• 0

    posted a message on Why is LoN designed as it is?
    Quote from Shapookya»

    Quote from Dark_Sol»

    OP is pretty much correct.

    LON was introduced to give variety to the players, but in fact it's very limiting.

    Most 2pc sets outdamage early LON build now. LON is also very power hungry, you need tonns of great gear to make it work. While even a crappy rolled set can easily compete with a well-rolled LON build. As of 2.4.1 sets were buffed greatly and LON is in obscurity once again

    Like I said, you can't buff LoN as long as there are top tier LoN builds. You have to buff legendaries to improve other builds.
    In the end, full ancient LoN is only a 15-20 GRift levels push. So builds have to work in T10 without LoN equipped.

    Quote from Shapookya»

    Actually, it's exactly the contrary. Damage multipliers help build diversity. Damage multipliers can be balanced by reducing or increasing those numbers. How would you balance Uliana 2.4? There is nothing quantitative about it except the damage of skills themselves. But if you change skills, you might change some other build that uses those skills as well, with it.

    The problem isn't necessarily damage multipliers (as they add a form of progression) it's multipliers that affect multiple skills/runes. LON can't be buffed outright because there are a couple of builds that are really powerful with it because the skills and supporting legendaries work well with each other. The issue is that a blanket x% to all damage, or to a subset of skills gets limited by the strongest skill. This is likely the reason EP was removed from Sunwuko, to allow the other skills to get a higher multiplier, but now it's basically limited by WoL, and thus TR and LTK are less likely to be used.
    This is the main reason I dislike the decision to place these multipliers on sets, as they are all either flat damage bonuses (IK, Akkhan, Inna, LoN) or have a subset of skills they affect, because the skills themselves aren't balanced well with one another at the endgame, so there is always a best option. They may be balanced at level 50, when resource management or some other mechanic is still an issue (which is why they don't simply change base damage numbers), but once resource generation is no longer a problem, WoL is basically always better than LTK.
    This is why I'd rather see legendaries like Madstone, and have sets with 2/4pc bonuses that are thematic and too powerful for a single slot, but not super OP, and then introduce some other system (charms, ability to invest in a skill for a multiplier, whatever) to handle the multiplier and thus the progression.
    But more on topic, at the very least, the multipier on LoN needs differ by class, so that it has a chance at being competitive with sets in some form. As it stands right now, if there isn't a legendary or 2 that enhance a skill, even LoN can't save it, and most of the skills that do have leg support are already attached to a set.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on It's pretty obvious what this game needs next
    Quote from Vagrancy

    Okay so you just said that hunting for items (runes) was end game. So
    substitute that rune for whatever ancient item of your set piece of
    have..and its now the same argument. Min/maxing your character for the
    best possible setup is the end game. You've just given me the exact
    same scenario but in diablo 2 terms..both are exactly interchangeable so
    what are you trying to argue? As far as my statement about PVP, okay
    PVP aside, you min-maxed your character to destroy PVE and that was the
    "End game". Your argument literally makes zero sense because again as I stated, the end game for people is what YOU make of it.

    Except rune words weren't simple min-maxing. With Ancient items, your simply getting a little bit more of a couple of stats. It's a very generic and boring way to min-max. it's true that in an ARPG there will eventually be some of this, and that's fine. The problem is the journey.

    What runewords did in D2, and what I'd like to see in D3 in some form, is a long term investment that isn't just a little extra raw damage on my weapon, or some extra character stats (str, vit, etc). I'd like to see some of the more powerful affixes that influence gameplay put here, so that you gather items and do everything you do now, while also slowly working towards an item or 2 that influence gameplay even more. The biggest difference between this and ancients, is that you don't work toward ancients, you just wait until they drop. What I liked about runes words (and again the new long term system doesn't need to copy that concept exactly), is that while I was getting rares and uniques that could help me achieve a build (or make it stronger/easier to play), I could also pick up runes and work toward a RW that complemented things.

    What I feel like D3 lacks is something that complements the hunt for ancients. Something else to be doing. Paragon is pretty boring and just gives flat stat benefits, and leg gems after 25 are just incremental increases in their powers. Those systems are nice and all, but adding in another system that gives players something to build over time, rather than waiting for a single drop your waiting for any decent "rune" or whatever to drop, so that you can work toward this RW you want. This seemed to be what they were doing with sets for a while, when they made them more rare, and you could slowly build toward the set build, but before they revamped all of the sets and made them worth slowly building, they made them extremely easy to obtain.

