DiabloFans

Bagstone, I dont disagree with any of that. Truth is I find I spend most of my time now doing T6 rifts since my gems are leveled but usually for a few hours a day when all the people I normally run high rifts with are on, we'll do efficient high runs which are better for exp. And that's all my point was.

There's nothing to brag about. If you have a good group capable of clearing the lower 40s without fail, then its more efficient exp wise. Gear wise, arguable, but the amount of exp you gain on the higher rifts is enormous. You dont have to clear that quickly as long as you can clear in the allotted time.

Put it this way, on rifts 44-46 or so, I gain about 3/4 of a bar of exp. That comes out to about 1.5b exp in less than 15mins (usually 13-14mins).

T6 speed rifts you gain about 300m in about a 4-5 min run.

I realize not everyone has the optimal group composition for higher rifts (if you want to know what optimal is look at the leaderboards for 4man teams, its no secret), but if you do it is more efficient.

With an optimized group, exp and gear grind is more efficient on 40 ish rifts. We still do fast split t6 rifts, which is fastest for shards, but not the most optimal for exp and gear.

Quote from Xeppit

but zeis depends on the position of my sentry right ? and rasalgethi could you explain me it bane just gives me 16,7 % with steady aim ?

Bane's 20% gets added to Steady Aim's 20% bringing it to 40%.

Say for example you do 100 damage. Steady aim will bring you to 120 damage (100x 1.2 = 120). Bane's + Steady aim will bring yo to 140 damage (100x 1.4 = 140). Going from 120 damage to 140 damage is a 16.7% increase (140/120= 16.7). Thats why people say they're additive. If they had their own multiplicatively cateogry (like Zei's does) then it would be 100x 1.2(steady aim)x 1.2(bane) = 172, much higher but its not this way for bane.

It's the same for elemental damage.

Quote from Jalatiphra

zeis, because zeis is multiplicative and powerfull is additive.

that decision is really a nobrainer

That's a little misleading. Powerful is still multiplicative, its just first additive with any other source of % damage you already have (like steady aim). So say you already have steady aim's 20%, that means powerful 20% is actually only giving you 16.7% more damage (1.4/1.2).

Sentries dont proc anything. So, no.

Quote from silvach

Quote from TrueColdkil

Well, not taking the defense of the OP (kudos for completing that GR) but this basically shows how once reached high levels gear and build starts to matter progressively less (you get oneshot no matter what, you need to cheese/immune mechanics) and what makes the run doable is getting the right density/mob type composition coupled with high and sustained aoe damage.

The lighting build presented is effective because of this; he got the right GR where the build shines and can make the difference, though any other composition would have made the run not succeed, independently from the build used.

Gratz on completing GR45. Anyway more thanks go to zombie packs than to the actual build.

EDIT: the lag spikes caused by the build alo are a big let down to me. Though it sounds really fun and i'm going to try it if i manage to get everything needed.

People doing rifts with help of conduits - other says 'More thanks to the conduits, do this without pylon!'
Someone does this without pylon - other says 'More thanks to the density, you try this on EMPTY grift'.
Someone will do this on not-so-great-density GRift and Saxtis - other will say 'More thanks to the broken set M6, you try this without it'.
Someone will do this naked, after descending 25 levels due to low density of the mobs - other will say 'More thanks to the paragon level, try this without paragon levels'
Someone will do this naked, after descending 25 levels, with fresh lvl70 - other will say 'More thanks to the game mechanics, try to do this without using the game mechanics'.
Someone will uninstall the game to make others happy, other will say 'Good for you newb, go exploit somhwere else'.


Jelly will stay jelly.

LOL, some truth to this. Grats to the op. I gotta try this build out.

The Bop is common so its not that bad of a decision to gamble one. I'd also suggest playing a different build until you get one, it just isnt efficient without it.

Armor and resists are treated exactly the same way in damage mitigation calculations. They stack multiplicatively, so whatever you have less of will do more for you. If you're a str or dex class, you already have high natural armor, so obviously resists is the way to go. The opposite is true of int classes.

Too many layers of RNG.

Map layout - open maps without dead ends as opposed to linear maps are generally better as it allows you to gather and pull more mobs which is more efficient.

