ok, when you say there is no higher chance of gobs etc. after the RG you're absolutely right.
But, clearing till RG will most likely always happen in the first level of the rift, (in an average say 3 level rift)
So then I'm saying the 2 levels you're not clearing are more likely to contain a gobpack then if you'd only have cleared the first till RG
just my thoughts, I do both full clears as till RG depends on what I feel like at that moment.
Except that the new area you clear in the new rift is just as likely to have a gob pack as the second area you clear after you've killed the guardian. There's no benefit in gobpacks / levels run to clearing the rift and the 30s "penalty" is always worth more legendaries that finishing the rift unless every time you opt out you're missing a pack. Which obviously isn't true.
You'll encounter essentially the same gobs/time opening new rifts as clearing finished rifts.
You are ALWAYS losing out on legends/time when you choose to finish a rift over opening a new one assuming averages are average (they usually are). You're only gaining a greater payout per resource spent.
Edit: That isn't saying that you HAVE to reset. .4 legends per hour @ 12 rifts per hour obviously isn't a big deal unless you're playing for hours and hours at a time.
I think it's incredibly difficult to do "math" here. If you close rifts immediately you can probably do 20 rifts per hour, if you clear them probably rather 5-8 (numbers might be off but let's assume you clear 3-4x more rifts when closing than when clearing). In the end you get roughly 1200-1500 more blood shards from the RG, but you'll also have 6-7 minutes more "idle time" (the 30 seconds wait after the RG is dead). Getting more goblins if you full clear is just a myth/anecdotal evidence, so let's forget about this, so you'll almost certain that you get more blood shards when closing. But is it really worth it?
Closing vs. clearing should not be a question of blood shards in the first place, but rather:
1) Do I want trial keys or not?
2) Do I have excess of rift key fragments or am I always running short?
3) Last but not least, a matter of preference.
For me it's rather strange: I have the feeling that clearing nets me more legendaries - however, I just don't want to clear. I always need trial keys; I have hundreds of rift key fragments (one hour of normal split bounties with 4 Danetta DHs will grant you 100-150 rift key fragments); and most importantly, I have this feeling of "closure" when the RG is dead, just want to leave the rift. We sometimes clear the map if it's an open space (Dahlgur, Desolate, Cemetery, Blood Marsh), but otherwise I prefer to close.
The "math" on gambling is relatively simple. If you clear a rift in 4.5 minutes and therefore do 12 rifts an hour with "clearing" legend rate of 12 legends an hour @T6 assuming every gambling event is worth .133 legendaries (10% chance on 1.5 items per event) then each 30 second interval you spend at Kadala is worth an effective 16 legends/hour. You cleared for 54 minutes (~10.8 legends) and gambled for 6 minutes (~1.6 legends) netting you an extra .4 legends. The faster you clear the rift (assuming legend rate per clear is constant) the more "bonus" legends you net on average.
GRs are way betetr overall for legends of course. And a select few maps have particularly high goblin density (Dahlgur, Fields) and are worth the time investiture to finish. Overall though the faster you are at clearing the worse a full clear is worth assuming the monsters/guardian ratio is on average constant.
Fully clearing rifts is only for conserving keystones.
@T6 1 Rift = 100 shards = 4 Armor / 1.33 Other = .4/.133 Legends of (type) @10% legend chance per gamble action
For clearing a riuft completely to be better at dropping legends than closing and gambling the legends/rift rate has to be greater than .133, which is in general close to true (most rifts drop at least 1 legend). However for getting a specific legend the droprate of (type) must be greater than .133, which is by no stretch of the imagination true (you do not get enough legends/rift for any given item type to occur 14% of the time in any given rift @T6).
Finally the consideration but be made for legends / time. No matter how fast you clear your legends / time from killing enemies remains the same (at last check 6-10 an hour). However the faster you clear a rift the greater the number of kadala legends you will obtain. If you clear a T6 rift in 4 minutes you get 15 rifts an hour or an average minimum 2 legendaries an hour of a targeted type. Combined with 6 triel keys an hour (each worth ~6 legends obtainable in 30 minutes in my experience)
Basically full clearing a rift is almost exclusively a loss in efficiency of progression.
