MAX Kinetic Armour.

Discussion in 'MAX' started by MaxDamage, Nov 28, 2012.

  1. JoCool

    Summary:
    MAX base resistances:
    Explosives: 20%
    Small arms fire: 80%.

    Explosive effective formula: x*100/(100-20) = Y // x:=certed resistance, Y=effective resistance
    Small arms fire eff formula: x*100/(100-80) = Y // x:=certed resistance, Y=effective resistance

    That means
    level 5 flak armor currently gives: 31,25% better resistance.
    level 5 kinetic armor currently gives: 25% better resistance.
    • Up x 1
  2. MaxDamage

    Great work guys, this is need-to-know shi!
  3. M2Combat

    Thank you everyone... Now I can continue certing kinetic armor so I can take more small arms fire while trying to kill the HA that I'm weak to :).

    Everyone else can cert flak so they can ignore the HA and kill all of his little friends.

    Thank you to the guinea pigs :)
  4. FMK

    I'm still not trusting this numbers. I wonder that there are still no more accurate tests yet.

    In theory this shouldn't be that hard. Go onto a continent where your faction doesn't own a bio lab. Meet with some people that like to help testing.

    Test 1A: Take a lmg (I think lmg's are best for this cause you don't may have to reload during testing) with 143 base damage, shoot at an unarmored MAX's body at under 10m till he dies and then count the number of bullets needed. Repeat 2-3 times to verify the results.

    Test 1B: Repeat test 1A with a 167 base damage weapon to get comparable results with other numbers.

    Test 2A: Repeat test 1A on a MAX with Kinetic Armor 1.

    Test 2B: Repeat test 1B on a MAX with kinetic Armor 1.

    Test 3A: Repeat test 1A on a MAX with kinetic Armor 2.

    ..

    Test 6B: Repeat test 1B on a MAX with kinetic Armor 5.


    That way we would have enough numbers to accuratly reverse engineer and verify the formulas used ingame.
  5. Ripshaft

    ... why did you necro this thread only to have a test that is extremely flawed and wouldnt show anything, when compared to the previous tests that are bout as good as they need to be for all intents and purposes?
  6. Jaloro

    I'm glad he necro'd it or I would have missed it.
  7. Glowcat

    I've snapped and killed an engy once... Heavily damaged MAX right in front of him, he definitely saw me, but he decides to turn around and place a turret in a moronic location. I tried to stop myself, really, but a MAX SLAP to the back of the head felt necessary at that point. I felt awful about it afterwords because I realized he might just be new and not an *******.

    But I get engineers who don't repair often enough that I don't regret taking Armor Regeneration. Heck, even when I'm not engy and there's a nearby terminal I switch classes when a wounded MAX is around. I guess people just tend to be poor team players in general.
    • Up x 1
  8. FMK

    Necroing a thread is more like to post into a real old thread where is nothing more to say. This thread is roughly a month old, and there are still unanswered questions.

    The tests I suggested would help to find an accurate answer, while the previous test is very inaccurate or "flawed" by your words. It is ok when you don't want to have accurate results, but where is your problem when others are looking for them?
  9. Ripshaft

    Normally I'd think you're trolling.. but ok I'll bite... I was talking about the test you suggested being utterly pointless and showing nothing, when compared to the previous tests which are already accurate to within a few %... you know, the actual values we're looking for. I mean if you were doing your test to determine the max hp of a max, that might make a little bit of sence, but what you're testing is of no use aside from providing a fluff stat to show noobs who dont know any better.... which is not something that should be encouraged, as it will provide a barrier for them to improve themselves, as it's common culture right now to resolve dissonance with fallacy (to put it simply, to "explain" - using fallacy- rather than "understand" -using proper logic/abstraction-).

    The subject of this thread was to determine wether it was actually 5% or more, and we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was more than 5%, and that 25% is fairly accurate, which is consistent with the hypothesis that the max has a 80% base resistance to smallarms. It's possible that a variation of your test might work, provided you could find a weapon with a minimum damage of the lowest number possible and reliably get body shots from max range, but the typical "oh lets shoot someone in the body from point blank" testing procedure is and always has been utterly absurd, especially when --you already know the real numbers--.
  10. FMK

    @Ripshaft

    Ok, you have a point saying the OP question got already answered, any my question about more accurate numbers is kinda offtopic. But its not like I randomly found this thread and just wanted to necro it for no reason. Actually I spend some time googling for accurate test results and/or formulas without finding them. Finaly I found this thread via google, and thought its better to ask for test results here instead of opening a new thread.

    I have read the whole thread (beside others in different forums) and understand the basics of kinematic armor. But still, I can't tell why exactly, I'd like to have accurate test results/numbers. The point I think you are wrong is that percent numbers don't say much in PS2 at all. For example nano weave armor were we could get up to 25% more health, which is quite a lot in most mmorpgs or fps, but in ps2 its just one hit to kill more in cqc and up to three htk's on long range with average damage weapons.

    Percent numbers in mmorpgs are about average values and chances which we don't have in ps2 where we have mostly fixed numbers. Reduction against a 143 damage weapon behaves other then against 167 damage weapons. If you reread this thread you will see that some talk about 25% and others about 33% reduction and some even deny there is any base reduction. In my opinion this thread is not giving a clearly answer.

    Maybe I misunderstood something, or oversaw something. If you know how its working exactly, please tell me, I really want to know! I don't try to troll you, I mean it.
    • Up x 1
  11. JoCool

    The numbers are roughly correct in the matter that they have been taken from visual perception. It is like reading a graph in higher mathematics, you know this function grows precisely monotonous, but you do not know until you have zoomed in infinitely (which is not possible) or have given the proof by calculation. Easy. Therefore we must accept what our eyes see, just like in the real world. I wasn't on drugs when I did these tests, so damn, they'll be true. I'm German and an engineering student and was very thorough doing that ****e. I can only exist and succeed being precise. As can be.... If I remember correctly, which is always open for debate. /cants another glass of Champagne


    TL;DFR
    What I posted I verified ingame with multiple tests of explosions and bullets kissing my MAX suit's manly chest, all at decisive levels to get a proper comparisation. You welcome. :D