Welcome to the Wizard101 Message Boards


Player Guide
Fansites
News
Game Updates
Help

By posting on the Wizard101 Message Boards you agree to the Code of Conduct.

Armor pierce went too far

AuthorMessage
A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1556
Okay, so I remember when Zafaria first came out, armor pierce was the new thing. But back then, it wasn't as major as it is now. The highest you could get with keeping your good stats was like 1-2%. Now, the only good gear in the game comes with armor piercing and I really don't like that. Instead of saying "Alright I have 45% resist, I think I'll be fine", you're going into a match without even knowing your own level of defense. Is my resist even 45% anymore? Or is it just 25 because armor pierce took it down? I personally believe that armor pierce never should've gotten this big of a percentage, and there should be a spell to nullify it. Maybe add a new spell from Diego that lasts 4 turns and reduces the percentages by maybe 25% and is Supernova proof? Because honestly, armor pierce went too far in the arena and spells are doing far too much damage on far too little resist.

Hero
Dec 16, 2009
772
I disagree, against immunity those low levels of armor pierce were moot. Simply shielding, adding fortify etc negates piercing against your resist so it already has counters. Pierce is the counter to resist and with even more resist available from kh crafted gear, these higher levels of pierce are more necessary than ever.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1556
Eric Stormbringer on Apr 26, 2014 wrote:
I disagree, against immunity those low levels of armor pierce were moot. Simply shielding, adding fortify etc negates piercing against your resist so it already has counters. Pierce is the counter to resist and with even more resist available from kh crafted gear, these higher levels of pierce are more necessary than ever.
You don't get any resist differences at all with the Khrysalis part 2 gear. In fact, it's even lower resist than it was before. The counter to resist is damage, and if somebody has immunity to your school, there's a reason KingsIsle made prisms.

Hero
Dec 16, 2009
772
PvP King on Apr 27, 2014 wrote:
You don't get any resist differences at all with the Khrysalis part 2 gear. In fact, it's even lower resist than it was before. The counter to resist is damage, and if somebody has immunity to your school, there's a reason KingsIsle made prisms.
I recommend you go and look at the khyrsalis crafted gear(link here). The rings alone add 17% resist and some decent block to specific schools. It is actually the opposite way around, the counter to damage is resist and the counter to resist is pierce. The problem is that as resist rises linearly, damage must rise exponentially to keep up. It takes 100% damage boost to negate 50% resist, 400% damage boost to negate 80% resist, 4900% damage boost to negate 98% resist and there is no amount of damage that can negate immunity. Prisms are very ineffective in PvP: they can be countered both preemptively and reactively, only function for 1 attack at a time, can be removed by cleanse ward, cannot be cloaked, require a massive setup to achieve a relevant attack and are practically unusable with DoTs.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1556
Eric Stormbringer on Apr 27, 2014 wrote:
I recommend you go and look at the khyrsalis crafted gear(link here). The rings alone add 17% resist and some decent block to specific schools. It is actually the opposite way around, the counter to damage is resist and the counter to resist is pierce. The problem is that as resist rises linearly, damage must rise exponentially to keep up. It takes 100% damage boost to negate 50% resist, 400% damage boost to negate 80% resist, 4900% damage boost to negate 98% resist and there is no amount of damage that can negate immunity. Prisms are very ineffective in PvP: they can be countered both preemptively and reactively, only function for 1 attack at a time, can be removed by cleanse ward, cannot be cloaked, require a massive setup to achieve a relevant attack and are practically unusable with DoTs.
With the Alpha and Omega ring, I don't see why people would use the crafted rings, and I know I wouldn't. I'd rather not lose 25 block rating from the Duelist's Daredevil Ring with losing 10% damage and 6% armor pierce just to gain 60 block to 3 schools and some heal boost and resist. The hats give 22% to 2 schools last time I checked but you lose just about everything else in comparison to Hades gear. You lose damage boost (considering armor pierce is an elevated form of damage boost because it takes down resist) and all you're gaining is resist to 2 schools. Not a good trade-off at all in my opinion, considering you can get resist to all schools while keeping everything else. Plus, you lose power pip chance with the crafted hats, so not a good trade-off once again.

For people that really are immune, I only see this with Ice wizards, nobody else. How do Storm and Fire wizards take it down? Simple. Shadow Shrike and Infallible. With 20% armor pierce given naturally from gear, adding Infallible giving 35%, and Shrike giving 85%, Ice's resist wouldn't matter. Including critical/block ratings and how Fire and Storm have amazing critical, Ice isn't even considered a problem in PvP anymore. Armor pierce needs a counter to it, because I don't see people having 80% resist while armor pierce gets that high.

Archon
Sep 17, 2012
4117
PvP King on Apr 28, 2014 wrote:
With the Alpha and Omega ring, I don't see why people would use the crafted rings, and I know I wouldn't. I'd rather not lose 25 block rating from the Duelist's Daredevil Ring with losing 10% damage and 6% armor pierce just to gain 60 block to 3 schools and some heal boost and resist. The hats give 22% to 2 schools last time I checked but you lose just about everything else in comparison to Hades gear. You lose damage boost (considering armor pierce is an elevated form of damage boost because it takes down resist) and all you're gaining is resist to 2 schools. Not a good trade-off at all in my opinion, considering you can get resist to all schools while keeping everything else. Plus, you lose power pip chance with the crafted hats, so not a good trade-off once again.

For people that really are immune, I only see this with Ice wizards, nobody else. How do Storm and Fire wizards take it down? Simple. Shadow Shrike and Infallible. With 20% armor pierce given naturally from gear, adding Infallible giving 35%, and Shrike giving 85%, Ice's resist wouldn't matter. Including critical/block ratings and how Fire and Storm have amazing critical, Ice isn't even considered a problem in PvP anymore. Armor pierce needs a counter to it, because I don't see people having 80% resist while armor pierce gets that high.
By your own admission, it's ONLY 85% pierce. That's one shield and there are more than a dozen stackable shields available against every school but balance. Immunity is now available to any school for any other single school. Before the rings it was available for every school but fire and ice. Pierce isn't out of sync with resist in any way. It's very balanced considering the amount of shields available. All it does is require people to actually USE defensive spells instead of purely relying on resist and skipping defense.