The answer is better resource management tools. I kinda like the way Sweep+Bash plays on Roland's so maybe a buff to Golden Flense and/or some rollback on Drakon's / new shield at a later date. IMO the Roland's set itself is fine. It suffers the same problem all things Crusader have (crap resource management, unclear design, weak or non-existent non-weapon support legends)
Admittedly it would be REALLY nice for a third set that offers a medium between the two we have. Other classes have 3+ class specific sets by now and Crusader's still sitting at 2.5.
One day people will actually think about the effect RoRG has on sets, and think about the effect reducing set piece requirements would have.
Reducing the number of set pieces required to achieve set bonuses reduces the number of potential item loadouts available to players. Furthermore it homogenizes item loadouts and marginalizes the relative power of set items vs legendary items with regards to a build's total effect.
We do not need smaller sets. We need more legendaries in competition with sets. You can;t have diversity if you're not making choices.
And since this is apparently a super difficult concept: Limiting flexibility increases the number of choices a player must make, and also causes those choices to have a more visible effect.
Oh absolutely agreed, if items stayed the same the only thing what I proposed would offer is even less choice, because there's pretty obvious items for each slot that would end up being mandatory.
The reason I suggested all this in the first place is because I'm trying to look ahead, to patch 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, 3.4, ect and ect. We're going to eventually have all these legendaries, and still be stuck with limited options because of the limited slots.
How different would your example be if all those items you listed had 2-3 other items that were equal in power for those slots? Suddenly there's a lot of nice setups that *should* (in a perfect world) compete with each other.
And the 3p sets will still have fewer total options than the 6psets because you're taking larger subsets of the total pool. Item competition isn't just one way. The example doesn't change significantly. It takes a lot of potential competing items before the game starts to favor smaller sets, but the negative impacts of smaller sets start immediately.
In the far-far future? Maybe you get some extra "outfits" by having fewer pieces to hit set bonuses, but you're still essentially removing the opt-in cost.
Here's an example in the far far future -
Standard 6p slots
3 Competing legends in each slot
6p set - 19 set permutations and 729 legendary permutations (a set counts for "5" legendaries in power, ideally using 6 legendaries in place of set items should allow for effectiveness similar to using a set, we cannot project perfectly because at this juncture we don't even have competing legends in single slots)
3p set - Two options
1) 162 set permutations (3p set significantly more powerful than 3 more legendaries)
2) 162 set permutations, 729 legendary permutations (likely overestimate, set items significantly nerfed)
Now Blizz is unlikely to change the raw power of a set. If we look at the raw power available in legends right now you can see that if we had actual synergy between legendary items the items could more or less take the place of a set. In your best case scenario Sets have to be much weaker than they currently are to achieve additional balanced permutations of gear, which will also reduce the mechanical concision of set bonuses (by moving power elsewhere). In your worst case scenario you get a bunch of extra permutations of gear but they have the same pitfalls of current sets
eg
Choosing items
AAA
BBB
CCC
ABC
BCA
CAB
AAB
AAC
BBC
BBA
Etc where most permutations involve overlap similar to that experienced by the worst case 6p scenario. That is to say that your best case scenario makes sets less desirable and your worst case scenario provides a trivial effective options increase. You're trading one set of "locked items" for another really.
So ask yourself, do you want more power with similar choice matrices? Or do you want the same power with more choices but marginalized returns on those choices? Or do you think you can live with the current system where your best case scenario results in all the choice of the 3p best case AND the raw power loaded into a set to go along with mechanical clarity.
Sets are already extremely easy to get. It took me about 12 hours from level 1 to get my full Monk set, and I was playing solo. Reducing the amount needed only speeds up that process by a couple days at most with casual players, and that won't impact a thing in a months-long season.
I also have to disagree with the last thing you said. You seem to be inferring that because of the limited slots at the moment, there's somehow more diversity? And you're saying there will be LESS diversity if more slots are open? How does that work? At the moment because of the so few slots, there's one set of items, sets and legendaries alike, that are by and far better than any other choices. Will opening up more slots suddenly solve that? Probably not completely, but we as players will have a greater freedom in choosing what we want to use, and that's exactly what I'm trying to get at.
