>>31I'm not the one attempting to change topic and premise as he sees fit.
It wasn't an effective armor rating; it couldn't have been, for effective armor implies a difference between states. However, if there was a difference between states, there wouldn't have been any point in ever making effective armor a public attribute — only normal armor. Hence, effective armor cannot be subject to this discussion (
>>30) and
armor must already be the normal armor, with all the semantical nonsense the changes cause.
It's hilarious that you suggest a
baseArmor stat. What is the difference between changing all base stat uses of
getArmor into
getBaseArmor and changing all damage calculation uses of
armor into
getEffectiveArmor?
The latter doesn't silently break your API, enterprise boy. So much for stability.