FYI: Testing damage absorption on armor and plates after VU

So, I went about testing for changes in the way damage is absorbed/protected after this latest VU. Saw some pretty convincing chat logs on the other thread pointing to a change.

I did a test on feffoid outcast:

first re-affirmed the 28 damg on pedia (14-28 dmg)

found Jimmy B's old tests on them proving 10 impact and 18 cold on feffoid outcast

Went out in my Ankitus + 5a on some feff outcasts - Anki + 5a gives a total of 12 impact (5 on anki, 7 on 5a) and no cold

In the old system with "unexpected protection" this should have resulted in hits between 2 - 16.

Well, i received 2 hits over 16 dmg, 1 for 16.6 and another at 17.7.

Taking the known 10 impact dmg on feff outcast, this means that only 10 was protected regardless of my extra 2 impact. So what once was 2-16 dmg range on these has become now 9-18 dmg in this setup.

Conclusion: from this small test it looks like "unexpected protection" is now a thing of the past. In addition it has some implications on eco armr choices. I am guessing that just like general over protection, you will pay for that "invalid/extra protection". as in, on these Feff, my plates and armor are seemingly still being offered the full 10 impact and decaying accordingly. Or in other words, i am paying for 12 impact protection even though i am only getting 10 protection because of the new "smarter" protection formula.

I just wanted to verify what seemingly is a definite change in this formula. It looks pretty conclusive even from this one test but ofc, some more data points would be welcomed.

Happy Holidays!

~ 008

What a great Christmas present! Extremely glad I don't hunt with armor anymore. Others should do the same.

Great work. Further testing needed but I think everyone needs to read this, especially if they're doing MM.

I'd do a bit of testing myself but i'm on arkadia, and i'm not confident that wiki is fully correct with the dam types so I'll wait 'til I get back to caly (hopefully someone will have done the job by then )

Good job, thanks for posting your results.

Stefan 008 Bond said:

So what once was 2-16 dmg range on these has become now 4-18 dmg in this setup.

Click to expand...

Actually you should get 9-18 if none of the cold, but all of the impact, is being protected. If we can verify that then we can be sure that the unexpected protection is gone, and I'd suggest moving on to decay testing after that.

Oleg said:

Actually you should get 9-18 if none of the cold, but all of the impact, is being protected.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, nice catch Oleg thanks. This is correct, full cold getting through would indeed be 9-18 (Op updated).

I also have just recently dmg tested cultists on Monria and in all cases during my testing there was no way to overprotect any dmg type. If needed i can provide notes from that test. Basically Cultist do roughly 40% impact, 30% pen, 15% cold, 15% acid so there ample oppurtunities to see this in effect while i tested out that mob.

Another point or 2 of data would be nice, but its looking set.

Decay tests are needed now as well as updating Entropedia armor advisor to reflect these changes. Anyone have any idea how to start managing that??

Im not quite understanding this... Are you saying you are paying maximum armor decay or max armor decay for whats allowable by the damage?

so is overprotecting good or bad now?

Thanks..

Dennis blighter said:

Im not quite understanding this... Are you saying you are paying maximum armor decay or max armor decay for whats allowable by the damage?

so is overprotecting good or bad now?

Thanks..

Click to expand...

We need more testing on the way decay now works before we can fully understand how this change affects hunting costs, but I think it's safe to say that armour (and plate) selection is more important now than it used to be, and that having a wide selection of armours to choose from, particularly those with the more esoteric protection stats, is more useful.