Armor

Sorry if this has been asked elsewhere before, but how does the armor rating are factored in the fight?
Will 41 Armor rating beats 40 armor rating a lot?

I haven't done any testing but from what I understand 1 armor makes a pretty big difference, especially later on at high levels.

The armor rating is roughly the percentage of damage reduction. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
Note that this only counts for the area the armor actually covers, that's why people are discussing wether flex armor or full body armor is better, and why a motorcycle helmet is actually worth the higher cost for a lower armor rating

What are you guys using now? Flex armor or full body armor? I am currently using flex and combat helmet. Any advices?

Full body. Read a thread from Andyman saying it's better. Who am I to disagree with Andyman?

mind you quoting this thread ?

https://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=61&t=16137526&b=0&a=0&start=0&to=19928437



Question: Is it better to wear Flexible Armor or Full Body Armor?
Andyman: In terms of average damage taken, Flexible Body Armor is remarkably similar to Full Body Armor. Essentially, the higher armor rating of the Flexible Armor is washed-out by the Full Body Armor's arm coverage. (Exposed arms = no damage reduction!) That said, if you have +46.10 Flex armor and you have all the high-yielding sources of passive income, you should wear the +46.10 Flex armor. If not, you should be wearing +35.00 Full Body Armor and liquidate any Flex armor and subsequently invest the cash. Full Body Armor is available for purchase at Big Als Gunshop in the East Side of the City. You can purchase 100 armors daily. If Full Body Armor is out of stock, check back in a few hours, it typically restocks often.

thanks ;)

I think i'll stick with my 46.00+ flexible. As suspected, there can be no experiment to actually test the 2 armors directly (would depend on tons of factors, as well as the strength/defense ratio). Additionally in settings of a +20% armor bonus (from a 10* clothing), i personally favor the flexible over the full body armor.

Just a few notes:

1. Your +46.00 Flex will serve you well.

2. Your +46.00 Flex has a high opportunity cost, you're essentially wearing 3% of your networth on your chest and it has no yield as an investment.

3. You are extremely susceptible to hollow point ammo should you ever put a Hazmat Suit on. (Both head AND arms will be completely exposed)

4. The Strength:Defense ratio has nothing to do with armor; weapon damage rating and armor rating is a separate calculation.

5. Proxima has tested armor rather throughly. I'd be interested in seeing your test data as a clothing store employee should you ever decide to test it for yourself. Load image: smiley

In addition to that: if you wear flex armor, you won't benefit from the clothing store bonus at all if they hit you in unprotected areas, while you will with fba :)

Let's say if someone could hit you for 1000 without u wearing armor.

With a 40 rated armor, you would be hit for (1-0.4)*1000 so essentially 600 damage.
a 41 rating armor would make it 590 damage :)

Hands are anyway low damage areas.

Do you want to protect low dmg area or want to reduce 10% damage taken on chest/ heart etc?

Everyone here is wrong.

Don’t wear any armour. It unlocks the best title in the game + is a massive intimidation bonus when the enemy sees your dick and/or boobs swing into action.

I agree with 2 completely; then again there's many of us who throw money at collectibles or pricey items we never use.

Regarding 4, we know that the strength:defense ratio calculates an initial %-wise damage mitigation, which is then further modified (again %-wise) by armor rating.
At 100% damage mitigation (my defense > 14x opponents strength) all armors are obviously the same (and equally useless, since you will take 0 damage in any part), whereas that doesn't stand at 75%, 50% or 0% damage mitigation.
An armor rating difference of say 10 (average of a good flexible from a full body armor) on the chest will mitigate more damage when my defense to opponents strength ratio is low (e.g. 0.3), making it more useful in that scenario, rather than when the ratio is high, e.g. 5.
However i do have uncovered parts which will take all the damage, which is higher when the ratio is low (but by how much???). It is unclear to me if mitigating +10% of damage on high damage areas (e.g. chest) when the defense:strength ratio is low, medium or high is worse, equal or better than having a uniform armor but of lower value, which will mitigate the hits on the arms, but which were of low damage potential (due to the area being hit) in the first place.
And i can't think of a mathematical way (other than experimenting with large datasets) to prove that the damage difference you will ultimately receive in a very big number of real-life (random) hits wearing a flexible vs a full body armor is in fact irrespective of the strength:defense ratio. The only thing that is obvious is that for defense >14x strength the difference converges to 0. Therefore the claim that the difference in damage taken from flexible Vs full body armor is the same for all strength:defense ratios is obviously not true, since it would automatically denote that all armors are the same in all situations.

5. That would be nice, but i think we need to figure the aforementioned stuff first...

The "large dataset" for body part hits is there. Simply look at the attack log from the next NPC loot raid (Duke ideally) and record the number of Arm hits vs. Chest/Heart hits. It'll vary slightly due to everyone having different crit hit % unlocked from mods/edu/merits, but will be a good representative sample. Load image: smiley