Armour and actually decay hope this helps

[Surreall]

I have been trying for a long time now to find out the best way to calculate armour decay (not durability) when fighting mobs and which would be best. I have been using ghost for a long time now and wondered why the repair costs were so high, so after a lot of research i have found the way to work it out accurately and thought that i would share what i have found. Bear in mind that i only did it for armour that i am interested in and can afford.

So here we go hope you like

Everything is worked out from the following figures;
Harnesses hit 1/3
Arms/thighs 1/6
All else 1/9
The costs from below are from 100 hits by a mob. This is of course presuming that mobs hit the same, but that is irrelevant as the data would be based on one particular mob anyway so it is still accurate

In order, armour part - tt value - durability - cost per hit in pec - cost per 100 hits pec

Vigilante
Harness - 57.75 - 2550 - 2.26 - 75.49
Arms - 38.50 - 2550 - 1.509 - 25.16
Thighs - 38.50 - 2550 - 1.509 - 25.16
Gloves - 19.25 - 2550 - 0.755 - 8.39
Face - 19.25 - 2550 - 0.755 - 8.39
Shins - 19.25 - 2550 - 0.755 - 8.39
Total Cost in pecs per 100 hits - 150.98

Nemesis
Harness - 64.50 - 3000 - 2.15 - 71.67
Arms - 42.75 - 3000 - 1.425 - 23.75
Thighs - 42.75 - 3000 - 1.425 - 23.75
Gloves - 21.37 - 3000 - 0.712 - 7.91
Face - 21.37 - 3000 - 0.712 - 7.91
Shins - 21.37 - 3000 - 0.712 - 7.91
Total Cost in pecs per 100 hits - 142.91

Ghost
Harness - 75 - 2000 - 3.70 - 123.33
Arms - 45 - 2000 - 2.250 - 37.50
Thighs - 45 - 2000 - 2.250 - 37.50
Gloves - 46 - 2000 - 2.300 - 25.56
Face - 48 - 2000 - 2.400 - 26.67
Shins - 45 - 2000 - 2.250 - 25
Total Cost in pecs per 100 hits - 275.56

Rascal
Harness - 11.2 - 1700 - 0.659 - 21.96
Arms - 8.9 - 1700 - 0.523 - 8.72
Thighs - 8.65 - 1700 - 0.509 - 8.48
Gloves - 7.7 - 1700 - 0.453 - 5.03
Face - 7.8 - 1700 - 0.459 - 5.09
Shins - 8.7 - 1700 - 0.512 - 5.68
Total Cost in pecs per 100 hits - 54.98


This really surprised me as Ghost is by an far the most uptake nearly double that in repair costs for nemesis and vigilante, rascal as you can see is by an far the best. The other thought that came to me was amour attachements but as i am at work do not think they would be impressed with me doing that now as it would take a few hours. Hope this is usefull as the other information i found never put it in black and white.....glad to share with all and happy hunting

Dave Ace Flyster
Stalkers
First Circle

 

[Kerham]

You wrote something almost useless.

What mob? What kind of damage? You do know that more protection means automatic more decay, no? Same maturity for all tests? Criticals?

Also, considering that Nemesis decayed less than Vigilante while they have protection in exact same domains, something is wrong.

You actually took 100 hits or u took 1 hit and multiplied by 100?

 

[EyeContact]

What mob did you test this on? The rule of thumb is that the more an armor protects, the more it costs in decay.

 

[kygon]

good effort but tests are flawed in a big way!

u need to use with a mob that does 1 type of dmg imp would be best then you can get some usefull data

 

[Vedder]

...
Total Cost in pecs per 100 hits - 150.98
Total Cost in pecs per 100 hits - 142.91
Total Cost in pecs per 100 hits - 275.56
Total Cost in pecs per 100 hits - 54.98

This really surprised me as Ghost is by an far the most uptake nearly double that in repair costs for nemesis and vigilante, rascal as you can see is by an far the best....

Nice effort Surreal...
But like the others posted, these numbers doesn't say much unless you also provide us with info about how much dmg each armor absorbed.

For instance: If Ghost absorbed 3 times as much damage as the Vigilante, it's really great that it only decayed twice as much.

 

[Surreall]

A fair point by all

Tonight i am getting vigi anyway so what i will do is some tests on a particular mob, large and small, in rascal vigi and ghost (wont be getting nemesis for a while), and post those as a reply. What i will try to asertain is decay per hit per type of armour and see how it matches. Hopefully giving as you say more accurate results

Ace

 

[EyeContact]

I'm giving you a +rep for your efforts.