    Ultimately the idea is to add systems that complement decisions they've already made, but elongate that middle period where you are in the "end-game" but aren't hunting for a better ancient to min-max a bit more. Right now, the game becomes that very quickly, and then it's easy to get bored after 100 hours and not finding an upgrade for your build. Obviously what I'm asking for is just kicking that can down the road a bit, but eventually an H&S game will come down to small incremental upgrades like the end game is now. I'm hoping to make the journey to that a little longer, and more interesting is all.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on It's pretty obvious what this game needs next
    Quote from Dionysus1300»

    OMG! My favorite build isn't strong enough! I want it to be more competitive with that other build. Why is that build stronger than me? What? They nerfed that build so it isn't as strong anymore? I hate that! I want, they should, we can't ....

    Reading these types 'suggestion' threads, it plain to see, some people just like to bitch. Are there things I think would be cool to get, see, have, try? Sure. But I play because it is fun, and I enjoy it. If the joy has gone from this game for you, play a different game, there are many available to you.

    While I agree that at times, posts can just be a chance to bitch about literally anything, and also that the title of this thread is a bit on the obnoxious side, as it's nothing about what this game "needs" is "pretty obvious", suggesting/theorizing ways to make the game even better than it currently is has tons of value.
    One can like the game and enjoy it for what it currently is, and desire for it to be better and more entertaining. It's not a binary thing where you either think the game is perfect or have lost all joy in it. There are lots of ways to improve the game, particularly without basically making it a completely different game, and player's trying to suggest ways to do that should be encouraged.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on It's pretty obvious what this game needs next
    Quote from Vagrancy

    What long term goal are you referring to? D2 never had one, it never needed one. I wish people would understand what the Hack and Slash Genre is. You farm to mix/max your character and push yourself and that's pretty much it. The end game is what YOU make of it. D2 received very small patches throughout its lifetime so compared to Diablo 3 they've gone above and beyond improving this game when they really don't need to at all anymore. I was a huge critic of this game when it shipped because it was garage and terribly imbalanced but they've made tons of great changes. The game does need a viable form of PVP or world PVP where you can just go outside of town and duel. That is the ''end game'' people wanted in diablo 2. You got leveled up min/maxed your gear and PVP'd and that was that.
    D2 totally did. Did you ever try making a rune word without trading for all of the duped runes floating around? It was a long term goal to try to gather the runes needed to create the RW you desired. But, since there were ways to always be working toward that goal (countess runes, hell forge ,the pit, etc), you could make progress on it steadily.
    Paragon and legendary gems are attempts at this, but at least to me, they don't feel like quite enough. Just because they've done well at improving the game from launch doesn't mean there isn't more that can be done, even if it comes via another expansion.
    Also, as with everything, sweeping statements lend don't strengthen an argument. Things like, "That is the ''end game'' people wanted in diablo 2. You got leveled up min/maxed your gear and PVP'd and that was that." While that was true for some people, there are also plenty of people who never touched PVP in D2 and still managed to play it quite a bit. There is no one "right" way to play the game.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on It's pretty obvious what this game needs next
    Quote from TrueColdkil»

    Quote from banishedbr»

    There is nothing much good in the game in runewords for them to be useful, no hit recovery or cast rate dmg goes to mana and all those peculiar and incredible things that made diablo 2 cool. For RW to be introduced in this game, the game it self needs come changes. Not to mention the dmg is weapon based.

