Well I'll just leave it as this. Based on itirnitii's well-articulated post I agree with him… The issue is modifying any of these into non slot passives, short durations, or entirely changing the abilities requires a lot of time and balancing. Considering this game has a lot of issues on hand I don't think taking additional time delaying RoS is ideal for Blizzard or any Diablo fan. Redesigning 14ish abilities is a significant amount, I say this would be better for a future patch.
If you were really serious about you need to build an argument and explain every little detail to get popularity. This eventually leads to Blizzard paying attention as it has happened to a couple of members from this site. What I see is you basically said “I want to push more buttons” here is my 30-60 minute worth of effort to address the issue. I think itirnitii explain the problem better in about ¼ the amount of words, now you need to figure out how to redesign 14 abilities and make them appealing enough to use but not overshadow other classes or other abilities.
Anyways I’ma stop being a troll now and piss on someone else’s thread
This is a true compliment because I hardly ever get accused of being terse and to the point.
It's okay that the thread is a repeat. I meant no judgement so I hope it did not come off that way. I completely agree with you.
If you care to read my response in the other thread I will leave it here:
I guess the crux of why I don't really like your position is that all choosing a passive skill on your active bar does is influence that choice alone. Once you've made that choice to put Energy Armor on your bar, the fun that choice you made brings to your playing experience practically dies in the water right there for the most part. Sure, you might take a little bit less damage from something or dish out a little more damage and that has consequences as you're playing, but the problem is it becomes a very bland influence and it is not actively engaging at all. Instead of casting a cluch Slow Time so a monster's projectile couldn't reach you or casting Frost Nova at just the right time to freeze seven monsters instead of just three, it becomes the monster hit me for less damage or I hit the monster for more damage; which to me for an active skill is unacceptably boring. Yes, I could just avoid these bland uninspired skills if I want to have more fun in combat, but that's just a testament to how poor these skills are designed as active skills in the first place!
Why should the fun of choosing Magic Weapon die the minute I make that choice? I get a flat DPS boost and kill faster, but where's the actual fun in that? Active skills shouldn't be designed in a way that pits fun against stat boosts. If a skill choice has no fun or tactical implication after you actually pick using it, then something is terribly wrong to me. Why can't Magic Weapon instead add only 5% DPS (down from 10%) and also do something fun and strategic every time I cast it? What if Storm Armor worked somewhat like Static from Diablo 2 when you cast it and halved all white monster's HP within a certain radius and was given a reasonable cooldown?
Believe me, I fucking love the idea and implications of Slow Time, Frost Nova, Mirror Images, and Diamond Skin. They are skills that offer a change in the way your character actually fights monsters in different scenarios of tactical combat. The problem is, I don't think when people are making their active skill choices that these awesome tactical defensive skills should be pitted against bland DPS/EHP buffs. Bland DPS/EHP buffs are for paragon leveling, they are for gear choices, they are for passive skills. Let's not add them also in the realm of active skills. It's just too much. To me, active skills should always be active engaging mechanics that change how you play your character and for it to be anything less to me is just maddening and sloppy.
I still think the best compromise is allowing legendaries to be transmog'd to regular tier armor, so if it is ugly to you it can be made normal. But keep the preservation of the legendary's "visual dignity" by not allowing legendary's (or any item) to take the skins of other legendaries.
I think it is kind of visually deceptive to see my friend holding a serpent sparker, think that he's going a dual hydra build, and then realize it is really an echoing fury. It just has a nuance of incompatibility and inconsistency that I can't quite get behind.
But, if he thought the Echoing Fury is ugly (which I would agree with him), he should be able to make it look like a regular sword or a regular dagger. Yeah, I won't know it is an Echoing Fury anymore when I see it, but at least it wouldn't have deceived me into thinking it was some other legendary that has it's own unique properties. It would just be a rare weapon which doesn't hold any assumptions on inspection.
This thread is a repeat. I personally think active skills should all have an active element to them. Say no to passive skills on the active skill bar! My one contribution is to give Storm Armor a "static" effect from Diablo 2, where white monsters within a radius get their health halved when you cast it and also add a cooldown.
My feelings for transmog are completely mixed. I like it, but I also hate it.
