Talk:Armor

Archive

---

/February-April 2007 /April-January 2010

Linen ftw ?

According to this monks wearing armors made of linen should be nearly immune to piercing damages. Yseron - 81.251.23.29 09:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it'd finally be a reason that people wearing various fabrics can withstand almost as much damage as those covered in metal plates :P | 72 (UTC) 12:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Importance of subjects is an arbitrary way of listing them?

Hardly, sir, hardly! Rather, alphabetical listing has no preference, as you say, and no ability to discern a wise order beyond its predetermined criteria. Normally this as good a way as any, but if it conflicts with a worthwhile and helpful order, it's unhelpful. Besides, the subjects of its criteria are arbitrary: yesterday it was "Maxed" armor, and today it's "Perfect/maxed armor," and both are valid terms; yet their placement in the list is now said to be non-arbitrary. In short, relevance to the article, and importance to the reader, are much better criteria. | 72 (UTC) 04:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Since it's under the "See also" section, I do think that relevance is greater than alphabetical. --JonTheMon 05:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a tad late, but oh well. I guess I was wondering if there was already a precedence on the wiki of alphabetical or relevance in terms of listing these types of things. Relevance is opinionated, and as a wiki, I think it should stray away from that as much as possible. Alphabetical order is obviously not. However, I was hoping that someone would point out how it was done in the past, so myself and others could do this the "wiki way" in the future. Kara talk 16:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Relevance here is not opinionated. If I asked you to sort Basic, Maxed, Prestige, and Common armor in a list by the order in which a person encounters them, or Festival Hats and Costumes by which one is enjoyed by 10x more of the playerbase, I hope you don't use your opinion. | 72 (UTC) 16:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The first example you mentioned would be a fine way to sort them. Your second example is opinionated though. Regardless, all I really care about is consistency from one article to the next. Is relevance something that is used on most articles "See Also," or is alphabetical used more? I just think alphabetical would be more logical and less hassle then a relevance order. Kara talk 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not have it that the default is alphabetical, but leave it flexible enough that if an order makes sense, we use it? So, if something really looks out of order with no rhyme or reason, go ahead and ABC it. And if someone goes and undoes your ABC'ing with a good reason, leave it then. --JonTheMon 18:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a fine idea. However, I'm just curious (for my future reference), what circumstances would constitute overriding the default alphabetical order? Kara talk 18:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, apparently the sort used in my first example, and not my second, is at least agreeable to three parties. (I should note that it's not an opinion which the playerbase has more of -- costumes haven't been around half a year, and cost money; festival hats have been around for five years, and are free. But meh.) | 72 (UTC) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess. I'm fine if you want to make it that way. I just hope that whatever we decide here can be applied to all other relevant sections in the wiki. (and you said likes, not has, but whatever :p) Kara talk 22:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to promote the ELITE term for the crafting armor sets as most of them have ELITE in their title and prestigious might be a nice term but its not used in the community. TBH prefer the http://guildwars.wikia.com/wiki/Armor_types way its laid out.

dye charts

i have access to being able to do all the armors dye charts is there any request for any armor also anyone think i shouldn't do this project?- Zesbeer 00:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You should do it, and also replace the EotN Armour Images to be the same colour as all the others. The red can be a little distracting, when everything else is another colour. ~Gilliam Bluestaff, Legendary Guardian 22:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Armor Matching Weapon Sets

I would like to see Armor in the Future that matches Weapons. Such as Destroyer Armor, Or Celestial Armor, the Rainbow kind. Personnaly I want armor that can be Dyed nicely as well. Uugh some of the armor Ive seen I wont even buy becuase it dyes soo horribly. The design is great but Dying it is awefull, the Colars dont do it justice.

Back on the main subject tho, Please make some new armor like Jade, Amber, Emerald, Choas, Destroyer, and Ghostly Hero Armor would be sick to. If you had a matching Set of armor to go with a Weapon, that would be SICK I could finaly die happy. Tourney Armor FTW!!!

Atlantis Mage

Additional armor after Protective Spirit

If a target uses any skill of percentage damage reduction, such as Protective Spirit, Protective Bond or Shelter, do additional armor increasing skills reduce the damage taken after the first skills ? Magnum 09:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe armor is calculated first. udas 22:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if the armor increasing spell is cast after Protective Spirit ? Magnum 08:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. More info here, although I can't say how accurate that list is. Cast order of spells is not always what matters. udas 13:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it does not really matter, does it? Let's say you have Protective Spirit that reduces damage to 10%, and an armor spell that reduces armor-respecting damage to 9%. If Protective Spirit triggers first, the damage is reduced to 10%, then to 9% by the other skill. If the armor skill triggers first, the damage is reduced to 9%, and Protective Spirit doesn't trigger any more. In both cases, the result is 9% damage. The only situations I see it matter is if you have something like Shelter, which takes damage each time it prevents damage, or a spell that only lasts a number of hits. In these cases, it would be beneficial that the armor skill triggers first. But I do think that armor triggers first anyway, so that's covered. udas 13:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nvm, you may have not got my point. Respectfully Magnum 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's disappointing. I'd like to help you. Maybe if you explain it a little more? udas 17:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Ex: If I cast Protective Spirit and then, lets say, Armor of Earth or Great Dwarf Armor, then from the original 500 dmg (example), PT reduces dmg taken to 48 (my char has 480 hp). Having Armor of Earth with 40 armor bonus further reduces the dmg from 48 to 24 or does it not apply ? Magnum 18:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not. udas 19:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow fast responses :) Ty (/bow). Respectfully Magnum 21:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing Armor in PvP

Is there a particular reason for why we can't change armor in pvp?BlackNova 06:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I do not know, but if I'd have to guess, I'd say because we aren't supposed to switch armor parts with different runes applied to better use certain skills depending on other attributes than the ones used. Magnum 08:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a time when both armor switching and weapons witching were used in high-end pvp. Armor switching was much more rarely used, but that rarely was still more frequently than never, and it created another obtuse step of knowledge and micro-management that ANet deemed unnecessary and unwanted. So they removed it. 50.0.77.41 18:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)