PDA

View Full Version : Aurora or Serene for monster?



Ronron
05-13-2010, 08:48 PM
Which of the three would generally be a better monster attacker?

Aurora at 26/26 with +33 atk at full health :eek:,

or a lvl 4 Serene 23/16 +14 atk and +1% crit with serene arrow?

In other words, is 1% crit better or 22 (26+33-23-14) atk better?

Bedlam
05-13-2010, 09:33 PM
well of course you face the situation that as you attack the monster, you'll lose that pretty atk boost, personally i'm aiming to boost my Azriel with Archs, so i have a constant 40 atk... but that's just me.
If i were you, i would sugest Serene, or even the new general Kaiser, and his equips... Maxed out you'd be looking at

20/19
+3% crit when equipped
Then w/ equips:
+2 atk from Death Dealer
+2 atk from Ornate Dagger
+1% crit from Backdraft

You'd be looking @
24/19
+4% chance for crit while equipped

Azraelswrd
05-13-2010, 10:59 PM
Aurora
switch to Serene when you have lost 76+ life

crit rate is almost irrelevant
g.stats are mostly irrelevant

PLAYER STATS ARE EVERYTHING

kiknchikn
05-13-2010, 11:26 PM
well of course you face the situation that as you attack the monster, you'll lose that pretty atk boost, personally i'm aiming to boost my Azriel with Archs, so i have a constant 40 atk... but that's just me.
If i were you, i would sugest Serene, or even the new general Kaiser, and his equips... Maxed out you'd be looking at

20/19
+3% crit when equipped
Then w/ equips:
+2 atk from Death Dealer
+2 atk from Ornate Dagger
+1% crit from Backdraft

You'd be looking @
24/19
+4% chance for crit while equipped

I don't think a general's attack and defense stats aren't used when fighting monsters, just your own attack and defense (and army size for Rags).

Azraelswrd
05-13-2010, 11:29 PM
You use everything... it's just that general stats weigh so much less than PLAYER STATS. You gotta love your player stats because that is what everything rides on. You diss your PLAYER STATS and you might as well be slitting your own throat because that's what your damage output will be.... dead.

peninvade
05-14-2010, 01:20 AM
I think 4% critical is noticeable, but 1% is not. So the new general is probably pretty good with criticals and will do one extra on average with a fully volley of stamina. I switch back and forth between my ophelia and lotus because of the criticals (don't have aurora). In your case though, I agree with azriel: Aurora seems the best bet either until health is down enough to switch, or just click the heal button.

Draconus
05-14-2010, 02:37 AM
Aurora
switch to Serene when you have lost 76+ life

crit rate is almost irrelevant
g.stats are mostly irrelevant

PLAYER STATS ARE EVERYTHING

Agreed. The General used should be according to the need at hand as it applies to the player's stats. When attacking, use the general that gives the best attack bonus. When defending, reverse the process and use the general that best boosts your defense stat.

FartLord
05-14-2010, 04:42 PM
well...i think the general's stats do matter in the long run...i've fenris n when attacking genesis i do about 34500 damage...i attacked the same genesis with Sano n he was doing only about 33700...so 800 dam., may not seem too much but in a long run can make much difference!!!

Klaleara
05-14-2010, 05:18 PM
Player Stats mean a lot, however 3% crit does a lot more then 20 attack. Whats 20 attack? Like 200 damage? However critting can do up to double or on even some boss's triple amount of the damage. That could be like 100,000 for me (I have close to 700 attack).

When your high level, you want boss's that give percentage. Unless the general gives 50 attack, I'm not even going to look twice at it over my +3% crit (Which is actually quite a bit).

derkaiser
05-14-2010, 05:23 PM
Same here, I'll go with Kaiser with 4% critical..:D

Azraelswrd
05-14-2010, 05:36 PM
I prefer the consistency and +20 p.atk is worth more than 200 dmg, especially with world epic monsters. Remember that everyone can crit and a +4% (or 3% if the devs never bothered to apply Backdraft -- note that his ability at level 4 still says 3%) isn't a big difference in the grand scheme.

Xanofar
05-14-2010, 05:51 PM
I think it may depend on the monster as well.

I was once using Azeron against a BotDL just to level him up, and I noticed he was doing 1-2 more orc kills (1 orc kill = 1000 damage) consistently than Tristram (with Isolde bonus) was doing. Azeron has no bonus for player attack, but his own stats are very good.

Slashmeehup
05-14-2010, 09:06 PM
Just out of curiosity, which generals are considered the best for monster hunting right now? I have 80 FP burning a hole in my pocket.

Azraelswrd
05-14-2010, 09:11 PM
Just out of curiosity, which generals are considered the best for monster hunting right now? I have 80 FP burning a hole in my pocket.

The same for PVP dueling:

Azriel w/ 2000 AA
Kull w/ 24 OM
Malekus w/ infinite heroes :eek::D
Aurora w/ infinite health :cool::p

Notice a trend? They all give fat p.atk bonuses.

If they're too rich for your blood then there's always Plan B:
Vanquish
Zarevok
Nautica

jdavis6
05-14-2010, 09:17 PM
If your looking to max your loot - none of the above matters as loot slots correlate best with the xp earned in the fight which no general or amount of stats affect. The more times you hit the more opportunity to earn xp, but each time its a roll of the dice as to how much you will get.

Where these stats and generals matter is in getting achievement levels and doing your fair share of damage, but honestly if you got a decent a/d for your level it really doesn't matter what general you use as none seem to add or subtract more than 10-15%.

Xanofar
05-15-2010, 01:48 AM
The same for PVP dueling:

Azriel w/ 2000 AA
Kull w/ 24 OM
Malekus w/ infinite heroes :eek::D
Aurora w/ infinite health :cool::p

Notice a trend? They all give fat p.atk bonuses.

If they're too rich for your blood then there's always Plan B:
Vanquish
Zarevok
Nautica

Lotus Ravenmoore...
Lotus Ravenmoore... + Death Touch Gauntlet