Guild Wars 2

It’s common knowledge that high Armor characters see diminishing returns as they continue to invest. However, I haven’t seen anyone mention accurate values lately. So, in my search, I stumbled across this thread in the Guardian forums. The image provied by Brutaly.6257 is geared for Guardians, but I extracted his data relating to Armor and Mitigation % and graphed it below for easy use. The values are obviously not extremely precise, but they’re better than anything I’ve seen lately, and the graph should provide some players with a visual aid and better insight into how the stat scales.

2100 : 13.7% mitigation
2200 : +3.9%
2300 : +3.5
2400 : +3.2
2500 : +3.0
2600 : +2.8
2700 : +2.5
2800 : +2.5
2900 : +2.2
3000 : +2.0
3100 : +2.0
3200 : +1.81
3300 : +1.71
3400 : +1.61
3500 : +1.52

Protection should be nerfed, and armor % mitigation increased.

We see from these numbers that around 2500 armor, 100 points of toughness will still yield ~75% of the same investment from 2127 to ~2200. So, for glassy characters, 400 points of toughness can net you nearly double the mitigation of a 2127 Armor build without suffering much from diminishing returns.

Beyond that, higher Armor characters see pretty much the same mitigation returns from investment between 2700 and 2800 Armor. So, pushing to 2800 armor from 2700 for tankier builds is definitely an option. The same thing can be seen at 3000 to 3100.

However, it is important to note at the 3100 mark, you are receiving ~50-75% return on your investment when compared to a builds between 2127 and 2500 Armor armor respectively.

Looking at the formula for doing damage you see a ratio of your ac vs attackers power.
If the formulas people have reverse engineered are correct that would mean higher ac would provide benefits vs high atk powered foes.

high ac also helps offset Vulnerability condition.

But I totally agree, personally i shoot for 2800 and try to get better baang for the buck defense

Armor in this game got nerfed in one point of the game, i saw this video of warrior in beta and it shows clearly that the warrior damage mitigation was better then, now armor its balanced aroud classes that dont have high armor like the OP thieves making the class that depends more on armor useless, wich is the class with no evades/escapes ways of mitigate damage.

Fenrir.5493:

Armor in this game got nerfed in one point of the game, i saw this video of warrior in beta and it shows clearly that the warrior damage mitigation was better then, now armor its balanced aroud classes that dont have high armor like the OP thieves making the class that depends more on armor useless, wich is the class with no evades/escapes ways of mitigate damage.

Right, so let’s check the math.

So if 2100 serves as our 0, damage of 210000 will give us an easy to use 100 damage taken.

210000/2500 = 84 damage taken. 16% more damage mitigated than at 2100. The chart shows it should have been around 13.6%.

210000/3000 = 70 damage taken. 30% more damage mitigated than at 2100. The chart shows it should be around 25.6%.

210000/3500 = 60 damage taken. 40% more damage mitigated than at 2100. The chart shows it should be around 34.25.

Not precisely on the dot as mentioned before, but it serves as a decent guideline.

Here, I just went ahead and did the math.

I should clarify, the Y-axis(vertical) is damage taken. The X-axis is armor stat.

100 – damage taken at a given armor will = % damage mitigation increase in relation to 2127 armor.

Yes…

I sometimes do not undestand how i take 3k, 5k or 6k dmg with 3,3k armor.
Extra armor do not helps in nothing

I would trade 200 extra armor and 200 extra hp for 50% uptime protection.

JETWING.2759:

Yes…

I sometimes do not undestand how i take 3k, 5k or 6k dmg with 3,3k armor.
Extra armor do not helps in nothing

I would trade 200 extra armor and 200 extra hp for 50% uptime protection.

This.

I don’t know how you can generate these curves or values without using a base Power rating for your opponent. Check here for the way damage is calculated:

Damage done = (weapon damage) * Power * (skill-specific coefficient) / (target’s Armor)

If you pull out the Power and Armor values, you can see the direct reduction is effectively (Power/Armor). So your armor value is completely relative to the enemy you are facing. If you can surpass their power rating, you can significantly reduce their damage.

Bear on the job.6273:

I don’t know how you can generate these curves or values without using a base Power rating for your opponent. Check here for the way damage is calculated:

Damage done = (weapon damage) * Power * (skill-specific coefficient) / (target’s Armor)

If you pull out the Power and Armor values, you can see the direct reduction is effectively (Power/Armor). So your armor value is completely relative to the enemy you are facing. If you can surpass their power rating, you can significantly reduce their damage.

Unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying:

123456/2127=58.0423
123456/2227=55.4360

55.4360/58.0423=95.5 agrees with the second chart.
————

456789/2127=214.7574
456789/3527=129.5120

129.5120/214.7574=60.3 agrees with the second chart.
————

2727/2727=1.0000
2727/2827=0.9646

.9646/1=.9646
75.23/77.99=.9646 a different scenario, but we see the calculated mitigations are the same percentages of one another; agrees with the second chart.
————

The math seems to be working.

And as far as damage reduction being Power/Armor, I don’t see how you arrive at that conclusion. You are totally ignoring 2 other numbers in the equation that drastically alter damage done; which is then divided by armor, not simply Power/Armor. If that was the case, you could reduce incoming damage to below 1.

increasing armor does NOT have diminishing returns.

what you are seeing in the graphs are relative decreases in percent mitigation between every 100 armor.

notice that the armor scale is linear, and the % mitigation is not.

a better way to see this point is that going from 0% to 20% damage mitigation is a 20% increase, going from 80% to 100% is also a 20% increase, however the effect of going from 80-100% is dramatically different.

the higher your % mitigation is, the more you’re getting out of it. percentages can not be compared to linear gains in armor and conclude that you get diminishing returns.

wads.5730:

increasing armor does NOT have diminishing returns.

what you are seeing in the graphs are relative decreases in percent mitigation between every 100 armor.

notice that the armor scale is linear, and the % mitigation is not.

a better way to see this point is that going from 0% to 20% damage mitigation is a 20% increase, going from 80% to 100% is also a 20% increase, however the effect of going from 80-100% is dramatically different.

the higher your % mitigation is, the more you’re getting out of it. percentages can not be compared to linear gains in armor and conclude that you get diminishing returns.

If there were no diminishing returns, X armor would yield Y % mitigation. In GW2, you have to double your armor to halve incoming damage.

212700/2127=100

212700/4254=50

212700/8508=25

Looks like diminishing returns to me. Adding 2127 armor cut incoming damage by 50%. An additional 4254 armor was needed to reduce incoming damage by another 50%.

Also the absolute base defense is 1836 which is for light armored classes.

Everything above that is already counting towards reduction.

Yes, warrior wears heavy armor, but if you want compareable numbers you have to use the lowest possible amount (other classes can go above that 1836, but warrior cannot go below 2127).

And yes, to halve the damage you get on your current armor, you of course have to double the amount of armor.
This is a standard way of doing armor mitigation. Everything else could resolve in some unwanted aspects of buffs etc. giving so much defense that they trivialize every encounter possible.
You have to see this like this:
At X armor you get 1000 damage. You have 10000 health, so you survive 10 hits.
At X*2 armor you get 500 damage. With 10000 health again, you would now surive 20 hits.
Doubling this again:
(X*2)*2 armor = 250 damage. With 10000 health yet again you would survive 40 hits (which is also double the amount).
From the first point it seems like doubling it once decreases the damage by 50%, and double that new amount just decreases damage by just another 25%. But in the end, you double the amount of (same) hits you can take every time you double your armor.