Which armor is better? - Guild Wars Forums

Edgge · Jun 14, 2005, 05:01 PM // 17:01

Which armor provides greater protection?

Armor #1
AL 50
Reduces damage from attack
Armor +10

Armor #2
AL 50
Armor +20

Sounds like Armor #2 is better but I don't know specifically what "Reduces damage from attacks" means.

It would be helpful if the game gave feedback to attack and defense when you equiped weapons and armor. It could be an option if others didn't wish to use it.

Thanks

salatious · Jun 14, 2005, 05:09 PM // 17:09

why did you post this question twice?
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=21613

Eclair · Jun 14, 2005, 05:37 PM // 17:37

Currently, the reduce damage from attack isn't localized (last test done by Ensign I believe) so having just 1 piece of the armor would net you a -2 damage everywhere.

The best combination would be to equip a damage reduction piece on either the legs or hands (only 12.5% chance to be hit) and wear the higher armor piece on the chest and legs (37.5% and 25% chance to be hit respectively) with a +weapon attribute helm of your choice.

Edgge · Jun 14, 2005, 05:42 PM // 17:42

Ouch! Wish I'd known that before switching out all my armor. Lesson learned.

Nexx · Jun 25, 2005, 05:54 AM // 05:54

=T

In that case, knights armor is much better than plate armor.

Knight armor: 80 AL + 10 AL (physical attack) = 90 AL + Reduce Damage
Plate armor: 85 AL + 10 AL (physical attack) = 95 AL

Now, let us assume that the user is taking 30 damage. Using the formulas and tables found here:

With Knight: 30 * (.595) = 17.7 -2 = 15.2 !
With Plate: 30 * (.545) = 16.35

If that is the case, knight armor is superior to plate in every aspect. So why does plate cost so much? Steel is very expensive. I don't get it. Can someone enlighten me?

Tellani Artini · Jun 25, 2005, 05:56 AM // 05:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexx

=T

In that case, knights armor is much better than plate armor.

Knight armor: 80 AL + 10 AL (physical attack) = 90 AL + Reduce Damage
Plate armor: 85 AL + 10 AL (physical attack) = 95 AL

Now, let us assume that the user is taking 30 damage. Using the formulas and tables found here:

With Knight: 30 * .595 = 17.7 -2 = 15.2 !
With Plate: 30 * .545 = 16.35

If that is the case, why does plate cost so much more than knight? Steel is very expensive. I don't get it. Can anybody enlighten me?

You assume they're taking damage from an attack and not a spell, in which case plate armor is superior.

Nexx · Jun 25, 2005, 06:19 AM // 06:19

Okay, say instead of physical damage, we have spell damage of 30.

Knight: 80 AL = 70.7%, 30 * .707 = 21.21 - 2 = 19.21
Plate: 85 AL = 64.8%, 30 * 64.8 = 19.44

Perhaps I'm doing the math wrong here (so correct me if I'm wrong).

Racthoh · Jun 25, 2005, 06:20 AM // 06:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eclair

Currently, the reduce damage from attack isn't localized (last test done by Ensign I believe) so having just 1 piece of the armor would net you a -2 damage everywhere.

The best combination would be to equip a damage reduction piece on either the legs or hands (only 12.5% chance to be hit) and wear the higher armor piece on the chest and legs (37.5% and 25% chance to be hit respectively) with a +weapon attribute helm of your choice.

I am slightly confused by what you said Eclair. The damage reduction has a % chance to work whenever you are physically attacked? Could you (or anyone) elaborate a little more?

From what it reads on the armour is "Reduces damage from attacks" to me means that physical damage is reduced by a set amount. But, are you saying that what that means is that it may not always occur?

Also, does the reduces damage from attacks on armour combine with the rune that reduces damage?

Nexx · Jun 25, 2005, 06:28 AM // 06:28

If the reduce damage is not localized to a specific piece as you said, why does all the Knight armor pieces have them? Wouldn't one suffice?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmperorTippy

Both are global. And they stack.