    This is a really good post.
    Runewords in d2 were made by socketed items and interesting combinations of various affixes. In D3 we miss first of all the socketed items - only chest has 3 sockets meaning it's the only actual piece of gear that could have a decent runewords system on; maybe we could extend them for pants but two sockets only narrows the selection by a lot.
    Second and equally important, the streamlined affixes made much easier to choose between what's good and bad, and it's usually dictated by the sets/builds. What can possibly add a runeword - more CHD/CHC/CDR?
    Yes, they can work over some nice special affixes, but they could simpy make a new legendary item giving an additional choice (if powerful enough) instead of another mandatory gearing strategy.
    Runewords in D2 were simply a crafting system that added a long term goal for players. The D2 devs chose to use sockets and socketed items as a medium for the crafting, but it was just crafting.
    I make that distinction, because the important parts of what (at least I think) made the RW system popular:
    1) They were powerful, but most builds still used some of the standard uniques, so they were important in certain slots, but not every slot was always a RW.
    2) There was a long term goal that players could work toward while farming.
    Crafting in D3 is just lackluster. If they were to add in 10-15+ materials that could just drop out in the world, and add crafted legendaries have some of the more powerful affixes, depending on how much effort it takes to craft the item, you've basically created the D3 version of runewords. There are other implementaions (there have been good threads here on dfans about crafting/runeword systems in D3), but this is just a simple version to show it can work. Drop rates for the materials would be the interesting part. Make them too rare, and it'll turn people off. Make them to common, and it won't be as much of "long" term goal.
    More importantly though, I don't think that any one thing is "what diablo needs next". While I like the game, making it better would likely be some combination of improved crafting, more endgame objectives that promote different types of builds and power levels, other game systems (charms, jewels, the cube was a good addition), etc. I think it'll take more than any one of these things to take D3 to the next level.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on D3 has no endgame.
    Quote from Kevan»

    Unlimited exping is not endgame.

    Loot hunting, trading, pvp should be.

    I think there is a difference between no endgame, and an end game that could use some additions.
    There is certainly an endgame in D3. For some it's great, and for other's, it may be a but lackluster.
    Things like trading and pvp *can* be part of an endgame, but aren't required.
    For me, I'd just like to see them build on what they've been doing. 2.3 brought a reason to do regular rifts besides grift keys, and a reason to do bounties up until a certain point. I think continuing to encourage players to do different objectives is the best way to extend the endgame.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on We need Items and map editor.
    Quote from MasterRPG»

    They should give us an editor like "Warcraft3", with script and so on.

    Would be a good way to introduce PVP. Allow some dedicated fans to figure out how to balance it. Would be a nice way to add to the endgame without having to worry about constant dev time after the initial editor was out. Honestly, after seeing DoTA come from WC3, I'm surprised they haven't let used at least a map editor in D3 yet. Item editor might be a bit more complicated, if the items can cross into non-custom games.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Quin's Itemization Rant
    Quote from wiwh

    End-level build diversity can only be achieved via objective diversity and / or tactical diversity. I.e. if different game styles (glass canon vs tank, cc, etc..) can achieve the same clearing speed.

    ^ this.
    As long as GR's are the only real end game, diversity will be limited. GR's (or infinitely scaling modes) are fine, as long as they part of a larger end game. Some options for creating build diversity in the game as a whole:

    1) Add in other game modes that don't have timers or encourage mobility. Something like defending a Bastions keep from an waves of monsters, where the Keep has a door or something that has life and enemies try to attack it. I'm sure there are lots of other ways to accomplish this goal, that was just for an example.

    2) Add in other things (charms, socketables like jewels/runes from D2, crafting mats) that only drop from monsters outside of GRs. This way, GR's are important for leaderboards (if you care about that) and for leg gems, but there is a reason to regular rift or bounty or do some other new game mode as well.

    Now you have different objectives (that have different tactical requirements) that influence your builds, creating diversity. Especially since regular rifts and bounties have a ceiling on their difficulty.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Quin's Itemization Rant
    Quote from Esspiritu»

    Quote from Shapookya»

    how many items are there with %WoL dmg or %LTK dmg or other skills with the same "problem"? because, if there are multiple items, it's not a problem at all. Small example for those who see 200% on an item and think that's alot.

    yes, it's a lot for the first item. it increases your dmg from 100% to 300%. it triples your dmg (ohbabyatriple.mp3).

    now what happens if there is a 2nd item with 200%? it increases your damage from 300 to 500% that's an effective inrease of 67%. still good. broken? far from it.

    What happens if you have a 3rd item? 500->700%. an increase of 40%. maybe not even the best dps choice anymore.

    So, how many %skilldmg items are there?

    It is good to see some one who understand how the system works.

