Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'big numbers'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Official Buildings
    • GM Hall
    • City Hall
    • Game News
    • Public Test Board
  • Back Streets
    • Town Square
    • Community Assistance
    • Village Recruitment Center
    • Suggestions & Ideas
    • The Creative Commons
    • Wood Scraps
  • Northern Freedom Isles
    • Harmony
    • Melody
    • Cadence
    • Northern Freedom Isles Market
  • Southern Freedom Isles
    • Celebration
    • Deliverance
    • Exodus
    • Independence
    • Pristine
    • Release
    • Xanadu
    • Southern Freedom Isles Market
  • Maintenance Buildings
    • Technical Issues
    • Server Bugs
    • Client Bugs
    • Model and Sound Bugs
    • Other Bugs and Issues
    • Wurmpedia / Wiki Maintenance
  • Wurm Unlimited
    • Unlimited Discussion
    • Unlimited Modding
    • Server Listings & Advertisement
    • Technical Issues

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Chaos


Independence


Deliverance


Exodus


Celebration


Xanadu


Release


Pristine


Epic


Cadence


Defiance


Harmony


Melody


Acc1


Acc2


Acc3

Found 1 result

  1. Came across this topic recently: http://forum.wurmonl...rotection-info/ There was some interesting discussion going on in there about the effectiveness of different armor types. As the test server gives exact number which is useful from a statistical view I decided to figure out a formula to determine the effectiveness of armor. A line on the combat tab on the test server looks something like this: [12:14:57] Damage=2043.4200261523176*0.30655867=626.4281226352826 crit=false where the bold part is the armor "multiplier". The damage done on any hit is the damage it would be without armor * the armor multiplier. I started of by testing the multipliers at varying QL for drake armor: QL(x)...Multiplier(y) 01......0.9175 25......0.665625 50......0.4625 75......0.340625 90......0.3065 Putting those numbers into formulize and giving it a few minutes spat out this equation: y = 0.9291 + 4.813e-5*x^2 + 5.214e-9*x^4 - 0.01165*x - 2.687e-7*x^3 - 2.066e-13*x^6 I then tested it with scale armor: QL(x)...Multiplier(y) 01......0.915 25......0.64374995 50......0.425 75......0.2938025 90......0.257 Putting those into formulize gave this equation: y = 0.9271 + 2.101e-5*x^2 + 5.796e-7*x^3 + 4.38e-11*x^5 - 0.01217*x - 2.32e-13*x^6 - 4.623e-9*x^4 Both these equations look incredibly over complicated for what they do, and probably are ridiculous compared to what Rolf uses in the server code, but they are very accurate given the data supplied (Less than 0.0000000000000002 maximum error). Having different equations for every armor type would be redundant, so I assumed that they used the same equation and had a separate modifier applied either to the QL before putting it through the equation or to the multiplier given by the equation. A quick division of the two equations can help out here: y = (0.9271 + 2.101e-5*x^2 + 5.796e-7*x^3 + 4.38e-11*x^5 - 0.01217*x - 2.32e-13*x^6 - 4.623e-9*x^4)/(0.9291 + 4.813e-5*x^2 + 5.214e-9*x^4 - 0.01165*x - 2.687e-7*x^3 - 2.066e-13*x^6) Plotting that on a graph gives this: Ignore the 90+ area, I don't have data for that so it does crazy things. From this graph you can see that the damage reduction does differ between the two sets at different qualities, but not by much. A 1ql drake set is very similar to a 1ql scale set, a 90ql drake set it roughly 85% as good as a 90ql scale set. The multipliers for each armor type at QL 1 are as follows: cloth: 0.9325 leather: 0.93 studded: 0.9275 chain: 0.925 plate: 0.9175 drake: 0.9175 scale: 0.915 I might look into glance rates too, but that is probably dependent on many more variables such as weapon QL, weapon skill, fighting skill etc... Edit: fixed graph, wasn't straight line, ignore what I said previously about that...