Quote Originally Posted by Alerith View Post
Sweet jeezus, you aren't even comprehending the argument.

Nobody, not even me, has said that defense doesn't do what it's supposed to do. We are saying that what it does is useless because the difference in the damage you take with the amount of defense required to do it can easily be made up for, and surpassed, by higher HP.

Fact: It's easier to put 40HP into an armor piece than it is to increase your defense enough to reduce the damage you take by 40. And guess what? HP applies to magic damage too! Holy balls! Can you imagine?

Bloodthirst IV increases your max HP by 55 points.
Bloodwall IV increases your DEF by +16.

According to the testing, you know what +16 gets you? Not -55 physical damage taken. Even if you double, triple or quad meld a pair of Sentinel's Gauntlets with +DEF materia, they aren't going to beat out a pair of Sentinel's Gauntlets with a double, triple or quad meld of +HP materia of the same calibur.

Yes. Defense reduces the physical damage you take the higher the value is (until you reach a certain point.) That does not nullify my argument that HP is better and stacking HP will perform better than trying to stack DEF to get a similar result.
No, what nullifies your Argument is the fact that me taking even 10 less damage then you , over a corse of a fight = more HP then you have melded to your armor. Hense taking less damage in turn save your more HP then you can add to gear. Wich explains why the value of DEF per materia is much less greater then that of the HP per materia. Soo if 16 def = -10 damage then 100 def will equal 100 less damage per hit wich even further devalues that HP materia you are soo intent on.