I am kind of against the idea of items taking on the skins of legendaries, but not necessarily against making a legendary look like a regular tiered piece of armor.
That's another thing to consider too. If Blizzard was focused on catering to the individuals that said "what other people do outside my game doesn't affect me" then they wouldn't need to remove the Auction House. Yes, the AH does influences drop rates in the current game and that does affect those players who mostly keep to themselves, but why not just instead excise that influence and leave the AH standing? They could just stop making the drop rates take the Auction House into account and keep the AH. The fact that they found it necessary to remove the AH completely shows that they do care about the way people are exchanging items as a community and how that affects the way finding legendaries from monsters feels for the average person who takes advantage of all the systems and mechanics in the game that Blizzard endorses.
I'm not saying a middle ground can't be taken that allows trading. I'm just saying this shows to some extent where their priorities lie and how that influences the decisions they make. To me, it shows they care about what the community is doing as a collective. Not to mention the fact that having to balance drops around the AH in the first place shows they care about what the community is doing at large concerning items; but that was a decision made very long ago as well.
I also think they want to avoid a feeling of cognitive dissonance amongst the stances they take. If they allow a system to be in a game, they want to make sure the game is balanced around that system just by the very nature that it exists. To have it exist and then say, "well, it is there, but you can just avoid it for a better experience" has a very duplicitous nature that has to at least be considered. I'm not using this as an argument for or against trading, because obviously whether trading is allowed or not being a better experience is subjective, but just some food for thought. It's all about what priority Blizzard wants to put on a pedestal, and I think either way people are going to get burned.
So really it boils down to what Blizzard's order of priorities are as far as what they choose to implement and what boundaries they choose to set. I think their course of action with the AH removal shows that they want finding loot from monsters to be the best way to get loot for the community at large, and anything that attempts to compromise that on a global scale is a secondary priority. They might know that some players keep to themselves mostly and can have a more individual experience, but that's clearly not the player they want to balance the game around. Otherwise removing the auction house entirely wouldn't be necessary at all, they'd just have to make sure it doesn't influence those who choose not to use it.
They could just have all options available and that would be suitable for the entire playerbase: self-founder, mostly self-founder but some trading with friends only, traders, and auction house users. Drop tables are balanced around self-found play and anyone who chooses to use any other options to obtain loot can do so at their own impulse and discretion based on their own idea of fun. If Diablo was a sandbox game this is probably what it would look like. But I don't think Blizzard wants this type of operation. They clearly care about what influence each and every one of the systems within the game creates. From Blizzards perspective, the fact that it exists means that they endorse anyone who uses it which means they have to acknowledge how players who use the system are influenced by it, not the players who choose to avoid it. I feel like that's the just the way Blizzard analyzes these things. It's their way of drawing a line in the sand. We have seen this time and time again with pretty much every patch that restricts and expands what players can and can't do. So, really it is no surprise for me to see them do the same with trading.
Calling back to an example I made earlier, if there was an NPC that gave infinite gold they would acknowledge how that NPC affected players that used it, not players that chose self-control and avoided it, when selecting a point of balance. Is that methodology right or wrong? Debatable I suppose. My only argument here is that I believe this is just Blizzard's modus operandi for making these types of decisions.
Whether that is good or bad for the game overall, we all have our own opinions. But let's keep in mind we don't have all the pieces to the puzzle either.
I do want to make a note that I really enjoy reading everyone's opinions on this subject as well.
The problem with the AH is it was TOO READILY available. With trading you are severly limited in that I can only join a game with 3 other people. I'm not looking at ~40 pages of the same item over and over. Think about it. First you have to find a leg of worth to trade. So I want Frostburns but can only find Taskers... I now have to have found a Taskers, then somehow managed to get into a game with someone who has been lucky enough to find a Frostburn AND want to trade for a taskers. Chat helps speed this up, but most people don't use general chats. The other alternative would be going to sites like d2jsp, but the problem with that is not everyone is willing to put their cash into a 3rd party site to get a cool BiS item for them, and not many are even willing to take the extra time to go out of their way and even peruse a site such as d2jsp. I'm one of em. Literally never even been to d2JSP. Like NEVER. I Have used the Ah however and that's cause it was like the only way to gear well. If some of the proposed changes happen it'll be a bit easier to gear by yourself, but I think they're going a bit overboard in the other direction.
