Talk:Damage reduction

I don't know if in Guild Wars the spelling is different, but this word is generally spelt Absorption. If it is spelt differently in Guild Wars then obviously this is fine, but having never seen a Rune or weapon affecting absorption I am not qualified to say :)

Global Rune Absorption
The article doesn't specifically state whether Runes of Absorption are global across all body parts or just to the armor piece to which its applied. The update kind of confused the issue. Does the available data support the Rune is global? --Rohar 22:41, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

Stacking
I'm seeing in a lot of places that damage absorption doesn't stack. But I have yet to see proof that that is how it behaves. Can someone provide me some concrete evidence?--FngKestrel 09:26, 12 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * The best way to test is get some people together to either attempt to get into team arenas as opponents or an unrated GvG match. Have one warrior with wild blow so that he can hit for the same damage every time.  Have another wearing a full set of knight's.  Hit with wild blow, remove one piece of knight's, hit with wild blow again (repeat if you happen to hit the armorless area).  The damage will be the same.  --Fyren 19:41, 12 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Try this http://forums.gwonline.net/showpost.php?p=3499837&postcount=90 . The guy running the test used a Lv3 charr, who has Wild Blow.  His resutls says that 1. absorption from multiple armor do not stack, but effects are global (best prevail), works on all types of damages.  2. absorption from rune is also global coverage, but only work on physical attacks.  3. armor absorption and rune absorption do stack. PanSola 07:15, 14 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * It has been pointed out that this page disagrees with Armor types where the absorption is declared as global (and with itself between the first and second statement on global nature of the absorption). Not sure who the unregistered IP was that edited this page to its present state, but I'm going to edit it back. http://guildwars.gameamp.com/forum/showTopic/23705.php indicates that Guild Wars staff agrees with Armor types over this page as to the global nature of the knights/ascalon armor damage reduction. For more "proof" http://guildwars.gameamp.com/forum/showTopic/22926.php (there are plenty of threads on this one).

a "skill"?
not sure how to reword it, but it's rather misleading... -PanSola 16:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Absorption is both a property of certain warrior armors (Ascalon & Knight's) and a warrior Rune that reduces damage taken...' maybe try that? either way you are right in that 'skill' probably shouldn't be used as it might confuse some new players. --William Blackstaff 16:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Replace skill with 'armor addative'? | Chuiu 16:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Revisions
...Well, to put it frankly the old article was lacking and wrong in a few points. Added much more information, although the only thing I haven't tested is what Knight's/Ascalon armor doesn't reduce damage from. All I know is that the armor absorption doesn't affect Giant Stomp and Mursaat Tower, although shield absorption works normally versus those two. It might have something to do with monster skills. If anyone could study it a bit more that would be nice. -Savio 22:36, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

Amount of reduction by Ascalno/Knight's
The story I have been hearing is that Dronk's and onward reduce by 2. Desert and before (ie, AL not 80) reduce by 1. Just want to check whether anyone has any explicit proof of that being not the case. If no one comes out and say "I tested it, they are all -2", then I'll add the note in. -PanSola 18:47, 12 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I've tested both the 35 and 50 AL armors from Ascalon City and the 71 AL armor from Amnoon. They're all -2. I've never seen a single test showing -1 damage from any armor so I don't believe it. -Savio 10:11, 14 April 2006 (CDT)

