FYI: Testing Armor Decay version 2.0000

Stefan 008 Bond

Dominant
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Posts
373
Society
Mod Merps
Avatar Name
Stefan 008 Bond
Hi all,

While it may take a good while for us to get a grip on loot 2.0, the changes to armor decay should be fairly easy to test. Just wanted to share what I have so far

Confirmed:

1. Minimum decay rule has been removed!

2. Linear Damage model is in effect and really awesome savings on larger setups now

3. Armor and Plates receive damage independently. If your armor has enough protection, your plates will remain untouched!(or the other way around)..

4. The order of damage presentation to armor or plates first is a coin flip (50/50).. sometimes your armor gets hit first, other times your plate takes it first...

5. We have an unseen decimal place that we cannot test against (at least one!) TT armr takes .045 decay for 1 damage absorbed but .091 for 2 damage absorbed this makes the actual decay .0455... the system still truncates this though and is not additive.

6. Durability is still in play, higher dura costs just a bit less for the same damage absorbed

Unlimited Armor and Platings Decay

New Decay Rates on UL armor equate to 49 nova fragments per 1 damage absorbed.
49 novas = .049 pec = 20.4081 hp/pec..... Nice!

Tested on imperium platings (1 dmg absorbed) = 49 novas decay
Tested on CDF armor (6 dmg absorbed) = 294 novas decay , 294/6 dmg = 49 novas per damage.. check!

Limited Armor and Platings Decay

Tested using TT armor... 2 damage absorbed = 91 novas decay...
91/2 damage absorbed = 45.5 novas decay per 1 damage absorbed... UH OH!!!

Maybe this has always been there but I was not aware of this extra decimal place??? Is this new???

45.5 novas = .045(5?)pec = 21.9780 hp/pec

Tl;dr version

All the stated armor changes by Mindark are functional and now all UL armr has an eco of around 20.5 hp/pec and all Limited armr is around 22 hp/pec (or better!)

Armor and plates now receive damage independently and the order of which gets hit first is a coin flip



Anyone care to confirm?

~008
 
Last edited:
The Imperium plate has 400 durability and the CDF armor has 1800 durability so you would think there would be a difference. :scratch2:

The TT Colonial armor has 9000 durability so there's the beginnings of a durability test.
 
The armor decay may have been linearized, however this in no way means the durability equiation was changed.
 
47 damage 4400 durability is 2.246 pec decay (0.04778 pec per damage)
9 damage 2750 durability is 0.437 pec decay (0.0486 pec per damage)
12 damage 900 durability is 0.594 pec decay (0.0495 pec per damage)
15 damage 2950 durability is 0.727 pec decay (0.0485 pec per damage)

Just a guess but 0 durability is 0.05 pec per damage, and then durability reduces it from there.

Going off of MAs old armour decay formula, it looks like it may be decay = damage * 0.05 (1 - (durability/100000)) which fits these parameters. More testing may need to be done for L armour to see if it fits same formula, but I'm not going to do that today.

For reference on how amazing this is now, lets compare hunting spider stalkers in supremacy with a durability of 5200. Supremacy has 123 protection for imp/cut/stab, if we keep it simple and assume no plates or enhancers, in old system since decay was exponential, it would have decayed 18.75 pec, or 0.1524 pec/damage, compared to 5.83 pec decay in new system with a linear decay of 0.474.
 
Last edited:
47 damage 4400 durability is 2.246 pec decay (0.04778 pec per damage)
9 damage 2750 durability is 0.437 pec decay (0.0486 pec per damage)
12 damage 900 durability is 0.594 pec decay (0.0495 pec per damage)
15 damage 2950 durability is 0.727 pec decay (0.0485 pec per damage)

Just a guess but 0 durability is 0.05 pec per damage, and then durability reduces it from there.

