Is there any reason to have more than 10 SP in any one ability?
Forum > FAQ's, Player Guides and Newbie Help > VA / SA ?
WiSeIVIaN
offline
offline
VA's should go to 15, because most are flat scaling meaning if you think 1 point is worth it, that 15th point is worth it as well.
SA's especially if favored can very well be worth taking up to maybe 12 or 13.
SA's especially if favored can very well be worth taking up to maybe 12 or 13.
ChildishGambino
offline
offline
Bort answered in one of the Q&A's that the diminished returns becomes so small after 12 that it's not worth it to go any higher. I think you can get away with a couple extra points for SA's that are favored.
Originally posted by Dustin.
Bort answered in one of the Q&A's that the diminished returns becomes so small after 12 that it's not worth it to go any higher. I think you can get away with a couple extra points for SA's that are favored.
well if there is a 40% bonus for favored SA's....
9 + 3.6 = 12.6 and at the point of diminishing returns so would 9 be the most to put in a favored SA?
Bort answered in one of the Q&A's that the diminished returns becomes so small after 12 that it's not worth it to go any higher. I think you can get away with a couple extra points for SA's that are favored.
well if there is a 40% bonus for favored SA's....
9 + 3.6 = 12.6 and at the point of diminishing returns so would 9 be the most to put in a favored SA?
Originally posted by reddogrw
well if there is a 40% bonus for favored SA's....
9 + 3.6 = 12.6 and at the point of diminishing returns so would 9 be the most to put in a favored SA?
I'd actually think the opposite. Since a favored SA gets a bonus, then that plays against the "diminished returns" status once you get above 10 in an SA. So going higher than 10 "should" still be profitable gains... it seems to me anyways.
well if there is a 40% bonus for favored SA's....
9 + 3.6 = 12.6 and at the point of diminishing returns so would 9 be the most to put in a favored SA?
I'd actually think the opposite. Since a favored SA gets a bonus, then that plays against the "diminished returns" status once you get above 10 in an SA. So going higher than 10 "should" still be profitable gains... it seems to me anyways.
aaasahi
offline
offline
Originally posted by reddogrw
well if there is a 40% bonus for favored SA's....
9 + 3.6 = 12.6 and at the point of diminishing returns so would 9 be the most to put in a favored SA?
Favored bonus come after diminishing return.
So in your case that 12.6 won't encounter diminishing return.
well if there is a 40% bonus for favored SA's....
9 + 3.6 = 12.6 and at the point of diminishing returns so would 9 be the most to put in a favored SA?
Favored bonus come after diminishing return.
So in your case that 12.6 won't encounter diminishing return.
and don't forget just because the returns are diminished it does not mean they don't return
the higher the number, the less bang for the buck, but even 12+ 40%, even if diminished returns came 1st, would still be useful
kind of like hold block for o-linemen... even though that 3rd piece will only be worth 3ish % , you still add it.(just an example, it's highly debatable)
the higher the number, the less bang for the buck, but even 12+ 40%, even if diminished returns came 1st, would still be useful
kind of like hold block for o-linemen... even though that 3rd piece will only be worth 3ish % , you still add it.(just an example, it's highly debatable)
http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=2457048 had 39 Tight Spiral
Edited by Donk3yMan on Oct 22, 2013 19:33:50
Edited by Donk3yMan on Oct 22, 2013 19:33:24
ChildishGambino
offline
offline
Originally posted by Donk3yMan
http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=2457048 had 39 Tight Spiral
complete waste of his AEQ.
I wouldn't take an SA past 12. Because of what Bort said, I just feel like those SPs are going to be more valuable somewhere else in the build.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=2457048 had 39 Tight Spiral
complete waste of his AEQ.
I wouldn't take an SA past 12. Because of what Bort said, I just feel like those SPs are going to be more valuable somewhere else in the build.
The returns approach an asymptote at the x-axis. If your statement about what Bort said is accurate, then it is probably a very usual power/step function and something like 1/([x+1]^2) for x equal to all whole numbers greater than 0 for each point of diminishing returns. That would be the coefficient applied to the usual bonus given from the SA. You can see that while never equaling a bonus of 0, investment into the diminishing returns quickly becomes futile.
Random math speculation of the day.
Random math speculation of the day.
Originally posted by Donk3yMan
The returns approach an asymptote at the x-axis. If your statement about what Bort said is accurate, then it is probably a very usual power/step function and something like 1/([x+1]^2) for x equal to all whole numbers greater than 0 for each point of diminishing returns. That would be the coefficient applied to the usual bonus given from the SA. You can see that while never equaling a bonus of 0, investment into the diminishing returns quickly becomes futile.
Random math speculation of the day.
??WAT???
---------
----------
The returns approach an asymptote at the x-axis. If your statement about what Bort said is accurate, then it is probably a very usual power/step function and something like 1/([x+1]^2) for x equal to all whole numbers greater than 0 for each point of diminishing returns. That would be the coefficient applied to the usual bonus given from the SA. You can see that while never equaling a bonus of 0, investment into the diminishing returns quickly becomes futile.
Random math speculation of the day.
??WAT???---------
----------Sorry, you are right. I should have specified the domain of the step function more clearly.
Considering the physical cap of 39 on a SA, the domain would be x equal to all whole numbers greater than or equal to 0 but less than or equal to 39.
Considering the physical cap of 39 on a SA, the domain would be x equal to all whole numbers greater than or equal to 0 but less than or equal to 39.
Although from a programming standpoint you would not need that further clarification as it only exists because players can not physically reach a level higher than 39 on a SA.
o ya now it all makes perfect sense to me
just needed to know the specified domain of the step function physical cap so I can now co-efficiently apply the usual bonus with better understanding of the asymptote at the x-axis from a programming standpoint which clearly shows that while never equaling a bonus of 0, investment into the diminishing returns quickly becomes futile, even though it only exists because players can not physically reach a level higher than 39 on a SA so the domain would be x equal to all whole numbers greater than or equal to 0 but less than or equal to 39
not sure how I got confused
just needed to know the specified domain of the step function physical cap so I can now co-efficiently apply the usual bonus with better understanding of the asymptote at the x-axis from a programming standpoint which clearly shows that while never equaling a bonus of 0, investment into the diminishing returns quickly becomes futile, even though it only exists because players can not physically reach a level higher than 39 on a SA so the domain would be x equal to all whole numbers greater than or equal to 0 but less than or equal to 39
not sure how I got confused
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
