Taking into account that this is my own opinion, I feel that the answer isn't black or white. It seems that some devs (I don't want to play the name game) are more out of touch than others and on different issues. Addressing the four issues that irk me the most:
1. Class balance seems to be in an awkward place right now, as is the development on the classes. Crusader and Witch Doctor are in good places and seem to be getting a fair amount of attention. Barb is slowly moving forward. DH is just stuck with one build that is so much better than the rest, that it seems like the only choice above T3. I don't know what's happening with Monk. It seems as though they broke the more "exploit" laden builds, like ZDPS, but aren't sure what to promote next. At least they're trying. I won't mention Wizard, I'm just not knowledgeable enough about the mechanics.
2. Item/Set balance is also subject to a development philosophy that I don't like. Instead of developing flavour for existing vanilla legendaries, they're adding more items to water down the pool. It's a frustrating experience when you get a garbage item. Granted you get a transmog and shake it off, but it certainly falls short of the earth-shattering items we were promised with loot 2.0. As for sets, its been pointed out that adding or subtracting zeroes, although a design strategy, can sometimes seem lazy. It's evident they'd rather change slowly, than make something too strong, but it is a painful process for players who'd like to enjoy that variant (I'm thinking of the slow changes to firebird). I do however get that there have to be priorities and they've mentioned that Helltooth isn't an immediate concern.
3.Seasons/Grifts seem like poor incentives. It's been pointed out that ladder resets are a mechanism that's meant for a meta flooded with currency or with locked builds. I'd like to go beyond that a little. Seasons have superficial incentives for the most part. Sure for a completionist, the conquests might be attainable, but for a casual, the 9 or so uniques are small reward for ditching however many levels of paragon people have farmed. If additional game properties were added, it would feel like a new experience, but as it stands, its just "farm back up high enough to have access to a few uniques and some banners". Grifts, and regular rifts for that matter, need more diversity. Simply scaling hp/dmg is lazy design. With no new bosses added to the PTR and nothing else of note really, the mechanism behind them seems cool, but falls short.
4. Gems. I can appreciate legendary gems and the meticulous balancing it takes for them, so I'm not gonna complain about that. What I will mention is that the design team isn't prioritizing regular gem design. This might be symptomatic of a larger stat problem, but something really has to be done about emeralds in weapons and diamonds in helms. Gem strength is just off, with some being downright useless and others being key to builds. If at least some of the weaker gems were brought into a competitive range. For example, up ruby dmg in weapons to incentivize no/low crit builds. Another one would be to remove MF from Topazes and replace it with resource cost reduction.
All in all, to answer the question, yeah I think the devs are out of touch. It's important to understand that the bigger a company is, the less flexible and responsive it is to the community and its demands. But it is disheartening to see a potentially amazing game, coast by slowly as an okay installment. I'm also at a loss as to why they don't take more seriously the demands of the more intense T6 crowd, which arguably has more time to test out and measure game changes. It's something other ARPGs, MOBAs and RTS development teams have been doing for a long time now.
Since no changes have been announced to the proc effects, I'm gonna base my answer on current mechanics.
Furious Charge has a proc coefficient of 50% and WW has 13%, but most likely hits much more due to dual wield speed and so on.
SoH is currently insane with WW due to it proccing on attack, rather than on hit, so even your movement frames pepper the area with bolts. I'd say it comes out strongest of the three most scenarios. Though it will be less effective on Raekor's charge post 2.1. Thunderfury is currently "bugged" in that it stacks two chain lightnings on top of each other, effectively dealing its damage twice to 5 mobs, so it's really strong. Odynson will offer the 15-20% and the chainlightning. Arguably the 20-40% is the most important and will affect overall performace. It's chain lightning hits three targets, but will hit a single target three times if it's alone, so it becomes incredibly good at single target.
My preference is SoH>Odynson>TF. You can switch it around depending on rolls and your preference. Be advised, the TF proc gives a good amount of damage reduction, so it's probably more worthwhile if you're struggling defense wise.
0
1. Class balance seems to be in an awkward place right now, as is the development on the classes. Crusader and Witch Doctor are in good places and seem to be getting a fair amount of attention. Barb is slowly moving forward. DH is just stuck with one build that is so much better than the rest, that it seems like the only choice above T3. I don't know what's happening with Monk. It seems as though they broke the more "exploit" laden builds, like ZDPS, but aren't sure what to promote next. At least they're trying. I won't mention Wizard, I'm just not knowledgeable enough about the mechanics.
2. Item/Set balance is also subject to a development philosophy that I don't like. Instead of developing flavour for existing vanilla legendaries, they're adding more items to water down the pool. It's a frustrating experience when you get a garbage item. Granted you get a transmog and shake it off, but it certainly falls short of the earth-shattering items we were promised with loot 2.0. As for sets, its been pointed out that adding or subtracting zeroes, although a design strategy, can sometimes seem lazy. It's evident they'd rather change slowly, than make something too strong, but it is a painful process for players who'd like to enjoy that variant (I'm thinking of the slow changes to firebird). I do however get that there have to be priorities and they've mentioned that Helltooth isn't an immediate concern.
3.Seasons/Grifts seem like poor incentives. It's been pointed out that ladder resets are a mechanism that's meant for a meta flooded with currency or with locked builds. I'd like to go beyond that a little. Seasons have superficial incentives for the most part. Sure for a completionist, the conquests might be attainable, but for a casual, the 9 or so uniques are small reward for ditching however many levels of paragon people have farmed. If additional game properties were added, it would feel like a new experience, but as it stands, its just "farm back up high enough to have access to a few uniques and some banners". Grifts, and regular rifts for that matter, need more diversity. Simply scaling hp/dmg is lazy design. With no new bosses added to the PTR and nothing else of note really, the mechanism behind them seems cool, but falls short.
4. Gems. I can appreciate legendary gems and the meticulous balancing it takes for them, so I'm not gonna complain about that. What I will mention is that the design team isn't prioritizing regular gem design. This might be symptomatic of a larger stat problem, but something really has to be done about emeralds in weapons and diamonds in helms. Gem strength is just off, with some being downright useless and others being key to builds. If at least some of the weaker gems were brought into a competitive range. For example, up ruby dmg in weapons to incentivize no/low crit builds. Another one would be to remove MF from Topazes and replace it with resource cost reduction.
All in all, to answer the question, yeah I think the devs are out of touch. It's important to understand that the bigger a company is, the less flexible and responsive it is to the community and its demands. But it is disheartening to see a potentially amazing game, coast by slowly as an okay installment. I'm also at a loss as to why they don't take more seriously the demands of the more intense T6 crowd, which arguably has more time to test out and measure game changes. It's something other ARPGs, MOBAs and RTS development teams have been doing for a long time now.
0
0
Furious Charge has a proc coefficient of 50% and WW has 13%, but most likely hits much more due to dual wield speed and so on.
SoH is currently insane with WW due to it proccing on attack, rather than on hit, so even your movement frames pepper the area with bolts. I'd say it comes out strongest of the three most scenarios. Though it will be less effective on Raekor's charge post 2.1. Thunderfury is currently "bugged" in that it stacks two chain lightnings on top of each other, effectively dealing its damage twice to 5 mobs, so it's really strong. Odynson will offer the 15-20% and the chainlightning. Arguably the 20-40% is the most important and will affect overall performace. It's chain lightning hits three targets, but will hit a single target three times if it's alone, so it becomes incredibly good at single target.
My preference is SoH>Odynson>TF. You can switch it around depending on rolls and your preference. Be advised, the TF proc gives a good amount of damage reduction, so it's probably more worthwhile if you're struggling defense wise.