Going off of MAs old armour decay formula, it looks like it may be decay = damage * 0.05 (1 - (durability/100000)) which fits these parameters. More testing may need to be done for L armour to see if it fits same formula, but I'm not going to do that today.

For reference on how amazing this is now, lets compare hunting spider stalkers in supremacy with a durability of 5200. Supremacy has 123 protection for imp/cut/stab, if we keep it simple and assume no plates or enhancers, in old system since decay was exponential, it would have decayed 18.75 pec, or 0.1524 pec/damage, compared to 5.83 pec decay in new system with a linear decay of 0.474.

Thanks Hijacker, yes the linear damage model makes for huge savings on big armr!

Yeah it seems reasonable enough to go with .05 decay on 0 durability per 1 damage as the imperium plates and their 400 dura come in at .049x everything else tested is slightly lower.

Your #s all coincide with some more of mine I was going to post from adj pixi and 5b plates, and the TT armor, durability is still in play.

Updates

I was able to confirm the removal of minimum decay, i had about 4 parts of stolen imperium and 3 5b plates to repair all total less than 1 pec!

I continue to see evidence of a hidden decimal place... on the TT armor (L, 9k dura) 1 damage absorbed = .045 decay but 2 damage absorbed is actually .091,, this makes the actual decay .0455. It is important to note this is not additive.. meaning 2 parts that have each had 1 damage absorbed still = .090 decay. This is because the system still truncates as it has always done. But on a single piece that has absorbed 2 damage the decay is actually .091. These are really small numbers but it should be noted that we have an unseen decimal place to be aware of!

Damage presentation to armor and plates is a coin flip (50/50) - If you massively overprotect to the point both your plates and armor are more than enough on their own to handle incoming damage you will see that sometimes it goes to the plate first, (you will see "deflect" message) leaving the armr piece untouched, and sometimes the opposite (armor takes all damage leaving plates untouched) This seemingly happens randomly and without a bigger test of #s we can just leave it at 50/50 for now (who knows it could be 60/40 etc). This does have some implications but I wont spell them all out ;)

I will update OP with the new info... looking good for now i think!

~008
 
my armor tests

Tested:
Pixie Adjusted(durability 2800) - 76 dmg absorbed - 3.668 pec decay = 20.607 dmg/pec
Musca Adjusted(durability 2800) - 64 dmg absorbed - 3.107 pec decay = 20.5986 dmg/pec
IFN Prototype (L) (durability 13500) - 138 dmg absorbed - 5.701 pec decay = 24,2063 dmg/pec

and used info from HiJacker:
4400 durability - 47 dmg absorbed - 2.246 pec decay = 20.926 dmg/pec
2750 durability - 9 dmg absorbed - 0.437 pec decay = 20.5949 dmg/pec
900 durability - 12 dmg absorbed - 0.594 pec decay = 20.202 dmg/pec
2950 durability - 15 dmg absorbed - 0.727 pec decay = 20.632 dmg/pec
 
Last edited:
I guess I should be happy I didn't sell my sentinel which had high decay costs, time to test it when I have some time :yay:
 
  • Like
Reactions: das
Guys am i missing something? What about TT of armor? It's also the factor in determining dmg/pec. Why noone is calculateing that?

Cheers!
 
Guys am i missing something? What about TT of armor? It's also the factor in determining dmg/pec. Why noone is calculateing that?

Cheers!

they test with full tt. less tt means less protection but i guess as it seems to be linear it will stay at the same dmp / pec.
and this is going to change soon, when we get the prof requirement for armors and they stay on full protection (UL)
 
Assuming they dont change existing armor to require specific skill requirements, that means all new, brand new armors. And to provide an incentive for people to use the new gear, they have to be more eco or something.

If they change existing armor sets to have skill requirements, thats going to piss off people who bought armor thinking they can use it and suddenly finding that they dont have the skills to use it / to use it at same eco as others with higher skills.