It doesn't matter. A shortcut is a shortcut. Being less of a shortcut doesn't absolve it from being a shortcut. Removing the AH and only allowing trading on a mass scale just makes the undesirable destination further away, but it doesn't change that destination. There is no item I can acquire from the AH that I can't also acquire with trading. It's slower trading because it is less streamlined, but in essence it's the same conceptually. In the end, you're still not hunting the item yourself which is supposed to be the focal design crux in a monster slaying loot hunting game. We want a game that will be satisfying for years to come, but we're not willing to analyze how trading shortens that experience?
It is evident to me now that Blizzard's main priority is how satisfying the loot hunt is from slaying monsters, how finding those items feels when you acquire them yourself, and how this plays a role in the scope of the community at large. By placing that priority as their primary goal anything that diminishes this seems secondary to them now.
Adding clans is not cognitive dissonance because they want people to play together. That doesn't demand the sharing of items on a larger scale to avoid a conflict in design philosophy. Sharing on a small scale however...
That's another thing to consider too. If Blizzard was focused on catering to the individuals that said "what other people do outside my game doesn't affect me" then they wouldn't need to remove the Auction House. Yes, the AH does influences drop rates in the current game and that does affect those players who mostly keep to themselves, but why not just instead excise that influence and leave the AH standing? They could just stop making the drop rates take the Auction House into account and keep the AH. The fact that they found it necessary to remove the AH completely shows that they do care about the way people are exchanging items as a community and how that affects the way finding legendaries from monsters feels for the average person who takes advantage of all the systems and mechanics in the game that Blizzard endorses.
I'm not saying a middle ground can't be taken that allows trading. I'm just saying this shows to some extent where their priorities lie and how that influences the decisions they make. To me, it shows they care about what the community is doing as a collective. Not to mention the fact that having to balance drops around the AH in the first place shows they care about what the community is doing at large concerning items; but that was a decision made very long ago as well.
I also think they want to avoid a feeling of cognitive dissonance amongst the stances they take. If they allow a system to be in a game, they want to make sure the game is balanced around that system just by the very nature that it exists. To have it exist and then say, "well, it is there, but you can just avoid it for a better experience" has a very duplicitous nature that has to at least be considered. I'm not using this as an argument for or against trading, because obviously whether trading is allowed or not being a better experience is subjective, but just some food for thought. It's all about what priority Blizzard wants to put on a pedestal, and I think either way people are going to get burned.
So really it boils down to what Blizzard's order of priorities are as far as what they choose to implement and what boundaries they choose to set. I think their course of action with the AH removal shows that they want finding loot from monsters to be the best way to get loot for the community at large, and anything that attempts to compromise that on a global scale is a secondary priority. They might know that some players keep to themselves mostly and can have a more individual experience, but that's clearly not the player they want to balance the game around. Otherwise removing the auction house entirely wouldn't be necessary at all, they'd just have to make sure it doesn't influence those who choose not to use it.
They could just have all options available and that would be suitable for the entire playerbase: self-founder, mostly self-founder but some trading with friends only, traders, and auction house users. Drop tables are balanced around self-found play and anyone who chooses to use any other options to obtain loot can do so at their own impulse and discretion based on their own idea of fun. If Diablo was a sandbox game this is probably what it would look like. But I don't think Blizzard wants this type of operation. They clearly care about what influence each and every one of the systems within the game creates. From Blizzards perspective, the fact that it exists means that they endorse anyone who uses it which means they have to acknowledge how players who use the system are influenced by it, not the players who choose to avoid it. I feel like that's the just the way Blizzard analyzes these things. It's their way of drawing a line in the sand. We have seen this time and time again with pretty much every patch that restricts and expands what players can and can't do. So, really it is no surprise for me to see them do the same with trading.
Calling back to an example I made earlier, if there was an NPC that gave infinite gold they would acknowledge how that NPC affected players that used it, not players that chose self-control and avoided it, when selecting a point of balance. Is that methodology right or wrong? Debatable I suppose. My only argument here is that I believe this is just Blizzard's modus operandi for making these types of decisions.
