Oh great, MOAR Void-like scenarios*****;->
"Who needs def and hp, you can still mitigate most damage with skill anyway, so even a tiny bit of offense easily makes up for having next to 0 defense when something actually hits."
I doubt even if these less-defensive "chainmail"-like versions of armor have as little as half the defense of their "pure defense" counterparts, and give even 10% more offensive performance, you can kiss the defensive armors' presence goodbye in pvm.
Pure defensive stats will mean nothing in the face of even slightly offense-boosting armors, unless you were to also add in some enticing features to defensive armors too. Like, decreasing abilities' cooldowns, giving some degree of all-damage reduction (including against things we have no way of mitigating or reducing if the hit lands, like area-based damage), and recoil effects.
If you take a step back to think about this, it looks a bit silly. "Armor". Since when was it called "weapon"? Do ya'll know where the term "armor" came from? The metal variety. The Norse wrapped gold bands around their upper arms, to extend some metal coverage farther up their arms, as an extension of their shields. That's where "arm"or came from. With time it evolved into covering a bit more and more. Never did it have any sort of empowering properties about it. Even spikes on parts were still inferior to simply using one's weapon, so they were more of an intimidation factor. Armor always did nothing but defend, at the cost of weight and potentially lowered maneuverability. Never did it contribute to offensive capacity.
It is true that lesser armor would allow more mobility, which is useful for offense, but:
If you want to get technical, no-armor should get the greatest offense boost of all, since that's not weighed down by any armor at all.
10-Mar-2013 04:23:22
