Right now, you need Max + Low in order to have one weapon cursed instead of two. This is kind of ridiculous for a status resistance that basically has no use unless you use the Faust/GF charge. Max alone should suffice. Who's with me?
(Something similar has been posted in the bug forum too, but I'm posting this here in case this silliness was intended rather than accidental.)
Curse resistance primarily deals with lowering the curse duration - but for curse to be taken seriously as a status effect, it should curse two weapons (the minimum number of weapons any knight can have).
That being said, if you're that afraid of curse, you'll have to make quite a few sacrifices in terms of defence before you can negate the effect down to one weapon, i.e. at least two pieces of equipment.
So... yeah. -1.
I have 2 medium UVs for curse and I only get one weapon slot out of three cursed. (no other curse resistance gear)
If I recall there's a difference between the curse inflicted from PvE monsters and GF in PvP.
A few people did tests a while ago and found that one Max (= Med + Med) weren't enough. If you can confirm this, I'll be very happy and will graveyard this thread, since it's all I was asking for. :P
@Kentard: "for curse to be taken seriously as a status effect"
LOL. No. For Curse to be taken seriously, the game needs to actually contain monsters that inflict it. Shadow FSC? Phantoms? You must be joking.
Right now, only Faust/GF charge users need any Curse resistance at all. And the charge isn't really worth it compared to the normal attacks, and Acheron's charge is better anyway.
We're already using a sub-optimal option. Why penalise us further? What, we need more than a max UV just to make charging feasible? (Don't say "use an armour with built-in Curse". Those are mostly shadow armours, and hence useless for the enemies you'd actually use Faust/GF against. The two exceptions are split-special armours, and thus also sub-optimal.)
I didn't know about the monster/player Curse difference. Can you elaborate?
But see this: http://forums.spiralknights.com/en/node/42661
Then it's probably a technical issue. Ordinarily this shouldn't be the case, as the wiki already dictated. That or curse resistances got nerfed, making previous testing obsolete.
LOL. No. For Curse to be taken seriously, the game needs to actually contain monsters that inflict it. Shadow FSC? Phantoms? You must be joking.
While I agree, I'm not too keen on seeing every monster type out there capable of inflicting curse. Maybe Undead or Fiends. Curse Jellies would seem a bit out of place.
I didn't know about the monster/player Curse difference. Can you elaborate?
Apparently a GF charge requires a higher degree of curse resistance to negate than a Carnavon or a Phantom. Now, I can't remember where that post that did the testing was, and I'm not sure if the testing is still relevant at this point, but that was the data they gathered - not one to quantify it though.
Could be a stealth patch, could be a glitch. (And if it's been reverted, I couldn't be happier.)
Agreed, Curse definitely shouldn't be common, given its power, but yeah, some (rare) undead/fiends. Although I can also see soul jellies inflicting it, for instance. Or even stuff like Curse hazards (also rare).
Interesting to know re: the GF. I'll do a search and see if I can find it.
Could be a stealth patch, could be a glitch. (And if it's been reverted, I couldn't be happier.)
Agreed, Curse definitely shouldn't be common, given its power, but yeah, some (rare) undead/fiends. Although I can also see soul jellies inflicting it, for instance. Or even stuff like Curse hazards (also rare).
Interesting to know re: the GF. I'll do a search and see if I can find it.
.