08-27-2004, 09:47 PM
No worries. My approach actually does cut corners, too. The best way to get the average defense would be to find the average base defense, the average enhanced defense, and the average +defense and calculate the defense of an armour with those. Rounding issues aside, this would give a correct result. My (min+max)/2 is a bit quicker, and, while not perfectly accurate, it's also "close enough."
(The reason for the inaccuracy is that, since you're multiplying a uniformly random variable by another uniformly random variable, you end up with something that's no longer uniform, but skewed towards one side. The (min+max)/2 only really works if the distribution is symmetrical).
Another thing about the defense of armour is superior quality. If you have a sacred armor with any enhanced defense on the item itself (not the sockets or runeword bonuses), the "base" defense will always be 601. That really increases the defense. It also makes the repair costs skyrocket, but that's not a problem with Prudence. You do still have to find the superior item, though.
(The reason for the inaccuracy is that, since you're multiplying a uniformly random variable by another uniformly random variable, you end up with something that's no longer uniform, but skewed towards one side. The (min+max)/2 only really works if the distribution is symmetrical).
Another thing about the defense of armour is superior quality. If you have a sacred armor with any enhanced defense on the item itself (not the sockets or runeword bonuses), the "base" defense will always be 601. That really increases the defense. It also makes the repair costs skyrocket, but that's not a problem with Prudence. You do still have to find the superior item, though.