Energy Aura?


Bill Z Bubba

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Umbral View Post
You can't simply state that a set is typed defense and then proceed to ignore everything else that the set has going for it. Positional defense sets focus almost entirely on defense. Typed defense sets use defense only as a portion of their survivability. I dare you to find a hole that healing or +hp don't cover. All of the set that are "typed defense" based that you are using as your basis of "typed defense is inferior" have those mechanism in substantial amounts. Neither SR nor Shield have substantial amounts of either of those.
To be entirely fair, Shield provides mitigation in the form of +HP, resists, -dmg, and knockdown. SR has defense that can't ever be debuffed away and the scaling resists that certainly count for more than you're giving credit for.

I hear what you're saying, though. If I'm going to say you can't compare the defenses without taking into account the sets they come from, then I have to take into account the entire set.

That said, I have an EA stalker. It fits my concept better, it's a lot of fun, but even with all the bells and whistles included, I'd be more survivable with /SR. That's coming from an academic numerical analysis as well as gameplay experience points of view.


Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison View Post
To be entirely fair, Shield provides mitigation in the form of +HP, resists, -dmg, and knockdown. SR has defense that can't ever be debuffed away and the scaling resists that certainly count for more than you're giving credit for.
That's why I stated "substantial" for those effects. The effects you mention in Shield are nice, but they're nowhere near as strong as the outright defense. For SR, the scaling resists are, once again, nice, but they're not going to provide quite the same degree of additional survivability as the Invuln resists do. The DDR in SR is largely there due to the fact that the set is almost entirely reliant on defense (and you can generally gauge how reliant a set is on defense by looking at the degree of DDR the sets get; both of those sets have "high" DDR demonstrating higher reliance on defense and lower reliance on their other mechanics).


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison View Post
That said, I have an EA stalker. It fits my concept better, it's a lot of fun, but even with all the bells and whistles included, I'd be more survivable with /SR. That's coming from an academic numerical analysis as well as gameplay experience points of view.
That's a point that we can both agree on though I don't think it's really the fault of the set being typed defense based rather than a positional set. In fact, if you use the IO equivalences (melee = s/l, ranged = n/e, AoE = f/c) and switch the defenses out, you'll achieve only the slightest of increases to overall survivability (using Arcanaville's survivability spreadsheet, the changes would make the set only 4% more survivable).

The weakness of the set isn't simply a question of typed versus positional. The weakness of the set is more substantial than simply a difference in what defense you're getting. The weakness of the set is based in the fact that the set simply doesn't have enough going for it and it needs an outright buff (preferably in the manner I've suggested as it would allow for proliferation rather easily) rather than a simple exchange.