Hero
Dec 16, 2009
772
PvP King on Apr 28, 2014 wrote:
With the Alpha and Omega ring, I don't see why people would use the crafted rings, and I know I wouldn't. I'd rather not lose 25 block rating from the Duelist's Daredevil Ring with losing 10% damage and 6% armor pierce just to gain 60 block to 3 schools and some heal boost and resist. The hats give 22% to 2 schools last time I checked but you lose just about everything else in comparison to Hades gear. You lose damage boost (considering armor pierce is an elevated form of damage boost because it takes down resist) and all you're gaining is resist to 2 schools. Not a good trade-off at all in my opinion, considering you can get resist to all schools while keeping everything else. Plus, you lose power pip chance with the crafted hats, so not a good trade-off once again.

For people that really are immune, I only see this with Ice wizards, nobody else. How do Storm and Fire wizards take it down? Simple. Shadow Shrike and Infallible. With 20% armor pierce given naturally from gear, adding Infallible giving 35%, and Shrike giving 85%, Ice's resist wouldn't matter. Including critical/block ratings and how Fire and Storm have amazing critical, Ice isn't even considered a problem in PvP anymore. Armor pierce needs a counter to it, because I don't see people having 80% resist while armor pierce gets that high.
That all comes down to player choice. What I am doing is pointing out that yes resist did improve with Khyrsalis and thus high armor pierce is warranted. Personally I see a lot of people crafting the anti-storm ring just judging from the popularity of the triskellion band. Furthermore armor pierce is not damage boost. Armor pierce will never allow your attack to hit over base percentage on it's own thus it is not a boost. Armor pierce is just defense reduction, plain and simple.

While immunity is nowhere near the problem it was thanks in great part to shrike it can still cause issues. An ice simply shielding will retain immunity. As for critical and block ratings, guess which school can acquire high 300's block? Ice. Armor Pierce already has numerous counters: fortify and shielding are prime examples. Furthermore compare base armor pierce which is in the 10's to 20's to base resist which is in the 30's-40's and resist still maintains a huge advantage.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1556
seethe42 on Apr 28, 2014 wrote:
By your own admission, it's ONLY 85% pierce. That's one shield and there are more than a dozen stackable shields available against every school but balance. Immunity is now available to any school for any other single school. Before the rings it was available for every school but fire and ice. Pierce isn't out of sync with resist in any way. It's very balanced considering the amount of shields available. All it does is require people to actually USE defensive spells instead of purely relying on resist and skipping defense.
There are such spells like Shatter or DoT spells that remove shields fairly easily, and every school has one but Balance, the only school that has one shield to counter it. Armor pierce is easily stackable while shields aren't when a DoT is present so shielding isn't even an excuse. There's Fire Elf, Storm Hound, Frostbite, Poison, Minotaur/Orthrus, Shatter and Spinysaur, all efficient ways of removing shields to hit directly on 42% resist. With 20% from gear, 20 additional armor pierce from the new globals, and Infallible, you're probably only going to have to cast these once to hit on no resist. You get armor pierce from gear each turn, makes sense because there's resist, Infallible for 4 turns, can be countered by Fortify, yes, the 20% global, and you're hitting on no resist easily with hardly needing to cast them. For shields, however, you're going to have to cast them multiple times just to stop a hit from doing the base damage of the card + the additional damage boost to it, and you can't always critical block so sometimes, even if you shield and the opponent's armor pierce is absorbed by the shield, the hit would still be doing massive amounts of damage with a critical. It's simple, there should be a spell to nullify armor pierce by even 15%, so you have a choice, Fortify to absorb 15% of the armor pierce or use that spell to decrease the armor pierce, but Fortify can be Supernova'd easily so Balance has the major armor pierce advantage here, and the new spell not being able to be Supernova'd would be a convenience to all schools.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1556
Eric Stormbringer on Apr 29, 2014 wrote:
That all comes down to player choice. What I am doing is pointing out that yes resist did improve with Khyrsalis and thus high armor pierce is warranted. Personally I see a lot of people crafting the anti-storm ring just judging from the popularity of the triskellion band. Furthermore armor pierce is not damage boost. Armor pierce will never allow your attack to hit over base percentage on it's own thus it is not a boost. Armor pierce is just defense reduction, plain and simple.

While immunity is nowhere near the problem it was thanks in great part to shrike it can still cause issues. An ice simply shielding will retain immunity. As for critical and block ratings, guess which school can acquire high 300's block? Ice. Armor Pierce already has numerous counters: fortify and shielding are prime examples. Furthermore compare base armor pierce which is in the 10's to 20's to base resist which is in the 30's-40's and resist still maintains a huge advantage.
Fire and Storm are the least likely schools to have problems with shields, I don't even know why you brought that up. Fire plain and simple can use a DoT, Fire Elf or Link and before you know it the Ice's shields are gone and the Fire wizard can start working down the resist. For Storm, they usually spam without worrying about shields, so it shouldn't be a problem to take down Ice's resist anyway. They can't shield forever.

If the Ice wizard chooses to actually get immunity to these two schools, then they're lacking the following: Power pip chance, damage boost, critical, block rating, heal boost, and armor pierce. So they give up basically everything for resist and you think Fire and Storm wizards still can't beat them? That's a joke.

Fortify can be Supernova'd giving Balance a huge advantage in the arena. Tower Shield being the only counter, and having a 15% armor pierce advantage in front of their opponents. Trust me, I'm a Balance wizard, I know this. Shields can be taken off by any school by a low pip damage over time or if it really troubles you, Shatter/Earthquake. Myth has double hits, Fire/Death/Ice have efficient damage over times, Storm and Balance have spams, and Life has Shatter/Earthquake as well considering most of them use Myth Mastery Amulets. After any of these is used, the wizard is then striking on 0% resist if you apply what I suggested: 20% armor pierce from gear (22% resist left from the average wizard), 15-20% from Infallible (2-7% resist left from the average wizard), and any other things that could be applied such as Shrike or the new globals. Armor pierce got too high in the game, and that's why people are able to spam so easily and win just like that. If there was a spell to counter armor pierce and was immune to Supernova, even by 15%, that could balance out the game a lot.

Hero
Dec 16, 2009
772
PvP King on Apr 29, 2014 wrote:
Fire and Storm are the least likely schools to have problems with shields, I don't even know why you brought that up. Fire plain and simple can use a DoT, Fire Elf or Link and before you know it the Ice's shields are gone and the Fire wizard can start working down the resist. For Storm, they usually spam without worrying about shields, so it shouldn't be a problem to take down Ice's resist anyway. They can't shield forever.

