This is something I have always thought about: why do games (in this case, Diablo) often make armor class/defense equivalent to how often something hits you? It does not seem very intuitive. If you have a barbarian with a large defense, you would think you would still get hit, but the blow would not be as damaging. It seems as if defense has been used more as a sort of nimbleness.
Has anyone ever thought this? Is there a reason behind it? How should defense be treated in Diablo 3?
I vote for it being more damage reduction rather than making one more dexteritous.
What I liked in Rage of Mages was that it had 2 parameters:
Defense (chance to avoid)
Armor (damage absorb)
Armor was hard to get by and it was valuable to characters who get hit a lot... Defense was more for ranged characters who preferred to evade things.
Not exactly. You see, in ancient times, the purpose of armor was not to prevent a hammer from crushing your head. It would crush it anyway. The purpose of armor was to make weapons slide off you and not get to your body. Some armor had a degree of damage absorption that could, say, prevent a badly directed dagger from penetrating it. But usually, it was all about making weapons slide off you or arrows get deflected if at certain angles.
Shields provided a much more effective method of absorbing damage.
Yeah, what I am trying to say is that say a weapon slides off or is deflected by some plate armor. That weapon still made contact with the armor, while in Diablo, it is a total miss.
Maybe it is a miss in the sense that it did not make direct contact with the body, but I think you know what I mean at least, right?
From my understanding armors progressed as fighting styles changed. Leather and hides were the first and designed to offer just any protection, later studded leathers (with things like spikes for an 'offensive defense) were added. As iron weapons, namely swords, became more popular chain-mail was created to take the cutting edge away from it, which made bludgeoning weapons more effective, and so plating was then added to help reduce the crushing (and to help against arrows, especially with the power of long bows)... Eventually light agile weapons rapiers and basket-hilt claymores became more popular as the heavy armors were so bulky and restrictive (and took so long to remove most people soiled themselves while wearing it... :O)
In japan samurai armor was very light but had metal bands woven into the most vulnerable of areas in the hope of catching the blades as the came down on your shoulders or whatever, but still light in order to let you move freely. Meaning armor design was always based off of the weaponry that your were most likely ot face and used different methods to accomplish this.
More on the topic of the poster, I think they should split defenses into dodge and reduction and use names that fit both types. Perhaps give each armor 2 different defnse ratings, one evasion based, other damage reduction based.
More on the topic of the poster, I think they should split defenses into dodge and reduction and use names that fit both types. Perhaps give each armor 2 different defnse ratings, one evasion based, other damage reduction based.
^This. Love this idea. I always thought that it should be that way. Would add sooo many more build options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky"
What I liked in Rage of Mages was that it had 2 parameters:
Defense (chance to avoid)
Armor (damage absorb)
Armor was hard to get by and it was valuable to characters who get hit a lot... Defense was more for ranged characters who preferred to evade things.
Lol sorry Equinox, musta missed it somehow. I frequently check posts when tired, probably shouldn't. I really do like this idea, I would be psyched if they added it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky"
- Michael Scott
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Has anyone ever thought this? Is there a reason behind it? How should defense be treated in Diablo 3?
I vote for it being more damage reduction rather than making one more dexteritous.
Defense (chance to avoid)
Armor (damage absorb)
Armor was hard to get by and it was valuable to characters who get hit a lot... Defense was more for ranged characters who preferred to evade things.
Shields provided a much more effective method of absorbing damage.
maybe they could give most heavy class armor
have a damage reduction lol
and all shields a value of this =3
or maybe some armor that gives no defense but a whole lot of damage reduction =3
Be my Buddy =^.^=
Maybe it is a miss in the sense that it did not make direct contact with the body, but I think you know what I mean at least, right?
In japan samurai armor was very light but had metal bands woven into the most vulnerable of areas in the hope of catching the blades as the came down on your shoulders or whatever, but still light in order to let you move freely. Meaning armor design was always based off of the weaponry that your were most likely ot face and used different methods to accomplish this.
More on the topic of the poster, I think they should split defenses into dodge and reduction and use names that fit both types. Perhaps give each armor 2 different defnse ratings, one evasion based, other damage reduction based.
^This. Love this idea. I always thought that it should be that way. Would add sooo many more build options.
you don't take - Wayne Gretzky"
- Michael Scott
Lol sorry Equinox, musta missed it somehow. I frequently check posts when tired, probably shouldn't. I really do like this idea, I would be psyched if they added it.
you don't take - Wayne Gretzky"
- Michael Scott