Warrior Armor Clarification - Guild Wars Forums

The Acolyte · Jan 13, 2006, 05:34 PM // 17:34

Just curious, because recently this debate has been opened up again in-game. I have heard assumptions that armor pieces with "damage reduction" apply to the entire body.
I.E. If a warrior is wearing gloves with damage reduction, and a piece of chest piece armor like gladiator's, that if a blow hits the warrior in the chest the warrior will gain the damage reduction benefits from the gloves.

However, I was discussing this with some friends who have been playing GW for awhile and they are saying that this is a BS theory, and completely unproven and untrue. My intuition would say that my friends are correct and that Anet would have developed the armor pieces and the corresponding damage reduction to ONLY apply to hits on that armor piece.

Which way is it? If you cannot speak to this from factual confirmation, then please call this out if you are responding. The goal here is to put this issue to rest...I'm thinking a question to Gail about this would be best.

Thanks!

The Acolyte

AxeMe · Jan 13, 2006, 05:42 PM // 17:42

It's global.

And, with search, you'll find so much proof that - if you read it all - you won't have time left to play the game.

darkMishkin · Jan 13, 2006, 05:44 PM // 17:44

Ensign > Your friends:
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ge+re duction

Some more posts, Savio + Eonwe (of iQ):
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...89&postcount=8
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...33&postcount=3
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...7&postcount=15
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...63&postcount=3

The Acolyte · Jan 13, 2006, 05:45 PM // 17:45

Thanks Axe...can you please give me your search keywords so we can close this thread? Or better yet, copy and paste a few links proving this concept. I (of course) used the search feature but wasn't having any luck seeing this methodically/scientifically proven OR any feedback from Anet/Gail stating this was truth.

Thanks!

EDIT: LMFAO....someone posted links above as I was responding with this request. TY, I'll dig through now.

EDIT NUMBER TWO: Again, the issue I am running into here is that these are responses (above links) from people stating factually that damage reduction is global, without any scientific/methodical processes proving this is true. It's like the "terror shield" phenomenon that stayed around for weeks until Gail shot it down. As much as I'd like to trust statements like the posts above, they are not providing where this information/conclusion came from. Can someone PLEASE provide this to me? This is what I am looking for...

EDIT NUMBER THREE: Thanks for the update (Ensign's response via that link). I see his calculations in a full set, but didn't see anything showing a test with only one piece. Did I miss it?

AxeMe · Jan 13, 2006, 06:07 PM // 18:07

We're beating a dead horse here (no criticism meant at all, it's just that since you're still not convinced after reading the posted links - and you have a right to be skeptical - I don't think there's much more that I can do to convince you otherwise).

I'm convinced - as are many others - that it is global.
But, hey, many of my heroes in life are skeptics. Go at it.
Meanwhile I'll leave you here with that dead horse.

The Acolyte · Jan 13, 2006, 06:17 PM // 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxeMe

We're beating a dead horse here (no criticism meant at all, it's just that since you're still not convinced after reading the posted links - and you have a right to be skeptical - I don't think there's much more that I can do to convince you otherwise).

I'm convinced - as are many others - that it is global.
But, hey, many of my heroes in life are skeptics. Go at it.
Meanwhile I'll leave you here with that dead horse.

..........

OK, well, thanks for the help. It's just too bad that the scientific/methodical analysis associated with this conclusion hasn't been posted. It would be a great shame if this isn't true, and everyone is jumping on a hypothetical "wish it was true because it would be great" theory without seeing evidence. Is there some way that this can be presented to Gail as a question?

If someone finds an article with this info, please PM me with it. I would greatly appreciate the info.

legendel · Jan 13, 2006, 06:21 PM // 18:21

can i flog a dead horse some more, does this mean that if you add the damage reduction rune, that this will have no effect, or will it stack

Edit: Sorry, found the info i needed

darkMishkin · Jan 13, 2006, 06:25 PM // 18:25

I just did it myself, takes all of 2 minutes to show it has an effect, I'm not the one who's gonna mathematically prove that knight's = -2, but damn its obvious there's a difference.

Most important are the 'Wild Blows', which are always critical hits.

