Talk:Protective Bond

Should we add a note about the very popular "105/85/55er" builds (if you know what I mean)? --Tetris L 21:22, 26 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Today's update changed Protective Bond so that this build doesn't work anymore. Ehe energy cost for reducing damage will stay at 3, so it can't be used effectively with this build anymore - you won't have any energy left to do damage. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 21:31, 26 Aug 2005 (EST)

Should we add a note that, even though we can't prove it, at rank 17 the energy drain is most likely 3? The reason we can't prove it is because we can never tell whether the +1 bonus triggers. However, I'm probably not the only one who recasted Protective Bond at 16 with +1 offhand for more than 20 times trying to get the drain down to 2. Statistically speaking, the probablity of the +1 never trigger in all those attempts is extremely unlikely. No hard proof, but something like 99.9999% certain. -PanSola 03:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No one has ever reported the linear interpolation using 0 and 15 to not work at 17 (by extending it to extrapolate). --Fyren 15:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh, maybe because it's not exactly linear so most people don't use linear inter/extra-polation on it? Generally speaking. -PanSola 15:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Blah, looks like interpolation using 0 and 12 does work, while 15 doesn't. I always kinda expected there is a diminishing return in place so never paid attention to this property.  So why does the website use green number ranges from 0~15 as opposed to 0~12? -PanSola 16:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What? Interpolation with 0 and 15 works, 0 and 12 doesn't.  And we do use 0...12 as our ranges.  (This is because we started before ANet ever used 0...15 in patch notes and 0...12 is used in game.)  --Fyren 16:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, maybe the progression table for the sever skills I checked were wrong then? Empathy's duration can be interpolated between 0~12 but not 0~15.  I checked several other random skills using the progression table in their articles, and 0~12 seem to consistently work... o_O""" -PanSola 16:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Blah nevermind, I must've typed some number wrong into the spreadsheet earlier... -PanSola 16:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This is my new favourite spell ^_^ 195.137.4.228 10:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)