Density - self explanatory.

Mob type - the progression given by mob types are just not balanced right now. Some mobs which are easy to kill give you more progress then they should, while some mobs which are difficult to kill (angels) dont give you enough.

Pylons - the particular problematic one is conduit. On higher tiers, the only way to really get good times is to save the conduit for the rift guardian.


I'm ok with randomness but the randomness shouldn't swing your times by more than 10%. It's suppose to be a competition, not fishing for the perfect rift.

A stream for big boys. Yet you write like a 10 year old.

No thanks.

Quote from maka

Quote from riptide

Quote from maka

Why are you not considering that they might just fiddle with the % of damage reflected? I think that's a possible solution.

Because it's worse than a flat dmg as a solution.

We already know they don't want any 1 shot mechanics, at the very least on normal elites, and that they are focusing on more constant dmg(than we even have now) and less burst. They aren't going to make it so reflect dmg can turn on and you kill yourself a % dmg will certainly do that.

That would make it so early on when you're gearing up, it's a free mod that may as well not be there. Meanwhile when you're at the gear ceiling, you 1 shot yourself. So what they would have to do is impose more rules to make that solution work. That seems like more work for little gain.

Besides a flat dmg increase makes your character feel more powerful as it gets gear. Instead of the % which makes you feel weaker and goes against the whole idea of the game. The only way you can outgear a scaling percentage of incoming dmg is to have a scaling percentage of incoming healing. Which they don't want anymore.

So, it's a problem that the % reflected is a free mod when you're gearing up, but it's not a problem that the flat damage becomes a free mod when you're geared?
Yeah, no contradiction there.

Also, I don't 1-shot myself anymore on RD, so, if you do, maybe you should rethink your character.

In the situation behind "% vs. flat damage" what needs to be ultimately accomplished is having it be difficult when you're starting off and not well geared, but then when you become better geared it is less difficult but still somewhat difficult. When comparing these two scenarios, we have to ignore life steal, because in RoS that won't be able to be counted on so readily to counterbalance the incoming reflected damage.

To me, flat damage is a lot easier for Blizzard to manipulate because it takes one variable out of the equation: DPS. All they have to do is look at EHP when determining a flat value returned to your character as damage. All they have to do is consider these extremes: (1) what damage a character with low EHP would take and (2) what damage a character with high EHP would take and pick an appropriate flat damage rate to return. Because there's only the variable of EHP they can easily pick a flat value that is punishing no matter what your EHP, but different degrees of punishing based off that EHP. They can easily pick a flat value that is neither overwhelming or negligible.

When calculating a percent of damage you throw in that extra variable which concerns the character's DPS. What would a character (1) with low DPS and low EHP (2) with low DPS and high EHP (3) with high DPS and low EHP (4) with high DPS and high EHP. Factoring in DPS creates a more compelling mechanic concept, but it also creates possible imbalances if not done properly. Note that I am not saying it can't be done or that it shouldn't be done, I just think it is a lot more difficult for Blizzard to balance.

So the question lies really in whether or not Reflect Damage should be a mod that punishes high DPS/low EHP but is more or less ignored by low DPS/high EHP, or should it just return a flat value that is easier to balance and punishes low EHP more than high EHP but is difficult no matter what. I think both individually are possible it just depends on how Blizzard wants Reflect Damage to ultimately work as a game mechanic, but to me they are mutually exclusive and can't work in tandem. One gives us a more compelling dynamic that can be extremely punishing or completely negligible while the other is easier to balance and if done properly will always be different degrees of punishing.

I personally like the flat damage choice, because I find dying to one mechanic based on gear choices to be pretty excessive. It doesn't feel good to be to have to stack EHP just because I might run into one affix when otherwise if I never saw it I would have been fine without the extra EHP. I don't think one affix should hold that much individual power to influence gear choice. But it should also be noted that reflect damage pulses so maybe it is fair to have it be that punishing since you shouldn't be attacking when it is triggered? That's really up to Blizzard to decide if that is to be the deciding factor. But then again, I don't like the idea of it being negligible either by just stacking enough EHP in comparison to your individual DPS. A flat damage return would be easier balanced to not cause that to happen.

