Yeah, dmg is split between enemies. You get 5 beams each time it proccs. So you get 700% instead of 3500%. And yes, single target dmg is shit. Otherwise it works fine if you kill elite with corpselance. trashmobs die fast enough with WoL gem so you can use them on elite.
Edit: I forgot to answer one question: No, on single target you do only the dmg of one beam. The other 4 beams are "invisible" cause there is no target to hit. Thats why you won't get the full dmg applied to one mob
It IS supposed to proc all beams on one target. However, the problem is that if there is one target it seems to have a "chance" to hit that single target with more than one beam on occasion. So, there is a possibility to get 2 beams on one target. I haven't seen x3 damage yet, but I didn't use it for an extended period of time. I wouldn't be surprised if the Blizzard team didn't feel like fixing the code on this gem or just rewording it to state what they intended it to do from the onset.
The tooltip for the legendary gem is very misleading:
15% chance on hit to gain a Wreath of Lightning, dealing 1250.0% weapon damage as Lightning every second to nearby enemies for 3 seconds.
#1 does not say it is split up, but we can tell that 5 beams /1250 seems to fit 250% as does its 25% increase in damage per rank (...such a terrible scalar) quite nicely. However, it is SUPPOSED to emulate a conduit pylon, which does not split up (4000% damage) it's damage against a single target or multiple targets.
#2 I mentioned conduit pylon because the range, destructible objects, damage intervals and element are all the same. What is strange is the way it operates in both single target and multi-target that makes the gem different from a conduit pylon and ultimately, a major drag. If it was capable of dealing its single target damage to that maximum effect it would be better....even more so if it did what the tooltip actually literally states.
You can use bone spikes with sudden impact + APD... APD is a pretty common defensive boost for some Necro builds already. It also synergizes well with Krysbin's Sentence, defensive and offensive improvements.
3 thing. you have zero CHD, no CDR. and no ancient weaps. This is why you are stuck at your wall. Area damage is only stronger when you hit at least 10 mobs. CHD has the sustain of the dps. what the heck is the point in having 100% CHC when you proc BP and you have you 358% CHD. that lack of CHD is killing you. Shenlong is a generator build hence why it needs area dmg U6 doesnt need it as much.
Next, if you dont have near 100% up time of SSS youll also be stuck where you are.
There is a reason why Quin69 is able to hit 70+ with this build and you are not.
You are missing too many specs to even be thinking about breaching 52.
Area damage is one of the strongest secondary stats at 6 mobs, not 10. It beats out almost everything except CHC/CHD at 4. Funny that you mentioned Quin69 because he did a video explaining exactly this.
However, the bug with EP makes it effectively worthless considering a large majority of your damage comes from SSS's interaction with EP.
Friend and I did some Keywardens and found that not only can you no longer split farm them (they do not drop if you are in a different act, possibly even zone but we didn't test that far), but the drop is no longer shared as well (as in you can find one and your friends may not). I know it's not exactly drop rate related but useful to know. Or maybe it's already common knowledge? I didn't play S3 so I could be behind. I know that in S2, you could both split farm and the drop was shared. :\
Also, I personally never saw a 2x machine drop, farming wardens on T8 (which aligns with your chart, just saying). Farmed about 6-8 of each one. Did not confirm with my friend if he ever saw 2.
We did Ubers on T10, and got 2-3 organs every time, again as expected.
There is a pretty obvious reason for why it isn't shared. They don't want solo people to be crushed by sharing of a MACHINE dropping. The reason why they made people be able to share key drops was because of party play. It was weird to farm for a few hours with a few friends to have a large disparity/some disparity in how many machines people can produce. Now, with the machines dropping entirely, that doesn't matter at all anymore. Now it is just who has what machine, basically.
It is also stated in the patch notes that you can no longer receive a machine if you are not in the area of the kill.
@Tsesmatas, You couldn't even use the quote system properly. The solo leaderboards and the group leaderboards are completely different. Group play is nothing like solo play. I do play D3 and I have a clue and an understanding of how things work. Also, if something was a flavour of the month, it's usually because it's powerful. There's so much wrong with what you said in so few words that it's questionably worth reading :/
Please stick to reading rather than posting on here, as you clearly haven't read the rules for this forum:
Flaming 1 point - Personal Attacks. Directly attacking a/other member(s) based on their game experience, game-play style, intelligence (including "noob", "nub", and various other spellings), age, sex, post count, sitejoin date, and/or any other factor. This may include explicit cursing and profanity directed at said member(s).
