Why armor decay charts is bulls*t!

Im seeing an ever increasing ammount of armor decay charts popping up.
What id like to know is what are people that make them thinking?
There is no simple TT/durability, protection/durability or
sum(protection)/durability formulas to calculate this.

1. The armor decay is non-linear.
   - Armors in good condition decay slower than armors in bad condition.
2. Armors decay at different rates on different mobs.
   - Armors with high stab/cut/impact and low penetration/burn will decay more when hunting mobs that do stab/cut/impact than when you hunt mobs that do penetration/burn damage, even if they do the same damage to you when you are unarmored.
3. An armor with a total protection (sum of all dmg types) of 250 will not protect 250 hitpoints.
   - Different mobs do different types of damage and if you have low stab/cut/impact when attacked by an atrox, high burn protection wont save you.
4. Personal experience
   - The figures in the charts suggest decay that is nowhere near what i have experienced myself. The decay rate of different armors is not as big as the charts suggest if you keep your armor in good condition.
5. Area of use
   - If you youse an armor with say 75 electric and 45 impact protection, it will decay more if you hunt only mobs with electric damage than it would if you hunt a wide variety of mobs.

If we want to have charts that reflect decay properly, we need to have formulas that take the different things into account. Its not as simple as it is with guns where you shoot it and it decay x pec, use y ammo and can do z damage, and the equation is simply z/(x+y). Therefore it would also need to be much more researched to be accurate.

I have always thought this as well. One of the things that is dangerous is when people accept things without questioning them. I feel this is the case for any of the armor "efficiency" formulas out there.

Thanks for saying it Tigerman and also for supply a supporting argument.

DD

Wow this is an good post

I for one would like to know more about the decay rate of my armors and all of what you state I know for fact is true

There is another thing that you left un said armor not at 100% will give less protection.. armor that is really really beat up on will give no protection

Well now all you need to do is get working on a "REAL" armor chart.

All the stuff may be true but right now the concept of a more accurate way to guage armor is just ethereal. I'm fairly certain most people who have used multiple armors for any period of time realize that there is no cut and dry way to rate armor or decay, but frankly its all there is at this point besides personal experience. Thats somthing thats very hard to quanitify.

you say "its bullshit"

Thats way over the top and I'm still waiting for you to tell us the real way to guage armor before we own it.

Envictus said:

Thats way over the top and I'm still waiting for you to tell us the real way to guage armor before we own it.

Click to expand...

Personally I don't beleive there is a way with the information MA has given us so far. Sure you can make a general statement like Shadow is better than Nem. But can you go much farther than that? There are just too many variables in armor IMO.

DD

There is a lot of good stats out there, on both this and EP forums. A small bit of searching will get you most of the data your looking for.

Some of the key facts that you need to be aware of:
(1) Armor decay is based on the Total dmg hit by a mob and not the dmg absorbed by your armor. So, if a mob does a total of 50 dmg points(from one or more types of damage - ie cut, stab) , but your armor only protects you from 25 dmg points, You still pay for the total 50 damage points.

(2) The cost per damage point on any given armor set is constant. (so a point of cut is same cost as 1 dmg of stab for that armor).

(3) ALL Mobs hit at a constant dmg amount, so for instance: Argonaut does 20dmg and on rascal this works out at 1.04pec average per Argonaut young hit (or for each dmg point = .0518pec ave.)

(4) The amount of actual protection(armor absorption) reduces as the armor decays(as you stated). I don’t have a chart/tests on this one, but it "feels" proportional to the current %decay of the armor. ie if a set of armor is 50% damaged, then the actual damage absorb ion of that armor is 50% of its total.

(5) And just to add some more complexity - If a given mob can inflict multiple damage types(say cut and impact), then each damage type is applied to a unique armor piece. Eg 3 types, 3 pieces will absorb each of the dmg types separately .