Terminological dispute -- absorption vs. damage reduction
In the game, "absorption" is used only for runes; for everything else, the template used is "received damage -x". My opinion is that runes of Absorption--the name--cause damage reduction--the phenomenon. Further supporting evidence comes from skills such as Call of Protection that use the keyphrase "damage reduction". I think we should name the article "damage reduction" rather than "absorption" (and make it less warrior specific as it also applies to pets). &mdash; Stabber (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
 * i concur -PanSola 23:48, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Sure. That makes sense to me.  Could include references to Shielding Hands, etc.  --JoDiamonds 23:57, 19 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Don't forget what the majority of people will be searching for: it might be an idea to include the obvious redirects. Shandy 06:23, 20 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Damage reduction terminology: Absorption runes specifically state "Absorbs x damage per attack", rather than "Reduces damage from attacks. (Non-stacking)" for Knight's/Ascalon and "Received damage -x" for shields. Shielding Hands states "damage received by target ally is reduced by x", and Call of Protection states "x base damage reduction." There isn't actually one specific template for damage reduction, although forms of the word "reduce" are used in 3 of the preceding examples. A lot of people just use the terms interchangeably. I don't see a problem either way, except for the fact that there isn't a link for damage reduction right now. -Savio 01:17, 22 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah. Somebody needs to at least establish that as a redirect. It took me 10 min to find this artical because I was looking for damage reduction. Ravien Coromana 09:30, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Keep it separate. Absorption might be a type of damage reduction, but is different enough to warrant its own article.  Jamming everything in one article makes finding the info you want slower.  24.12.41.148 06:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shield absorption
Did the recent update make shields' absorption only affect physical damage too? I am sure I read somewhere that shields' damage reduction is still global, and does still apply to all damage, but might be wrong. &mdash; Galil  17:21, 15 July 2006 (CDT)

Shield damage reduction is still global, not affected by the direction damage comes from and now applies only to physical damage. --66.159.228.199 19:13, 15 July 2006 (CDT)

Stacking....
I think that all of you are getting so far off the key point to this particular forum. The question that this forum was supposed to awnser was in essence, how the mechanics for absorption work. Not what to call it, I thought this forum was about absorption NOT damage reduction. So if it's a huge deal to you that shielding hands is in the same forum, then make a new thread for damage reduction. I think that most of all this forum just confuses players that come to find out about absorption. If I wanted to find out about damage reduction, I'm sure I would look, or find a thread for it. So why not just have a thread for absorption, and a thread for damage reduction. Maybe you could explain the diffrence in detail in a thread called absorption VS damage reduction. I dont know I'm just saying... I came here to finally figure out if my four superior runes of absorption were really stacking. Then I'm bombarded with all this shielding hands nonsence.

As I stated before, If I wanted to know about damage reduction for my pet, I would NOT have come to this absorption thread.

Thanks I needed to vent

64.30.200.216 15:35, 19 July 2006 (CDT)Azrael64.30.200.216 15:35, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
 * The thread is a discussion about the absorption article - damage reduction is relevant here.
 * Personally, if I wanted to know about absorption runes, I would've gone to the rune thread and seen this: Talk:Rune. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:51, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

Damage Reduction
If you have a shield that says -5 physical (20%) and you get hit with an attack that ignores armor will it still reduce dmg by 5?

No, as there are no attacks that deal physical damage that are also armor ignoring. --damnreds &#9760;
 * Um, all +damage as well as a few fixed-damage attack skills ignore armor. And yes, the -5 will work against it. - [[Image:Savio_3_mini.gif]] Savio  20:30, 23 January 2007 (CST)

The Chart
The chart states that runes reduce damage from 'Physical attacks', whilst shields reduce it from 'All physical attacks'. The two things mean the same, so unless someone can explain why this distinction is there I'll come back in a couple of days and fix it. RossMM 12:38, 21 January 2007 (CST)
 * Originally, the chart listed armor reduction as against "most damage", absorption runes as "attacks", and shields as "all damage". I don't know if the absorption runes are still only against attacks or how the armors function, and currently I'm on hiatus from GW so I can't test it. - [[Image:Savio_3_mini.gif]] Savio  20:29, 23 January 2007 (CST)

