Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 40 of 40

SSE or Lich Kings Pride?

This is a discussion on SSE or Lich Kings Pride? within the Class Questions and Tips forums, part of the Game Questions & Tips category; I still laugh at people that uses CE over LKP. as for LKP vs SSE, self-preference. Do you want an ...
Page: 3


  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    4,967

    Default

    I still laugh at people that uses CE over LKP.

    as for

    LKP vs SSE, self-preference. Do you want an multi-purpose earing or just an earing that gives you extra 10 AC?

    Personally I had 2x LKP + 1 and SSE + 1. I ended up using LKP + 1 because there were so many mages on Girakon, and resist is extremely hard to come by for a complete mage. A level 80 fire mage would hit me 1k + easily, thats why I picked resistence over AC. (Along with Elemental Necklace / Fire, Ice, Light Belt / to switch whenever there is a mage party). 20 AC is overrated especially when you have Iron Set. Damage reduced per AC is insignificant when Iron Set + Defense armors are used. However, 20-40 resist significantly reduces elemental damage, although it is mainly because elemental damage fluxuates as well.

    Furthermore, LKP is an multi-purpose earing that can be used PVE and PVP. I believe most solo-farming mages will agree that even 5 MP difference is a lot against PVE, thus the reason why they uses MP set to farm, so it is useful against bosses / farming.

    Compounding a LKP is also far more beneficial because you gain AC / HP / MP / Resists at the same time. A LKP + 3 is definitely better than a SSE + 3 for a mage.

    As for HP lost, you won't notice the difference, mages dont gain enough HP per Health points anyways, I have tested myself already.

    Therefore, I prefer LKP over SSE

    PS: I npc Cleric Earings, that shit blows except for poor BP[/b]
    +1 to that, LKP over CE any time

  2. #32
    Senior Member tank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,078

    Default

    you guys are under the disillusionment that mages are meant for damage

    puppetyuber -> the fire mage at interserver
    theunbeatable -> "i can beat anyone 1v1!!"

    nobs. your name on leaderboard ain't that important.

    i knew someone was going to bring up the 5 mp on the earring. oh shit.

    only point i can agree with you on to some degree is the real possibility of mages doing actual damage to you. perhaps resistances are harder to come by on a mage since you don't really have anything else lending it.

    but i still stand by my first point. dmg mages = nob

    edit: nob = noob

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,293

    Default

    you guys are under the disillusionment that mages are meant for damage

    puppetyuber -> the fire mage at interserver
    theunbeatable -> "i can beat anyone 1v1!!"

    nobs. your name on leaderboard ain't that important.

    i knew someone was going to bring up the 5 mp on the earring. oh shit.

    only point i can agree with you on to some degree is the real possibility of mages doing actual damage to you. perhaps resistances are harder to come by on a mage since you don't really have anything else lending it.

    but i still stand by my first point. dmg mages = nob

    edit: nob = noob[/b]
    You won't win this argument either, just like the BP vs INT priest argument we had on warcraft 3. BP >> INT priest, you are under the disllusionment that every BP sucks like the one u guys have in Olympia. The truth is BP is much more versatile like damage mages.

    I was a Fire Mage on inter-server war, only because my clan needed a mage. When I realized skills past 70 weren't unlocked, and bifrost uniques weren't supported I stated enough STR to use the SS +7, allowed me to become verstile in every situation possible.

    You probably spent all ur KO-Career playing a priest, so I don't see why you should be advising others how to play a mage.

    My argument came from my own experience, as I have stated. I have had LKP + 1 and SSE + 1 at the same time, and tried both of them in terms of PK and Farming, and I decided to use dual LKP + 1 over SSE + 1 / LKP + 1.

    Damage mages are much more versatile than Support Mages

  4. #34
    Senior Member tank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,078

    Default

    You won't win this argument either, just like the BP vs INT priest argument we had on warcraft 3. BP >> INT priest, you are under the disllusionment that every BP sucks like the one u guys have in Olympia. The truth is BP is much more versatile like damage mages.

    I was a Fire Mage on inter-server war, only because my clan needed a mage. When I realized skills past 70 weren't unlocked, and bifrost uniques weren't supported I stated enough STR to use the SS +7, allowed me to become verstile in every situation possible.

    You probably spent all ur KO-Career playing a priest, so I don't see why you should be advising others how to play a mage.

    My argument came from my own experience, as I have stated. I have had LKP + 1 and SSE + 1 at the same time, and tried both of them in terms of PK and Farming, and I decided to use dual LKP + 1 over SSE + 1 / LKP + 1.

