im surprised it took blizzard a week to fix it, it was reported multiple times
but about mannercookie yea i know he was exploiting and streaming it but he i dont think the ban was necessary. If you actually watched his stream he was testing how fast someone could get full ancient gear he even made a new toon so it wouldnt affect what he is actually playing. He kept all the mats and everything he gained from that exploit on that toon and once he had his fun he was going to delete it. its not like he was doing it to get perfect gear to push grifts or anything like the rest of them were.
- Deckard_Pain1
- Registered User
-
Member for 10 years, 6 months, and 14 days
Last active Tue, Feb, 2 2016 10:50:43
- 0 Followers
- 7 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
Apr 17, 2015zabandy posted a message on Mannercookie banned!Posted in: Barbarian: Bastion's Keep
-
4
Wakeman posted a message on New fetishes model!Posted in: Witch Doctor: The Mbwiru EikuraThe latest PTR patch notes mentioned FS now due damage according to the highest element of the WD, which is what a lot of us had been asking for for a long time! Great that Blizz finally listened to that suggestion!
However, there is also a little surprise that was not mentioned in the patch notes: they also changed the model of the fetishes (both FS and FA) for different elements!
See here => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2IH6uokq5o
Really nice little bonus to pet doctors! Thanks Blizzard! =D -
5
Joking101 posted a message on Solo 47+ 2.2.0 Patch 3 Hungering Arrow build (updated).Posted in: Demon Hunter: The DreadlandsAs of PTR 2.2.0 Patch 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTM7jr4xQvsUpdated video. This is a 47 solo, in which I spend 1 minute and 45 seconds dead, still complete the grift under time, and the boss takes about ~21 seconds to kill. This is just establishing proof that if I get a fantastic grift and don't die, this build could probably push 50 solo. As it is, I'm having trouble getting keystones that high to try running that level, so I can't farm grifts as much as I'd please.
-
2
igorkrnic posted a message on 1-2 hours and we have our FIRST world paragon 1000I am paragon 585, my friends are way lower, and I am ashamed of my paragon level because that is a proof of me "no-life"-ing too much.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
I would not brag with level 1000 in my life -
7
baabayaga posted a message on 1-2 hours and we have our FIRST world paragon 1000Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
Call it whatever you want buddy. Using a bug or exploit grants you 0 respect. Only scrutiny.Quote from MeatHeadMikhail
Quote from Gark the great
why would anyone be jelly of someone getting plevel 1000 lol (meatheadmikhail) comeon on man use common sense even alkaizer said it was pointless and a waste of time to try and race to 1000 it require no skill and is bad for your health, in the next patch seasons you can't use your normal character you start from scratch.
If this was hardcore I would actually be impressed but it is not.
It's all jealousy. PS. Not everyone will be playing seasons, and I doubt most will do so exclusively. I'll definitely play, but it'll probably be 25% seasons 75% non. When you're high enough paragon the game becomes trivial and starting from scratch just to get some meh legendaries 2-3 months earlier isn't that enticing for some people.
The rage is coming from jealousy. Yes, we all ran with him and helped him, but to be fair he played 20 hours/day for a long time. I don't know how he did it.Quote from dezien
its cool, and i dont see why the rage is coming, well its the internet. My only problem is it feels like gaby is selling it as his awesomeness carried him to 1k while it was his clan members. :/ Its more like your clan reached 1k and not him.
So the fact someone broke 1k is cool, although not even half as big of a deal as 800, breaking 800 is historical, breaking 1k is just fun.
Same how breaking 100 was historical in d3v and getting "1000" 10x100 was a fun fact.
What's the point of trolling?Quote from Vaestmannaeyjar
What's the point of giving advertising clicks to a bot user ?
