WLs ignore all armor when I am knocked down?

[Nekkma]

Its how live worked. Cutting Claw was 2x if applied on Assault SW's.

Nevertheless, the idea of these types of mechanics must be to increase armor to let range classes function as mdps (if we stick to sh and sw). It does not seem right to basically remove that mechanic with a simple armor debuff which all melee trains will have.

[Manatikik]

Its how live worked. Cutting Claw was 2x if applied on Assault SW's.

Nevertheless, the idea of these types of mechanics must be to increase armor to let range classes function as mdps (if we stick to sh and sw). It does not seem right to basically remove that mechanic with a simple armor debuff which all melee trains will have.

I mean, it still increases your armor more but gives some leeway back to the attacker (since armor stacks so much higher than resists anyways). Lets say you have 2k armor on a SW with a 1k armor Cutting Claw; 4000 armor in Assault - 2000 cutting claw is 2000, thats still double what your armor would be without the Assault buff even with the stronger debuff. I'd say its a bigger negative for You Wot than MSH/ASW quite honestly.

[Nekkma]

You have a point but I still think it is a suboptimal way of functioning as you basically need to overbuff to compensate for the higher armor debuff. In you exampel it would have been better to balance it to giving the sw 3k armor which would result in 2k after debuff. This would make it neutral to having armor debuff or not.

[Ugle]

IIRC this was reported as a bug some years ago on ROR as it was happening as it does now, and was fixed, i.e not doubling effect on armor buff abilities, but its hard to find the ticket on the bugtracker.

[Kaelang]

If you guys can collect the data to highlight the issue I'll happily pass this over to be reviewed.

[ravezaar]

When the OP post is made by a Melee SH complaining idk if i should laugh or cry

[courtsdad1]

Working as intended, huh. I don't see how buffing your armor says anywhere that enemy armor debuffs hit harder.

Instead of labeling it "working as intended" it should be said that either the dev power to fix the problem isn't present, or they'll get to it in the future when it's fixable because it currently isn't.

Saying something is working as intended when its working incorrectly is incredibly silly.

You seem to be struggling with the meaning of the phrase. Dont over complicate it. You are using your opinion as an argument of facts.

[wargrimnir]

If you guys can collect the data to highlight the issue I'll happily pass this over to be reviewed.

There was already a bugtracker ticket resolved for it, they just didn't like the answer.