Star Seeker - The maths behind the 3000 energons

I just spent around 3000 energons to max out the Mastery : Starseeker

For those who don't know, here is the description:
The Attack Rating of your Bots increases exponentially based on their current Combo Meter count, up to a maximum of +80% after 100hits (Rank5)

Unfortunately the damage output isn' t really at the rendez vous. So I decided to do the maths.
Basically it means that if you are at 100 hit combo you do +80% damage every hit
From 1 to 100 hit combo it grows exponentially

I arrived to thoses maths:

dkwu9zsntec7.png

Which mean
10th hit combo = +1.54% damage
20th hit combo = +2.40% damage
30th hit combo = +3.72% damage
40th hit combo = +5.77% damage
50th hit combo = +8.94% damage
60th hit combo = +13.8% damage
70th hit combo = +21.4% damage
80th hit combo = +33.3% damage
90th hit combo = +51.6% damage
100th hit combo = +80% damage

So exponentially in the description really means "yea not cool for us"
But there is a little thing that is cool, is that the extra damage is applied every hit:

If you did 10 hits you did: +12% damage of your base damage
If you did 20 hits you did: +32% damage of your base damage
If you did 30 hits you did: +63% damage of your base damage
If you did 40 hits you did: +111% damage of your base damage
If you did 50 hits you did: +185% damage of your base damage
If you did 60 hits you did: +300% damage of your base damage
If you did 70 hits you did: +477% damage of your base damage
If you did 80 hits you did: +753% damage of your base damage
If you did 90 hits you did: +1180% damage of your base damage
If you did 100 hits you did: +1824% damage of your base damage

REMINDER: +100% damage = you did only ONE extra hit

It means that if you did a 40 hit combo == you have done the damage of 41 hit combo
Good news is if you did a 100 hit combo == you have done the damage of a 118 hit combo

Conclusion:
Don't get blinded by +80% like I did, unless you are super rich in Energon DONT take that.
Personally I feel like I lost all my energon on ONE extra hit per fight

«1

Comments

  • ManthroManthro Posts: 2,714
    edited October 2017
    By your math (100 hits = +1824% damage) after landing 100 consecutive hits, you will have done the same damage as 1824 regular hits, not 118 hits...

    By 40 hits you will have done a combined total damage of roughly 82 hits...
  • MustangjonMustangjon Posts: 1,146
    Very well done finally someone did math behind it
  • @Manthro +100% damage of 1 hit = 1 extra hit. So 1824% damage of 1 hit = 18.24 extra hits
  • DirculesDircules Posts: 509
    Manthro wrote: »
    By your math (100 hits = +1824% damage) after landing 100 consecutive hits, you will have done the same damage as 1824 regular hits, not 118 hits...

    By 40 hits you will have done a combined total damage of roughly 82 hits...
    It's 1800% bonus damage of one regular hit. Or 18 hits in other words.
  • ManthroManthro Posts: 2,714
    @Manthro +100% damage of 1 hit = 1 extra hit. So 1824% damage of 1 hit = 18.24 extra hits

    I understand that, I get it.. just odd the way it is worded
  • jimbobthedogjimbobthedog Posts: 15
    edited October 2017
    So to make it easier to read:

    With Star Seeker 5/5

    Here is the extra damage you get in %
    10 hit combo = +1.2%
    20 hit combo = +1.6%
    30 hit combo = +2.1%
    40 hit combo = +2.7%
    50 hit combo = +3.7%
    60 hit combo = +5%
    70 hit combo = +6.8%
    80 hit combo = +9.4%
    90 hit combo = +13.1%
    100 hit combo = +18.2%
  • Change it to Linear Kabam
  • Linear would be so great oh boy
  • tekkn1kaltekkn1kal Posts: 430
    This is so great! Thank you so much, both for spending the energon and spending the time to do this. I wish we had this level of detail on every mastery.
  • Stitch626Stitch626 Posts: 286
    Thank you for putting this together. I was actually about to put more than the 1 point I already have into this, but after looking at this, its not even close to being worth spending T2 Cores on it.
  • nomisunomisu Posts: 307
    really appreciate the effort into doing up the maths.
  • kelsuskelsus Posts: 38
    Thanks for the info.
  • DavienDavien Posts: 758
    dont get a bit about this post... i'm so lost haha! anyhow will just put one point on it since u guys said so! xD
  • SteelbaneSteelbane Posts: 320
    Thanks for the info i was going to buy star seeker
  • Stitch626Stitch626 Posts: 286
    Davien wrote: »
    dont get a bit about this post... i'm so lost haha! anyhow will just put one point on it since u guys said so! xD

    TBH - im not sure its worth putting even 1 point into it unless you are REALLY great at getting combos greater than 60 in most fights. Im considering redoing my Masteries and just ignoring this thing altogether.
  • This is a mastery that, if you can get and keep the combo, would actually help in RoK. Of course to see any real help, you need to take it to rank 5. Would be useful in an AM boss fight too....if you can put it to use before 3 minutes are up. I completely skipped this as I feel it is way too situational. Most bots dead by time you're reaching 40-50 hits
  • tekkn1kaltekkn1kal Posts: 430
    Yep, his work shows us that there isn't really any considerable gain until around 60-80 hits. Now, if you are OVER 100 hits for awhile (like in RoK), it confirms that it is a great mastery for that.

