I know the current PTR is currently hot with debates but maybe this is a good opportunity to address physical damage going through 3 different stats. This thread is mostly rhetorical I suppose, as this topic applies to ARPGs in general but here it goes anyway.
Should physical damage have to through absorption, armor and physical resistance? What purpose does this achieve? From an itemization standpoint having absorption at 70% base is “fine”, but why have a stat that is basically “Your item has 1000 armor but actually it functionally only has 700 unless you raise this other stat, tee hee”? Why armor on top of this? Why not have armor work like a rating where higher armor = higher % physical resistance? Why have % physical resistance at all and not just have armor? I have no answers or suggestions (for now)
We already have a huge outburst about physical changes in general, there is gonna be even more (probably) if we start simplifying what you pointed out.
I am not sayin your idea is bad per say, simplification would do wonders, however, at this point it is too late as Norzan pointed out.
Suggestion, would be ditch armor absorb as whole and keep other two, but that’s a bit of a pipe dream I think right now.
But 2 of these are actually specific to physical damage. No other damage type has those extras except for physical. You don’t have fire damage having to go through a fire armor stat, which has its own fire armor absorb percentage on the side to worry about.
I would agree with that one, that stat is just too rare, basically restricted to mid/end-game compos, in turn restricting component choice for legs, chest and shoulders, for an effect that is pretty much impossible to quantify with the gigantic range of physical damage you can take, and now values changed…
Hot take: I like having armor absorb mechanic. It makes sense to me and it adds nuance to itemization: like what component to use - one that gives you damage or one that caps your armor absorb and knowing when armor absorb matters and when you can totally ignore it.
I also liked monsters’ rr mechanics that were mostly removed that you made overcap resistances to counter them.
What I don’t like is how most casters can’t afford having armor at all.
I dunno I think it fits nicely with the traditional idea of melee characters having some form of natural tankiness over their long-range counterparts to make up for the fact they have to melee to do anything. Regardless of armor differences, if you wanted to play GD as a facetank simulator, casters have been capable of that anyway throughout GD’s history.
Sure, they compensate in other departments. But not all of them have equal opportunities to do so. And not all of the melee/ranged builds have access to armor too.
My point is that there is a big disparity in builds having access to defensive tools and some casters would definitely benefit from having more access to armor (like spam-casters and channelers).
