Talk:Armor penetration

Moved to Archive 1

Test results

 * Date: 13:34, 16 June 2006 (CDT) (minus 30 minutes for typing up this report)
 * Build: Level 20 Me/Mo, with Healing Breeze
 * Equipment:
 * Performer's Gloves from Prophecies Campaign with 60 Armor and gives 15 armor while casting spells.
 * Peppermint Shield
 * Location: Old Ascalon
 * Test subject: Flash Gargoyle (level 3 = Damage Level 9)


 * Lightning Orb expected damage to 0 AL (naked):
 * Assume Air Magic 0: 11.69 (round to 12)
 * Assume Air Magic 1: 18.70 (round to 19)
 * Actual damage taken when naked: 12

Level 3 Flash Gargoyle is extrapolated to have 0 rank in Air Magic


 * Lightning Orb expected damage to 15 AL:
 * Assuming 25% armor penetration: 9.61 (round to 10)
 * Assuming no armor penetration: 9.01 (round to 9)
 * Actual damage taken while casting spells: 9

Armor penetration does not affect the "Gives 15 armor while casting spells." bonus from Virtuoso's Armor


 * Lightning Orb expected damage to 10 AL:
 * Assuming 25% armor penetration: 11.53 (round to 12)
 * Assuming no armor penetration: 9.83 (round to 10)
 * Actual damage taken while wearing shield: 10

Armor penetration does not affect the "Armor: 10" from Peppermint Shield

Conclusion: Armor penetration only affects BaseAL.

''Note: This is in direct contradiction with the test reported in December of 2005 at Talk:Damage/Archive4

- 13:34, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

The following are assumed to also not be affected by armor penetration, but were not verified in the above test.
 * Armor piece bonus of the syntax "+x armor"
 * Primary weapon bonus of the syntax "+x armor"
 * Primary weapon bonus of the syntax "-x armor"
 * Secondary weapon bonus of the syntax "+x armor"
 * Secondary weapon bonus of the syntax "-x armor" (doesn't seem to exist, listed for completeness sake)
 * Shield armor value of the syntax "Armor: x (requires y Attribute)" when requirements are met
 * Shield armor value of the syntax "Armor: x (requires y Attribute)" from collectors when requirements are not met
 * Shield armor value of the syntax "Armor: x (requires y Attribute)" from dropped loot when requirements are not met <- This is stated by Kuntz to be counted for armor penetration, but the current article assumes it is not affected by armor penetration.
 * Skill bonus of the syntax "+x armor" (outdated teste result from Descember suggest this is not affected by armor penetration)
 * Skill bonus of the syntax "-x armor" (outdated teste result from Descember suggest this is not affected by armor penetration)

- 13:48, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I also just performed some tests, though they are by no means exhaustive. I took a warrior with 12 axe, 16 strength, a PvP axe without a damage mod (besides customization), and wild blow and whacked a target with two different sources of +armor while enchanted (monk armor for +10 and a focus for +5).  The purpose was to see if the AP (from strength while using wild blow) modified either +armor.