On another note, as far as I know, all game mechanics that involves skills in some way or other also allows you to increase those skills, so it may be possible that there will be a new skill / profession which is related to armor requirements, and wearing / using armor may increase that skill/pro.
 
Assuming they dont change existing armor to require specific skill requirements, that means all new, brand new armors. And to provide an incentive for people to use the new gear, they have to be more eco or something.

If they change existing armor sets to have skill requirements, thats going to piss off people who bought armor thinking they can use it and suddenly finding that they dont have the skills to use it / to use it at same eco as others with higher skills.

On another note, as far as I know, all game mechanics that involves skills in some way or other also allows you to increase those skills, so it may be possible that there will be a new skill / profession which is related to armor requirements, and wearing / using armor may increase that skill/pro.

you should read how its going to work...
when you dont have the skill reqs for the armor it works JUST LIKE ALWAYS.
when you have the requirements you have the advantage of higher protection at lower tt of the armor (like limited armors)
 
Guys am i missing something? What about TT of armor? It's also the factor in determining dmg/pec. Why noone is calculateing that?

Cheers!

The tt of an armor has no effect on dpp, only how long it can offer full protection. Larger armors will hold their protection values longer, the dpp is the same
 
Where are the armor levels shown? couldn't see on on Mahketta or Musca.
 
Question in regards to 2.0 (hope this is enough on topic). So when calculating the decay for armors during 2.0 is the decay depending on only the defence stats affected or the entire defence of the armor?

So for instance if you hunt Longtooth (that does pure impact) while wearing a phantom armor, do you get decay for the full protection including the other defence stats of the armor or only based on the impact protection of the armor?

If I understood the old system right you paid for the full protection even if the mob didn't do all damge types you protected against.
 
Question in regards to 2.0 (hope this is enough on topic). So when calculating the decay for armors during 2.0 is the decay depending on only the defence stats affected or the entire defence of the armor?

So for instance if you hunt Longtooth (that does pure impact) while wearing a phantom armor, do you get decay for the full protection including the other defence stats of the armor or only based on the impact protection of the armor?

If I understood the old system right you paid for the full protection even if the mob didn't do all damage types you protected against.

This is the point of the change so far. The armor should only decay according to the damage actually done.

Mark.4B finally has a use :wtg:
 
If I understood the old system right you paid for the full protection even if the mob didn't do all damge types you protected against.

Not exactly. It used to be that there was a minimum amount of decay that the armour would receive on every hit, which was X/100 pecs, where X was the total of the maximum protection of all damage types. The actual amount of decay was dependent on the amount actually protected, as long as that figure was higher than the minimum X/100.

What has changed is that the minimum decay no longer exists, so now the decay is always dependent on the amount protected on each individual hit, and nothing else, as Atrax said.
 
Guys am i missing something? What about TT of armor? It's also the factor in determining dmg/pec. Why noone is calculateing that?

Cheers!

TT of the armour was a factor until 2006 iirc. Maybe you've read somewhere something but was really old info. So back then ghost was a really really really exotic choice and everyone was doing rascal/vigi/neme/angel/shadow.
 
Hi all.

I need more datapoints to solve this.

The sets that have been provided are mostly dirty (incorrect damage absorbed, incorrect dura)

For example, people reporting that 2 point of dmg are absorbed when the armor clearly doesn't have that protection.

From the data it appears there are special cases happening around ~9000 and/or with (L)

Previous armor formula (solved by Jimmy B and that chick whose name I forget :( ) had a similar facet where (L) or indeed armor with high dura had a different formula.

Damage absorbed, and decay is important. Initial assessment are it's something like 20dmg per pec of armor -FUNCTION but it might be piecewise as pre-loot 2.0 was for these items
 
Immortal, can you be more specific about which datasets seem "dirty/incorrect"? The more eyes on the data the better so let us know what could be off?