(6) if you using plates, then full dmg from a mob is applied to both plate and armor piece

(7) General formula for price per dmg dealt by mob is (TT value in pec)/(Durability*10)

A good hierarchy table for Armor Cost/damage comparison (higher rating is better) PE-Addict


Good detailed discussion can be found here - [EP article

one thing i discovered is that for each dammage type the armor protection is number-1 on both the armor and plates so low end armor plates are not worth very much

You claim allot here. But where is any proof for all the things you say? I have tested some armour things myself, and for me the charts gave the correct values. Did you do some testing too or is this based on experience? If you did some testing I would like to see your resuls . As for the points:

1) I never seen a chart claim else, buts yes its totaly correct.
2) Can you somehow proof this or tell how to easy reproduce?
3) Depends on the mob. example:Umbranoid do: stab, cut, burn, erlectic. And if you lets say take a pixie, it will do its max protection vs an atrox.
4) Because of the way MA implented durability, the decay is ofted expressed in PEC/10HP. Why this factor 10 was ever intoduced, i don't know either :S.
5) It should not if you hunt mobs that do the same amounth of damage.


Besides all that, for comparing armours all your arguments arn't realy important, as they would apply to all armours. So if what you say is true, it wouldn't realy lower the usefullness of the charts.
But if it is true, then it can improve the usefullness of those charts allot .

god someone got it said thumbs up for u tigerman

Hey Tigerman nice post

But try following

Hunt a specific mob with a full repaired armor and a fixed ammount of ammo.
When done write down your armor decay.

Repeat this without repairing your armor and look again at your armor decay and compare the numbers.

You should have a lower (not higher as you said) decay on your armor.
Thats not a proven fact thats just my own expirience

less protection less decay.
feel free to prove me wrong

Fiona, I experienced the opposite. Damaged armour decays faster.

Something is here where I have some doubts: if an armor protects a certain type of attack, that specific type decays it more. I feel the opposite. As an example, on rascal, I feel that acid makes more decay than impact. Then again, might be my impression.

Regards,

K

(6) if you using plates, then full dmg from a mob is applied to both plate and armor piece

Click to expand...

This does not seem to be the case anymore with introduction of VU 7.6.

Wether this is a bug or a change is yet unknown, but since VU 7.6 plates decay first, then armor beneith it which actually makes sence.

However it seems that plates absorb full dmg up until their mod limit. If a mob does more or different dmg than mod limit of plates the rest is absorbed by the armor. Hence the occasional decay on armor even when plates are attached.

Numbers need yet to be crunched as I have been busy making Calypso look like a Swiss Cheese like any other ATH-seeking participant.

Ill break it down for you..

Da Celt said:

There is a lot of good stats out there, on both this and EP forums. A small bit of searching will get you most of the data your looking for.

Some of the key facts that you need to be aware of:
(1) Armor decay is based on the Total dmg hit by a mob and not the dmg absorbed by your armor. So, if a mob does a total of 50 dmg points(from one or more types of damage - ie cut, stab) , but your armor only protects you from 25 dmg points, You still pay for the total 50 damage points.

Click to expand...

Wrong.
If you go hunting warriors in vain armor (~75 dmg unarmored) it will decay less than if you hunt atrox in vain armor, even if you hunt as low as mature and provider.

Da Celt said:

(2) The cost per damage point on any given armor set is constant. (so a point of cut is same cost as 1 dmg of stab for that armor).

Click to expand...

Havent tested this specifically, but i assume that to be correct as long as the armors have the same cut and stab durability.
Also to remember in this regard is that two mobs that do stab/cut/impact and do the same total damage dont need to do the same percantage of their damage on the different damage types.

Da Celt said:

(3) ALL Mobs hit at a constant dmg amount, so for instance: Argonaut does 20dmg and on rascal this works out at 1.04pec average per Argonaut young hit (or for each dmg point = .0518pec ave.)

Click to expand...

