Talk:Shield

Any objetions to removing the list of shield types from this article as soon as there are articles to all (or at least most of) the shields and just link to Category:Shields? I'm planning to fill them in over the next few days. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 08:13, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I'd prefer to keep the list, even if we have the category page filled. It doesn't hurt. I like to have the information all in one place instead of scattered all over the wiki. --Tetris L 20:24, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)

On a side note, I added and then removed again the following shields that are listed in the Prima guide. I have never seen any of them, nor could I find any info about them on the web: Can anybody confirm that one of these shields exists? --Tetris L 20:24, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Bladed Buckler
 * Charr Shield
 * Militia Shield
 * Shield of the Dead
 * Spider Shield
 * Spiked Targe


 * Yes, I was already wondering where those come from. Never seen them myself, either. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 20:42, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)

Shield Templates
I made some templates for shields (basically by copying from the weapons templates and editing a few words), you can see them at Defender. Before I go ahead and edit all shields, tell me whether you like it or if I missed something. Note that I also removed the link to Shield from the description text and made "Shield details" from the template link here. I think we don't need an extra article for this, everything of relevance is explained here. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 18:57, 5 Sep 2005 (EST)

Directional Defense
I'm pretty certain that shields are directional, someone care to prove me wrong? --FireFox 06:40, 27 October 2005 (EST)


 * From my reading around the web, it definitely seems to be accepted that shields only protect from frontal damage. See [Importance of Position] or [Shields at Unofficial Guild Wars Site]. Also an excerpt from [guild wars and damage].


 * Shields play an important part because the shield's AL gets added to the base AL of the target. In the case of spells, this is always applied. In the case of weapon attacks, this is only applied if the target is being attacked from an arc of approximately 110-140 degrees in front of the target. For example attacking a player's front and they will gain the shield's AL, however attacking thier back will negate the shield's AL bonus
 * So based on that, you're both right... shields aren't directional against spells, but they are directional against attacks.
 * --Squeg 09:31, 27 October 2005 (EST)


 * Thanks for the clarification Squeg.    --FireFox 09:42, 27 October 2005 (EST)


 * I took a character out of Grendich Courthouse and found a low-level Charr with wild blow. I took off all my armor and equipped a shield (16 AL, with -2 while enchanted, but I never enchanted myself) and let it whack me from directly in front and directly behind.  The damage was the same both ways (I tried a few times from both directions to make sure).  This would seem to disprove that shields are directional.  --Fyren 16:57, 27 October 2005 (EST)


 * I disagree... It's quite possible that the effects of level were overiding armor reductions. The best tests for this would be done in a pvp setting where you can try out different kinds of attacks/spells.  While it's quite possible that the rules have changed since people tested originally, OR that the entire community has been mislead by one person's assumptions/miscalculations, but I'm unwilling to completely throw out what appears to be widely accepted without a bit more careful experimentation. You might be right, but I'll be dissappointed if you are. --Squeg 03:40, 28 October 2005 (EST)


 * I tested it on the doppleganger.--Cloak of Letters 05:05, 28 October 2005 (EST)


 * I see the note about shields being directional has been removed from the article. If we are 100% sure that shields are NOT directional, then we should point that out prominently, especially because this is in disagreement with the information found on some major GW fansites! I will do some tests about it myself tonight for more evidence. --Tetris L 05:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I tested it on the doppleganger. Banaticus 16:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC) I first oriented my character such that my face was facing directly at the doppelganger.  I let him attack me for a while then I turned so that my shield was facing directly at him.  The first time I let him kill me with the bow, the second time with the axe.  I was wearing Gladiator armor with Ascalon boots with a Major Rune of Absorption.  The shield provides ... um, I'll have to get back to you on that.  It's a pretty good shield, though.  I I tried a few times without any armor on at all, but I just died too quickly to gather very many numbers.  I also took too long orienting myself each time so I wasn't able to gather a better range of numbers.  I'll next try it with and without a shield to see if the damage is noticeably different, to see if the shield really does make any difference at all.  I reccomend staying away from the doppelganger when trying this as the crit range with a bow is substantially lower than with an axe so you'll last longer and be able to gather more numbers.  Anyway, here are the numbers that I gathered:
 * 13 11 10 11 8 9 7 9 6 84
 * 6 7 9 11 10 6 9 6 6 70 So, with 70 damage compared to 84, it looked like I was taking less damage with the shield facing him.  But, then he hit for the following damage: 21 11 21, so perhaps he was just unlucky at first.  Then I died.
 * 19 13 29 29 10 7 29 9 8 6 12 171
 * 17 12 6 29 15 14 19 14 17 7 7 157 This seemed the opposite, it seemed as though I took more damage when I oriented the shield to face him.  Again, I took too long getting set up.
 * Conclusion? Inconclusive.  The set of numbers provided is simply too small.  I'd have to keep going back and trying to let him kill me over and over for at least a full 6 minutes of him attacking me to get a large enough sample size.

Then again, perhaps the shield protects against a quarter of facing. Perhaps if I'd oriented myself such that both my face and the shield were facing away from him, I would have gotten different results. Again, with such a small sample size the test can only be considered inconclusive. However, based on being surrounded by monsters beating on me and seeing the numbers appear above my head from the damage that they do to me, it is my personal belief that it doesn't matter where the foe is in relation to you. You'll get the same damage regardless of where they stand. It just looks "nicer" when you're facing your opponent than when you're facing away swinging at the air but still damaging him. So the game fixes that by forcing you to face whatever you're attacking. Banaticus 16:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)