About L vs UL in terms of durability and decay, I believe you were most likely correct in what you posted earlier about the durability formula being unchanged. Yes there were 2 different decay formulas found in 1.0 , one for armors below 10k dura and another for above. I personally don't own any L sets other than tt myself (and a set of ozpyn cold plates which are L but don't have dura over 10k) so I'm afraid I'm not much help in gathering L data. But yeah it looks like there are still 2 decay formulas...
 
About L vs UL in terms of durability and decay, I believe you were most likely correct in what you posted earlier about the durability formula being unchanged. Yes there were 2 different decay formulas found in 1.0 , one for armors below 10k dura and another for above. I personally don't own any L sets other than tt myself (and a set of ozpyn cold plates which are L but don't have dura over 10k) so I'm afraid I'm not much help in gathering L data. But yeah it looks like there are still 2 decay formulas...

Musca (L), with 10500 durability, is available in the TT on Arkadia. Might be the easiest way to get some initial high durability / (L) data.
 
Immortal, can you be more specific about which datasets seem "dirty/incorrect"? The more eyes on the data the better so let us know what could be off?

About L vs UL in terms of durability and decay, I believe you were most likely correct in what you posted earlier about the durability formula being unchanged. Yes there were 2 different decay formulas found in 1.0 , one for armors below 10k dura and another for above. I personally don't own any L sets other than tt myself (and a set of ozpyn cold plates which are L but don't have dura over 10k) so I'm afraid I'm not much help in gathering L data. But yeah it looks like there are still 2 decay formulas...


armor_equation.jpg

As above:
From HIjacker's data I'm positive the equation is
Dmg/pec=20*(100000/(100000-Durability)

Can't confirm outside of that range though

Things that need assessing:
(L) armors >10k dura
(L) armord <10k dura
non L armors with very high dura >6k

I know these are a lot harder to test, but just needs to be one data point per unique durability value
 
Wiki info on Arkadia TT must be wrong then. If so then ignore my comment above :)

It's outdated, Musca (L) was in tt before VU15.2. Current one is Musca [part_name] Trainer (L):

 
TT armor has been the same statwise on all planets since VU15.2. Caly one is called Basic Colonial L) and has 9000 durability.

There's only one Imperium Plating, and it has 400 durability.

Good info thanks

Formula:
400 dura = .0498 pec/dmg
9000 = 0.0455 pec/dmg

This is consistent with observations

Therefore:
Plates work the same as armor (good!)
Formula consistent up to 9000 dura

Therefore:
Formula not dependent on whether something is designated (L), and is dependent on pure durability stat.


Implications:
Armor durability would need to be 100000 to never need repair again
Negative armor durability could exist quite comfortably under this model.
Armor enhancers pay for themselves (assuming break rate 1/1000 still exists)

If formula for >10k is consistent, (L) armors users cash in when price is <110%
The "savings" formula is easy
(Dura1-dura2)/1000=% saving
E.g.
Martial 4000
Martial (L) 14000
14000-4000=10000
10000/1000=10% saving

*NB little more complicated but for armors <20k dura this is a good rule
 
Implications:
Armor durability would need to be 100000 to never need repair again
Negative armor durability could exist quite comfortably under this model.
Armor enhancers pay for themselves (assuming break rate 1/1000 still exists)

If formula for >10k is consistent, (L) armors users cash in when price is <110%
The "savings" formula is easy
(Dura1-dura2)/1000=% saving
E.g.
Martial 4000
Martial (L) 14000
14000-4000=10000
10000/1000=10% saving

*NB little more complicated but for armors <20k dura this is a good rule

Is the above true if say 90% of armor decay is returned in loot tt?
 
Is the above true if say 90% of armor decay is returned in loot tt?

If you subscribe to that notion just multiply by 0.9

i.e. 110%*0.9=0.99
 
Well if this about plates is true I would say new meta = big armor with no plates?
Yes, Dura might not be that big difference but if you have the choice between small armor and plates or big armor without for same protection....

At least for people with "normal" plates like 5b
 
Back
Top