Goat
05-24-2016, 12:56 AM
Daedus and I tried out implosion on the test server. Each of us is capped. He did the casting (turned himself into an implodebot). He had 159 sorcerer ranks during all testing.
At 0 ranks spell aim, basically nothing matters in terms of skills, stats, or stance. The most highly-defended trial, in terms of PF, CM, Perception, AGI, and DEX, etc., was about as bad as the least-defended one. Differences between cases is fairly easily explained away as experimental variance.
Armor did seem to make a difference here... that, or padding (not sure which). After removing HCP doubles, deaths jump from an average of 12.14 per 100 to 18. Vaporize deaths jump from an average of 2.71 per 100 to 8. Stun rate (on non-deaths) jumps from 86% to 96%.
Against 202 ranks of spell aim, it's much the same story. You're going to die more than half the time no matter what, and when you don't die, you'll end up stunned 99% of the time.
However, there is a modest, but significant-looking dropoff in stun length (from 5.5 to 4.8) and damage (from 38.45 to 29.00) by adding +12 AGI bonus and +15 DEX bonus after already adding all other defenses. No accompanying drop in deaths or number of stuns.
I tried HCP doubles vs plain doubles vs no armor at the 202 spell aim level (with max defenses otherwise).
HCP doubles: 4.81 avg stun, 58% death rate
Plain doubles: 5.79 avg stun, 66% death rate
No armor: 6.33 avg stun, 64% death rate
So it seems no amount of training will make a difference in focused implosion defense, nor will stats. Armor seems to matter. From previous experience, I assume level matters (not tested), and that being prone or stunned makes a big difference (also not tested). So really, the only thing you can do with sentries, vaespilons, etc. is to get to them before they get to you. Or maybe wear crazy armor. Or perhaps 3x PF would be enough to move the needle.
I plan to post a chart summarizing all 17 different trials, in a follow-up post.
At 0 ranks spell aim, basically nothing matters in terms of skills, stats, or stance. The most highly-defended trial, in terms of PF, CM, Perception, AGI, and DEX, etc., was about as bad as the least-defended one. Differences between cases is fairly easily explained away as experimental variance.
Armor did seem to make a difference here... that, or padding (not sure which). After removing HCP doubles, deaths jump from an average of 12.14 per 100 to 18. Vaporize deaths jump from an average of 2.71 per 100 to 8. Stun rate (on non-deaths) jumps from 86% to 96%.
Against 202 ranks of spell aim, it's much the same story. You're going to die more than half the time no matter what, and when you don't die, you'll end up stunned 99% of the time.
However, there is a modest, but significant-looking dropoff in stun length (from 5.5 to 4.8) and damage (from 38.45 to 29.00) by adding +12 AGI bonus and +15 DEX bonus after already adding all other defenses. No accompanying drop in deaths or number of stuns.
I tried HCP doubles vs plain doubles vs no armor at the 202 spell aim level (with max defenses otherwise).
HCP doubles: 4.81 avg stun, 58% death rate
Plain doubles: 5.79 avg stun, 66% death rate
No armor: 6.33 avg stun, 64% death rate
So it seems no amount of training will make a difference in focused implosion defense, nor will stats. Armor seems to matter. From previous experience, I assume level matters (not tested), and that being prone or stunned makes a big difference (also not tested). So really, the only thing you can do with sentries, vaespilons, etc. is to get to them before they get to you. Or maybe wear crazy armor. Or perhaps 3x PF would be enough to move the needle.
I plan to post a chart summarizing all 17 different trials, in a follow-up post.