I know armor decay has been discussed to DEATH but I came across the following article on wiki just now:
http://www.pe-wiki.info/Chart.aspx?chart=ArmorDecay

This has just been put up on wiki recently but it doesn't match the data I’ve collected... here's how.

I'm a bit of a nut when it comes to hunting falx(more on that in an upcoming thread ) and I hunt them a lot. The last couple days I've tried to write down more details about my hunts than normal. I hunt until my amp dies and that's always exactly 26 mobs. I hunt with:

Full Angel + 5b and an Imp fap

Because I don't have many hp, I MUST fap every time I get hit. I don't hardly ever die... maybe once per hunt from a crit.

I have written down decay for these on several of the past few hunts and I'll give you these now. This was done over the last couple days(march 12 and 13):

Hunt 1:
fap decay: 5.78 (2pec per click)
total armor decay: 24.87 ped (angel+5b)

Hunt 2:
fap: 6.80
armor:29.12

hunt 3:
fap: 5.68
armor 24.37

so you can get the total hits on my armor by getting a calculator and doing (total fap decay)/.02

hunt1: 289 hits
hunt2: 340
hunt3: 284

now you can find the total decay on armor per hit by going (total armor decay)/(num hits)

hunt1: .0860
hunt2: .0856
hunt3: .0858

so over a large amount of hits, my armor decay on falx is about 8.6 pec per hit... this data seems VERY consistent over time and I'm 100% sure of the accuracy.

However, the description on Wiki would tell me that this is totally wrong(http://www.pe-wiki.info/Chart.aspx?chart=ArmorDecay) Falx do 50% impact and 50% stab and a LOT of it so it will max out the protection every time.

It says decay is the following for both the armor and plates each separately:
(2.90*(Absorbed damage^2) + 29.55*Absorbed damage)/1000

Angel:
(2.9 * (60^2) + 29.55*60)/1000 = 12.213 pec per hit

5b:
(2.9 * (20^2) + 29.55*20)/1000 = 1.751 pec per hit

Total = 13.964 pec per hit !!!

Clearly a discrepancy exists and not just a small one…It’s clear that there is a problem with this page and it may need to be updated. It’s shame too because the writer of the page did a fantastic job presenting the info. Great charts and explanation… just the number are off.

After reading it i still dont know if the formula he has is quite right ... but its close enough for now. I figured also that the formula for the decay would be quadratic in nature after testing between my ghost and goblin armor sets although im not sure that he has the co-efficients quite right.

As for the discrepancies between your numbers and the numbers offered on the wiki site the only thing i can think of that would explain this is that as your armor has deayed and offered less proctection it has in turn decayed less per hit as the battles proceeded. Therefore you overall decay would be lower than that calculated even tho the dammage is still maxing the protection offered. This can be seen as the decay in battle 2 was lower than that of battles 1 and 3 although the data offered in these 2 battles somewhat disagree with this theory, their close proximity in number of hits taken and pec per hit do agree with the theory.


The only way to test this would be to take only 1 hit then either draw the mob to another player or kill it with a turret then measure the decay from fully repaired and see if it is closer to 14 pec.

So yeah give that a try adn tell us the result im rather interested to hear it now

angel has a full tt of 330, so assuming it is fully repaired at the end of the hunt there is 9% decay or so, which means that the data should be 4.5% off. Of course if the armor was not fully repaired when you started your results would be different.

Witte has been here once or twice, so maybe he can comment. Also added a small note on the discussion tab of the pe-wiki page.

Indeed getting a single hit would be the best, although 2 or 3 would probably not cause a problem at all.
Make sure there is no critical and that the dam is > 1

(btw if the decay is calculated separately for the various categories that could also be a reason.
eg if the formula is something like 2.9 * (impact dam) ^2 * (stab dam) ^2 that would also make a severe difference.
No idea if mixed damage types has been investigated.

Dutchie.

(btw: travis +k for sharing your findings)

Nice testing, good to see people put the theories to the test . And tnx dutchie for noting it on wiki.

If all the data is correct, there is indeed somthing wrong with the formula. However (having tested allot of armors ) I doubt the formula is wrong (maybe just some % though). I rather think the damage type data about falx on wiki is wrong. They either do a different type of damage, or the damage distribution is different. An example, SEG turned out to do 75%burn, 10%cut, and 15% electric. Maybe there is a similar type of distrubtion for falx. That could make an angel armor protect 60 damage on high damage hits, but just 40 on low damage hits for example.

To find this out, an important thing to know is the maximal damage and the minimal damage the mob did. I might do a little test on falx later too. In the meanwhile, it would be nice if angel is tested on some other mobs too, and see if the decay is also different from the theory. It would be nasty if the theory is realy wrong, and people base their purchases on it :shock:


Edit: I fiddled abit with the numbers on wiki, and when a falx does 90% impact, and 10% stab, it would fit these decay figures. Highest damage would be ~138, lowest ~48. avarage ~93

Greetings, Witte

@Witte

First off, THANK YOU for speaking up on this! Insightful comments.

My Max dmg is 130 and my min seems to be 42. Wiki says the max dmg on a falx young is 200 but it must be more like 210 to hit for 130 through 60 prot of angel and 20 prot of 5b. However, your comment on the dmg distribution of a falx is a great one and is most likely the solution here. I’ve been through about 6 pages of algebra and still cannot get stuff to exactly match the observed data… My biggest issue at this point (from page 3 ) is

Impact protection = (max armored dmg) – 2* (min armored dmg)

If impact is maxed at all times. This doesn’t work out because

42 <> 130 – 42 * 2
it’s 46 and not 42. I’m convinced that there may be a 3rd component in falx dmg…5% cut? I’ll have to do more on that later but that makes the math REALLY complicated.

Honestly, I don't trust half of what I read on Wiki. I certainly do not trust the armor decay formula when there is no REAL explanation of how that theory was derived or where the numbers really came from.

I could sit and manipulate numbers all day to make a formula that fits the armor I tested. Any player theory about armor decay is going to be flawed at least to some extent unless that person has a complete set of EVERY single type of armor in the game. Soooooooo where I am going with this is, wear what you want and what you can afford.

Kaiser there is a discussion thread on this an another forum that I don't like and hence won't mention.
I'm not fully sure about how the formula was constructed, let alone if the individual values are correct.
Then again I am pretty sure, also from my own experience, that decay is not linear with dam absorbed. Quadratic seems right to me. The minimum decay theory is something that can be tested pretty easily. Just wear your ghost or shadow, take one hit from a low end mob and see how much decay you have (using the fruit method).

At this stage there is still just too many unknowns to do anything except theorise and test and even then at this rate it will take a hell of a long time ... but hey what can we do. As for the existing formula, even if it isnt right its a very good step in the right direction and the aucthors deserve a pat of the back and some recognition for their efforts.

One thing I will say though is I am one of the few people that with extremely few exceptions ignores economy. That being said look at my Global/HoF record. I find it very hard to swallow that, they are not connected. It would make sense to me that if you spend/risk more you will win/earn more.

I think most people would agree that the amount of big loots I get has gone beyond luck or coincidence.

A bit late, but,
I corrected the way plates work in the calculations, and I changed the damage distribution of Falx on wiki to 10% stab and 90% impact. The maximum damage on angel+5b is now 130, and the avarage decay at full TT is 9 pec. When you take in account that the protection (and thus the decay) gets lower when the TT value decreases, the 8.6pec decay you experienced seems to be very close to the calculations.

See:http://www.pe-wiki.info/Chart.aspx?chart=MobLevel