i'm still having touble understanding why this is such a desirable mod. I believe its rare to get a perfect, so that adds to the price. Yet the mod itself is so weak! It's the same as -1 physical damage each physical attack. Maybe good if 15 monsters are hitting you at once (trolls!) but i feel +10vs or +enchanted is much better!
anyone else want to share their thoughts?
-5 dmg 20% ... pretty weak!
dr love
Blaze Emup
Its more versatile. You don't have to be enchanted, hexed, fighting against a certain type of damage or whatnot. Sure a -2 damage while in stance would be good if you were constantly in a stance or +10 armor v/s piercing, cold, ect..would be great in those situations but not always like the -5 20% is.
lyra_song
-anything sucks compared to its pre-nerf version.
Maxiemonster
-5 damage (20% chance) is pretty much -1 damage (constant)
So, when you get while under an enchantment or stance over 50% of the time, this mod isn't for you.
So, when you get while under an enchantment or stance over 50% of the time, this mod isn't for you.
????ng??R!
This mod is the same as sundering ver's vamp imo, for the lazy people. You can run arround and not have to worry about always trying to make it "active" or counter its negitive's.
Sundering and -5 20% are great for Hero's
, I hate babysitting lol.
Sundering and -5 20% are great for Hero's
, I hate babysitting lol.
boxterduke
Its not for lazy people at all, its as others said for when you are not in stance or under enchants.
I was running a warrior build the other day and it had no stances and no enchants, the only time I would get enchants is when the monk is healing.
It had to have Dolyak sig so there was no need for stances either.
a -2 stance shield would do me no good so I used my -5, 20%
Everything in this game has its uses, it just depends on the build you are using.
I was running a warrior build the other day and it had no stances and no enchants, the only time I would get enchants is when the monk is healing.
It had to have Dolyak sig so there was no need for stances either.
a -2 stance shield would do me no good so I used my -5, 20%
Everything in this game has its uses, it just depends on the build you are using.
XvArchonvX
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ЪngêR!
This mod is the same as sundering ver's vamp imo, for the lazy people. You can run arround and not have to worry about always trying to make it "active" or counter its negitive's.
Sundering and -5 20% are great for Hero's , I hate babysitting lol. |
A better comparison would be of a +15%^50 mod to a +15% stance/enchanted mod. A +15%^50 is a more general damage mod, but a +15% stance/enchanted has more damage potential in the right build just as a -2 Stance/enchanted mod has more defensive potential in the right build.
Gregslot
OF COURSE NOT... its great!
u dont need enchantments and u dont need stances
u dont need enchantments and u dont need stances
Rera
Well, one question you have to ask is whether it's smart to run -X damage in the first place, when you could be running +10AL vs. slashing/piercing/blunt. The fact that the -X mod only works on physical damage means you can often run +AL mods and get better results.
Former Ruling
Its a popular PvE mod because, although being weaker in the longrun, people don't have to worry about the mods.
Of course common sense tells us you could shield swith in battle to make the best of your current situation (enchanted with certain builds, stance with certain builds, +10 v x in certain areas, etc) but thats multiple shields and swithing in battle...not that desirable when you can just pick up a -5 and wear it all the time (and not have to buy multiple shields even!)
In PvP I would laugh if anyone wore one though, since its quite easy to just spawn 100 different shields and swith them based on the dmg you taking in a certain battle.
Of course common sense tells us you could shield swith in battle to make the best of your current situation (enchanted with certain builds, stance with certain builds, +10 v x in certain areas, etc) but thats multiple shields and swithing in battle...not that desirable when you can just pick up a -5 and wear it all the time (and not have to buy multiple shields even!)
