Poll: RPG armor

[Souplex]

So I've been playing some RPGs lately, and something has been bothering me.
How much should armor protect you?
Some games do it completely simplified, where if your armor is greater than an enemy's attack, not damage goes through.
Some games do it so only one point goes through.
Some games balance it on a percentage.
What do you prefer?

 

[shrekfan246]

I find that I generally prefer percentages, but I greatly appreciate when the game actually tells me what the percentage will be. Bonus points if weaker armor allows for more flexibility (movement in ARPGs or Dexterity/Evasion/Hit Chance in "normal" RPGs) at the cost of less damage reduction.

Pretty standard way of doing things, I thought. I just really don't like when all of the percentage stuff is completely calculated in the background, so as the player wouldn't even know they actually existed were they not familiar with the style of game, and would think the game is just pulling random numbers completely out of its ass.

Unless you have some form of physical or magical shield, I don't think damage should be completely blocked.

 

[skywolfblue]

I think that armor should be designed not to give 100% reduction in the first place. Like the highest set of gear only offering 80-90% damage reduction, even under all damage-reduction buffs. Rather then having 100% damage reduction, but the game "cuts through" 20% anyway. Fix the problem before it's a problem instead of after the fact, that kinda thing.

Whether it's tuned to 40%, 60% or 90%, the game needs to be balanced around a tank being able to survive a certain amount of hits, so it doesn't matter too much as enemy damage should change to match it.

Shield block on the other hand should have static values and actually block all damage.

 

[Souplex]

I think that armor should be designed not to give 100% reduction in the first place. Like the highest set of gear only offering 80-90% damage reduction, even under all damage-reduction buffs. Rather then having 100% damage reduction, but the game "cuts through" 20% anyway. Fix the problem before it's a problem instead of after the fact, that kinda thing.

Shield block on the other hand should have static values and actually block all damage.

So you favor the Dark Souls system?

 

[darlarosa]

It's not a simple question. It depends on game mechanics and game structure. In Fallout having targeted blows do certain damage makes sense for instance, or in Mass Effect certain body shots seem to be more effective. Keep in mind in the latter you can mix and match armor parts, and in the former armor is...tricky. In both those systems it makes perfect sense but in games such as Final Fantasy Tactics such specifics of injury placement or armor serve no function. It REALLY depends on the game. I'm not good at numbers and systems usually beyond having a rough understanding of what does what, so in Dragon Age the armor system was....odd for me to learn. It was behind the scenes number crunchy with percentages, but it didn't quite work just because when you start up you don't understand the Tier system or the armor level system

 

[skywolfblue]

I think that armor should be designed not to give 100% reduction in the first place. Like the highest set of gear only offering 80-90% damage reduction, even under all damage-reduction buffs. Rather then having 100% damage reduction, but the game "cuts through" 20% anyway. Fix the problem before it's a problem instead of after the fact, that kinda thing.

Shield block on the other hand should have static values and actually block all damage.

So you favor the Dark Souls system?

I haven't played Dark Souls myself. I guess so?

I was kinda loosely basing that around WoW. I did like the tanking mechanics of WoW a lot during the BC-Wrath Era.

I do like the "active mitigation" part of tanking, where you're pushing stuff (dodging/shield blocking/etc) to avoid damage, so in that way, yes, I'd say that Dark Souls fits that part pretty well.

 

[EvolutionKills]

It's all dependent on the game and the mechanics of said game. As long as the game is balanced and fun, within it's mechanics, I don't really care.

 

[Souplex]

I think that armor should be designed not to give 100% reduction in the first place. Like the highest set of gear only offering 80-90% damage reduction, even under all damage-reduction buffs. Rather then having 100% damage reduction, but the game "cuts through" 20% anyway. Fix the problem before it's a problem instead of after the fact, that kinda thing.

Shield block on the other hand should have static values and actually block all damage.

So you favor the Dark Souls system?

I haven't played Dark Souls myself. I guess so?

I was kinda loosely basing that around WoW. I did like the tanking mechanics of WoW a lot during the BC-Wrath Era.

I do like the "active mitigation" part of tanking, where you're pushing stuff (dodging/shield blocking/etc) to avoid damage, so in that way, yes, I'd say that Dark Souls fits that part pretty well.

Well in Dark Souls blocking is relatively simple. You face your enemy, and have your shield up when they attack.
Your shield has a few stats, most of them expressed as percentages.
Example: Physical block: 100 Magic block: 50 Stability 75.
This means that if you block a physical attack, none of the damage gets through, if you were to block a magical attack, half the damage would get through, and the stability means that only 25% of the damage that would be dealt to your health is shaved off your stamina instead.
Stamina is constantly regenerating, but blocking, attacking, or dodging all consume stamina.
If blocking an attack would deplete your stamina, your guard is broken, you take damage, and you're staggered.
The combination of each weapon having a unique moveset, blocking, dodging, and stamina management makes it feel a lot like a fighting game.
http://www.gametrailers.com/reviews/tnau10/dark-souls-review

 

[Strazdas]

Armor was created to protect you from a impact. it negates that. sufficiently strong armor that the enemy cant cut though will negate all damage.
Percentage works if the enemy is stronger than the armors ability to absorb damage. in such and only such cases armor shoudl also start wearing, so its quality will fall down.

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

I think that armor should be designed not to give 100% reduction in the first place. Like the highest set of gear only offering 80-90% damage reduction, even under all damage-reduction buffs. Rather then having 100% damage reduction, but the game "cuts through" 20% anyway. Fix the problem before it's a problem instead of after the fact, that kinda thing.

Shield block on the other hand should have static values and actually block all damage.

So you favor the Dark Souls system?

Most armour in Dark Souls wouldn't even get close to 80-90%. Each 100 in defence only prevents 10% of damage, so you'd need 900 defence to reduce physical damage by 90%. The best armour I've seen (the Giant's Set) only has a defence rating of about 80 per piece (300 for the full set when upgraded fully).