If the Ice wizard chooses to actually get immunity to these two schools, then they're lacking the following: Power pip chance, damage boost, critical, block rating, heal boost, and armor pierce. So they give up basically everything for resist and you think Fire and Storm wizards still can't beat them? That's a joke.

Fortify can be Supernova'd giving Balance a huge advantage in the arena. Tower Shield being the only counter, and having a 15% armor pierce advantage in front of their opponents. Trust me, I'm a Balance wizard, I know this. Shields can be taken off by any school by a low pip damage over time or if it really troubles you, Shatter/Earthquake. Myth has double hits, Fire/Death/Ice have efficient damage over times, Storm and Balance have spams, and Life has Shatter/Earthquake as well considering most of them use Myth Mastery Amulets. After any of these is used, the wizard is then striking on 0% resist if you apply what I suggested: 20% armor pierce from gear (22% resist left from the average wizard), 15-20% from Infallible (2-7% resist left from the average wizard), and any other things that could be applied such as Shrike or the new globals. Armor pierce got too high in the game, and that's why people are able to spam so easily and win just like that. If there was a spell to counter armor pierce and was immune to Supernova, even by 15%, that could balance out the game a lot.
I can understand fire not having a problem with shields but storm has a very real problem with shields. Using fire elf and link is great for ices shields but sacrifices your setup. As for storm spamming into a shield and immunity is a net 0 damage. Shields are cost free whereas attacks are not. A storm wizard attempting to spam an immunity level ice is the easiest way to lose.

As for the ice giving up all that to be immune to two schools, it is still entirely possible for ice to retain immunity AND have 60+% attack boost. Furthermore, I have no idea where you got the idea that I said ice is unbeatable.I defy you to find any place in this thread where I said that fire and storm can't beat ice.

Fortify being countered by supernova is no different than infallible being countered by supernova. Of course shields can be taken off that is called play and counterplay and is typically representative of a good system. Simply because there are ways around shields does not make them any less of a counter to pierce. Are infections no longer a counter to heals because cleanse charm can remove them? Is Doom no longer a counter to heals because you can change it out? Similarly just because there exists methods to bypass shields does not make them any less of a counter to pierce. Armor pierce is not too high in the game as there exists numerous ways to negate the pierce just as there are numerous ways to increase pierce.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1556
Eric Stormbringer on May 1, 2014 wrote:
I can understand fire not having a problem with shields but storm has a very real problem with shields. Using fire elf and link is great for ices shields but sacrifices your setup. As for storm spamming into a shield and immunity is a net 0 damage. Shields are cost free whereas attacks are not. A storm wizard attempting to spam an immunity level ice is the easiest way to lose.

As for the ice giving up all that to be immune to two schools, it is still entirely possible for ice to retain immunity AND have 60+% attack boost. Furthermore, I have no idea where you got the idea that I said ice is unbeatable.I defy you to find any place in this thread where I said that fire and storm can't beat ice.

Fortify being countered by supernova is no different than infallible being countered by supernova. Of course shields can be taken off that is called play and counterplay and is typically representative of a good system. Simply because there are ways around shields does not make them any less of a counter to pierce. Are infections no longer a counter to heals because cleanse charm can remove them? Is Doom no longer a counter to heals because you can change it out? Similarly just because there exists methods to bypass shields does not make them any less of a counter to pierce. Armor pierce is not too high in the game as there exists numerous ways to negate the pierce just as there are numerous ways to increase pierce.
Armor pierce is still high even if you use shields. Think about it, most Ice wizards use Tower Shield, right? Okay, so a Storm can have 25% armor pierce from their gear (it's about average) leaving the shield at 25%. Okay, use Infallible and that's 10%, apply a bubble and you've started taking down Ice's resist. If Storm wizards really wanted, they could use those Storm Elf pets (I've been seeing it get more popular in the higher ranks) or a Rain Beetle pet with a Storm Hound amulet to remove shields effectively then start spamming once again. Even with immunity, you're not exactly what I'd call the anti-pierce machine. My point on shields being able to be removed effectively wasn't to say that armor pierce is overpowered because you can remove shields, I'm simply stating why most wizards wouldn't be hitting on immunity in the first place. Think about it, if you had a star spell to nullify 15% armor pierce, while the opponent removed your shield and hit, they'd still be taking down your resist. Ice can get immunity to Storm, but Storm can get near immunity to Ice if they choose to lose everything for the Khrysalis crafted hat. 22% from the hat, 12 from the robe, 7 from boots, 17 from ring, 15 from pet, and that's 73% resist. Even with that, Ice can take the resist down with 1 Shrike and an Infallible.

Another point is, you can't shield forever. There's been many wizards that I've seen abandoning resist because they don't think it's needed when armor pierce is that high. Even if you look at Central, they capped the armor pierce limit to 15% and removed the use of Shrike. Why? Because armor pierce is too high right now. A spell to nullify it by 15% would help and there'd honestly be nothing wrong with that. I want to go into a match knowing I have 46% resist, not having maybe 26% or less.

Archon
Sep 17, 2012
4117
PvP King on May 1, 2014 wrote:
Armor pierce is still high even if you use shields. Think about it, most Ice wizards use Tower Shield, right? Okay, so a Storm can have 25% armor pierce from their gear (it's about average) leaving the shield at 25%. Okay, use Infallible and that's 10%, apply a bubble and you've started taking down Ice's resist. If Storm wizards really wanted, they could use those Storm Elf pets (I've been seeing it get more popular in the higher ranks) or a Rain Beetle pet with a Storm Hound amulet to remove shields effectively then start spamming once again. Even with immunity, you're not exactly what I'd call the anti-pierce machine. My point on shields being able to be removed effectively wasn't to say that armor pierce is overpowered because you can remove shields, I'm simply stating why most wizards wouldn't be hitting on immunity in the first place. Think about it, if you had a star spell to nullify 15% armor pierce, while the opponent removed your shield and hit, they'd still be taking down your resist. Ice can get immunity to Storm, but Storm can get near immunity to Ice if they choose to lose everything for the Khrysalis crafted hat. 22% from the hat, 12 from the robe, 7 from boots, 17 from ring, 15 from pet, and that's 73% resist. Even with that, Ice can take the resist down with 1 Shrike and an Infallible.

