This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Armour Values?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
Only values from "Cloth and Leather" items multiply, so that means Neck, weapon, trinket, rings -- Don't. Also, if an item has a green armor value, only its non-green armor multiplies. In addition to the tooltip, you have to account for Survival of the Fittest and Thick Hide, if you have those talents.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
I think the cape counts... Thats a cloth item right? The 66% and 10% stack, so 1000 armor will become 1000*.33*.10 = 146.66667 armor? Some of his armor is from Agility too. So:
Caster form Armor: Minus Agility*2, Minus Weapon/Trinket/Neck/Ring/Contribution and any excess green armor. Then multiply that by 4.70*1.3333333333333*1.1 = total multiplier of 6.8933333333333 right?
They stack multiplicatively, so I think you should go 1 * 1.370 * 1.33333 * 1.100
HAPPY 4TH OF JULY!
Post by
Wildhorn
Heckler u fail at maths :P
It is 3.70 (Dire Bear Form) * 1.33 (SotF) * 1.1 (Thick Armor) * 1.02 (Meta Gem)
Gorefriend. You have to consider this.
Your friend armor 8123 have 2266 from agility, 850 from trinket, 336 from neck. Also consider that the gem multiply all armor from all items.
So it is 8123 - 2266 - 850 - 336 = 4671 * 3.7 * 1.33 * 1.1 = 25284 + 850 + 336 = 26470 * 1.02 = 27000 + 2266 = 29266
Without the gem it give 28736 which is quite close of your friend... are you sure your friend meta gem is active?
Numbers might differ because well... it is computer and even if we dont see them there is hidden digits that when multiplied adds up and at the end of a long formula might make the armor differ by ~200 easy. (just use 1.3333333 instead of 1.33 and you will see a diff of ~100 armor)
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
In hopes to redeem myself... (I don't even remember posting that nonsense last night):
First, @Wildhorn: I do fail at maths, but +370% should be a multiplier of 4.70 for Dire Bear Form.
Instead of starting with the Caster-Form armor value, we should start from scratch because I think both the meta and Thick Hide work in caster form, so the number on the character screen isn't a good starting point.
Starting from scratch:
480 Head
434 Shoulder
154 Cloak
591 Chest
253 Wrist
365 Hands
333 Waist
511 Legs
406 Feet
----------------
3527 Armor from Cloth / Leather items (This is less than what you calculated)
850 Trinket
714 Weapon
336 Neck
---------
1900 Armor from non-cloth/leather items
So (Dire Bear) * (Thick Hide) * (SotF -- using fractions to avoid 1.333)
(3527) * (4.70) * (1.1) * (4/3) = 24313
Now the Meta Gem should multiply everything:
Item Armor = (24313 + 1900) * (1.02) = 26737
Now add in 2266 from Agility:
29003.04
(Error of 0.345%)
Not exact, but it looks pretty close... I'm still not satisfied so I'll work on a better method in game and see if I can get closer.
Since this seems a bit high, if we assume the meta gem only works on the Cloth/Leather items also (I don't think this is right, but for sake of argument) = 28965.04
============
OK, Rereading your original post, you're specifically want to calculate Bear Form armor in Caster Form. So here's my attempt:
8123 Caster Armor
First, we'll remove the Agility Contribution
8123 - 2266 = 5857
Now this is all ITEM armor: we need to remove the meta:
5857 / 1.02 = 5742
Now we can peel off the items that wouldn't get multiplied by Thick Hide
5742 - 850 - 336 - 714 = 3842
This should be the Item Armor WITH Thick Hide, so we'll take that out to check:
3842 / 1.1 = 3493 (Very close to the total found above)
Now we can apply Thick Hide, SotF, and Dire Bear Form:
3493 * (4.7) * (4/3) * (1.1) = 24078
Now we can add the Staff / Trinket / Neck
24078 + 850 + 336 + 714 = 25978
Now we can apply the meta:
25978 * 1.02 = 26498
Now we can add Agility:
26498 + 2266 =
28764
(-0.481% Error)
===============
Given how complex that process was, simply starting from scratch is probably better.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.