Armor decay : i don't give up...

but maybe i should... this is my exchange with MA support on armor decay, i wait for comments...

A few days i sent the following message to Mindark through support :

Hello. Since a few VUs, armor decay has been updated and you claimed that from now it would be proportionate to damage absorbed. I understand that, but then what does the Durability stat mean now ? What is the difference in decay between an armor that has 3000 durability and one that has 5000 ? Will there be more decay on one (and then what with the proportion to damage absorbed ?) Thank you for your help.


Mindark reply :
17 May 2006 MindArk Support: Hi,
In VU 7.7 we updated the armor decay. These were the changes implemented which are still valid today:

Only one durability value is shown for all kinds of damage. The armors TT value does not influence its decay rate when hit. The higher the Durability stat is, the more abuse your armor can withstand. Armor condition influences the amount of protection offered. A critical hit which penetrates your armor means your armor does not reduce the damage done in the attack at all. It will still decay though. The amount of decay is based on attack type and the amount of damage dealt. Decay only occurs when an armor can protect for the kind of damage – if a creature deals acid damage onto a armor that doesn't protect against acid, no decay is rendered.

Regards,
Entropia Support

The case is not labelled : "closed" but "in progress"... Does it suggest that i might not be satisfied with the answer ? Of course i'm not... I have read this VU content over and over... And it still doesn't make sense to me... So i decided to take everything step by step...

And i send them this new message :

"The higher the Durability stat is, the more abuse your armor can withstand." So do you mean that the armor decay does not depend on tt value but on durability ? Does that mean that an armor with high durability does not decay s much as a low durability one and therefore it's tt value is not affected as much by identical hits on identical protection ? Or does it mean that now you can have an armor with high durability that decays in peds and pecs but is still working fine while an armor with low durability will decay as well but offer bad protection very quickly ?
"The amount of decay is based on attack type and the amount of damage dealt."
I ask : what do you mean by "based on" ? is it a linear proportion ?
1 ) The higher the Durability stat is, the more abuse your armor can withstand. I translate this by Higher durability = lower decay ? So decay = damage absorbed / durability ? Or, since decay is shown by tt value, then the equation would be
Decay = Value / Durability ?
2 ) The amount of decay is based on attack type and the amount of damage dealt.
Which can be translated by Decay = damage absorbed / x

Damage absorbed = Da
Durability = Du
Decay = D
V = Value

So what you told us in that VU content was pretty unclear : i'm not a mathematician, so correct me if i'm wrong, i try to use simple logic. I see three equations :
D = Da/Du ;
D = Va / Du ;
D = Da /x
where x is a variable you control...

Of course these equations cannot work together as they are... They contradict each other.
From there i see 3 possibilities.
1) i don't understand anything you said. Your fault or mine, who knows ?
2 ) decay is influenced by both damage and durability through a complex equation that you do not want to reveal, but in that case, the content of VU is inaccurate at best, a lie at worse.
3 ) one of these equations is the right one, and you should therefore inform your customers that the other two are wrong...

That's all... I wait for new MA support update now...
What do you think ?

+rep ... I wait their response ... but i fear they won't tell you something clear like the decay formula....

Well done.

Im a miner so I dont take to much in consideration armor decay. I got vigi and it works fine for me in a overall way.
But this just got me curious too.

+rep

My personal guess is that durability influences now the way armor protects when it is decayed, but not decay itself.
For instance, let's say we have two armors offering same protection, both badly damaged at 50% of their tt value. One has 5000 durability, the other one has 2500... Just example of course.
In same condition, armor with 5000 durability would protect at 65% of it's max capacity, and armor with 3000 durability would protect at 50% of its capacity.
hence, an armor with high durability doesn't mean less decay but less damage received over time... and therefore of course you save on fap decay.

But this is only a guess. I never performed any test to confirm this hypothesis. Maybe i will if i'm not satisfied by Mindark's reply...

great topic ... I will watch this thread for updates for sure!!!

+rep


Jessie

What i got from their reply is this:
decay = damage absorbed / durability

and that's all. The tt value decides how much protection it can give (i think)
eager to hear their reply....

what i say is, MA quit the decay, get your cash from some adds etc.
give us a fuckin break

First the main ideas that are defended currently are wrong.
With that I mean that I'm sure that a armor that protects the same type of damage and quantity won't decay the same. For example the decay after being hit by a Ambulimax Young (pure impact damage) isn't the same in Nemesis and Rascal (15 damage); it also isn't the same in Salamander and Warrior (5 Damage). I know this because I helped a friend to do some armor decay tests, I assume that he will reveal the actual values and the method once he finnishes it in a few weeks, its boring and takes a lot of time to be done right. Also armor decay hasn't changed in the test results for the past 3 months at least. The actual formula if exist and can be applied to all armors is very complex to say the least.

