1. With the new defense factor system, what is the optimal stance configuration for defending attacks? Assume evasion, parry, and shield are all equal ranks. Also, does this change if one skill is somewhat higher than the other two?
2. What is the optimal stance configuration for gaining exp in defenses? Is this different from #1? Will I learn more shield from 80/0/100 than from 100/0/80?
3. If #1 and #2 are different, is there some balance that can be struck to optimize both defending and the learning of all three defensive skills, without having to switch stances?
SERBITAR
DERIUM
Re: Couple stance questions
09/07/2016 11:53 PM CDT
[General disclaimer that this is just my opinion and preference]
> 1. With the new defense factor system, what is the optimal stance configuration for defending attacks? Assume evasion, parry, and shield are all equal ranks.
Ranged - no burden - I'd put 100 in evasion, 80+ in shield. Swap if burden.
Melee - 4 targets - I'd put 100 in parry, 40 in shield, 40 in evasion. Prefer shield if unting with a burden.
Mix - no burden - 100 in evasion, 60 in shield, 20 in parry. Shift to shield if I'm getting hit.
> Also, does this change if one skill is somewhat higher than the other two?
Basic math. Use whatever gives you the highest total defense score if you're being hit. Adjust if you're not for better experience (I find 40+ is good enough in any defense).
> 3. If #1 and #2 are different, is there some balance that can be struck to optimize both defending and the learning of all three defensive skills, without having to switch stances?
Assuming you have defenses to stop ranged/tm attacks - 100, 40, 40+ based on your preference.
> 1. With the new defense factor system, what is the optimal stance configuration for defending attacks? Assume evasion, parry, and shield are all equal ranks.
Ranged - no burden - I'd put 100 in evasion, 80+ in shield. Swap if burden.
Melee - 4 targets - I'd put 100 in parry, 40 in shield, 40 in evasion. Prefer shield if unting with a burden.
Mix - no burden - 100 in evasion, 60 in shield, 20 in parry. Shift to shield if I'm getting hit.
> Also, does this change if one skill is somewhat higher than the other two?
Basic math. Use whatever gives you the highest total defense score if you're being hit. Adjust if you're not for better experience (I find 40+ is good enough in any defense).
> 3. If #1 and #2 are different, is there some balance that can be struck to optimize both defending and the learning of all three defensive skills, without having to switch stances?
Assuming you have defenses to stop ranged/tm attacks - 100, 40, 40+ based on your preference.
SERBITAR
Re: Couple stance questions
09/08/2016 12:01 AM CDT
Thanks for the response. So you think that in terms of learning, 100/40/40 is going to lock everything faster than going 100/80/0 then switching to 100/0/80 when parry locks (for instance)?
SERBITAR
Re: Couple stance questions
09/08/2016 12:08 AM CDT
I guess if there is a direct correlation between stance points and gained exp it would end up being the same in terms of learning. Which means that 100/40/40 (or some combination of that, with one skill being 100) would be the easiest because I wouldn't have to switch stances, assuming that I'm not getting hit.
SERBITAR
Re: Couple stance questions
09/08/2016 12:10 AM CDT
Also, I keep hearing that parry is technically better with four mobs at melee, but I find much more success with shield in those situations, whether encumbered or not -- and that is with exactly the same ranks in parry and shield. Shield just seems like the superior defense in general considering it also blocks ranged attacks and some special attacks too
ILLIENA
Re: Couple stance questions
09/08/2016 12:15 AM CDT
> I guess if there is a direct correlation between stance points and gained exp it would end up being the same in terms of learning.
The following is not exactly correct, but it's close enough: an incoming attack generates a fixed amount of defensive exp. That exp is then distributed amongst your defenses based on your stance. So you can't control how much exp you earn by adjusting your stance, only where it ends up.
> Which means that 100/40/40 (or some combination of that, with one skill being 100)
Why are you concerned with keeping one at 100? I do 64/64/64, and it works fine.
The following is not exactly correct, but it's close enough: an incoming attack generates a fixed amount of defensive exp. That exp is then distributed amongst your defenses based on your stance. So you can't control how much exp you earn by adjusting your stance, only where it ends up.
> Which means that 100/40/40 (or some combination of that, with one skill being 100)
Why are you concerned with keeping one at 100? I do 64/64/64, and it works fine.
DERIUM
Re: Couple stance questions
09/08/2016 12:28 AM CDT
> Why are you concerned with keeping one at 100? I do 64/64/64, and it works fine.