I can try, but I'm no expert either. Which one did you want? Here's the first one I saw.
http://i.imgur.com/eVJI6Gc.jpg?1
the other two
http://i.imgur.com/80YXDSJ.jpg?1
http://i.imgur.com/7Elpery.jpg

They don't look too bad to me, except one of them where the arms were cropped out (since they went all the way to each side of the image), at least they look ok on my computer screen.

Quote from maka

I never said he was playing it wrong.

Yeah, errmmm it wasn't really directed at YOU, although I can see why you might think it was. It's just a rash of "If you don't play <this way> then you're playing Diablo wrong" posts lately have REALLY irritated me. See the above post as an example.

Does it make people feel better about themselves to say shit like that? I've played self-found for quite a while now and I've never felt the need to bash people who trade or use the AH. It's not that difficult to be semi-respectful of the fact that others don't necessarily play the game the same way as you do. Yet that basic bit of common courtesy seems to be completely lost of late and I don't get it.

https://www.youtube....6p2jS170yvZXewg

http://www.reddit.co...eta_soundtrack/

Sounds awesome Kudos to the sources on this

Quote from riptide

Except you would need further details to justify your opposing thought. You're essentially saying there's a curve in the road up ahead that nobody has travelled yet, meanwhile the previous 1000 miles were straight.

No, that's actually NOT what he's saying.

He's saying, that MATHEMATICALLY, if you extend the current paragon curve out to 500, 750, 1000 it starts spitting out numbers that are completely unable to be grinded, even by robots, even if they multiplied the XP on monsters by 100. You end up needing 1.51 QUADRILLION XP to get from 1 to 500 if you simply extend the curve.

Do you have any idea how long it would take a 24/7/365 bot to grind that? Even if you gave credit for 11 billion XP for 1-100 ten times over (110 billion XP) that wouldn't even make a dent in it. It would be like spitting into the ocean.

Logic dictates that the current curve cannot simply be extended because it produces numbers that are wildly unattainable even around pLvl 300-350. And we have a reasonable guess that there will be approximately 800 paragon points that can be spent and then after that it's just ePeen. If getting to 350 is mathematically unlikely that kinda makes the whole system a bit stupid.

It has nothing to do with being guilty until proven innocent. We can extrapolate based on current circumstances to understand exactly how it will play out. And when you do that you find things that just don't pass the "smell test."

Quote from witchdoctorcrulx

Overall, the SNS build doesn't do more dmg though since tornadoes don't have impact damage, I shoulda specified my point better. You're right, WW does proc SA better, but liquefy/SA/Shards/EB does more overall damage than SNS, granted you can comfortably cast more meteors without running out of AP, my bad I think I was tunnel visioning my reasoning.

I should probably make a video because it's not easy to explain without the hardcore theorycrafting done on the numbers, but the result is there.

I have a couple issues with those statements. First, Meteor doesn't do more damage than SNS in general. In sustained fights against single targets, SNS > Meteor, even if you could sustain meteor against single target. For short fights, Meteor can beat out SNS because of the burst damage of meteor.

Against elites, SNS > meteor if you can hit everything with each WW.

Where meteor gets ahead of SNS is the aoe potential against trash mobs because meteor has around 2x the radius as WW, roughly speaking. Also, if you can kill trash mobs fairly fast, then the burst damage of meteor can outweigh the damage of SNS because of the windup associated with SNS.

Otherwise, SNS > meteor in general. The math backs it up if you just look at the damage per WW cast + SA procs vs meteor cast with SA procs. That doesn't include the potential for extra DS and EB procs from WW, which further pushes it ahead of meteor in a lot of situations. The math gets more complicated once you start comparing say 4 WW mobs hit vs 5 hit with meteor, which is where trash mobs come into play.

IMO most of the reason to use meteor is because it's a cool spell and is fun to play with. If you're trying to make the most versatile, most efficient farming build, then it likely won't quite hold up to SNS, but I will concede that it's still viable with the right gear.

Quote from Indimix

Popular, numbers, AH, economy.. since when those things defined how good or bad a game is?, tip: they never did.

You asked for numbers, and your only retort is that?

