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
Your analysis is not really true/flawless, either. When you went through the classes, you're forgetting that the reason there are spenders is not because spenders themselves are extremely attractive, it is because of specific item/build choices. The reason to use primaries (in the case of Barbarians) is because Bash is a perfect candidate for FnR, the time intervals are close and it offers another source of a damage buff; for non-seasonal, it was optimal out of the remaining bad choices for a damage increase. DH's use spenders primarily for this reason, I didn't quite get that comment about spenders (or even if you meant primaries..) on DHs, unless even this comment is kept to the old DH set, exclusively. WD's tend to be more skewed towards group/buff/minion play and require cooldowns to be as low as possible (which also makes quick parsing of their gear pretty irrelevant since it will most likely change from solo to group play), which involves the use of primaries....and so on and so forth. I can pretty much counter all of those arguments, as the point of his post is about improving primaries to be of value for using them outside of secondary or tertiary reasons, much like spenders are. One of the game tips literally says "find a legendary you like and build a character around it", the problem is that a lot of skills are not good enough as a base to justify using them, even with a legendary buffing them.
The op is trying to suggest that we strengthen our primaries so that they are attractive at the early game as well as at the late game. The reason for using them is for a secondary reason A) to proc this B ) to keep this buff up C) some combination. I think your reading into the use of the word outdated is not the same thing as underperforming. When he speaks of representation, he is not referring to people outside of the top; as he has stated.
Perhaps you read up to a certain point and made your own assumptions, which is a little disappointing honestly. "rather than free damage..." ->
Plague of Toads -
Trance Healer: The Trance Healer attacks targets hit by your Mana spenders with Plague of Toads. Your Mana spenders have 1000 Life On Hit while your Fetish Assistant is active.
Unless this is expected to be used in conjunction with that loh legendary, I do not see how this is damage oriented. A lot of his suggestions centre on utility effects.
I don't think you realize how complicated 'your simple' solution is. First, Blizzard appreciates making new items with different kinds of legendary powers. On top of that, there is also the compounding of current and future legendaries. Just on these two points alone, making 'new legendaries that support skills' is not an easy task. Then there is the balancing act of playing around with each individual new item to see its potential. The amount of development time required per item for your solution is pretty substantial. Expanding the set pool to legendaries only exacerbates this problem. Blizzard is going for, as much as they possibly can, a balanced experience. You're suggesting Blizzard gives every class a steroid version of Royal Ring of Grandeur ("Start designing "flexible sets" built up from legendary parts rather than greens. Expand itemization to support more things at similar power to what currently exists."), then suggesting that this would be a simple solution. Not a very coherent or thought through response, honestly. Just for one class, this would have incredible ramifications, and for reference's sake there are six classes with access to a variety of items that buff all classes. That's an insanely difficult task to balance, especially for such a small development team. I don't see this happening anytime soon and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't happen until season 5 or later. Seriously, the suggestions the OP is mentioning are at least a possibility and are interesting. Yours are beyond the foreseeable future and really lack foresight.
I mean no disrespect, but I do not have a lot of faith in someone who makes claims about a piece they clearly didn't read, but decided to offer their analysis on said piece regardless of taking the time to read it :/
Uh... that's an interesting form of logic @same design but colour change. Have you had a chance to look at our gems? We have 19 levels of rubies, emeralds, etc all of the same design and only a colour change. Same design/colour change has nothing to do with a confusion in terms of game design, in this case. It would only carry the potential for being confusing if the item had exactly the same name, but did different things. Kind of like legacy items versus current seasonal items, of which can also be a reality; soon, we'll have multiple different kinds of legacy items with similar colours, design, but different effects. This is already a reality in Diablo 3, so perhaps you believe the game contains confusing game design currently, which would then allow for this item to be a possibility using your logic
Not sure how that's honestly 'confusing' since you can literally read it, read about it, look at the item and discern for yourself, but I guess different things confuse different people.
I'll reserve my thoughts about the legitimacy of this thread though
And yes, in a perfect world you're also assuming that every single skill you use is being modified by that elemental %. Which simply is not the case for every class, especially Barbarians, which you somehow missed!