They do a constant total damage yes, but your evade will make a significant impact on the average damage they do.
I have heard people saying that mobs will decay your armor even if you evade, however MUCH less than if you get hit. This i have not been able to replicate in any good manner, but i have noticed that my armor decay is much lower on runs where i evade more.

Da Celt said:

(4) The amount of actual protection(armor absorption) reduces as the armor decays(as you stated). I don’t have a chart/tests on this one, but it "feels" proportional to the current %decay of the armor. ie if a set of armor is 50% damaged, then the actual damage absorb ion of that armor is 50% of its total.

Click to expand...

From my testing it does not appear to be proportional.
It appears to me that going from i.e. 60% condition to 50% condition the armor protects much less effectively than if i go from 70% to 60% (higher percentage difference in the protection).

Da Celt said:

(5) And just to add some more complexity - If a given mob can inflict multiple damage types(say cut and impact), then each damage type is applied to a unique armor piece. Eg 3 types, 3 pieces will absorb each of the dmg types separately.

Click to expand...

"Does not compute".
The different mobs do different damage to different parts. Larger mobs seem to hit your upper armor parts more than smaller mobs.
Two mobs that do stab/cut/impact can decay different armor parts, yes, but its based on the creature and not the attack type as far as i see it.
Some mobs attack your shins and thighs mostly, others do their main damage to the harness and arms.

Da Celt said:

(6) if you using plates, then full dmg from a mob is applied to both plate and armor piece

Click to expand...

I do not agree with "full damage" but as it has seemed to be pre 7.6 is that you have to wear down the plating a lot before the armor start eating the decay. However, I hear that after 7.6 this has changed.

Da Celt said:

(7) General formula for price per dmg dealt by mob is (TT value in pec)/(Durability*10)

Click to expand...

I think actually the formula would be more a function like "(sum(damage types))/sum(durability for the types)" but this would only be a part of the formula, given the fact that the damage dealt to different armor parts by different mobs vary and that the armor decay faster in lower condition than in high condition.

Da Celt said:

A good hierarchy table for Armor Cost/damage comparison (higher rating is better) PE-Addict

Click to expand...

One of the exact bullshit decay ratio charts i am talking about.
And the decay ratio there is derived from durability/TT price which is the most flawed formula you can possibly use as it dont even take into account what protection the armor provide.

I expericene the opposite

Fiona Simmons said:

Hey Tigerman nice post

But try following

Hunt a specific mob with a full repaired armor and a fixed ammount of ammo.
When done write down your armor decay.

Repeat this without repairing your armor and look again at your armor decay and compare the numbers.

You should have a lower (not higher as you said) decay on your armor.
Thats not a proven fact thats just my own expirience

less protection less decay.
feel free to prove me wrong

Click to expand...

Every time i slip up and dont make sure my protection is in full TT i expericene the same; The armor decays more and protect less. That is also one of the things in the game that makes sense. A brick wall that is in perfect condition takes more damage to tear down than a shabby brick wall that has already been halfway destroyed..

some information is better than no information... however wrong information is a lot worse than no information.

the charts on my site are a guideline, not something set in stone. and from personal experience, i can say they are good guidelines, and i stand behind the information.

given the fact that MA likes to change the way things work on a whim, there is no way to accurately track damage to armor. the tt/durability formula is simple, and it works.

so no. the charts are not complete BS, as your fox news headline screaming is implying. they just are not as pinpoint accurate as you would like.

if you dont like it, do it yourself.

Read my reasons why..

emptywalls said:

some information is better than no information... however wrong information is a lot worse than no information.

the charts on my site are a guideline, not something set in stone. and from personal experience, i can say they are good guidelines, and i stand behind the information.

given the fact that MA likes to change the way things work on a whim, there is no way to accurately track damage to armor. the tt/durability formula is simple, and it works.

so no. the charts are not complete BS, as your fox news headline screaming is implying. they just are not as pinpoint accurate as you would like.

if you dont like it, do it yourself.

Click to expand...