    Translating a lot of what he's saying above, this would be your real world impact with 5/5 mastery:

    50 hit combo ~ 52 hits...
    60 hit combo = 63 hits....
    70 hit combo ~ 75 hits...
    80 hit combo ~ 88 hits...
    90 hit combo ~ 102 hits...
    100 hit combo ~ 118 hits

    Correct me if I converted any of that wrong ;)
  • TrailfireTrailfire Posts: 590
    @jimbobthedog , I'm not sure the maths here is actually correct. I admit this is taking me back nearly 20 years, so there's every chance it's me that's wrong.

    I assumed you integrated the exponential growth equation? Since you didn't explain what you did, I'm going to walk through the steps as I'd do them, because my results are slighly more generous than yours.

    As a reminder for anyone following along, the exponential growth eqn is: Y = A(1+r)^x
    where Y is the final value (in this case, 1.8)
    A is the initial value (in this case, 1)
    r is the growth rate (Kabam hasn't told us), and
    x is the number of periods (in this case, 100)
    so we can solve for r, and it's about 0.0059, or almost 0.6% (I used a much more precise figure in the table)

    You can then put that in to the formula and solve for Y at any X. Since A=1, that drops away and we've got:
    Y = 1.0059^x, and that will tell you the damage you land at each blow, where x is your combo metre.

    You can then integrate it to find the cumulative damage you're causing.
    To find a definite integral of an exponential in the form Y=A^X [1, X] (where 1 & X are the limits of the integral, and X<100), the formula is just Z = r^X - A (where Z is cumulative bonus damage, and X is whatever combo you're interested in NB "-A" is not part of the exponent)
    Because A=1, that becomes Z = r^X - 1 [NB again, not: r^(X-1)]

    You could do it in R or Mathlab if you have access to that, but it's most convenient to just put it in excel, because then you can see the results for every combo count in a single table, like this:

    y0xuvq7gq2ln.png

    I admit I get lost in your conclusion, but you seem to be saying that at the 10th hit, you've effectively achieved 10.12 hits. Where's I'm saying that should be 10.27.

    Similarly, by
    20 you're saying: 20.32, but mine is 21.17
    30 you're saying: 30.63, but mine is 32.73
    40 you're saying: 41.11, but mine is 45
    50 you're saying: 51.84, but mine is 58.01
    60 you're saying: 63, but mine is 71.82
    70 you're saying: 74.77, but mine is 86.48
    80 you're saying: 87.53, but mine is 102.02
    90 you're saying: 101.80, but mine is 118.51
    100 you're saying: 118.24, but mine is 136.01

    I don't suppose you can find the discrepancy? Since you didn't share your working I can't be sure which of us is correct


  • TrailfireTrailfire Posts: 590
    Looking at it a bit more, my results seem to have ended up too linear. I’ll re-do it and post if I can find the error
  • TrailfireTrailfire Posts: 590
    Well, I've done it again a different way and got the same values. They're not quite linear, but nearly. Attached is a figure that shows the difference. Maybe it's because the growth rate is so small, I don't know. Unless someone can point to a mistake I made...

    xplltrporex4.png
  • TrailfireTrailfire Posts: 590
    Hmm... @jimbobthedog it seems like you used a final damage value of 80 instead of 1.8 when you calculated the growth rate. If I change the final value in my table to 80, the chart suddenly looks like yours. Remember, we're talking about 80% increase in damage, not an 80 increase.

    This is what it looks like when I chart it with a final damage rate of 1.8:
    81yd3up4r51b.png

    And this is what it looks like when I chart it with a final damage rate of 80:
    il3hl1bmx0de.png

    You can see the second one looks very similar to yours. I think this is what you did, and I don't think it was correct
  • MustangjonMustangjon Posts: 1,146
    I’m not getting into math discussion here and either way principal still the same but I know star scales in an exponential fashion and grows slow and ramps up a lot at end so just looking at graphs second one represents what happens a lot more than first, first is almost linear
  • TotherkinsTotherkins Posts: 299
    edited October 2017
    From what I can tell both of your numbers are wrong. Ops numbers are closer, though. With this game you have to do a lot of testing because their are a lot of variables that go into different modes let alone different bots. Plug and play doesn't work....as fancy as it looks.
  • TrailfireTrailfire Posts: 590
    Mustangjon wrote: »
    I’m not getting into math discussion here and either way principal still the same but I know star scales in an exponential fashion and grows slow and ramps up a lot at end so just looking at graphs second one represents what happens a lot more than first, first is almost linear

    Actually they're both exponential, but one is a much more gradual curve. It's like taking a very small slice off a circle - in fact, it mimics the flat earth debate quite well. It appears linear because it's zoomed in a lot more than the second one.

    @Totherkins not sure what you mean by plug and play. Do you think +60% damage by streak 80 is an over estimate?
  • From when I tested it....ill do it again when I get off work. Numbers didnt even scale upward until hit 40 or it was neglible. 50 to 80 was meh...80 to 90 was where I noticed it going up and up. And 90 to 100 is where you got so much gain. I basically haven't used it since rok. But, I'll test it again this weekend. Just saying you can't treat this as solving for x. Have to actually test it, for the most accurate results.
  • MustangjonMustangjon Posts: 1,146
    It ramps up a lot at end as toth said
  • TrailfireTrailfire Posts: 590
    Ok. So it sounds like it doesn’t increase exponentially then. Well, it probably would’ve been the first time a description was literally correct, so expectations were pretty low anyway
  • m00nshinem00nshine Posts: 122
    Anyone know if any of the atrack-based debuffs like shock, bleed, etc increase in damage as the attack rating increases or do those remain static at the base attack rating?
  • Bleed does
  • I don't know about others
Sign In or Register to comment.