One test which is missing is the protection at the breakdown point
(when all parts of the armor have not much bar left anymore).
Nobody seems to have tested that. Ghost (1000 dur.) and
Neme (3000 dur.?) would be excellent pairs to check it.

Such test would be short, maybe 10 hits from a mob or so.

dura means nothing. amt absorbed is what the cost will be regardless of any standalone set of armor. i've noticed that plates still take less decay than regular armor, but i'm guessing dura is nerfed on those as well and there is a general fixed better overall "dura" for them. using plates has been and still is the only proven method to improve what we now call "durability", since that is a generic response which is already posted in a number of threads here going from ghost to boar and judging by the stats of my favorite mobs and the changes in protection, my decay should be less, instead it's alot more now i keep shogun and plates for smaller mobs. key to saving on armor decay is wearing just under what you think you'd need to take 1.0 every time from every maturity of mob in the area, so that after you kill alot or tank some, you are occasionally taking over 1.0 damage, but enough that you rarely have to fap. this way you can rely on regeneration for the most part. sounds minimal but trust me it'll slash your decay in half. but different mobs are a different story i suppose. take the argos north of twin for example. compare damage to protection on ghost and boar, note the duras. i take on averate +4 peds each 100 ped repair. now that i am using shogun. i take just about exactly -4 from that i did wearing ghost in the first place. a friend davej noted that if you realy want efficient armor decay ideally you could split the armor/plate decay up to get it as close as possible to the same amts of protection. btw if your that concerned about armor decay maybe you need to scale down the mob size, or only hunt the high

KapokWu i've been testing this since the vu, and
Tangine i think you've nailed it now it's a give take, but plated armor with a tiny bit of fapping always tends to be like 1/2 the price (or better) as a big expensive armor and no fapping

Armor decay doesn't look like such a difficult issue to me, the problem is that two different issues are being mixed up all the time: Armor decay itself, and the price of that decay.

In other items, decay is an issue only in the financial sense, because they need to be repaired. 100% decay means the price of repair of the item is equal to the TT value of that item. But the decay does not affect the functioning of that item, as long as decay does not reach a critical point, your FAP or weapon will function the same as new.

With armor, this is different. It starts decaying the moment it starts absorbing damage (of the type it is protecting against), and consequently, its protection starts decreasing.

This is where durability comes in. The higher the durability is, the longer it protects you, and the longer it takes to reach that critical point where it doesn't protect you at all any more (in a significant way).

And THAT is where the TT value comes back in. Because you now need to repair it, and as I said above, repair cost is a function of the armor's TT value.

Now suppose you go out, wearing Supremacy, and start hunting Berycleds Young (silly example, but useful in this case). You absorb 100 attacks, none of which exceed the protection of Supremacy, doing a total of X damage, which causes your armor to decay 20%. Supremacy has 5200 durability, but for this example I will call it 5000 to make comparison to Shadow easier, and the Bery attacks have degraded it by 20%. Repairs will cost you 377.8 ped.

Do the same with Shadow (which also has 5000 durability), and the Bery attacks will also cause a degradation of 20%. Repairs will now cost you 102 ped.

Wearing Nemesis (durability 3000), the armor would degrade by 33%, causing a greater degradation in protection (how much exactly, I think no one knows). Repairs would cost 71 ped.

This shows the following: Considering armor sets with (more or less) equal durability and equal protection, TT value is a real issue economy-wise,
Considering armor sets with equal protection but greatly differing durability, higher durability is a real issue on longer hunts (disregarding TT value here).

What this comparison does not take into consideration is what happens when a mob attack exceeds the protection afforded by one armor, but not that by another (take for example an Atrax Provider). Shadow will absorb ALL the damage done, and have "room left to spare", but Nemesis will let the wearer take what's left after subtracting 45 damage (in new condition). Exactly in what way Shadow decays in this example is still unclear to me.

Anyway, IMHO, as long as we treat separately armor decay itself (and the degradation in protection that it causes) on the one hand, and repair costs caused by that decay on the other, it isn't that confusing I think.

Flame away!

AFAIK MA's statement can be explained as:

The offered protection is dependent on the TT value of the armor. So armors with high TT value keep their protection longer.

I have been in debate before if this is true. My point of view was that the durability decides the protection offered. So armors with hight durability, keep protection longer.


Since this is VERY hard to test or prove, I accept both theories as plausible. A nice detail I like to add, that the TTvalue/durability factor on most armor is about the same. This makes it allot less important if the TT value or the durability is the decicive factor.



