Armorsmith Archive
Thread: Armor Decay: Experiment inside. Nutshell: Decay = 10% of TOTAL damage
Message Edited by Rikilii on 10-20-2005 10:53 AM
Message Edited by Rikilii on 10-20-2005 03:12 PM
Helm: 65249--64366--883
Chest: 62861--62542--319
Legs: 64529--63780--749
R. Br: 65545--65425--120
R. Bic: 65589--65445--144
L. Br: 65809--65809--0***
L. Bic: 65697--65557--140
Total Damage: 23355 (10.1%)
Absorbed by Armor: 11321 (20.8%)
Taken by Me: 12034 (19.6%)
UPDATE:
I did a similar experiment, this time using padded armor on a different character. This situation was a little different, the Mobs I fought got in close for some melee this time, and might have hit me with an armor break or two, because some of my absorption %s deviated from the normal.
This time, I wore only chest, helm and legs (no arms). The armor pieces all had a rating of 3142, and usually absorbed about 30% of the incoming damage.
Helm: 22687-22230 = 457
Chest: 22697-22376 =321
Legs: 22711-21720= 991
total condition lost = 1769
Total Damage Taken: 17954 (9.9%)
Absorbed by Armor:5074 (34.9%)
Taken by Me:12880 (13.7%)
This seems to confirm that decay is in fact calculated as 10% of total damage taken. If this is true, it means that we're basically experiencing a 5-fold increase in decay rate compared to pre-CU, and that's not even accounting for any differences in the way fights break down. It is a 5-fold increase, because before CU, decay was calculated as 10% of the damage that went THROUGH the armor. Most people had around 80% protection, meaning 20% went through, and 2% of the total damage was taken by the armor.
Message Edited by Rikilii on 10-20-2005 10:56 AM
Message Edited by Rikilii on 10-20-2005 10:56 AM
Well, I'm too lazy to go search out every post that I've read pertaining to this issue since the CU, but I'll summerize what I remember.
First off, Okram pointed out back in the day the armor decay is related to how much damage is NOT abosorbed by the armor. That is the same as it was pre-cu. It makes the decay seem much faster now as the pre-cu composite blocked 90% of the damage meaning only a minute amount made it through to cause damage. Armor now, only blocks roughly 50% of the damage and the other 50% is causing delay. I don't believe that it's aone to one ratio (one unit of unabsorbed damage = one unit of decay) but you can probably test to find out what the ratio really is.
So that is where decay comes from. There are now three zones involved with the armor (which zone gets hit is totally random and not linked to a specific attack (like headshot pre-cu hit the head, but now could hit the legs). The Legs, the chest, and the head. The chest area is again split up. Half the damage hits the chestplate and half hits the arms. The half that hits the arms is then split among the four arm pieces. There was tests done probably four months ago that showed the %'s matched up for that. Those that have a bracer that isn't getting hit as much, will probably be averaged out by looking at more people's set. For me, it's pretty even with my right bracer not taking as much damage. /shrug.
The post for all this is out there somewhere and if a really get inspired I'll try to find them, but they are buried way back and doesn't sound fun to look for them.
Updated my results with more data from a lower armor factor, non-faction armor set.
The result is posted above.
Rikilii wrote:
Updated my results with more data from a lower armor factor, non-faction armor set.
The result is posted above.
What, no comments from the statistics-hungry AS community?
No, that is very interesting. Just not alot of AS's on right now!
It does seem that Okram's theory of amount of damage that passes through is the determinant is changed. If this is the case, though that it's just 10% of total damage is decay, then the decay rate should be easy to fix. Just change it to 5%. You could also try to even the hits out a little more, but I think alot of people like haveing a "safer" spot to put AA's. (I know where I'm putting mine for the time being! ).
Good work.
) I'll post the results ASAP, but it looks from comparing these two tests that 10% of total damage is the way it's done.