Yup. Like thousands of other players. And guess what - it was a 'bug' that Blizzard knew about, and left in the game for MONTHS when it would have taken a programmer maybe a day to reduce the XP he granted. Don't hate the players, hate the game. Jelly.Quote from Coldfire989
So you all ran the Meth exploit together as a clan? yay? -
3
Malcanthet posted a message on 1-2 hours and we have our FIRST world paragon 1000Historical?Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
Jay Wilson leaving D3 dev. team is a historical moment. -
3
Malcanthet posted a message on 1-2 hours and we have our FIRST world paragon 1000So we are basically forbidden to discuss his method?Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion -
4
sweeperd3 posted a message on Big Rabid Zombie Dog Sycophants Build. Rabid Dog Killing T6 Ghom 7 secs (videos).Hi, just showing the potential of big zombie dog. Is really powerful now, can open up to many builds.Posted in: Witch Doctor: The Mbwiru Eikura
UPDATE: I have tested with 3 elemental big zombie dogs, the results are amazing!
Big Rabid Dog Killing T6 Ghom in 7 seconds and discovered his Damage Potential.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5wZyJumXNc
UPDATE: Big Rabid Zombie Dog Sycophants Build Full T6 Rift Run 10mins.
Put Big Rabid Zombie Dog Damage Potential into build.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJGbJedR3hs
UPDATE: Reaper of Souls 57 secs T6 Malthael Killed by Big Rabid Zombie Dog.
Big Rabid Zombie Dog Single Target DPS Potential.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT7vwHgRftY
========================================================
Big Rabid Zombie Dog Sycophants Build and gear Setup (poison)
Skills build:
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/calculator/witch-doctor#lWYUQT!WVdR!cYacbY
Gear setup:
http://i.imgur.com/59Bvsba.jpg
======================================================== -
2
shaggy posted a message on The Elephant In The Room ; SocketsSockets in weapons are completely imbalanced because no other roll competes with +135% CHD. I really expected them to, at the very least, nerf emeralds in weapons, but they didn't and that was a mistake.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
The availability of three sockets in chests is also problematic because that represents something like 840 in primary stats, well more than the item could roll on its own. Whereas with rings/amulets, sockets are almost always a BAD roll because one socket is worth less than a primary stat roll.
So long a socket (or multiple sockets) are mathematically-better than the alternatives, then you have a problem. As it stands I pray for sockets in weapons, legs, and chests and I hope never to see them on rings/amulets.
I agree with Jay that if we could just add a socket to an item that it would feel like nothing more than a "mandatory" step in item progression, but frankly I see that as less of an evil than sockets either being outright mandatory or outright useless. At least if sockets were an ADDITION (instead of a primary stat SUBSTITUTION) I might feel more inclined not to throw primary stat in every socket out there. When a socket takes a primary stat you feel almost forced (outside of HC) to turn it directly into damage. If it were a bonus we might be a bit more able to use them for actual customization. Maybe not. It can't be any worse than it is now though. -
3
ruksak posted a message on The Elephant In The Room ; SocketsSince day 1 that D3 vanilla launched, sockets have been a problem. A luxury. A mandatory presence in gearing for every slot in which a socket is available.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
For nearly 2 years we wanted a way to add sockets. Now we have that ability. Awesome. Right?
Let's examine the socket. What it is. What it does and how it affects character building in a critical manner.
Critical Hit Damage is still too strong and predominant. Mandatory on weapons in most cases. This means that 1 of your very limited primary affixes MUST be a socket on your weapon.
Why is a socket an affix? Well, you can customize it with a variety of affixes garnered from gems, "adding" an affix to an item. The word "adding" is often used here, and the whole premise of sockets is sold to us via the impression that we're "adding" an affix. We are not adding an affix, however. When we socket an item, we're removing an affix and replacing it with another.
Addition through subtraction, we're getting too much of this for the sake of balance. Balance is necessary, but we're constricting itemization terribly, suffocating it by making yet another affix mandatory. We have enough of that already.
I submit that the developers are using sockets incorrectly. That sockets should NOT be an affix.Sockets should be exclusive to affixes, making it so that when we do add a socket we're actually adding an affix as opposed to replacing one, as we are now.
I cannot see a solution beyond the one I'm proposing that would actually make sockets not problematic yet mandatory, aside from jst removing them altogether. My solution doesn't relieve the socket of it's typical "mandatory" impression. However, my suggestion does make sockets non-problematic. Nothing need be taken away, eliminating addition through subtraction in this case.
Another possibility would be reckoning the socket affix as secondary.
Thoughts? - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1