See, that's exactly what I don't get. This attitude is the same as in D3V - "you don't like the AH? Don't use it". If the cube goes live as is, Blizzard will need to fix it so that high-end players have to do something, because with bot-supported cache supplied they'll be done gearing after a week. And I mean pitch perfect gear with everything 650 main stat ancient rolls and so on. It DOES affect you, because after a while drop rates will be lowered, material cost for re-rolling will be increased, and so on; just like the AH, where drop rates became ridiculously low in the end such that casual players found about one item per week.
This is not the time to look the other way and say "I don't care". There's a harmful thread to the entire community.
I understand your point of view and I can see why you view it this way; but what would you do? What alternative do you propose? Either you make the materials unfarmable by bots through placing them in a higher tiered rift unattainable to most people, which effectively makes the cube pointless or you don't implement it. Personally and I know you see things differently than I on this matter, but I do not view D3 as a highly competitive game. I compete to get higher on the grift leaderboards, sure, but those people at the top are much more likely to be under the radar of Blizzard than the majority of the people using the botting programs.
Even in the sense of competition, those at the top have even less of a reason to cheat because they have to know that Blizzard has always operated this way; we saw this in WoW and SC as well. In my perspective, Blizzard would be handling class balance, cheating and a lot of other things drastically differently if they also placed a high amount of importance on the competitive scene of D3 (and I mean no offense by this). It seems more like Blizzard is trying to make it so people can have some form of steady progression outside of hoping for one item drop a day/week, now they can actually use their item drops in some meaningful way. What you're asking Blizzard to do is to sacrifice the enjoyment of the large majority of their player base for the small minority of the competitive players' scene. I don't know, really, it seems unfair.
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy climbing the ladder, but D3 doesn't feel as community, people-to-people based as it could be. I don't have a sense of attachment to the players playing as I could have, so I find other's actions not all that important to my own progress; but I don't attempt to make a living off of it as some people are doing (and I don't think that's a venture for the long-term anyway).
I'm not sure how you come to your conclusions without much proof. There are drastic damage reductions in mobs in greater rifts; this will inevitably have an effect on alternative play styles, especially with permanent CC being neutered.
The damage reduction is not that drastic. WW barbs are still using 40% DR from wastes and 50% DR from ignore pain and taking lots of dmg. While it may be a little lower than before at any specific lvl, when you push a few lvls higher from all the extra dps you get in 2.3 then you start taking just as much or more dmg than before. You need lots of toughness/DR to handle the highest levels and you need strong AoE dps but frenzy has neither.
Straight from the patch notes:
Monster damage in Greater Rifts above tier 25 has been significantly reduced.
As for @Demonmonger; all of those DPS classes you're talking about are getting large buffs to their ability to mitigate damage. The Mage has Archon and a much better revival passive; the Demon Hunter is getting massive LoH as well as new bracers that offer 30-35% damage reduction, etc. All classes are getting some way to handle the unavoidable/high damage nukes from champion packs in the form of skills/passives/items. You will still be able to accomplish something very similar to what we have today; it just won't be as efficient since the mobs can move.
@phuzi0n, the point is lower damage allows other playstyles to climb further. Blizzard says it is a significant reduction, you're saying 'not that drastic'. I don't know what your definition of this is, but for now I am going to respectfully side with Blizzard on this one. Even at 20% less damage, it is massively huge. I'll explain this to you in mathematical terms:
If a mob on Greater Rift XX does 20 million damage a hit on 2.2, at 20%, it now does 16 million. What does that mean? For that Barbarian you're talking about, just on the basis of those 3 damage reducing abilities (I'm assuming 4pc IK, so another 50%) and 80% armour and 80% all resistances, he receives 84,000 damage a hit and after the patch he takes he takes 67,200 damage a hit. 16,800 less damage a hit at the same level of greater rift; that is huge. This is made even more favourable by damage reducing passives, unity/items, allied benefits/damage reduction, etc. Even if we take Blizzard's wording as "significant" to mean 10%, 8,400 damage a hit less is still massive. Since it is a straight across-the-board reduction, this only becomes increasingly better for those taking hits and climbing; not the opposite as you're trying to propose with: "we climb faster so we take more damage because we've reached higher levels of rifts"; I don't think fits here. To add to this, monsters have received some dramatic changes to some affixes as well as some rift guardians. They are reducing damage, increasing the odds of avoiding damage as well as lowering the damage on monsters themselves/fixing bugs associated with this.
