Talk:Armor types

Old discussion are moved to Talk:/Archive

Some meta/semantics stuff regarding "Armor Types"
This article is titled "Armor Types", and "Armor" redirects here. But for some reason, I feel like it's better to have an article on "Armor", and if necessary, have "Armor Types" redirect to "Armor". At least, some content in the current article are about the basics of "Armor" and not about "Armor Types". It also feels ambiguous what the "Types" in "Armor Types" refers to. At least seeing the names of section 2, 6, and 7 ("Collector Armor", "PvP Armor", "Special Events Armor"), makes it seem that "Collector Armor" as a whole is considered one "type" of armor (as opposed to each profession's collector armor being an individual type), and "PvP Armor" as a whole is considered one type, etc.

For an article that is titled "Armor Types", it also feels awkward to scroll down at least a full page to find the section called "Types of Armor", which is the 4th section, and not having a Table of Contents (Why NOTOC for this article?). The word "Types" within the context of this section does seem to be referring each armor set as a different type, which is in conflict with the feeling I get from section 2,6, and 7.

Is "Type" being used as a very general term, so that "15k Armor" and "Fissure Armor" are each a (sub-)type of elite armor, and that "Enchanter's 15k Armor" is a (sub-)type of "15k Armor" as well as a (sub-)type of Mesmer Armor? Are headgears a type of armor, and leggings a different type? Do armor sets with different names but same bonus count as one type? Do sets with SAME name but different art count as two types?

Some stuff I would suggest, but I'm not going to feverently defend them if anyone else opposes (esp if you state why you oppose it): --PanSola
 * 1) Enable ToC
 * 2) For the name of section 4, use the word "Set" as opposed to "Type", since inside the section we are saying "Mesmer Sets" and "Monk Sets" as opposed to "Mesmer Types" etc.
 * 3) Move this article to "Armor"; OR create two new articles, "Armor" and "Armor Sets", move content from here to the new articles, and depreciate this article.
 * 4) Avoid the usage of the word "Type" altogether, unless there is a clear and consistent definition/use/treatment of the word "type" in the context of armor.


 * I agree to all of the above, I have been wanting to bring that up for ages. This should be Armor not Armor Types. I'll do the TOC change because it's benign, I'll wait to see what others think regarding the rest. --Karlos 20:20, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * /agree! --Rezyk 02:30, 4 November 2005 (EST)


 * I did some restructuring for the page, including collected several sections into a new "Obtaining Armor" section. Makes it feel more organized, I think.  There are still some little stuff that bug me, but I'll fix those later.


 * /agree --Tetris L 11:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Semantics: Basic vs Standard
Does anyone mind if I switch the usage of "Basic" and "Standard" in "Basics" section and "Armor Sets" section?

"Standard" to me implies something fairly common across the board, so I feel like for Armor Sets, describing this armor as having standard bonuses and that armor has blah blah mods on top of the standard. Currently the article use the word Basic there.

In the "Basics" article, the plain armor set was described, and since it is comparatively without benefits, it feels more natural to call that armor the Basic armor. Currently the article use the word Standard there.

Rather coincedental that they are "flipped"... Just minor semantical stuff that bugs me. Mind if I swap them around? -PanSola 00:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Will change them Monday night if no body cares. --PanSola 19:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The "15k" in armor names should be in parenthesis
The "15k" isn't part of the real name of the armor. It's a nick name to distinguish them from the non-15k armors. Thus I suggest to rename articles such as "Enchanter's Armor 15k" to "Enchanter's Armor (15k)".

Comments? -PanSola 09:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Will implement the change Monday night if no body cares. --PanSola 19:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * /agree --Rezyk 20:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree 09:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * /agree --Tetris L 11:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Why Armor "Types"
And not Armor? 10:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * See section "Some meta/semantics stuff regarding "Armor Types"". --Tetris L 11:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Global vs. Local
This is 60.240.230.90, moved from the article page:

check the guid wars web site armor faq and it says that absorption isnt gobally its locational so that a hit to the body won't reduce if your just wearing the boots http://manual.guildwars.com/combat/weapons-and-armor/weapon-armor-faq.html

Moved by Lunarbunny 02:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * SonOfRah's tests say they were global despite what the official saying is. Now that could've been "fixed" in one of the recent updates.  But unless anyone run tests recently and proved it's local, I vote to stay with SonOfRah's old test results and ignore wht the official website says. -PanSola 02:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Both runes and knight's/Ascalon are global. I have tested.  In addition, knight's/Ascalon reduces damage from all sources while runes only seem to protect from attacks (both say "reduces damage from attacks").  --Fyren 14:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)