If you read my reasons why its BS youll see that its nothing near accurate and if you have used just about any armor set in the game like i have, youll also experience that for one the vain armor set DOES NOT decay twice as much as the shadow if you keep it in good condition. (If you dont it decay to all hell, but that goes with all armors)

Tigerman said:

If you read my reasons why its BS youll see that its nothing near accurate and if you have used just about any armor set in the game like i have, youll also experience that for one the vain armor set DOES NOT decay twice as much as the shadow if you keep it in good condition. (If you dont it decay to all hell, but that goes with all armors)

Click to expand...

I am not saying you are wrong, however, why dont you come with some facts? Experience is nice but its very subjective. I suggest you let an atrox mature (50 damage) hit 20 times orso, and then goto the repair terminal and check the cost. Do that with both vain and shadow (if you have those oc). It will take maybe 30 mins of your time, but at least you have some test to backup your story. I have done the same with pixie and rascal and for those the charts had it pretty much correct.

That would be allot more helpfull then just saying the charts are bullshit.

I already have

Witte said:

I am not saying you are wrong, however, why dont you come with some facts? Experience is nice but its very subjective. I suggest you let an atrox mature (50 damage) hit 20 times orso, and then goto the repair terminal and check the cost. Do that with both vain and shadow (if you have those oc). It will take maybe 30 mins of your time, but at least you have some test to backup your story. I have done the same with pixie and rascal and for those the charts had it pretty much correct.

That would be allot more helpfull then just saying the charts are bullshit.

Click to expand...

I already have done it and the result was the same ammount of decay on both armors. I also did it with hogglo (before they was removed) and that was also the same ammount of decay. And then im talking about the same ammount of PEDs..
And doing it with hogglo obviously wasnt the cheapest test in the world

test decay on armor is very hard since its based on domage , but also you have to keep in mind som mobs decay when you evade n and som other dont.

for formula and armor decay , keep in mind you have to calcul with actual TT not with full TT, so more you armor is decayed , and more 1 domage will decay it.
finally i am shure that eatch type of domage got his own decay cost.
special domage point ( cold , acid...) increase a lot more decay then basic ( stab cut..) this explain for me , why angel is so cheap in decay and so good for hunt

but i am not good at armor , i use near only pixi.

I just redid the test (last one was long ago and didnt had the results anymore)

I let an argo young hit me 19 times, 1st in pixie then in rascal

The total hitpoints is then 19x20=380. The value in the chart (using Minders weighted decay) is 0,19 for pixie and 0,55 for rascal. These figures are for 10 HP. So the theorecical result will be:

Pixie: 38x0,19=7.2 pec
Rascal: 38x0,55=20.9 pec

And the results from the actual test:

Pixie: 6.9 pec
Rascal: 20.3 pec

My conclusion: The charts are (at least in this case) just fine.

And theres one of the major problems..

Witte said:

I just redid the test (last one was long ago and didnt had the results anymore)

I let an argo young hit me 19 times, 1st in pixie then in rascal

The total hitpoints is then 19x20=380. The value in the chart (using Minders weighted decay) is 0,19 for pixie and 0,55 for rascal. These figures are for 10 HP. So the theorecical result will be:

Pixie: 38x0,19=7.2 pec
Rascal: 38x0,55=20.9 pec

And the results from the actual test:

Pixie: 6.9 pec
Rascal: 20.3 pec

My conclusion: The charts are (at least in this case) just fine.

Click to expand...

And there you just pointed out one of the major problems...
You find one test to be ALMOST correct and therefore the formula must be correct..
Thats like saying
"i once looted an a103, TTed it right away and looted an a106. Therefore if you TT a looted a103, you will loot an a106"
Another thing that dont speak very much for the credibility of these charts is that you dont even have the same percentage difference between the tests and the chart either..
And then you can add in the tests I did where shadow decayed almost the exact same ammount of PEDs as vain did while charts show vain should decay twice as much..

If its right in one case dont make it right in all cases.
And if you want a chart to show armor decays it shouldnt be correct for one armor set and wrong for another..