    I'll submit that when it comes to set items, this may add some choice, since the alternative is to replace a good ring (CoE, zodiac, unity, etc) with a x% additive single skill damage. In many cases, you'll still do what you did previously and cube the item with the 5th affix, because rings carry a lot of power.

    The issue though, is that there are lots of times (especially with potential LoN builds) where a set item isn't involved, and that removes the ring slot from the equation.

    The weapon slot is a great example of this. If a build calls for 2 2-handed legendary weapons, if there are no 5th primary affixes, and just orange affixes, there is some small choice in which you equip/cube. If however, one has a 5th primary, it doesn't matter that it's only an increase of 40% because of other slots having that skill damage, it's 40% damage increase over 0%. You will always have to equip the one that has the 5th primary if you want to be competitive or optimal, and in many cases, a less well rolled one will be better, because 40% increased damage to you primary damage dealer is a lot. The introduction of the cube helped with this problem because it meant you were searching for one of 2 weapons to equip, whichever one you can get to roll better.

    It's not a question of best build. For GR's there is always a specific set of legendary powers that need to be used. But, when it comes to the cube, anytime you have 2 legendary powers for the same slot (2 bracers, 2 belts, 2 weapons), 5th primaries remove the ability to choose which is equipped and which is cubed.

    Again, it's not much choice. but it is some. The devs are doing well at creating more build diversity and getting some balance between the classes and withing builds for the classes. In that regard, the direction of the game is pretty good. I don't think tweaking the base skills is necessarily the right answer (although I do think some skills have terrible damage for their resource usage, but that is another story). Adding these damage bonuses to the orange affixes solves this particular dilemma , but I don't know that I like just adding damage to orange affixes to make skills competitive either.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Quin's Itemization Rant
    Quote from Shapookya»

    There will always be a best combination. This "you are free to choose which items you want" idea is naive. If you want to push high grifts, you have to use a certain equip. Blizzard has two choices:

    They either dictate us which items we have to use via "overbuffing" single items or they make all items seemingly similar in power and the players have to and WILL find out which combination is the best. And they decided for the first choice because it has a big advantage:

    Blizzard can calculate how powerful the best builds will be and can balance WAAAAAY better around that. With the second choice, they can't balance shit. Best example: Static Charge. It was never planned to be that good and it outperformed basically anything in this season. That's what happens when they don't control our builds!

    You're correct about the way the devs seem to be doing their balancing. That's not necessarily what Quin's beef is (at least from what I could tell).

    What I saw was this. Let's say you are going to run a WoL wuko build in 2.3. I know that it isn't a great build, but since it's the build Quin used in his rant, I'll use it.

    In 2.3, you could equip wuko helm and cube Tzo, or you could choose something else (I'll use Leoric's as an example) and cube one of Tzo/Leorics and wear the other one.

    In 2.4, the 5th primary on Tzo is additive damage to WoL that is a pretty large increase. This means that since it's a 5th primary, it makes the most sense to try and equip it over Wuko or Leorics. Thus the option to actually wear wuko and cube Tzo disappears, and you've lost a way to gear. You always needed Wuko and Tzo (or Tzo, RoRG, and Leorics), because as you stated, the devs are pushing sets/item like that, but the cube allowed you to choose how you equipped them.
    If you really wanted to make Tzo and Leorics work, you previously could wear whichever one rolled well. If you got a 99-100% leorics with great rolls all around, you could wear it and cube Tzo. With the additive damage as a 5th primary, the only real option for optimization is to wear Tzo and cube Leorics.

    It's admittedly not much choice, but it is better than not having one at all.

    Quote from chadwx

    Quote from TheTruthAbounds

    The wd is probably my favorite class, we have been like this forever. Carnevil, quentzl or mask of jeram.
    Like shap said, there is always going to be a best combination of items if your pushing high.
    I dont see understand quins reaction when things are getting better, its like he woke up today and wanted the game to be fixed.

    Things are getting better in some ways. What he was saying was that this particular method takes away some of the gearing choice that the cube opened up.

