Armorsmith Archive
Thread: Armour Decay
Page 1 of 1
FlereImsaho
Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:12 am
#1
Hi all,
heard on a forum post that armour dacays at a tenth of the damage let through rather than damage 'resisted' - seems counter intuitive so I want confirmation from the guys in the know. Any help is much appreciated.
heard on a forum post that armour dacays at a tenth of the damage let through rather than damage 'resisted' - seems counter intuitive so I want confirmation from the guys in the know. Any help is much appreciated.
leillani
Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:36 am
#2
the lower the resist the lower the decay, so 90% Resist Armour will be eaten Alive tho always better then you being eaten alive which is what will happen with low resist armour.
so to answer your real question if your going to put an AA in armour... for instance a bracer use low resist armour if you want it to last longer. or use high resist armour with an ADK.
Assassins Hutt @ -5347 3431 Theed
Leillani - Finesse - Muhamed Ali
Jedi Padawan - Master Rifleman & Swordsman - Master Doctor & Merchant
Managed By {MAG} Enterprise ltd - Please make all delivery's to {MAG} Offers
Grendelwyf
Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:58 am
#3
leillani wrote:
the lower the resist the lower the decay, so 90% Resist Armour will be eaten Alive tho always better then you being eaten alive which is what will happen with low resist armour.
so to answer your real question if your going to put an AA in armour... for instance a bracer use low resist armour if you want it to last longer. or use high resist armour with an ADK.
incorrect. it works the way the first post describes it. 90% armor only lets in 10% of the damage, and that is what determines the amount of decay. therefore, high resist armor will last longer than lower resist armor of the same condition.
FlereImsaho
Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:27 am
#4
Contention eh?
I haven't studied decay over poor v's high resist armour but seems to me the better the armour the faster it decays. Don't make a habit of using poor quality armour so my impression is purely subjective. As an aside a better weapon will decay faster as it decays on damage induced - I have presumed to some extent the same principle is true for armour.
Anyone got a definitive answer?
I haven't studied decay over poor v's high resist armour but seems to me the better the armour the faster it decays. Don't make a habit of using poor quality armour so my impression is purely subjective. As an aside a better weapon will decay faster as it decays on damage induced - I have presumed to some extent the same principle is true for armour.
Anyone got a definitive answer?
Grendelwyf
Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:29 am
#5
from the armorsmith FAQ stickied at the top:
13. What is the best place to put my Armor Attachments? What are "Prenerf" and "Postnerf" Ubese shirts and bandolier? What about Mabari belts?
Before gettingnerfed, Ubese shirt and bandoliers were considered armor, but they had no condition, so they were an ideal place to put AAs (armor attachments). Now theyall take CAs (clothing attachments), not AAs, but prenerf ubese shirts and bandoliers continue to be conditionless, while post nerf, they have 1000 condition, like other clothing. Mabari belts still accept AAs and were not nerfed, so they last forever, but if you wear one you cannot equip apersonal shield generator (PSG). [note that padded belts also take AA]
If a mabari belt isnt an option, then there are two options. Option #1 is to pick a piece of armor that is rarely hit (bracers and biceps are the best choice), and use that for your attachments. Ideally it will be a piece of armor with 4 sockets, high condition, and HIGH RESISTS. This is because the amount of damage armor takes when hit is related to the amount of damage that gets through, NOT the amount that is blocked. However armor that is vulnerable will take no damage, so bone armor could be an option (except condition is low and energy damage will be a problem). Best bet is to get composite layered for an unusual damage type (heat or cold possibly), slice alot of them to get a 90% piece with 4 sockets, and use that, or use a high condition, high base looted rancor or acklay padded segment (even better). When your armor reaches zero condition, the armor will continue to provide the attachment bonus,however it will create an "armor hole" allowing damage to get through at that location.
Option #2 is to choose a valuable armor piece (a helmet is a popular choice), and use the new Anti Decay Kit veteran reward on it, making it permanent. In this case a piece of armor with 90% resists is very desirable (and possibly stun as well, don't use stun for option 1).
FlereImsaho
Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:34 am
#6
Nice One!
Still seems counter intuitive but this example is 1 of many IG IMO
Many Thanks.
Still seems counter intuitive but this example is 1 of many IG IMO
Many Thanks.
FlereImsaho
Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:41 am
#7
Checked the AS FAQ n' quote above is from a player with no reference to testing. Not knocking anyone but why would armour decay in direct relation to shots missing rather than damage 'resisted'? - Looks like I'll have to 'go all scientific' to satisfy my own hard to placate mentality.
Thanks all.
Thanks all.
jason67
Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:20 am
#8
From personal experience the original post is correct, 90% armor will decay at a much slower rate than 80% armor. And as for being counter intuitive I dissagree.
If you have armor that can resist damage from an Axe(steel) then it would be likely to last much longer than one that could hardly withstand a knife(leather) woudln't ya say.
Mcgreag
Tue Mar 08, 2005 4:46 am
#9
And if you really want to test it try putting on an ubese suit and go fight things that do energy damage, it will be gone in no time.
FlereImsaho
Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:26 pm
#10
I would expect armour to be damaged by what hits it not what misses ie gets through. - IG it's what gets through so I stand corrected from my initial presumption.
Page 1 of 1