These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Derived Standings
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Thomas Builder
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2014-03-25 22:36:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Thomas Builder
Fun problem, but it's just a display bug. (Oh how I hate them.)

Read http://forum.eveuniversity.org/viewtopic.php?f=222&t=21352

Bottom line: the standing transaction dialogue is lying to you.
When it writes: "Derived standings: -0.991%", it actually means that your Minmatar standings decreased by 0.0991, absolute. It is not a percentage, disregarding the percentage sign and contrary to every other value in that log.

Also, derived standings are calculated based on the actual increase after social, so yes, social does magnify both the gain and the loss.

The actual Minmatar hit in percent is simply 1.8% * 0.5 = 0.9%.
The absolute loss is then 10.49 * 0.9% = 0.09441.
The number looks familiar? This absolute value then wanders into your transaction log and claims to be a percentage.
(10.49 is the distance to -10, given that your standing was 0.49.)
Qalix
Long Jump.
#22 - 2014-03-26 00:59:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Qalix
Thomas Builder wrote:
Fun problem, but it's just a display bug. (Oh how I hate them.)

Read http://forum.eveuniversity.org/viewtopic.php?f=222&t=21352

Bottom line: the standing transaction dialogue is lying to you.
When it writes: "Derived standings: -0.991%", it actually means that your Minmatar standings decreased by 0.0991, absolute. It is not a percentage, disregarding the percentage sign and contrary to every other value in that log.

Also, derived standings are calculated based on the actual increase after social, so yes, social does magnify both the gain and the loss.

The actual Minmatar hit in percent is simply 1.8% * 0.5 = 0.9%.
The absolute loss is then 10.49 * 0.9% = 0.09441.
The number looks familiar? This absolute value then wanders into your transaction log and claims to be a percentage.
(10.49 is the distance to -10, given that your standing was 0.49.)

So the discrepancy isn't the work of a modifier! Thank you sir

edit: +1 internets to you sir. fine work.
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#23 - 2014-03-27 13:54:13 UTC
Thomas Builder wrote:
Read http://forum.eveuniversity.org/viewtopic.php?f=222&t=21352


All I get is "The requested topic does not exist.".

Is that just me?
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#24 - 2014-03-27 13:56:22 UTC
Velenia Ankletickler wrote:
Is that just me?


The forums breaks the url, replace the & in the url with & and it works.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#25 - 2014-03-27 14:07:52 UTC
Yep that is it.

Thank you, didn't spot that.
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#26 - 2014-03-31 14:03:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Velenia Ankletickler
Thomas Builder wrote:
Read http://forum.eveuniversity.org/viewtopic.php?f=222&t=21352

When it writes: "Derived standings: -0.991%", it actually means that your Minmatar standings decreased by 0.0991,


Ok, first off, I need to read the link you provided better. But if I understand you correctly, "Initial Standing + "Hit" * 0.1 = Final Standing" should be true?

For Caldari
Initial Standing: -0.24. "Hit": 1.2901%, Final Standing: -0.11
-0.24 + 0.12901 = -0.11099

For Gallente
Initial Standing: 0.68, "Hit": -0.3848, Final Standing: 0.65
0.68 + (-0.03848) = 0.64152 =/= 0.65
A bound* for rounding: 0.684 +( -0.038475) = 0.645525 = 0.65, possible rounding is the reason.

For Minmatar
Initial Standing: 0.49, "Hit": -0.9441, Final Standing: 0.39
0.49 + (-0.09441) = 0.39559 =/= 0.39
A bound for rounding: 0.485 + (-0.094414) = 0.390586 = 0.39, possible rounding is the reason.

So far so good.

Need to go, will go through calculating the "Hit" at a later time. But looks like the "Hit" is in fact the actual change * 10.

Thank you Thomas Builder.



*To calculate the bound simple take the extreme each can be in the direction that matters, i.e. if want to know how low a value can, be I take the minimum possible initial standing and subtract the maximum possible "Hit".
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#27 - 2014-04-01 19:19:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Velenia Ankletickler
I been trying to make the calculations for the Caldari and Gallente "Hit"s (using the numbers I gave in post #9), but can't get them to match anything. While I can make the Minmatar results match 100%.

Anyone got something that works with the 2 other faction hits?
Thomas Builder
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2014-04-02 20:52:17 UTC
Not sure what your problem is:

Caldari
Gain in percent: 1.8% * 0.7 = 1.26%
Absolute gain: 1.26% of [ 10.235 ; 10.245 ] (distance to 10, with rounding error) = [ 0.128961 ; 0.129087 ]
Log reports a 1.2901 gain, which fits into the interval.
New standing: 10 - [ 10.235 ; 10.245 ] * (1 - 0.0126) = [ -0.106039 ; -0.115913 ]
Log reports a new standing of -0.11, which fits into the interval.

Gallente
Loss in percent: 1.8% * -0.2 = -0.36%
Absolute loss: 0.36% of [ 10.675 ; 10.685 ] (distance to -10, with rounding error) = [ 0.03843 ; 0.038466 ]
Log reports a 0.3848 loss, which is slightly above the interval. Hmm. Maybe the game always rounds down?
New standing: -10 + [ 10.675 ; 10.685 ] * (1 - 0.0036) = [ 0.63657 ; 0.646534 ]
Log reports a new standing of 0.65, which could be the higher number rounded up.

Except for some very slight errors for Gallente, which might very well be due to unusual rounding, I don't see any problem.

The -0.2 and 0.7 modifiers are directly taken from http://www.newedenlibrary.net/eon/faction_standings.shtml .
Velenia Ankletickler
Silverflames
#29 - 2014-04-03 23:19:00 UTC
First, thank you for taking the time to run them through.

My problem with Caldari was me being stupid,I calculated distance to -10 instead of 10.

Same problem as yours with Gallente, number is too high to fit. But with the Caldari and Minmatar in place, it is beginning to look like the right track at least.

As you say, never know if there is a ceil or floor in the game formulas somewhere, and there is of course also the possibility of an error in entering the numbers on my part. Will need to note more standing sets next time I run missions, to see if the numbers keep being off.

Might be a while before I have further updates, if anyone else have some examples that validates or proves the current ideas wrong, please do post them :).
Previous page12