If you read my post, I said "You're also confusing relative value versus absolute value, this is the formula's purpose that you are utilizing: 50% CHD at 50% CHC is always a 25% increase in damage as the base damage always increases by the same amount." Absolute value of elemental percentage will be lower when you're referring to people capable of reaching 500+ CHD. At 50% (or 45%, or whatever number(s) you attempt to lower it to outside of real/likely values) CHC, the point still remains, which is why I literally made that statement, not sure how you missed that and why you decided to do the same 'number crunching' again. A little redundant :/
I feel like I must reiterate a point since "my whole post is based on data that was shown at 100% crit", despite that not being the case :/ Whether it is 100% or not, the fact of that statement remains true. 20% elemental damage is not 20% damage increase. You must assume: A) all skills and all damage are of that element type (first assumption). Second: you also must assume a certain percentage of damage if A) isn't true, has to be of a certain total damage as well (you don't want to get elemental percentage dmg if you're doing something like 50/50 multi-elements, obviously). The statement that I made stands true. The statement you're making is assumption based and still, you say things like "this is the real world we don't always get what we want", but somehow forget to consider that not all skills may be of the same element. The person making assumptions about not getting what we want and having to bring our thinking back to reality, is not me :/ This is where the Barbarian point is most important: he is likely to be involved in multi-elements (lightning/physical - cota - physical DD, Rend, WW - lightning/physical). Damage spread for Barbarians most likely is not 100% on one element...so again, CHD wins.
It simply is not a correct statement to say that 20% elemental damage is better than 100% CHD at anything other than terribly to moderately geared characters. There is extra utility in choosing whatever you want, in almost every single case it is a better damage increase and perfect, real, fake, pony or whatever world you feel like referencing here or not, it's just better situationally or otherwise.
The challenge still stands, sorry. Should read what the person challenging you says so that when you respond you deserve respect. It shows when I said: "Honestly, the only time 20% is superior is when you have none of it and have already managed to reach 600% CHD at over 50% CHC, which I believe is impossible, discussing amulets in a vacuum." And you said: "your whole post is based on data that was shown at 100% chance to crit," Hell, my whole post wasn't even based off of your 'math', it was based off of your incorrect assumptions and interesting conclusions.
Yeah and you can get a much higher percentage of one stat than the other...? Relative increase of the stat (16%) in the first example provided by Liqurius, the math seems a little quirky. You do it this way= 400%*50% and somehow get 300%? 50% chance to critical for 400% damage is a x2 damage on average. The formulas are definitely off here. Going up to 500% critical hit damage is a 2.5x modifier, which is a 25% increase, not a 16.6%.
As for elemental damage, as well as the previous % from Bigbazz seem a little wonky. Not including factors is exactly why this is a problem, especially when determining damage.
However I can do the same thing as you:
100 x 1.2 = 120 (20%)
100 x 1.4 = 140 (20% increase, but 16.67% relative increase).
There are two points from this conversation. #1 is, is that elemental % damage decreases in relative value significantly faster and at two items @20% rolls. In your analysis, it takes 600% (or 550% from items) CHD to get to the same level of relative damage increase in terms of stats, which requires significantly more items. Honestly, the only time 20% is superior is when you have none of it and have already managed to reach 600% CHD at over 50% CHC, which I believe is impossible, discussing amulets in a vacuum. You're also confusing relative value versus absolute value, this is the formula's purpose that you are utilizing: 50% CHD at 50% CHC is always a 25% increase in damage as the base damage always increases by the same amount.
The point is 100% CHD on an amulet holds significantly more value than 20% on an amulet. Especially because the caps for damage statistics on amulets tends to be highest. You can get 20% on rings/other slots, but you can not get CHD at this level for this item slot. That in consideration with the fact that if you have elemental % damage, the odds are that you do not have 600% CHD, thus making it better anyway. This does not even take into consideration the fact that every single skill must be of that element type, which isn't always the same.
Say goodbye to that attack speed, say hello to Crit damage or % element bonus. I'd settle for the first nice roll you get of either, though CHD leaves you with more options, in my experience with the necks I have the % element is worth slightly more damage, within the region of about 2-3%.
It's all relative though, if you have a higher base % crit then the value of CHD increases. Not worth it for the AS though, it's just too low a value and is only even useful if it allows you to pass a certain breakpoint.
I don't know how elemental percentage is a higher damage increase. At 50% critical strike chance, 100% CHD, adds 50% damage effectively (even at half of this amount, it's still more). Whereas with ele%, the first bonus is the most significant, with more and more of it becoming less of a relative increase. I'd say primary stat isn't as good, but for amulets 100% CHD is king.
@Cope (too lazy to quote; it's late)Such anecdotal information, I'm sorry sir. First: you're looking at Hardcore numbers. I know you are, as I play Hardcore season. Secondly, you're looking at Seasons only. Sorry to tell you, but that isn't enough. This is also excluding the vast majority of games that are private. I'm sure you were saying the same kind of things when the original D3 was a couple of months in. I'm not really bothering to read your larger paragraph since I know the kind of way you argue is very uninformative, subjective, fact-and-logic lacking and dramatic.
Don't play competitive games competitively if you do not like how it requires you to play. It's that simple.
NO ONE WILLEVER EVEREVEREVER BE ABLE TO CHALLENGE THE TOP PLAYERS BECAUSE THEYLL HAVE TO TRY A WITTLE HARDER WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Sidenote; Fireball never stops being awesome
It wouldn't be an issue if it was a little harder. But as soon as all stockpiled high level greater rift keys are used up, the top spots on the leaderboard are not likely to change. Making changes mid season creates an uneven playing field, its as simple as that, I'm not trying to be dramatic.
