[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not exactly. Invuln has invincibility. There have been many long posts analysing why the defense from invincibility is like 70% of the set's survivability. Adding Dull Pain would still leave Elect armour as an entirely resist set. *shrug* Whatever.
[/ QUOTE ]
What's a polite way to call bull*#@%?
"70% of the sets survivablity?" In what possible situation? PvE-ing an army of white minions maybe. But not against mobs teams actually fight or in any situations I reguarly encountered. I respec'd out of Invincibility because IMO it was a waste of endurance. This may change with the recalculation of DEF in I7. I'll reserve judgement. It will remain the same for PvP.
The more I think about /Elec, the more I think it's a well balanced set. Even with the sin of limiting travel power diversity.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you'd like me to drag the numbers wizards over here, I can. The defense from invincibility is a huge portion of Invuln's survivability. Huge. It's much much better than any of the passives.
If you're hit 100 times for 100 damage each time and all you have is 50% resistance, you'll take 100 x 50 damage or 5000 damage. If you have even 5 enemies in range with Invincibility on, (assuming it's 3 slotted with def SOs) you get 24.6% defense to anything you have resists to. Subtract Unyielding's penalty and you have 19.6% defense.
Then you'll only be hit 80.4 times. You still have 50% resist. That means you'll take 4020 damage. Instead of 5000. That's almost 1/5 less damage. If you have the full 10 enemies in range, it adds 15.2% more defense. You'll end up taking more than 1/3 less damage. From one power. Plus it boosts your accuracy. "Waste of Endurance" indeed.
[/ QUOTE ]
If your fighting an army of things that hit you 100% of the time you really might want to scale back your expectations.
Last time i checked Mob Acc wasnt 100%.
ON another note, Id like to call for the devs to give all us lectric brute testers a level bump so we can test higher level survivability. Plus i wanna se the 38 power in action :P
[/ QUOTE ]
If you'll reread what I said, my assumption was you being *hit* 100 times. I said nothing about how many times the enemy swung at you.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you reread your post youll see that in your Defence Calculations youve had to assume that Acc was 100%.
Its the only way your post makes any sence. Flawed as it is.
Otherwise your whole measurement for the Defence side of the equation doesnt work. How can you measure it without the total amount of times swung?