Whether that is good or bad for the game overall, we all have our own opinions. But let's keep in mind we don't have all the pieces to the puzzle either.
I do want to make a note that I really enjoy reading everyone's opinions on this subject as well.
It's all about finding items and having a tailored experience that is based around what you DO find. Not focusing on what you don't. There will be so many equally viable builds stemming from hundreds of different legendaries that even if you don't find every specific one that you want, you will still have fun personally finding the ones that you do and constantly transitioning how you play and what skills you choose based on what you find as you progress; and the experience of doing so will make utilizing those legendaries that much greater because you didn't just trade for them on a whim or mimic what someone else was doing. That's my hope for all of this anyways.
Once again, the premise is that /really/ powerful legendaries are going to be extremely rare, says Blizzard. It would be like getting 6 items equivalent to Gladiator's Gauntlets just so that you get to see that orange drop once in a while. You don't get Mempos every game, do you? The difference is that they want to make even low-end legendaries kind of interesting because they can support some kind of obscure builds even if their stats are not so good.
I don't get how you don't understand that EXTREMELY RARE and NO TRADING don't mix. All that does is create a massive "luck gap" and frustration for people on the wrong side of that chasm.
So instead of AH barons... we have people who got insanely lucky with an "extremely rare" legendary that actually matched their class/spec? How in the world does that sound better? At least the AH stuff was in our control - if you wanted to make a lot of money you could. Relegating power purely to RNG is basically the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Now, Blizzard may have systems that help players "beat" RNG, but they never should have dropped this bomb without giving us information on the other things that keep it in context.
I feel like your train of thought is kind of stuck on the fact that there will only be maybe 1 or 2 items per slot that will be any good for your character. I think the idea is that each class will have 10-15 legendaries per slot that will be viable. The way the game is now if you didn't find a mempo you'd basically be screwed on that slot, but the aim is that hopefully that is not how it will be. After loot 2.0 if you don't find a mempo there are 10 other helms you could find that you would be just as excited about and after playing casually for a week or so at max level you may not find all of them, or the specific one you want, but you will find at least a couple.
The feel of the game would be that everyone's item journey would be different and your experienced would be personally tailored around what you find and what order you find the items. Instead of saying "I need item A on my helm, item B on my chest, item C on my boot otherwise my character will never be good" you will find a healthy amount of different legendaries that are all equally good across all your items slots. By the time you've played for a few months on that character, the hope is you will then find many of the items you desired, but maybe not every specific one, but you will still treasure the ones you did find more because there was a risk that you never would have found them that makes the reward that much sweeter. If you don't get one specific item, it won't be the end all be all that forever shames your character. As you progress and find different legendaries you work with what you find to create a unique character that found items in a way no one else did creating a unique experience that was tailored just for you.
To me this is way better than just reading a thread on a forum where player X used these 13 items, then going to a trade channel to copy his build item for item. Then you've killed the need and experience of actually hunting for those items. Then all you are doing is hunting for higher stat versions of the same items you already traded for, which is pretty bland.
I agree with the trading in clan sentimentality. As long as the item is time stamped and someone can't just join your clan to trade with them. I just don't want a huge free market.
Yeah, I wasn't saying anything about the validity of those four stances. Just, that they could be made and they are not mutually exclusive positions to take. I don't want legendaries overly abundant either, because that too diminishes that feeling of finding and owning them that I am talking about. It should be increased from what it is now, but not too extreme. I want to be hunting these things down for years to come.
What I am saying is this... someone can argue for any of these four points:
- Pro soulbound legendaries, Pro legendaries dropping like crazy
- Pro soulbound legendaries, Anti legendaries dropping like crazy
- Anti soulbound legendaries, Pro legendaries dropping like crazy
- Anti soulbound legendaries, Anti legendaries dropping like crazy
They can all be an outcome of what happens. Just because I want legendaries to be soulbound does not mean I like what they are doing with making legendaries drop too much. I can want one to stay the way it is heading and desire for the other to change. So, why is that being used as a counter to my stance when I in fact agree with you on that point?
Well of course I disagree with legendaries raining upon us in droves making them inherently meaningless. But that has nothing to do with my stance about soulbound legendaries. Those are two different concepts that are not mutually exclusive and require two separate arguments.
