tamsulosin wrote:
1. The reason I ask about damage source is because if you used only a single damage source then you have made a critical assumption which would require further verification: namely that damage reduction is always the same, regardless of the damage source/count.
How can you be sure without testing that for any armor will always reduce a flat value no matter how much the raw damage is? How do we know armor does not reduce a proportion of the raw damage rather than a flat value?
Since then, I have also tried traps that give a base damage of 60 and it is still a flat value. One thing that can help verify this is that over the past years CIP has introduced armor that has both armor points and % reduction of physical attacks. If armor had already been proportional, I think it would be unlikely they add a separate parameter.
tamsulosin wrote:
2. If in calculating total armor value you add up all the armor values in the inventory then you made another assumption without verification. How do you know that armor values are added in a simple linear way? From my recollection of historical studies (these websites have since been buried and results thus no longer available) each successive armor is less effective than the one previous when added together.
In general, the formulas in tibia tend to be linear (although for armor values they are not a simple linear equation, they have to be tweaked a bit). I will mention that I did verify my assumptions even though everything is not written in this article (which Kagonesti wrote).
tamsulosin wrote:
3. Data summary in the form of graph would allow the reader to interpret the data themselves!
True, but this is a pretty boring graph! It is pretty easy to run over some traps, copy and paste those damage logs into Excel, cut out the extra stuff (manually or with a formula) and see how it looks.
tamsulosin wrote:
4. Damage count cannot be accurate if shielding/blocked hits are not accounted for. Each of these "hits" would be 0 damage and definitely affect the average value!
That is true. We have only accounted for the difference in damage in the distance calculator since distance weapons ignore shielding (it was very difficult to include in the curve hits below 0 as 0).
tamsulosin wrote:
5. Just for completeness sake it would be helpful for us to know how many times the experiment was performed and on what equipment/damage source. At the least in order to allow other researchers to reproduce the experiment.
I wholeheartedly encourage you to experiment yourself and report back. In this case of armor it really did not take that much effort to see clear results. In the case of shielding, this took a lot more time and you can read about it in that
article (and I did include more specifics).