What on earth are you talking about? So because it'l take a little longer to get to the Grift you're trying to complete, that suddenly means everyone in the top 10 has cemented their spot?
You guys are high
Let me explain to you how it worked before today's patch.
In groups of 4, it was relatively easy to get high level keystones, and these keystones were really higher then what you were really capable of, but if you got a good rift or a conduit pylon they were possible. So people would collect many high level keystones and if they got lucky in just ONE of those rifts they could rank.
Now with the change to trials, instead of starting at say a 48 for example, they now start at lets say a 43. Now they must complete around 4-5 rifts in order to get the opportunity to try a 48 in the hopes of getting a good rift/conduit. And all those 4-5 rifts must be decent in order for this to happen. This makes it A LOT harder.
And no we're not High...
"In groups of four it was easy to get...keystones higher tha*n what you were capable of." <- I think this is exactly what Blizzard is trying to stop. You're talking about them patching it during the middle of a season, yet what they're patching is people who AREN'T capable of achieving the ladder rank from doing so in this case. If you aren't capable, you shouldn't be able to do so. That simple, no point in complaining about it; find a way to do it legitimately then. Should be determined by skill, not luck and by this I mean the lower rungs of the ladder are perfectly capable of being completed/competed against without those 'well-timed' conduit pylons.
And to Copealope, this is, approximately, the third thread you've started where you've bitched about something in D3, yet have supposedly still "quit". I don't get it. If you quit, leave the game and us alone from your constantly negative commentary. Someone who posts this much about changes after the fact clearly hasn't quit. Please, also refrain from using the logic that most WoW haters/ex-players used: "majority of players have quit" "no one plays the game anymore" "game x has no players" etc. You have no facts and can't support these claims. If you're trying to make people jump off D3 with you, look elsewhere besides a FAN forum for the game you're trying to hate on. It's, sorry for my language, retarded really.
You really shouldn't be dying in t3 with 10 million toughness. I do t6 with 13 and the difference between t3 and t6 is a lot greater than 3 million. When I was progressing, I had around 7million and about 800k damage (very little %elite and %holy). I'd aim for 1million damage (including %elite damage and %elemental damage) somewhere around 600k with none of that involved and about 6-8 million toughness depending on your ability to pay attention.
At about 800k with some decent synergized gear, you can kill rift guardians in 60 seconds or so. I don't know what Shadow is saying, as this was definitely not the case for me.
Discontinued's quoute - "So your argument: Why can't I compete using a sub-optimal end game set vs optimal end game sets of other classes. Why do people think that Blizzard can perfect multiple sets for many different builds in an environment as competitive as greater rifts? There are a lot of factors to be considered outside of just raw statistics as well..
If you want to be competitive, you have to go to the best. This isn't "one build mentality" this is how every competition works for anything; sports, video games, doesn't matter. Optimality will always win out and will always be determined, that's how it goes; if you don't like it, then don't be competitive"
your missing the big picture here...first off, its NOT that hard to balance leapquake and furious charge. you wanna know how i know? because they WERE competitive with each other BEFORE they made leapquake not stack, now its just a joke. and quit defending blizzard, you think its ok that each class has only 1 build besides crusader? sure you have the option of fire charge and lightning, but guess what? fire is two times better. still just one. until people realize the major problem in this game nothing is going to change, yeah you might like your build. good for you, doesnt mean everyone does. its like when the trade centers went down, sure people in africa didnt give two shits most likely, does it mean that it was ok? people always have this well it doesnt affect ME mentality when actually it affects the whole cumminity which DOES affect you. do you have any idea how many people already quit this game for this EXACT reason? what happens when the game starts dying, and they dont make enough money next expansion because LOTS of people have quit because of things like these? they might not even MAKE a new expansion once they see they're numbers at the end of this one, how many people quit because of things like this. getting your favorite build essentially taken out of the game.look at pet doctors, they are a joke to. you think they are going to continue making expansions when they see how many people quit because of things like these? id love to hear your selfish response so go ahead. make fun of the "gear" that i dont even play anymore and gave away to a friend.
You really need to think before you post. Why do people think they know better about the potential customer/losing customer aspect of a video game more than the company itself? So incredibly silly. Honestly, I don't think you even know what their ROI is or how many customers they'll lose vs how many they'll bring back for the next expansion. I'm not defending Blizzard, I'm saying your logic is terrible. You say "one build", sure, for now. You're not a trendsetter and have yet to try anything besides "one build"; your build doesn't work at a competitive level so you complain and yet, you're unwilling to try anything else so you post on a forum about it. Quite hilarious to me. Also, if it isn't that hard, please, oh wise one, tell us how to balance them perfectly. Please feel free to give us a detailed description so that we have an accurate picture of your glorious balanced view. I want more comical material to read.
