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 :)

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)