Battle Mage: Lukless, worth it or not?
Greatest debate yet on KMS.
Lukless or not?
Many in kms tried going lukless but yet failed due to high miss rate and low dmg range.
Low luk is somewat better than lukless,
So how many of you are going to make a lukless, (which means u have to support ur own luk with items/pots)
November 3, 2010
8 Comments • Newest first
a Lvl 33 LUKless mage of any sort would have ~169 or so INT, already enough to hit Lvl 160 and under (not factoring in Lvls) which would mean you have way more than enough Magic acc for ANY Lvl. also, how would it make sense that secondary stats would give you move power than purely primary stat?(mymainacc)
[quote=ONinjaO]VERY Rich Noob = Lukless
Rich Noob = Low Luk
REgular Joe = Regular build.
nothing more to it, i cant see why it would be one of the "most greatest debates" on KMS.[/quote]
Tried and true answer.
Didnt the big bang make it so XXXless (insert stat name) are weaker then reg stats?
@jelcroo: well i do, do u?
well, my friend is korean and he plays kms, i asked him about it and he said theres a lot of lukless battle mages in kms, so im going for it.
[quote=ONinjaO]VERY Rich Noob = Lukless
Rich Noob = Low Luk
REgular Joe = Regular build.
nothing more to it, i cant see why it would be one of the "most greatest debates" on KMS.[/quote]
thats not true anymore. If you are very rich and can afford high %int items then you wouldnt be luckless. People who think as simply as you do is why its the greatest debate.
Post BB a [b]HUGE[/b] portion of accuracy is now from luk unlike now where luk = very little accuracy. This being said accuracy is of little importance after BB because intimately you'll miss a good amount of the time if you're more than 5 levels below the monster you're attacking.
[quote=Kalderon]1. Being luckless will not give you a high miss rate (unless things have changed). 1 int = 1 acc, which is more than enough.
2. If being luckless gave you a low damage range, no one would be luckless. I don't know where you're getting that from.
3. If low luck was indeed, without argument, better than luckless as you say, no one would be luckless...
4. I don't know what you mean by having to support your own luck with items/pots. I don't think items or pots boost your stats...If by items, you meant
equipment, then ok. However, I believe that if you use equipment to bring up your luck to the required amount, then you would still be called low luck, even if you have 4 base luck. But, perhaps this has changed recently.[/quote]
U play kms?