Is it more economic to hunt creatures that only do 1 type of damage than 2 or 3 types?

It's basically more economical to hunt mobs with lower damage

And also, the ones you can kill faster than they can kill you, or even better, before they start killing you.

The cheapest way to hunt in armor is impact only mobs. Mobs that do a single type of dmg are indeed cheaper to hunt. Impact seems to be the cheapest in terms of armor decay.

I think mobs that do only one type of damage are cheaper to hunt because their damage overall is lower and the quantity of armor decay points that are accumulated are lower. I'm not really sure about Kaiser's opinion though as I have never tried to find out if this is true or not.

I think that armour decays a minimum per group which is not dependant on how much damage you recieve. I think creatures that do three types of damage do a minimum base decay higher than those that do 2 or 1 type. However as you get higher damages of one type its becomes more costly. Eg, an absorded 56 point Penetration hit, would decay a lot more than say, a 56point hit combining of 50% Burn, 50% cut.

KittyAmy, not too sure about that. There is another thread on this. Also check out the postings of Witte.
Armor protects best if the dam spread is equal to the dam spread of the armor.

dutchie Wrote:KittyAmy, not too sure about that. There is another thread on this. Also check out the postings of Witte.
Armor protects best if the dam spread is equal to the dam spread of the armor.

I dont think we are debating "best" the question is a matter of cheapest and after considerable digging and a test between a few different types of low end armor ive come to believe that the damage type does not make a difference as to the decay cost of the armor. For instance if the armor absorbs 15 impact and 5 cut it will cost the same as 20 impact which will cost the same as 20 cut. There appears to be no weighting as to the decay cost of absorbing different dammage types.

dutchie Wrote:Armor protects best if the dam spread is equal to the dam spread of the armor.

Does it? Can you explain a bit more please? You mean a Creature that does 33%/33%/33% Cut/Imp/Stab will be protected best by an armour that has protection CUT=STAB=IMP? Does armour taking 3 kinds of damage at once decay more than armour taking one kind of damage of the same amount?

What decays more

10 IMPACT + 10 STAB + 10 CUT or 30 IMPACT ??

KittyAmy Wrote:What decays more

10 IMPACT + 10 STAB + 10 CUT or 30 IMPACT ??

I answered that one they should both decay the same

KittyAmy Wrote:

dutchie Wrote:Armor protects best if the dam spread is equal to the dam spread of the armor.

Does it? Can you explain a bit more please? You mean a Creature that does 33%/33%/33% Cut/Imp/Stab will be protected best by an armour that has protection CUT=STAB=IMP? Does armour taking 3 kinds of damage at once decay more than armour taking one kind of damage of the same amount?

Im not sure exactly how this was tested or by who but the plain logic behind it seems to be that if dammage is spread across more different types then it will be less likely that the dammage dealt will max out any given dammage type. Eg 30 impact dammage is hard to block on 1 piece of armor yet it would be easier to find armor that block 10 of 3 different types of dammage.

Travis the econ king has done a lot of research on this and dmg type does indeed affect decay cost. Impact is by FAR the cheapest. We have evidence of this from daspletor hunts (Impact only). I don't notice a "base" decay cost but on the flip side I have never looked for one. Now I do think that you pay the same whether you need the full protect or not. What I mean by this is lets say you have Kaiser armor with 20 impact protect but you are fighting a Kaisersaurus Young that only max's at say 15 dmg impact only. I believe you still pay for the entire 20 protect even though you did not use it.

Maybe what I am saying is what you mean by base decay cost.

hmmmm cant say i agree with this one just yet but ill have a look back at the tests and see if i can find why we have conflicting reults. Could be that the info on PEwiki is wrong but either way this definitely nees to be looked at again

This is the current thinking on armor decay:

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

Good lord how the hell did they come up with that? I give up on armor econ now. I'll just wear whatever I feel like instead of having to work that out.

Ive seen that graph before and it was actually part of what i based my earlier assumption on along with doing a few little tests of my own. From what i understand once the dammage absorbe has passed the level of the minumum decay all dammage TYPES will cause the armor to decay equally and as far as the universal decay graph is concerned there is no mention of a different decay curve for different dammage types nor is there a different graph for each type of dammage which lends me to believe that my earlier statement where blocking 30 cut or 30 impact dammage would cost the same ammount is correct.

In theory if the armor has 30 cut and 30 impact protection it will decay the same each time regardless of if the armor takes 30 impact or 30 cut dammage.

If you have some tests post them up here and we can take a look.

Kaiser Wrote:Good lord how the hell did they come up with that? I give up on armor econ now. I'll just wear whatever I feel like instead of having to work that out.

The rules seems to be:
- over-protection costs
- decay is roughly quadratic with the dam absorbed
- there is a minimu treshold

Best wear armor that will give you some damage. If you only get dam 1 you are overprotected.