The sad state that is Armor

"

"

C0Y0T3_SLY wrote:

The reality is if you want armor to provide consistent damage reduction, it will have to be removed from Endurance charges or at least needed heavily there. I actually think that would be better and more interesting, but you'd need to find some replacement effect for END charges.

I'd agree. If you gave too much persistent percent physical damage reduction, then you'd potentially have to half endurance change effect, or remove them completely.


By the way, I killed one of my chars recently in the Beyond league to a rouge exile doing flameblast. I probably wasn't overcapped enough on resists, as he definitely cursed me. But I have to admit, with life + Energy shield, I wasn't very scared of pretty much anything. At least not of one-shotting me. Where in comparison, as some are claiming, armor doesn't really do that much to make one feel like a tank.

Therefore, here's a new fun idea: a Keystone that doubles armor against melee attacks. It would need some downside, such as reducing ES and Evasion or etc, but it sounds like the kind of thing that a 2h melee could use to me.

First, dont we have the keystone that doubles your evasion against ranged attacks at no penalty? So why the one that doubles armour against melee attacks should have penalty, then?

Second, what armour lacks? Diversity! It protects only from physical damage, and protects well only against small hits. That's the problem. Let armour protect against all kinds of damage, and it will become much, MUCH more attractive.

Players want protection against everything. Evasion (with phase acrobatics) protects against everything. ES protects against everything (except chaos, but ES characters get Shav or CI anyway). So armour also should protect against everything.

To sum it up, Armour doesn't need buffing at low challenge (when you have a high armour for the incoming damage).
It just needs to become LESS USELESS as the incoming damage increases.
The curve is too steep atm.
So keep armour as is at low incoming damage (or even nerf it if it's too strong vs weak hits) and buff it a little against bigger hits.

Or leave it as it is against non-crits, and just make armour increase by X% against crits, for example.

"

Or they could simply calculate the reduction percentage before factoring in the critical part of the strike.

That is even simpler. Good idea.

Does anyone now if the developers have any idea in making changes regarding armours' damage and critical strike mitigation in the next 2 major patch releases (1.3 and 1.4) ?

I can't believe how many people have argued here that armour (I'm aussie, don't know why new zullanders went with the yank spelling) is totally fine.

It's fine with CWDT or lightning coil, but you can remove all your armour and still do fine with those.

A 10k hit with 5k armour = you will get 400 life mitigation from armour. Pointless.
A 10k hit with *20k* armour = you will get 1,428 life mitigation from armour. Still pointless.

Assuming you survive the hit, it's CWDT that's keeping you alive in the next few seconds, not armour.

Yada yada armour can stop a spray of needles but not a truck (funny how a shield can actually stop a truck though, when plate armour wasn't good enough).

"

davidnn5 wrote:

I can't believe how many people have argued here that armour (I'm aussie, don't know why new zullanders went with the yank spelling) is totally fine.

I agree. It's so unbalanced with ES and Evasion, that it is silly...

"

davidnn5 wrote:

Yada yada armour can stop a spray of needles but not a truck (funny how a shield can actually stop a truck though, when plate armour wasn't good enough).

Precisely.

Beware of long wall of text about History below:

Specially if we consider that the evolution of armour in the Middle Ages went from being supported by large shields (chain hauberks), to progressive smaller shields (half plate), until it became so evolved and efficient at stopping blows that the shield stopped being used altogether (full plate armour, gothic armour).

If progressive better armour was so bad at stopping blows and so expensive, why did only the best or the richest combatants were equipped with it and why did it continue to evolve?

And why did the professional soldiers and mercenaries, when they became more experienced and better payed, would rush to acquire better armour as soon as they could afford it?

And why did the heavily armoured warrior ruled warfare for centuries, only becoming progressivelly less armoured when the appearance of efficient gunpowder with armour piercing capabilities showed up on the battlefield?

Just ask any real historian if armour was efficient and very sought after in those days. Of course it was! Even light troops like archers and, specially, crossbowmen sought efficient and progressively heavier armour as their skills and experience evolved.

The developers' notion that armour was not good for deflecting critically damaging blows is preposterous! It was in fact, developed preciselly for that job!

