[infinite93]

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.