Difference between Defense builds?

So I don't make a wall of text, I'll form this as a hypothetical. Let's say...

My scrapper has 113 trillion inf. I have 2 Defense softcap builds mapped out in Mids. Since I couldn't decide which one I liked better, I bought all the IO's for both. Which one should I go for:

1. Smashing/Lethal, Energy/Negative, and Fire/Cold
2. Melee, AoE, and Ranged

Please assume an ideal build (as in, not significantly lacking in any other metric).

Basically, is there much of an operational difference between the two methods? Obviously PSI is a concern on the first build, but don't some PSI attacks lack a positional designation anyway? Is our hypothetical survival identical in these cases?

SOME Psi attacks lack a positional designator (mostly the single-target ones from Mind Control), however, not all do.


However, onto your more pressing topic, being should you go for positional or typed defense: it's going to depend a lot. The first factor is whether or not you have any innate defense. For example, if you are an /SR scrapper, then it's easier to go positional. If you're an /Invuln, it's easier to go typed.

Now, most builds without any inherent defense tend not to be able to soft-cap all three types or all three positions. As such, you tend to focus on either S/L, or one of the positional ones. For a scrapper, Melee would make more sense than Ranged, for instance.

Now, most melee attacks have a S/L component to them. Very few are purely elemental or energy damage. As such, S/L will cover you against most melee attacks as well as Melee defense would. However, that S/L defense will also protect against some Ranged and AoE attacks as well, whereas the Melee defense would not.

So, I would say that the S/L defense is better, assuming that you are starting with 0% defense.

Just to clarify, what I intended to mean is that this hypothetical build has everything capped in either option 1, or 2 respectively. If I wanted to turn any AT into a "Tank", what option would be more durable (if any).

However you make some really good points. I imagine a Blapper would really like to focus on S/L more than anything else, while a classic Blaster would probably value Ranged more.

I'm finally getting into build strategies, so I just wanted to hear some opinions on what looks to me as two equal options (if money, time, and slots were no consideration).

To answer the hypothetical: all other things being equal, capped positional defences are slightly superior to capped typed defences.

That said, as Aett mentioned, it's usually best to go for whichever sort of defence you already have some of.

Here are how I approach these.

• Work with what you have. If you have any in-powerset defenses, use them as your basis. If they are positional, build for more positional, and if they are damage-typed, build for more damage typed. If you have zero in-powerset defense or all your defense is uniform against all positions and types (like Weave), then this doesn't matter.
• Positional defenses only have a "hole" to non-positional attacks. Damage-typed defenses typically have a "hole" to Psi and Toxic damage. In my experience, non-positional attacks are (much) more rare than Psi attacks, though there are well-known psi attacks that are also non-positional. Addressing the Psi "hole" in a damage typed build would require you to build for a fourth defense type, because Psi damage defense isn't paired with anything else. Of course. it's actually impossible to build for Toxic defense, making it good that pure Toxic attacks are fairly rare. A saving grace of damage-typed builds here is that you always end up with some positional defense, so if you're worried say about positional Psi and Toxic attacks, you can try to beef up your E/N and F/C defenses which will also increase your ranged and AoE defenses. (There aren't enough melee pure Psi or Toxic attacks to focus on, IMO, and good L/S defense will have moderate to good Melee defense already.)
• Work with what you can get some uniformity with. For positional defense, I like 25+% Melee/ 20+ % Ranged / 15+% AoE. For damage-typed, I like 25+% L/S / 20+% E/N, / 15+% F/C. These are bare minimums, IMO, and I definitely like some of these values to be higher if I can pull it off, especially in first two categories. I have a preference for Positional defense, because I like being able to think tactically about my admitted damage by position - high melee defense = less damage when in melee, for example. However, I have found some characters for whom I could not build for positional defense and get sufficient defense in the Ranged and AoE positions without making undesirable sacrifices in other areas of my build. In these cases, I was still able to build for high L/S defense, and moderate E/N and F/C defense that met my minimums above.
• I rate the positional defenses in importance (high to low) as Melee, Ranged, and then AoE. Ranged damage used to be somewhat ignorable. However, mobs now regularly fire their ranged attacks even standing in your face, so moderate to high ranged defense is now fairly important, IMO. AoE defense may be least important of the three, but can be very important if you face much in the way of AVs and Giant Monsters.
• I rate the typed defenses in importance (high to low) as L/S, E/N and F/C. Vast amounts of attacks in the game have a Lethal or Smashing component, so high L/S is the biggest bang for your buck. Dark and Energy attacks are also very common, and frequently have no L/S component. Dark Blast and Electric attacks are great examples. Fire and Cold are relatively uncommon, and very frequently have Lethal or Smashing components attached, at least to damaging attacks.

If you can cap all defenses regardless of positional or typed... Then pick the one you want. But as others said, depends on what you got already. /SR or /Shield are better off going for positional defense. That's what they already have, so there's less effort to softcap. /Willpower or /Invuln have typed defense already though, so have an easier time capping that then positional defense. /Dark Armor on the other hand, you might want to consider going for resistance if possible. Or go for the defense type of your choice. After all, it has no (well ok, barely any) innate defense to begin with.

It's a hypothetical. The exaggeration is meant as "I have all the Inf I need to create any build I might want".

In my experience, you won't have a softcapped positional defenses scrapper build unless your secondary is defense based(SR,SD). Softcapped S/L defense however is doable with enough Influence on almost any scrapper.


My Elec tanker had a choice between going for softcapped S/L defense or 32.5% to all positionals(one purple to softcap). I chose the 32.5% option, since Elec Armor has pretty good S/L resistance and the 32.5% option gives me more versatility, while also being significantly cheaper.

The Psi attacks that hit the hardest tend to be the ones that have a ranged position to them, eg Carnie Ringmistress Psi blasts, Fortunata bosses.

The non-positioned ones (Mind or Illusion Control powers used by Rikti, Illusionists, and so on) do less damage but more control. The control's pretty superfluous to your Scrapper due to their innate mez protection.

I'd go for positional defences over typed for this reason.

Well I made a build for you that's capped to all RES and DEF (positional AND typed), but unfortunately it costs 119 trillion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

Actually, BrandX is partially wrong; if you managed to get 45% to all types, including Psi, you would have a substantially stronger build than the other one with 45% defence to all positions. However, assuming the Psi defence hole as you did in the original question, positional defence is slightly superior because of the Psi attacks that have the Ranged tag as well, which makes the Psi hole smaller on the positional build as opposed to the typed build.