Extra Line vs 6 atk

Hey everyone,

I'm having some debate atm over what I should cube/keep; a 10 atk witch belt (2 line potential'd) or a 4 atk witch belt (3 line potential'd). To put it simply, I'm basically wondering whether 6 atk > 1 line or vice versa. Any advice/opinion is appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Edit: I should also add the 10 atk has 1 slot remaining, so it may potentially be more or less atk depending on what happens. If 6 atk < extra line, any thoughts on how much atk > extra line?

I'd say that if you plan on chaos'ing the 10 Atk, you should do it before cubing. You'll probably end up with a more clear cut answer.

Well, best you can get in a third line is probably 3% to 6% of whatever your main stat is. Would that be greater than 6 atk? For a Level 200 Hero, I'd probably say yes. (I'm not sure, but I'm of the general understanding that 4-5 main stat = 1 weapon attack)

Either way, though, Chaos that 10 attack belt first. Worst case scenario, it loses 5 attack and becomes a 5 attack belt, which is still more attack than the 4 attack belt. Cube it and sell it as a potentialed 5 attack belt (even though it has 2 lines, people won't see that since it was cubed but not revealed). Best case scenario, it gains 5 attack and becomes a 15 attack belt, and at that point the answer seems pretty obvious.

Great, thanks for the speedy replies. I'll finish the last hammer with a chaos and see from there. Thanks again

(I'm not sure, but I'm of the general understanding that 4-5 main stat = 1 weapon attack)

Not anymore...

Not ever, actually.

Well, best you can get in a third line is probably 3% to 6% of whatever your main stat is. Would that be greater than 6 atk? For a Level 200 Hero, I'd probably say yes. (I'm not sure, but I'm of the general understanding that 4-5 main stat = 1 weapon attack)

Either way, though, Chaos that 10 attack belt first. Worst case scenario, it loses 5 attack and becomes a 5 attack belt, which is still more attack than the 4 attack belt. Cube it and sell it as a potentialed 5 attack belt (even though it has 2 lines, people won't see that since it was cubed but not revealed). Best case scenario, it gains 5 attack and becomes a 15 attack belt, and at that point the answer seems pretty obvious.

Actually, pretty much everyone assumes that if an expensive item is potentialed but not revealed, it's 2 lines. Who potentials a 5 attack belt and doesn't even bother revealing it to see if it's three lines? And if it's three lines, who would leave it unrevealed, when a revealed one would sell for much more?

Not anymore...

Not ever, actually.

Potential doesn't truly affect your stat:attack ratio. Say you had a 4 stat:1 attack ratio before potential, and you have +50% stat, so now your ratio is 6:1. Since the potential bonus applies to both base stats and equip stats, each extra point of stat you have adds 1.5 stats instead of 1, so even though 1 attack gives you the same amount of damage as 6 stats, adding 4 stats actually gives you 6 stats, leading to the same end result.

Not anymore...

Not ever, actually.

Mine's been in that range for a fair number of levels (like since 90 or so) - currently sitting at 4.6 main stat = 1 atk at level 152 (just in terms of average damage increase), which is pretty much in the middle.

edit: compensated for dex & % atk, it's now more accurate.

It will depend on potential outcomes, and different in situations.

Take your total weapon attack without the belt (be it with echo, enrage, apple), and look at your attack ratio: (10-4)/total att (no belt) = x

Your total % str without the belt, and I need to know what you'll be comparing to, say 15% str on the 2-line and 21% str on the 3-line (depends how ambitious you are really), call it 'a' and 'b', and look at % ratio: (b-a)/total % str (no belt) = y

If y is greater than x, 4 att 3-line belt is better, otherwise the reverse is true.

Ex. Total weapon att without belt = 250, % str without belt = 220% str (base is 100%, so 120% bonus)

x = 6/250, y = 6/220, it's obvious that y is greater than x so the 3-line belt wins in this scenario.

Tyvm for the detailed reply. Hmm, ok so I've been trying to figure this out for myself but I'm not sure I'm understanding or doing this correctly so here is what I've got so far:

Clean, no mw 30, no atk pot
Total attack without belt -> 192 (clean, no atk pot)
Total % STR without belt -> 80% atm (equips alone, without mw 30)

ratio of attack 6/192 = 0.03125
ratio of STR 6/180 = 0.03333 (Assuming i get 6% more on another line than the 2 line)

This means that the 6% str difference would slightly outweigh the 6 atk if I understand this all correctly.

I also thought of maybe 18% 3 line vs 15% 2 line which would be
6/192 = 0.03125 vs
3/180 = 0.01667
which the 10 atk 2 line would outweigh the 18 by what looks like a fair bit.

With a cider it works out to:
6/212 = 0.02830
and if MW 30 works with this formula then its comparing that to (% str increase over the 2 line)
6/195 = 0.03076
3/195 = 0.01538

In which case it's basically the same situation as clean

With apple it works out to:
6/292 = 0.02054
vs
6/195 = 0.03076
6/195 = 0.01538

Which the 21% str belt looks like it outweighs the 15% by quite a bit, but the 18 still falls behind the 15.

Apple + Echo :
6/303.7 (not sure if it rounds up or down) = 0.01975
vs
6/195 = 0.03076
3/195 = 0.01538

Again, 21% outweighs 15 by quite a bit but 18% still falls short.

