Been busy figuring out Protection, will continue research. (in General)

direct link to file but also linked in CB stuff dot NL

I have been doing some testing on Protection, fighting with a character without any protection or ST or DX against a character with fixed stats to minimise randomness.

I have fought 25 fights per level of protection against that character and logged the data i got in the file, which should be completed or filled more any time soon.

In the first 3 rounds it seems a protection with effect of (10) blocked 10% damage, but in later rounds this guesstimation doesn't work anymore.

I will do more investigation in this matter next week, and also test with weapon damage instead of magic damage, or check for a different spell.

Bump, since nobody seems to be even remotely interrested in this.

Updated the excel file, put in much more thought and work now.

I think some of us are still waiting to find out what the base damage of UC is.

It has been a couple weeks at least since there was a post teasing us that it was figured out.

Ranger: if you have seen Grant's thread regarding it then you know it has a base damage being higher than a Katana.

Shade:

You typing about this thread, which was the first of the two he posted:
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001i8x, Where he states it is higher than an ELS

Or

This thread, he posted a few days later: http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001hiH, Where he states it is less than that of a Beaked Axe?

Updated the file again, it now also lists the % damage received in regards with damage received with no Protection trained being 100%.

quick summary which could still be some off:

Base Protection blocks around 7.5% damage.
Protection with effect of (10) blocks around 13.6% damage.
Protection with effect of (17) blocks around 18.4% damage.

I will refine these numbers more and more in the coming few weeks.

Hi,

I took a look at your Excel sheet.
You surely got some very useful data there!

(Sadly the "Damage Effect Graph" doesn't display any lines at my computer, but this might be because of OpenOffice?)

Anyway, I took your "Damage Effect Summary", and made a second table right of that one, where i calculate the %-reduction of each Prot-Level compared to the Damage with 0 Prot.
(of course there is a lot of fluctuation across the individual reductions)

Formulas:
1: K9 = C9 .. Q9 = I9 (just a copy of the damages with 0 prot)
2: K10 = 100-100/K$9*C10 .. Q16 = 100-100/Q$9*I16 (the actual %-values)
3: R10 = AVERAGE(K10:Q10) .. AVERAGE(K16:Q16)

This average line gives the following results:

prot-level / %-reduction compared to prot 0

4 / 7.5
5 / 7.3
6 / 9.28
7 / 10.59
8 / 11.36
9 / 10.6
10 / 13.56
17 / 18.41

This seems like there was a %reduction equal to prot-level + 3%

Just my thoughts, what do you think?

Ranger: look at the dates again:

Initial post made on 13 February

Follow up post made on 17 February
In which the last thread is more of a summary.

my thoughts honestly: that some of the levels still have too much inaccuracy involved :(

but it could be some estimation.

And about your graph being empty, yes alas I use MS Excel and open office gives blank graphs, but i will update them into .png files and upload them to cbstuff.nl soon! :)

yeah great, so we both calculated the same ;-)

Does anyone actually have proof that Unarmed Combat acts like a [Yxn](+n) weapon?

On cbstuff.nl i have a file containing data which Grant has gathered, while it isn't solid proof it does suggest that a lot.

Jon mentioned in CB1 UC is a [Y x n](+n) weapon. (With Y being an unknown virtual base damage)

With Grants digging Jon revealed it's actually [Y x (n+1)](+n).

:)

I still say Y increases based on a unknown factor (thus the differing base damage reports) any other random guesses? (STR? Base increases with level? Variable Base?)

"With Grants digging Jon revealed it's actually [Y x (n+1)](+n)."

This would seem more likely .. just as a base weapon can not have a damage multiplier of 0, nor can UC it would seem.

Novice, that was my original guess. Jon said no.