The numbers? Here are the numbers: 2.7 million copies in the first week. A combined 20 million copies altogether for D3 and RoS. RoS sold a LOT of copies; one of the few games that approaches WoW numbers in terms of retail sales....so I don't know which numbers you're talking about; please inform yourself. They might not make a new expansion? Said who? You? The only one who has made a selfish response is you. You want your build to be competitive, it's all about you and what you think, that's why you've made such outlandish comments without any real foundation for them: all I have to look at is your commentary on RoS' numbers... uneducated comment my friend. You just compared an act of terrorism to having multiple builds in a video game. That's pretty sad friend, I hope you're not American as that would be ridiculous.
I can legitimately say that the questions you're asking me you don't have an answer to: "do you have any idea how many people quit this game for this EXACT reason?" - No and neither do you. Capitalizing all of your words does not give them extra weight, credit or factual strength; all of which are non-existent here. If all of those magical people you're talking about who have quit do exactly as you have, then their next expansion will be fine. You're so in love with the game that even after you've had your fill of it, you still post about it in a childish rage on its popular forums. Blizzard's D3 franchise is doing just fine
So ive been play seasons for hundreds and hundreds of hours now, spent many nights not even sleeping. im over pargon 470 and my gear is almost all BiS. however, my damage doesnt even compete with all other classes that have even okay or started gear. im critting for about 50-70 mil which i find is a joke with BiS. other classes are hitting 4-8 times harder with my kind of gear. so i think its funny, new patch, some old 1 build per class mentality. i mean,you definitely cant compete with the damage im doing even with the best gear. i personally dont like raekor so i feel like im being forced to play at it, because at this point in the season if i remade my chracter and tried to regear, it would take me hundreds and hundreds of hours to get the same gear i have on my barb and i would have very little chance of making it high on the leaderboards when everyone else has hundreds of hours of an advantage.
i know what everyone is thinking " well then why are all the classes high on the leaderboards", 1 answer, classes like barbs have to skip 40% of the elite packs they fight, and any idiot could kill a bunch of zombies and skelotons, get an easy rift boss boom boom bang. also raekor is good for clearing trash even though they have to skip a lot of elites. and also if you look on the leaderboard yeah they're are maybe 100 barbs or so 35+ and there is over 1000 demon hunters over 35+. and thats just an example of one class, you cant just look and say hey look everyone is high on the leaderboard therefor theres balance in the game. do you really wanna know what raekor barbs do in groups? they die, over and over or they just sit there while everyone kills fiery chains and eletrify.
here is my gear, and please dont say "your not using a 2 hander" because
so anyone who is trying to gear leapquake, if your trying to compete, switch builds or classes now because you will NEVER compete as leapquake.
and i know i have a level 1 gem in my neck, was testing its damage so you can avoid bashing me on that, k thanks bye.
So your argument: Why can't I compete using a sub-optimal end game set vs optimal end game sets of other classes. Why do people think that Blizzard can perfect multiple sets for many different builds in an environment as competitive as greater rifts? There are a lot of factors to be considered outside of just raw statistics as well..
If you want to be competitive, you have to go to the best. This isn't "one build mentality" this is how every competition works for anything; sports, video games, doesn't matter. Optimality will always win out and will always be determined, that's how it goes; if you don't like it, then don't be competitive :/
The problem? One of your ring slots isn't interchangeable with anything else, one of your follower's rings is locked in as well, as is their focus/token/relic. What's the point of introducing additional legendary items such as the one that reduces cooldown by 50% of follower skills, if the only people who can use it are those who haven't reached the wall requiring them to use unity+(skeleton key/smoking thurible/enchanting favor)?
They could put out one that says "Your follower dealer 100% more damage" and people would still be stuck using "Your follower cannot die" legendary. At what point does mandatory equipment lose its fun value?
Uh.."must have items" you're complaining about rings...yet not about sets? There are so many "must haves" in this game for particular slots across all classes. You might as well be complaining about people requiring set items. The problem isn't "item implementation" the problem is that some items are just better than others for different purposes. You say "poor item implementation" I say it's nigh impossible to balance every single item to build set up.
It seems to me that you and the OP are more so complaining about the "mandatory equipment" aspect of greater rifts. Here's the problem you all are seeming to miss: greater rifts are a COMPETITION. Once the best of anything is determined and agreed upon, then that's the pigeon hole creation. Not going to go into detail about the fact that no matter how many new items or skills are introduced, this will always remain the same.
