FullD Armor vs Gold?

[DISCLAIMER: I'M A NOOB SO IF EVERYTHING I SAY HERE IS UTTERLY INCORRECT I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE]
[ALSO IF I MAKE ANY CARELESS CALCULATION MISTAKES I ALSO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT]

Now from the title itself, it's already more than obvious that diamond armor is superior to gold. But I'd like to look into this topic with an economical perspective of a fairly, poor Minecrafter (inb4 everyone calls me ***** for not wg running). Like, it would be great to have a cost-efficient armor set that would still be fairly effective against your average everyday shot from a carcano, Indian bows, or in some cases, stray T-Gun shots (so no full out wg base capturing with this set).

I do want to mention that while each full armor point protects the wearer by 8% each, according to this somewhat recent update in https://www.brawl.com/threads/61520/, FullD's damage reduction is changed to about 64%, compared to having 80% originally (10 armor points = 80%). By doing 64/80, I'm inferring that a full armor point of a diamond armor gear would only be 6.4% of protection (and 3.2% for half a point).

Now let's compare their armor points together [DURABILITY NOT INCLUDED]:

• Full Diamond = 10 Armor Points; 64% Damage Resistance. Full Gold = 5.5 Armor Points; 44% Damage Resistance. Diamond offers 20% more resistance and is 1.45x more effective.
• Diamond Helmet = 1.5 points; 9.6% DR. Gold Helmet = 1 point; 8% DR. Diamond offers 1.6% more resistance and is 1.20x more effective.
• Diamond Chestplate = 4 points; 25.6% DR. Gold Chestplate = 2.5 points; 20% DR. Diamond offers 5.6% more resistance and is 1.28x more effective.
• Diamond Leggings = 3 points; 19.2% DR. Gold Leggings = 1.5 points; 12% DRF. Diamond offers 7.2% more resistance and is 1.60x more effective [wow]
• Diamond Boots = 1.5 points; 9.6% DR. Gold Boots = 0.5 points; 4% DR. Diamond offers 5.6% more resistance and is 2.40x more effective. [much wow]

These numbers tell two different stories! If you look at the effectiveness of diamond over gold, diamond boots are a whopping 2.4x more effective, displaying the superiority of diamond armor despite the nerf! However, when looking at the % of more resistance diamond gives, it shows that diamond is somewhat more resistant than gold. But what the hell do these numbers exactly mean?

Nothing; we forgot to compare their values in terms of their prices. Keep in mind that the prices of gold armor usually doesn't come to play, as one can easily steal some for free off Indian Camps (diamond gear can be found in loot too, but so rarely it would not be wise to rely on them).

• Full Diamond $10000 vs Full Gold $2500; Diamond costs $7500 more and should supposedly be 4.00x better (4.00 > 1.45 by 2.55)
• Diamond Helmet $2250 vs Gold Helmet $300; Diamond costs $1950 more and should supposedly be 7.50x better. (7.50 > 1.20 by 6.30 [damn])
• Diamond Chestplate $2900 vs Gold Chestplate $1200; Diamond costs $1700 more and should supposedly be 2.42x better (2.42 > 1.28 by 1.14)
• Diamond Leggings $2750 vs Gold Leggings $700; Diamond costs $2050 more and should supposedly be 3.93x better (3.93 > 1.6 by 2.33)
• Diamond Boots $2100 vs Gold Boots $300; Diamond costs $1800 more and should supposedly be 7.00x better (7.00 > 2.40 by 4.60)

So as you all can see, diamond armor is NOT at all cost-efficient, but I don't think it's fair to judge spending extra money to save your arse in a crucial situation. To simply break it down, Diamond Chestplate appears to be the most cost-efficiency in terms of giving more armor, while leggings are tagging along at second and boots and helmet coming at last (their differences compared to the 2.55 difference in full diamond, like Diamond Leggings is 2.33 cost-efficiency difference vs Full Diamond 2.55 cost-efficiency difference; leggings better)

I can't really determine a certain answer that applies to everyone, because people who have a small loan of a million dollars would never buy golden armor and a poor hoe with >$2000 can't even purchase a single piece of diamond armor. But here's my verdict in the words of a lower-middle-class man: A cost-efficient armor set that would still provide a good amount of armor protection compared to Diamond Armor would be the following: Golden Helmet, Diamond Chestplate, Diamond Leggings, and a tie between Golden Boots and Diamond Boots.
______________________________________________________________________
My justification for these calls is that diamond helmet only offers 1.6% more damage resistance, and in my honest opinion I find that useless. Like, let's say that someone shoots you with a T-Gun for 19 base damage (right?), a 5% DR would protect you from half a heart but 1.6% won't get you anywhere! It's fair to mention that the diamond helmet looks friggin' sweet, so if you wanna pay more for cosmetic + reliable durability...

Diamond Chestplate and Leggings are imperative, they're the biggest source of the armor points pool in the entire diamond armor set. If you don't have either one of them, you're better off just using gold armor and running around like a dead man.

Why the indecisive verdict for the boots? While Diamond Boots really aren't that cost efficient, the 5.6% damage reduction increase could make or break your fight against other players. A headshot from a T-Gun is 38 damage [CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG PLEASE], and 5.6% of 38 is 2 damage/one heart. That's at least a little significant, right?

To organize this out, FullD = 64% DR, FullG = 44% DR, Cost-Efficient Armor w/ DBoots = 62.4% DR, and Cost-Efficient Armor w/o DBoots = 56.8% DR.
______________________________________________________________________
So is this final? No. There is one piece of information I haven't covered yet, and it's reusability from durability. If you're looking for an armor to rely on for the long-run, perhaps a cost-efficient one won't really work out for you. Diamond Armor generally have 4.67x more durability than golden armor, rounding up to 5 golden armor durabilities = one diamond armor durability. But let's be real, you're not going to be wearing a golden armor up to its full lifespan and durability, and since you can't combine armor you might start throwing them away when they're below 50% or 75% durability (depending on who you are). In the very long run, Diamond is going to be more cost-efficient than gold, but it all comes down to how many times you get hit AND how many spare golden armor pieces you have from raiding Indians.

volvo pls nerf diamond coss

 

*slowly raises left hand*

 

If that's the case, then perhaps gold helm diamond chest diamond pants and gold shoes would be sufficient in the very short run... That's 8 armor points, after all.

When did I say Full G was ever a good option? My cost-efficient armor I recommended in the post was Diamond Chestplates, Leggings, and maybe boots and Golden Helm? That's around a 2 shot too, right?

Thank you everyone for your positive feedback and advice! By no means am I some sort of professional analytical thinker, it's just that this came out of the blue weeks back and it's always bothered me since then.

 

Wait, so does a gun shot reduce your armor durability more than one point?

 

that's why I don't run full gold kek