Just so everyone knows, after a couple hours of testing last night with Travis we have made a preliminary determination that the wiki info on Chomper damage is incorrect. Wiki states 50/50 impact/cold, this is incorrect. The actual numbers are much closer to 75/25 impact/cold.

Just thought you might want to know. BTW Chomper guardian is not easy.

Nah I used to sweat chompers when I was depressed. It is funny to watch rag doll animation of your dead body every few minutes

My max hit on unplated viking after you logged off was slightly over 90 on a young. This means it's 30%.

However, this means that viking+5b is still the best armor(that I have) for these.
Vik+5b
Cold: 126 * .3 = 37.8 hp
Impact: (1.5 + 12) = 13.5
= 51.3

Angel+5d = 30 + 12 = 42 hp

This is debateable because I'm wasting a LOT of prot for smaller hits

I've updated Wiki just now

Good work. Any decay figures on this one? When i choose avarage damage on wiki, it shows angel and viking protects the same on a young, for larger maturities the viking wins. Avarage decay should be somewhere between 4~5 pec each hit on both angel and viking.

Thanks Trav, the 25% was a good close estimate then. I was wondering how our numbers were. Really for the amount of them we killed last night and how many hits I was taking 12PED on armor and plates inclusive for decay was great.

I assume when you say best choice you mean in terms of protection vs. economy. The reason I say this is that unless I am reading the numbers wrong the Angel/5b provides a slightly higher protection.

No solid numbers on the decay since I have been slammed at work but that should happen soon.

Vik+5b
Cold: 126 * .3 = 37.8 hp
Impact: (1.5 + 12) = 13.5
= 51.3

Angel+5d = 30 + 12 = 42 hp

so, 5b and 5d provide equal prot when hit for large amounts... one is better than the other when hit for small amounts depending on the armor you're sporting. vik+5b does provide ~10 more prot when hit for 126(max for young) and even more for bigger hits. Not sure if this addresses your last post...