In PvP I would laugh if anyone wore one though, since its quite easy to just spawn 100 different shields and swith them based on the dmg you taking in a certain battle.
eudas
how does the math work out on the whole "-5 20% = -1 always" claim?
eudas
eudas
broodijzer
- I rarely run long enchantments on my warrior
- hexes are too unpredictable
- I'm not always in a stance
- I don't have the storage/money to get the perfect +10 shield vs every situation
that's why I use -5 20%
- hexes are too unpredictable
- I'm not always in a stance
- I don't have the storage/money to get the perfect +10 shield vs every situation
that's why I use -5 20%
ss1986v2
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eudas
how does the math work out on the whole "-5 20% = -1 always" claim?
eudas |
hit.
hit.
hit triggers the -5.
hit.
hit.
total dmg reduced: 5
its the same mathematically as:
hit triggers -1.
hit triggers -1.
hit triggers -1.
hit triggers -1.
hit triggers -1.
total dmg reduced: 5
as for the debate, yes if you run a heavy stance or are always enchanted, of course the -2 shields are better. and yes if you know exactly what dmg you will be taking, then the +10 armor shields are so much better. but if you dont run stances or enchants, then the -2 shields are worthless. id still run the + armors over the -5 shields, but you could make the argument that the -5 shields are a bit more general than the dmg specific armor bonuses.
Eclair
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eudas
how does the math work out on the whole "-5 20% = -1 always" claim?
eudas |
Or in terms of proper probability theory,
X = amount of damage reduced on any hit
fx(x) = { 0.2, x = -5
0 , otherwise
E[X]= Sum X*fx(x)
= -5*0.2 = -1
dr1zz one
of course there is better stats depending on build, but its better than no damage reduction modifier.
I see this as a good all around mod for many builds without having to carry around a bunch of shields.
Also, my paragon character and heroes have a higher chance of this mod being useful on thier builds.
I see this as a good all around mod for many builds without having to carry around a bunch of shields.
Also, my paragon character and heroes have a higher chance of this mod being useful on thier builds.
Rera
There are only three types of physical damage (slashing, piercing, blunt), so it's not as though you need to go out and buy a dozen different perfect shields. If you decide to get +10AL vs. fire/cold/earth/etc., that's all beyond what any -X damage shield can do for you.
DeathandtheHealing
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eclair
-5 * .2 = -1
Or in terms of proper probability theory, X = amount of damage reduced on any hit fx(x) = { 0.2, x = -5 0 , otherwise E[X]= Sum X*fx(x) = -5*0.2 = -1 |
its 20%
so 80% of the time your not getting any dmg reduction.
so it doesnt add up to -1 every single hit, it adds up to -5dmg on a given, guildwars isnt a "perfect world" as your examples show. you can have a 50% block on you and not dodge any hits, or dodge all the hits. It doesnt mean your going to miss,hit,miss,hit, and so on.
as for the mod, its more of a utility mod as it doesnt need any conditional values to trigger it.
+10 vs elements are much better when facing ele monsters, but for the best of the best, have shields of every outcome >_>
I feel like such a nerd
~Kate
Rera
@DeathandtheHealing: for a better idea of what Eclair is talking about, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value, or any basic probability textbook.
DeathandtheHealing
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rera
@DeathandtheHealing: for a better idea of what Eclair is talking about, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value, or any basic probability textbook.
|
i'm saying its a bad way to look at it.
some people are confused and think your saying u get -1 every hit. which is incorrect
its best to look at it as 80% of the time u get no dmg reduction.
cause we all kno how great guardian is when u have a 20% chance to block >_>
this is why i hated probablity sooooo much in school. its bs.
Malice Black
I stick this mod in the same category as 20/20 sundering and +30hp....overpriced and a waste of space.
Akhilleus
i look at it this way; 1/5 hits you get -5 dmg reduction, which is nice.
with a stance or enchanted mod, if your build runs those often, you can essentially have -2 about 80-100% of the time...far, far more reliable.
however, for builds with no enchants or stances; go with -5.
overall, a warrior would usually be best off with -2s; a dervish with -2ench; most casters with -5, monks with -2ench.
granted, casters should be using +1 attribute (20%) mods instead of dmg reduction.
overall it depends on the build.
with a stance or enchanted mod, if your build runs those often, you can essentially have -2 about 80-100% of the time...far, far more reliable.
however, for builds with no enchants or stances; go with -5.
overall, a warrior would usually be best off with -2s; a dervish with -2ench; most casters with -5, monks with -2ench.
granted, casters should be using +1 attribute (20%) mods instead of dmg reduction.
overall it depends on the build.
Rera
I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think that -5(20% chance) is exactly the same as -1(100% chance). The point is that, if you're going to make a comparison of average damage reduction, -5(20%) is half as effective as -2(condition), provided the condition is met.
