I see. I agree, I think %-based armour would be easier to balance. One kit dying and one taking 10 damage isn't really the best way to do things.
Indeed. The flat reduction system also trivializes some things while making other stuff awful. For example, with the best armor you'll take 1 damage from all physical attacks on Routine and 1 damage from many physical attacks on Threatening. But go into Perilous and suddenly you're going to be getting hit for 25-100+ damage by everything. And it disproportionately punishes people with worse armor -- if enemies do 200 damage per hit on Threatening then an Archer with 173 armor (the best) takes 27 damage per hit...while an Archer with 71 armor (starting armor) takes 129 damage per hit. That's just about 5 times as much damage per hit, y'know?
Magical Master. of course I am talking promotions in the hundreds, pork is talking about the same I am sure.
Okay, well, that's not something you can change very quickly. I think I'm about 24ish in all stats at the moment. If my goal was 100 in all stats and I did a steady grind of 1.5 hours per promotion (which is unrealistic at this point, though I know people with a ton of stats already and Hakkon weapons can do it at that pace or faster) that's just another, oh, 225 hours of playing. And 100 in all stats isn't even "that" high compared to some of the most promoted players. Even if I played 3 hours per day and never did anything less optimal XP wise (like play with friends or going for Hakkon weapons), that's 2.5 more months of playing.
So saying "Promotions are the most important factor for success in the game" does not apply for the vast, vast majority of players. For them, getting another 5-10 promotions is not going to turn them from a player struggling in Threatening to facerolling Perilous or something.
And it certainly won't help someone adjust to Bolters -- because, again, you're talking dozens upon dozens of hours to see any significant improvement.
I have some wow background too. Mostly BC days. Taunting and aggro in this game is not the same. The dragon is immune to taunt.
I wasn't even thinking of WoW. I was thinking of this little game called Dragon Age: Origins where aggro did exist (and, in fact, did work like WoW). While Taunt in that game would not force an enemy to attack you, it did generate a ton of threat on everything around you. Then I was also thinking of this other little game called Dragon Age 2 where aggro did exist (like DA:O and WoW) and Taunt even *redistributed* all threat to the tank.
So if DA:I doesn't have Taunt or Aggro that works in a similar way, it's the first of the series to do so.
Bow users has the highest threat in the game, mooks will just run for them unprovoked.
Weird mechanics compared to other games. Makes a lot of sense tho since if I was a mook,
I would go for the softest target who can deal the most damage first. Who cares about that short
stout dude with a shield and heavy armor warcrying over yonder.
I've definitely seen the "run for the player not even in your LoS across the map because they look vulnerable" thing but I seem to recall that changing the instant said mob got hit or taunted (it was just an initial thing). Perhaps I'm wrong about that, though.
And from that perspective if makes no sense if you were a mook because you don't even know that Archer 500 meters, three corners, and 2 hallways away exists! Or even if you did you don't know his precise location.
But even laying that aside it leads to terrible gameplay mechanics where everyone tries to obtain the same level of survivability (no point in being tougher than average if enemies will ignore you) and then focus on DPS.