Does mixing defense in lockdown work or do you have to have the helmet and armor be the same defense. Also does this apply to all tiers of lockdown?
Mixing Defense
Sun, 09/28/2014 - 19:54
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 00:52
#2
i'm fairly certain that there's absolutely no long-term benefit to mixing defenses to cover more than two main types and even then the defenses you can achieve with UVs are barely on par with vanilla sets of gear
using divine set as an example (anyone feel free to correct me if the below stuff is incorrect)
- divine veil (which carries base values of 71 defense for both shadow and elemental) with shadow max + elemental max as the UVs will only grant something like 96.6 points of base defense. on its own it's essentially a huge waste of dual maxes. the only way to exceed the base 100 threshold that's also been established is to have a different set with another pair of dual maxes for a grand total of 122.2, which is still shy of most sets secondary defense total by 2.8 if i did my math right (it's 3:40 am atm i can't be bothered to check my work)
in theory, the only way to even justify having a set of that nature would be to run ancient plate alongside of it just to patch up divine veil's spotty defense, since ancient plate has the same base normal defense with one piece as most others have as sets (helm + armor). on top of all of THAT, the only real damage you'll be negating would probably be from weapons with normal damage anyway, such as valiance, and even with dual normal maxes, you'd still be outclassed by a majority of the offensive armors available for LD.
so yeah tl;dr it's not worth the trouble outside of being hugely gimmicky and insanely expensive considering the results, if you're looking to make yourself a threat by negating a majority of the LD meta, i've yet to see someone find a better option outside of ironmight + skolver or volcanic plate + vog/chaos.
all numbers referenced are from krakob's google doc about it
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 13:04
#3
Gonna point out that my values are half of the actual values, as we found that all defence values are twice as big as we thought before. This doesn't matter much, though. Since there are still few uses for post-threshold values, the previous damage-defence formula just keeps things less complicated than re-teaching the entire community about new values.
Wed, 10/01/2014 - 23:11
#4
You mean there's actually 200 base defense?
Wed, 10/01/2014 - 23:58
#5
Yeah. The formulae are available in some thread in Wiki Editors which I don't have the time to dig up right now. The poster who presented it was Gear-Storm, and the thread was about damage and defence research of some sort. I think the OP was Skepticraven.
Still, the community moslty believes that 100 is the minimum. I think trying to spread this information would largely lead to confusion, unless we try to gather all info about damag eand defence in one place, such as on the wiki.
Thu, 10/02/2014 - 00:22
#6
I can't help but wonder, how did you miss that in the first place?
Thu, 10/02/2014 - 01:22
#7
@Theirillusion
I'd missed it because I assumed the formula for defence was
attack - defence
Instead it turned out to be
attack - (defence/2)
Which isn't exactly obvious.
I have the formula for below treshold damage as a function in one of my google spreadsheets. It looks like this:
function TRESHOLD(damage, defence){
return damage * (1 - (1/2 + 0.19 * LOG10((defence - damage)/15 + 1)));
}
You could plug defence * 2 in there and just assume that the above-treshold formula is attack-defence, and nothing would really be any different. Under the hood, however, it's defence/2.
Thu, 10/02/2014 - 11:39
#8
what i'm getting from this is that conceptually the formula differs from what's been previously "published" through other sources such as google drive, threads on the forums, etc. but that the end result is still "close enough" to where guesstimating with the current data is still feasible and won't lead to any glaring errors
would that be a fair enough presumption at this point?
Thu, 10/02/2014 - 12:21
#9
imo
For all practical purposes, you can assume defense doesn't exist in T3 lockdown. Armor is essentially extra trinket slots. Wearing full Snarby with no trinkets still gets you 2HKOed by max damage GF combo. HP is much more valuable for tanking hits.
There are people, like Retequizzle, who have constructed sets that can take one extra flourish hit than normal. However, usually there is residue gun/status damage that makes the advantage negligible.
Fri, 10/03/2014 - 00:49
#10
@Retquizzle
If I understand your post correctly, then yes. Our previous estimates were pretty good. Now we can more or less confirm this stuff. What we lack exact damage values and exact defence values which are not necessarily integers. Since damage is rounded up in all cases, finding them out is doable, but pretty tricky.
@Deleted Knight
For practical purposes, this stuff is really useful to determine how much money you need to invest into UVs to make sets such as Retequizzle's. You can make a difference between death in 3 and 4 or 4 and 5 hits in most sets, which is what makes our knowledge about this subject very useful.
Long answer: http://forums.spiralknights.com/en/node/90606