There are quite a few more enchanments to list, Stoneflesh Aura, Reversal of Fortune, Reverse Hex. Probably more, too. Also, the damage type should not be "Physical attacks" that could mean that physical damage you take otherwise would not be reduced. Physical damage would be better, I'm pretty sure Barbed Trap etc. aren't armor ignoring since states a type of phsical damage, unless they changed it as of the recent update. <>Spark 19:01, 13 February 2007 (CST)

combine with frenzy
if you use the -2(stance) while under the effect of frenzy, does the dmg reduction take place before or after the dmg is dealt? example: if i were to take 2 damage normally, i enter frenzy. do i take 0 dmg now, or does it double to 4, then reduce by 2 to make it only 2 dmg?
 * Frenzy's doubling seems to happen absolutely last, so reduction would happen first. --Fyren 16:41, 21 February 2007 (CST)
 * Confirmed. I'm working on a LDoA with the Serrated Shield in Pre.  If I enter Frenzy, I take less damage from most creatures - because the stance activates the shield's absorption, reducing -1 and -2 to zero.  Twice nothin' is still nothin'. Auntmousie 23:28, 8 March 2007 (CST)

hit areas?
What I'm getting from this is if I use a knights insignia, and a Rune of Sup Absorbtion, I would get more effect putting the rune on the feet and the insignia on the chest, than the other way around, because they hit the chest more? Or would they even stack at all, for a -3 instead of a possibile -6? Also, this -3 from knights and ascalon armor. Is it certian areas, or can I get the Ascalon armor from Ascalon City, and it'll still have a -3 against attacks? Ravien Coromana 09:47, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Knights on all=-15?
--Nifler 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)--Nifler 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Hello. I'm a permapre wannabe and I'm wondering if putting knights insignia on all my armour would reduce damage by 15. As there aren't any real spikers, it would come in handy. Please tell me yes/no for the good of the world!
 * No, the -3 is local, not global. It even says so on the article. --Kale Ironfist 22:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if I had a Rune of Superior Absorption, and Knights Insignia on all armor, does it mean I have reduction of 6? What about adding a -3 shield? I guess after all the discussions and tables, I'm still unclear if and what can actually combine with which. 75.89.74.153 05:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Local vs. global
I am a scrub. that being established, what does local/global mean in this case? This mechanic is neither explained on the article nor linked to. Can I have an explanation? furthermore, if this is already explained somewhere, could somebody link to it? ~ 69.150.51.4 00:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A local bonus only applies to that specific piece of armor, so it only takes effect if an attack etc. hits that piece. A global effect takes effect regardless of if that piece of armor is hit or not. For example, the insignia which give +armor bonuses are local, and they only affect that piece of armor. You can't wear five Disciple's Insignia and get +75 armor when suffering from a condition - the +15 bonus only applies to that specific piece of armor. On the other hand, things like the Rune of Superior Absorption are global - it doesn't matter which piece of armor is hit, you will take -3 physical damage regardless. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Armor article is supposed to explain the general concept. If you read that already and don't feel it does, then the article probably needs to be better written. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 00:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Rune Cost
Before the 2006 update nurfing warriors, my Warrior found a Superior Rune of Absorpotion, which was the major find to date since at the time they cost 86,000 at the rune trader. Even though they now reduce only physical damage and not all damage, I cannot think of any reason why every warrior would not want one. I was wondering, then, why is the cost only 180 now? LLandale 05:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think actually that is the main reason for the price crash, maybe coupled with the introduction of vitae runes. Having an extra +10 health can make much more difference than taking -3 less damage per physical attack. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 06:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * .........I can't remember a time when any rune, except maybe superior vigor, was worth that much money. o_O [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 19:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've known sup vigor at 50k when I started, but never above that.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 19:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen 100k Sup Abos, and >40k Sup Healing or something stupid. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  19:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't remember if it was late 2005 or early 2006, but sometime around then I remember getting a gold armor drop in one of the later Prophecies missions. I IDed it immediately and told my PUG it was Superior Absorbtion.  They all called me very lucky.  Later I went to the trader and saw why - it was 85k.  It's definitely nowhere near that value at the trader now days.  Last I checked it was about 120g or something like that.  Shadowlance 21:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)