mattk % vs damage %
I've seen few threads regarding attk% vs damage% and most say damage % is better
What about for mages?
Is mattk% or damage % better?
May 3, 2011
mattk % vs damage %
I've seen few threads regarding attk% vs damage% and most say damage % is better
What about for mages?
Is mattk% or damage % better?
8 Comments • Newest first
ah that's good to know ^^
It's better for Bishops. For F/P and I/L mages it isn't, owing to their reliance on DoT, which %damage does not affect.
For those who say I/Ls don't use DoT actively: you're right. For now. They use it quite a bit after the Jump update.
[quote=CookiesAndMilk]:3 hii Karen
cube with me this weekend [/quote]
but I'm so poooooor! grrrr I need something good!
:3 hii Karen
cube with me this weekend
@Happy2Days: I use my magician damage calculator to compare weapons before I buy them. To beat that (and I'm only estimating because I don't know your stats), you would need a weapon with around 150 m.att and no %'s.
[b]Edit:[/b] I just saw that it is clean. If you scroll with 60% scrolls and land 4 of them, then you would need a scrolled weapon with around 160 m.att and no %'s to beat it. Yeeeeah... not a good chance of that happening.
[quote=Quickjumper7]It's the same. You can either have STATS * MAGIC ATTACK * DAMAGE% or STATS * (MAGIC ATTACK * M.ATT%). But since parentheses don't matter in multiplication, if the %'s are the same you get the same answer.
Get both, now that's the way to go.[/quote]
well I just found a wand that has 5 slots left with 2 lines epic 6% all and 6% damage
the only thing that I am hesitating about is the mattk....which is 125 mattk...
I don't really plan to spend nx on cubing =S
It's the same. You can either have STATS * MAGIC ATTACK * DAMAGE% or STATS * (MAGIC ATTACK * M.ATT%). But since parentheses don't matter in multiplication, if the %'s are the same you get the same answer.
Get both, now that's the way to go.
Same story. The advantage is very marginal though, it wouldn't be worth cubing over a good %Magic pote for a %total damage pote.