(2009.Dec.31 10:08 AM)thatthingufear Wrote: [ -> ]If your opponnet had 10 weapon skill, you would need 10 in each deffensive skill to be equal.
no you could have 8 offensive and 2 defensive apparently.
(2009.Dec.31 10:13 AM)peteycrack Wrote: [ -> ] (2009.Dec.31 10:08 AM)thatthingufear Wrote: [ -> ]If your opponnet had 10 weapon skill, you would need 10 in each deffensive skill to be equal.
no you could have 8 offensive and 2 defensive apparently.
They would only be six up on you, as opposed to eight. The problem is that you'll reach a point where it is more efficient to train your weapon skill as opposed to three lower skills. And then the inverse will happen.
(2009.Dec.31 10:15 AM)Accipender Wrote: [ -> ] (2009.Dec.31 10:13 AM)peteycrack Wrote: [ -> ] (2009.Dec.31 10:08 AM)thatthingufear Wrote: [ -> ]If your opponnet had 10 weapon skill, you would need 10 in each deffensive skill to be equal.
no you could have 8 offensive and 2 defensive apparently.
They would only be six up on you, as opposed to eight. The problem is that you'll reach a point where it is more efficient to train your weapon skill as opposed to three lower skills. And then the inverse will happen.
dragon age is mint first of all, secondly if its 1 skill in each defensive slot that sucks balls to the fullest.
(2009.Dec.31 10:27 AM)peteycrack Wrote: [ -> ] (2009.Dec.31 10:15 AM)Accipender Wrote: [ -> ] (2009.Dec.31 10:13 AM)peteycrack Wrote: [ -> ] (2009.Dec.31 10:08 AM)thatthingufear Wrote: [ -> ]If your opponnet had 10 weapon skill, you would need 10 in each deffensive skill to be equal.
no you could have 8 offensive and 2 defensive apparently.
They would only be six up on you, as opposed to eight. The problem is that you'll reach a point where it is more efficient to train your weapon skill as opposed to three lower skills. And then the inverse will happen.
dragon age is mint first of all, secondly if its 1 skill in each defensive slot that sucks balls to the fullest.
What do you mean "mint".
And that's what we've been saying. Still, it's easier to train one or two levels in each than one level of 7+.
(2009.Dec.31 10:32 AM)peteycrack Wrote: [ -> ] (2009.Dec.31 10:29 AM)Accipender Wrote: [ -> ] (2009.Dec.31 10:27 AM)peteycrack Wrote: [ -> ] (2009.Dec.31 10:15 AM)Accipender Wrote: [ -> ] (2009.Dec.31 10:13 AM)peteycrack Wrote: [ -> ] (2009.Dec.31 10:08 AM)thatthingufear Wrote: [ -> ]If your opponnet had 10 weapon skill, you would need 10 in each deffensive skill to be equal.
no you could have 8 offensive and 2 defensive apparently.
They would only be six up on you, as opposed to eight. The problem is that you'll reach a point where it is more efficient to train your weapon skill as opposed to three lower skills. And then the inverse will happen.
dragon age is mint first of all, secondly if its 1 skill in each defensive slot that sucks balls to the fullest.
What do you mean "mint".
And that's what we've been saying. Still, it's easier to train one or two levels in each than one level of 7+.
"good"
Ah. I totally agree, thus my name change
You guys seem to be on the same page just presenting it differently. Here is how I figure it.
It takes roughly 12 days to get a good score to raise a skill to lvl 1. 8 study times a day x12 days will but ya at about 96% given you get 1% each study time. To get to lvl 2 it doubles that time. Lvl 3 triples that time and so on and so on.
Therefore, once you get to lvl 3 in an offensive skill it will take you roughly 4x the studying as it would to up another skill to lvl 1. This is when it is handy to train each def skill up one lvl for it would take you roughly 36 days to gain a rank in each while it would take you roughly 48 to go up to lvl 4 in your offensive skill.
Hope that made sense.
the "rule" zen mentioned on here about having to level the D skills off to negate an O skill is kind of lame. im not sure if that means if you DONT level them...then they are ineffective...but thats the way it sounded....and that sux. particuarly because we didn't know that from the beginning. my D skills were all over the place. im finally about to level them off. dumb rule.
I have a feeling it works more like this...
Based on a standard rpg model, there are 3 obvious steps to combat ... Ignoring all the other factors and just looking at skills..
1. Did it hit? In this case it is weap skill vs evasion
2. Was it critical? Weap skill vs Crit resistance
3. How much damage? Weap skill vs armor handling.
So since the weapon skill is used 3 times in the process, you would effectively need all 3 of the defensive skills to 'cancel' 1 weapon skill. This is probably the source of Zen's statement.
Of course, if you have only high evasion, you are banking on your ability to dodge the attack and the other 2 are not relevant since the attack didn't hit. Combine with a high dex and low encumbrance and stop buying nimbus.
High Crit resistance means you don't mind getting hit or taking the damage as much, but you want to stave off those 'randomlands' moments where a sweet crit takes you out.--your fights will be more predictable and stat driven.
Armor handling is the 'bangnapi defense'. Hit me all day long, you will just never do enough damage, fast enough to kill me before the cops come, either on normal or crit attacks. Add nice armor, awesome resistance and a belt and you are the immovable object.
All 3 strategies are valid and depend on how you want to play your game. If you want to directly 'cancel' the offensive, train all 3, but you will be working hard for it. If you want the customizable experience we all asked for, choose your strategy and gain an advantage in a specific aspect of combat.
Just my theory... I don't believe the 3:1 thing is a 'rule' as much as a simple analysis if how the combat seems to work.
---of course the time to get level 1 vs level 4 arguments are valid as well, I just thought I would bring some insight to the 3:1 thing.