I guess this is more of a question for those who actually have High or Max UVs in shadow/piercing/elemental/normal with their helmet or armor, but how has that UV treated you? I don't know if there have been threads that dealt with strictly testing these results, but I'm curious to find out.
Those threads at the Bazaar sure have me thinking about how (hopefully) potent a good defense UV could be.
Well, I have a Wyvern Scale Shield with Maximum Normal UV.
Before I had that one I had one without any UV so I can kinda compare the two...
You notice it. A lot.
I was unable to withstand spikes longer than a second, at most, without the UV.
With it I can take several hits before it even turns red.
I notice it a lot in general, I can take several hits before it breaks whereas it wouldn't survive a single hit without the UV.
Wow, that's pretty big. Is this in t2 or t3 that you notice the shield lasting a while?
All of t2 and half of t3, I never went to the lower half of t3 yet, altho I'm quite sure I could.
My personal theory is that there's diminishing returns on high defense, and there's not a huge difference between a Low and a Maximum UV, but it's definitely worth having a little defense where before there was none.
Farami, I am jealous of your shield. I am trying to craft one of those myself. How are you finding it for T3?
Spikes do normal damage in T2? Did not know that. Guess I can stop worrying so much about my piercing for JK.
Oh, just a quick comment about that, piercing defense helps a lot against Jellies which do a good amount of piercing damage in Royal Jelly runs.
@SlyJohnny
As I said I never went much lower than the beginning of the lower half of T3 but so far it has proven very, very useful.
Everything that does non-normal damage also does partially normal damage in T2, so it's important to have at least a little bit of normal defense on everything in T2.
That being said, does what Farami say imply that UV defenses are better than the bars say they are?
Oops, accidental double post. Can a mod delete this please?
Yeah, I was always suspect of bars (as per the usual discussion about bars), but I think UVs are the one case where the bars under-represent how powerful they really are.
Man, I can't believe I spent so much CE to find this info out...
Depth 19 - Gun Puppy - Elemental Damage Test
Numbers are damage reflected in bars of health lost till death, and verified by a revive.
Complemented by two +3hp trinkets and +9 Vitapod.
Equipment swapped: Skolver (no elemental), Deadshot Sash UV Elemental High (elemental only from UV), Vog Cub (lvl 10)
S: 4.5 - 4.5 - 4.5 - 4.5 - 5.0 - 4.5 - dead
D: 3.0 - 3.5 - 3.0 - 3.5 - 3.0 - 3.5 - 3.0 - 3.5 - dead
V: 3.0 - 3.5 - 3.5 - 3.5 - 3.5 - 3.0 - 3.5 - 3.5 - dead
Depth 24 - Gun Puppy - Elemental Damage Test 2
Conditions same as above, but also complemented by HP pills when available for more damage to record.
Complemented by two +3hp trinkets and Vitapods when available at level.
Equipment swapped: Skolver (no elemental), Deadshot Sash UV Elemental High (elemental only from UV), Vog Cub (lvl 10)
S: 7.0 - 7.0 - 7.0 - 7.0 - 7.0 - 7.0 - 7.0 - 7.0 - dead
D: 5.0 - 5.5 - 5.5 - 5.5 - 5.5 - 5.5 - dead
V: 5.5 - 5.5 - 5.5 - 5.5 - 5.5 - dead
Interpretations
Thanks a bunch for this!
I wonder what happens if you have armor with natural elemental defense, plus elemental UVs.
Updates, as I was able to do tests at Depth 24 with Gun Puppies there.
Again, looks to heavily suggest that HIGH elemental UV is just as good if not slightly better than the high elemental resist that Vog Cub offers.
Could anyone with a Max elemental, or even any other max defense UV, possibly contribute to these findings? It might be more efficient to compile multiple reports together from various sources to... save CE wise.
Well, as I said I've got a Maximum Normal defense Wyvern Scale Shield. It doesn't have any base normal defense, and I have the same shield without the UV too.
So tell me what to do and I'll try it out. :D
Volebamus, you are a hero! Thank you for spending your own wealth advancing our collective knowledge.
This is more fuel for my theory that there's diminishing returns at higher levels of resists, but that it makes a big difference to have SOME resistance rather than none.
Farami: Let a gremlin pound on each of your shields at Depth 19 and 24, and see how many hits it takes to destroy each. That'd give us a rough idea.
I'm on tonight, if I see you tonight, I'll invite you down to a gremlin and save you the energy :)
Ah, interesting Farami. In your case, I think you'd need to find a shield that has similar health as to your two Wyvern, yet good normal defense, thereby having 3 shields to test with. Then have a run against an enemy in Tier 3 that sole deals normal damage (not sure which enemies that could be), and see how long each shield lasts for before breaking.
Volebamus,
That's a very interesting test you did in post #12...
You wouldn't HAPPEN to have (just by chance, as I don't think getting one is worth it) a UV elemental Medium on a 5* armor would you?
If not you, then someone else with a similar set and some extra mist/CE floating around.
This is to support the notion that having at least some UV is better none.
Also, I am wondering what the "add value" of having a high is vs a medium. (Is it worth the... many many many times more CE?)
So would it be better to have defense (elemental, piercing, etc.) UVs or status resist UVs? And would medium or even low UVs already be good or is high already much better than medium?