The Acolyte · Jan 13, 2006, 06:26 PM // 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by legendel

can i flog a dead horse some more, does this mean that if you add the damage reduction rune, that this will have no effect, or will it stack

Edit: Sorry, found the info i needed

Just in case someone else reads this, the answer is YES...and Ensign has posted his methodology of coming up with this conclusion (link above). Very conclusive in my opinion. If only he would have posted same with only one item of knights as well...

The Acolyte · Jan 13, 2006, 06:27 PM // 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkMishkin

I just did it myself, takes all of 2 minutes to show it has an effect, I'm not the one who's gonna mathematically proove that knight's = -2, but damn its obvious there's a difference.

Most important are the 'Wild Blows', which are always critical hits.

Fantastic...this is what I was looking for. Proof enough for me. Can this information and that screenshot be stickied somewhere for reference?

Thanks Dark...you're awesome!

darkMishkin · Jan 13, 2006, 06:34 PM // 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Acolyte

Thanks Dark...you're awesome!

I accept

Cherno · Jan 13, 2006, 06:34 PM // 18:34

Well just look at this the other way based on your question. Do you have any way to initiate a strike to a specific part of an enemies body? Since there is no way to control that, why would you assume that you have to have that part of the body more protected or set with absorption over another?

Mathematically this would be essentially impossible to prove since you can't tell what part of the body an enemy would have somethng like this on and couldn't target it any way.

Using yourself as the target, how could you ensure that the enemy hits you where you placed the absorption?

I respect that you are trying to find compelling hard and fast evidence, and seemed to have found it to your satisfaction now, but sometimes you just have to let logic dictate the truth of a matter without evidence. Faith.

The Acolyte · Jan 13, 2006, 06:42 PM // 18:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherno

Well just look at this the other way based on your question. Do you have any way to initiate a strike to a specific part of an enemies body? Since there is no way to control that, why would you assume that you have to have that part of the body more protected or set with absorption over another?

Mathematically this would be essentially impossible to prove since you can't tell what part of the body an enemy would have somethng like this on and couldn't target it any way.

Using yourself as the target, how could you ensure that the enemy hits you where you placed the absorption?

I respect that you are trying to find compelling hard and fast evidence, and seemed to have found it to your satisfaction now, but sometimes you just have to let logic dictate the truth of a matter without evidence. Faith.

I forget what the boot's cover (as far as percentage of the body) but I'm pretty sure in the teens. Therefore, if you take 10 hits and more than 3 (for statistical validity) of those 10 hits show a drop in damage then we can be certain within a reasonable doubt that only 1 piece of knights is global. I'm good with Darks screen shot.

As far as trusting these forums and the information that is provided here on FAITH, not a chance. The recent "existence" of a terror shield (as mentioned above) is a perfect example as to why you shouldn't trust word of mouth without there being some type of methodical, factual, and specific proof to support the conclusion. Whether that be Gail affirming that conclusion, or at the very least someone else conducting their own "science" experiment doesn't matter; just that it is done before stating it's a fact.

I also would recomend that people do this as a general rule so that we can reduce those points stated as fact without actually making sure it is fact. There are many examples of rumors being stated as fact and then someone having to disprove it.

The Acolyte · Jan 13, 2006, 06:46 PM // 18:46

EDIT: Deleted dupe post

Jan 13, 2006, 05:34 PM // 17:34	#1
The Acolyte Lion's Arch Merchant Join Date: Nov 2005 Guild: Seekers of Justice ~ SoJ	Warrior Armor Clarification Just curious, because recently this debate has been opened up again in-game. I have heard assumptions that armor pieces with "damage reduction" apply to the entire body. I.E. If a warrior is wearing gloves with damage reduction, and a piece of chest piece armor like gladiator's, that if a blow hits the warrior in the chest the warrior will gain the damage reduction benefits from the gloves. However, I was discussing this with some friends who have been playing GW for awhile and they are saying that this is a BS theory, and completely unproven and untrue. My intuition would say that my friends are correct and that Anet would have developed the armor pieces and the corresponding damage reduction to ONLY apply to hits on that armor piece. Which way is it? If you cannot speak to this from factual confirmation, then please call this out if you are responding. The goal here is to put this issue to rest...I'm thinking a question to Gail about this would be best. Thanks! The Acolyte

Jan 13, 2006, 05:44 PM // 17:44	#3
darkMishkin Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: UK Guild: Servants of Fortuna [SoF] Profession: Mo/	Ensign > Your friends: http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ge+re duction Some more posts, Savio + Eonwe (of iQ): http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...89&postcount=8 http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...33&postcount=3 http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...7&postcount=15 http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...63&postcount=3 Last edited by darkMishkin; Jan 13, 2006 at 05:49 PM // 17:49..