When I say easier to get I'm not talking about time to find. I'm talking about how much you "give up" for the set effects.
As for diverity: Diversity is about providing multiple competing options. Right now is not a very good representation of diversity because of current itemization pitfalls (lack of competing options for any given class). What you need to understand is that limiting flexibility has a net positive increase on player choice.
Let's look at Zunimassa. For the sake of argument we'll pretend that Zuni has a normal slot spread (Gloves/Helm/Chest/Pants/Boots/Pauldrons) because it needs to in order to accurately represent diversity.
In the current (6p) design if Zuni has "normal" slot requirements you have to make a choice.
TnT
MoJ
PTR Fetish Pants
TMF
LMF
You can have one. Or you can have two rings. Or you can have none of the above if you like. If we pretend (for the sake of argument) that options are balanced and any given one of those choices is "correct" then you have like 6 options when you wear zuni with the same relative effectiveness, and each one will favor slightly different stats or supporting skills. Not super different, but different enough that you'll be seeing different animations or numbers of pets.
Now let's drop it to a 3p requirement. You can now have all the things. You just dropped 6 options down to 1. Now of course given enough time there could be competing legendary items in those slots which would increase choice pallette but either way you have fewer choices to make with the lower set requirements.
In a perfectly executed system restricting player flexibility will therefore increase choices made by the player. The problem isn't that you have to dog-ear 6 pieces toward completing a set. It's that the best sets have absolutely no competition from legendaries OR other sets. That's what's constraining you.
And of course. Just reducing the set requirements to 3p will just make the current best sets better and worst sets worse. You won't be solving anything, only exacerbating the problem.
But removal of RoRG and reduction of set item requirements by 1 in "compensation" IS power creep. Very significant power creep at that.
So is reduction in set number drastically, even if you say sets are exclusive.
Okay I see what you mean by that; if my system were to be placed in, the power of every class across the board would rise because of all the new combinations. Whiiiich admittedly would be one downside, but something that could also be remedied by more number crunching when it comes to Greater Rifts.
I was commenting more on how after the initial burst of new combinations of items (and possibly some OP ones), the introduction of more legendaries down the road combined with the ~3 more open slots to play around with won't eventually lead to everyone being able to infinitely beat greater rifts, it would stabilize such as it is now, and we wouldn't see continual power creep.
It will also significantly homogenize set gearing. The fact that sets are so restrictive allows for more potential build diversity than if the sets are less restrictive.
There's a problem with competitive balance of items in slots more than anything else. Sure it would be fun to have 3+ more legend affixes to go with your sets, but it'll also make sets less special, easier to get, and most importantly will mean there are fewer limiters on what items you can use in combination which will result in a greater number of builds that are doing "everything".
woooo more requests to have all the things at once without needing to make any trades.
While I guess I can't argue with you that I AM trying to gain 'more things', I'd like to think it's in the interest of having more fun with D3. Currently having half of our gear slots spoken for before we even make the character, simply because they ARE BiS and have no competition isn't, in my own opinion, 'fun'. For me it's turned into "Collect your class set in the first few hours of the season, then spend the next couple of weeks farming for the weapon you really want" The Game.
But hey if I'm in the small minority of people here who sees this as a problem, that's okay with me it's not like I'm going to quit the game. I would just love to be able to say to myself while playing "Okay, I found my set and it takes up 3 slots. Now, what items do I want to use in the other 9-10 slots that can really make this build unique?"
The alternative is to have non-set item combinations that are competitive with sets. It's healthier for game itemization and avoids power creep.
There's nothing preventing sets and legendaries to inhabit different itemization niches. We just need a lot more legendary affixes in more slots in orer for the competition to really become possible.
In other words: Reducing the "opt-in" to having fewer setpieces to achieve current levels of power will cause power creep as more legendary effects get added to the game or existing sets get updated. You're right that too many items are spoken for, so what we REALLY need is more options as to what is BiS for our builds, and the solution to that is more different items not ways to equip more existing items.