! Armor !! Observed damage !! EAL if AP affects total !! "Total" AP damage !! EAL if AP affects base !! "Base" AP damage
 * - align="center"
 * 60 || 57 || 60 * .84 || ~56.11 || same || same
 * - align="center"
 * 60+10 || 49 || 70 * .84 || ~48.52 || 60 * .84 + 10 || ~47.19
 * - align="center"
 * 60+15 || 45 || 75 * .84 || ~45.11 || 60 * .84 + 15 || ~43.27
 * }
 * To compute the damages from the EALs, I did 28 * 1.2 * 2^((60 + 20 - EAL) / 40).
 * Kuntz's argument seems to be incorrect for the case of monk armor with +10 armor while enchanted and focuses with +5 armor while enchanted. This of course says nothing for any of the other sources of +armor Pan listed above.
 * Of interest is the mismatch in the "control" test where there wasn't any +armor going on. Likely, I did something wrong, but I don't see my mistake.  Otherwise, perhaps there's some sort of mid-calculation rounding.  --68.142.13.99 01:08, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Your theoretical values are correct, barring rounding effects. Instead of getting PvP monks, use PvE monks and have them buy cheap armor from Lion's Arch or earlier.  This way the damage will be bigger, and the difference will be more appreant.  Actually, with the PvP monks, you can test the focus bonus by having the monks strip.  The difference should (theoretically) be really clear. - 02:18, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Clean up
i'm taking up the project of cleaning and vetting this article. test results to come soon. --Honorable Sarah 11:25, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Perhaps I could buy you a new shift key, Sarah? Anyway, I fixed up what you wrote, with two changes: I removed primal rage as "bonus" since I don't think it is (the article's talk ony mentions stacking with sundering, which doesn't tell us anything) and I commented out the "AP only affects base AL" since I've shown it false.  However, we don't know what exactly AP does or does not affect.  I'm unsure how to phrase this for the article.  --68.142.14.78 18:41, 11 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I think talk pages are a nice place to let ones hair down a little, you know ditch the perfect grammer/spelling and it gives me the opportunity to use Commonwealth English as much as possible! Still I've just done some capitalisation on User:Honorable Sarah/Multiminded was Sarah so maybe you're onto something! --Xasxas256 18:54, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
 * would you prefer proper information or proper capitalization? i work with UNIX all day, so my caplitization quickly becomes overtaxed. nah! --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 09:51, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I'd think working with *NIX would mean you have tons of capitals to spare at the end of the day. If you're "rewriting for clarity," please rewrite for clarity.  --68.142.14.98 15:41, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

A completely new discussion regarding armor penetration.
As I have been delving into the information available on this subject, it is still unclear to me as to whether or not bonus Armor Penetration items such as a sundering bowstring and JI will stack. I do read that base AP and bonus AP stack, but am finding a lack of emperical confirmation one way or the other on the question of bonus AP items stacking. A simplistic version of this hypothesis would be " would JI applied during the use of a Sundering Longbow (20%/20%) provide any additional damage percentages or volume? Does it give you two 20% chances, for example? " I look forward to reading the input provided on this subject.Greabow- 21:33, 16 June 2006 (EDT)
 * i'm working on testing that now. the current theory holds that the sundering string as bonus AP will stack with the JI bonus AP, so you'll have 80% chance of 20% penetration, and a 20% chance of 40% penetration. this ties closely with damage, and those equations were written with one AP in mind. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 09:28, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

Primal Rage
Used wild blow to test it out on the suits of armor......The damage from critial hits didn't increase when I changed my strength from 0 to 14.
 * Becase Primal Rage says "have 20% armor penetration", instead of "+20% armor penetartion". So you need a strength of 21 to override the armor penetration from Primal Rage. - 04:05, 3 September 2006 (CDT)

Retesting...
Test 1: Naked monk, +5 while enchanted sword with +5 armor. Warrior with 14 axe mastery, JI, and Wild Blow.

Without JI: 139 damage. With JI: 139 damage.

Test 2: Monk with Acolyte's Armor and Mending. Warrior with 14 axe mastery, JI, and Wild Blow.

Expected value/all armor reduction: 51 Expected value/base armor reduction: 53

Without JI: 41 With JI: 53

Test 4: Monk with Shepherd's Armor, +5 AL while enchanted focus, Mending. Warrior with 16 axe mastery, JI, and Wild Blow.

Expected value/all armor reduction: 72 Expected value/base armor reduction: 71 Without JI: 59 With JI: 72

Test 4: Monk with Shepherd's Armor, 16 AL shield, 0 tactics. Warrior with 16 axe mastery, JI, and Wild Blow.

Expected value/all armor reduction: 69 Expected value/base armor reduction: 67 Without JI: 56 With JI: 71

Test 5: Monk with Shepherd's Armor, 16 AL shield, 9 tactics. Warrior with 16 axe mastery, JI, and Wild Blow.