I tend not to wait for all skills to catch up, so I'll have one defense higher than the rest. Using 100 in that defense tends to keep me alive.
SERBITAR
Re: Couple stance questions
09/08/2016 12:38 AM CDT
>an incoming attack generates a fixed amount of defensive exp. That exp is then distributed amongst your defenses based on your stance. So you can't control how much exp you earn by adjusting your stance, only where it ends up.
Well that's what I meant, you can control the ratio, i.e. how it gets distributed. If the creature doesn't teach you evasion anymore, for instance, then putting stance points into evasion would be selling yourself short in terms of exp (assuming that you aren't getting hit no matter what).
>Why are you concerned with keeping one at 100? I do 64/64/64, and it works fine.
Being survival prime, my evasion is about 30 ranks higher than my parry/shield (which are equal). If I'm underhunting then yeah it doesn't really matter how I set up my stances, but when I go at level against stuff that can actually damage me I like to ensure that I will not take any significant hits or stuns, or at least lessen the chance that will happen.
Well that's what I meant, you can control the ratio, i.e. how it gets distributed. If the creature doesn't teach you evasion anymore, for instance, then putting stance points into evasion would be selling yourself short in terms of exp (assuming that you aren't getting hit no matter what).
>Why are you concerned with keeping one at 100? I do 64/64/64, and it works fine.
Being survival prime, my evasion is about 30 ranks higher than my parry/shield (which are equal). If I'm underhunting then yeah it doesn't really matter how I set up my stances, but when I go at level against stuff that can actually damage me I like to ensure that I will not take any significant hits or stuns, or at least lessen the chance that will happen.
IVJAMES
Re: Couple stance questions
09/09/2016 08:57 PM CDT
Since we are able to have 5 stances preset (attack, shield, parry, evasion, custom) and then being able to just type stance shield or stance parry etc. to swicth between themn, I fail to see the need to diminsh your defensive capabilites by such large percentages. I typically keep 2 at equal percantages and switch often to keep everything moving and minimize my chances of getting hit. Don't ever use a parry, evasion, no shield mix with a ranged weapon though.
SERBITAR
Re: Couple stance questions
09/09/2016 09:14 PM CDT
>I fail to see the need to diminsh your defensive capabilites by such large percentages
Well just like any other hunter, I want to make my combat as efficient as I can from an experience point of view.
If I'm not getting past dabbling in evasion, there's no reason to put any more than a handful of stance points in it because any exp going to that defense is going to be a waste.
So if I can drop evasion to basically nothing and stance more fully into shield and parry, I can lock those other two defenses much quicker and go do something else.
Now, if you are fighting at level and there is a danger of dying, then yeah of course you should stance however you need to in order to survive. But fighting at-level mobs gives a whole lot more exp, anyway, so locking defenses shouldn't be much of an issue.
In the old system, stancing evasion down to zero was a death sentence because of the way the defensive calculations worked. But now it really doesn't matter which stance you set as your primary defense, unless some of your defenses severely outrank the others.
My empath's parry, shield, and evasion are all very close in rank. So I just stance 60/60/60 and don't even worry about it.
My thief has more evasion, so I softcap that first when approaching the teaching limits of a creature. It requires a different strategy. Before I would stance 100/84/0 to lock parry then switch to 100/0/84 to lock shield, but like I said I realize now how inefficient that is.
Well just like any other hunter, I want to make my combat as efficient as I can from an experience point of view.
If I'm not getting past dabbling in evasion, there's no reason to put any more than a handful of stance points in it because any exp going to that defense is going to be a waste.
So if I can drop evasion to basically nothing and stance more fully into shield and parry, I can lock those other two defenses much quicker and go do something else.
Now, if you are fighting at level and there is a danger of dying, then yeah of course you should stance however you need to in order to survive. But fighting at-level mobs gives a whole lot more exp, anyway, so locking defenses shouldn't be much of an issue.
In the old system, stancing evasion down to zero was a death sentence because of the way the defensive calculations worked. But now it really doesn't matter which stance you set as your primary defense, unless some of your defenses severely outrank the others.
My empath's parry, shield, and evasion are all very close in rank. So I just stance 60/60/60 and don't even worry about it.
My thief has more evasion, so I softcap that first when approaching the teaching limits of a creature. It requires a different strategy. Before I would stance 100/84/0 to lock parry then switch to 100/0/84 to lock shield, but like I said I realize now how inefficient that is.