Here is a support case I made myself:

Case 77132 History

27 Apr 2006 Witte said:

I have a question about armor condition.

When an armor decays, its protection gets less. My question is, if the decrease of protection is proportional to the condition. Or is it related to the durability?

If its related to the condition, it would mean that armors with a high TT value would lose their protection slower then an armor with low TT value. Is this true?

Click to expand...

Answer:

04 May 2006 MindArk Support said:

Hello, unfortunately we can't give you this information.
Regards,
Entropia Support

Click to expand...

Witte said:

A nice detail I like to add, that the TTvalue/durability factor on most armor is about the same. This makes it allot less important if the TT value or the durability is the decicive factor.

Click to expand...

I checked the most expensive (TT-wise) armors, and the TTvalue/durability ratio is somewhat erratic, Shadow and Pixie being the most obvious exceptions. They both give you 100 durability per ped (ok, I checked all armors, at PE-WIKI).

Paradox (at a quick glance) seems to be at the opposite end: 4 durability per ped. Very expensive to maintain.

It seems (at that same quick glance) that 8 durability per ped is about the norm.

HTH,

dbelinfante said:

I checked the most expensive (TT-wise) armors, and the TTvalue/durability ratio is somewhat erratic, Shadow and Pixie being the most obvious exceptions. They both give you 100 durability per ped (ok, I checked all armors, at PE-WIKI).

Paradox (at a quick glance) seems to be at the opposite end: 4 durability per ped. Very expensive to maintain.

It seems (at that same quick glance) that 8 durability per ped is about the norm.

HTH,

Click to expand...

Its not that simple to calculate. You need to take in account the hitchance and the tt value of each armor part. For example, the harness has the largest chance to get hit. So this part will have the highest weight in calculating the ttvalue/durability factor.

Anyway, there are indeed a whole bunch of exceptions, but I noticed that for the most used armors it was about the same. But I did only calculate it for the armors I have myself, or ones that I considdered buying.

Witte said:

Its not that simple to calculate. You need to take in account the hitchance and the tt value of each armor part. For example, the harness has the largest chance to get hit. So this part will have the highest weight in calculating the ttvalue/durability factor.

Click to expand...

True, but the difference between the most expensive and the cheapest part of a set is usually quite small. Fairly safe to ignore therefore.

As for hitchance, it is the same for each category, ie, a Pixie harness has the same chance of being hit as a Shadow harness. So we could just always use harnesses for comparisons.

I will too watch this thread closley. We never know when MA change the stats on our armors again! Before the change on the armor system I sold a jaguar set for coffee money because it was worthless. Right after that the system was changed and all the sudden the armor I just sold was almost considered an uber armor. So I went to get a new set, but this time for 4-5 times the money. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it one day will go worthless again

dbelinfante said:

True, but the difference between the most expensive and the cheapest part of a set is usually quite small. Fairly safe to ignore therefore.

As for hitchance, it is the same for each category, ie, a Pixie harness has the same chance of being hit as a Shadow harness. So we could just always use harnesses for comparisons.

Click to expand...

No true. Allot armors have a 100/66/33 tt value distribution for the armor parts. Ignoring this can lead in very flawed data.

Witte said:

No true. Allot armors have a 100/66/33 tt value distribution for the armor parts. Ignoring this can lead in very flawed data.

Click to expand...

Didn't know this, it seems to be true for quite a lot of sets. Many others have all the parts at much the same price EXCEPT for the harness, which may cost close to twice the money.

Regardless, we can still use the harness as an example, all the more so BECAUSE it is the most expensive part AND it is always the part that decays the most, because it is hit the most often. But the price ratio between the harness and the rest of the set does need to be taken into consideration.

Bravo dbelinfante and +rep, if folks manage to read
your message, they can better plan their tests.

i'm hearing lots of things for the first time in this thread. i don't see how going from ghost to boar on argos north of twin would give me that much more decay if dura still means anything. look at argo damage types and ghost compared to boar. 1 more cut protection which is only 25 or 33% of they're damage. same thing, 1.0 from every one i encounter, except wayy more boar decay. i've resorted to plated noob armors. wearing shogun and 2a now, soon will be skilling argos in pixie/5a

I think thier response was good, did some math a bit and came up with one theory, did math for too long ...(lol 2 hours on this post ), and came up with.....
A COUPLE MORE THEORIES (All three that I came up with seem pretty accurate in all ratios....Scary!)