Your whole argument was based on numbers (numbers that you didn't have) to prove that so many people quit D3. Then when it's stated that D3 actually has really good customer retention at the one-year mark by a 3rd party you shrink back on ... it not mattering?

So if it doesn't matter that renders your whole initial "everyone quit the game" statement completely invalid too.

But it does matter. Because there are MILLIONS of people enjoying the game in some capacity right now. How is that not an indication that the game isn't good, or enjoyable? Are you seriously saying that millions of people are playing a game that they don't actually find fun?

What it comes down to is that you don't find the game enjoyable and that's completely your perogative. But don't be so crass as to insinuate that the huge number of people who are still playing it somehow don't know how to assess what they find enjoyable and that they don't matter.

We do matter. We matter because the fact that we still play disproves EVERYTHING that's been force-fed to us by people like you for the past year. That the game is horrible, that it's dead. I read one post on the official forums claiming there weren't even 500,000 people left in July of 2012. How wrong you and your ilk were. We matter because we're not going to take it and we're not going to have our forums held hostage by someone who only cares about facts if they support his opinion and dismisses all other facts as somehow insignificant.

Three million of us aren't insignificant. Deal with it. The community has spoken. The customer retention numbers are very much above-average. Clearly the game isn't nearly as bad as you claim it is. Needs some work? Sure. I can't think of a single game that came out-of-the-box without some flaws. But the degree to which you go about how bad it is... well it's completely unwarranted.

You're not any "truer" of a fan than anyone else. Get over yourself.

Quote from knightofthorns

Blizzard tried to make a safer game environment, and they get blamed for it.

You're trying to talk sense to someone who has no intention of being sensical. Yes, the players asked for it. Yes, Blizzard gave it to us. But, you have to remember in troll land you can still blame Blizzard for anything you want to.

Quote from itirnitii

Uh. I was on your side bro. You did see the first sentence of my post right? You know, the one where I said I agreed with you? Jesus Christ.

I'll try to be a bit more obvious with my sarcasm next time!

Quote from Indimix

Show me the source of those 3 millions unique logins per month.

It was from a GDC presentation by Jay Wilson entitled "Shout at the Devil: The Making of Diablo III." They featured it on the front of this site. Here's a 3rd party link: http://www.slashgear...a-day-01275994/

Quote from itirnitii

For goodness sakes, its popular enough that the best items in the game costs hundreds of dollars (and people pay it), it can't be THAT unpopular.

Keep that shit outta here. It doesn't fit the "nobody plays D3" diatribe and, therefore, it's either untrue or you're not a "true fan" and therefore you don't know what you're talking about.

The REAL sign of when a game is not popular is when the bots disappear. The fact that someone could even say "nah, that's all bots" is a SUREFIRE sign that botting in the game is still making people money which means that people are, in fact, still playing it by the truckload. If people weren't playing then botters wouldn't have anyone to sell to and they'd move on to the next game.

As bad as it is for the "economy" the presence of bots is one of the best indications that a game is doing quite well. So I find it to be a pretty ironic argument, honestly.

"Most of D3s players quit."
"Well, not really, still 3 million unique logins per month, which is pretty good after a year."
"Obviously those numbers are manipulated, but they're probably mostly bots."
"But bots aren't successful unless they have active players to buy their stuff...."
"Oh... yeah... well you're not a true fan, they all quit."
"K!"

I fail to see how expecting a bit of decorum and civility on the forums is dismissive. I also fail to see how it's dismissive to suggest that if someone hates the game and believes that most of the posters on this forum are paid off by Blizzard that, maybe, they should look somewhere else to find like-minded people.

I know it's tough for you trolls to understand, but the world is a lot better place when people aren't obsessing with creating conflict. If you don't like Diablo why hang around a Diablo site just to try to ruin others enjoyment? Why is that such a dismissive perspective? I'm not suggesting he should leave because he's unwanted. I'm suggesting he should leave because communicating with like-minded people generally results in more enjoyment from life.

You don't see me going to a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu club and talking shit to them, do you? No, I mind my own business and let them have their fun. It's really a shame that the world has come to this... that you have to explain common courtesy to some fuckbags on the internet.

Dismissive, my ass. Go get a hobby.