sinai wrote:



So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily.


2 completely separate computer sure does work at their full capacity. But engineer would be called moron if he puts 2 completely separate computer into an aircraft. usually you want some level of interoperability. Or at very least use the very same set of input and output devices (for the cost sake). And at that point you get "stacking penalty" in real aircraft as well.



Surprise. Boeing uses 5 to 7 completely separate backup systems that backs each other in case of fault and no they dont have any "stacking" penalties.


actually, backup system are example of stacking penalty. most of the time, there is no benefit from that much safety.



If there wouldn't they would put 1 more system. Not 5.


Euhm, you sure have little knowledge about this kind of stuff. Why they use 5 is because even though there is a stacking penalty something going wrong can cause so much damage it's better to be 99.9999% sure rather than 99.999%

And you may wonder how the stacking penalty works, well it's simple. Lets say the systems have 10% chance to fail, if you add a backup the chances for everything to fail (main+backup) are 1%, so you gain 9% safety. Now add an other back up system and your chances are reduced to 0.1% which is only a gain of 0.9% safety, etc. That's stacking penalty right there

_-Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily. _
Xhaiden Ora
Doomheim
#28 - 2012-05-18 10:37:31 UTC
ITS REAL TO ME, DAMMIT.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-05-18 10:42:39 UTC
One woman can give birth to one child in nine months.
Nine women can give birth to nine children in nine months.
By that logic, nine women should be able to give birth to one child in a single month.


EVE is a game first, a simulation second. The stacking penalties are there for game balance reasons. Don't look for an in-depth roleplay / physical / technological explanation behind them, there is none.
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#30 - 2012-05-18 10:48:43 UTC
Alex Sinai wrote:
Himnos Altar wrote:
it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty



So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily.


If you have two computers solving the same problem, you do not solve the problem in half the time.

Dolce et decorum est pro Imperium mori
Arec Bardwin
#31 - 2012-05-18 10:58:13 UTC
Gorki Andropov wrote:
Our ships fly in a space that's more akin to oil than vacuum, and you complain about this?!

Aaand let's finish off the thread with this... P
Kaaeliaa
Tyrannos Sunset
#32 - 2012-05-18 11:00:11 UTC
Rodj Blake wrote:
Alex Sinai wrote:
Himnos Altar wrote:
it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty



So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily.


If you have two computers solving the same problem, you do not solve the problem in half the time.


This is why CPU clock speed is preferable to parallel processing. The only reason Intel and AMD are slapping more cores on everything is because they have no choice, since we've reached the end of practical clock speed increases.

Since our ships are presumably highly dependent on computer automation...well, there you go, OP.

"Do not lift the veil. Do not show the door. Do not split the dream."
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
#33 - 2012-05-18 11:01:02 UTC
If you want a real world example of a stacking penalty just look at an SLI or Xfire rig. You have 2 x GPU's so you get double the performance of 1 GPU right?

Nope.
Serge Bastana
GWA Corp
#34 - 2012-05-18 11:01:28 UTC
A wizard did it.

WoW holds your hand until end game, and gives you a cookie whether you win or lose. EVE not only takes your cookie, but laughs at you for bringing one in the first place...

AureoBroker
Perkone
Caldari State
#35 - 2012-05-18 11:03:37 UTC
ITT: Lack of basic computer science knowledge, but performing high-tier trolling.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#36 - 2012-05-18 11:14:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Ptraci
"If I have 2 computers"

You are neglecting a few things in your imaginary set up:

2 computers means twice the room. You will need another desk, because it also means another mouse, another keyboard and another monitor. Another desk means you need a bigger room. Another desk means you now have to swivel with your office chair to access one or the other computers. It also means more cables. You could need another plug - certainly another power-bar. And you will be drawing more amps from the breaker box.

3 computers you definitely need more room. Possibly cooling solutions. Your cables must be organized or they will be an unholy mess. Remember to clean up regularly because 3 computers are now dust magnets (quite literally, thanks to static).

4 computers - now I don't want to see your electric bill. I hope you have surge supression too because one voltage spike will now cost you a hell of a lot of money. By the way, you did run in a seperate power cable with a separate circuit breaker, right? Made sure it was a heavy gauge wire so your house doesn't burn down?

Etc. Oh now you can make all sorts of arguments about racks and virtualization, but you are only arguing against yourself. Diminishing returns is an important part of both science, economic and business theory. It's part of life. Eve attempts to simulate this. Deal with it.
Savage Angel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-05-18 11:14:02 UTC
Alex Sinai wrote:
Himnos Altar wrote:
it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty



So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily.


You do realize that two or more computers working on the same problem will have a stacking penalty? On independent problems they will not duplicate work or resources, but if on the same problem you will not solve it twice as fast by running extra processors, unless the job is uniquely suited to be completely parallel.
Plentath
Sparkle Motion.
#38 - 2012-05-18 11:19:37 UTC
Real life physicists need to work out this "stacking penalty" thing because it's not very realistic.

Why is it that when I double the horsepower of my car the performance to top speed and acceleration isn't linear also?

It's not very realistic.

Before posting these kinds of threads, ask 2 questions:

1) Woud the game actually be better?
2) Can I honestly say casting real life aspersions on the situation is valid?
Harristotle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2012-05-18 12:16:21 UTC
Life is sometimes strange!

x = 0.999
10x = 9.999
10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999
9x = 9
x = 1

For my next trick I will prove that black equals white.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#40 - 2012-05-18 12:28:36 UTC
Because iirc, scorpions use to be able to fit an ungodly (all hardeners) tank back in the day for one reason. Now, they can still put up a tank but not one that was OP.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."