My examples from wiki:
Weight Stab Cut Impact Penetr. Shrap. Burn Cold Acid Electric Close Firearms Total Value Durability
10.0 / 13 / 15 / 19 / 1 / 1 / 11 / 12 / 1 / 11 / 47 / 13 / 84 / 302.0(3020pec) / 2000 ....GHOST
16 / 16 / 19 / 12 / 16 / 12 / 4 / 51 / 28 / 95 / 502.5(5025pec) / 3100.......BOAR

My basic and simple theoretical scenario:

If you take 50 impact damage per hit from x mob....
Ghost protects 19 leaving 31 damage done and 19 absorbed
Boar protects 12 leaving 38 damage done and 12 absorbed

Making decay out of durability/damage: (my original attempt)

Ghost takes 23% of its total damage protection. (19/84=23% Then I took 2000 dur*.23=460 (move decimal 3 cause...micropecs?) So .460 pec decay/3020pec tt value=6565.2) I assume 6565.2 is the possible number of full impact damage hits before it decays 100%

Boar takes 13% of its total damage protection. (12/95=13% Then I took 3100 dur*.13=403 (move decimal 3 cause its MA?) .403 pec decay/5025pec tt value=12468.9) I assume 12468.9 is the possible number of full impact damage hits before it decays 100%

By dividing the hits number to durability we see:
Ghost 3.28 possible economy
Boar 4.02 possible economy
Scary how this seems to fit for economy. Makes sense to me at least, Boar with higher value/better protection is a better economy.

I cant explain moving the decimal for sure, it just worked out better.

Making decay out of durabilty/tt value (my attempt after looking this over too long)

Ghost 6.62 ....another possible decay or modifier(6.62*23% =1.52pec)
2000dur/1.52mod=1315.79 possible max hits
3020pec value/1.52pec decay=1986.84 possible max hits

Boar 6.17 ....another possible decay or modifier (6.17*13% =.8pec)
3100dur/.8mod=3875 possible max hits
5025pec value/.8pec decay=6281.25 possible max hits


Most....Ok... mostly all of the time, the formula is much more complex with multiple types of damage, less damage done than full protection, different pieces being hit, with varying tt values. Knowing MA....we'd need to include the wind speed, moon placement, density, Hof charts, deposit amounts ect. also.

Can subsitute of course the total value with a piece in question, should work out the same, the decay would be full on the piece hit but still the same values. Each piece also of course has a limit of thier own as to the number of hits, and thus would be much lower than the total hits if evenly distrubuted.

In these odd calculations, I find that they seem to make sense, though I never actually counted max hits for decay. So I cant at this time verify the decay to these numbers.

It seems to me at least I'm on the right track, either one of these is it, or one is part of a more complex formula. But then again I dont have the MA moon calender to work with either.

But, these formulas show durability effecting the life of the armor and being involved in decay. And both attempts show some believable differences in decay and economy for the 2 armors. Either calculation certainly shows that having more durability affects the ability to take more hits, as stated in the letter.

I am interested to see if anyone can verify or debunk these formulas.
Feel free to let me know what you think of my mental state, as well.
We dont mind.

I havn't read you whole post. But I can tell you its totaly wrong

1st of all, boar does 19 impact protection, just like ghost

2nd of all, to calculate dura/TT, you should take in accound the hitrate and TT value of each individual armor part. Read back some post for more info.

Gl finding new theories

Witte said:

I havn't read you whole post. But I can tell you its totaly wrong

1st of all, boar does 19 impact protection, just like ghost

2nd of all, to calculate dura/TT, you should take in accound the hitrate and TT value of each individual armor part. Read back some post for more info.

Gl finding new theories

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's totally wrong, but you do need to take the hitrate (= chance to be hit) into consideration, and if you want to calculate economy, prices of individual armor pieces as well. Any valid formula will need to be done for each part separately, inputting armorpiece price and chance to be hit. Durability is equal for all parts.

dbelinfante said:

I wouldn't say it's totally wrong, but you do need to take the hitrate (= chance to be hit) into consideration, and if you want to calculate economy, prices of individual armor pieces as well. Any valid formula will need to be done for each part separately, inputting armorpiece price and chance to be hit. Durability is equal for all parts.

Click to expand...

The main reason its totaly wrong is that every test that has been done shows it simply doesnt work like this Maybe I forgot to mention that hehe

Witte said:

The main reason its totaly wrong is that every test that has been done shows it simply doesnt work like this Maybe I forgot to mention that hehe

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that there'd been that many tests already done. You have any links to point me?

dbelinfante said:

I wasn't aware that there'd been that many tests already done. You have any links to point me?

Click to expand...

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17008


Test are done by TS, me, and some others

Ah yeah you are right, I had a bad cut/paste job. Thanks for pointing that out.