I've played many single player games. I've played almost every Mario and Zelda game to date and I have fun accomplishing things in those games just for the sake of it. I don't need a community in those games and I don't need validation for my accomplishments. I just play to play. But, that's not how I view Diablo. It has a community. My friends log in and play with me. I care about that community and the boundaries that Blizzard sets for that community and for the scope of that to encompass a multiplayer experience that is for the most part a mutually shared experience with my friends and everyone else that I might run into. I care about how other people are playing so that when I share how neat it is that I found an item with my friend, he will know that I didn't just spend $50 to buy it. Sure, I could tell him I didn't, but somehow it doesn't hold that same emphasis. It's not to hold it over him or try to elevate myself. It's not that I need him to lavish me with praise and adulation. It's just neat. When the game enforces this concept, I can then share this experience with anyone that I run into on my travels! The fact that I couldn't just trade for it in a mere 10 minutes instills a sense of worth into the experience that is unattainable otherwise. By fate conspiring in my favor by dropping this item makes it worth more to me than owning 100 others just like it that I had to trade for. I would rather never own that same legendary item than trade for 100 of them. Having the game enforce this is the only way to make these legendaries truly feel legendary. It's not about ranks, it's not about ratings, it's about that feeling. That feeling you get when you know you found something special and the game, your friends, and the community can celebrate that victory with you without all of the background noise of pay to win, trading shortcuts to victory, and that palpable sense of entitlement that players express as though they are owed whatever item they want the fastest they can get their hands on it.
It matters and it's not a sin for that to matter for me. If you want to argue that trading is good for its own sake in the context of the game, go on ahead. I will listen. But don't invalidate my feelings or insinuate they are flawed or unhealthy because you yourself don't understand them. I have not paid you in kind.
This is a true compliment because I hardly ever get accused of being terse and to the point.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
If you care to read my response in the other thread I will leave it here:
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
I think it is kind of visually deceptive to see my friend holding a serpent sparker, think that he's going a dual hydra build, and then realize it is really an echoing fury. It just has a nuance of incompatibility and inconsistency that I can't quite get behind.
But, if he thought the Echoing Fury is ugly (which I would agree with him), he should be able to make it look like a regular sword or a regular dagger. Yeah, I won't know it is an Echoing Fury anymore when I see it, but at least it wouldn't have deceived me into thinking it was some other legendary that has it's own unique properties. It would just be a rare weapon which doesn't hold any assumptions on inspection.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
I am kind of against the idea of items taking on the skins of legendaries, but not necessarily against making a legendary look like a regular tiered piece of armor.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
It doesn't matter. A shortcut is a shortcut. Being less of a shortcut doesn't absolve it from being a shortcut. Removing the AH and only allowing trading on a mass scale just makes the undesirable destination further away, but it doesn't change that destination. There is no item I can acquire from the AH that I can't also acquire with trading. It's slower trading because it is less streamlined, but in essence it's the same conceptually. In the end, you're still not hunting the item yourself which is supposed to be the focal design crux in a monster slaying loot hunting game. We want a game that will be satisfying for years to come, but we're not willing to analyze how trading shortens that experience?
It is evident to me now that Blizzard's main priority is how satisfying the loot hunt is from slaying monsters, how finding those items feels when you acquire them yourself, and how this plays a role in the scope of the community at large. By placing that priority as their primary goal anything that diminishes this seems secondary to them now.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
I'm not saying a middle ground can't be taken that allows trading. I'm just saying this shows to some extent where their priorities lie and how that influences the decisions they make. To me, it shows they care about what the community is doing as a collective. Not to mention the fact that having to balance drops around the AH in the first place shows they care about what the community is doing at large concerning items; but that was a decision made very long ago as well.
I also think they want to avoid a feeling of cognitive dissonance amongst the stances they take. If they allow a system to be in a game, they want to make sure the game is balanced around that system just by the very nature that it exists. To have it exist and then say, "well, it is there, but you can just avoid it for a better experience" has a very duplicitous nature that has to at least be considered. I'm not using this as an argument for or against trading, because obviously whether trading is allowed or not being a better experience is subjective, but just some food for thought. It's all about what priority Blizzard wants to put on a pedestal, and I think either way people are going to get burned.
