This is the better option in my opinion since they are going to continue making new heroes.
Why is it the only fun you Damage Dealers care about is what is fun for Damage Dealers?
Do you think it is “fun” for me as Reinhardt to get 2 shot by Reaper?
Do you think it was “fun” for me to get 7/8 of my health depleted from Scatter Arrow?
Do you think it is “fun” as a tank with armor to die to Rip Tire?
Do you think it is “fun” for me to see my supports get nerfed constantly due to Damage Dealers complaints that supports and their kits are “unfun” for you to play against?
Some things exist in the game to balance out other things. Damage Dealers do not get a pass because “unfun”.
1 Like
I think they wanted armor to be good against Dive heroes.
But Reaper/Roadhog/Torb aren’t dive heroes.
Yeah permanent shields is one thing but armor from bridgett? It takes me half a clip as roadhog just to get rid of the armor sometimes, forget the insta kill.
no.
that’ll mess up a lot of characters.
I say just make two separate forms of armor.
The “its in my health pool” armor and “given” armor.
Make them two separate entities and change the characteristics of given armor but keep “its in my hp” armor the same as it currently is.
1 Like
Going to quote a post I made on another thread.
I still think this is a fair compromise. One that allows Brig to retain her ability to help out squishier hero’s (her original intent) while minimizing her effect on higher health pool hero’s.
Changing armor overall would Nerf tanks harder then anything else. Doing more targeted changes would have more positive effects.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, in any intelligent conversation.
The wiki I saw states this about armor
Whenever armor takes damage, it halves the incoming damage of each projectile up to 10 damage. Projectiles that deal more than 10 damage gain a flat 5 damage reduction. This scaling means that firing multiple low damage projectiles (like a shotgun) will do less damage than firing one high damage projectile.
Critical hits double damage before any armor reduction, and each instance of damage can only be reduced by armor once. Temporary armor does not differ from normal armor apart from being given through hero abilities and not being able to be healed.
Which is an indication that her armor does not function differently. It has a difference in application (permanent vs temporary, unable to be set on the ground, etc) but the properties of the armor itself are different.
1 Like
Armor should, IMO, almost work reverse to how it does now
Per esempio, let’s just choose an arbitrary damage amount and say 15. When an armored foe takes damage, all damage above 15 is reduced by some amount. Let’s say 33%, just for kicks. So, if Soldier shoots an armored target, he’s going to do ~16.3 damage instead of his normal 19. Hanzo, on the other hand, will do about 89 damage instead of his normal 125.
Why? Because right now, currently some of the heroes intended as tank busters are strictly limited by armor, while heroes who aren’t necessarily intended as tank busters but more as anti-barrier heroes are getting the anti-tank role. The change would help to make characters like Bastion, Reaper, Hog, and Sombra more viable, while also reigning in the value on OHKO attacks. Obviously the above numbers are hypothetical and probably excessive–a 25 damage cutoff with a 25-33% damage reduction would probably be much more balanced–but it gives an idea of what I mean.
Alternatively just make armor give a flat 20-25% damage reduction across the board, so low ROF, high damage characters aren’t inherently favored over high ROF, low damage characters, or vice versa
2 Likes
It would be a lot less fun for tank players. Fun is very subjective. I like armor where it is personally.
Yeah, because Torbjorn wasnt garbage enough.
idk, they were complaining about armor even before Brig so I don’t think she’s their only problem. but nerfing armor is dumb, it only reduces damage by 5 per pellet.
just don’t waste your time, that’s what he wants you to do is waste your time arguing about whether or not the sky is green.
Yay Bastion will exist even less now. Can we stop thinking of ways to nerf him?
well, yes. but for heroes whose pellets do 10 or less damage, that means it gets halved. and those are some characters whose niche used to be “tank buster” i think thats the issue. i like the idea of armor being shifted from “good against tickle damage only” to “good against burst damage only” because actually, shield health is already the one thats good against tickle damage (cus you restore it) why do we need two health types good against tickle, but none good against burst?
The problem is that this adversely affects a lot of high ROF heroes. For example, Soldier has his damage reduced by ~25%, Hammond by 50%, but Hanzo by less than 5%. The consequence is that one-shot type attacks are heavily favored, leading characters like Hanzo, Widow, and Doomfist to be extremely favored while other heroes are not. You could solve this by inverting the way armor works–basically, it reduces damage above some cut-off by some amount–so armor doesn’t give incentive to one-shots and instead favors heroes like Reaper, Sombra, Bastion, and Hog. It’d be a decent way to solve the current discontentment with one-shots while also empowering other heroes with totally trashing armor.
I don’t entirely hate that idea, but that wouldn’t be a nerf to armor, if anything it would be a buff because suddenly it stops you being 1 shot killed.
1 Like
well, also yes and no. 1. they could make the numbers so you can still be instakilled by those. and 2. armor is not a villain. it doesnt need to be nerfed. it just needs to not exclude a good chunk of the roster.
This is an easy fix. Damage towards tanks is too high.
All tanks therefore should get more damage reduction. Then you can have your high damage shotguns.
I see what Blizzard did by introducing armor to tanks. Thing is their attempt to use a “realistic” term and then define it as 5 damage reduction across the board is an issue.
Blizzard should use the very realistic use for Armor. The M1 Abrams is immune to damage from small arms fire. So should all tanks be. Only explosive damage should deplete tank armor. Once its gone then all the bullet slingers should be able to damage the tanks with armor.
How well do you think that would go over with the community?
Edit: This is by no means a realistic change that should take place, simply an observation.
Except wasn’t Reaper made to be a “tank counter”?
one way or the other it will, and I honestly think if they go that route then it should stop 1 hit kills on everybody (including tracer) with the judgement of 100 armor. So if tracer has 100 armor from Rally, a widow headshot should deal 225 damage (roughly). This would allow Brig to counter 1HKO and stop her from countering tank busters.
I placed an edited sentence in the end to establish that I am not being serious. The fact that Reaper is supposed to counter tanks, and does quite well in that department from my experience, is not what I am debating.
I am talking about why armor exists and how Blizzard failed to implement it properly.