General

Which Potential is Better?

1. Ignore 15% of the enemy's DEF when attacking
3% total dmg

2. ATK 6%
total dmg 3%

and I have 2 others with 15% ignore def when attacking and 12 att and 15% ignore def when attacking and 6% dex which I don't think is better than either of those but correct me if I'm wrong.

Also does the ignore 15% of enemy's DEF when attacking stack with the skill defense break?

February 4, 2012

7 Comments • Newest first

roman24242

@JoenuhxP: Yeah, I am.

Also My daggers become untradeable when equipped, so no way to know

Reply February 4, 2012
Seref

[quote=roman24242]So is 3%STR the same as 3%ATT and 3%damage ?
Want to know this because I have a dagger 2 lines : 3%luk and 4%critical
And another one 6%damage and chance to heal HP

Don't know Which should I use[/quote]

Roughly, yes. There is some slight deviation because of your Secondary State, but not by much [i](inconsequential amount)[/i]

Though Crit% is a whole different story.

Crit isn't a multiplier, it's additive. So a Crit is Skill Damage + 100%. So if your attacks are small and fast, Crit is better than if your attacks are big and slow.
So Damage, Att, Stat% is better than Crit% since those scale with higher %s on your skills/attacks.

Reply February 4, 2012
JoenuhxP

[quote=roman24242]So is 3%STR the same as 3%ATT and 3%damage ?
Want to know this because I have a dagger 2 lines : 3%luk and 4%critical
And another one 6%damage and chance to heal HP

Don't know Which should I use[/quote]

you can mess around with a damage calculator too and just multiply by your skill damage %s, then add on the damage % (if that's exactly how it works). then compare it to your bstep total damage with the %luk. I'd assume the %damage is better

edit: oops ur a DB lol

Reply February 4, 2012 - edited
roman24242

[quote=JoenuhxP]i did some testing a LONG time ago on a damage range calculator out of curiosity. and for MY HERO at 15x (i'm not sure if this is the same for all classes), i found that atk 3%, total damage 3%, and str 3% all gave me nearly exactly the same boost. i don't know about the defense penetration though. in your situation though, #2 is better by far[/quote]
So is 3%STR the same as 3%ATT and 3%damage ?
Want to know this because I have a dagger 2 lines : 3%luk and 4%critical
And another one 6%damage and chance to heal HP

Don't know Which should I use

Reply February 4, 2012 - edited
JoenuhxP

i did some testing a LONG time ago on a damage range calculator out of curiosity. and for MY HERO at 15x (i'm not sure if this is the same for all classes), i found that atk 3%, total damage 3%, and str 3% all gave me nearly exactly the same boost. i don't know about the defense penetration though. in your situation though, #2 is better by far

Reply February 4, 2012 - edited
Seref

[quote=yugidude]well, if u have 200 att (witch is high, but lets assume), then 6% att give u 12 ATT. now, the 15% PDR is equivlement to ~ a 3% dmg increase in LHC, ~5 on zak, and ~1-2 on normal mobs. So, do you think 12 att would help more, or less than ~3-4% dmg in crease?[/quote]

200 att isn't high, since it'd be your total attack not just your weapons. So any gear, gloves, buffs, ignis roar, etc would all affect it. 200 would be about average.

And since Defense Break procs 40% of the time and negates any effects of Ignore Def, Ignore Defense potentials would only ever be 60% effective [assuming Defense Break is maxed]

Reply February 4, 2012 - edited
Seref

Definately 2.

Ignore Def pots don't stack with Defense Break, as Defense Break is technically "Ignores 100%" at a 40% chance. So whenever it procs, your ignore def pot would be useless. Which isn't to say you wouldn't normally not ignore, but wouldn't be as efficient use of your weapons pot...

Besides, 15% ignore def isn't -15% it's 15% of their defense. So if a mob has 10% def, 15% of that is only 1.5%. So its really only useful on mobs with high defense like bosses, and for them you have Defense Break and Damage to Bosses potentials...

So imo, Ignore Def is one of the least important potentials.

Reply February 4, 2012 - edited