The only time the distinction between -5(20%) and -1(100%) is really going to matter over the long term is when the damage from each hit is very small. For instance, if every hit you're taking deals 1 damage, -1(100%) is obviously much, much more effective than -5(20%). How often is this the case though? More likely, the damage you are taking is much higher than either 5 or 1, so the exact mechanics of how you achieve the average -1 damage reduction over time isn't really that important.
The only time the distinction between -5(20%) and -1(100%) is really going to matter over the long term is when the damage from each hit is very small. For instance, if every hit you're taking deals 1 damage, -1(100%) is obviously much, much more effective than -5(20%). How often is this the case though? More likely, the damage you are taking is much higher than either 5 or 1, so the exact mechanics of how you achieve the average -1 damage reduction over time isn't really that important.
????ng??R!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by XvArchonvX
I don't think this is a valid comparison. In some builds a -2 stance/enchanted is best, in some it is useless. In all builds a vamp weapon will do more damage. The only real drawback to a vamp weapon is that you have to switch weapons in your downtime. You never have to switch shields in your downtime.
A better comparison would be of a +15%^50 mod to a +15% stance/enchanted mod. A +15%^50 is a more general damage mod, but a +15% stance/enchanted has more damage potential in the right build just as a -2 Stance/enchanted mod has more defensive potential in the right build. |
-Loki-
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Admins Bane
I stick this mod in the same category as 20/20 sundering and +30hp....overpriced and a waste of space.
|
Carmine
+5 armor is 9% damage reduction (2^-3). So, if you have more than 300 health, you're saving yourself about 30 health along the way.
Most people have more than 300 health AND get healed while they take damage, so you're most likely going to run through easily 600-900 health before you die, at which point you'll have saved yourself more than 60 health with your extra armor, unless you're up against quite a lot of lifestealing, smiting, other armor-ignoring damage, which isn't all that common.
Massive amounts of degen is the *only* value of a health mod over an armor mod---and I'd only recommend using a health mod as an alternate weaponset when you are low on health with degen.
The real question is the use of a +7 warding over a +5 universal armor mod. +10 warding I could see, +7...meh, stick to +5 universal.
Most people have more than 300 health AND get healed while they take damage, so you're most likely going to run through easily 600-900 health before you die, at which point you'll have saved yourself more than 60 health with your extra armor, unless you're up against quite a lot of lifestealing, smiting, other armor-ignoring damage, which isn't all that common.
Massive amounts of degen is the *only* value of a health mod over an armor mod---and I'd only recommend using a health mod as an alternate weaponset when you are low on health with degen.
The real question is the use of a +7 warding over a +5 universal armor mod. +10 warding I could see, +7...meh, stick to +5 universal.
lemming
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Carmine
+5 armor is 9% damage reduction (2^-3). So, if you have more than 300 health, you're saving yourself about 30 health along the way.
|
arcanemacabre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by -Loki-
What, in your opinion, is better than a +30 hp mod? I find it odd that every competitive player will run a +30 hp mod on a slot they can run it on, then someone comes out and says +30 mods are useless.
|
As far as the damage reduction, IMO it's all mostly pointless because it's all only physical damage. -5(20%) is going to accomplish just about the same as any of the -2's in just about every situation in PvE. The +10 armor vs. certain damage is a lot more useful, IMO, but of course you need to be preemptive. Unless you're farming specific physical enemies, it's simply negligable amounts of damage reduction overall.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skuld
I think Admin's Bane means armour > health in pve
|
Skuld
I think Admin's Bane means armour > health in pve
Moa Bird Cultist
I find myself agreeing with him for the most part. +30, 20/20, -5/20. They are all massively overpriced. Which is silly in the case of -5/20, because it is readily craftable or collectable, not to mention a little item called the exalted aegis. And yes, 90% of the time, they are outclassed by +5, 3:1 and -2 conditional. Or in the case of vampiric, 20/20 is outclassed 100% of the time by 3:1. But I use -5/20 shields a lot. Mainly because, in the case of my E/W, vanity dictates that she must have an Exalted Aegis. And my W/R is devoid of stances or enchantments, so conditional -2 is effectively -0. Plus Lion Shields look hawt 