Get an Epic Experience with Premium
  • posted a message on Gems no longer upgrade infinitely?
    Once again Blizzard takes the easy way out. Instead of figuring out a way to make a really neat idea really shine, let's just scrap it altogether.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on Discussion: Are the devs out of touch?
    They should have made it where rares are the stat sticks and legendaries are the items that change builds and strictly stuck with this. Rares can roll significantly higher stats than legendaries, but legendaries change your build. That way each slot becomes a more meaningful choice. Do I want more stats here or do I want less stats and a gimmick? The ultimate idea is that if you just put legendaries on every slot, you suffer in stats, so you have to coordinate between rares and legendaries. Right now everyone just puts legendaries/sets everywhere and auto-salvages rares and it's kind of uninspiring.

    All stat stick legendaries need to be reworked to have some build changing idea to it -- ALL OF THEM -- DON'T EVEN LEAVE ONE. In my opinion, EVERY SKILL needs at least ONE skill changing legendary attached to it; and the idea needs to be impactful, synergistic, and build altering if at all possible. We need more sets. Every class should have 5+, **MINIMUM**. Focus on making each one like Jade, Marauders, Akkhans. Those are beautiful sets because they synergize so well with other legendaries. KEEP DOING MORE OF THAT.

    The gem changes are really disheartening to hear... I too was looking forward to them; now not so much.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on [Video] D3 2.1 PTR: Torrent-Woh Lightning Version
    Before I found a Wand of Woh I was strictly lightning, but then switched to fire to utilize the rare item I found (how could I not?). Glad I might be able to FINALLY utilize all the lightning items I accumulated playing a lightning spec and the WoW simultaneously. This is going to be fantastic.

    Question I have is does this build move away from cooldown reduction then, since Flash is 3 seconds. I can't watch the video from work, so might be better to just watch later and see if my question is answered in the video. I would assume so, since every primary stat used for CDR is not that much benefit taking it off of three seconds (since CDR is percentage based). But then again, having it be 1.5 seconds sounds awesome too.

    The biggest part I miss about lightning was mirror images + point of no return bubbles for immense crowd control. Wonder if that could be fit in somewhere. But looking at the skill list it would be a tough call.
    Posted in: Wizard: The Ancient Repositories
  • posted a message on WoW + Firebird?
    Anyone tried this out in the new PTR?

    Explosive Blast got a huge buff, and now Firebird's is also buffed. Wondering how this might fair.
    Posted in: Wizard: The Ancient Repositories
  • posted a message on Ramalandi's Gift: Counter-intuitive?
    Quote from Venaliter
    Quote from itirnitii

    I feel like it is somewhat counter-intuitive and I have some concerns. To anyone who doesn't know what this item is set to do if unchanged it will add a socket to a weapon basically for free. You get a fifth primary at no cost to the weapons other stats.

    My first concern stems from the fact that having an innate socket on a weapon will go from being the most favorable primary stat it can roll to the absolute least favorable.

    It's completely logical. You'd reroll the socket slot if you had a Gift on hand, or keep it if you didn't. If you think it's counter intuitive, Diable may not be the game for you.

    How do you not see rolling off a socket, just to add a socket as counter-intuitive?

    Yes. You can choose to just not use a gift on it at all, but it's never going to be end-game quality without five primary stats. Four primary stat items will become the new insta-soul.

    Socket is hands down the worst innate affix roll you can get if you plan on that weapon being end game quality. It doesn't exclude the item from being end game quality if the other three primary stats roll fantastically, but it still is the worst you can get as it innately offers nothing, since you can just roll it away to add a fifth primary to replace it as a new socket instantly.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on Ramalandi's Gift: Counter-intuitive?
    Right now getting an innate socket on a weapon is on par with the most desirable and useful stat you can get on a weapon. Without a socket your weapon is junk. By getting an innate socket you can enchant any other stat to whatever you want, making the likelihood of improving your weapon to grand status very favorable. A socket roll does not have a range of power (for example: damage range, damage %, or CDR % fall on a spectrum of rolls where they can roll a high value or a low value); you either have a socket or you don't, and when you do it is best in slot and that affix roll is uncontested at max potential instantaneously.

    While this new item, Ramalandi's Gift, is a great step in the right direction. I feel like it is somewhat counter-intuitive and I have some concerns. To anyone who doesn't know what this item is set to do if unchanged it will add a socket to a weapon basically for free. You get a fifth primary at no cost to the weapons other stats.

    My first concern stems from the fact that having an innate socket on a weapon will go from being the most favorable primary stat it can roll to the absolute least favorable. You will never want an innate socket on your weapon as you will just want to reroll it away and use Ramalandi's Gift to replace it for free, meaning the socket roll itself has absolutely no intrinsic value and you will wish it could have been anything but a socket so that you got more value out of that affix. You will never gain any practical use out of getting an innate socket on a weapon drop and the innate socket roll has basically been relegated to the status of completely useless.

    This will only cease being a concern if weapons with innate sockets stop rolling altogether after Ramalandi's Gift is implemented (if left unchanged), which hopefully will happen. But, this will be a complete let down for anyone who already has an amazing innate socket weapon already and can't take advantage of the fifth primary they could have instead.

    Please take note of the fact I am not voicing concerns of the idea of adding a socket to a weapon, I think it is a great idea, and it is better than what we already have. But if five primary stat weapons are going to be the new 'it' thing. It should at least be made so that weapons that already have an innate socket (and enchanted another stat as a natural result) can take advantage of this idea and not be left obsolete.

