Curse

Cameela · Sep 07, 2005, 03:31 AM // 03:31

I think, as it stands now, there aren't enough types of armor in the game. There are defenses for certain types of damage, but none for the others. I find that quite odd, and really I can't figure out why that is.

Mesmers: Bonus to physical damage, bonus to elemental and physical damage while casting spells.

Elementalists: Bonus to elemental spell damage.

Rangers: Bonus to elemental spell damage.

Warriors: Bonus to elemental spell damage and physical damage.

Monks: Bonus to elemental spell damage and physical damage.

Necromancer: Bonus to peircing damage, possible weak against holy damage.

Sometimes you find special modifications on items, shields, artifacts, weapons, which increase armor to elemental damage and various physical types of damage.

Why are these the only types of defensive armor available to players? I used to believe the answer was because spells not involving elements could not dish out as much damage. I find that, after the game has been out long enough for people to develope combinations of spells, this is entirely untrue. It is quite possible for shadow damage, chaos damage and holy damage to apply as much, if not more, damage than elemental or physical. Infact, due to there being no defense for these types of spells, I believe there is actually the possibility of doing much more damage.

What would be the downside to adding armors of different types? None that I can foresee. If there were different resistance choices for armor, you could still only pick one type of armor to wear at one time, more so for PvP characters.

I'll use the warrior for example. While they have the highest armor rating in the game, they have no defense against chaos, shadow or holy damage. Infact, it is quite easy for a warrior to die very quickly to any of these types of spell damage.

I can honestly say that I found it rather nice to do so much damage to a warrior through use of a mesmer, but I find it rather unfair. Not unfair to warriors, but unfair to every class. It is possible for any class to be taken out quickly by any of the three unresisted spell types.

The reason you see smite so often? Not because its the best, there are other great damage types, but it is one of the three which cannot be resisted.

I feel that adding more resist options to armor would allow for more variety in the PvP aspect of the game. Possibly the PvE also, but I find myself leaning towards the stylish moreso than the functional in PvE.

The experience of players has grown, (mostly), and people have figured out that spells which bypass any and all armor resist are the most useful in combat. In the arenas, where your opposing team could be anything, it is better to have spells which will hit them all the same, regardless of who they are. I do not find the balance in this and I do not believe any person could honestly say they do.

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I feel its something needed in this game. I really do find it hard to believe, after all these months, there is still no possible way to defend against these types of damage through armor. At the very least, they could be offered with shields or weapon upgrades, staves, wands.

I do not find protection spells or healing spells to really be an issue, as these can negate all types of damage. The problem is in the current resists available with armor.

Q: Why does a holy paladin have no holy armor?
Q: Why does a holy monk have no holy armor?
Q: Why does a chaos mesmer have no chaos armor?
Q: Why does an unholy necromancer have no unholy armor?
Q: Why does everybody have elemental and physical armor?
Q: Would adding these types of resists to armor be balanced?

Argue all you want, but in the history of people, there is one thing that every person always wants. Choices, choices, choices.

LifeInfusion · Sep 07, 2005, 03:38 AM // 03:38

Because if we were to be a stickler for realism, you can use shields and padded stuff to block physical and straps of plastic/metal or whatever as deflection for elemental.

You can't really block "holy/unholy/chaos" damage if there is such a thing.

And a necro/mesmer isnt a viable outright damage dealer. They sue hexes and spells. Even with 16 blood, the recharge for necro skilsl doesn't match that of elemental skills.

Monk smiting is mediocre recharge, and enchantment stripping kills it. Zealot's fire is fire (elemental) damage by the way.

Cameela · Sep 07, 2005, 03:52 AM // 03:52

So... if we use realism, a meteor falling out of the sky can't crush a person using a metal shield. An earthquake can't suck people into a giant chasm, they can just use their armor to block the gaping hole beneath them. A fireball can't hurt you as much, because your armor is half asbestos. A lightning stike can penetrate your armor, but it cant electrocute you fully since your armor is half rubber.

I don't think we can use realism. Charr is not realism. Rangers wearing bras into combat and taking less damage then a fully clothed mesmer is not realism.

Fenix Swiftblade · Sep 07, 2005, 04:04 AM // 04:04

you also have to remember that these types of damage were designed to ignore armor. For the skills involved to remain balanced, armor protecting against these forms of damage would have to reduce protection from other forms of damage. I'm pretty sure these forms of damage were included for the primary reason of giving certain classes access to damage that ignores armor (and remember, ignoring armor is not always a good thing). The skills that use these forms of damage are designed to do the damage listed, no more, no less.

I could sort of see a set of armor that gives you an armor bonus to holy or dark or choas, but then weakens your armor against other forms by 30 or so. But then, for reasons LifeInfusion stated, it would be pretty much worthless.