I'm at armoured zombies and a guy told me that i could get more xp using a defender...is that true??

 

Or should i just stick with dfs...

 

 

 

Thanks

DFS Has more strength and much more defense where as defender has more accuracy. Really depends on what you want if you're getting alot of 0s go for defender. If you use defender and you want an extra one max hit and want being hit less go for DFS. Personally I'd go for DFS.

Defender mostly. The DFS's strength bonus is poor compared to the defenders boost to attack. If you are getting hit hard and can't heal otherwise, or at dragons use the DFS.

Yes defender gives more exp per hour, as dfs is a big fail in 99% of situations

Yes defender gives more exp per hour, as dfs is a big fail in 99% of situations

 

 

 

Not worth the price just for dragon tasks either!

Ok i will go with defender...

 

 

 

I'm using atm proselyte legs, was thinking to get tassets anyways...will that boost my xp/hr too?

Simple way to determine: If you hit less then 9 times out of 10, as you do on 'most every other monster, defender is better.

 

 

 

To answer your question: Yes, defender is much better for armored zombies.

With the DFS's large defensive bonuses it would make your trips longer and therefore more exp per hour. (unless you use prayer) then just use a defender

I got defender now...i will see how it goes.

 

 

 

I made 76k xp/hr with DFS, will see with defender :P

 

 

 

Thanks guys!

The whole point of armoured zombies is to use piety lol

Calculed its 5k xp more and hr :

 

Its 81k per hr.

Calculed its 5k xp more and hr :

 

Its 81k per hr.

 

Then you messed up your numbers, or didn't time it close\long enough. That's a 6% boost in XP, from a 8.3% boost in accuracy\.6% loss of strength - you would have to be hitting almost straight 0s with DFS. How many hours worth of standardized testing did you do? I've found variance of up to 5k per hour at Zombies with everything exactly the same; 20+ hours is required to obtain an accurate, stable number. Assuming you missed 20% (1/5th) of the time, your +8.3% accuracy would result in you hitting 1.66% more often, but .48% of your XP would be lost due to lower hits, for a total of roughly 1.19% XP gain - not 6%. The 5% statistical variance that I've noted there could easily compensate for it; how many hours of testing did you average to achieve your numbers, and to what decimal point are they accurate? Always take them at least to the 10s, if not the 1s, place.

 

 

 

Just saying this because people who read this are likely to go around parroting 'defender is 5k more XP\hour', despite being wrong. In reality, it's closer to 1.2-1.5%.