    I'm not quite sure what a solid solution would be, but would be interested in hearing people's thoughts and/or concerns.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on Wizard : Int vs CHD
    I used to try to stack CHC as high as I could at the expense of everything else, but I now just try to keep it at 50-55 since I know I will probably never have CHD at 500+. You want that 1:10 CHC:CHD golden ratio.

    CHD: weapon 130, amulet 100, ring 50, ring 50, glove 50, base 50 = 420 critical hit damage
    CHC: amulet 10, bracer 6, helm 6, ring 6, ring 6, glove 10, source 10, base 5 = 57 critical hit chance

    57:420 = 1:7.3 ratio
    If you include paragon:
    62:470 = 1:7.58 raio (which is better but still not close).

    CHC appears exclusively on a lot more items than CHD does, and when they appear together on the same item slot the 1:10 ratio is always skewed in CHC's favor. So realistically choosing CHC over CHD on any slot where you can only have one over the other I will probably pick CHD.

    For instance SOJ is a common conundrum for this problem. Elemental damage, elite damage, INT, and X. I pick CHD. If you get really lucky you can get elemental damage, elite damage, CHC, and CHD, but INT also gives you resistance so I am not sure I like that option as much, but 50 CHD is still a lot.

    If you do this you have 51 CHC to 420 CHD which is a ratio of 1:8.23
    With paragon: 56:470 = 1:8.39

    Some build play off CHC though and proc things the more CHC you have, so that would be a situation where you might ignore the ratio and go CHC instead.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on Legendary Gems - Only for Ring and Amulets?
    Quote from Draco_Draco

    The point is Shaggy, and I'll keep repeating that untill you understand:
    As long as the legendary gem is stronger than the alternative rolls on an item, there is no sacrifice included in the choise. You keep repeating "You'll have to choose", and "you will have to sacrifice". THERE IS NO CHOISE. THERE IS NO SACRIFICE.
    Just like there is no choise between getting elemental damage or not on your bracers, or sockets or not in your chest, there will be no choise in jewellery.
    If legendary gems become as powerfull as actual legendary affixes and enables stronger builds, then sockets in jewellery becomes mandatory. Where's the fun in that? Say that a ring provides you with a 10% dmg boost due to crit chance on it. Let's say a legendary gem provides a 15% boost. There is no choise, no risk, and no reward associated with picking the legendary gem. It's always going to either be a stronger choise (no sacrifice, boring) or a weaker choise (nothing changes, boring). It doesn't matter which item you pick. I just personally think it's a wasted chance to look at some of the pieces that's usually seen as more "Boring" because they don't bring any major stats to the picture (boots, shoulders, legs, chest).

    Gonna try and TL;DR this aswell to try and make sure I get the point across:

    1: If legendary gem is all-powerfull, it does not matter where you put it. It will always be the choise over anything.
    2: If 1 is true, why put it on items that already have decent affixes to pick from instead of boring ones. To give us less crit? Why? Legendary gem is stronger anyway. If crit is 10% and legendary gem is 15%, we still become stronger. Doesn't matter we lost dps one place if we gained it the other. End result is the same.





    As for your whole "they'd just replace normal gems" - so what? nothing more boring than normal gems, really. Pick up a ton, spend 9M on one, never ever lose it, and just chug all mainstat in your gear. How is chugging legendary gems in there any less fun? I really don't get it. As if it's any better to go "ILL JUST ROLL SOCKETS ON ALL MY JEWELLERY AND THROW GEMS IN THERE HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR FUN".


    Personally, I'd much, MUCH rather that they tied legendary gems to the paragon system. Allow one legendary gem to be slotted on your character anywhere you'd like per 100 paragon levels (an actual bonus rather than those derpy portraits). Progressively making the players characters stronger and unlocking builds ("well, if you want to play Derpmode V3 Turrethunter, you'll need atleast 300 paragon and these 3 legendary gems for their bonuses").

    Your attacking a point Shaggy is not making. To me, Shaggy is aware that the best stats to have on an amulet will just switch to the new criteria and his argument is not an attempt to try to refute this.

    What his argument is about is the fact that sockets on different equipment have different value. 3 sockets on a chest armor is one primary stat, while on a ring or amulet it is only 1 socket for 1 primary stat. Also, amulets primary stats are more valuable than chest armors because chest armor cannot roll elemental damage, 100% CD, and 10% CC. This is what his argument is about, and it is strictly arguing against putting these legendary gems into anything but jewelry.

    The "sacrifice" and "choice" he is talking about is not that you have to sacrifice a great stat on an amulet to instead put this gem in (which will become the new BiS for everyone). The sacrifice is that you can't just stick it into a piece of chest armor instead and only lose 1/3rd of a primary stat, which isn't even that detrimental on a piece of chest armor as opposed to an amulet to begin with.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on SOJ, Crit Chance or 45% cdr + ?
    Whatever gets you closer to a 1:10 CHC:CHD ratio is probably the right answer.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on Finally a use for all my [Adventurer's Journal]s!!! 2.4 million gold!
    I for one love that they got rid of the crafting mats, but kind of think the solution they went with was lazy. I got bored out of my fucking skull hunting aughild's mats from the matriarch's bones event over and over and over. But, just making it require no mats I think was just a quick sloppy bandaid fix that leaves much to be desired.

    Why not just have a different crafting mat for each equipment slot and then have them drop as bounty rewards from the reliquary? You could have each act have a higher chance to drop different mat types but they all have a chance to drop. You could make it torment difficulty reliquarys only as well. Or maybe as a reward for completing all 25 bounties in a single game you get to hand pick x amount of mats (maybe 1 for each torment difficulty). Might give some incentive for people to stop strictly farming act 1 bounties and ignoring all the other acts completely.

    Just a couple off the cuff ideas. I'm sure Blizzard could think of something better.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.