I don't understand why the armour system can't just be a raw percentage of the damage your armour absorbs. It would be understandable if this was a new idea, but it's not: that was how it worked in Oblivion and it was more concise and much easier to understand. The game actually takes the rating and calculates a percentage from it, so it's the same system with an unnecessary layer of calculation above it.

Lol wut? The armor system in the game is super easy to understand. 0 is no armor, 567 is the armor cap. Whats so hard to understand about that?

Do the math?

My point isn't that it's actually HARD to understand; it's that it's convoluted. I'd much rather see a raw percentage than have to add hidden armour ratings and multiply by a coefficient to get a percentage, which the game uses. Why hide the percentage value behind a meaningless "armour rating?"

It would be better to just display the mitigation rather than this armor rating which is never explained in the game. You do have to look at outside sources to understand the armor system properly which is indeed poor design.

The armor rating cap value wasn't even known until days after release. There were people boosting their armor rating into the 1000s because they didn't know any better.

I understand the complaint, but the people here on the forum plus a few internet savvy people may be the only people that know that the cap is 80% or 567. Most people just understand that 2 and better then 1 and so on. I'm sure someone has or will make a mod or some program to meet your request.

Its a waste of skill points for us that make dozens of characters and drain every thing out of the game but for the person and was given the game or just happen to have some money to burn they will never know and may never care.

Not to mention that you don't even need an armor rating anywhere near 567 in order for the game to be easy. Around 250-300 on Adept, 300-350 on Expert, and 350-400 on Master is really about all you'll ever need.

Yeah, that's a lot simpler than 0-80%

I think they did it this way because otherwise people would be complaining that early on their armor is apparently worthless, since it won't mitigate much damage and the percentage value it'd project would be very, very low.

Not to say I think the way they're doing things is sensible, I just think that's their reasoning. I'd prefer a percentage being shown rather than having to calculate.

This is true, same with magic reduction. Unless I'm going to pick a fight with 3 giants or death overlords with ebony bows my armor rating is not that important as a melee fighter.

I have a character on expert and who since the 50s the only enemies that have given me any real fight have been those overlords with the ebony bows. Ancient dragons don't even bother me, the second they make the mistake of landing I rip them to shreds.

If you're playing with a dunmer, nord, or breton, magic resistance isn't that important because you can double enchant a shield with 45% of total magic resist, and if you use alteration, can get an additional 30% with perks. But with mage opponents just moving and dodging and closing the distance so you can power attack or shield bash and you can make quick work of most casters.

Do you know what's stupid? Ridiculous font.

Every one armor point gives you 0.12% physical resistance, the game always rounds down. The maximum physical resistance is 80%, so 80/0.12=666.66, so you need 667 armor rating for the maximum resistance.

But when wearing four armor pieces you get a +100 hidden armor rating, reducing the cap to 567.

I am aware. Thank you for reading the thread and enlightening us.

Are the French bad at math?