Volebamus, were you wearing matching helmet/armor when you conducted this test? What exactly was your full helmet/armor set up?
I'm asking this because your data may imply the existence of maximum (elemental) defense...
Skolver piece was the complementary for all 3. Full Skolver was the control.
I mean, if anything, I can also test how the numbers compare to using a Vog piece instead of the Skolver just to see. But I need to be motivated again, as I see a lack of mass interest and participation in the thread.
So you were able to get that much damage reduction with only a UV? Woah. Makes me want to go Skolver/Skolver with shadow/ele UVs.
I use Vog/Vog. I'll see how much damage a gun puppy does to me at those depths and report back. It might be possible that there are defense tiers...
im interested, especially wondering about the low - max part
if the normal defense doesnt matter, i suggest testing it with 2* to
-save money, if the defense is surprisingly high
-have more data at a low cost
the vog instead of skolver is also very interesting(if the results are unexpected), but im more curious about the differences, that uvs alone make
sorry for the nercro, but this is actually VERY interesting and valuable info, I would love it if further testing took place
To note, my results are outdated since these were before the fix-UV-doubling-update.
Now UVs should supposedly be half as effective as they were before.
Some post-patch results using fire UVs/Armors and FoV self-fire can be found over here:
http://forums.spiralknights.com/en/node/10522#comment-95704
Well, this topic needs a revive, too much usefullness =P
and I have a question... those defenses stacks like the status resistence or is it avarage?
=======================================================================
like, its better to have (w/o considerings UV's and equipment bonuses such CTR, ASI, etc.):
Dragon Scale Helm (Piercing + Elemental) + Snarbolax Coat (Normal + Shadow)
or
2 Snarbolax and 2 DS for huges amount of resistence? (switching when needed)
even if defense stacks, its better for an all avarage or 1/2 maxed defenses??
========================================================================
Considering UV's/trinkets, its better to make a hybrid set(case 1) OR the full set(case 2), and then add the defenses lacks more?
thanks for your time :3
It is much better to have your armors stack, but requires a large investment in many armors.
If you are heading into a T3 Beast strata where you'll run into almost all piercing damage, full Dragon is much better than a mixed set. Mixed sets receive about 50% more damage compared to pure sets. Not defending against the damage at all though would result in about 100% more damage. Example:
T3 Wolver Bite (pure piercing)
Full Dragon Scale - 5.5 pips health
Dragon Scale Helm/Snarbolax Coat - 8.5 pips health
Full Snarbolax - 12 pips health
The nice thing about a mixed set is that you can wear it everywhere and not have to worry about taking full damage. It is very economical. But you can see how it is less than optimal.
Even in T2 where things are split Normal/Special damage the same thing happens. If one were to only do T3, you could technically get away with just full Dragon Scale and full Snarbolax. That would allow you to cover all four damage types completely. Step into T2 and you only have full defenses for Undead/Fiend strata since Dragon Scale is missing Normal. So you'd go mixed set otherwise in T2, and deal with the marginally increased damage you receive. Shouldn't be a problem since T2 damage isn't that bad at all. Or just invest in three sets of armors from the start: Normal/Elemental, Normal/Piercing, Normal/Shadow and you'll be covered no matter where you go.
Side note - Currently there are some issues with wearing the same outfit in a strata like Poison where you can run into all kinds of damage types. The upcoming Arsenal Changing Stations at the start of every depth will relieve that issue. This will also further remove the need for mixed sets.
TL;DR - Nothing wrong with a mixed set. Three sets of armor costs more but is better for damage defense.
Thanks ;3, I don't like to change every time sets (even less paying so much crowns for it), from the start at least I will go for mixed sets...
About LD, I guess mixed are better too... changing the armor because one player use X weapon... but after change, the others players may use a Y weapon that you don't have defense since you changed gear... at least with mixed I can reduce a little of everything (like you said)
If they add that change stations in every depth would be great, because its not every stage with the same mobs =P so its kind of fail right now...
Thanks for the answer! ^-^
I don't mean to revive this subject, but it still seems relatively somewhat clear, but at the same time not. According to Culture's post, a full set with the same defense types stacked up i.e. Vog, Skolver, Snarborlax, etc is better especially in t3(of course with normal mix in the lower tiers as well) than being well-rounded with only one defense type unstacked. I was just wondering does marginal diminishing returns exist? I was wondering if adding 2x normal maximum uvs falls into diminishing returns for example. How would it be tested on foes like Vanaduke or Trojans? So would it just be best to stack 2x natural defenses and have 2 max UVs of the same type that the natural armor/helmets lack like say Vog Cub set and 2x Piercing max UVs or Shadows than say 2x Normals or Elementals? Cause I recall my Azure set giving relatively few more protection against alpha wolvers, but that could be due to less effectiveness a 5* gear would have at a non-T3 level.
Heh. If the change in the bars are any indication, they really aren't that big a deal. Not like Status Resist UV's, which can be pretty significant.
I mean, how much does a set of really good armor reduce damage of the appropriate source? Half, maybe? And then you add in a defense of a bar length 1/20th of the size, at best? You probably wouldn't even notice it unless you got decent strengths of the same damage type resistance UV on both the armor and the helm.. and maybe added it to some from a trinket.
But that's not really an educated statement, that's just me saying "I don't think it works that way".