为了测试MDEF是否能够有效增加抗封印，我做了一个比较夸张的对比
都是使用被封印对象为同一只角色，透过配点WIS前后的抗封印机率做比较。
总共分为两组:
栏1使用的角色:(不小心用了JPG档案，伤害大家眼睛，深感抱歉)
冰冻>>
栏2使用的角色
![]()
冰冻>>![]()
![]()
冰冻>>![]()
![]()
冰冻>>![]()
![]()
冰冻>>
栏3使用的角色
冰冻>>
栏4使用的角色
冰冻>>
栏5、6使用的角色
(对象因为我忘记拍就删除了，所以用文字显示)
栏3
MDEF 140
WIS 1
INT 1
栏4
MDEF 589
WIS 205
INT 1
表格: 0为成功命中、1为MISS
物理9均使用冰冻术、物理10使用普通攻击
栏3.4莎莎均使用冰冻术、物理9/物理10均使用普通攻击
栏5.6莎莎均使用冰冻术、对象均使用防御
| 物理9对物理10(普) | 物理9对物理10新 (普) | 莎莎对物理9(普) | 莎莎对物理10新(普攻) | 莎莎冰140MDEF1WIS1INT(防御) | 莎莎冰589MDEF205WIS1INT(防御) | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 抗封印次数 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 46 | 封印次数 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 12% | 8% | 抗封印机率 |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 37 | 75 | 19 | 19 | 抗封印次数 | ||
| 63 | 25 | 81 | 81 | 封印次数 | ||
| 37% | 75% | 19% | 19% | 抗封印机率 | ||
讨论:
在莎莎组别(栏3.4)(5.6)这两组组WIS并无法有效的带来抗封印功能，而组别(栏1.2)这组396的WIS就有相当显着的效果了(但由于封印者INT不同，我推测是若两者INT有显着差异时，MDEF的抗封印功能将会比INT的抗封印功能差)
结论:
在双方INT相近时，MDEF具有显着的抗封印功能，但若双方INT有明显差异，则INT的抗封印功能较佳。
所以要提升抗封印效果还是乖乖点INT吧 。
成都市互联网举报中心