Another point is, you can't shield forever. There's been many wizards that I've seen abandoning resist because they don't think it's needed when armor pierce is that high. Even if you look at Central, they capped the armor pierce limit to 15% and removed the use of Shrike. Why? Because armor pierce is too high right now. A spell to nullify it by 15% would help and there'd honestly be nothing wrong with that. I want to go into a match knowing I have 46% resist, not having maybe 26% or less.
I love how in all your situations, every attacker somehow has the time to cast every possible addition to pierce but the defenders can never be bothered to cast more than a tower. btw Ice have 70, 50, 30 shields for storm not just a single tower. A spell to nullify pierce by 15% doesn't need to exist, it already does. It's called Fortify.

Hero
Dec 16, 2009
772
PvP King on May 1, 2014 wrote:
Armor pierce is still high even if you use shields. Think about it, most Ice wizards use Tower Shield, right? Okay, so a Storm can have 25% armor pierce from their gear (it's about average) leaving the shield at 25%. Okay, use Infallible and that's 10%, apply a bubble and you've started taking down Ice's resist. If Storm wizards really wanted, they could use those Storm Elf pets (I've been seeing it get more popular in the higher ranks) or a Rain Beetle pet with a Storm Hound amulet to remove shields effectively then start spamming once again. Even with immunity, you're not exactly what I'd call the anti-pierce machine. My point on shields being able to be removed effectively wasn't to say that armor pierce is overpowered because you can remove shields, I'm simply stating why most wizards wouldn't be hitting on immunity in the first place. Think about it, if you had a star spell to nullify 15% armor pierce, while the opponent removed your shield and hit, they'd still be taking down your resist. Ice can get immunity to Storm, but Storm can get near immunity to Ice if they choose to lose everything for the Khrysalis crafted hat. 22% from the hat, 12 from the robe, 7 from boots, 17 from ring, 15 from pet, and that's 73% resist. Even with that, Ice can take the resist down with 1 Shrike and an Infallible.

Another point is, you can't shield forever. There's been many wizards that I've seen abandoning resist because they don't think it's needed when armor pierce is that high. Even if you look at Central, they capped the armor pierce limit to 15% and removed the use of Shrike. Why? Because armor pierce is too high right now. A spell to nullify it by 15% would help and there'd honestly be nothing wrong with that. I want to go into a match knowing I have 46% resist, not having maybe 26% or less.
Why would an ice only use tower against storm? Especially since they have access to volcanic shield. Using a volcanic shield even with a infallible, 25% pierce and bubble storm is still hitting into immunity. Lets use your tower shield scenario. Even with infall, bubble and gear pierce against a tower only 10% pierce is being applied to 100+% resist. At best you are hitting into a 90% resist, the equivalent of Efreet. Even then tower shield costs 0 pips and a 1 round setup. Bubble infall cost 4 pips and a 2 round setup. Storm elf and storm hound offer 1 card with a one time shield removal opportunity. We do have a star spell to nullify 15% pierce, its called fortify. The ice crafted ring offers 9% resist to ice so even if storm sacrificed everything(which is not what ice does to gain immunity to storm) we could have 67% resist which isn't immunity. Sure you cant shield forever, neither can you shrike or infallible forever. If you look at Central they also capped resist at 52%. If resist was capped in rank then I would have no problem with lowering armor pierce but alas it is not. There is already a spell that negates 15% armor pierce(fortify). I want to go into a match knowing I have my attack boost, however this was never the case thanks to resist.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1556
Eric Stormbringer on May 2, 2014 wrote:
Why would an ice only use tower against storm? Especially since they have access to volcanic shield. Using a volcanic shield even with a infallible, 25% pierce and bubble storm is still hitting into immunity. Lets use your tower shield scenario. Even with infall, bubble and gear pierce against a tower only 10% pierce is being applied to 100+% resist. At best you are hitting into a 90% resist, the equivalent of Efreet. Even then tower shield costs 0 pips and a 1 round setup. Bubble infall cost 4 pips and a 2 round setup. Storm elf and storm hound offer 1 card with a one time shield removal opportunity. We do have a star spell to nullify 15% pierce, its called fortify. The ice crafted ring offers 9% resist to ice so even if storm sacrificed everything(which is not what ice does to gain immunity to storm) we could have 67% resist which isn't immunity. Sure you cant shield forever, neither can you shrike or infallible forever. If you look at Central they also capped resist at 52%. If resist was capped in rank then I would have no problem with lowering armor pierce but alas it is not. There is already a spell that negates 15% armor pierce(fortify). I want to go into a match knowing I have my attack boost, however this was never the case thanks to resist.
I said Ice wizards mostly use Tower Shields in the first place. You don't see Ice wizards putting in like 3 Towers and 7 Volcanic Shields in their deck, so it's logic that Tower Shield would obviously pop up more. The Ice "immunity" thing is so old and it's honestly outdated. When do you see Fire and Storm wizards complaining about it anymore? Never. When I've talked to Fire/Storm wizards about fighting Ice they said it's easy and only the "noobs" (by noobs I mean beginners, not people that are "bad" at PvP) can't beat them, so I'm guessing that most Fire/Storm wizards got over the immunity situation. Storm can remove all of Ice's blades, Fire can put up Efreets, etc. I've seen Fire wizards only spam Power Link and Infallible and actually win, so get over the pathetic excuse of "Ice has immunity", because that's seriously outdated today.

Yes, Fortify does "nullify" armor pierce, but also not really. For one thing, it can be taken off by Supernova (Balance has a major advantage here), and armor pierce takes it off easily. Fortify works like a Weakness that's taken off by armor pierce, because it does not add up to resist, and the new "armor pierce nullifying spell" idea can't be taken off with armor pierce at all.

"I want to go into a match knowing I have my attack boost, however this was never the case thanks to resist" You're joking, right? For one thing, you don't even need damage boost to survive in a match, it just helps you find a faster kill solution. With resist being taken off, you can't even survive a match, and it's basically a first-to-hit wins match.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1556
seethe42 on May 2, 2014 wrote:
I love how in all your situations, every attacker somehow has the time to cast every possible addition to pierce but the defenders can never be bothered to cast more than a tower. btw Ice have 70, 50, 30 shields for storm not just a single tower. A spell to nullify pierce by 15% doesn't need to exist, it already does. It's called Fortify.
Yes, Ice does have Volcanic Shield but I never see Ice wizards going like "Oh hey I'm just going to randomly stack 7 Volcanic Shields in my deck and leave out Tower Shields because I feel like I'm going to get paired up against a Storm/Ice today", it's more like "I might as well put in Tower to block all schools instead of just 2", so most Ice decks have 2 or 3 Volcanic Shields and 7 Towers, meaning they're going to pull out Tower Shields far more often than Volcanic Shields, so I use Tower Shield as an example.

