Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus

[tbontob]

Hey guys, I hear what you are saying and you basically mirror my own thought/beliefs at the moment.

But Suicide Junkie has been around for a long time and I respect his opinions/findings although I may not necessarily agree with them all the time.

So, in order to formulate my own opinion about what he has said, I need to know what he means by what he said.

And at the moment, I am at a loss as to what he means.

Other questions like ascertaining the probability of a hit would be questions to ask after we fully understand his position.

[Suicide Junkie]

The 290 and 165 values are the break-even points of shields vs scattering and stealth armor, respectively.

If 15% (in the case of level 3 armor) of the total firepower the enemy must aim at you in order to breach your shields/armor is bigger than the break-even point, then the ECM effect of the armor is worth more than the extra shielding would be.

To figure out whether it is worth putting the armor on instead of more shield generator, do the following:
1) Take the shield points currently generated.
2) divide by the typical to-hit chance the enemy has against you. (30% accuracy means divide by 0.30)
The result there is the amount of weaponry/ammo the enemy usually has to fire at you to get enough hits for a kill.
3) Multiply the result in (2) by the ECM ability of your armor (0.05 = 5%, 0.10 = 10%, 0.15 = 15%)

If the answer you get is bigger than 165, then stealth armor is worthwhile. If it is bigger than 290, then scattering armor is also worthwhile.
If the number is less, then keeping the shields will make your ship Last longer.

Note: Odd situations will keep things dicey.
If the enemy has a super-huge gun (battlemoon, say) that kills in one shot, then you'll always want to go with the ECM, since hitpoints don't matter anymore.
Missiles and talismans will push the results the other way, since ECM is useless.

[tbontob]

Hi SJ

Still trying to get my brain around the logic of how shields and stealth/scattering armor can be compared.

The former prevents damage whereas the later helps to prevent a hit.

Maybe it would clear up if you could provide the formula by which the 290 and 165 values are derived.

[Gryphin]

So what the others were thinking is basicaly correct.
Since you will be recieving 15 to 30 percent fewer hits you need fewer shield gnerators.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
So what the others were thinking is basicaly correct.
Since you will be recieving 15 to 30 percent fewer hits you need fewer shield gnerators.

Except that the math he uses only applies to situations where the enemy has base 100% to hit (before armor modifications). If the enemy had a base 30% to hit, adding both armors would mean you would only be hit 1% of the time, which is not correctly reflected in his formulae.

Best advice is to put the armor on everything, unless you don't care about being hit, or your enemy is going to hit you 100% of the time anyway.

[Fyron]

Yes it is. You dived the decimal representation of their average chance to hit into the shield points you have. If you have 1000 shields and they have 100% to hit, they have to do an average of 1000 damage worth of shots to breach your shields. If they have a 50% to hit chance, they have to do an average of 2000 damage worh of shots to breach your shields. His formula reflects the base/average chance to hit very well.

[tbontob]

OK Guys

So what is the formula?