+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Maplestory (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=15)
+--- Forum: Training Center (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=32)
+---- Forum: Magician (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=39)
+---- Thread: Should I re-luk? (/showthread.php?tid=11537)
Should I re-luk? - Erich - 2009-05-21
Well, I am lukless right now, but I have considered go regular. I don't really care for damage right now, but is it worth it to do that? Being a unfunded lukless i/l sucks ;-;
Should I re-luk? - Bribery - 2009-05-21
Being an unfunded luk I/L sucks more.
Should I re-luk? - butterfλi - 2009-05-21
Bribery Wrote:Being an unfunded luk I/L sucks more.Yeah. Lamas are cheapers than codars and they're just as good.
Should I re-luk? - Lifis - 2009-05-21
Yeah, what's with people claiming regular LUK is cheaper? You basically just need an average unscrolled lama and you're basically better off than most decently equipped luk mages.
Should I re-luk? - Dusk - 2009-05-21
Regular is more expensive. I'm low-luk and half of my stat boost goes into just keeping up with the lukless.
Should I re-luk? - Russt - 2009-05-21
Unfunded lukless cleric > unfunded lukless mage > unfunded anything else, I say.
That is, if you (like me) aren't moneymaking-inclined.
Should I re-luk? - Kabanaw - 2009-05-21
For me, it's what the equips look like. You can use yellow gloves, overall, and generic other equips or you can look like a fucking badass.
Should I re-luk? - Atruya - 2009-05-22
After Nexon invented lukless, they started to destroy the regular LUK mages piece by piece. Don't go regular LUK man, you will ruïn your character.
Should I re-luk? - Kabanaw - 2009-05-22
Atruya Wrote:After Nexon invented lukless, they started to destroy the regular LUK mages piece by piece. Don't go regular LUK man, you will ruïn your character.
Ruin, really? I hate it when people act like having Luk is the end of the world.
Your damage doesn't fall behind that much by being lukless. Maybe a few thousand damage with an ultimate? Maybe you 2 hit later? But in the end, it's really what you prefer. Do you want generic albeit cheaper equips or cooler looking ones?
Oh, and the 103 elemental staffs are a ton cheaper than the 130 wands. So if you're looking at getting one as an end-game weapon, the cheaper route would be luk.
Should I re-luk? - Atruya - 2009-05-22
Endgame weapon of LUK is also the lvl 130 wand. Both can choose to keep the lvl 70 wand for a while, regular LUK can choose to take the lvl 103 staff.
But well, this is an endless discussion that has been done hundreds of times. I say stay LUKless, others say go low LUK and another says go regular LUK. It's your own preference at the end of the day.
edit: also I don't think regLUK is useless, otherwise I would have restarted my 88 base LUK AM.
Should I re-luk? - VladTheLvr - 2009-05-22
Maybe hes waiting for the triple egged HT necklace, belts, medals, and maker. When those come out a reg luk, semi-funded mage will be able to equip the lvl 163 ele staff with ease.
Should I re-luk? - shine of voice - 2009-05-22
Quote:Your damage doesn't fall behind that much by being lukless. Maybe a few thousand damage with an ultimate? Maybe you 2 hit later? But in the end, it's really what you prefer. Do you want generic albeit cheaper equips or cooler looking ones?
Or I can just NX over my lukless equips.
The Lukless vs Luk debate has been done to absolute death so I'll only comment that the cheaper route is likely Lukless. The staves are indeed cheaper than the wands but you must also consider the staff's lower matk score and the matk lost from the 60 or so luck you must have (counting a zhelm and egged HT pendant... may as well be 80 as I'm not sure if OP has any plans on getting said pendant anytime soon). That'll result in OHKOing a lot later. If you can deal with that then go ahead I guess.