-2(stance) vs -5(20%) shield... help!
roger pedrosa
can someone please help me with this topic is stance better than the -5(20%). people say stance is when u are running or moving. some shed a light on this topic..........
Arkantos
stance is a type of skill.
random.name
I always run some form of IAS stance in my skillbar, so for me the -2(stance) is superior than the other one.
ss1986v2
if you plan to be in a stance 50% of the time or more, then it wins hands down. if not then the -5 would be better.
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Stance
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Stance
Morgenstern
But then again I like the -5 20% as its just more general
i Valinor
i use a vamp 15^50 +30hp and -2 in stance/+30hp and my second weapon set is 20/20 +30hp +20% while hexed and a -3/+60hp while hexed... its great if you dont mind swappign weapons.
IMO -2in stance kicks the crap out of -5 20%
IMO -2in stance kicks the crap out of -5 20%
undeadpolice
it depends on your warrior build if u use stances skill more often(mostly Tact warriors) den -2 stances is for u but if u dun use stance(mostly str warriors for massive dmg) den -5 is for u.
Heres why:
-2 stance is commonly use in pvp due to the fact that u cannot relay on monks to keep u alive during combat soo u need alot of stance skills(tact warriors) but for pve wise -5 is more useful becuz u can relay on monks and monsters dun normally aim at monks. u can go massive dmg builds for this case (str warriors)
Heres why:
-2 stance is commonly use in pvp due to the fact that u cannot relay on monks to keep u alive during combat soo u need alot of stance skills(tact warriors) but for pve wise -5 is more useful becuz u can relay on monks and monsters dun normally aim at monks. u can go massive dmg builds for this case (str warriors)
Thom Bangalter
I like my boosts to be passive, i.e. I don't have to meet some condition to actually gain a benefit, which is why I'm not a fan of +armor while enchanted, +armor in a stance, +armor while attacking, or -2 in stance. Unless, of course, I always have that condition met.
jpsantos20
Well for me I always have Tiger's Fury or Bestial Fury (both are Stance) or Sprint when im not in combat. I love those -2(Stance), simply because I have more use for them. -5(20%) are good too I rather have a constant -2 when i'm on combat (where 75% of the time i'm on stance) than get -5 damage recieved 20% of the time.
Hatamoto
Just a bit of Obvious Math, If you are in a stance and are hit 5 Times
You will have reduced physical Damage by 10 with a -2 stance
You will have reduced physical Damage by 5 with -5 20%
That is assuming the %'s are adveraged.
You will have reduced physical Damage by 10 with a -2 stance
You will have reduced physical Damage by 5 with -5 20%
That is assuming the %'s are adveraged.
GourangaPizza
They say -2 (stance) shields is often used when you are running people to places or your build required a stance skill to kept up all the time (E.g. IAS, bonetti's)
If you are going for a general purpose, a -5(20%) would probably better.
Anyway I have yet to see any purpose for shields that reduce conditions... anybody knows?
If you are going for a general purpose, a -5(20%) would probably better.
Anyway I have yet to see any purpose for shields that reduce conditions... anybody knows?
Effigy
As others have said, it depends on your build. A basic warrior will be in IAS or run stance the majority of the time, so -2 in stance is better. Some specialized builds like "You're All Alone" will only be using a run stance occasionally and may not have an IAS at all, so -5 20% is better there. When in doubt, go with -5 20%.
onerabbit
-2 all the way..highly underated
Avatar Exico
it Depends on what you want to do. If you want then go with -5. But if you want to CR or be Stance Tank for Farming Grp then -2 is better.
jesh
An IAS is a stance 90% of the time. Make some use of that -2.
badboy2008
+30&-2s , or +30 vs XX +10 armor, and then +30 -5dm20%
however, I never use +30 -5 dmg20% :P
however, I never use +30 -5 dmg20% :P
Jeff Highwind
Oh yea, I prefer -2 Stance over the -5 Gamble any day.
