Talk:Armor

I'm a little unclear. For something such as Acolyte's Armor which is +10 armor while enchanted, is it per piece global, per piece area, or one piece at all? So -- if you're wearing the four pieces of acolyte's, do you have +40 armor no matter where you're hit? Do you have +10 for the one spot? Or do you have +10 no matter where you're hit? --Tinarto 01:32, 22 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Per piece local, unless otherwise specified. - 01:38, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

"Head - 12.5% of physical attacks (this goes up if the enemy is on higher ground than you.)"

Thats the first time I've ever heard that, has this been confirmed, and how? --69.107.125.202 04:57, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

It says that all direct damage spells hit the Chest area but then says it is a common misconception that all spells hit a specific location (such as the Chest). I don't understand how you can have these two statements together. If a spell does not do direct damage, then it ignores armor in the first place and doesn't matter where it "hits". But if the spell does direct damage, say from a Lightning Hammer, then does it always hit the Chest like it said or what? Seems very confusing. - Stexe
 * Blah, that part of the theory is a mess. Right now it is known that Lightning Orb *never* hits hands, but does hit foot and head and ohter body parts.  We might need to do a systematic study of skills to be sure. - 12:53, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * BTW, "direct damage" is not related to armor ignoring or not. I believe it's used to describe spells that deal damage without causing something to fly through air. - 14:43, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

I'm curious as to wether or not armor can be taken into the negatives, wether through armor being debuffed through Weaken Armor and Healing Signet, or having no armor on and then being debuffed. Or does it just go to 0 AL? Cutsman 14:24, 15 November 2006 (CST)

Hit location research
Each location is tested separately by removing that piece of armor.

- 14:43, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Lightning Orb - in 100 trials, no orb hit hands. Head, Chest, Legs, Feet all got hit within 10 trials.
 * Lightning Javelin - in 100 trials, none hit hands. Head, Chest, Legs, Feet all got hit within 10 trials.
 * Eruption - in 100 trials (20 casts), none hit hands. Head, Chest, Legs, Feet all got hit within 5 trials (1 casting).
 * Stone Daggers - in 100 trials (50 casts), none hit hands. Head, Chest, Legs, Feet all got hit within 6 trials (3 castings).
 * Whirlwind - in 49 trials (died), never hit hands. Head, Chest, Legs, Feet all got hit within 10 trials.
 * Firestorm - in 100 trials (10 casts), none hit hands. Head, Chest, Legs, Feet all got hit within 10 trials (1 casting)
 * Fireball - in 100 trials (this took forever), none hit hands. Head, Chest, Legs, Feet all got hit within 10 trials.


 * am i missing something, or is this data seriously suggesting that no elementalist spells ever hit hands? that's so weird. i wonder if the dev team knows about that? i'm going into the deep with my gloves off and watching for abnormal damage...--Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 15:24, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Attacking with a sword, I was able to hit my target's hands. --68.142.14.98 16:08, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * yes, but talking about spells. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 16:10, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * This started with Talk:Lightning Orb where Pan found she couldn't hit hands. There's absolutely no reason to assume whatever is happening, whether bug or intentional, is limited to spells.  --68.142.14.98 16:13, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Attacking with a bow, I was unable to hit hands in something over 100 trials. --68.142.14.98 16:28, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Same, also same with direct damage non projectile spells. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 20:17, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I assumed fire storm, whirlwind, and eruption would be the same as the rest of the non-projectile spells. I'll test wands later tonight, unless someone does first.  --68.142.14.98 20:20, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Tested those, as well as the ice line, none of them hit hands, I also tested wands (100 trials) no hits to the hands. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 20:26, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Tests should be done against damaging hexes like Lightning Surge, Incendiary Bonds, Shatterstone, ... Of course, this is a valid test for hexes doing non-armor ignoring damage only. --Theeth (talk)   20:56, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * How do u see where it hits??.... :S--WichmanN 08:29, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

Is it possible that things will only hit the target's hands if the target is currently in action?--Ender A 05:47, 7 October 2006 (CDT)

Though it's off the current subject I'd like to propose a possible addition to this page. Should a note be made explaining how a player in Factions is limited in the types of armor they can craft by their allegiance to either Kurzick or Luxon? Specifically how a player for one side will be unable to craft the opposing sides armor without first attaining the right balance of faction points? --Fouch 03:21, 12 October 2006 (EST)

with the nightfall update i found it is now possible to expert salvage runes off starting armour though i have no proof i have done it. they are never deystroyed and you cant extract materials

Attacks from behind
I have seen alot of information that involves where you are hit (hands, chest, head, feet, legs), and the effects, similar to the discussions here. I have also seen but rarely a mention of attacks that occur from behind a target. I'm curious if for these attacks:
 * Is damage delt based on a reduced Armor Value because they are from behind or is it calculated the same as a frontal attack.
 * Do they ignore the target's shield Armor Value.

Also while while wielding a shield (since non of the above tests specified) is that the time when attacks may more commonly be calculated off your hand's armor. (Shield + hand armor)

Just some thoughts and concederations that I didn't see here. Hopeful 17:23, 25 November 2006 (CST)

From what I've read, attacks from behind always result in a critical hit... I have yet to run into any info suggesting attacks do any more damage then that from behind. We'll need someone else to test the shield theories... I'm rather curious about that myself. Jioruji Derako 00:51, 29 November 2006 (CST)

I really meant that for like an axe that can hit for 6-28, that it would hit more toward the 28 side of the damage spectrum. Basically when attacking from behind that the chance of hitting for minimum damage would be lower. Though that is very _theroetical_. I think what you suggested Derako is more accurate, garunteed or higher critical strike chance, and ignores armor gained from a shield. Would like to see some number crunching if any are up for it :D Hopeful 18:49, 29 November 2006 (CST)