Armour Mitigation

[Zealote]

Could anyone clarify how armor mitigation currently works on RoR please, particularly wrt the 75% cap. The following posts from earlier today raised the question but it's not likely to get answered in that thread now:

Spoiler:

before this comes next: the ingame character window armor stat tooltip must show 100% for the 75% cap, that means you need 4400 armor for the cap, not 3300 like the window suggests.

How valid is this? I'm fairly certain that my tank mitigates for 75%.

Armor
Armor reduces physical damage (melee and ranged non-magical) by a percentage. There is no cap total mitigation %. Formula to calculate reduction:
dps_reduced% = (armor * 0.909) / level

Example:
256 armor at level 20 will reduce how much damage?

256 * 0.909 / 20 = 11.6%

So with this formula, 3300 * 0.909 / 40 = 74.99%

Very interested in this as well. I was under the assumption 3300 was the cap too...

(viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15380&start=490)

I thought it worked as Luth said, but I'm still 100% sure of what that entails. E.g., assuming Luth is correct about the current implementation, is your effective mitigation from armour (before ar pen/debuffs etc) always 0.75 * <% mit shown in stat window> (so e.g., 60% [2640ar at r40] in stat window would actually only be 45% mit)? Or does the 75% only apply when you get to the final calculation, i.e. no matter how high your mitigation is (inc. after ar pen/debuffs), it'll always be 'rounded down' to 75%?

[Genisaurus]

It works on RoR just like it did on live.

What many people confuse is the difference between the maximum mitigation% possible, and the idea of a softcap.

A softcap is a point where each point of something gives diminishing returns for that investment. There is no soft or hardcap on armor. The tooltips will reflect this, allowing tanks to reach up to 120% base mitigation (or higher).

That being said, all damage is subject to a maximum mitigation of 75%, after accounting for debuffs and penetration. This includes resists, but you can't hit that limit practically, so it's ignored.

At level 40/79 vs. another level 40/79 player, 3300 armor will reach 75% physical damage mitigation. Armor debuffs and armor penetration from WS will reduce this value.

At the same level, 4400 armor will give 100% mitigation. Armor debuffs and WS will reduce this value. If the resulting mitigation is still greater than 75%, it is lowered to 75% (and after that, other things are applied).

Every point of armor has a value, because it can insure you against armor debuffs and WS. A tank with 120% physical mitigation vs. a DPS with 50% armor penetration will still have an effective 60% physical mitigation, assuming he is suffering from no additional armor debuffs.

[Zealote]

Thanks for the extensive reply, much appreciated.

So to be crystal clear, with both at r40 and the defender with 3300 armour, an attack that does, say, 600 dmg after toughness and all other % dmg modifiers are taken into account (but before ar/resists), would be reduced to 150? This is obv assuming 0 WS/ar pen and no armour debuff.

If that's correct, that would seem to imply that Luth's statement is incorrect, or at least misleading, since you don't, in fact, need 4400 armour to have a base mitigation of 75%. (That's not a jab at you Luth, just want to be 100% sure I've got it )

Edit: Part of the confusion, I think, is from information like: "The reduction is 75% * (Armor / (Level * 110)), with a cap at 75%. This means that the maximum useful armor (assuming no armor debuffs will be applied to the character) at rank 40 is 4400. At 4400 armor, the character sheet tooltip will say 100% physical damage reduced, meaning the maximum 75% physical damage mitigation from armor." from the wiki (http://warhammeronline.wikia.com/wiki/Armor).

To me, at least, that suggests that you need 4400ar to be at 75%. Unless I'm still misunderstanding, I guess that's just outdated like a lot of info on there.

~Edit 2 reason: maths error/typo.

[Lileldys]

What Luth was saying, from what I saw, is that you need to hit 4400 to get 75% physical mitigation(being at 100% of the amount needed to mitigate maximum)

the ingame character window armor stat tooltip must show 100% for the 75% cap, that means you need 4400 armor for the cap, not 3300 like the window suggests.

I get that WS and Armour debuffs exist, but I want to presume a player with 0 WeaponSkill hitting my 3300 armour. Its it 75% mitigated or do I need that 4400 to get 75% mitigation.

My KotBS with 4000 armour feels like I'm mitigating ~75% with no armour debuff on me, as I run lowish toughness compared to most BS/Str users.

[Zealote]

What Luth was saying, from what I saw, is that you need to hit 4400 to get 75% physical mitigation(being at 100% of the amount needed to mitigate maximum)

the ingame character window armor stat tooltip must show 100% for the 75% cap, that means you need 4400 armor for the cap, not 3300 like the window suggests.

Whereas Geni's statement: "At level 40/79 vs. another level 40/79 player, 3300 armor will reach 75% physical damage mitigation." seems to contradict that.

I get that WS and Armour debuffs exist, but I want to presume a player with 0 WeaponSkill hitting my 3300 armour. Its it 75% mitigated or do I need that 4400 to get 75% mitigation.

This is exactly what I've asked above

[Genisaurus]

Disregard that specific comment from Luth, and disregard HammerWiki, which was never an accurate resource.

It's not "4400 armor = 100% of the 75% mitigation cap", it's "4400 armor = 100% mitigation, dropped to the 75% cap after debuffs and WS."

Player A is level 40 and below RR80. Player B is level 40 and below RR80.
Player A has 0 WS. Player B has 4400 armor

Player A hits Player B for 600 damage. Player B has 100% mitigation, which is reduced to 75%. Player B takes 150 damage (450 mitigated)

Player A has 30% Armor Pen. Player B has 4400 armor.
Player A hits B for 600 damage. Player B has (100% * (1 - 30%)) mitigation, which is 70%. This is below the cap, so Player B takes 180 damage (420 mitigated).

[Zealote]

Ah perfect that's absolutely clear now, tyvm