Indeed. It's truly disgusting that a well-known community member put together single article containing a list of competitive builds for each class.
Apparently.
Indeed. It's truly disgusting that a well-known community member put together single article containing a list of competitive builds for each class.
Actually I have... it just didn't turn me into a humorless scold.
Sort of... but I just can't get past the utter dissonance between the armor on the legs/arms and the spandex(?) elsewhere. I can't tell if it's a piss-take, or a glitch, or just really janky art direction. It's like they deliberately turned the biniki armor trope up to 11... but if they did, they should have gone full ham and called the set something like "Bkini's Relentless Gaze" or "Mi'driff's Triumph".
I really hope the male version is just as daft, but 100% for the lulz, not the Tumblrinas.
Sorry, I mistakenly thought that the fact that RoS helped keep (quite possibly single-handedly) ActiBlizzard in the black in Q2 was on-topic. My bad.Quote from eddietwangI love how none of these comments except for the first one are on topic.
Off topic replies will likely be head butted right off the mountain.
That is indeed the real problem, and I'm really hoping that this change is a prelude to clobbering emerald CHD silliness.Quote from Moxjet200Isn't the real problem the fact that with 2 one-handers you can get 2 emeralds vs 1 two-hander getting just one? If youre going for trifecta won't you always still want 2 one-handers?
Hodor.Quote from kevOlution11dumb.
If by 'just like politicians' you mean that they have to be very careful about what they say, because there's a large number of people who will happily distort their statements to fit an agenda, and if by 'deny deny deny', you actually mean admit to it straight away because their process for generating patch notes seems to involve a fairly coarse filter, then yeah, you're absolutely right.Quote from iPeedInMySpacesuitJust like politicians they answer a question that wasn't asked dodging the actual concern. Ninja nerfs and fixes happen all the time and they just deny deny deny.
My comment was aimed squarely at the RNG deniers... although there's also a certain level of pointlessness in asking a Blizzard dev a direct question, but that's just a side-effect of their relationship with the aforementioned dumbasses. It affects us all.Quote from vaskobgnI'm the guy who asked Josh. What's your problem with my questions?
0
They won't do it in practice, because it'd be terrible publicity... and the numlock trick is a workaround for a pretty terrible game mechanic (mashing buttons to keep a buff active).
The code-fix would be fairly simple, though. I expect it to be hotfixed from out of nowhere any time soon, and I'd like Blizzard to extend the buff duration a little to make the damn gem less onerous to use.
1
0
1
0
RNG is not RNG!
0
/yawn
1
IMO, the biggest problem currently is simply the grossly disproportionate power from certain 6-piece sets. They're a hard RNG check, and seriously obfuscate class balance issues. Personally, I think Blizzard ate a fistful of paint chips with those damn things. Variation is what makes long-term grinding fun, not chasing an RNG cock-block... that's just exhausting.
Each class should have a few 6-piece sets with good, solid bonuses for three pieces and no higher. This makes getting those bonuses easier, as 3 out of 6 is much easier than 6 out of 6, it adds flexibility, as you can mix'n'match to keep the bonuses from any given set, combine the bonuses from two different sets and use ordinary legendaries if there's not pair of 3-piece bonuses that fit your playstyle. However, as with that stupid ring, Blizzard has painted themselves into a corner that they won't be able to get out of without causing legitimate anger, not just the petulant carry-on we're seeing here.
3
Google turns up numerous cases of 7XX software failure. It's a straw man anyway. Bug-free code is possible, but it's impossible to prove it for non-trivial cases. It's also seriously expensive to develop even five-nines code, that goes triple when the target is a $60 game written for a 3rd-party OS running on a general purpose computer. Moreover, anyone who thinks that software should only be released once there are no known bugs clearly knows nothing about development, QA or project management.
1
Gosh. I hope that doesn't happen here
0
1
1. Blizzard only cares about money. Three times as much as usual.
2. Blizzard releases large content patches for a non-subscription games well past their sales peak.
Therefore we can conclude the following:
3. Blizzard can create new content for zero cost.
It therefore follows that Blizzard is not releasing nearly enough content, given that its costs them nothing. So that means they're greedy and lazy!
#totallystuckittotheman
#highfiveself
#strokeneckbeard
1
All that's changed is that YouTube and Twitch provide a much bigger platform for douchebags to be the douchebags they've always been. This isn't a fundamental change in human nature, just a fundamental change in the visibility of human nature.
All that really matters (in the modern age of online, server-side gaming) is how the authorities respond. I don't really give a crap how many idiot cheaters streamed the exploit, or how many idiot sycophants applauded them... what I care about is how Blizzard responds. I'd prefer banning, but paragon resets will do.
0
I apologize for the inconvenience.
1
/s
0