Wall hardness explained

[romaneon]

I'm sorry if it was explained already somewhere but here is small investigation I made.

So, I mined the same tile with different str*Qpickaxe combinations:

template for results below:
str*Qpickaxe ~~ sqrt(Str*Qpickaxe) aka "wall hardness" ~~ message I got

Here is what I got:

27*10.7 ~~ 17 ~~ much too hard
27*12 ~~ 18 ~~ slightly too hard
75*10.7 ~~ 28.3 ~~ slightly too hard
80*10.7 ~~ 29.2 ~~ I was able to mine

So, it looks like the formula is the following:
difference = wall hardness - sqrt(Qpickaxe*Str)
if difference < 0 then you can mine
if difference < 10 then you will get "slightly too hard" message
if difference < 20 (not confirmed) then you will get "much too hard" message
etc..

So if you have "slightly too hard wall" you can try different pickaxe/str combinations to find sqrt(Str*Qaxe) where "much too hard" starts.

By adding 10 to that value you are getting actual wall hardness, so u know what are your Str and Qaxe should be to be able to mine there.

[Procne]

The one remaining mystery is how is tool quality defined. Is it average of all 3 elements? Or is one of the elements taken here

[romaneon]

The one remaining mystery is how is tool quality defined. Is it average of all 3 elements? Or is one of the elements taken here

Well it's sqrt((Q1*Q1+Q2*Q2+Q3*Q3)/3). Ender's client shows correct value.


One more thing. Just noticed that there are "slightly" and "just stlightly" messages actually. So, it looks like "just slightly" is difference from 0 to 5 and "slightly" is 5 - 10.

[Procne]

The one remaining mystery is how is tool quality defined. Is it average of all 3 elements? Or is one of the elements taken here

Well it's sqrt((Q1*Q1+Q2*Q2+Q3*Q3)/3). Ender's client shows correct value.

Can you link some source for this?

[MagicManICT]

Please post the quality aspects of the tools so we can properly analyze. It's already been shown that armors and weapons are affected by the aspects differently and that curios are the only thing that uses an average.

Otherwise, yeah, that's about the same numbers as previous worlds, and can be found on the RoB wiki: http://ringofbrodgar.com/wiki/Legacy:Mining

[Sevenless]

My testing on a wall node that was increasing in hardness gradually did not point to average quality mattering personally. I found that substance was the determining factor in tool mining power. This matches up with substance dealing damage through melee and ranged attacks.

However more thorough testing wouldn't go amiss.

[LaserSaysPew]

My testing on a wall node that was increasing in hardness gradually did not point to average quality mattering personally. I found that substance was the determining factor in tool mining power. This matches up with substance dealing damage through melee and ranged attacks.

However more thorough testing wouldn't go amiss.

No. Got 2 pickaxes, 10q and 12/8/14.
Tested on 1 tile:
10q got 32% per tick
12/8/14 got 35% per tick

Sub is lower on the second pickaxe but I mine a little bit faster with it. I guess it's just an averageQ.

[MagicManICT]

Sub is lower on the second pickaxe but I mine a little bit faster with it. I guess it's just an averageQ.

But essence and vitality are both higher, so couldn't one of those alone be the factor? On the second, you have a total quality of 11, for a quality factor increase of about 7%, where as the speed increase says it was more like 9%, which would be closer to q12.

[romaneon]

Please post the quality aspects of the tools so we can properly analyze. It's already been shown that armors and weapons are affected by the aspects differently and that curios are the only thing that uses an average.

Otherwise, yeah, that's about the same numbers as previous worlds, and can be found on the RoB wiki: http://ringofbrodgar.com/wiki/Legacy:Mining

Best to worst (in term of "missing hardness" messages I got):

1. axe 26 10 12
2. b12 16 16 17
3. pickaxe 19 12 14
4. pickaxe 14 13 14

Tested on 4 different tiles of the same vein of Iron Orche (q10)

So, essence doesn't seem to be deciding factor. It looks like my initial assumption about average quality was right.

Please post if you come to something different...

[Sevenless]

I'd concur with average quality after rehashing new tests.

My first tests were with overly similar qualities, and it's possible the "average" is the geometric average rather than the flat average.