"I love how in all your situations, every attacker somehow has the time to cast every possible addition to pierce but the defenders can never be bothered to cast more than a tower". Lol, think about this. If you're stacking boosts/armor pierce, you're actually getting somewhere closer to winning. If you're constantly shield stacking and not focusing on killing your opponent, you're getting absolutely nowhere. So yes, obviously, the "unbeatable Ice wizard" would be using blades instead of shields in most of their turns especially because their attacks are insanely weak with "immunity" gear. Like I said about Fortify, it can be taken off by Supernova and can be wiped out by armor pierce, and doesn't in a sense "nullify" armor pierce, especially if they take off all your resist. Plus, the 15% was an example, I said even a 15% would be nice, but I'd much rather have a 20-25%.

Champion
Mar 27, 2011
403
No, Armor pierce is fine. Game balance is very good now.

Hero
Dec 16, 2009
772
PvP King on May 8, 2014 wrote:
I said Ice wizards mostly use Tower Shields in the first place. You don't see Ice wizards putting in like 3 Towers and 7 Volcanic Shields in their deck, so it's logic that Tower Shield would obviously pop up more. The Ice "immunity" thing is so old and it's honestly outdated. When do you see Fire and Storm wizards complaining about it anymore? Never. When I've talked to Fire/Storm wizards about fighting Ice they said it's easy and only the "noobs" (by noobs I mean beginners, not people that are "bad" at PvP) can't beat them, so I'm guessing that most Fire/Storm wizards got over the immunity situation. Storm can remove all of Ice's blades, Fire can put up Efreets, etc. I've seen Fire wizards only spam Power Link and Infallible and actually win, so get over the pathetic excuse of "Ice has immunity", because that's seriously outdated today.

Yes, Fortify does "nullify" armor pierce, but also not really. For one thing, it can be taken off by Supernova (Balance has a major advantage here), and armor pierce takes it off easily. Fortify works like a Weakness that's taken off by armor pierce, because it does not add up to resist, and the new "armor pierce nullifying spell" idea can't be taken off with armor pierce at all.

"I want to go into a match knowing I have my attack boost, however this was never the case thanks to resist" You're joking, right? For one thing, you don't even need damage boost to survive in a match, it just helps you find a faster kill solution. With resist being taken off, you can't even survive a match, and it's basically a first-to-hit wins match.
Actually I see ice wizards use every shield available to their class including volcanic. Even using your tower shield example I pointed out how a storm with the set-up you highlighted would still be sitting at 90% resist. The "Ice Immunity Thing" is old precisely because relevant levels of armor pierce were made available. This allowed storms and fires a bigger chance against ice immunity and hence the higher pierce is justified. Once again I'll point out that I never stated that ice was unbeatable by fire and storm so you can continue to beat that strawman till you are blue in the face but it does not add any credence to your arguments.

"Yes it does nullify armor pierce but not really"? This is a contradiction in the same vein as: water is wet but not really. It simply does not make sense, as fortify does cancel up to 15% armor pierce. Fortify being removed by supernova is no different than any other aura being removed by supernova. The fact that it can be removed by supernova has nothing to do with armor pierce and everything to do with supernova. Your new armor pierce nullifying spell being unaffected by armor pierce pretty much means you want an uncounterable resist protection spell. Sorry but spells without drawbacks that cannot be countered are not balanced and I cannot throw my support behind such a spell.

You are correct that you do not need damage boost to survive in a match. However, it does bring matches to an end and for a fragile school such as storm, the longer the battle lasts the larger the chance for defeat. As we have pointed out to you, there are many ways to preserve your resist so if you find your resist being completely nullified, then utilize one of the many counters available.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1556
Eric Stormbringer on May 8, 2014 wrote:
Actually I see ice wizards use every shield available to their class including volcanic. Even using your tower shield example I pointed out how a storm with the set-up you highlighted would still be sitting at 90% resist. The "Ice Immunity Thing" is old precisely because relevant levels of armor pierce were made available. This allowed storms and fires a bigger chance against ice immunity and hence the higher pierce is justified. Once again I'll point out that I never stated that ice was unbeatable by fire and storm so you can continue to beat that strawman till you are blue in the face but it does not add any credence to your arguments.

"Yes it does nullify armor pierce but not really"? This is a contradiction in the same vein as: water is wet but not really. It simply does not make sense, as fortify does cancel up to 15% armor pierce. Fortify being removed by supernova is no different than any other aura being removed by supernova. The fact that it can be removed by supernova has nothing to do with armor pierce and everything to do with supernova. Your new armor pierce nullifying spell being unaffected by armor pierce pretty much means you want an uncounterable resist protection spell. Sorry but spells without drawbacks that cannot be countered are not balanced and I cannot throw my support behind such a spell.

You are correct that you do not need damage boost to survive in a match. However, it does bring matches to an end and for a fragile school such as storm, the longer the battle lasts the larger the chance for defeat. As we have pointed out to you, there are many ways to preserve your resist so if you find your resist being completely nullified, then utilize one of the many counters available.
I mentioned Supernova taking off Fortify because you said it's a spell that nullifies armor pierce, right? You could argue that Infallible can be taken off by Supernova as well but not every wizard is a Balance wizard, and I'm stating clearly that armor pierce is too much for Balance to get. I'm Balance, and I know that when I use Counterforce and Infallible and my opponent has no shields up, they're one hit away from losing the match. If armor pierce was for Fire and Storm beating Ice, those should've been the only schools to get armor pierce then. I'm sure that nobody at Celestia time had troubles fighting 42 resist while having around 70 damage boost, and I don't see why they should make damage superior to resist now.

The 15% was an example for the spell. It doesn't boost up your resist and therefore doesn't give you immunity, it simply puts back the mathematics to damage-resist=the hit. Maybe there could be variations of it, such as Ice getting the lowest percentage from it while Storm could get the highest armor pierce nullification. You're thinking about Ice having immunity and using the spell. Well, they're probably not going to keep the spell up the whole game. If the Fire/Storm wizard wanted to, they should shield/blade stack until the bubble is gone (Fire can use minions to take off shields and Storm can Shatter/spam Bolt) and then strike. I don't see how the spell would be unfair to be honest, because I never saw unfairness with damage-resist=hit in the first place.