Still Akkarat is going to be stronger, at least until a moment when those two sets can be combined.190% of armor + cc immunity in one button is unbeatable since Rolands isn't solving main issue which is surviveability,and i am shure that Akkarat setup can use those "defence skills" with same effectivnes as Rolands with new set bonus, because of high CDR involved.
Iron Skin outright thrashes AC in terms of raw DR since the scaling on AC is essentially linear while Iron Skin is multiplicative. Permanent Bravery is partywide CC immunity. If you can achieve permanent time stop...
Akkhan's even with significant CDR won't achieve permanent Iron Skin without hosing damage since it requires a minimum 77% CDR. It can get permanent offensive laws. Permanent Bravery would require ~75% CDR, so you're not getting that (last I checked bravery was at 8 second duration after Long Arm because lying game is lying). Permanent Time Stop flat out can't happen.
So no. AC cannot use those defensive skills to anywhere near the effectiveness of Roland's. And Roland's using Sweep/Bash is going to crush the DPS of AC against single targets and small groups. AC will keep its better skill flexibility and extra cheat death.
Basically Akkhan's for support builds / AoE builds, Roland's for bosskillers.
it's ~50% uptime, but unity does not work if they are summoned by the set anyway.
And it was more of a fun idea...with 4 people running the full set + arcstone rings you would have atleast one set "active" and therefore create something like a net of pulses...IF(!) it works with ashearas
According to the legendary mechanics thread it does work, and the information seems correct. It does cap to how much damage reduction it can give though, which is probably where you get the impression that it doesn't work. You'd need the full bevy of Asheara's for it to work as more than token DR in a group if you have unities everywhere anyway.
I know from last season that when my asheara's procced my unity turned on.
0
Except that the new area you clear in the new rift is just as likely to have a gob pack as the second area you clear after you've killed the guardian. There's no benefit in gobpacks / levels run to clearing the rift and the 30s "penalty" is always worth more legendaries that finishing the rift unless every time you opt out you're missing a pack. Which obviously isn't true.
You'll encounter essentially the same gobs/time opening new rifts as clearing finished rifts.
You are ALWAYS losing out on legends/time when you choose to finish a rift over opening a new one assuming averages are average (they usually are). You're only gaining a greater payout per resource spent.
Edit: That isn't saying that you HAVE to reset. .4 legends per hour @ 12 rifts per hour obviously isn't a big deal unless you're playing for hours and hours at a time.
0
The "math" on gambling is relatively simple. If you clear a rift in 4.5 minutes and therefore do 12 rifts an hour with "clearing" legend rate of 12 legends an hour @T6 assuming every gambling event is worth .133 legendaries (10% chance on 1.5 items per event) then each 30 second interval you spend at Kadala is worth an effective 16 legends/hour. You cleared for 54 minutes (~10.8 legends) and gambled for 6 minutes (~1.6 legends) netting you an extra .4 legends. The faster you clear the rift (assuming legend rate per clear is constant) the more "bonus" legends you net on average.
GRs are way betetr overall for legends of course. And a select few maps have particularly high goblin density (Dahlgur, Fields) and are worth the time investiture to finish. Overall though the faster you are at clearing the worse a full clear is worth assuming the monsters/guardian ratio is on average constant.
Fully clearing rifts is only for conserving keystones.
0
@T6 1 Rift = 100 shards = 4 Armor / 1.33 Other = .4/.133 Legends of (type) @10% legend chance per gamble action
For clearing a riuft completely to be better at dropping legends than closing and gambling the legends/rift rate has to be greater than .133, which is in general close to true (most rifts drop at least 1 legend). However for getting a specific legend the droprate of (type) must be greater than .133, which is by no stretch of the imagination true (you do not get enough legends/rift for any given item type to occur 14% of the time in any given rift @T6).