Do a forum search how to determine decay with fruits/dung/sweat. It will save you some pecs and time.

It might also be a good idea to see how others did the tests (more forum searches, pitty you have to wait 20 secs between searches ). And then try to confirm them or prove them wrong.

Looking forward to your results.

 

[kygon]

A fair point by all

Tonight i am getting vigi anyway so what i will do is some tests on a particular mob, large and small, in rascal vigi and ghost (wont be getting nemesis for a while), and post those as a reply. What i will try to asertain is decay per hit per type of armour and see how it matches. Hopefully giving as you say more accurate results

Ace

pick a mob that only does 1 dmg tho, EG trox is a bad idea for testing!

 

[AkiranBlade]

The only way u can test the cost of armour like that is to stand in front of a mob that does 100% of one damage type that always hits over the top of your armour and count the hits that way.

 

[dr_udi]

If this test was done on Ambulimax u can add Vampire to the list decay 0 cost 0

Vampire doesnt have any impact protection

 

[Witte]

This look like TT/durability.


It stopped working like that some time ago (and it was infact TT/(durability*10)

 

[Lem]

I've a question I think is related to the points raised in this post.

Take the scenario that i'm out hunting a mob that does 100% impact damage and i have the choice between Shogun protecting me against 10 damage and ghost protecting upto 19.

If the mobs i'm hunting do less than 10 damage max then my understanding tells me both armours offer exactly the same protection in as much as if I get hit whatever armour I wear i'll suffer no more than 1 point of damage.

When I go back and repair my armour would I find that if I wore my ghost it will cost more to repair than if I wore the shogun?

 

[Surreall]

that is exactly what i am going to find out this evening, currently at work, but i will probably use ghost and rascal as a comparison tonight

Ace

 

[AkiranBlade]

Lem, the cost is associated to the damage points you soaked up.

If an exar hits you for say the following:


10-9-13-15

And you were wearing Nemesis, then you would only receive 1.0 each time however the amount of cost is related to the damage soaked, therefore the sum of all the damage is 47. Therefore IF the cost of Nemesis is 0.85pecs per hit, then 47 * 0.85pecs would leave you with decay costs of 39.95pecs.

Do you understand that now?

 

[Witte]

I've a question I think is related to the points raised in this post.

Take the scenario that i'm out hunting a mob that does 100% impact damage and i have the choice between Shogun protecting me against 10 damage and ghost protecting upto 19.

If the mobs i'm hunting do less than 10 damage max then my understanding tells me both armours offer exactly the same protection in as much as if I get hit whatever armour I wear i'll suffer no more than 1 point of damage.

When I go back and repair my armour would I find that if I wore my ghost it will cost more to repair than if I wore the shogun?

The minimal decay an armor can possibly suffer is total protection/100. So ghost wil never decay less then 0.84 pec each hit, and shogun 0.45 pec.

Since 10 damage will cost you about 0,55 pec (and i assume most hits will be under 10 damage), ghost will decay anout 80% more.

 

[Enum]

...well I didn't do any formal calculations, but I can tell you my repair bills using full ghost were much higher than on full nem when hunting the same mob.

 

[Surreall]

enum my sentiments exactly, thats why i started the post as my repair on ghost always seems to be more than poeople in vigi and nemesis!!

But hey hopefully tonight to support my case i will have some hard facts

 

[Rumsponge]

One thing that is interesting in this is the damage per part. I wonder if these numbers hold true with tall vs. short creatures.

-

 

[dbelinfante]

...well I didn't do any formal calculations, but I can tell you my repair bills using full ghost were much higher than on full nem when hunting the same mob.

uh-oh... I think we need to send the paramedics to Witte, he's having an aneurysm RIGHT NOW!

 

[Doer]

It's sad that this same effort gets repeated over and over and the same confusions manifested, when this has all been worked out before. Look for posts by Witte. He did some very nice and thorough evaluation of armor decay that was scientifically rigorous to a degree not seen here.

Some rules of thumb for you, though:
-in general armor decays according to damage absorbed
-in two sets of armor absorbing the same amount of damage, the one with greater protection will decay more (higher cost/point protection as total prot. goes up)
-there is a minimal decay for each set of armor per hit as Witte mentioned

That's really as complicated as it gets. Also as someone else pointed out, you only need one hit/set to find the decay. Use the sweat/fruit trick on the tt.

Edit: don't let dbelinfante fool you; if ghost decays more it's because it's protecting more. It's as simple as that.