    Damage mages are much more versatile than Support Mages[/b]
    i believe that the context of our warcraft 3 conversation was about girakon/cwest so my views being biased towards olympia should make no difference. i won't deny the viability of a bp in older servers (with rare weapon defense) as you can tank a great deal more (in turn still fulfilling the basic requirements of a priest)

    i have played priest for most of KO, you are right. but, i've been interested in mages for a while now and i speak from what i've personally tested/seen.

    and as far as versatility goes, you are right. damage mages are more versatile than support mages. but, versatility is hardly needed as a mage. your job should consist of positioning your party and throwing slows/stuns on the opposing party (with most emphasis placed on the former). by playing a support mage (i'm assuming by support mage you mean a tank/int/whatever mage), you are maximizing your strengths. basically -> versatility is unnecessary when you are pking in the ideal environment. (i.e. you have a priest, warrior, rogue in your party).

    the versatility argument can spill over into the bp argument, though i'd rather not argue about the viability of a battle priest in this mage-related thread. (pm me your msn. lets talk)

    mages are viable for damage, but why stress damage when you can achieve damage through warriors/assassins (who solely do damage). need to stop trying to fulfill the role that is better filled by others and instead focus more on the ability that no other class has.

  5. #35
    Unr4ted
    Guest

    Default

    LKP

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,321

    Default

    and as far as versatility goes, you are right. damage mages are more versatile than support mages. but, versatility is hardly needed as a mage. your job should consist of positioning your party and throwing slows/stuns on the opposing party (with most emphasis placed on the former). by playing a support mage (i'm assuming by support mage you mean a tank/int/whatever mage), you are maximizing your strengths. basically -> versatility is unnecessary when you are pking in the ideal environment. (i.e. you have a priest, warrior, rogue in your party).

    the versatility argument can spill over into the bp argument, though i'd rather not argue about the viability of a battle priest in this mage-related thread. (pm me your msn. lets talk)

    mages are viable for damage, but why stress damage when you can achieve damage through warriors/assassins (who solely do damage). need to stop trying to fulfill the role that is better filled by others and instead focus more on the ability that no other class has.[/b]
    +1

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,293

    Default

    Most mages play support because they aren't decked out.

    If you have a mage that can out damage and out tank a warrior, I am sure you would pick damage mage over support mage, because the HP and AC difference is insignificant in battles, but the opponents will be taken down at a faster pace.

    How is such versatilisity unnecessary when I am still throwing stun, and using my staff but doing 2 - 3 x more damage, and tanking well at the same time?

    Or do you prefer a hp build mage with shield and spam tp every time your HP moves 1 mm, and cry on vent when you die? Sorry, we play as mages, not as a baby sitter.

  8. #38
    Imhotep
    Guest

    Default

    Most mages play support because they aren't decked out.

    If you have a mage that can out damage and out tank a warrior, I am sure you would pick damage mage over support mage, because the HP and AC difference is insignificant in battles, but the opponents will be taken down at a faster pace.

    How is such versatilisity unnecessary when I am still throwing stun, and using my staff but doing 2 - 3 x more damage, and tanking well at the same time?

    Or do you prefer a hp build mage with shield and spam tp every time your HP moves 1 mm, and cry on vent when you die? Sorry, we play as mages, not as a baby sitter.[/b]


    +12345645645756867987087sadfsafas9-09-0=906985753467

















    (YES THAT IS A NUMBER. h34r: )

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    4,967

    Default

    you guys are under the disillusionment that mages are meant for damage

    puppetyuber -> the fire mage at interserver
    theunbeatable -> "i can beat anyone 1v1!!"

    nobs. your name on leaderboard ain't that important.

    i knew someone was going to bring up the 5 mp on the earring. oh shit.

    only point i can agree with you on to some degree is the real possibility of mages doing actual damage to you. perhaps resistances are harder to come by on a mage since you don't really have anything else lending it.

    but i still stand by my first point. dmg mages = nob

    edit: nob = noob[/b]
    lol these responses make me laugh, its true what puppetyuber says, would you choose a support mage or a damage/fire mage if you can actually kill the opponent. So let me tell you about my past experience. When I played RickRolled, for the 3 short days that it was before it was hacked, i solod all the way. I choose to be fire on it since I was lvl 79 while everyone else was like 65-70 since there was no plat prem atm. And the other thing is why i choose fire, because i did on my screen about 800-900 damage with fire staff, meaning whoever stepped to 1 on 1 with me, would simply drop in a couple seconds. I remember the "almight" Dragonite played by Trip, saw me alone, and came alone to get me, he thought he could kill me, but wrong desicion, the only thing is, it wasn't an official 1 on 1 since a fuking turk rouge came and spiked him last.
    When I moved on to play on RandomNoob, then that I became an ice mage, BUT i was damage built, not support built. You can ask anyone on the human side, especially like Stonelz who yells over vent "DUFF RANDOM, ALL ATTACK RANDOM" why? cause i used to have the biggest slowest effect and a PLUS to that is that I was damage built so I was doing a ridicoulous amount of damage for an ice mage, with my ice staff on my screen it was 600-700.
    Personally it was much more fun soloing on RickRolled and not relying on other people, cause while being an ice mage you have to rely on others, while like 90% don't know what to fuking do.

  10. #40
    muemel_
    Guest

    Default

    I useing lkp, a complete magwih full uniqes has enoph def, but not enoph resistenc. Every fucking mae spam blizard on u + a few ice mages, and slowed mages are a easy targed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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