I'm sure it will be possible to fix the aoe problem; especially with sidearm and stalgrad, but that is not the problem. The problem is making the use of frenzy to the efficiency level of other comparable builds.
No, the leaders are grouping up large amounts of mobs and killing them. If you're referring to solo leaderboards, then it's about fishing for a rift that doesn't have an unfavourable set of mobs that will ruin your day. That's what the current leaderboard system is.. You'd be crazy to think you could just run into all your highest tiered rifts ww'ing without thought through them. That might be how you do it, but that's not how leaders do it.
And this is being changed and theorycrafted every single day.
They are already removing perma CC which harms the ability to properly pull and kill mobs the way the top groups are doing it. They are also dramatically reducing the amount of damage that creatures do in general, which does open up the window for more builds like a frenzy+IK+HOTA build.
We are far to early in PTR to make any real conclusive statements, but at this moment I would say the gap went from around a 50% gap to only a 10-15% gap, and could still close or widen through the PTR process.
I already commented on that, I was responding to his comment about the leaderboards currently. In fact, i mentioned exactly the same things you did before when talking about the potential viability of alternative builds. I also mentioned how it's far too early....
However, dropping permanent CC and drastically reducing monster damage will allow for people to still pull off the grouping and pulling of mobs that they are currently doing now. The mobs just won't be so perfectly placed, which is most likely going to be offset by the 'more accurate reflection of mob kill to rift progression', that they are doing...a second time. It depends on how much damage is incoming in conjunction with how many mobs they are able to handle.
My point was addressing his incorrect notion of how the 'leaderboards' are currently operating, not how they will operate. I definitely do think there is a vast amount of area to improve upon and add to the game with this patch, as i said in this thread "more possibilities added in this patch than the entirety of the new expansion".
No, the leaders are grouping up large amounts of mobs and killing them. If you're referring to solo leaderboards, then it's about fishing for a rift that doesn't have an unfavourable set of mobs that will ruin your day. That's what the current leaderboard system is.. You'd be crazy to think you could just run into all your highest tiered rifts ww'ing without thought through them. That might be how you do it, but that's not how leaders do it.
The question is about frenzy build being viable, not frenzy build being fun. Anything can be fun , that is subjective. Viable means efficient. So yeah its not viable. It might be fun for some ppl. Thread lock .
You haven't provided a concrete reason as to why it isn't viable. Not a single reason. The OP said "seems viable" he did not say "it was definitely viable". The purpose here is to theorycraft, toss out some ideas, etc, not to stamp your unvalidated opinion on the thread about what you THINK is viable and unviable.
The "thread lock" part made me laugh, you're not a moderator either.
LOL, no theres no viable Frenzy build, just with Vanguard rune (now nerfed in last patch) for more %MS
Frenzy is unusable because Blizzard has made a game where you cannot stand still in one spot and deal damage as a melee character, YOU MUST BE MOVING AROUND ALWAYS ESPECIALLY AT HIGH GRs TO STAY ALIVE!!!!! Even with the Waste set that gives a very very high respectable 40% total damage reduction across the board when WWing....and in WW you are able to dodge hit boxes and move through mobs, imagine trying to stand still clipping mobs and no 40% DR.......
So there's no viable competitive Frenzy build, just more trash added in the patch to make the D3 populace think it won't be cookie cutter next patch but it alway is
I'm not sure how you come to your conclusions without much proof. There are drastic damage reductions in mobs in greater rifts; this will inevitably have an effect on alternative play styles, especially with permanent CC being neutered. While I don't think he has the optimal set up for it, I think it's silly to say at this point what is optimal and what isn't. I also don't know how you figured he meant "stand still"? Who is to say that the next Barbarian set does not have some frenzy/bash/cleave/non-WW related strengths. They're already adding something in that affects cleave.
The real reason why wastes is good is because you can damage and move at the same time without any delay; it is good damage and excellent speed. It is not about dodging hit boxes because you will not be tanking the higher tier greater rifts you're talking about unless you're perfectly geared...and even then it isn't something you can take a bunch of hits in.
