Defensive layer ordering
Could someone add faith shields into the defensive layer ordering - I don't know exactly where they fit in --Chat 23:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Added. I believe this is correct, that magic shields absorb damage before faith shields. --Ilde 23:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, armour layers just add their AC up for a given area - it's a straight 'AC1 + AC2 + AC3'...
- The frequently-asked question relating to this is 'So are two lighter layers better than one heavier layer'? The answer is 'Well, it depends...'. If we assume the heavier layer is the sum of the weights of the lighter layers, all layers have the same vurdere, and all layers are enchanted to the same percentage of that item's maximum, then you should go with two lighter layers if:
Base AC > 1.875 * weight(light armour) * enchantment-percent/(100 + enchantment-percent)
- Note that for unenchanted armour, the answer is always 'Yes'.
- Of course, in reality your lighter armour layers will almost certainly have an inferior vurdere (base AC) to the heavier armour, so the above doesn't really apply. The only way to do the comparison then is to work through the whole equation and see what comes out.
- --Chat 17:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Max thaum per weight
In the enchantment section, it seems to me like the formula implied is:
max thaum = floor( 2.25 * weight + 5 )
But this fails the prediction of an object that weighs 4 4/9 lb (padded monk's robe) that radiate 6 thaums per second, the enchant level seen is level 4 so between 31% and 40 % while the formula predicts 14 max thaums which would give 43% of max.
If we use the following formula instead:
max thaum = floor( 2.3 * weight + 5 )
Then it seems to correctly predict all the combinations of weight/enchant level/thaums per second in my database.
Frazyl 06:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC) p.s. Yay for thaumometers that work for everyone!
- Too tired to try to redo the Enchantment and next section with the new formula.
- Frazyl 06:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Floor(2.25 * 4 4/9) + 5 = 15. The existing formula works fine :).
- --Chat 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, after careful review of the table it seems to have 2 shortcomings:
- The thaum capacity is not floored as per the formula on the enchantment page that comes from the mudlib.
- The enchantment levels do not give a precise thaum count, even trying all possible thaum values they don't work, perhaps the fractional thaum capacities were used.
Therefore I've made modifications to the table showing the level number and the thaum number so that (hopefully) it will be more reproducible.
There's a slight uncertainty because the AC formula doesn't mention if the resulting AC is floored or rounded. Seems like things on the mud are more often floored so I'll go with that.
Now I hope this looks right.
Frazyl 05:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Calculating base AC
Has anyone figured out how to figure out the real base AC of an armour piece?
I think if there was a source of damage that remains constant around 200hp that armour absorbs that might do it but I don't think I know of such a damage source... Maybe something like sifting through the ashes at Esme's cottage or holding the barbed quill but I don't think either of those go through armour...
Furthermore, anyone know what the max AC (excellent) can be? It gets hard to compare if an armour can be 34... 5000?
Lastly, if we can't find an armour's real AC then what would be the best numerical value to represent a vurdere: the min, the max, the middle value? All those except minimum pose a problem for excellent if we don't know the max.
Frazyl 17:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think figuring out the 'actual' AC is possible, but would be very tedious.
- Get two PKs (or perhaps the CTF arena? I'm not sure whether that gives you non-RP hitpoint scores though). Designate one the 'hitter' and one the 'victim'.
- The victim removes all armour from a region that the piece of armour you want to test is able to protect.
- The hitter hits them a lot with a weapon, focusing only on that region. Gather stats on the damage distribution of hits that actually connect.
- Now the victim puts the armour, and the above step is repeated (make sure the weapon the hitter is using, their tactics, etc. don't change).
- Compare the two damage distributions to get the AC.
- This process would be easier with a constant damage source, however:
- I don't know of any; all damage mechanisms in game seem to have at least some randomness associated with them.
- Most of the non-combat damage mechanisms (granny's fire, DJB shrines, etc) seem to ignore armour.
- The only thing that might qualify is falling damage - theoretically that's reduced by your armour (I'm not sure whether that's just foot armour or all armour), and is relatively constant based on the height you fall. Research is obviously needed! :)
- The max AC depends on the item's weight/enchantment; an 'excellent' pair of gauntlets will have less AC than an 'excellent' breastplate.
- --Chat 18:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well not being pk I'll leave that for others to explore. CTF only has a limited amount of armour and it would be difficult to confirm that they are exactly the same.
- Falling damage seems like a good idea, forgot about that for a bit. Some place where you can choose to jump or otherwise fall down would be excellent since it removes having to fail skills checks but there might be damage reduction skill checks anyway...
- Keeping a lookout for places that give something around 250hp to 500hp damage would be good. Unless it makes you tm we should be able to test it a very large number of times to average it out.
- I know that the AC is improved with enchantment, but provided you don't change the enchant level during testing it should not be an issue to calculate the base AC which is what I'm after. You can then plug the base AC in a table to calculate the max AC based on the weight, etc.
Chances to hit only one side?
It strikes me as odd that in the "Chance for armour to protect" table some sides have a bigger bonus than other side or the other side is 0%!
This is more obvious when sorting the table which I've just made possible.
- In focus None-giant, the right foot is at 0% vs the left foot is at 0.5%, while the right leg is at 0.7% vs the left leg at 2.3%, the right hand at 1.1% vs the left hand at 2.6%, the right arm 4.1% vs the left arm 9.4%.
- In focus None-dwarf, the right foot is at 27.5% while the left foot is at 2.5%.
Are we to believe everyone who's fighting someone smaller attacks more from the left of the smaller one while those smaller attacks mostly the right foot of the bigger one?
- Furthermore, when focusing on the upper body there's a discrepancy between right hand 0% vs left hand 6.7% and right arm 0% vs left arm 20%. It would seem to me that it would seem more plausible that half of it be allocated to the right sides.
- For the lower body, it seems rather suspicious that the right arm and right hand are included, especially without their left counterparts.
Maybe this could be checked at some point in some way. Frazyl 04:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- See my comments in the research page... :)
- Basically, these ratios come from the mudlib, which has a suspiciously buggy algorithm; this algorithm (presumably accidentally) causes per-side differences between two differently-heighted opponents.
- -Chat 13:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- After a cursory look at std/races/base.c, it seems to me that left and right is only for show and that the "real" area hit is for example "arms" anyway. Thus it probably doesn't matter much if there's a more left than right since that's presumably only for messages. Supporting this idea is that no armours I know only covers one arm or one leg or one feet alone.
- Not sure whether or not consolidating them would be better or worse.
- --Frazyl 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
What happens if you lose both arms?
What I mean is that I know that you cannot hold weapons but that I do not know if spells that require you to sprinkle items such as mineral powder work (assuming that you do not need to hold a staff or wand in aforesaid spell). If spells like this DO work, could someone fix it so it is more realistic please.
--126.96.36.199 16:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Guest user of the wiki