Akhilleus
stance hands down.
while -5 (20%) has its uses, the fact of the matter is most warriors will be in some form of stance (usually an ias or speed buff; this goes for both pvp and pve) a good portion of the time.
if you're in a stance more than 50% of the time, -2 stance wins by law of probability; period.
example:
if you get hit 100 times;
20 of those hits should apply with the -5; giving you a total damage reduction base of 100 points.
if you get hit 100 times, but are only in a stance 50% of the time (which is LOW):
then 50 of those hits should apply; giving you a total damage reduction base of 100 points.
now, based on the above, you can see that clear as day; if you're in a stance over 50% of the time its no question.
however.
also consider that the -5 (20%) is unpredictable. over a period of hundreds, or thousands of hits, the chances of you actually getting saved by a -5 (20%) drop exponentially when directly compared to the chances of getting saved by a -2 reduction based on stances, even when only at a 50% rate of being in a stance. just because even though you are only in a stance for 50% of the hits, ALL of those 50% will provide the reduction, which is in nature more predictable than a 20% all-around rate. also consider that it is when you have low hp that you are most likely to use a running stance to begin with, basically meaning that nearly all of your near-death hits should (in practice) fall on you while you're in a stance trying to save yourself.
but all this is moot when you consider that you'll probably be in a stance at least 75% of the time, perhaps more, assuming you use an ias.
while -5 (20%) has its uses, the fact of the matter is most warriors will be in some form of stance (usually an ias or speed buff; this goes for both pvp and pve) a good portion of the time.
if you're in a stance more than 50% of the time, -2 stance wins by law of probability; period.
example:
if you get hit 100 times;
20 of those hits should apply with the -5; giving you a total damage reduction base of 100 points.
if you get hit 100 times, but are only in a stance 50% of the time (which is LOW):
then 50 of those hits should apply; giving you a total damage reduction base of 100 points.
now, based on the above, you can see that clear as day; if you're in a stance over 50% of the time its no question.
however.
also consider that the -5 (20%) is unpredictable. over a period of hundreds, or thousands of hits, the chances of you actually getting saved by a -5 (20%) drop exponentially when directly compared to the chances of getting saved by a -2 reduction based on stances, even when only at a 50% rate of being in a stance. just because even though you are only in a stance for 50% of the hits, ALL of those 50% will provide the reduction, which is in nature more predictable than a 20% all-around rate. also consider that it is when you have low hp that you are most likely to use a running stance to begin with, basically meaning that nearly all of your near-death hits should (in practice) fall on you while you're in a stance trying to save yourself.
but all this is moot when you consider that you'll probably be in a stance at least 75% of the time, perhaps more, assuming you use an ias.
jesh
The use for the exalted shields, (+30 [email protected]%), is for casters. For some builds a -2 when enchanted can fair better, but generally that's where it's at in PvP.
Effigy
If you're talking about PvE and general PvP, then yes definitely go with -2 in stance. But again, there are many exceptions. YAAhoo stands out, as Dash is often your only stance and will be used to increase mobility, no so much during combat. Steady Stance warriors will be using stance a lot, but it will also be ending it right away. Shadow Prison warriors will mainly be in a stance during spikes, which is 2-3 seconds out of every 20; of course, they'll also be Frenzying when they can get away with it to pressure and charge adrenaline faster, but "when they can get away with it" isn't a very reliable basis for choosing equipment. These are just the examples that come to mind and I'm sure there are others. In short, it's impossible to say definitively that -2 is better than -5 or vice versa, although -5 is always a safe bet whereas -2 might be a safer bet depending on what build you run.
Savio
Quote:
Originally Posted by jesh
The use for the exalted shields, (+30 [email protected]%), is for casters. For some builds a -2 when enchanted can fair better, but generally that's where it's at in PvP.
Casters don't use damage reduction, they use +10 armor vs type shields. Warriors can probably get more out of +10 shields as well.
Effigy
Or blind/crippled reduction shields. I was arguing this solely from the basis of -2 in stance versus -5 20%, but there are definitely other options.
jesh
And I was simply arguing that a caster can make more use of a shield like that than a warrior can. Are there any threads/articles that compare -2 and 5 damage reduction against the +AL VS xx on casters?
Effigy, you have some good points in your previous post. I'm guilty of just choosing -2 and not thinking twice about it.
