# Thread: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

1. ## What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

I'm a level 160 Bishop with 816 base Int and 333 added Int. My current clean range is 10348~11498.

I was wondering if I was planning on using a nebulite on a staff, which of the bonuses would be better between 2% Int, 2% Mattk, 4% Damage, Mattk+4 and Ignore 18%def? How are the Mattk and damage one calculated? And whats the current formula to find out how much Int =1 matk?

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I can't see to find solid information on it. Thanks.

2. ## Re: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

Total Int / Total M.Att = your ratio.
Depends what you do really. If you boss, 18% Ignore, although it's kind of worthless on a Bishop.
% M.Att would be my next choice followed by % Int.
I really don't like % Total Damage since it doesn't show in your range and at low percentages it's almost unnoticeable.

3. ## Re: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

While %damage doesn't show on your range, is it worse than %mattk? The b rank nebulite options are 2% Mattk and 4% damage. With the damage being a higher % I thought it would be better though I don't know the relation between the two.

4. ## Re: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

You should post the amounts of %Int, %matk and %dmg from other potential you already have so we can give reasonable advice.

The Int = Matk ratio is calculated with your int from: Base + Mw + Equips (without %int) and your matk before %matk.

5. ## Re: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

4% total or 18% ignore will most likely be the best.

6. ## Re: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

If mattk is anything similar to w.atk, then %dmg should = %matk

7. ## Re: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

From the all known formulas thread:

MAX DAMAGE = MULTIPLIER * (4 * PRIMARY STAT + SECONDARY STAT) * (ATTACK / 100)

(Mage multiplier is 1)

The three % factors are multiplicative in the damage equation. In simple terms, think of it as (Int) * (Matk) * (Total Damage). So what proportion they raise your overall damage does depend on what you already have. You essentially start with 100% of each, and then add +% bonuses to them. If you already have +100% int from equips, going from 200% to 201% int is like a .5% overall range increase. Whereas if you don't have any % damage already, going from 100% damage to 101% damage is like a 1% overall range increase.

Your least improved factor is where you can make the most improvement. Being as %damage is "rarer" and there are fewer sources of it, so frequently it will do more for your damage than an equivalent amount of %attack.

8. ## Re: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

except in %boss, because it stacks additively with it*

9. ## Re: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

and on a related note, if 18% ignore doesnt put you over 100% (which it shouldnt on anything except a ds or hero or 3-ignore-lined-legendary weapon), 18% ignore is better than 4% overall range (the max any of the other stats could do for you) at any mob with at least 22.2% pdr. hard to find a mob with under 25 at high levels. ...finally wasnt falling asleep lol

id go with ignore, especially if you have some boss%. and i cant remember if bishops get the 135% or 150% or whatever m att skill like every other mage.

10. ## Re: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

Elemental Amplification doesn't add magic attack. It's more like %dmg, no idea if they stack additively though.

11. ## Re: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

AMP is a total damage multiplier and it is always calculated separately. (In other words, it doesn't add to a %Damage potential line. %Damage gets applied after AMP is already calculated.)

Bishops do not get Amp. This is why they get hosed. Bish skills have similar damage range as a mage, but mages get Amp which makes them far better. Bishies get Holy Focus, but it's a pathetic equivalent.

12. ## Re: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

I have 191 int added from equips and skills before % int. 16% int from equips and 230 Magic Atk with 6% Matk totaling all my items and skills. This is all without Buffs and my MW is lvl 19.

13. ## Re: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

% matk I can understand, but can you explain why you don't include the % int in the ratio (assuming this is the ratio used to determine how much int = 1 atk)?

14. ## Re: What's better %INT, %Damage or %Mattk?

Why give numbers without buffs? When you are playing you will be using buffs.
Using the numbers you provided, supposing a monster with 25% defense, no other sources of defense ignore and that you'd have a 20 matk buff from something:

2% int translates to a 1.017 multiplier to your damage
2% matk translates to a 1.019 multiplier to your damage
4% dmg translates to a 1.040 multiplier to your damage
4 matk translates to a 1.016 multiplier to your damage
18% ignore def translates to a 1.060 multiplier to your damage

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•