Jan 13, 2006, 05:45 PM // 17:45	#4
The Acolyte Lion's Arch Merchant Join Date: Nov 2005 Guild: Seekers of Justice ~ SoJ	Thanks Axe...can you please give me your search keywords so we can close this thread? Or better yet, copy and paste a few links proving this concept. I (of course) used the search feature but wasn't having any luck seeing this methodically/scientifically proven OR any feedback from Anet/Gail stating this was truth. Thanks! EDIT: LMFAO....someone posted links above as I was responding with this request. TY, I'll dig through now. EDIT NUMBER TWO: Again, the issue I am running into here is that these are responses (above links) from people stating factually that damage reduction is global, without any scientific/methodical processes proving this is true. It's like the "terror shield" phenomenon that stayed around for weeks until Gail shot it down. As much as I'd like to trust statements like the posts above, they are not providing where this information/conclusion came from. Can someone PLEASE provide this to me? This is what I am looking for... EDIT NUMBER THREE: Thanks for the update (Ensign's response via that link). I see his calculations in a full set, but didn't see anything showing a test with only one piece. Did I miss it? Last edited by The Acolyte; Jan 13, 2006 at 06:03 PM // 18:03..

Jan 13, 2006, 06:46 PM // 18:46	#14
The Acolyte Lion's Arch Merchant Join Date: Nov 2005 Guild: Seekers of Justice ~ SoJ	EDIT: Deleted dupe post Last edited by The Acolyte; Jan 13, 2006 at 09:30 PM // 21:30..

Jan 13, 2006, 05:42 PM // 17:42	#2
AxeMe Lion's Arch Merchant Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Atlanta Guild: HEX Profession: W/	It's global. And, with search, you'll find so much proof that - if you read it all - you won't have time left to play the game.

Jan 13, 2006, 06:07 PM // 18:07	#5
AxeMe Lion's Arch Merchant Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Atlanta Guild: HEX Profession: W/	We're beating a dead horse here (no criticism meant at all, it's just that since you're still not convinced after reading the posted links - and you have a right to be skeptical - I don't think there's much more that I can do to convince you otherwise). I'm convinced - as are many others - that it is global. But, hey, many of my heroes in life are skeptics. Go at it. Meanwhile I'll leave you here with that dead horse.

Jan 13, 2006, 06:21 PM // 18:21	#7
legendel Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: May 2005 Location: UK Guild: League of Friends (LOF) Profession: R/	can i flog a dead horse some more, does this mean that if you add the damage reduction rune, that this will have no effect, or will it stack Edit: Sorry, found the info i needed

Jan 13, 2006, 06:25 PM // 18:25	#8
darkMishkin Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: UK Guild: Servants of Fortuna [SoF] Profession: Mo/	I just did it myself, takes all of 2 minutes to show it has an effect, I'm not the one who's gonna mathematically prove that knight's = -2, but damn its obvious there's a difference. Most important are the 'Wild Blows', which are always critical hits.

Jan 13, 2006, 06:34 PM // 18:34	#12
Cherno Forge Runner Join Date: Jan 2006 Guild: Stars of Destiny Profession: E/	Well just look at this the other way based on your question. Do you have any way to initiate a strike to a specific part of an enemies body? Since there is no way to control that, why would you assume that you have to have that part of the body more protected or set with absorption over another? Mathematically this would be essentially impossible to prove since you can't tell what part of the body an enemy would have somethng like this on and couldn't target it any way. Using yourself as the target, how could you ensure that the enemy hits you where you placed the absorption? I respect that you are trying to find compelling hard and fast evidence, and seemed to have found it to your satisfaction now, but sometimes you just have to let logic dictate the truth of a matter without evidence. Faith.