SEND (mana control compensation)

[DaCapn]

Just wondering if the formula is known for mana transfer in cases where one character has >100 mana control bonus and the other has <100 bonus. Mana transfer reaches optimum efficiency at 100 mana control bonus (95%) but it is known that characters with greater mana control bonus can compensate for those with less to increase the efficiency.

I'm collecting some data and it looks something like this:
Efficiency = MC_lesser / (100 - 0.6*(MC_greater-100))

Where MC_lesser and MC_greater are the mana control bonuses of the characters with lesser and greater training respectively. It doesn't work out exactly correct for my data. So far it could just be an intermediate rounding/truncate step but I think that the 95% factor may be worked in at the beginning (that is, it may scale up to 95% instead of simply capping at 95%).

For example:
Character 1: 126 EMC bonus
Character 2: 35 EMC bonus
Efficiency = 35 / (100-0.6*(126-100)) = 0.414691943127962
SENDing 82 mana results in 34 mana received

Anyway, if someone has the formula worked out already, I'd like to know before I waste much more time on it.

[Whirlin]

1.26 * .35 = .441
.441 * .95 = .419
.419 * 82 = 34



Marginalize each bonus, 126% and 35% sharing
Multiply together
1.26 * .35 = 44.1%
Subtract out the 5% imperfection of sending
.441*.95 = 41.8%
Multiply by mana send attempt
82 * 41.8 = 34.35
Truncate
34

[Whirlin]

That's assuming that I read that correctly as efficiency being your theoretical calculation based on your initial equation, and the SEND line was actual observed results.

[Tgo01]

I always thought you multiplied the mana sent amount by the person with lesser skill, then the result is multiplied by the person with greater skill, then the result is multiplied by .95, capped at 95% total mana getting through.

So in your example it would be 82 * .35 = 28.7
28.7 * 1.26 = 36.162
36.162 * .95 = 34.3539

ETA: I did not read any maths already present in this thread so I don't know if this has already been covered.

ETA2: I also don't know if this just coincidentally worked with the example you provided and won't work elsewhere, it's just always what I thought the formula was.

[Drew]

What does ETA stand for in this case?

[DaCapn]

That's strange, that was the first thing I tried. Maybe it broke down for low values or something. I'll take another look when I get the chance. Thanks

ETA: I did not read any maths already present in this thread so I don't know if this has already been covered.
Yeah, same as what Whirlin posted.

What does ETA stand for in this case?
"Edited to add"

[liloldman]

okay you all have me really confused......

I have character 1, he has 24 trains of EMC.....
I have character 2 and she has 24 trains of EMC....

character i sends 100 to character 2 and character 2 receives 95 mana.....
this leads me to believe that it is capped at 95% if trained 24 times in EMC

did I miss something in you're all formulas.....it could be just me and my computer ignorance, but I had to ask

[DaCapn]

Ugh... Yeah, that formula is totally right across all of my data. I just plugged something in wrong for half of my values so it looked like a consistent error.
Efficiency = (SMC_1/100)*(SMC_2/100)*0.95

Again, thanks guys.


okay you all have me really confused......

I have character 1, he has 24 trains of EMC.....
I have character 2 and she has 24 trains of EMC....

character i sends 100 to character 2 and character 2 receives 95 mana.....
this leads me to believe that it is capped at 95% if trained 24 times in EMC

did I miss something in you're all formulas.....it could be just me and my computer ignorance, but I had to ask

Don't look at the formulae, just read the original question:


Just wondering if the formula is known for mana transfer in cases where one character has >100 mana control bonus and the other has <100 bonus. Mana transfer reaches optimum efficiency at 100 mana control bonus (95%) but it is known that characters with greater mana control bonus can compensate for those with less to increase the efficiency.