In either case just replace the 19 in the formula to come up with those #'s.

Hitrate:
I dont see as much of a factor tbh. regardless of the speed or frequency at which you decay, the end result is the same...as a whole. Since I assume hitrate is entirely skill dependant (evade and the like), not modified by the armor worn. And we all know the skill formulas are yet to be uncovered. Just like guns we have to assume 10/10 or -10/10 in this case.

The economy only consists of:
total value, damage max(durability), damage done(decay) and the cost of the damage. *We dont need to figure how often the decay comes about.

With everything in EU skills modify the economy of any activity or item you do or use, by limiting the probability fluctuations...HA/CHA/EVADE/COS/ect, ...but they still fluctuate, and are still probabilities. We will never get a true hitrate number.

As far as figuring the rate at which each piece gets hit, I am sure its not equal, and know for example that certain mobs favor certain parts. If we did make that calculation, it would have to be made on a per mob basis. And it still wouldnt be 100% accurate. .. victims of probability

Regardless the total decay and economy would be the same overall I'd think, 200 hits between all pieces, individually divided by thier durability would still calculate the same.

For individual pieces/mixed sets:
as I stated just replace the tt amount for each piece, the other figures stay the same. ex.

Whole set ghost
(19/84=23% 2000 dur*.23=460 .460 pec decay/3020pec tt value=6565.2 max hits)

Per part ghost
(19/84=.23 2000*.23=460 .460/800pec tt part=368 max hits on that piece)

Course this brings up a good thing, dividing the max hits to durability isnt the same....it should be the same for economy, but ATM Im too tired to find out where the common number lies on all 3 possible formulas. Least this would help narrow it down to the right one. Probably just need to multiply number of hits by damage per one and work that figure in there.

Mixed
Would need to figure each piece for damage %, and adding each decay figure divided by 6, and I think that would be the closest we could get. Probability butts in on that.

But keep in mind this doesnt figure in multiple damage types, hits less than max ect.

The formula still would stay the same in essence for those....

10impact/12cut out of 19/15 on ghost....2 calculations, 1 for each.
you get a new % of damage vs total damage protection for each,
refiguring decay for each type, add the 2 decays, divide by tt amount
and you have that particular damage cap for the piece.
All that changes here, is you would see more hits before total decay, until the next hit ect.

Decay essentially fluctuates based on the damage absorbed every hit.
But the end result would be the same, the max amount the armor can take is static, regardless of the decay fluctuations.

You or I could take our armor out on a hunt and break it, count the damage and hit amount and probably see the same result, but theres a catch.

The only thing that prevents a true test without major hassle is, the 1.0 hits are less than max absorbed, and we dont know that #, without looking and calculating each time.

But by goin backwards and using the "known" figures... protection, value, and durability, and use a calculation, Economy and decay is found......

The problem we have though is not knowing which one is actually correct. They all seem to look approximately accurate. (guess ill have to try and figure time to see what the armor value is after a full damage hit and do the math)

Appreciate the feed back for sure, lemme know if this makes sense at all.

I am still not sure what you are trying to do here.

It is already known what the decay of armors is. Decay is decided by the protection offered. So if two armors have 19 protection, they will decay exactly the same. This has be tested over and over. There are some exeptions though.

TT value and durability has NOTHING to do with armor decay. So both your fomulas are incorrect.

I suggest you do some research first, and after that the maths

Boar and Ghost have 19 protection but do not decay the same due to varying durability and overall protection.

The difference in durability has an effect for total allowable damage, as does the tt value of the armor.

In the formula, tt value is only used to factor the maximum allowable damage (not decay), which gives us a piece of the economy calculation.

Durability is used to figure the specific decay rate for each since it is the basis of the maximum allowable damage.

That is what im implying, and trying to show proof for.

Tangine said:

Mindark reply :
17 May 2006 MindArk Support: Hi,
In VU 7.7 we updated the armor decay. These were the changes implemented which are still valid today:

Only one durability value is shown for all kinds of damage. The armors TT value does not influence its decay rate when hit. The higher the Durability stat is, the more abuse your armor can withstand. Armor condition influences the amount of protection offered.

Click to expand...

forgo said:

Boar and Ghost have 19 protection but do not decay the same due to varying durability and overall protection.

The difference in durability has an effect for total allowable damage, as does the tt value of the armor.

In the formula, tt value is only used to factor the maximum allowable damage (not decay), which gives us a piece of the economy calculation.

Durability is used to figure the specific decay rate for each since it is the basis of the maximum allowable damage.

That is what im implying, and trying to show proof for.

Click to expand...

You are simply WRONG. Just go test it and see it for yourself.