This system, to me, seems pretty clear. Season one was never meant to have a group reach level 100. I doubt season two will have someone reach 100. Season one or s1, is invariably looking like a test run and I'm sure Blizzard has mentioned something about it being their first way to analyze the difference(s) between the classes, which, no doubt, is also another way to see what to change for the next season. Why does everyone expect to be able to complete the greater rift 100 when it required some pretty obscene and ridiculous tactics to beat it while the patch was being tested? Did you all not see the amount of health normal mobs had? It wasn't even being displayed properly and I bet, it still isn't. Like I said, I don't think Blizzard intends for everyone to reach 100. I'd be surprised if anyone made it past 60.
So they havent banned the people that exploited after the realms coming back up from maintenance, gabynator hit 300 levels in 2 hours and is still on streaming on his account also several others. i guess blizzard is sending a message loud and clear, its ok to exploit. im personally quitting season 1 after this joke and maybe even the game. see i like to compete and there is ALWAYS exploits, when a game company is saying its okay to do these expoits on a leaderboard then whats the point of playing legitly? also i encourage anyone else who was playing legitly and got a huge setback by this quitting until next season, not only because your at a huge disatvantage now but so blizzard can see the drop in numbers and know its not ok that people are getting away with this.
Thats blizzards theme fix the problem and hope the damage fixes itself and people turn the other way because they dont care about anything but money, and time fixing this is money wow is different because they make money on subs.
This post tells me you don't understand a lot of things. Let's go through them/your logic:
1: doesn't ban = action ok. Blizzard bans in large waves and they don't necessarily wait for realm maintenance. They also rarely do this immediately, except for extraordinary grievances. I suppose you might consider this such a grievance, but it isn't up to us to decide that.
2: why do people bring up the money point? Blizzard has SALARIED and HIRED employees who work on this game 40 hours a week. Blizzard loses money on this game if they cannot keep people enticed long enough for the next new thing (most likely an expansion). I also don't get the comparison between WoW and any other game, quite frankly. WoW should receive the most updates and be kept in line to the greatest extent. It has a lot more at stake not only in terms of income/money for Blizzard, but also for the players who take the game in a professional sense.
3: money, again. Blizzard is a corporation. The main goal of every corporation is to increase profit. Why do people talk about this and wonder in amazement about the fact that a COMPANY is trying to earn money. Would you complain if you earned less than you wanted at your job? You're damn right you would. Would you try to maximize your wage if you could? You're also damn right you would. Why are you complaining about a company when they try to do it? Makes little sense outside of the selfish perspective.
4: money one last time. Blizzard is a company that has integrity. Despite trying to maximize profits, they have always tried to do what the player base wanted. In D3 "vanilla", people complained about the lack of progression/worried about such a thing. They made sure that Inferno was hard and getting items/upgrades was not a simple or quick task. People complained about this even though they asked for it. Blizzard then made it easier to attain items. This process has occurred and developed since the beginning of this game; with Blizzard giving in to the demands of the player base to make THEIR game as close to what the large majority of the player base wants. This transformation of their game costs them time resources and has only been accomplished because the player base wanted it. I don't get why you think Blizzard is a power-hungry, only caring-about-money company. <- not very many gaming companies survive when they take this financial-centric approach.
5: there is still plenty of time to be competitive. Paragon levels matter, sure, but they're not going to destroy higher levels of greater rifts simply because they have one hundred paragon levels more than you.
blizz will continue to dumb down their content and the proceed to wonder why people dont play as much.
welfare legendaries for everyone! who knows what for.. the game is 18+.. they shouldnt cater to all the kids playing it... if they cant handle farming, they need to go play tic tac toe for almost instant gratification.
I don't think you understand what the word "dumb" means. Reducing farming is not "dumbing down" the game, it is reducing the amount of time needed (on average) to farm a particular item. Your logic hurts my head :/ "instant gratification tic tac toe"... really? I don't think Blizzard is wondering why people don't play as much either :/
Who cares if there are "welfare legendaries"? This short sighted and quite frankly, neanderthal thinking is prevalent in WoW too. Honestly, does it matter? No matter what people get, some people aren't going to be capable of end game content at any meaningful level; no matter how much welfare comes their way. You're complaining, essentially, about Blizzard increasing the likelihood of the average player being capable of finding somewhat significant items??? If this form of logic is anything like the stuff I've experienced in my WoW days, it always came from a person who played the game a lot, but never really progressed to anything top tier :/ I'm sorry that it bothers you that people are able to get the same items as you, it makes me sad that you think like this
why would you be sorry....go hug a tree...
and lol at making you sad... seriously?
and yes.. you repeated pretty much everything i said but in a "give-me-welfare-legendaries-i-have-a-lollife-casual" way.. what was the point? where you trying to make sure, or just retyping it so you could understand it better?
reading comprehension isn't your strong suit eh? Goes along with your understanding of vocabulary :/
I don't have a "lollife casual way"; I'm ranked on both HC/SC ladders and when I played WoW, I was consistently in the top US 50 guilds for clearing. I am as competitive in video games as I am at work. I don't do or take anything casually :/ It's also why I wouldn't care about "casuals getting legendaries", much like you do...
