為了測試MDEF是否能夠有效增加抗封印，我做了一個比較誇張的對比
都是使用被封印對象為同一隻角色，透過配點WIS前後的抗封印機率做比較。
總共分為兩組:
欄1使用的角色:(不小心用了JPG檔案，傷害大家眼睛，深感抱歉)
冰凍>>
欄2使用的角色
![]()
冰凍>>![]()
![]()
冰凍>>![]()
![]()
冰凍>>![]()
![]()
冰凍>>
欄3使用的角色
冰凍>>
欄4使用的角色
冰凍>>
欄5、6使用的角色
(對象因為我忘記拍就刪除了，所以用文字顯示)
欄3
MDEF 140
WIS 1
INT 1
欄4
MDEF 589
WIS 205
INT 1
表格: 0為成功命中、1為MISS
物理9均使用冰凍術、物理10使用普通攻擊
欄3.4莎莎均使用冰凍術、物理9/物理10均使用普通攻擊
欄5.6莎莎均使用冰凍術、對象均使用防禦
| 物理9 對 物理10(普) |
物理9 對 物理10新 (普) |
莎莎 對 物理9(普) |
莎莎 對 物理10新(普攻) |
莎莎冰 140MDEF 1WIS 1INT(防禦) |
莎莎冰 589MDEF 205WIS 1INT(防禦) |
|
| 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 | 抗封印次數 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 46 | 封印次數 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 12% | 8% | 抗封印機率 |
| 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 | 抗封印次數 | ||
| 63 | 25 | 81 | 81 | 封印次數 | ||
| 37% | 75% | 19% | 19% | 抗封印機率 | ||
討論:
在莎莎組別(欄3.4)(5.6)這兩組組WIS並無法有效的帶來抗封印功能，而組別(欄1.2)這組396的WIS就有相當顯著的效果了(但由於封印者INT不同，我推測是若兩者INT有顯著差異時，MDEF的抗封印功能將會比INT的抗封印功能差)
結論:
在雙方INT相近時，MDEF具有顯著的抗封印功能，但若雙方INT有明顯差異，則INT的抗封印功能較佳。
所以要提升抗封印效果還是乖乖點INT吧 。
