What's better on a shield? -5(20%) or (-2stanced)
ibex333
Someone told me a long time a go, that -2 is better because it triggers more often... So apparently something like Strongroot's Shelter is better than Sunreach's Shield.. Is any of this true?
Neven15
lol if ur in stance its better to have -2 in stance d0h
Xenex Xclame
-2 while in stance will of course trigger every time while your in a stance.
-5 20% chance will only trigger 20% of the time, so theoretcly it will trigger once in every 5 times, but of course it can trigger 5 times in 5 hits or 1 time in 50 hits , since its calculated every single time.
Its basicly the same thing as sundering, it will only hit 20% of the time, where as vampiric will hit each time for 5 more "damage"
The stance one is something you can control , so thats why that person told you its better.
-5 20% chance will only trigger 20% of the time, so theoretcly it will trigger once in every 5 times, but of course it can trigger 5 times in 5 hits or 1 time in 50 hits , since its calculated every single time.
Its basicly the same thing as sundering, it will only hit 20% of the time, where as vampiric will hit each time for 5 more "damage"
The stance one is something you can control , so thats why that person told you its better.
Malice Black
It all depends on your current build/situation. I mainly use 30/-2 (stance) because my warrior build was based around stances. 30/-5 (20%) is a good multi purpose shield.
DeanBB
Agreed, the -5(20%) is a good multi-purpose shield. If you are the type that is *always* in a stance then a stance shield is better. Of course, stances can be broken...
Personally I go for multi-purpose more often than not or get 2-3 different shields for different builds.
Personally I go for multi-purpose more often than not or get 2-3 different shields for different builds.
Bastian
It depends on what you are going to be doing. In PvE if you are only going to have 1 shield, I would suggest -5/20%. However, if you are going to be in PvP, I would highly suggest the blind reduction 20% inscription. I think it is called "I can see clearly now". I usually pair that with a rune of clarity. I would suggest, however, a couple of shields for specific builds and places you are going. Especially, if you are going to try any solo farming with your warrior. GL!
Thibor
I agree. Unless your build keeps you in a stance during the whole fight the -5/20% is the better all purpose shield. I personaly dont even use the stance shields anymore. Less shields = more space in storage.
ShadowsRequiem
its a good idea to carry multiple shields
30/-2
30/-5
30/+10vs elements etc
which ever one fits your build/or the enemies you are facing
30/-2
30/-5
30/+10vs elements etc
which ever one fits your build/or the enemies you are facing
llsektorll
-5 dmg mod imo is a gimmick... your better off with two shield variations.... +10 vs slashing and +10vs lightning for DOA (+10 vs fire for pvp).
you reduce more damage than the -5 or -2
If had to choose between the two you mentioned -2 in stance is better if you have a stance and -5 is better if you need all purpose shield.
you reduce more damage than the -5 or -2
If had to choose between the two you mentioned -2 in stance is better if you have a stance and -5 is better if you need all purpose shield.
lennymon
There's only a 'best' shield for a specific task and without knowing what you want to use it for... If your build is a stance tank (or even revolves around mesmer stances), the -2 in stance is clearly superior for example until you get hit with wild blow, then you change shields or put up another stance if the damage reduction is critical.
But technically the answer to your question is neither.
But technically the answer to your question is neither.
Antheus
Statistically, -5/20 gives you a -1 always. The advantage is that it's unconditional.
The -2 will generally be better as long as you meet the condition as needed.
There's only one case when -5/20 is inferior, namely if you are likely to take less than 5 points of damage. In that case the -5 reduction has a chance of triggering and wasting damage reduction, lowering your average damage mitigation.
Having all 3 combinations available is a plus (-5/20 and both -2), although this reduction perhaps isn't even worth it, and you're better off with different mods altogether.
The -2 will generally be better as long as you meet the condition as needed.
There's only one case when -5/20 is inferior, namely if you are likely to take less than 5 points of damage. In that case the -5 reduction has a chance of triggering and wasting damage reduction, lowering your average damage mitigation.
Having all 3 combinations available is a plus (-5/20 and both -2), although this reduction perhaps isn't even worth it, and you're better off with different mods altogether.
enlightened
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Antheus
Statistically, -5/20 gives you a -1 always.
|
RotteN
both mods are pretty much crap tbh. Back in the days when the -2 was for every type of damage i would've gone for that mod for sure, but right now i only use shields with +10AL vs something.
Crom The Pale
Damage reduction vs physical on a war is not a huge benifit on most maps.
Like others have said a +10AL vs elemental damage most comon on that map is the best way to go.
However if you must have one of the two listed the -2 stance is by far more reliable as you can enter a stance at will giving you its benifit when desired.
Like others have said a +10AL vs elemental damage most comon on that map is the best way to go.
However if you must have one of the two listed the -2 stance is by far more reliable as you can enter a stance at will giving you its benifit when desired.
Savio
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by enlightened
Hmm - not really! It will average out to that over a period of time but
|
And yes, it's better to have +10 armor vs a specific damage type.
enlightened
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Antheus
Statistically, -5/20 gives you a -1 always.
|
Savio
No, it's not the exact same and nobody is saying that. But over several hundred hits (during your average battle), it'll average out to that. That's what statistics is.
If you're trying to make up an argument that "you could get -5 5 times in a row" or some other nonsense, I recommend you go and review binomial distributions before you come back and try to put together a decent argument.
If you're trying to make up an argument that "you could get -5 5 times in a row" or some other nonsense, I recommend you go and review binomial distributions before you come back and try to put together a decent argument.
enlightened
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Savio
If you're trying to make up an argument that "you could get -5 5 times in a row" or some other nonsense
|
What I am saying is that your original post was factually incorrect.
<<pedant mode off>>
Nickhimself
I never use -5(20%) shields. I'm either holding a -2 stance /+30, -2 enchanted /+30, or +10ar vs X /+30
-5(20%) is too variable.
-5(20%) is too variable.