It's people like you that make me sad about humanity. You're complaining about other people's ability to enjoy a video game. Like I said before, you're probably one of those people that plays a lot of video games, but never progresses to anything top tier :/ I said sorry because I feel sorry for you when you have a mindset like the one you've presented here.
0
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
2
@Auto
Your analysis is not really true/flawless, either. When you went through the classes, you're forgetting that the reason there are spenders is not because spenders themselves are extremely attractive, it is because of specific item/build choices. The reason to use primaries (in the case of Barbarians) is because Bash is a perfect candidate for FnR, the time intervals are close and it offers another source of a damage buff; for non-seasonal, it was optimal out of the remaining bad choices for a damage increase. DH's use spenders primarily for this reason, I didn't quite get that comment about spenders (or even if you meant primaries..) on DHs, unless even this comment is kept to the old DH set, exclusively. WD's tend to be more skewed towards group/buff/minion play and require cooldowns to be as low as possible (which also makes quick parsing of their gear pretty irrelevant since it will most likely change from solo to group play), which involves the use of primaries....and so on and so forth. I can pretty much counter all of those arguments, as the point of his post is about improving primaries to be of value for using them outside of secondary or tertiary reasons, much like spenders are. One of the game tips literally says "find a legendary you like and build a character around it", the problem is that a lot of skills are not good enough as a base to justify using them, even with a legendary buffing them.
The op is trying to suggest that we strengthen our primaries so that they are attractive at the early game as well as at the late game. The reason for using them is for a secondary reason A) to proc this B ) to keep this buff up C) some combination. I think your reading into the use of the word outdated is not the same thing as underperforming. When he speaks of representation, he is not referring to people outside of the top; as he has stated.
Perhaps you read up to a certain point and made your own assumptions, which is a little disappointing honestly. "rather than free damage..." ->
Plague of Toads -
Trance Healer: The Trance Healer attacks targets hit by your Mana spenders with Plague of Toads. Your Mana spenders have 1000 Life On Hit while your Fetish Assistant is active.
Unless this is expected to be used in conjunction with that loh legendary, I do not see how this is damage oriented. A lot of his suggestions centre on utility effects.
I don't think you realize how complicated 'your simple' solution is. First, Blizzard appreciates making new items with different kinds of legendary powers. On top of that, there is also the compounding of current and future legendaries. Just on these two points alone, making 'new legendaries that support skills' is not an easy task. Then there is the balancing act of playing around with each individual new item to see its potential. The amount of development time required per item for your solution is pretty substantial. Expanding the set pool to legendaries only exacerbates this problem. Blizzard is going for, as much as they possibly can, a balanced experience. You're suggesting Blizzard gives every class a steroid version of Royal Ring of Grandeur ("Start designing "flexible sets" built up from legendary parts rather than greens. Expand itemization to support more things at similar power to what currently exists."), then suggesting that this would be a simple solution. Not a very coherent or thought through response, honestly. Just for one class, this would have incredible ramifications, and for reference's sake there are six classes with access to a variety of items that buff all classes. That's an insanely difficult task to balance, especially for such a small development team. I don't see this happening anytime soon and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't happen until season 5 or later. Seriously, the suggestions the OP is mentioning are at least a possibility and are interesting. Yours are beyond the foreseeable future and really lack foresight.
I mean no disrespect, but I do not have a lot of faith in someone who makes claims about a piece they clearly didn't read, but decided to offer their analysis on said piece regardless of taking the time to read it :/
0
@Javier
Uh... that's an interesting form of logic @same design but colour change. Have you had a chance to look at our gems? We have 19 levels of rubies, emeralds, etc all of the same design and only a colour change. Same design/colour change has nothing to do with a confusion in terms of game design, in this case. It would only carry the potential for being confusing if the item had exactly the same name, but did different things. Kind of like legacy items versus current seasonal items, of which can also be a reality; soon, we'll have multiple different kinds of legacy items with similar colours, design, but different effects. This is already a reality in Diablo 3, so perhaps you believe the game contains confusing game design currently, which would then allow for this item to be a possibility using your logic
Not sure how that's honestly 'confusing' since you can literally read it, read about it, look at the item and discern for yourself, but I guess different things confuse different people.
I'll reserve my thoughts about the legitimacy of this thread though
0
And yes, in a perfect world you're also assuming that every single skill you use is being modified by that elemental %. Which simply is not the case for every class, especially Barbarians, which you somehow missed!