Effigy, you have some good points in your previous post. I'm guilty of just choosing -2 and not thinking twice about it.
-.-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Effigy
Or blind/crippled reduction shields. I was arguing this solely from the basis of -2 in stance versus -5 20%, but there are definitely other options.
You should only consider a Blind/Cripple/Weakness reduction modifier on a shield if you lack a Monk or some sort of Condition removal.
Thom Bangalter
Casters in pvp usually go for +10 armor vs a specific damage source, because you get way more damage reduction out of it. Hell, you get more out of it on a warrior too, you just have to swap shields a lot.
I prefer blind and cripple reduction myself, because the -2 or -5 vs physical only is pretty marginal most of the time, compared to the alternatives available.
Who cares if you take 5 less damage from that warrior when you're getting blown up by energy surge and searing flames?
I prefer blind and cripple reduction myself, because the -2 or -5 vs physical only is pretty marginal most of the time, compared to the alternatives available.
Who cares if you take 5 less damage from that warrior when you're getting blown up by energy surge and searing flames?
My War Can Solo Everythin
-5 20% is a nice joke, i tested all shields in game.
First, you are a warrior, in dolyak or "watch yourself" the damage you'll take
is -1/-8 in 90% of cases.
Be in stance 100% of time is not a problem for a war.
-2 stance/+45 stance and -3 hexed/+60 hexed is my set, i use it since
beta version...
I tryed for a week the -5 20%, and died often.
Lets suppose that you are surrounded by 4-5 enemies, and they do only 2 dmg.
With -2 stance you take no damage, with -5 20% you take A LOT of damage.
-5 20% is the worst mod you can have on a shield, even -2 enchanted is better
(if they try to strip your mending or somethin, you can cover mending with breeze so mending remains)
I tryed all shields, -5 20% is the worst in all cases, if u dont like ench and stances,
get a +10 armor shield, not a -5 20%, unless you wanna be killed loads of times.
In DoA best shield is +10 vs demons, for example.
First, you are a warrior, in dolyak or "watch yourself" the damage you'll take
is -1/-8 in 90% of cases.
Be in stance 100% of time is not a problem for a war.
-2 stance/+45 stance and -3 hexed/+60 hexed is my set, i use it since
beta version...
I tryed for a week the -5 20%, and died often.
Lets suppose that you are surrounded by 4-5 enemies, and they do only 2 dmg.
With -2 stance you take no damage, with -5 20% you take A LOT of damage.
-5 20% is the worst mod you can have on a shield, even -2 enchanted is better
(if they try to strip your mending or somethin, you can cover mending with breeze so mending remains)
I tryed all shields, -5 20% is the worst in all cases, if u dont like ench and stances,
get a +10 armor shield, not a -5 20%, unless you wanna be killed loads of times.
In DoA best shield is +10 vs demons, for example.
Dzus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thom Bangalter
Who cares if you take 5 less damage from that warrior when you're getting blown up by energy surge and searing flames?
Couldn't have put it better myself.
-5/20% is only really nice for farming, even then I'd prefer -2 stanced or enchanted. I try not to rely on something that has a 20% chance of activating.
-5/20% is only really nice for farming, even then I'd prefer -2 stanced or enchanted. I try not to rely on something that has a 20% chance of activating.
Effigy
Quote:
Originally Posted by My War Can Solo Everythin
-5 20% is the worst mod you can have on a shield, even -2 enchanted is better
(if they try to strip your mending or somethin, you can cover mending with breeze so mending remains) [Insert wammo joke here]
Anyway, the bottom line is -5 20% is a fail-safe choice. Maybe not the most powerful, sure, but it's pretty much unconditional. The only time -5 20% would be completely useless is when fighting only casters and that doesn't happen too frequently. If you want to swap shields, there are better situational mods.
(if they try to strip your mending or somethin, you can cover mending with breeze so mending remains) [Insert wammo joke here]
Anyway, the bottom line is -5 20% is a fail-safe choice. Maybe not the most powerful, sure, but it's pretty much unconditional. The only time -5 20% would be completely useless is when fighting only casters and that doesn't happen too frequently. If you want to swap shields, there are better situational mods.