Hero
Dec 16, 2009
772
PvP King on May 9, 2014 wrote:
I mentioned Supernova taking off Fortify because you said it's a spell that nullifies armor pierce, right? You could argue that Infallible can be taken off by Supernova as well but not every wizard is a Balance wizard, and I'm stating clearly that armor pierce is too much for Balance to get. I'm Balance, and I know that when I use Counterforce and Infallible and my opponent has no shields up, they're one hit away from losing the match. If armor pierce was for Fire and Storm beating Ice, those should've been the only schools to get armor pierce then. I'm sure that nobody at Celestia time had troubles fighting 42 resist while having around 70 damage boost, and I don't see why they should make damage superior to resist now.

The 15% was an example for the spell. It doesn't boost up your resist and therefore doesn't give you immunity, it simply puts back the mathematics to damage-resist=the hit. Maybe there could be variations of it, such as Ice getting the lowest percentage from it while Storm could get the highest armor pierce nullification. You're thinking about Ice having immunity and using the spell. Well, they're probably not going to keep the spell up the whole game. If the Fire/Storm wizard wanted to, they should shield/blade stack until the bubble is gone (Fire can use minions to take off shields and Storm can Shatter/spam Bolt) and then strike. I don't see how the spell would be unfair to be honest, because I never saw unfairness with damage-resist=hit in the first place.
Exactly, not every wizard is balance and thus saying that supernova can take off fortify is no stronger an argument than saying supernova can take off infallible. The aura removal is a property of balance and does give it an advantage. However, it has nothing to do with weather armor pierce is too high. If you are using counterforce and infallible then you are correct that your opponent has little defense. However if your opponent shields or changes the bubble he has countered your move. Armor pierce was for ice and jades and those going second. KI changed the meta because it was becoming much to defensive with matches lasting hours long(my record was 6 hours). A Storm/Fire trying to play an endurance match against an immunity lvl ice? That's called losing. Damage and resist was fine under the old mechanics until resist started hitting 60%+. This allowed even a 100% damage boost attack to be dealing less than base damage.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1556
Eric Stormbringer on May 10, 2014 wrote:
Exactly, not every wizard is balance and thus saying that supernova can take off fortify is no stronger an argument than saying supernova can take off infallible. The aura removal is a property of balance and does give it an advantage. However, it has nothing to do with weather armor pierce is too high. If you are using counterforce and infallible then you are correct that your opponent has little defense. However if your opponent shields or changes the bubble he has countered your move. Armor pierce was for ice and jades and those going second. KI changed the meta because it was becoming much to defensive with matches lasting hours long(my record was 6 hours). A Storm/Fire trying to play an endurance match against an immunity lvl ice? That's called losing. Damage and resist was fine under the old mechanics until resist started hitting 60%+. This allowed even a 100% damage boost attack to be dealing less than base damage.
Yes, not every wizard is Balance, but that's not the point. Fortify can't be casted every single time the opponent casts Infallible, and to be honest, I'm fine with the spell. I always have been. When gear came out, though, that gave around 20% armor pierce, I wasn't such a fan of it anymore. No matter how you calculate it, if you have 20% armor pierce and around 80% damage (That's average of all schools), you're hitting more than the card says. Calculate it with 1000 damage. Your damage boost would make it 80%. Let's say you're fighting the average wizard with 42% resist. That 42 resist would be 22% and the spell would be dealing 1404 damage. The attack spell gained 404 damage and that's without the use of blades and not implying critical ratings, or adding the convenience of a sun enchantment.

If I use Counterforce and Infallible, my opponent is doomed. If they change it the bubble, I change it back and throw in a Mana Burn to get rid of their pips or use Loremaster to make them fizzle. If my opponent shields, my pet is most likely to take it off with may cast pierce, but let's say I'm not a Balance wizard and I use a damage over time to take it off anyways and then strike the next turn. I'd be using pips to get somewhere in the fight while my opponent would be using pips just to survive, which doesn't put any pressure at all on the opponent.

No, a Fire or Storm playing an endurance match is fair. They have 70% shields just like Ice does, they have decent resist to Ice, Storm has Enfeeble while Fire has Efreet, so there's no problem with that. With Shrike, it's a whole lot easier to beat Ice wizards with immunity. Trust me, I have a Fire wizard. 90% of the time using Shrike even on immunity is enough to knock them out, especially if you add an Infallible or Combustion. The combination of those 3 spells leaves just about no resist for the Ice wizard to rely on and with damage over time spells the Ice wizard is as good as dead. So, if you can't survive with immunity, what does that tell you? If immunity itself isn't enough to rely on, what do you think that means? Armor pierce seriously shouldn't be able to get in the 100's. You said yourself that armor pierce was to defeat Ice wizards and Jades. Well let me tell you, probably more than 90% of us aren't Ice wizards or have 70 universal resist. If you get loads of armor pierce and you're facing somebody with 40% resist, that's seriously unfair.

Hero
Dec 16, 2009
772
PvP King on May 12, 2014 wrote:
Yes, not every wizard is Balance, but that's not the point. Fortify can't be casted every single time the opponent casts Infallible, and to be honest, I'm fine with the spell. I always have been. When gear came out, though, that gave around 20% armor pierce, I wasn't such a fan of it anymore. No matter how you calculate it, if you have 20% armor pierce and around 80% damage (That's average of all schools), you're hitting more than the card says. Calculate it with 1000 damage. Your damage boost would make it 80%. Let's say you're fighting the average wizard with 42% resist. That 42 resist would be 22% and the spell would be dealing 1404 damage. The attack spell gained 404 damage and that's without the use of blades and not implying critical ratings, or adding the convenience of a sun enchantment.

If I use Counterforce and Infallible, my opponent is doomed. If they change it the bubble, I change it back and throw in a Mana Burn to get rid of their pips or use Loremaster to make them fizzle. If my opponent shields, my pet is most likely to take it off with may cast pierce, but let's say I'm not a Balance wizard and I use a damage over time to take it off anyways and then strike the next turn. I'd be using pips to get somewhere in the fight while my opponent would be using pips just to survive, which doesn't put any pressure at all on the opponent.