If you read my post, I said "You're also confusing relative value versus absolute value, this is the formula's purpose that you are utilizing: 50% CHD at 50% CHC is always a 25% increase in damage as the base damage always increases by the same amount." Absolute value of elemental percentage will be lower when you're referring to people capable of reaching 500+ CHD. At 50% (or 45%, or whatever number(s) you attempt to lower it to outside of real/likely values) CHC, the point still remains, which is why I literally made that statement, not sure how you missed that and why you decided to do the same 'number crunching' again. A little redundant :/
I feel like I must reiterate a point since "my whole post is based on data that was shown at 100% crit", despite that not being the case :/ Whether it is 100% or not, the fact of that statement remains true. 20% elemental damage is not 20% damage increase. You must assume: A) all skills and all damage are of that element type (first assumption). Second: you also must assume a certain percentage of damage if A) isn't true, has to be of a certain total damage as well (you don't want to get elemental percentage dmg if you're doing something like 50/50 multi-elements, obviously). The statement that I made stands true. The statement you're making is assumption based and still, you say things like "this is the real world we don't always get what we want", but somehow forget to consider that not all skills may be of the same element. The person making assumptions about not getting what we want and having to bring our thinking back to reality, is not me :/ This is where the Barbarian point is most important: he is likely to be involved in multi-elements (lightning/physical - cota - physical DD, Rend, WW - lightning/physical). Damage spread for Barbarians most likely is not 100% on one element...so again, CHD wins.
It simply is not a correct statement to say that 20% elemental damage is better than 100% CHD at anything other than terribly to moderately geared characters. There is extra utility in choosing whatever you want, in almost every single case it is a better damage increase and perfect, real, fake, pony or whatever world you feel like referencing here or not, it's just better situationally or otherwise.
The challenge still stands, sorry. Should read what the person challenging you says so that when you respond you deserve respect. It shows when I said: "Honestly, the only time 20% is superior is when you have none of it and have already managed to reach 600% CHD at over 50% CHC, which I believe is impossible, discussing amulets in a vacuum." And you said: "your whole post is based on data that was shown at 100% chance to crit," Hell, my whole post wasn't even based off of your 'math', it was based off of your incorrect assumptions and interesting conclusions.
0
Yeah and you can get a much higher percentage of one stat than the other...? Relative increase of the stat (16%) in the first example provided by Liqurius, the math seems a little quirky. You do it this way= 400%*50% and somehow get 300%? 50% chance to critical for 400% damage is a x2 damage on average. The formulas are definitely off here. Going up to 500% critical hit damage is a 2.5x modifier, which is a 25% increase, not a 16.6%.
As for elemental damage, as well as the previous % from Bigbazz seem a little wonky. Not including factors is exactly why this is a problem, especially when determining damage.
However I can do the same thing as you:
100 x 1.2 = 120 (20%)
100 x 1.4 = 140 (20% increase, but 16.67% relative increase).
There are two points from this conversation. #1 is, is that elemental % damage decreases in relative value significantly faster and at two items @20% rolls. In your analysis, it takes 600% (or 550% from items) CHD to get to the same level of relative damage increase in terms of stats, which requires significantly more items. Honestly, the only time 20% is superior is when you have none of it and have already managed to reach 600% CHD at over 50% CHC, which I believe is impossible, discussing amulets in a vacuum. You're also confusing relative value versus absolute value, this is the formula's purpose that you are utilizing: 50% CHD at 50% CHC is always a 25% increase in damage as the base damage always increases by the same amount.
The point is 100% CHD on an amulet holds significantly more value than 20% on an amulet. Especially because the caps for damage statistics on amulets tends to be highest. You can get 20% on rings/other slots, but you can not get CHD at this level for this item slot. That in consideration with the fact that if you have elemental % damage, the odds are that you do not have 600% CHD, thus making it better anyway. This does not even take into consideration the fact that every single skill must be of that element type, which isn't always the same.
0
I don't know how elemental percentage is a higher damage increase. At 50% critical strike chance, 100% CHD, adds 50% damage effectively (even at half of this amount, it's still more). Whereas with ele%, the first bonus is the most significant, with more and more of it becoming less of a relative increase. I'd say primary stat isn't as good, but for amulets 100% CHD is king.
0
Don't play competitive games competitively if you do not like how it requires you to play. It's that simple.
1
And to Copealope, this is, approximately, the third thread you've started where you've bitched about something in D3, yet have supposedly still "quit". I don't get it. If you quit, leave the game and us alone from your constantly negative commentary. Someone who posts this much about changes after the fact clearly hasn't quit. Please, also refrain from using the logic that most WoW haters/ex-players used: "majority of players have quit" "no one plays the game anymore" "game x has no players" etc. You have no facts and can't support these claims. If you're trying to make people jump off D3 with you, look elsewhere besides a FAN forum for the game you're trying to hate on. It's, sorry for my language, retarded really.
0
At about 800k with some decent synergized gear, you can kill rift guardians in 60 seconds or so. I don't know what Shadow is saying, as this was definitely not the case for me.
