Does anyone know the formula for armor protection?

[topeira]

Does anyone know the formula for armor protection?

hi guys.

im level 13 and carry armor around rating of 60's.

does anyone know the formula of how much armor protects you?
i tried doing some tests and found i took about 70% damage when wearing armor of about 50 but this is not a really empiric testing.

i know armor rating can get as high as 200 or so, so maybe someone with a really good armor can test and see how much damage he gets from a certain enemy when wearing the armor and how much damage he takes when loading the same save and fighting naked and see the results.

 

[Ouroboros612]

The griffin concoction increases your armor more and more the longer the fight lasts. You could try that?

In fights that matter (bosses, waves of mobs, long fights) your mitigation will get a heavy increase. Not sure about the exact amount but it is very noticable.

 

[topeira]

i did some testing.

i had armor rating of 133 and i spawned (used the PC debug console) a bear (lvl16) and a bandit (lvl1)
then i wore armor 0 and spawned the same enemies.
i took note of the damage they dealt and made an avarage (since attacks damage on geralt can vary)

with armor 133 - bear did about 1050 and bandit did about 190
with armor 64 - bear did about 1140 and bandit did about 330
with armor 0 - bear did about 1200 and bandit did about 450

this leads me to believe that armor rating simply reduces the damage you take from each attack by the armor number. it didnt seem exactly like that with the bandit but maybe i wore a body armor that reduced slash damage more, but it's a give or take.

so the formula seems really simple: [damage output] - [armor rating] = [damage received]

if someone else wants to test this - i'd love to hear it.

 

[Solid_Altair]

Unless the averages you got are somewhat far off, it doesn't seem like a straight up subtraction. Also, could it be an armor rating higher than the damage would completly ignore the attack? Usually, to prevent that, games have formulae of curves where the damage can tend towards zero, but never reach it.

Thanks a lot for testing and sharing the results. It seems armor actually offers little protection against big threats. It's effect is far from a straight up multipliction. This makes me think that offensive buffs given by armours is more important. Kinda like... bye bye, heavy armor. But right now I'm using light armor anyways.

 

[topeira]

Unless the averages you got are somewhat far off, it doesn't seem like a straight up subtraction. Also, could it be an armor rating higher than the damage would completly ignore the attack? Usually, to prevent that, games have formulae of curves where the damage can tend towards zero, but never reach it.

Thanks a lot for testing and sharing the results. It seems armor actually offers little protection against big threats. It's effect is far from a straight up multipliction. This makes me think that offensive buffs given by armours is more important. Kinda like... bye bye, heavy armor. But right now I'm using light armor anyways.

i dont know how much damage do really weak foes. i guess lvl1 wolves are really weak but do they do less damage than a high level armor? maybe. didnt test this.
but if a level 1 human enemy does 450 damage and high end armor does reach 450 armor rating than perhaps it still makes sense. besides, if you get armor rating of 300 than i guess you dont really face many level 1 enemies anyways....

 

[Solid_Altair]

I remember Castlevania Curse of Darkness. The armors worked as subtraction and minimum damage was 1. So, the noob enemies would just ping damage you 1 HP at a timie.

I think the regular attacks of low level enemies is close to 200. However, there are smaller sources of damage, like toughing a Algoul. These little damages could completely ignored by a high level armor, apparently. Not necessarilly a bad thing. I'm really just curious about this.