Finally the consideration but be made for legends / time. No matter how fast you clear your legends / time from killing enemies remains the same (at last check 6-10 an hour). However the faster you clear a rift the greater the number of kadala legends you will obtain. If you clear a T6 rift in 4 minutes you get 15 rifts an hour or an average minimum 2 legendaries an hour of a targeted type. Combined with 6 triel keys an hour (each worth ~6 legends obtainable in 30 minutes in my experience)
Basically full clearing a rift is almost exclusively a loss in efficiency of progression.
0
The answer is better resource management tools. I kinda like the way Sweep+Bash plays on Roland's so maybe a buff to Golden Flense and/or some rollback on Drakon's / new shield at a later date. IMO the Roland's set itself is fine. It suffers the same problem all things Crusader have (crap resource management, unclear design, weak or non-existent non-weapon support legends)
Admittedly it would be REALLY nice for a third set that offers a medium between the two we have. Other classes have 3+ class specific sets by now and Crusader's still sitting at 2.5.
0
You obviously don;t understand the sentence construction.
1
One word: No.
0
One day people will actually think about the effect RoRG has on sets, and think about the effect reducing set piece requirements would have.
Reducing the number of set pieces required to achieve set bonuses reduces the number of potential item loadouts available to players. Furthermore it homogenizes item loadouts and marginalizes the relative power of set items vs legendary items with regards to a build's total effect.
We do not need smaller sets. We need more legendaries in competition with sets. You can;t have diversity if you're not making choices.
And since this is apparently a super difficult concept: Limiting flexibility increases the number of choices a player must make, and also causes those choices to have a more visible effect.
0
And the 3p sets will still have fewer total options than the 6psets because you're taking larger subsets of the total pool. Item competition isn't just one way. The example doesn't change significantly. It takes a lot of potential competing items before the game starts to favor smaller sets, but the negative impacts of smaller sets start immediately.
In the far-far future? Maybe you get some extra "outfits" by having fewer pieces to hit set bonuses, but you're still essentially removing the opt-in cost.
Here's an example in the far far future -
Standard 6p slots
3 Competing legends in each slot
6p set - 19 set permutations and 729 legendary permutations (a set counts for "5" legendaries in power, ideally using 6 legendaries in place of set items should allow for effectiveness similar to using a set, we cannot project perfectly because at this juncture we don't even have competing legends in single slots)
3p set - Two options
1) 162 set permutations (3p set significantly more powerful than 3 more legendaries)
2) 162 set permutations, 729 legendary permutations (likely overestimate, set items significantly nerfed)
Now Blizz is unlikely to change the raw power of a set. If we look at the raw power available in legends right now you can see that if we had actual synergy between legendary items the items could more or less take the place of a set. In your best case scenario Sets have to be much weaker than they currently are to achieve additional balanced permutations of gear, which will also reduce the mechanical concision of set bonuses (by moving power elsewhere). In your worst case scenario you get a bunch of extra permutations of gear but they have the same pitfalls of current sets
eg
Choosing items
AAA
BBB
CCC
ABC
BCA
CAB
AAB
AAC
BBC
BBA
Etc where most permutations involve overlap similar to that experienced by the worst case 6p scenario. That is to say that your best case scenario makes sets less desirable and your worst case scenario provides a trivial effective options increase. You're trading one set of "locked items" for another really.
So ask yourself, do you want more power with similar choice matrices? Or do you want the same power with more choices but marginalized returns on those choices? Or do you think you can live with the current system where your best case scenario results in all the choice of the 3p best case AND the raw power loaded into a set to go along with mechanical clarity.
0
[quote=Bleu42;/members/48712-bleu42]
Sets are already extremely easy to get. It took me about 12 hours from level 1 to get my full Monk set, and I was playing solo. Reducing the amount needed only speeds up that process by a couple days at most with casual players, and that won't impact a thing in a months-long season.
I also have to disagree with the last thing you said. You seem to be inferring that because of the limited slots at the moment, there's somehow more diversity? And you're saying there will be LESS diversity if more slots are open? How does that work? At the moment because of the so few slots, there's one set of items, sets and legendaries alike, that are by and far better than any other choices. Will opening up more slots suddenly solve that? Probably not completely, but we as players will have a greater freedom in choosing what we want to use, and that's exactly what I'm trying to get at.
