I personally think they hit the Natalya's "balance" quite right on with the "bugged" disc regen - it seems like the kind of level of power they'd want a legendary to give. I would not be surprised if Natalya's is not changed at all, because as is, it is almost impossible to pass up.
Oh how I wish I knew the answer to this. A few days ago I found a Nat's Mark with Crit Damage and a high Dex roll. Similar ones have currently been selling at upwards of 150m gold. So..
Do I sell it now or hold out and risk the depreciation?!..
I have to say I think the value will go down. One of the reasons it's so high is it's an actual pretty good ring by itself, but if you want the 4 piece bonus and not use the shitty nats weapon, you need the ring. My guess would be that they are going to at least buff the weapon with nats, as probably the chest and helm as well, making the ring less needed. I personally want the ring so i can use my good weapon, but if they buff the weapon then I'll have no need for nats mark because I've got way better rings in terms of crit chance / crit dmg/ ias / and so on.
The old nat set could either become priceless or total junk. If they do become priceless then expect some AH baron to buy them all up the moment the moment that the news gets out. With low ilvl weapons being able to roll higher, and legendaries being buffed, I think the bubble is going to pop and it will be a lot easier to get nice gear. The nat's 4pc may remain unique, but even if it does then I don't think the gap between nat's and other gear will be as big as it is now. I wouldn't be surprised if the new set has some form of discipline regen to prevent nat's from becoming priceless.
I have to say I think the value will go down. One of the reasons it's so high is it's an actual pretty good ring by itself, but if you want the 4 piece bonus and not use the shitty nats weapon, you need the ring. My guess would be that they are going to at least buff the weapon with nats, as probably the chest and helm as well, making the ring less needed. I personally want the ring so i can use my good weapon, but if they buff the weapon then I'll have no need for nats mark because I've got way better rings in terms of crit chance / crit dmg/ ias / and so on.
The thing is, they really don't have to buff the helm or chest stat-wise for them to be "powerfull", because they dip into the 7% crit 130 dex bonus that using 3 pieces of the set gets.
While you can get 200 dex on chest, 200 on helm, 6% crit on helm, the best I've seen nat's do is 167 dex on chest, 153 dex on helm and 4% crit - which means that it falls 80 dex, 2% crit short.
However, boots also fall about 130 dex short of the max possible, so that's 210 dex, 2% crit.
The set bonus gives you 130 dex, 7% crit - which means you're trading off 80 dex for 5% crit. Which in most cases would be beneficial.
That leaves the ring, which will *always* roll 75+ dex, 6% IAS. On top of that, it HAS the ability to roll both crit chance and crit damage. Which means that while a perfect rare can beat a perfect natalya's mark (can't roll 9% IAS, haven't seen crit dmg over 27, havent seen crit chance over 3.5), the mark is already incredibly strong. Especially as it then unlocks +2 disc regen on top of its potential stats.
New Set Names - As set bonuses won’t interact between pre-1.0.4 and post-1.0.4 sets, the new Sets will have new names, as well as new individual pieces, to prevent confusion. What i really want to know is : does it mean that they gonna change natalya set bonuses and if i have 3 pieces now and i will get new Nat Mark after 1.0.4 realese it wont work as 4th set piece for my +2disc bonus?
There won't be a "new nat's mark," there will be a completely new set with new bonuses. The old sets will no longer drop.
The overall stats are much better, but 2 discipline/second has gone bye-bye. Buy your Nat's mark now! >.> <.<
Now, I am unsure where this user got access to these 'datamined patch notes', so take this with a MASSIVE GRAIN OF SALT, but on the chance it is true, then it could certainly mean that Natalya's Mark, and even the older set might get a value bump come the patch. Of course, that is IF this true, and again, unless a source is provided, take with a BIG grain of salt.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Do I sell it now or hold out and risk the depreciation?!..
That is the million dollar question!..
The thing is, they really don't have to buff the helm or chest stat-wise for them to be "powerfull", because they dip into the 7% crit 130 dex bonus that using 3 pieces of the set gets.
While you can get 200 dex on chest, 200 on helm, 6% crit on helm, the best I've seen nat's do is 167 dex on chest, 153 dex on helm and 4% crit - which means that it falls 80 dex, 2% crit short.
However, boots also fall about 130 dex short of the max possible, so that's 210 dex, 2% crit.
The set bonus gives you 130 dex, 7% crit - which means you're trading off 80 dex for 5% crit. Which in most cases would be beneficial.
That leaves the ring, which will *always* roll 75+ dex, 6% IAS. On top of that, it HAS the ability to roll both crit chance and crit damage. Which means that while a perfect rare can beat a perfect natalya's mark (can't roll 9% IAS, haven't seen crit dmg over 27, havent seen crit chance over 3.5), the mark is already incredibly strong. Especially as it then unlocks +2 disc regen on top of its potential stats.
profile: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/vanboon-1499/hero/3962228
http://i.imgur.com/8AfIp.jpg 4/4pc natalyza dps: 73k (w/o ss), dex: 1967, health: 22k, resist: ~150, mf: 90%/261%
Datamined patch notes are out, Nat's 1.0.4 set is nerfed:
Ring: Unchanged
Set Bonuses:
7% Crit Chance
170 Dex
15% IAS
The overall stats are much better, but 2 discipline/second has gone bye-bye. Buy your Nat's mark now! >.> <.<
Now, I am unsure where this user got access to these 'datamined patch notes', so take this with a MASSIVE GRAIN OF SALT, but on the chance it is true, then it could certainly mean that Natalya's Mark, and even the older set might get a value bump come the patch. Of course, that is IF this true, and again, unless a source is provided, take with a BIG grain of salt.