EmperorTippy answered my question. Both reduce damage are global.

wgregory87 · Jun 25, 2005, 07:33 AM // 07:33

Where are you getting these formulas from? Sounds to me like you're kind of guessing with a few of the numbers. How do you know the reduce isnt before armor?? eg) 15dmg -2 x whatever your number was. In which case the -2 would be much less insignificant.

edit: let me elaborate

Knight: 80 AL = 70.7%, 30 * .707 = 21.21 - 2 = 19.21
Plate: 85 AL = 64.8%, 30 * 64.8 = 19.44

your numbers
now lets see my theory (which I think is more logical according to balance reasons)
we'll do 30 damage again?
Knight: 80AL = 70.7%, 30-2 (.707) = 19.796
Plate: 85AL = 64.8%, 30 x 64.8 = 19.44

Wouldn't that make more sense?

edit 2: physical re

take into account I'm trusting all your damage reduce based on armor (I dont know the formulas

With Knight: 30 * (.595) = 17.7 -2 = 15.2 !
With Plate: 30 * (.545) = 16.35

your numbers
and my theory

With Knight: 30-2 * (.595) = 16.66
With Plate: 30 * (.545) = 16.35

So conclusively, shouldn't my math make more sense based on the cost of the armor? Still we see little difference and I'm aware of this but the difference is still apparent. However as stated above you can have the best of both worlds and recieve the damage reduce bonus globally based on 1 part and assuming it doesnt hit that part of armor you're going to look like this:

With Plate: 30-2 * (.545) = 15.26 <<clearly the best solution

Although after looking at this I just realized that my chest/legs are ascalon armor, I need to change that

I bought thinking expensive = better.

Tellani Artini · Jun 25, 2005, 08:34 AM // 08:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexx

Okay, say instead of physical damage, we have spell damage of 30.

Knight: 80 AL = 70.7%, 30 * .707 = 21.21 - 2 = 19.21
Plate: 85 AL = 64.8%, 30 * 64.8 = 19.44

Perhaps I'm doing the math wrong here (so correct me if I'm wrong).

Now do the math with the kind of spell a warrior with 15k armor might actually get hit with, say 85. The higher the damage, the bigger the difference.

Nexx · Jun 25, 2005, 09:11 AM // 09:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by wgregory87

Where are you getting these formulas from? Sounds to me like you're kind of guessing with a few of the numbers. How do you know the reduce isnt before armor?? eg) 15dmg -2 x whatever your number was. In which case the -2 would be much less insignificant.

>_<

I wasn't exactly sure where the reduce damage would be applied (it was a guess really

). The reason why I asked was that there wasn't really much clear info on how reduce damage worked but your example with the reduction occuring before the percentage does seem more reasonable. I guess paying for those steel pieces do pay off on the long run.

Beoulve · Jun 25, 2005, 09:32 AM // 09:32

Know lets come to a conclusion, whats better?

One piece of Knights and then all plate?

thaumaturge · Jun 25, 2005, 09:44 AM // 09:44

I don't know whether they have altered Knights armor but according to my tests it no longer reduces damage universally like it used to. So if you are going knights armor it will only effect it when it hits it.

Beoulve · Jun 25, 2005, 01:30 PM // 13:30

So should I use Knights chest and then Platemale for all my other pieces as a tank?

Jun 25, 2005, 05:54 AM // 05:54	#5
Nexx Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: Jun 2005	=T In that case, knights armor is much better than plate armor. Knight armor: 80 AL + 10 AL (physical attack) = 90 AL + Reduce Damage Plate armor: 85 AL + 10 AL (physical attack) = 95 AL Now, let us assume that the user is taking 30 damage. Using the formulas and tables found here: With Knight: 30 * (.595) = 17.7 -2 = 15.2 ! With Plate: 30 * (.545) = 16.35 If that is the case, knight armor is superior to plate in every aspect. So why does plate cost so much? Steel is very expensive. I don't get it. Can someone enlighten me? Last edited by Nexx; Jun 25, 2005 at 05:56 AM // 05:56..