    Carnevil docs are actually a good example as well, just drive it home. You have to use RoRG because Zuni's is odd, but the current set up is to use whichever of Carn/MoJ that rolls better. If you get a godly MoJ, you can use it and cube Carn. If you get a godly Carn, you cube MoJ. You have a small amount of choice based on your drops for which you wear and which you cube. You always need them both, but which goes where is up to how RNG treats you.
    Now imagine that Carnevil received a 5th primary that adds 100% poison dart damage (i don't play WD, but I think this works with the fetish darts, if not, we'll have to pretend). Now, you always, always want to use Carn in the helm slot itself and cube MoJ.

    That's what he's saying. 2.4 takes some steps forward, but this is one that kills some of the little choice that 2.3 and the cube brought.

    *edited for formatting*

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Quin's Itemization Rant
    Quote from chadwx»

    I dont really understand his point. Last season we had 1 working spec that was dependant on gear. This season we have 3. Next season there will be 7-8.

    His monk needs a two weps, a belt and bracers. How is this less diversity?

    I dont agree with wyatt much but this goes back to his philosophy that finding a new items allows you to try different builds.

    There's more diversity than last season as far as potential builds (at least so far in the PTR, and hopefully future PTR patches make it more so), but he's talking about locking in wearing items. The point of the cube was partially to allow you to say, I need this set helm, but I'd like to use this power from this other helm, so I can cube said power. With 2.4's addition of large increases to specific skills as a 5th primary on some gear pieces, there is more need to use that item in the helm slot, which is a step back from what the cube and 2.3 allowed. Part of the cubes appeal was that if you need a set piece and a leg in the same slot, you can cube the power. If you need 2 different leg powers from the same slot, you can equip the better rolled one, and cube the other. Now, one will a large skill % bonus that makes it the obvious one to equip.
    In other words, 2.4 is looking to have more different viable builds (Shadow DH, marauders DH, etc), but the ability to gear within a build is becoming less diverse, since equipping sunwuko's helm means 100% less WoL damage.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Quin's Itemization Rant

    I agree with Quin, at least in principle.

    I've always hated that sets (and now items) had 100%+ multipliers on them. I've always maintained that if they wanted a way to increase damage like that (for a feeling of progression) that it would be better served as an upgrade to the skills themselves, and legendaries should create utility and interactions between skills. I always felt this would make progression smoother, and allow the item game to be interesting, while shifting some of the power to the characters themselves.

    An example of this would be that for some resource cost (gold, gems, leg gems, crafting mats, bounty mats), a player could upgrade a skill, like HotA, and the first level would increase it's damage some, and if you liked HotA, you could keep spending resource to upgrade that skill. This adds a resource sink, and creates some decisions between using the mystic and now the cube for items, and increasing power via the skill itself. The cost could go up as you rank each skill, so that there is a time investment to get one (or 6 for a full bar) ranked all the way up.

    With the above implemented, legendaries would create interaction between skills or add some utility to some skills, and sets would either have thematic bonuses, or be a place to put bonuses that are cool, but *too* powerful for a single item. Things like having the 3rd hit of generators apply EP, star metal, making WoL a ranged skill, all fall into this pattern. They don't outright make a skill do more damage, but they change gameplay or encourage using 2 types of skills together.

    Since there would no longer be multipliers on items or 6pc sets, all sets could only have a 4pc bonus, and the sets could keep their 6 or 7 pcs, allowing for diversity. For instance, Marauders could give all companion runes as a 2pc and the 4pc could make sentries shoot spenders for half damage (or something). If you want to use sentries and a spender, you can use the set. if not, there would be 4 other items that would give you just as much power for a different build (or somewhere within a reasonable range of power).

    This to me, solves a couple of problems. One is smoothing out the difficulty curve. Instead of getting a 6pc set and getting 500%+ increased damage, you upgrade a skill or two, getting 50% more damage (or something like that), and that along with an item or 2 can help you climb from T1 to T2, and then you climb as you get enough resources to upgrade skills, or as you find items that create interactions that help you be more efficient. Another is that it moves some of the power to the character themselves. Finally, it creates a resource sink that creates a need for some investment. Unlike a traditional skill tree system, upgrading a skill and then regretting it just means gathering more resources to upgrade another skill. It's a time loss, but that particular character isn't ruined or aynthing.