So basically I either have to go big on the 4 atk 3 line or stick with the 10 if I have this all correct?

Thanks again for your help.

This comparison is all assuming that you can achieve 9/6/6% on the second belt. How reasonable is that? Or like Jellyflower said, how ambitious are you?
In some ways, 6 extra att in the hand (as it were) is worth more that the possibility of achieving 9/6/6 with great expense or luck.
Why don't you keep the high att one as is and start cubing the low att one. If the cubing goes well, use that one. If not, or you run out of nx, you can sell it with 9/6/garbage and still go back to the high att one.
Simple probability would suggest that 9/6/6 is very expensive to achieve, but you do see some around, so either ppl are spending on cubes like mad, or the programmers made things a bit easier than they might have been.

Nevermind

So how would you compare the total damage %. I have 163 sky ski's that are two lines, how would they compare to a 145 3 lined or rather how would you calculate it to see the difference.

This comparison is all assuming that you can achieve 9/6/6% on the second belt. How reasonable is that? Or like Jellyflower said, how ambitious are you?
In some ways, 6 extra att in the hand (as it were) is worth more that the possibility of achieving 9/6/6 with great expense or luck.
Why don't you keep the high att one as is and start cubing the low att one. If the cubing goes well, use that one. If not, or you run out of nx, you can sell it with 9/6/garbage and still go back to the high att one.
Simple probability would suggest that 9/6/6 is very expensive to achieve, but you do see some around, so either ppl are spending on cubes like mad, or the programmers made things a bit easier than they might have been.

Yea, atm I'm leaning towards the 10 atk seeing as how I've used quite a few cubes myself and never once had all 3 lines stacking with a stat, 2 is rare enough . Also, if I cubed the 4 and finally got all 3 lines to stack with STR but it came out to 18% the 10 atk would win with 15% (which probably would cost fewer cubes) and I'd be sad lol. I still have to focus on getting my top/bottom/shoes to 15+ str as well anyway.

Edit: I tried "junk scrolling" from what my friend told me (his ritual is fail 3 60s then use your scroll) and the chaos failed so its 10 atk still haha :/

Edit: I tried "junk scrolling" from what my friend told me (his ritual is fail 3 60s then use your scroll) and the chaos failed so its 10 atk still haha :/

It's referred to as gambler's fallacy and I dont' get why people don't understand it's not real -_-

It's referred to as gambler's fallacy and I dont' get why people don't understand it's not real -_-

Psh that's like saying unicorns aren't real.

It's referred to as gambler's fallacy and I dont' get why people don't understand it's not real -_-

eh.. I watched him scroll a craven 9/9 with 50s using his method; I became pretty (naively, i guess) convinced after seeing it :/ . I do realize it really is all luck/chance but idk there are more than a few ppl that swear by junk scrolling and have their own theories on it and/or results to back them up. I lost faith in it though after experiencing that fail, took me like 75 helm defense 60% scrolls before I finally failed 3 consecutively and then the chaos failed LOL

People believe that if you get fail fail fail fail fail fail fail, then the next one is definintly going to be a success, but they're all independent. If you have a sequence of 10 scrolls, each situation is just as likely as the other, and all those situations have a low probability of occuring. By junk scrolling, all you're doing is guessing the pattern.

People believe that if you get fail fail fail fail fail fail fail, then the next one is definintly going to be a success, but they're all independent. If you have a sequence of 10 scrolls, each situation is just as likely as the other, and all those situations have a low probability of occuring. By junk scrolling, all you're doing is guessing the pattern.

Basically its like playing the odds; if its a 60% scroll and you've failed 4 or however many, to maintain the overall "60% success rate", odds are "in your favor" the next one should work. Idk if I'm explaining it right, hopefully you know what I mean. I do realize they are independent and it is all luck, that's just the theory behind it is all. Its like, take flipping a coin for example; its 50/50 you get heads or tails, over a large amount of coin flips you should, theoretically, get 50% of each. Based on those odds, if you obtain a large amount of one type in sequential flips, heads for instance, in theory you should get a tails based on the overall 50% odds. I think its somewhat the principle/logic behind counting cards, which apparently works. There is actually some logic behind it, whether or not it truly works remains to be proven. Not saying it exists either way, just explaining the theory behind it is all. I just tried it out and didn't work out for me that time lol.

Basically its like playing the odds; if its a 60% scroll and you've failed 4 or however many, to maintain the overall "60% success rate", odds are "in your favor" the next one should work. Idk if I'm explaining it right, hopefully you know what I mean. I do realize they are independent and it is all luck, that's just the theory behind it is all. Its like, take flipping a coin for example; its 50/50 you get heads or tails, over a large amount of coin flips you should, theoretically, get 50% of each. Based on those odds, if you obtain a large amount of one type in sequential flips, heads for instance, in theory you should get a tails based on the overall 50% odds. I think its somewhat the principle/logic behind counting cards, which apparently works. There is actually some logic behind it, whether or not it truly works remains to be proven. Not saying it exists either way, just explaining the theory behind it is all. I just tried it out and didn't work out for me that time lol.

The odds are not in your favor. It is still a strict 60% chance.

Actually, the junk scrolling thing should have a slight effect on your chances, as RNGs will usually distribute over time (since it's not 100% "random").
Although, I assume since thousands of scrolls are used daily, this effect can give you maybe 60.01% instead of 60%, which is completely negligible anyway.