There is a lot more depth and complexity to what was added this patch than possibly the entire expansion so far. Really, you need to open up your eyes and think, rather than be "that guy".
P.S. Surviving greater rifts is not about constantly moving; it is about correctly positioning yourself when the mobs come in. Speed clearing rifts is about constantly moving. This is a massive and fundamental difference.
I respectfully disagree and no matter what your post hoc comments are, it is right there in plain English. I think you need to think through and analyze a little more coherently, with a much more open mind. Adding new items is not as much of a drain as changing something that affects all of the current items. I don't think you even read thoroughly what I suggested. I wonder if this close mindedness is a product of the newly 'educated' youths that universities and colleges are producing these years. Everyone thinks they're correct 100% of the time without allowing any new ideas or thoughts to be introduced into their thinking. Makes me sad, really.
Having been involved in the development of multiple video games, I can say that your analysis of the development process is quite off. Since there definitely seems to be a problem with reading everything, I won't bore you with details you don't care to read. So, I could go on and try to point out the miscellaneous mistakes, but the conversation is very clearly not open and with that said I wish you gl on your thoughts and you'll see what is being talked about happen in the future.
Ps: I wouldn't say relatively limited development team. It is literally a limited development team by definition
I have no problem reading actually. At no point do you make a statement suggesting anything but agreement with the OP's general design idea (change the skills themselves). However the math of actually making large changes is very simple.
You have X developers who have to get Y done. If we assume they all have to work together for balance than any changes to one system need crosstalk to communicate and test for balance in all other systems. You could argue that the team working on skill balance is different form the team working on item balance (and they could be) but when it comes to actually implementing a large scale change (a complete rework of the design intent and purpose of primary skills) you not only have to get "Skill team" working on the actual rework of the skills but "Balance team" has to go and check every change made by "skill team" to make sure nothing breaks. Then since there will definitely be something broken (any change similar to the OP's suggestion is a massive net buff for builds that already use primary skills) then either "Skill team" needs to compensate by making changes to skills or "Item team" needs to address item issues.
On the other hand everything in the OP could be added through the itemization system in utility/defense item slots. "Skill team" more or less gets a pass unless "Balance team" finds a problem and the biggest difference is "Art team" has to do visuals. However there's a lot of empty real estate in the legendary item pool and that real estate can be co-opted by "Item team" during their already planned design cycles.
It's literally the difference between using an already planned cycle system and already allocated development focus and refocusing manpower on a completely new development focus. There's a huge difference in how much effort it takes to retask an ongoing effort (updating old legendaries) vs starting an entirely new rework of part of the skill system. Unless Blizz is internally looking at reworking large portions of the skill system I feel it's highly unlikely we'll see a primary skill rework. On the other hand since Blizz is already updating items with legendary affects it's much more likely they will respond to requests for new legendary effects making primary skills more fun. Hell look at the seasonal patches so far. Triumvirate, Delsere's, Omnislash, Blessed of Haull, Leonine Bow, Spirit Guards, Raiment, Depth Diggers, etc.
I'm not saying there's no benefit to be gained form working on primaries. I'm saying that there's already development time devoted to creating new legendary effects which make primary skills useful/fun. I am saying that the OP's "rework" would be just as effective as a collection of legendary affixes. And as a bonus if implemented as itemization it creates an opt-in situation (choices are healthy) as well as creating an itemization moment "I just found this set of pauldrons that does X for Y skill time to test it".
You're welcome to actually talk about my general PoV on the design process. I actually do read everything you say and think about it. Obviously far more than you think about what I say because obviously you're completely right and I'm completely wrong, why else would nothing I say have any affect on your stance.
I'm willing to change my stance if you can come up with an actually compelling reason to do so. I have yet to see such a reason.
No problem reading, eh? "Now if you think having utility on primaries would get them a slot in "spender" builds then actually suggest some utility effects (rather than free damage, which is what every one of the suggestions I read are)." Your response: oh, all the passives are just free damage because it does this which is a damage thing...." Or my personal favourite "that loh? lol means nothing" <- this point is particularly hilarious simply because 1000 LoH number could be anything (you even made a comment about this, then did a 180 in another response :/). 130% WD is practically worthless, especially at the top end. You were originally referring to the effects of the runes, the English is pretty plain here as much as you spew forth post hoc.
"You're welcome to actually talk about my general PoV on the design process. I actually do read everything you say and think about it. Obviously far more than you think about what I say because obviously you're completely right and I'm completely wrong, why else would nothing I say have any affect on your stance."