No, a Fire or Storm playing an endurance match is fair. They have 70% shields just like Ice does, they have decent resist to Ice, Storm has Enfeeble while Fire has Efreet, so there's no problem with that. With Shrike, it's a whole lot easier to beat Ice wizards with immunity. Trust me, I have a Fire wizard. 90% of the time using Shrike even on immunity is enough to knock them out, especially if you add an Infallible or Combustion. The combination of those 3 spells leaves just about no resist for the Ice wizard to rely on and with damage over time spells the Ice wizard is as good as dead. So, if you can't survive with immunity, what does that tell you? If immunity itself isn't enough to rely on, what do you think that means? Armor pierce seriously shouldn't be able to get in the 100's. You said yourself that armor pierce was to defeat Ice wizards and Jades. Well let me tell you, probably more than 90% of us aren't Ice wizards or have 70 universal resist. If you get loads of armor pierce and you're facing somebody with 40% resist, that's seriously unfair.
What's stopping you from casting fortify whenever your opponent casts infallible? Similar to the fact that sometimes you wont have fortify to counter infallible you could also have fortify up without them having infallible. I see nothing wrong with an attack dealing above base damage particularly when you have attack boost. If you use counterforce and infallible then your opponent can counter. Counterforce costs 4 pips as much as every other school's bubbles and 4 schools have bubbles hat would put them ahead of the pip game. All those spells(such as mana burn and loremaster) that you are citing are the reason why balance is a top tier school in the current meta and offers no evidence that armor pierce is too high.

I agree that immunity can be effectively countered thanks to shrike and armor pierce which is compelling evidence for the spells to remain unchanged. That being said, a fire or storm playing a war of attrition against an immunity lvl ice is a loss. Immunity lasts the entirety of the match with no resource or turn cost on the wizard wheras its counters are of limited duration and come with a resource and turn cost. Immunity being unable to be relied on tells me that decent play and counterplay options exist in the game and that one cannot completely negate a damage type for the entirety of the match. If resist can get to the 100's, if shields can stack to prevent far more than 100% pierce then why should armor pierce not be allowed to be this high? As we have stated typical armor pierce rests at 20%, balanced resist rests at 40%. Resist is more than armor pierce. Armor pierce can be increased by several spells and can also be negated by several spells. This is not unfair, this is completely fair.

A+ Student
Mar 02, 2010
1556
Eric Stormbringer on May 14, 2014 wrote:
What's stopping you from casting fortify whenever your opponent casts infallible? Similar to the fact that sometimes you wont have fortify to counter infallible you could also have fortify up without them having infallible. I see nothing wrong with an attack dealing above base damage particularly when you have attack boost. If you use counterforce and infallible then your opponent can counter. Counterforce costs 4 pips as much as every other school's bubbles and 4 schools have bubbles hat would put them ahead of the pip game. All those spells(such as mana burn and loremaster) that you are citing are the reason why balance is a top tier school in the current meta and offers no evidence that armor pierce is too high.

I agree that immunity can be effectively countered thanks to shrike and armor pierce which is compelling evidence for the spells to remain unchanged. That being said, a fire or storm playing a war of attrition against an immunity lvl ice is a loss. Immunity lasts the entirety of the match with no resource or turn cost on the wizard wheras its counters are of limited duration and come with a resource and turn cost. Immunity being unable to be relied on tells me that decent play and counterplay options exist in the game and that one cannot completely negate a damage type for the entirety of the match. If resist can get to the 100's, if shields can stack to prevent far more than 100% pierce then why should armor pierce not be allowed to be this high? As we have stated typical armor pierce rests at 20%, balanced resist rests at 40%. Resist is more than armor pierce. Armor pierce can be increased by several spells and can also be negated by several spells. This is not unfair, this is completely fair.
Balance shouldn't get such high ratings of armor pierce with such low possibilities of defenses. Tower Shield is the only shield, pierce that and you're hitting on plain resist if the wizard even has any. With other schools, nobody really needed 20% armor pierce to deal with 42% resist. Everything was balanced in Celestia times and was the same up to Avalon. The only problem with resist was Ice crafted gear and Jades. If you look at a Fire vs any other school or Storm against any other school match and they have Shrike+Infallible+gear armor pierce+their 4 pip bubble, the opponent hardly has any chances to resist them (that's overdoing it, most would just use one and then do thousands of damage with 4 pip spells). They're not always going to be able to keep up Fortify, not always going to be able to change the bubble, and not always able to make the opponent fizzle when they have Shrike up. Damage boost increased significantly with the new crafted gear, and most Exalted Warlords I've seen have nearly 100% damage boost while keeping high amounts of armor pierce. Okay, so 100% damage boost is fair for 50 resist, but then again not everybody has 50% resist. Add armor pierce to that and it's even more unfair to resist. Yes, there are possibilities of shields, but there are possibilities of damage over time spells.

In addition to the lack of resist the defender has in comparison to the 100% damage boost and the 20% armor pierce, there's critical. If there was critical then why add armor pierce with it? I mean, you already have a damage enchantment with the spell, you're able to double the power of the spell with damage boost, you can double the power of it once again with critical (4x the strength), and you have the ability to cut down resist to make the spell almost unsurvivable even if a 70% shield is present. I don't know about you, but when I use my 70% shields I like to rely on such a big percent, not have to stack it up with another just to protect my resist from being cut down to nothing. If anything right now, I respect Jades for getting high ranks in PvP with having to fight all these "critical monsters" in the arena. Especially Storms. If they use one Wild Bolt that does 1275 plus damage boost and critical and there's no block, even with a shield being cut down by 20% the hit would be doing 1479 damage on 42% resist. Without a shield it's game over. I agree that armor pierce was meant to fight immunity, but it should've been to fight immunity only, not to completely shut down everybody's resist to almost nothing.

Archon
Sep 17, 2012
4117
PvP King on May 14, 2014 wrote:
Balance shouldn't get such high ratings of armor pierce with such low possibilities of defenses. Tower Shield is the only shield, pierce that and you're hitting on plain resist if the wizard even has any. With other schools, nobody really needed 20% armor pierce to deal with 42% resist. Everything was balanced in Celestia times and was the same up to Avalon. The only problem with resist was Ice crafted gear and Jades. If you look at a Fire vs any other school or Storm against any other school match and they have Shrike+Infallible+gear armor pierce+their 4 pip bubble, the opponent hardly has any chances to resist them (that's overdoing it, most would just use one and then do thousands of damage with 4 pip spells). They're not always going to be able to keep up Fortify, not always going to be able to change the bubble, and not always able to make the opponent fizzle when they have Shrike up. Damage boost increased significantly with the new crafted gear, and most Exalted Warlords I've seen have nearly 100% damage boost while keeping high amounts of armor pierce. Okay, so 100% damage boost is fair for 50 resist, but then again not everybody has 50% resist. Add armor pierce to that and it's even more unfair to resist. Yes, there are possibilities of shields, but there are possibilities of damage over time spells.