When I say easier to get I'm not talking about time to find. I'm talking about how much you "give up" for the set effects.
As for diverity: Diversity is about providing multiple competing options. Right now is not a very good representation of diversity because of current itemization pitfalls (lack of competing options for any given class). What you need to understand is that limiting flexibility has a net positive increase on player choice.
Let's look at Zunimassa. For the sake of argument we'll pretend that Zuni has a normal slot spread (Gloves/Helm/Chest/Pants/Boots/Pauldrons) because it needs to in order to accurately represent diversity.
In the current (6p) design if Zuni has "normal" slot requirements you have to make a choice.
TnT
MoJ
PTR Fetish Pants
TMF
LMF
You can have one. Or you can have two rings. Or you can have none of the above if you like. If we pretend (for the sake of argument) that options are balanced and any given one of those choices is "correct" then you have like 6 options when you wear zuni with the same relative effectiveness, and each one will favor slightly different stats or supporting skills. Not super different, but different enough that you'll be seeing different animations or numbers of pets.
Now let's drop it to a 3p requirement. You can now have all the things. You just dropped 6 options down to 1. Now of course given enough time there could be competing legendary items in those slots which would increase choice pallette but either way you have fewer choices to make with the lower set requirements.
In a perfectly executed system restricting player flexibility will therefore increase choices made by the player. The problem isn't that you have to dog-ear 6 pieces toward completing a set. It's that the best sets have absolutely no competition from legendaries OR other sets. That's what's constraining you.
And of course. Just reducing the set requirements to 3p will just make the current best sets better and worst sets worse. You won't be solving anything, only exacerbating the problem.
0
It will also significantly homogenize set gearing. The fact that sets are so restrictive allows for more potential build diversity than if the sets are less restrictive.
There's a problem with competitive balance of items in slots more than anything else. Sure it would be fun to have 3+ more legend affixes to go with your sets, but it'll also make sets less special, easier to get, and most importantly will mean there are fewer limiters on what items you can use in combination which will result in a greater number of builds that are doing "everything".
0
But removal of RoRG and reduction of set item requirements by 1 in "compensation" IS power creep. Very significant power creep at that.
So is reduction in set number drastically, even if you say sets are exclusive.
0
The alternative is to have non-set item combinations that are competitive with sets. It's healthier for game itemization and avoids power creep.
There's nothing preventing sets and legendaries to inhabit different itemization niches. We just need a lot more legendary affixes in more slots in orer for the competition to really become possible.
In other words: Reducing the "opt-in" to having fewer setpieces to achieve current levels of power will cause power creep as more legendary effects get added to the game or existing sets get updated. You're right that too many items are spoken for, so what we REALLY need is more options as to what is BiS for our builds, and the solution to that is more different items not ways to equip more existing items.
eg - time
0
woooo more requests to have all the things at once without needing to make any trades.
0
Iron Skin outright thrashes AC in terms of raw DR since the scaling on AC is essentially linear while Iron Skin is multiplicative. Permanent Bravery is partywide CC immunity. If you can achieve permanent time stop...
Akkhan's even with significant CDR won't achieve permanent Iron Skin without hosing damage since it requires a minimum 77% CDR. It can get permanent offensive laws. Permanent Bravery would require ~75% CDR, so you're not getting that (last I checked bravery was at 8 second duration after Long Arm because lying game is lying). Permanent Time Stop flat out can't happen.
So no. AC cannot use those defensive skills to anywhere near the effectiveness of Roland's. And Roland's using Sweep/Bash is going to crush the DPS of AC against single targets and small groups. AC will keep its better skill flexibility and extra cheat death.
Basically Akkhan's for support builds / AoE builds, Roland's for bosskillers.
0
According to the legendary mechanics thread it does work, and the information seems correct. It does cap to how much damage reduction it can give though, which is probably where you get the impression that it doesn't work. You'd need the full bevy of Asheara's for it to work as more than token DR in a group if you have unities everywhere anyway.
I know from last season that when my asheara's procced my unity turned on.