^ this is a very childish response. I have talked about your pov on the design process and it is different from the reality, which you are acting as if you know when you say: "You have X developers who have to get Y done. If we assume they all have to work together for balance than any changes to one system need crosstalk to communicate and test for balance in all other systems..." <- you talk about a process you do not know about and then oversimplify it. I just spent time explaining to you that it's different coming from someone who has worked in the industry. Then your next post is literally trying to counteract that. Obviously you're not reading, thinking and obviously no reason would compel you to do anything/think anything different unless it was your own and this is how you come off. It is not this simple. I hope you can learn this one singular point from this, since we have failed to do anything more :/ "It's literally the difference between using an already planned cycle system and already allocated development focus and refocusing manpower on a completely new development focus. There's a huge difference in how much effort it takes to retask an ongoing effort (updating old legendaries) vs starting an entirely new rework of part of the skill system." <- It is comments like these where I am amazed that someone who has never worked in the field, somehow understands the entire process without a doubt. You really amaze me with your insight into a field you've never worked, seen operating or participated in. Golly, I wish I worked in an environment where creating a game and seeing it progress was so easily changeable as you have suggested here. It's just a matter of reallocating resources, nbd! I also never once suggested an entire new rework of the system, that was what the op said. Which furthers my point about a lack of reading....
I simply don't respect the opinions of people who do not respect the opinions of others. I never once said you're completely wrong and I'm completely right, I said you're closed minded and the more you respond, the further you prove this point. You keep repeating yourself and the points show no deviation towards anything other than your own thoughts. As I said before, no reason would compel you to do anything unless it was your own and this is how you come off.
I was really hoping to come into this thread and see some interesting responses. Unfortunate, I've been put off by this thread and have probably put off others with useless ramblings and a redundant argument with no real teeth or meat. I really hope, as you grow up, that you open your mind and allow points/thoughts other than your own to come into your thinking, even if you later disagree with them.
I won't be continuing in this thread and I hope the OP can pull it back somehow. Gl to you all. T.T
0
Ahhhhh those are such good resources Baggy. Thanks ! <3
0
In Vitality to Life % calc, there's a small typo. I'm sure you can figure it out
0
The tooltip for the legendary gem is very misleading:
15% chance on hit to gain a Wreath of Lightning, dealing 1250.0% weapon damage as Lightning every second to nearby enemies for 3 seconds.
#1 does not say it is split up, but we can tell that 5 beams /1250 seems to fit 250% as does its 25% increase in damage per rank (...such a terrible scalar) quite nicely. However, it is SUPPOSED to emulate a conduit pylon, which does not split up (4000% damage) it's damage against a single target or multiple targets.
#2 I mentioned conduit pylon because the range, destructible objects, damage intervals and element are all the same. What is strange is the way it operates in both single target and multi-target that makes the gem different from a conduit pylon and ultimately, a major drag. If it was capable of dealing its single target damage to that maximum effect it would be better....even more so if it did what the tooltip actually literally states.
0
You can use bone spikes with sudden impact + APD... APD is a pretty common defensive boost for some Necro builds already. It also synergizes well with Krysbin's Sentence, defensive and offensive improvements.
0
However, the bug with EP makes it effectively worthless considering a large majority of your damage comes from SSS's interaction with EP.
0
@Bagstone I did see a graph show the drop rates of Grift keystones, somewhere. I'll try to look in my history and see if I can give it to you.
0
It is also stated in the patch notes that you can no longer receive a machine if you are not in the area of the kill.
0
@Tsesmatas, You couldn't even use the quote system properly. The solo leaderboards and the group leaderboards are completely different. Group play is nothing like solo play. I do play D3 and I have a clue and an understanding of how things work. Also, if something was a flavour of the month, it's usually because it's powerful. There's so much wrong with what you said in so few words that it's questionably worth reading :/
Please stick to reading rather than posting on here, as you clearly haven't read the rules for this forum:
Flaming
1 point - Personal Attacks. Directly attacking a/other member(s) based on their game experience, game-play style, intelligence (including "noob", "nub", and various other spellings), age, sex, post count, sitejoin date, and/or any other factor. This may include explicit cursing and profanity directed at said member(s).
Grow up, please.
