Armour formula worse than in PoE1

"

öÖö8228#0520 wrote:

investment into armour is not a waste. The difference between having zero armour and having a bit of armour was very noticable to me. Taking that invoker node that converts some evasion into armour made a my guy lot more tanky against normal mobs with phsical attacks.

In poe 1 defenses were stupidly overpowerd since the rework in expedition league so they had to rebalance mobs and bosses around the op defenses wich made it basically manditory to spec into either armour and spell suppression or max res and phys taken as ele.

I'm glad they're not repeating this mistake in poe 2.

I guess it depends on how you define "waste". Armour does an awesome job at reducing small hits -- the key is to have enough armour for it to make a difference.

Theoretically, against comparatively small hits, Armor can negate up to 90% of the damage. Unfortunately to hit that 90% mark the armour rating needs to be roughly 100X higher than the hit in question.

Meaning that at roughly 20,000 armour [significant investment & opportunity cost] can negate 89% of the damage of a 200 HP hit.

getting to 15k armor is not hard tho, and I do think that shotguns dealing 150+dmg are actually quite common

"

Toaru_Majutsu_no_Index#1288 wrote:

getting to 15k armor is not hard tho, and I do think that shotguns dealing 150+dmg are actually quite common

That's the part that's hard to tell. When exposed to the "thousand cuts" would those be enough to kill you if you didn't mitigate their damage??

How often do you imagine you'd die to those as opposed to getting one-shot on juiced T15+ maps??


To be honest I don't have the numbers so I don't know what's best.


I do know that I had a [comparatively] significant investment into armour and I really don't feel that it gives the level of protection needed for higher tier maps ... at least with my skill / level of investment / ...


YMMV.

They 100% need to fix this Armour situation. How they think Armour is in a comparable spot to ES or Evasion blows my mind!! Why does armours effectiveness depend on the amount of damage received? According to the in game tool tip it says I reduce physical damage by 76%, but apparently thats not true depending on how much physical damage I receive in a single hit??? It might reduce the damage by 76% if the hit does 100 or 200 damage but if the hit does 1000 damage it might only reduce it by 25%!! That is complete BS.

Dont have a in game tool tip lie to your players especially when by the time most find out the truth its at the very end of the game after putting hours in only to find out "sorry but you chose the defense type that is absolutely worthless compared to the others available! GG! Better luck next time!!!"

If the in game tool tip says my armour reduces physical damage by 76% it should REDUCE PHYSICAL DAMAGE BY 76%!!! Regardless of if its a 200 damage hit or a 5000 damage hit

"

KingAlamar#4071 wrote:

"

Toaru_Majutsu_no_Index#1288 wrote:

getting to 15k armor is not hard tho, and I do think that shotguns dealing 150+dmg are actually quite common

That's the part that's hard to tell. When exposed to the "thousand cuts" would those be enough to kill you if you didn't mitigate their damage??

How often do you imagine you'd die to those as opposed to getting one-shot on juiced T15+ maps??


To be honest I don't have the numbers so I don't know what's best.


I do know that I had a [comparatively] significant investment into armour and I really don't feel that it gives the level of protection needed for higher tier maps ... at least with my skill / level of investment / ...


YMMV.

From experience in PoE/PoE2 combined, I hardly ever die in 1shots, usually I die from a combination of several attacks which feel like "1shot". That is also why more often than not, ghost shroud is a gamechanger for me. Because it really adds up against those shotgun hits.