The armor system got implemented because some people seem to have moaned about the RNG of effects on the first game. Instead of refining the system with a less harsh fail or success version, they scrapped the whole system and invented a totally new and in my eyes pretty lacking new system. The kind of put in the new system to prevent perma-cc battles, but in the end they made it more tedious to cc enemies, but much easier to keep them in perma-cc as soon as you got their armor down.
Though there have been already tons of topics regarding this topic and also the pretty insane level scaling and dependence on getting good enough equipment. Though in my eyes those problems are only the tip of the iceberg.
Sorry this is a feedback area so I don't tend to sit there reading through 100's of threads to see what's posted and not posted. I come in and give my feedback and hop off.
I mean it's great there's a company out there willing to try new things and come up with a system of their own. I just don't feel it was tested enough to the point where someone actually sat down and said "OK guys this combat system is GREAT! You can perma CC mobs with 3 times your vitality while you kill off the adds and every time you level you do 30% more damage!". I don't think anyone said that.
I'm also confused about other stuff too which I didn't feel was really worth make a big fuss about like why doesn't Rain of Blood apply wet? Why are wands so pathetic in damage? Why does Necromancer benefit more from Warfare than Necromancer? Shouldn't warfare be weapons only, and necromancer boost spells? Why does every single mob out there know I have glass cannon on and instantly target me over the other 3 party members? There's a ton of stuff I could nitpick about but these were the major battles I wanted to talk about.
Just feels like there was a lack of testing (in the combat area at least) done and could have used some better testers.
