Armor cost Vs Weapon cost ratio How much to spend on each?

[Over]

A Treatise on the Arms Vs. Armour of Calradia.

Often, We see warriors with the most extravagant arms, Garbed in the most rudimentary armor. I have taken upon myself to try to understand the logic behind this schism in expenses.

First, I decided to I would divide arms and armor into “Price Pairs” That is, Most costly weapon to most costly armor, least to least, and middle to middle.
Not that I chose only “Typical” armors, that is, armors with similar Body to leg armor ratios to others. No robes or Mameluke mail!
Also, I chose polearms with cutting damage, Because polearms do the most are the most expensive, and cutting damage is the most common.


Great Long Axe -  Gothic Plate
Long War Axe -  Sarranid Elite Armor
Long Axe -  Druzhina Lamellar Armor
Voulge  - Peltastos Armor

 Each weapon goes down in price proportional to the most expensive choice, as does the armor. It is worth noting that the most expensive armor costs about double the most pricey weapon, the the cheaper you go, the closer the prices.

So, I next found the damage Inflicted on an “Average armor” (I decided 45, this guy is melee.) opponent, by each weapon.
This is damage is done by a 27/12 build. Fairly typical.

Great Long Axe  37.75
Long War Axe  36.55
Long Axe  34.15
Voulge  26.2

 Now, I find how much damage is TAKEN, by wearing each armor. The weapon they are up against is the long axe, swung by the same guy as before.
Gothic Plate

27.65 (64% reduction) (277% effective health)
Sarranid Elite Armor
29.65 (61% Reduction) (256% Effective Health)
Druzhina Lamellar Armor
32.15  (58% Reduction)  (238% effective health)
Heraldic Mail with Tabard
37.15 (52% Reduction) (208% effective health)
Peltastos Armor
46.15
No Armor (Base Damage)
76.65

Now, it's clear (Both common sense and as shown by numbers) that you ought to spend enough money to have BOTH a weapon, and armor. The heart of the matter is, finding how much to spend on each.
If we take it for granted that having double HP means you fight twice as long, we can find a “Score” for each weapon/armor combo.



Gothic Plate
Great Long Axe
(37.2K) Score=104.57
Druzhina Lamellar Armor
Long Axe
(19K) Score=81.28

Clearly, Gothic plate and great long axe is better, but do you want to spend dough on armor or weapons?

“Balanced”
Druzhina Lamellar Armor
Long Axe
(19K) Score=81.28

Armor Heavy
Sarranid Elite Armor
Voulge
(18.4K) Score=67.1

Weapon Heavy
Heraldic Mail with Tabard
Great Long Axe
(18.6K) Score=78.65

What the numbers indicate here, is that for optimal theoretical damage output, you should be spending Just about (Or maybe just slightly less than) twice as much on armor as weapons. This goes for body armor only, once you add in head and boots, (Side note, only use leather gloves, unless they are loomed) you should be paying about ¾ your money for armor.

-Over

[Tears of Destiny]

I admit that I found this post interesting.

[Grumbs]

I believe theres some code that makes armour only act as between 50-100% of the value you see, so its not actually reducing damage by a set amount. Your chance of taking less damage is higher with heavier armour, but your movement speed penalty is always 100% in effect. Movement speed is a very important stat that can determine how much damage you take and how much damage you deal. You can dodge attacks, move into an attack to increase damage, dodge arrows, catch up to players, take reduced effect of ranged stagger (well you accelerate faster), stop xbowers reloading or reach them before they finish, strafe in combat to land hits better, get into tactical positions faster etc. Lots of applications for speed

So for me you need enough armour so you can take some hits, but since damage is pretty random anyway I don't think you need to worry too much about it. I think my HP saves me more than my armour. Spending less on repairs is a nice bonus. I think 50+ armour is ideal, but the speed is something to consider too

If you're going super slow regardless, then wearing heavy armour probably doesn't matter. Its personal preference though, some like heavy armour and have higher athletics so they don't get slowed down so much, but then you do less damage too by taking less points in PS. But the way you play can determine your damage you do, like moving into attacks or aiming for the head etc. You only need enough damage though.

So I don't think its right to just look at it as if 2 people take turns to hit each other and then the one who dies first has the worse item set up, theres more to it

For me as well, if I want to sustain my gold or make profit and I have to choose between a better weapon or heavier armour, I'll take the weapon. I like to stay between 20-30k total cost

[Over]

I believe theres some code that makes armour only act as between 50-100% of the value you see, so its not actually reducing damage by a set amount.

All the numbers I gave were averages. I might be retarded for not specifying that.