Expected value/all armor reduction: 62 Expected value/base armor reduction: 59 Without JI: 48 With JI: 63

My best guess is that there's a bug where the AP isn't calculated at 0 AL. Further testing would be nice. -Savio 09:54, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Your conclusion doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying versus 0 AL something with +AP should more damage?  In your first case, I'm assuming the monk is naked besides the sword, which is providing no AL.  --Fyren 16:46, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Question
Let me get this right - All bonus AP stacks, so that means a Sundering string, Judge's Insight, and a Hornbow's inherent AP all stack together (for a potential of 50% AP) and I can stack this further with one of the listed Base AP items like max ranks in Strength for an additional 16% AP when using attack skills (like Barrage) making the AP total a potential 66% for each Barrage. Is this correct? If so, then if I used Penetrating Shot instead of Strength I could achieve a potential of 70% AP? This would then be the highest AP combo known right? I guess I'm wondering if:
 * 1. Is this true as I described it?
 * 2. Is there an AP cap? (I'm already aware AP doesn't add damage to a target with no armor)

Thanks.  Vallen Frostweaver  12:41, 5 October 2006 (CDT)


 * In the setup you described for 70% AP with 16 marksmanship, a customized bow, but no +15% damage bonus, a critical hit should deal 111 damage versus 100 AL (= 1.2 * 28 * 2 ^ ((68 + 20 - 100 * .3) / 40) + 19). After several tries, I did produce 111 damage on the isle of the nameless.  Unless there's something I'm missing at the moment, 70% AP appears to be attainable.  --Fyren 16:14, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Batfan just changed it to read that Penetrating Attack and a Hornbow's +10% AP don't stack. This changes the above to be a max potential of 60% now since the 10% AP from a horn bow would not stack.  Can anyone verify if this is true or if prior was?[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  15:03, 23 October 2006 (CDT)
 * He's wrong. It still stacks. --Fyren 23:51, 23 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Ty very much.[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  06:25, 24 October 2006 (CDT)
 * In this calculation did you take into consideration that JI also converts damage to holy? If you were testing this out against a warrior opponent this would cause your attack to ignore their +20 armor buff versus physical damage That Guy 08:51, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

Stoneflesh aura
I think Ive figured out why Stoneflesh doesnt work well with Protective Spirit, its because stoneflesh is cosidered an, "armor" and any armor penatrating attacks will still make it through. It isnt randomly chosen to go before or after PS. ANet and their weirdo descriptions....--&mdash; Hyprodimus Prime   03:54, 21 December 2006 (CST)
 * That doesn't make sense. It's just stacking order, much like other enchantments (notably, it works the same as shielding hands and prot spirit together).  --Fyren 09:43, 21 December 2006 (CST)

Confuzzled
Consider this situation:

A warrior with 15 strength that is wielding a Hornbow with a 20/20 sundering bow string (which is triggered), uses Sundering Attack against a warrior wearing AL80 armor.

How much armor penetration is achieved? Is it only the 10% inherent in the bow plus the 20%? Or would the 15% from Strength+10% Hornbow+20% from the string+ the 20% from the attack stack? If not, what stacks and to what degree?

This makes no sense to me. I've always thought they stacked... --Old Man Of Ascalon   (T/C)
 * As the article says, all but strength. Sundering attack and strength are "base" AP and sundering is higher.  Feel free to disprove it and improve the article, though.  --Fyren 06:15, 21 January 2007 (CST)
 * So technically it would be the 20%from the attack+20% from the string+10% from the bow=achieving %50 AP?--Old Man Of Ascalon [[Image:25px-Poiso.jpg]]  (T/C)
 * Yes, everything that's a bonus (says "+X%") and only the highest base value (says just "X%"). But I'm just reporting what the article says, I've never verified myself. --Fyren 02:42, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * See Talk:Armor_penetration above. --Heurist 01:47, 31 January 2007 (CST)