1
I understand your point of view and I can see why you view it this way; but what would you do? What alternative do you propose? Either you make the materials unfarmable by bots through placing them in a higher tiered rift unattainable to most people, which effectively makes the cube pointless or you don't implement it. Personally and I know you see things differently than I on this matter, but I do not view D3 as a highly competitive game. I compete to get higher on the grift leaderboards, sure, but those people at the top are much more likely to be under the radar of Blizzard than the majority of the people using the botting programs.
Even in the sense of competition, those at the top have even less of a reason to cheat because they have to know that Blizzard has always operated this way; we saw this in WoW and SC as well. In my perspective, Blizzard would be handling class balance, cheating and a lot of other things drastically differently if they also placed a high amount of importance on the competitive scene of D3 (and I mean no offense by this). It seems more like Blizzard is trying to make it so people can have some form of steady progression outside of hoping for one item drop a day/week, now they can actually use their item drops in some meaningful way. What you're asking Blizzard to do is to sacrifice the enjoyment of the large majority of their player base for the small minority of the competitive players' scene. I don't know, really, it seems unfair.
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy climbing the ladder, but D3 doesn't feel as community, people-to-people based as it could be. I don't have a sense of attachment to the players playing as I could have, so I find other's actions not all that important to my own progress; but I don't attempt to make a living off of it as some people are doing (and I don't think that's a venture for the long-term anyway).
0
Straight from the patch notes:
As for @Demonmonger; all of those DPS classes you're talking about are getting large buffs to their ability to mitigate damage. The Mage has Archon and a much better revival passive; the Demon Hunter is getting massive LoH as well as new bracers that offer 30-35% damage reduction, etc. All classes are getting some way to handle the unavoidable/high damage nukes from champion packs in the form of skills/passives/items. You will still be able to accomplish something very similar to what we have today; it just won't be as efficient since the mobs can move.
@phuzi0n, the point is lower damage allows other playstyles to climb further. Blizzard says it is a significant reduction, you're saying 'not that drastic'. I don't know what your definition of this is, but for now I am going to respectfully side with Blizzard on this one. Even at 20% less damage, it is massively huge. I'll explain this to you in mathematical terms:
If a mob on Greater Rift XX does 20 million damage a hit on 2.2, at 20%, it now does 16 million. What does that mean? For that Barbarian you're talking about, just on the basis of those 3 damage reducing abilities (I'm assuming 4pc IK, so another 50%) and 80% armour and 80% all resistances, he receives 84,000 damage a hit and after the patch he takes he takes 67,200 damage a hit. 16,800 less damage a hit at the same level of greater rift; that is huge. This is made even more favourable by damage reducing passives, unity/items, allied benefits/damage reduction, etc. Even if we take Blizzard's wording as "significant" to mean 10%, 8,400 damage a hit less is still massive. Since it is a straight across-the-board reduction, this only becomes increasingly better for those taking hits and climbing; not the opposite as you're trying to propose with: "we climb faster so we take more damage because we've reached higher levels of rifts"; I don't think fits here. To add to this, monsters have received some dramatic changes to some affixes as well as some rift guardians. They are reducing damage, increasing the odds of avoiding damage as well as lowering the damage on monsters themselves/fixing bugs associated with this.
I'm sure it will be possible to fix the aoe problem; especially with sidearm and stalgrad, but that is not the problem. The problem is making the use of frenzy to the efficiency level of other comparable builds.
0
I already commented on that, I was responding to his comment about the leaderboards currently. In fact, i mentioned exactly the same things you did before when talking about the potential viability of alternative builds. I also mentioned how it's far too early....
However, dropping permanent CC and drastically reducing monster damage will allow for people to still pull off the grouping and pulling of mobs that they are currently doing now. The mobs just won't be so perfectly placed, which is most likely going to be offset by the 'more accurate reflection of mob kill to rift progression', that they are doing...a second time. It depends on how much damage is incoming in conjunction with how many mobs they are able to handle.
My point was addressing his incorrect notion of how the 'leaderboards' are currently operating, not how they will operate. I definitely do think there is a vast amount of area to improve upon and add to the game with this patch, as i said in this thread "more possibilities added in this patch than the entirety of the new expansion".
0
No, the leaders are grouping up large amounts of mobs and killing them. If you're referring to solo leaderboards, then it's about fishing for a rift that doesn't have an unfavourable set of mobs that will ruin your day. That's what the current leaderboard system is.. You'd be crazy to think you could just run into all your highest tiered rifts ww'ing without thought through them. That might be how you do it, but that's not how leaders do it.
