Talk:Armor

All of the armor defense values are listed here, and that's great, but some of the armor set pages don't even list their defense. Defense should probably be included in the armor piece infobox template as well.

RBrandon 14:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Add the suggestion to the Template Talk:Item infobox discussion :D -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  14:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where, but someone should put the defense formula somewhere. (Defense / 2 = Damage Reduction (Rounded up to nearest whole #)) Reed501 19:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge
Oppose Defense is a stat, Armor is an item class. -Shadowclaimer 19:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree There's no reason to maintain two separate, nearly identical tables here. I'd rather have one nice page. --Theothersteve7 20:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm opposed to the merge, mostly b/c I don't think that the table on Defense is really appropriate there. It's collecting too much information that should be elsewhere. --JonTheMon 20:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I could see that. I'd agree with nuking that table.  On the other hand, the Defense page is pretty weak on its own without it. --Theothersteve7 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for the Defense page, you can keep the table but condense a lot of the info. Just keep 2 fields: Set/Accessory and Total defense. --JonTheMon 20:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about we merge the Defense page with the Player Stats page? --Theothersteve7 03:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, b/c it's a separate concept that has enough content for its own page. --JonTheMon 04:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose; As it is, I'd nuke the table. I think the defense page is still a stub, in the sense that I'm sure a lot more could be said about it... happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 06:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose the merge, and the nuking of the table. Providing the stats of the armor in this consolidated way provides a good, quick resource for players. As it is, the Defense page is describing a game mechanic while this is providing specific item stats. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  06:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think i like the idea of keeping the table on the Defense page but reducing it to 2 fields as proposed by JonTheMon. Then we can add a link to the Armor page, for more detailed information. Also the Defense pages improved a lot since I proposed the merge. I also understand now that Defense is about the concept and Armor is about items, so we should not merge the pages. Yet, this differentiation is only meaningful, if we remove the item details from Defense. --Yoda 11:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? There is information on the Defense page that covers more than simply armor, and there is information on the Armor page that covers more than simply Defense. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  16:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)