Or did a squire with a soft leather armour felt himself safer in the battlefield than the knight he served, which was dressed in full plate armour? What about when he received a sword blow to the shoulder? Was the injury caused by that blow less serious than if that same blow had been inflicted upon the heavily armoured knight? Of course not! He would be dead and the knight would be very much alive! Because that was what armour was developed for. For defeating critically injuring blows.

The very fact that in the late Middle Ages weapons (mace/crowbill/halberd) were specifically developed to try to brake/perforate late period armour is a testament to it's efficiency.

End of long wall of text about History

And the silly argument that armour should stop small blows but not a truck is funny. What about no armour at all? Does it stop a truck better? Nope! But the developers seem to think so. After all it is much better to use a mystical bubble of energy to defeat critical injuring blows!

I know this is a fantasy game and, although most of these games are thematically inspired by the medieval period, realistic real-life notions about warfare equipment should not spoil the gameplay balance. Except that, in this case, there is no gameplay balance at all!!!

"

Aymar_de_Bois_Mauri wrote:

Beware of long wall of text about History below:

Spoiler

Specially if we consider that the evolution of armour in the Middle Ages went from being supported by large shields (chain hauberks), to progressive smaller shields (half plate), until it became so evolved and efficient at stopping blows that the shield stopped being used altogether (full plate armour, gothic armour).

If progressive better armour was so bad at stopping blows and so expensive, why did only the best or the richest combatants were equipped with it and why did it continue to evolve?

And why did the professional soldiers and mercenaries, when they became more experienced and better payed, would rush to acquire better armour as soon as they could afford it?

And why did the heavily armoured warrior ruled warfare for centuries, only becoming progressivelly less armoured when the appearance of efficient gunpowder with armour piercing capabilities showed up on the battlefield?

Just ask any real historian if armour was efficient and very sought after in those days. Of course it was! Even light troops like archers and, specially, crossbowmen sought efficient and progressively heavier armour as their skills and experience evolved.

The developers' notion that armour was not good for deflecting critically damaging blows is preposterous! It was in fact, developed preciselly for that job!

Or did a squire with a soft leather armour felt himself safer in the battlefield than the knight he served, which was dressed in full plate armour? What about when he received a sword blow to the shoulder? Was the injury caused by that blow less serious than if that same blow had been inflicted upon the heavily armoured knight? Of course not! He would be dead and the knight would be very much alive! Because that was what armour was developed for. For defeating critically injuring blows.

The very fact that in the late Middle Ages weapons (mace/crowbill/halberd) were specifically developed to try to brake/perforate late period armour is a testament to it's efficiency.

End of long wall of text about History

...too bad in medieval times there were no wrecking ball swinging giant dragon ogres shooting laserbeams out of their ass.
So while it's an interesting read, what does it matter in a fantasy game?

"

And the silly argument that armour should stop small blows but not a truck is funny. What about no armour at all? Does it stop a truck better? Nope! But the developers seem to think so. After all it is much better to use a mystical bubble of energy to defeat critical injuring blows!

Wearing no armor enables you to jump out of the way quicker.
Your taking equal damage when hit, but you have a better time evading the hit.

Reflected in game mechanics, seems fine to me.

"

MortalKombat3 wrote:

First, dont we have the keystone that doubles your evasion against ranged attacks at no penalty? So why the one that doubles armour against melee attacks should have penalty, then?

Second, what armour lacks? Diversity! It protects only from physical damage, and protects well only against small hits. That's the problem. Let armour protect against all kinds of damage, and it will become much, MUCH more attractive.

Players want protection against everything. Evasion (with phase acrobatics) protects against everything. ES protects against everything (except chaos, but ES characters get Shav or CI anyway). So armour also should protect against everything.

Just bump this guy

"

Helpmegod wrote:

"

MortalKombat3 wrote:

First, dont we have the keystone that doubles your evasion against ranged attacks at no penalty? So why the one that doubles armour against melee attacks should have penalty, then?

Second, what armour lacks? Diversity! It protects only from physical damage, and protects well only against small hits. That's the problem. Let armour protect against all kinds of damage, and it will become much, MUCH more attractive.

Players want protection against everything. Evasion (with phase acrobatics) protects against everything. ES protects against everything (except chaos, but ES characters get Shav or CI anyway). So armour also should protect against everything.

Just bump this guy

Agreed. He is right on target.