Is Prot worthwhile? (in General)

Does protection really make a massive difference at level 57,608 (20)? I can't seem to find a good explanation of how it works...thanks!

Well, yeah, it blocks (20)% of the damage left after AC and ToE prevent their share.

it reduces damage, exactly how much i don't know, but any reduction helps.

th00p that's wrong, protection's effect isn't how much of a percentage it blocks.

a Prot of (20) does not equal 20% damage reduction after all that crap.


Otherwise heaps of people would have Protections of (34)

Wait Wait, I thought Prot added AC...

Or maybe that was changed after CB1.

But I think I remember it was popular to have a base prot for a few cheap AC.

Not the case in CB2, probably CB1.

protection of (20) gives 20 AC which in turn gives roughly (20x0.2) % damage reduction 4%

Protection doesn't give AC, hasn't since the beginning of CB2.

Prot is a (possibly) randomized percentage base reduction in damage

mimic, I think it has been shown to give more than that -- anecdotal evidence suggests it is rather close to a straight percentage, I think.

Basically yes.

We do not know the exact effects of it, but for the xp spent it is very valuable.

I know that when my protection is dispelled it takes other tanks a longer time to get through my wall (when I had one). When I was fighting Jayuu, if I dispelled his protection I would beat him in about 20-22 rounds. With the protection we stalemated.

These are anecdotal examples but I believe to be true.

You only need about 55k levels to get a level 20 protection. Even though it may be dispelled with DM, you almost certainly will be fighting some AMF only characters. For the relatively small cost xp wise, I believe it is useful.

i thought it came out to be 1% for 1 effect lvl

found it

Todd's own words: Protection offers a % damage reduction equal to its level. Meaning, Protection of 20 offers 20% reduction of damage (after AC); Looking for CB2 Protection data. So, the answer to Xiaz's question is yes.
However, I do not know how much we can trust this statement.

--Manta, June 25 2005 7:38 AM EDT

lol that means in theory if Pop devotes all his exp into protection he would be able to get 100% reduction? @.@ :x

Prot caps at 33%...

hehe okie just kidding :X nice thought though

Protection reduces damage as a percentage equal to its effect, but remember that damage reduction is multiplicative. We were just discussing this in chat the other day, in fact, where I found out how much "AC" Tezmac's Protection (26) is adding. It came out to something like 40 or so, as I recall. Protection reduced another 8% of damage, roughly, which is about a 40 AC. So his AC of 322 can essentially be looked at as an effective 360. Sort of.

The take away from this is that the effectiveness of Protection is increased when AC is low due to the multiplicative nature.

Is Shade's data completely off then? I was basing it off his tests, which don't seem to be (1) = 1% Dmg Reduction.

Shade's data here:

Spreadsheet 1 --- (excel) and has graphs.

Spreadsheet 2 --- (excel), includes a lot of tests and summarizing graphs.

lvl vs effect --- (jpeg) Trained level set against Protection effect.

Wow, thanks guys, I guess it can't hurt to keep it at lvl 20 then, even a 4% reduction would be worth it ;) BTW that lvl of prot takes about 600,000 XP.

yeah looking at his graphs i would say it would be 1 effect to 1% the up down was the effect of the damage randomness not the protection

I'm pretty certain from my own observations that it's a percentage reduction. The fact that it's pretty much impossible to train it up past (33) lends itself to that assumption rather well.

Flamey, that data is from CB1.

well he would be making a rong assumption from that data then lol.
(1) was equal to 1 AC back on CB1

Shade's been asking for new graphs for a while. I provided the exact data for level vs effect, but doing damage calculations is much more work.

I played with Protection for a while, and for every test I ran the damage reduction was *around* the effect level. Due to randomness of damage, it of course varied, but it was always around that level. I'd most definitely say 1% per effect point is a safe assumption, and one I've always gone by.

Again, though, this is without any factual evidence behind it, as I've long since deleted that little .txt that held my experiments. ~_^