Its very logical the results arnt exact, as all armour parts has different decay. So if i got hit abit more on my shins then usual, then the decay will already be lower. Thats why the decay is called a WEIGHTED AVARAGE

It takes in account what decay each armour part has, and the chance it gets hit on avarage. These avarages are about: 33%harness,33%thighs or arms,33% face, gloves or shins.

I am not saying that formula is totaly correct but if the difference is just 4% after 19 hit, its close enough for me.

And about you last statement: Pixie and Rascal are two of the most used armours, and at least for these the chart is right. And i am sure when more testing is done it will be right for most, if not all armours.

Comming again to the conclusion: These charts are NOT total bullshit

Gonna sleep now NN

hmm, I dont know if this debate is worth continuing as you seem to have made up you mind already. After contemplation of your argument and your stubbornness to which you hold your theories, I cant resist it… no, must try… cant take it much more jim.. she’s gona blow. So here it goes, and i hope you will complete that simple test suggested at the end of this post. If your test proves me wrong, i'll go out and validate your findings(peer review) and be the first to rally behind you theories.

(Part 1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Da Celt Quote)Some of the key facts that you need to be aware of:
(1) Armor decay is based on the Total dmg hit by a mob and not the dmg absorbed by your armor. So, if a mob does a total of 50 dmg points(from one or more types of damage - ie cut, stab) , but your armor only protects you from 25 dmg points, You still pay for the total 50 damage points.

(Tigerman Response) Wrong.
If you go hunting warriors in vain armor (~75 dmg unarmored) it will decay less than if you hunt atrox in vain armor, even if you hunt as low as mature and provider.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credibility of result:
All my key facts are based not just my own testing (extensive from Feb to June of this year, 1000 ‘s of hits on different armor sets, different mobs etc, as myself and freezypopz where going to start a armor and plate business, selling best/cheapest sets for any given mob type). but also my statements are backed up by many respectable (statistical) players carrying out similar testing before me (roth for example) and after me. (see links at end of my original mail). (aside)If your going to attack established facts, established after long hard testing – through multiple sources, then you better back it up with some hard evidence. (aside over)

Your example “go hunt warriors in vain armor” is called antidotal evidence, and is not using any scientific method that I can see. You may well of experienced a low decay hunt using Vain on one/two sessions but this could easily be explained by a client-server communication glitch. To counter this you need to log off at the end of each test(as is standard protocol) to make sure your using server synchronized armor TT value when you repair. The point here is that your sample size is insignificant.

Your test procedure is also illogical( – your comparing apples to oranges “Hunting warriors results in less decay then hunting atrox” Not only is this unrelated to the discussion, but is vague and meaningless. I’ll explain –
1) Its unrelated because I was discussing ‘armor decay = TOTAL damage dealt by mob and NOT the damage absorption/protection level of your armor’. Ie if a mob hits you for X dmg what is the cost and how is that cost derived.
2) What you’re referring to is your efficiency with a specific mob type compared to another. That is a completely different topic comprising of things such as (a)speed of mob attack (b)your amount of evade, (c)your amount of avoidance, (d)amount of HP of a mob – this effects your evade success, (e)distance mob can begin attack, (f) your attack strategies (keep moving or static) etc.. And this area is very subjective.. But the area I’m referring to is not.

Simple test: To do this test right you might need to use the ‘buddy system’, get your buddy to get the mob off you after 10 hits.

(TEST A) in your full TT Vain – accept 10 (successful)hits from say a Drone Gen 3, , log off and on, then check decay in repair Terminal. You got hit for 450dmg total = x Pec of decay on your total armor set. (this is based on 45dmg/hit on Drone Gen3 which is pre V7.6 values, so you may need to first check what exactly they hit today)

(TEST B) in your Full TT Vain go out and get hit 10 times from an Atrox Old, log off and on, then check decay in repair Terminal. (560)dmg total = x Pec of decay.