 

[Titus Wolf]

i think this has all been studied before, and the result was that armor repairs are the same for all armors dependent on the damage they absorb. if you hunt argos in ghost, the repair bill will be more than if you hunted them in gremlin. ghost absorbs more of the damage than gremlin does. if you hunt gradivores, the cost of repairs on the gremlin will be higher than if you hunted them in ghost. hasnt this been proven time and again? you take the least protective armor you can that doesnt also increase fap costs. meaning, wear gremlin argo hunting as long as your auto heal regenerates your HP and you dont have to fap much. i can take 1 hp hits all day long in gremlin hunting argos and never fap, if id been in ghost, it would have absorbed all the damage and would have cost me more in repairs. make sense?

 

[Witte]

uh-oh... I think we need to send the paramedics to Witte, he's having an aneurysm RIGHT NOW!

Nah people may think what they want. As long as they are not saying its the truth, without any facts to back it up. It seems Surreall is going to test it, I can only encourage this! (we all know stuff like this can change).

 

[Surreall]

Hey all,

Sorry if i have brought an old diuscussion and didnt research well enough, i do appreciate though the replies and input and Witte all respect for the work you have done before and the explanation of the amoutn of damage it takes decides armour cost and as ghost takes the most damage will absorb more cost. Easy and makes sense i will still do a test tonight for myself belief and edit my original post with what i find.

 

[Lem]

Thanks for answering my question too. I must say i've read many threads on the same subject before including those of Witte's.

I thought I already knew the answer to my question from what I've previously read but until today I didnt quite fully understand the mechanics of how exactly the decay (read repair bill) on armour was calculated. Thanks to AkiranBlade & Witte for making it crystal clear for me +rep for that.

 

[Roth]

Some rules of thumb for you, though:
-in general armor decays according to damage absorbed
-in two sets of armor absorbing the same amount of damage, the one with greater protection will decay more (higher cost/point protection as total prot. goes up)
-there is a minimal decay for each set of armor per hit as Witte mentioned

That's really as complicated as it gets. Also as someone else pointed out, you only need one hit/set to find the decay. Use the sweat/fruit trick on the tt.

Edit: don't let dbelinfante fool you; if ghost decays more it's because it's protecting more. It's as simple as that.

first off, no ghost do decay more then alot of other armors with equal protection. atleast the last time i checked not all to long ago

second, did they really change decay to damage absorbed? it used to be damage taken and i was sure it still was this way, but if you are sure then i guess i might be wrong.



and for whoever it was that said test on mobs that do 1dam.. are you crazy? how are you supposed to know how much damage you actually took. you need a mob that always do MORE then 1dam and only one damtype and make an easy equation... hp loss + armor protection = damage taken

 

[Doer]

first off, no ghost do decay more then alot of other armors with equal protection. atleast the last time i checked not all to long ago

second, did they really change decay to damage absorbed? it used to be damage taken and i was sure it still was this way, but if you are sure then i guess i might be wrong.



and for whoever it was that said test on mobs that do 1dam.. are you crazy? how are you supposed to know how much damage you actually took. you need a mob that always do MORE then 1dam and only one damtype and make an easy equation... hp loss + armor protection = damage taken

Well if you recall the tests done by Scatha (you posted in that thread i see now), the conclusion from the data was quantified in this equation and summarized here, which also mentions the strange outliers that didn't conform (cut on gremlin, impact on vigi), leading to this plot. Other testers have come to the same conclusion that it is more-or-less a cost-per-damage absorbed as is reflected in their guides to cost/dmg absorbed. Witte confirmed that the reason for the anomalous decay seen before is due to a minimum decay/hit when he prepared this chart, which shows that there is a minimum decay/hit for every piece of armor amounting to its total protection*10 in mpec. Edit to expand: So armors with lots of protection but just a few points in one area will decay more than would be expected for damage just of that type (impact on vigi, cut on gremlin, etc.) However for combined damages that doesn't matter (it's the total damage absorbed that's considered, not the damage by type), so eg hunting trox or other i/c/s mobs with gremlin or vigi will not cost you more because of the cut or impact anomaly. This finding also explains why i found that an elec plate with 9 protection decayed less than wearing gremlin instead (which has less elec protection) against bristles in an informal test.

The minimum decay means that overprotection is even more of a waste if you are grossly overprotected. Wearing shadow to hunt argo young would be idiotic.

To be fair i have never tested ghost myself, but i haven't seen anything to make me believe that it or any other armor will be significantly off the formula etopia derived.

Update:
VU 9.1 brought changes to the armor decay system.

The way that armor decay now works is this:
-an armor protects some amount of damage, x, from a hit
-the durability divided by 1000 is subtracted from 100% and the result multiplied with x
-this new number, y, is the effective damage absorbed
-the decay is based on y, following the curve: