Guide to determine the DECAY of any item

[Doer]

Please don't sidetrack the thread with retrogressed ideas on how to test decay or comments on whether two parallel lines converge at infinity . If you'll read the first post you'll see that it doesn't usually require 100 hits to calculate decay. Witte's work makes it possible to get a min as well as a maximum damage estimate from that kind of scenario without doing it.

Well Witte i'd love to see a "refined" plot if you find the interest to do so. Great work! +rep...except i think i have to spread it around I'm trying to understand the bit about the anomolous decay for armors with a low protection on some damage type. Does the min. decay still apply if multiple damages are done? In the case of gremlin vs atrox, does the cut still decay at above-normal rates or is it normal when other damages are done raising damage absorbed above the minimum? I guess in other words i'm asking if the min. decay is per-damage-type or per attack.

I did notice that using gremlin against bristles caused more decay than pixie+elec plates (with more protection than gremlin) agains bristles. Now i know why...

 

[Witte]

Please don't sidetrack the thread with retrogressed ideas on how to test decay or comments on whether two parallel lines converge at infinity . If you'll read the first post you'll see that it doesn't usually require 100 hits to calculate decay. Witte's work makes it possible to get a min as well as a maximum damage estimate from that kind of scenario without doing it.

Well Witte i'd love to see a "refined" plot if you find the interest to do so. Great work! +rep...except i think i have to spread it around I'm trying to understand the bit about the anomolous decay for armors with a low protection on some damage type. Does the min. decay still apply if multiple damages are done? In the case of gremlin vs atrox, does the cut still decay at above-normal rates or is it normal when other damages are done raising damage absorbed above the minimum? I guess in other words i'm asking if the min. decay is per-damage-type or per attack.

I did notice that using gremlin against bristles caused more decay than pixie+elec plates (with more protection than gremlin) agains bristles. Now i know why...

Tnx for encouragement maybe after my holydays I will finish it. Ivol has been away some time and he has all the data in matlab. And I am going away some time tomorrow

To answer your question the answer is simple: no. You can simply add all the damage done, no matter what type it is, and use the universal curve to see how much the decay is. The formula we found isnt that unique and earlyer attemts by others gave pretty close results too. One example is: http://rony.bahq.net/

 

[jsm]

Please don't sidetrack the thread with retrogressed ideas on how to test decay or comments on whether two parallel lines converge at infinity . If you'll read the first post you'll see that it doesn't usually require 100 hits to calculate decay. Witte's work makes it possible to get a min as well as a maximum damage estimate from that kind of scenario without doing it.

I NEVER post without reading the whole thread, and while just one firing of a gun can give very exact decay, mobs do VARIABLE DAMAGE which must be evened out over time. 10 or 20 hits is NOT enough.

Oh and btw, the thread was already sidetracked by page2 (note the title: does it mention "armour decay formulas" or anything of the sort?

 

[Witte]

I NEVER post without reading the whole thread, and while just one firing of a gun can give very exact decay, mobs do VARIABLE DAMAGE which must be evened out over time. 10 or 20 hits is NOT enough.

Oh and btw, the thread was already sidetracked by page2 (note the title: does it mention "armour decay formulas" or anything of the sort?

If you feel the need to test that, feel free to do so.

 

[jsm]

If you feel the need to test that, feel free to do so.

Ah but I don't. All I need to know is that for the 2 small hunts a month I do, my plated pixie barely decays.

 

[Doer]

It's late so maybe i'm missing something obvious but i was trying to use some papplons to find the decay of something and found that if i stack the papplons (99 is what it takes) the pecs digit rolls over, whereas if i put in 98 and 1 papplon, it doesn't. Adding one more papplon (total of 100) pushes it over in that case. There seems to be other rounding going on...

 

[Sircus]

The solution should be to always test decay with only sweet and skip the fruits?

 

[mrproper]

Try using dung, sweat and fruits. And 0.00001 PED error on a papplon isn't much

 

[MG Mighty]

It's late so maybe i'm missing something obvious but i was trying to use some papplons to find the decay of something and found that if i stack the papplons (99 is what it takes) the pecs digit rolls over, whereas if i put in 98 and 1 papplon, it doesn't. Adding one more papplon (total of 100) pushes it over in that case. There seems to be other rounding going on...

Try using dung, sweat and fruits. And 0.00001 PED error on a papplon isn't much

Yes I admited in the first posts that the error was sometimes bigger than 0.00001 PED. Which means that the maximum precision of the decay determination was higher than 0.00001 PED.
But for all that I tested I never found an error higher than 0.00002 PED. Making the average error using single stacks usually arround 0.00001 PED.
But if I used more than 1 stack of sweats the error could reach 0.00002 PED sometimes, don't know why but systematically the system fail to recognaise the adding of the second small stack (like in your example, althought I usually used 1 extra bottle). The examples were coherent between diferent VU so I expect that the justification is that MA saves even more information about the values of the items which can't be written using just a 5 digits number precision (0.00001). If they use 6 digits for very low values then it is expected that once in a while the 5 digits precision results aren't coherent.

The reason why I used Bottles of vibrant Sweat is quite simple besides being cheaper, its weight is smaller. (Also easier to use it in a common activities - teleporting - once there is no need for extra tests).

 

[Gingko]

The decay vs TT is a curve, and is shown as a curve, the minimal decay is a straight line, and is shown as a straight line. But the graph is just prototype and not perfected. Maybe will do that sometime in the future.

Care to share the formula?
Very nice thread, deserved a little bump

 

[Dom_sufc]

Care to share the formula?
Very nice thread, deserved a little bump

Armor decay Is very different thes days. And simply more related to protection. TT value has no bareing other than making It have more consistent protection for higer TT. 1% damage to the armor = 1% less protection.

Read Doers siggy

 

[MG Mighty]

I suspect the reason salamander decays more is the "overprotection" of the burn and penetration aspects, and you were testing it versus other types of damage...

Well it seems that all armors have a minimum decay related to the total maximum protection that they can offer.

In the case of Salamander that would be:

(3+4+5+8+5+50)/100 = 0,75 PEC

Somehow I failied to miss this obvious relation but somebody who did a lot of armor decay tests did find it:

Armor decay, how does it work
+rep Witte
&

When a Shadow armor would suffer a full impact hit its decay will be (2.90*46^2 + 29.55*46)/1000 = 7.496 PEC. The minimal decay a Shadow armor can suffer is: (23+46+46+23+46)/100 = 184/100 = 1.84 PEC. So no matter how little damage you recieve, 1 HP, 2 HP, the Shadow armor will always decay at least 1.84 pec. Untill the corresponding decay will be more then 1.84 pec. From that damage level, the decay will folow the curve again. For Shadow, this means the decay will follow the curve again from about 20.5 HP.

 

[MG Mighty]

Did today some testing on the Rascal foot guards decay, and got the following results:

The decay cost of a hit on a Rascal Foot (L) by an Ambulimax Young was 0.939 PEC (I believe that it was just 1 hit, in the case that it was 2 I will update it later on with other results)

Rascal..........................(15 Impact)........1,103 PEC..........13.599 Dmg/PEC

Which means that the decay is lower than what is used to be on non limited Rascal (I didn't yet test to confirm if it remained the same with this last changes).

Durability might mean something relevant afterall now.

For those who wander how to do this simple test here are some screenshots:

First the TT value of the Rascal is determined before it was hit
[br]Click to enlarge[/br]
up to ~0.00001 PED margin of error
[br]Click to enlarge[/br]

Second the TT value of the Rascal is determined after it was hit
[br]Click to enlarge[/br]

up to ~0.00001 PED margin of error
[br]Click to enlarge[/br]

Third the difference between those values is calculated 7.70000 - 7.69061 = 0.00939