(Results)
- (1) Now find the 'Pec cost for One damage point, dmg/pec' for TEST A and TEST B
- (2) For Test B only 1 damage point should register all the rest is absorbed by your Armor, whereas in Test A 21.5 per hit will come through your armor.
- If I am right then both Test result Values(dmg/pec) should be within 5% of each other.
- If the theory that you only pay decay on damage that is absorbed/protected is true then TEST A will be 40% less that TEST B’s price dmg/pec, reason being that A absorbed 40% less then B


At this stage, I’ll hold back on response on the other sections. I’m trying to figure out if your just ranting or are serious about finding this out.

LOL Disclaimer: of course I could be wrong and vain armor might be bugged. As I don’t own a set I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the public stats, and of course it’s not unheard in PE history for items not to match there stats.

Yes, I HAVE made up my mind

Da Celt said:

hmm, I dont know if this debate is worth continuing as you seem to have made up you mind already. After contemplation of your argument and your stubbornness to which you hold your theories, I cant resist it… no, must try… cant take it much more jim.. she’s gona blow. So here it goes, and i hope you will complete that simple test suggested at the end of this post.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are entirely right, i HAVE made my conclusions and they are based on findings that i have made during the time ive played, which is a time beaten by close to nobody in this game.

Yes, I HAVE tested these things and YES there is a lot of PMs and reps ticking in here, with quite straight forward comments like "You are totally right" and "I have noticed this too, about time someone said it" from people that does know a great deal about this game and topic.

And one more thing.. I dont think you will get very far by trying to attack my credibility and integrity..

Thanks for the clarification – you are not interested in scientific method of evaluation. I’m not attacking your personal credibility but your theories. Just to be clear, I hold no grudge against you or your soc, playing style etc etc.. But I do have a problem with the theories you put forward. I have no interest in becoming mr or miss popular, and mob agreement means nothing to me. Sorry, I never wanted to be in the popular gang, even 14 years ago when I was a student. You may have been in this virtual universe for years, but again this in no way backs up your engineering or scientific capabilities or techniques utilized. My credentials are that I have worked professionally as a software engineers for the last 12 years (GE, Cerner etc), and am very familiar with statistical evaluation and scientific methods, logic etc.. sorry, I didn’t realize you true intention with this thread. The podium is yours.

Ahh.. here we go again.

Da Celt said:

Thanks for the clarification – you are not interested in scientific method of evaluation. I’m not attacking your personal credibility but your theories. Just to be clear, I hold no grudge against you or your soc, playing style etc etc.. But I do have a problem with the theories you put forward. I have no interest in becoming mr or miss popular, and mob agreement means nothing to me. Sorry, I never wanted to be in the popular gang, even 14 years ago when I was a student. You may have been in this virtual universe for years, but again this in no way backs up your engineering or scientific capabilities or techniques utilized. My credentials are that I have worked professionally as a software engineers for the last 12 years (GE, Cerner etc), and am very familiar with statistical evaluation and scientific methods, logic etc.. sorry, I didn’t realize you true intention with this thread. The podium is yours.

Click to expand...

Its not a matter of being uninterested in testing or ignoring the results.
Its a simple matter of having played and tested functions within this game since BETA and having come up with quite uniform results that suggest something different than you seem to believe. Also i have talked about these findings with other high-end players and people that have been in the game for a long time and they say the same as me. The charts is not accurate and they does not consider major factors in their equations.
If you think i HAVENT put my ass infront of creatures and counted the ammounts of hits ive taken in different armors, you really need to reconsider your evaluation.
EDIT: Another thing you should take into consideration is that there is a lot of armor sets that is not tested at all for the purpose of these charts, amongst other things because they are extremely rare and expencive.

Oh no... pelase don't turn this into a counter-strike style "I've been playing since pre-beta -1.45 nick nack edition" argument.