Jun 25, 2005, 07:33 AM // 07:33	#10
wgregory87 Lion's Arch Merchant Join Date: May 2005 Location: North Vancouver Guild: TYSN Profession: Mo/W	Where are you getting these formulas from? Sounds to me like you're kind of guessing with a few of the numbers. How do you know the reduce isnt before armor?? eg) 15dmg -2 x whatever your number was. In which case the -2 would be much less insignificant. edit: let me elaborate Knight: 80 AL = 70.7%, 30 * .707 = 21.21 - 2 = 19.21 Plate: 85 AL = 64.8%, 30 * 64.8 = 19.44 your numbers now lets see my theory (which I think is more logical according to balance reasons) we'll do 30 damage again? Knight: 80AL = 70.7%, 30-2 (.707) = 19.796 Plate: 85AL = 64.8%, 30 x 64.8 = 19.44 Wouldn't that make more sense? edit 2: physical re take into account I'm trusting all your damage reduce based on armor (I dont know the formulas With Knight: 30 * (.595) = 17.7 -2 = 15.2 ! With Plate: 30 * (.545) = 16.35 your numbers and my theory With Knight: 30-2 * (.595) = 16.66 With Plate: 30 * (.545) = 16.35 So conclusively, shouldn't my math make more sense based on the cost of the armor? Still we see little difference and I'm aware of this but the difference is still apparent. However as stated above you can have the best of both worlds and recieve the damage reduce bonus globally based on 1 part and assuming it doesnt hit that part of armor you're going to look like this: With Plate: 30-2 * (.545) = 15.26 <<clearly the best solution Although after looking at this I just realized that my chest/legs are ascalon armor, I need to change that I bought thinking expensive = better. Last edited by wgregory87; Jun 25, 2005 at 07:41 AM // 07:41..

Jun 14, 2005, 05:01 PM // 17:01	#1
Edgge Pre-Searing Cadet Join Date: May 2005	Which armor is better? Which armor provides greater protection? Armor #1 AL 50 Reduces damage from attack Armor +10 Armor #2 AL 50 Armor +20 Sounds like Armor #2 is better but I don't know specifically what "Reduces damage from attacks" means. It would be helpful if the game gave feedback to attack and defense when you equiped weapons and armor. It could be an option if others didn't wish to use it. Thanks

Jun 14, 2005, 05:09 PM // 17:09	#2
salatious Krytan Explorer Join Date: May 2005 Location: Richmond, Va Guild: Looking for a better Guild Profession: E/Mo	why did you post this question twice? http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=21613

Jun 14, 2005, 05:37 PM // 17:37	#3
Eclair Desert Nomad Join Date: Apr 2005	Currently, the reduce damage from attack isn't localized (last test done by Ensign I believe) so having just 1 piece of the armor would net you a -2 damage everywhere. The best combination would be to equip a damage reduction piece on either the legs or hands (only 12.5% chance to be hit) and wear the higher armor piece on the chest and legs (37.5% and 25% chance to be hit respectively) with a +weapon attribute helm of your choice.

Jun 14, 2005, 05:42 PM // 17:42	#4
Edgge Pre-Searing Cadet Join Date: May 2005	Ouch! Wish I'd known that before switching out all my armor. Lesson learned.

Jun 25, 2005, 06:19 AM // 06:19	#7
Nexx Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: Jun 2005	Okay, say instead of physical damage, we have spell damage of 30. Knight: 80 AL = 70.7%, 30 * .707 = 21.21 - 2 = 19.21 Plate: 85 AL = 64.8%, 30 * 64.8 = 19.44 Perhaps I'm doing the math wrong here (so correct me if I'm wrong).

Jun 25, 2005, 09:32 AM // 09:32	#13
Beoulve Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: May 2005 Location: :O Guild: None atm Profession: W/Mo	Know lets come to a conclusion, whats better? One piece of Knights and then all plate?

Jun 25, 2005, 09:44 AM // 09:44	#14
thaumaturge Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: Mar 2005 Profession: Mo/Me	I don't know whether they have altered Knights armor but according to my tests it no longer reduces damage universally like it used to. So if you are going knights armor it will only effect it when it hits it.

Jun 25, 2005, 01:30 PM // 13:30	#15
Beoulve Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: May 2005 Location: :O Guild: None atm Profession: W/Mo	So should I use Knights chest and then Platemale for all my other pieces as a tank?