1
0
The numbers? Here are the numbers: 2.7 million copies in the first week. A combined 20 million copies altogether for D3 and RoS. RoS sold a LOT of copies; one of the few games that approaches WoW numbers in terms of retail sales....so I don't know which numbers you're talking about; please inform yourself. They might not make a new expansion? Said who? You? The only one who has made a selfish response is you. You want your build to be competitive, it's all about you and what you think, that's why you've made such outlandish comments without any real foundation for them: all I have to look at is your commentary on RoS' numbers... uneducated comment my friend. You just compared an act of terrorism to having multiple builds in a video game. That's pretty sad friend, I hope you're not American as that would be ridiculous.
I can legitimately say that the questions you're asking me you don't have an answer to: "do you have any idea how many people quit this game for this EXACT reason?" - No and neither do you. Capitalizing all of your words does not give them extra weight, credit or factual strength; all of which are non-existent here. If all of those magical people you're talking about who have quit do exactly as you have, then their next expansion will be fine. You're so in love with the game that even after you've had your fill of it, you still post about it in a childish rage on its popular forums. Blizzard's D3 franchise is doing just fine
0
If you want to be competitive, you have to go to the best. This isn't "one build mentality" this is how every competition works for anything; sports, video games, doesn't matter. Optimality will always win out and will always be determined, that's how it goes; if you don't like it, then don't be competitive :/
0
It seems to me that you and the OP are more so complaining about the "mandatory equipment" aspect of greater rifts. Here's the problem you all are seeming to miss: greater rifts are a COMPETITION. Once the best of anything is determined and agreed upon, then that's the pigeon hole creation. Not going to go into detail about the fact that no matter how many new items or skills are introduced, this will always remain the same.
This system, to me, seems pretty clear. Season one was never meant to have a group reach level 100. I doubt season two will have someone reach 100. Season one or s1, is invariably looking like a test run and I'm sure Blizzard has mentioned something about it being their first way to analyze the difference(s) between the classes, which, no doubt, is also another way to see what to change for the next season. Why does everyone expect to be able to complete the greater rift 100 when it required some pretty obscene and ridiculous tactics to beat it while the patch was being tested? Did you all not see the amount of health normal mobs had? It wasn't even being displayed properly and I bet, it still isn't. Like I said, I don't think Blizzard intends for everyone to reach 100. I'd be surprised if anyone made it past 60.
1
1: doesn't ban = action ok. Blizzard bans in large waves and they don't necessarily wait for realm maintenance. They also rarely do this immediately, except for extraordinary grievances. I suppose you might consider this such a grievance, but it isn't up to us to decide that.
2: why do people bring up the money point? Blizzard has SALARIED and HIRED employees who work on this game 40 hours a week. Blizzard loses money on this game if they cannot keep people enticed long enough for the next new thing (most likely an expansion). I also don't get the comparison between WoW and any other game, quite frankly. WoW should receive the most updates and be kept in line to the greatest extent. It has a lot more at stake not only in terms of income/money for Blizzard, but also for the players who take the game in a professional sense.
3: money, again. Blizzard is a corporation. The main goal of every corporation is to increase profit. Why do people talk about this and wonder in amazement about the fact that a COMPANY is trying to earn money. Would you complain if you earned less than you wanted at your job? You're damn right you would. Would you try to maximize your wage if you could? You're also damn right you would. Why are you complaining about a company when they try to do it? Makes little sense outside of the selfish perspective.
4: money one last time. Blizzard is a company that has integrity. Despite trying to maximize profits, they have always tried to do what the player base wanted. In D3 "vanilla", people complained about the lack of progression/worried about such a thing. They made sure that Inferno was hard and getting items/upgrades was not a simple or quick task. People complained about this even though they asked for it. Blizzard then made it easier to attain items. This process has occurred and developed since the beginning of this game; with Blizzard giving in to the demands of the player base to make THEIR game as close to what the large majority of the player base wants. This transformation of their game costs them time resources and has only been accomplished because the player base wanted it. I don't get why you think Blizzard is a power-hungry, only caring-about-money company. <- not very many gaming companies survive when they take this financial-centric approach.
5: there is still plenty of time to be competitive. Paragon levels matter, sure, but they're not going to destroy higher levels of greater rifts simply because they have one hundred paragon levels more than you.
2
I don't have a "lollife casual way"; I'm ranked on both HC/SC ladders and when I played WoW, I was consistently in the top US 50 guilds for clearing. I am as competitive in video games as I am at work. I don't do or take anything casually :/ It's also why I wouldn't care about "casuals getting legendaries", much like you do...
It's people like you that make me sad about humanity. You're complaining about other people's ability to enjoy a video game. Like I said before, you're probably one of those people that plays a lot of video games, but never progresses to anything top tier :/ I said sorry because I feel sorry for you when you have a mindset like the one you've presented here.