------------
EDIT: Thanks for the neg rep. I make a joke about CS and because I disagree with you... oh hey let give negative rep. Its stupid and so is your attitude, all your doing is bitching about something, Your not actually putting forth any new data your just arguing with people about anecdotal generalisations.

I'm starting to think rep is pretty stupid. Unless you stroke every morons ego your gonna have a crappy rep level. I'd rather just speak my mind and forgo the little green bars because I didn't tell you your magical idea and your argument of "I've been around longer" smells of pretty flowers and unicorns. Every time I get neg repped from now on I'm gonna edit the post and talk about it. Because frankly so far every neg rep I get has been really stupid and motivated by the fact that I don't shovel sunshine on top of someone.

Your reason for the rep "give people a bait" yes... in a thread you titled "Why armor decay charts is bullshit"? Yea, ok bud.

Don’t feel bad Envictus, he neg rep me as well. LOL, and left this little gem in my in box "Maybe instead of repeating yourself you should buy glasses and read what people write?". How ironic. lol

He showed his maturity, and his authoritarian nature with this act. Ie. You felt your losing a debate, so to help relieve your frustration and feel some empowerment by giving me a neg rep. But, I won’t reciprocate your ‘gift’ back sir, but I will remember it. Maybe its your frustration at not having a sufficient connection to play the game, but your fast losing your cred mate.. see you around.

Hmm, the decay per dmg type for some armor sets?
Does the dmg go equally everywhere in the set? I somehow
remember some mobs seem to grind one part down faster
than other parts... then there would be 6 problems
instead of one.

And is the dmg type chart of mobs accurate? And if it is,
are damages on-off, or some unknown percentages distributed
on "active" dmg types?

Let's assume on-off, and equal damage per each damage types.
Then one should concentrate only on the full condition parts,
and kind of forget the possible faster decay of the damaged parts.
The readership of the tables can take it into consideration later
however they want to do it. Or it would be a separate study.

Then one needs to make tests with for example these mobs:

mob1: armax cow; (stab, impact)
mob2: atrax young; (stab, cut, impact)
mob3: combibo; ( cut, impact)

One has to record the total dmg received, and decay (by that awkward
relog method) from each of the chosen three mobs, and form a following
set of equations:

decay1 = (0.50*dd1+0.00*dd2+0.5*dd3)*dmg1
decay2 = (0.33*dd1+0.33*dd2+0.34*dd3)*dmg2
decay3= (0.00*dd1+0.50*dd2+0.50*dd3)*dmg3

where decayi. dmgi are known, and ddi (decay per damage) can be solved.
The example is given to find decay rate for 3 damage types, but that could
be extended, naturally. And the set of equations is for one part of the armor
only. The choice of mobs is limited only so that the equation must be
solvable.

Then there is a possible effect of the differing skills of the test person,
for example the effect of evade skill is not completely agreed upon.
That means one should use brand-new newbie as a test person.
When he "wears out" (for example hp rounds to 93) a new test person
is taken. And again a separate test series could study the effect of evade
or some general skills.

What about if the dmg types have differing weights on mob. Then one
needs to add more mob types than there are damage types to be charted,
and actually solve also the ratios between damage types. If somebody
is interested, I can share the technique. The more managed way would be
to set a separate test series for finding out the damage ratios first, and
then use them at the set of equations above (in place of 0.50, 0.33,
and so on).

Then there is a possibility of varying damage effect, e.g. damage going
randomly to different parts. Then the cumulated damage must be increased
per a test set. The same holds to the "strength" of mob. some mobs seem
to be in the upper limit of their category, some on the lower limit. Does
that change anything? (I guess not, otherwise MA programmers are nutty).

Then we would have charts, but I still would ask Tigerman about what
armor I should wear, and maybe the pricetag too.

I agree with Da Celt here. Why don't you, Tigerman, just do a test like I did and POST THE RESTULT. It took me 15 minutes to test 2 armours. And about people PMing you: "you are right". Well more then half of the USA voted Bush.

ps. chill out about guys (its just a game )