NF Std. Cannon versus various armor types stats

Well I was working on this little sheet. I'm not math whiz but this seem pretty common. And I don't quite understand the ratios of health to tot. damage or to weight stuff, but seem to have some basic understanding. tell me if everything seems ok and what you think.

Small
http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/5749/1251339475693.jpg

Big
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/4694/77777y.jpg

From my understanding absorbant is the best.

 

Health to tot. damage should actually be named Total Damage to Health. It's showing 1.48 points of damage for every point of health on plain armor.

The values looked like they checked out for absorbant, so the math is probably good if it's all copy and paste.

 

Are the falues correct?

Standard Canon Damage = 40
Damage on Plain Armor = 64
Damage on Composite Armor = 55
Damage on Reactive Armor = 28
Damage on Reflective Armor = 37
Damage on Regen Armor = 46,6
Damage on Absorbant armor = 17,5

This means that composite is one of the worst armors?

 

Keep in mind you can place twice as much comp as you can place reactive.

 

On small tanks you can always have full armor if you don't take every weapon.
So absorbant should be nearly twice as good as composite against canons?

Is this correct:
I have substracted the damage reduction as last value.
And Angle Modifier of 1 mean 50% damage reduction.

Calculation:
Plain:
40 + 3000 * 0.8% = 64

Composite (damage reduction 15%):
40 + 3000 * 0.5% = 55 - 15% = 46.75

Reactive (Angle Modifier 0):
40 + 3000 * -0.4% = 28

Reactive (Angle Modifier 0.1):
40 + 3000 * -0.4% = 28 - (28 * 50% * 0.1) = 26.6

Reflective (Angle Modifier 0):
40 + 3000 * -0.1% = 37

Reflective (Angle Modifier 1):
40 + 3000 * -0.1% = 37 - (37 * 50% * 1) = 18.5

Regenerative:
40 + 3000 * 0.32% = 49.6

Absorbant:
40 + 3000 * -0.75% = 17.5


Damage per shot:
Plain: 64 / 43,3 = 1.48 plates
Composite: 46.75 / 96 = 0.49 plates
Reactive (max): 28 / 84 = 0.33 plates
Reactive (min): 26.6 / 84 = 0.32 plates
Reflective (max): 37 / 75 = 0,49 plates
Reflective (min): 18.5 / 75 = 0,25 plates
Regenerative: 49.6 / 93,75 = 0.53 plates
Absorbant: 17.5 / 66,5 = 0.26 plates

 

Not to mention that composite also has more health than any other armor. (Even the commander armor, but other factors make that moot.)

And now that I'm looking at it, I notice that the general-purpose damage reduction modifier that composite and reactive have has not been taken into account.

Well, apparently I didn't need to post. Good eval, SIP. I think.
Wait, no, absorbant isn't that much better against the stronger armors than composite. It is better, just not twice as better. Except with railguns and the standard cannons.

 

Yea, this is just versus the NF standard cannon. But if your going against faster velocity cannons such as ER or Rail, Abs only gets better.

 

Reactive and Absorbant are good against cannons but suck against DU/HEMG because of the low HP per plate.

 

Reactive has the second best hitpoints per plate, but the fewer plates makes it weaker, if that's what you meant.

Actually, ER is the same speed as Std.

 

Guess you mean Reflective and Absorbant?

 

False. You need to account for ROF as well. That and ER is the same speed or slower than std cannon.


100 + (3100*-.0006) =/ 50+ 50 + 2(3100*-.0006)

 

Yes Abs is best against std cannon, but eventually you figure out to use your ml instead. I know it's only showing cannons but a really good table would show a typical situation where an ml and cannon are used.

 

Comparsion between Standard Canon and Standard ML:

Damage per shot Standard Canon:
Plain: 64 / 43,3 = 1.48 plates
Composite: 46.75 / 96 = 0.49 plates
Reactive (max): 28 / 84 = 0.33 plates
Reactive (min): 26.6 / 84 = 0.32 plates
Reflective (max): 37 / 75 = 0,49 plates
Reflective (min): 18.5 / 75 = 0,25 plates
Regenerative: 49.6 / 93,75 = 0.53 plates
Absorbant: 17.5 / 66,5 = 0.26 plates

Damage per shot Standard ML:
Plain: 52.8 / 43.3 = 1.21 plates
Composite: 40.8 / 96 = 0.43 plates
Reactive (max): 33.6 / 84 = 0.4 plates
Reactive (min): 31.92 / 84 = 0.38 plates
Reflective (max): 38.4 / 75 = 0,51 plates
Reflective (min): 19.2 / 75 = 0,26 plates
Regenerative: 45.12 / 93,75 = 0.48 plates
Absorbant: 28 / 66,5 = 0.42 plates


Addition:
Plain: 2.69
Composite: 0.92
Reactive (max): 0.73
Reactive (min): 0.7
Reflective (max): 1
Reflective (min): 0.51
Regenerative: 1.01
Absorbant: 0,68


So absorbant seems to be the best armor against standard weapons?
And till know I was warning my team if they have only absorbant armor for their LT/AFV.:confused:

 

Yes due to the low dmg and relatively fast cycle times absorbant comes up on top with standard stuff. The slower the ROF and the higher the damage the worse and worse absorbant gets. However abs does poorly against gren weapons mines, stickies so its not complete early game rape.

 

How about other weapons?

UML(Upgraded)
GML(Upgraded)
BML
Nukes

ER
HE
Impirial SC

DU
BioMG
HEMG

This also shows that Regen isn't that bad after all.

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that. If you loose all of your regen armor, it's gone until you get repaired.

 

What happend to my font size lol.

But, how is this different from other armor? :confused:

 

regen is actually better than what is shown, but unfortuanatly in order to get a correct plates per shot u need to count in plates regened per sec and ROF of the wep and all this crap i dont want to do, maybe sip can do it :D

 

lol, most taken out of context comment ever.

 

Meh its not worth doing. Then you have to start accountign for the fact people can rotate between plates, how long a battle lasts. Apart from early game the regen effects are a non-issue.