0
You haven't provided a concrete reason as to why it isn't viable. Not a single reason. The OP said "seems viable" he did not say "it was definitely viable". The purpose here is to theorycraft, toss out some ideas, etc, not to stamp your unvalidated opinion on the thread about what you THINK is viable and unviable.
The "thread lock" part made me laugh, you're not a moderator either.
0
I'm not sure how you come to your conclusions without much proof. There are drastic damage reductions in mobs in greater rifts; this will inevitably have an effect on alternative play styles, especially with permanent CC being neutered. While I don't think he has the optimal set up for it, I think it's silly to say at this point what is optimal and what isn't. I also don't know how you figured he meant "stand still"? Who is to say that the next Barbarian set does not have some frenzy/bash/cleave/non-WW related strengths. They're already adding something in that affects cleave.
The real reason why wastes is good is because you can damage and move at the same time without any delay; it is good damage and excellent speed. It is not about dodging hit boxes because you will not be tanking the higher tier greater rifts you're talking about unless you're perfectly geared...and even then it isn't something you can take a bunch of hits in.
There is a lot more depth and complexity to what was added this patch than possibly the entire expansion so far. Really, you need to open up your eyes and think, rather than be "that guy".
P.S. Surviving greater rifts is not about constantly moving; it is about correctly positioning yourself when the mobs come in. Speed clearing rifts is about constantly moving. This is a massive and fundamental difference.
0
No problem reading, eh? "Now if you think having utility on primaries would get them a slot in "spender" builds then actually suggest some utility effects (rather than free damage, which is what every one of the suggestions I read are)." Your response: oh, all the passives are just free damage because it does this which is a damage thing...." Or my personal favourite "that loh? lol means nothing" <- this point is particularly hilarious simply because 1000 LoH number could be anything (you even made a comment about this, then did a 180 in another response :/). 130% WD is practically worthless, especially at the top end. You were originally referring to the effects of the runes, the English is pretty plain here as much as you spew forth post hoc.
"You're welcome to actually talk about my general PoV on the design process. I actually do read everything you say and think about it. Obviously far more than you think about what I say because obviously you're completely right and I'm completely wrong, why else would nothing I say have any affect on your stance."
^ this is a very childish response. I have talked about your pov on the design process and it is different from the reality, which you are acting as if you know when you say: "You have X developers who have to get Y done. If we assume they all have to work together for balance than any changes to one system need crosstalk to communicate and test for balance in all other systems..." <- you talk about a process you do not know about and then oversimplify it. I just spent time explaining to you that it's different coming from someone who has worked in the industry. Then your next post is literally trying to counteract that. Obviously you're not reading, thinking and obviously no reason would compel you to do anything/think anything different unless it was your own and this is how you come off. It is not this simple. I hope you can learn this one singular point from this, since we have failed to do anything more :/ "It's literally the difference between using an already planned cycle system and already allocated development focus and refocusing manpower on a completely new development focus. There's a huge difference in how much effort it takes to retask an ongoing effort (updating old legendaries) vs starting an entirely new rework of part of the skill system." <- It is comments like these where I am amazed that someone who has never worked in the field, somehow understands the entire process without a doubt. You really amaze me with your insight into a field you've never worked, seen operating or participated in. Golly, I wish I worked in an environment where creating a game and seeing it progress was so easily changeable as you have suggested here. It's just a matter of reallocating resources, nbd! I also never once suggested an entire new rework of the system, that was what the op said. Which furthers my point about a lack of reading....
I simply don't respect the opinions of people who do not respect the opinions of others. I never once said you're completely wrong and I'm completely right, I said you're closed minded and the more you respond, the further you prove this point. You keep repeating yourself and the points show no deviation towards anything other than your own thoughts. As I said before, no reason would compel you to do anything unless it was your own and this is how you come off.
I was really hoping to come into this thread and see some interesting responses. Unfortunate, I've been put off by this thread and have probably put off others with useless ramblings and a redundant argument with no real teeth or meat. I really hope, as you grow up, that you open your mind and allow points/thoughts other than your own to come into your thinking, even if you later disagree with them.
I won't be continuing in this thread and I hope the OP can pull it back somehow. Gl to you all. T.T