    Adding in some depth to crafting (as Bagstone mentions above) is the other thing that could really help. There are a number of ways to implement it (something akin to runewords works), but in general crafting is a way to allow players to make progress toward specific goal. Runes in D2 were basically crafting materials that could drop nearly anywhere (although there were hot spots) that allowed players to work toward a particular item. It's also a good place to be powerful affixes that don't fit any set thematically, but are too powerful for a legendary. This gives the devs 3 ways to give legendary affixes. And since there are more drops in regular rifts (and doing bounties) than doing Greater rifts, it would give players another reason to want to do those over GR's when they aren't pushing or leveling up a legendary gem for a build they are working on.


    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Whats the point of nerfing everything?
    Quote from Demonmonger»

    The nerf down to 100% is way to far based on the current options that can be played with it. As I said above, why is there a set based around Ancient items performing WORSE THAN sets you use to get those items?

    I understand one of the issues is the complementary legendary items, but until they build that group of items up, the bonus should be 400% and 4%. 100% and 4% per ancient is what I would expect with a plethora of item and build choices centered around it, which is not the case right now.

    You're asking a loaded question. It DOES NOT perform worse than sets in all cases. If, after some bug fixes, it does, then the number can be adjusted. They want it to be competitive, but not outright better. If there are builds that are competitive with sets, or close to it at 100%, they will be far better at 400%. The number is being tuned around the highest performing builds of LoN. Last I was on the PTR there were some competitive builds using LoN post nerf. Unless they were all using bugs or exploits that will be fixed, I'd expect it to stay at 100% or maybe get pushed up to 150.
    As I said earlier, I'd personally like to see it based on the class that has it equipped. That way if 100% is balanced for one class, it can stay there, but if 400% would be balanced (with current legs for that class), then they can put it there, and balance it again as legs are added. Right now, it's simply balanced around whatever the top performing build(s) might be, making it useless for some classes.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Whats the point of nerfing everything?
    Quote from Demonmonger»

    The main topic being LoN, why would you nerf LoN to the point where it can only run T10=GR45?

    The LoN set is centered around Ancients, which you get far into "End Game" so shouldn't LoN theoretically have power => that of any set that you used to get to that point to begin with?

    There are builds with LoN that can do much higher than GR45/T10.

    The issue, as stated above is that there is an imbalance amongst set builds about where the power comes from, and since most legendaries added to the game over the past few patches have come in support of set builds, most of the legendaries fall into this category. Some set builds derive much of their power from supporting legendaries, some get it from the set bonuses. What this means for LoN is that builds is that *some* LoN builds will only be viable up through T10, while others will be viable much higher.

    At 800%, any build that you could mash together with ancients was better than any set, by a long shot. At 100%, there are still a few builds out performing sets, though some of that may be bugged or unintended mechanics of new legs (the heaven's fury shield comes to mind). If they fix those bugs, and LoN really lags behind by a lot, they'll up the number. If they fix those bugs and there are still a few competitive LoN builds, then they will leave it.

    The truth is that it's kind of a balancing nightmare as a set amount for every class.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Whats the point of nerfing everything?
    Quote from Fehfeh»

    There has been numerous occations where things have been nerfed on PTR, never to be upped anywhere near it's previous glory once the patch hits live servers. First tweaks are usually the final ones. They tend to do the items first, then the skills in a later patch and the last PTR patch is usally 90% set for release. Wouldn't get my hopes up for LoN. Wyatt already butchered and buried this set in a blue post. T8 "fun" farm build at best.

    John Yang tweeted that LON is intended to be competitive with sets (source: https://twitter.com/_JohnYang/status/665237621895921664)

    What Wyatt was trying to get across is that unless they change the way LON gives it's bonus (something like giving a different bonus to each class), it has to be tuned around the strongest builds. This is because some builds/classes have more synergy between the supporting legendaries, thus gaining more power for a LON build than others. To rebalance around LON, they would have to take a look at each set build, and rebalance set bonuses with support legendaries so that they all have a similar ratio (i.e. 30% of power from legs, 70% from sets or something).

    So if some build out there with LON is as good, if not better, than all the set builds for a class, that's the right value for LON. This is why many people want to see it give a different damage bonus based on class. That wouldn't solve every problem, but it'd mean that there's at least 1 high GR build that could exist for each class.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.