In addition to the lack of resist the defender has in comparison to the 100% damage boost and the 20% armor pierce, there's critical. If there was critical then why add armor pierce with it? I mean, you already have a damage enchantment with the spell, you're able to double the power of the spell with damage boost, you can double the power of it once again with critical (4x the strength), and you have the ability to cut down resist to make the spell almost unsurvivable even if a 70% shield is present. I don't know about you, but when I use my 70% shields I like to rely on such a big percent, not have to stack it up with another just to protect my resist from being cut down to nothing. If anything right now, I respect Jades for getting high ranks in PvP with having to fight all these "critical monsters" in the arena. Especially Storms. If they use one Wild Bolt that does 1275 plus damage boost and critical and there's no block, even with a shield being cut down by 20% the hit would be doing 1479 damage on 42% resist. Without a shield it's game over. I agree that armor pierce was meant to fight immunity, but it should've been to fight immunity only, not to completely shut down everybody's resist to almost nothing.
" they have Shrike+Infallible+gear armor pierce+their 4 pip bubble"

And what part of 15, 30, 35, 50, 70, 70, 75, 75, 80, and 85 shield/aura stacking did you miss to counter that whopping pierce that only removes one shield?

Hero
Dec 16, 2009
772
PvP King on May 14, 2014 wrote:
Balance shouldn't get such high ratings of armor pierce with such low possibilities of defenses. Tower Shield is the only shield, pierce that and you're hitting on plain resist if the wizard even has any. With other schools, nobody really needed 20% armor pierce to deal with 42% resist. Everything was balanced in Celestia times and was the same up to Avalon. The only problem with resist was Ice crafted gear and Jades. If you look at a Fire vs any other school or Storm against any other school match and they have Shrike+Infallible+gear armor pierce+their 4 pip bubble, the opponent hardly has any chances to resist them (that's overdoing it, most would just use one and then do thousands of damage with 4 pip spells). They're not always going to be able to keep up Fortify, not always going to be able to change the bubble, and not always able to make the opponent fizzle when they have Shrike up. Damage boost increased significantly with the new crafted gear, and most Exalted Warlords I've seen have nearly 100% damage boost while keeping high amounts of armor pierce. Okay, so 100% damage boost is fair for 50 resist, but then again not everybody has 50% resist. Add armor pierce to that and it's even more unfair to resist. Yes, there are possibilities of shields, but there are possibilities of damage over time spells.

In addition to the lack of resist the defender has in comparison to the 100% damage boost and the 20% armor pierce, there's critical. If there was critical then why add armor pierce with it? I mean, you already have a damage enchantment with the spell, you're able to double the power of the spell with damage boost, you can double the power of it once again with critical (4x the strength), and you have the ability to cut down resist to make the spell almost unsurvivable even if a 70% shield is present. I don't know about you, but when I use my 70% shields I like to rely on such a big percent, not have to stack it up with another just to protect my resist from being cut down to nothing. If anything right now, I respect Jades for getting high ranks in PvP with having to fight all these "critical monsters" in the arena. Especially Storms. If they use one Wild Bolt that does 1275 plus damage boost and critical and there's no block, even with a shield being cut down by 20% the hit would be doing 1479 damage on 42% resist. Without a shield it's game over. I agree that armor pierce was meant to fight immunity, but it should've been to fight immunity only, not to completely shut down everybody's resist to almost nothing.
Yes if they have shrike and infallible and a bubble... a multi round setup that costs 4 regular pips and a shadow pip, can be counterered in numerous way and is completely negated by a single shield. Damage boost and resist increased with the crafted gear. Not everyone has 50% resist and not everyone has 100% attack boost. Critical is addressed by critical block and hence is where the play and counterplay come in. Pierce on base(average 20%) is less than resist on base(average 42%). The spells utilized to increase and decrease it are completely at the players prerogative and open play and counterplay options. Wild bolt criticalling, not getting blocked and hitting 1000 is an extremely small chance and hardly makes any case for lowering armor pierce.

Defender
Jul 26, 2009
169
PvP King on Apr 28, 2014 wrote:
With the Alpha and Omega ring, I don't see why people would use the crafted rings, and I know I wouldn't. I'd rather not lose 25 block rating from the Duelist's Daredevil Ring with losing 10% damage and 6% armor pierce just to gain 60 block to 3 schools and some heal boost and resist. The hats give 22% to 2 schools last time I checked but you lose just about everything else in comparison to Hades gear. You lose damage boost (considering armor pierce is an elevated form of damage boost because it takes down resist) and all you're gaining is resist to 2 schools. Not a good trade-off at all in my opinion, considering you can get resist to all schools while keeping everything else. Plus, you lose power pip chance with the crafted hats, so not a good trade-off once again.

For people that really are immune, I only see this with Ice wizards, nobody else. How do Storm and Fire wizards take it down? Simple. Shadow Shrike and Infallible. With 20% armor pierce given naturally from gear, adding Infallible giving 35%, and Shrike giving 85%, Ice's resist wouldn't matter. Including critical/block ratings and how Fire and Storm have amazing critical, Ice isn't even considered a problem in PvP anymore. Armor pierce needs a counter to it, because I don't see people having 80% resist while armor pierce gets that high.
I Agree with pierce being too high, But honestly so is Resistance.

Think in the terms of a fire wizard. Your full gear gives you 30% Pierce against an ice wizard that has 70% Fire resistance, 70% Ice damage and 400 Fire block. Fire would be out damaged by the ice wizard because he has effective health and damage.

For normal geared people, this means more spammy fights with less resistance and high damage. It's an unfair quick change for balanced schools like Balance, Death, And life. We've already shown our dislike for this playstyle and pierce is the only reason it exists.

I'll stick to my opinion that school specific pierce needs to be implemented. That way, they only have that pierce against the tank ices, and how much that pierce is will depend on the ices resist. Honestly such a system is too hard to implement so we got an offensive meta... And it alone wasn't gear pierce, but shrike and infallible being way too effective at reducing resist.

(Infact, Most fire and storm are using the crafted hats and boots now, like you described....)