So really it boils down to what Blizzard's order of priorities are as far as what they choose to implement and what boundaries they choose to set. I think their course of action with the AH removal shows that they want finding loot from monsters to be the best way to get loot for the community at large, and anything that attempts to compromise that on a global scale is a secondary priority. They might know that some players keep to themselves mostly and can have a more individual experience, but that's clearly not the player they want to balance the game around. Otherwise removing the auction house entirely wouldn't be necessary at all, they'd just have to make sure it doesn't influence those who choose not to use it.
They could just have all options available and that would be suitable for the entire playerbase: self-founder, mostly self-founder but some trading with friends only, traders, and auction house users. Drop tables are balanced around self-found play and anyone who chooses to use any other options to obtain loot can do so at their own impulse and discretion based on their own idea of fun. If Diablo was a sandbox game this is probably what it would look like. But I don't think Blizzard wants this type of operation. They clearly care about what influence each and every one of the systems within the game creates. From Blizzards perspective, the fact that it exists means that they endorse anyone who uses it which means they have to acknowledge how players who use the system are influenced by it, not the players who choose to avoid it. I feel like that's the just the way Blizzard analyzes these things. It's their way of drawing a line in the sand. We have seen this time and time again with pretty much every patch that restricts and expands what players can and can't do. So, really it is no surprise for me to see them do the same with trading.
Calling back to an example I made earlier, if there was an NPC that gave infinite gold they would acknowledge how that NPC affected players that used it, not players that chose self-control and avoided it, when selecting a point of balance. Is that methodology right or wrong? Debatable I suppose. My only argument here is that I believe this is just Blizzard's modus operandi for making these types of decisions.
Whether that is good or bad for the game overall, we all have our own opinions. But let's keep in mind we don't have all the pieces to the puzzle either.
I do want to make a note that I really enjoy reading everyone's opinions on this subject as well.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
I feel like your train of thought is kind of stuck on the fact that there will only be maybe 1 or 2 items per slot that will be any good for your character. I think the idea is that each class will have 10-15 legendaries per slot that will be viable. The way the game is now if you didn't find a mempo you'd basically be screwed on that slot, but the aim is that hopefully that is not how it will be. After loot 2.0 if you don't find a mempo there are 10 other helms you could find that you would be just as excited about and after playing casually for a week or so at max level you may not find all of them, or the specific one you want, but you will find at least a couple.
The feel of the game would be that everyone's item journey would be different and your experienced would be personally tailored around what you find and what order you find the items. Instead of saying "I need item A on my helm, item B on my chest, item C on my boot otherwise my character will never be good" you will find a healthy amount of different legendaries that are all equally good across all your items slots. By the time you've played for a few months on that character, the hope is you will then find many of the items you desired, but maybe not every specific one, but you will still treasure the ones you did find more because there was a risk that you never would have found them that makes the reward that much sweeter. If you don't get one specific item, it won't be the end all be all that forever shames your character. As you progress and find different legendaries you work with what you find to create a unique character that found items in a way no one else did creating a unique experience that was tailored just for you.
To me this is way better than just reading a thread on a forum where player X used these 13 items, then going to a trade channel to copy his build item for item. Then you've killed the need and experience of actually hunting for those items. Then all you are doing is hunting for higher stat versions of the same items you already traded for, which is pretty bland.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
- Pro soulbound legendaries, Pro legendaries dropping like crazy
- Pro soulbound legendaries, Anti legendaries dropping like crazy
- Anti soulbound legendaries, Pro legendaries dropping like crazy
- Anti soulbound legendaries, Anti legendaries dropping like crazy
They can all be an outcome of what happens. Just because I want legendaries to be soulbound does not mean I like what they are doing with making legendaries drop too much. I can want one to stay the way it is heading and desire for the other to change. So, why is that being used as a counter to my stance when I in fact agree with you on that point?
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
It matters and it's not a sin for that to matter for me. If you want to argue that trading is good for its own sake in the context of the game, go on ahead. I will listen. But don't invalidate my feelings or insinuate they are flawed or unhealthy because you yourself don't understand them. I have not paid you in kind.
So, wrap your head around that.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s