Rethinking Explorer Rings

While they will almost definitely be changed with all of the massive game overhauls occurring in KMST, the basic format of each will most likely be the same. Therefore, in an effort to revise plans in order to plan ahead, I'm curious:

What ring(s) should [insert class here] strive for?

Database/info thread please for all those wondering.

Personally, I'm curious for Magicians as Magic Attack (finally) working like Weapon Attack would make the Magician's Ring worthwhile over others. But with 5% passive crit (and 45% for Bishops), would it be better to get the Crit Ring?

Remember, they may be changing magic attack values depending on how much 1 MA is worth. So I'd go with the crit ring, because no MA values are defininte.

We don't know for sure how MATK works but the early estimates have it as a multiplier like weapon attack so the 4 MATK difference could make up for the extra critical rate. Currently for Evans, the Magical Ring is actually 2% better in terms of avg DPS with Thorns factored in. Going by this, I would infer that the Magical Ring is better for Priests as well. Assuming Criticals are still multipliers for Mages and that the base critical is 5% success for 1.5x damage, the Critical Ring is about 2% better than the Magical Ring for Arch Mages, not accounting for the MATK difference.

So IMO, I would go for the Magical Ring with any Magician class. The difference between the two rings is 2% in either direction, almost negligible. However, the extra 4 matk could make a big difference in the end.

All classes - Crit ring

+10% crit chance > everything else any of those rings have to offer

All classes - Crit ring

+10% crit chance > everything else any of those rings have to offer

And if it gets nerfed down to something like 2% or 5%?

And if it gets nerfed down to something like 2% or 5%?

How the hell is that relevant? That's like saying, "UHH, it's best for Warriors to max Slash Blast first, but what if they make Power Strike do 1000% and nerf Slash Blast to hit 3 monsters?"

How the hell is that relevant? That's like saying, "UHH, it's best for Warriors to max Slash Blast first, but what if they make Power Strike do 1000% and nerf Slash Blast to hit 3 monsters?"

Because it's the whole point of this thread? Maybe you should read the first post better buddy.

Because it's the whole point of this thread? Maybe you should read the first post better buddy.

The only thing that changed are the mechanics of the game, not the stats of the ring. Maybe you should follow your own advice.

Just made an excell sheet that compares adventurer rings assuming the critical chance and damage vary proportionally (if they decide to rebalance them).
Feel free to test around with your numbers.

 Spoiler

Even if the rings' stats change, we won't be able to tell how they'll change before the event ends, assuming this stays in kMST for a long time. Might as well have the better ring for at least the next six months or however long this takes to get to gMS.

Anyway, you can play around on my excel sheet if you want...

Edit: Still made errors in my excel thingy which led to wrong conclusions.
will upload a new version if anyone is interested (and PMs me)

No, it's just that +crit chance is always better than +crit damage. The bonus damage per hit that you get from crit is equal to (crit chance * crit damage bonus).

I can't think of a single case in MapleStory where your crit rate is higher than your crit damage (i.e., 50% chance to crit for +30% damage). Therefore, it's always better to raise crit rate. It's the same with weapon attack vs. primary stat. Raising Weapon Attack always has a greater impact on your damage than raising primary stat, because Weapon Attack is much lower to begin with.

Isn't the Magic Ring with 5% chance for 20% damage best with the new Bishop crit ( 45% for 50% damage)? Even with and without SE...

*bleh, dont know how crit works. id just wait until theres some clarification on that

Isn't the Magic Ring with 5% chance for 20% damage best with the new Bishop crit ( 45% for 50% damage)? Even with and without SE...

...is it really 45 for 50? Well, if the new skills bring the numbers that close together, it may be different. The magic ring is actually better if that's the case. I guess I'm just used to numbers like 15% for +140%

...is it really 45 for 50? Well, if the new skills bring the numbers that close together, it may be different. The magic ring is actually better if that's the case. I guess I'm just used to numbers like 15% for +140%

You can simply use the excel sheet i just made to compare rings and such. There are cases and cases, it's not one definate answer.

To elaborate on my personal qualm related to this thread, I originally planned on foregoing getting my ArchMage a ring since we currently have no passive crit, and since you can't dual equip the Lv. 70 Lilin's Ring and an Explorer Ring, having the +3 INT and +3 MATK from the ring would > +5 MATK from the Explorer's Magical Ring, and thus wearing the Lilin's Ring would be the best bet (treating the crit effects of all the rings as negligible in this case due to no passive crit).

THEN KMST 1.318-20 were released, and everything changed. At first it looked like the Explorer's Critical Ring would be best for Magicians now that we have passive crit, but upon further review if that crit rate is only 5% why bother adding 10 more percent? 15% is still an exceedingly crappy crit rate. At this point I was back to "don't bother getting a ring," but then the "Massive Buff" patch was released, and hearing more information about the magic damage formula changes make me wonder if the Explorer's Magical Ring would be better.

So to clarify, I'm wondering if, for an ArchMage, assuming any ring crit effect is negligible due to our lack of substantial passive crit, would it be worthwhile to get the Explorer's Magical Ring for the +5 MATK, which would potentially be more beneficial than the Lv. 70 Lilin's Ring in the new system? I know this is a tough question to answer as the formulas are all unknown, but I'm extremely curious and would like to plan ahead with a bit more confidence XD.

If crit is negligible...I'd imagine a 2 MATK difference between the rings wouldn't matter much, considering all the places you can get it from.

But if you were bossing and were using a Magical ring with SE, 10% suddenly becomes 25%, which could actually mean something. Outside of that though, the crit probably wouldn't matter.

It would probably be better to go ahead and get a ring, but that's just my opinion.

Currently, any explorer ring would be giving you a boost of 1% to your damage (magicians), 1% is surely higher than what 1-2 matk do for your damage.

Also, when considering the possibility of passive critical with low chances but high crit dmg, the critical ring comes ahead.

EDIT: Removed the link to my excel sheet since it contained errors.

So all Magicians should go for the Crit Ring?

It depends, with SE or Thorns the critical ring becomes much better, also, with the possibility of base critical with the new KMST balance, the critical ring runs ahead again.