Login


All times are UTC - 5 hours


It is currently Sun May 20, 2018 8:28 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:28 am
Posts: 1091
Location: Vancouver, BC
There are many build options in v1.7, and in theory they are all viable, but certainly some will be worse than others. If you've had the chance to try a build or two, then let me know which you really didn't care for, and I'll try that build when the realm resets. Let me know which 3-4 main skills are in the build you meant, because if you say "Poizon", I'll have no idea which one.

If no one responds after a week or so, then I suppose I'll make a list of the builds I noted in the design years ago and roll a dice.

Feel free to mention what you didn't like about the build. If you missed something then I'll point it out.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:30 am 

Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:36 am
Posts: 928
I played a sorc to 20ish by myself(Cbolt), and then a group of 4 to the new leoric area(~22).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowazons are dead. Multi shoots out a literal inch from your character, and my guess is GA can't pierce, and if it can you'll never get a decent % chance.

Every sorc build I've played has absurd mana issues. Charged bolt I've brought up, but another build I tested with a few friends was orb. Now I didn't get to orb, but ice bolt has even worse mana consumption than CB. So I had an armor skill and the most mana hungry single target skill ever, so I was delegated to enchanting. But surprise, enchant lasts dick in duration AND you removed it's aoe application. Fun stuff.

Auradin damage seems high starting, physical damage seemed weak in comparison.

Barb damage was pitiful, same with a melee druid. My guess is melee in general is awful.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some thoughts:

-Stat points are massively devalued. Gear provided more hp/mana than points in vit/energy.

-Synergies are so toned down they don't even make an impact.

-The 1 point every 2 levels is awkward. You say it was meant to allow the increased mana cost to scale better, but it looks like you didn't adjust for the +skills on items. Wearing a 1all3skill staff and I can cast 2-3 times a mana pool - the fuck.

-Mana. I don't understand why it was brought to the forefront of this patch. It's an awful mechanic, because mana isn't a mechanic that's a viability in this game.

-You say that skills were meant to be balanced around dealing a general % of the enemy health based upon it's essential aoe capability. So completely single target skills do very high damage, aoe less. Let's look at say firebolt. No chill effect, does 16-20 damage, up to 50% synergy bonus. Now let's look at an exact replica, ice bolt. 160-180 damage, chills, 50% synergy. I'm confused?

-Gems are garbage now. No health on rubies to supplement a HP tank style, no mitigation on diamonds to supplement a DR type tank stype. Sapphires don't give mana to help supplement your mana orb on hungry characters. Amethysts look like they can be abused to fucking hell if % skill duration means what I think it means. Skulls lacking lifesteal/mana make no sense to me, since it seems like a defensive attribute.

-Gearing in general seems much less entertaining. The working on getting a solid % skill damage and pierce ratio for casters looks gone. The mixture of damage, lifesteal, and DR/HP is gone on melee. Tons of items have 4 sockets but there is literally nothing to put in them.

-The obscurity of all these new things you implemented. Hidden passives, akara rings, why the fuck is it so obscure? Why did it even need to be in the game? Everything worked fine in the past, why add shit that is so complicated into the game at all?




I fully plan on giving the mod a go when the servers reset, perhaps later on it'll come together, but I can't see it currently. I appreciate your work on the new patch, without a patch we don't have really anything to do, but at the same time you went way the fuck out of the box with this.








I mean I'm going to give the patch a go with a few friends.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:28 am
Posts: 1091
Location: Vancouver, BC
TL;DR: +1 vote for Multi/GA with high Dex.

Since you mentioned that stat points aren't doing what you expected, and that Multi was especially disappointing, I'll consider a Multi/GArrow Zon with very high Dex as my first character. It won't be top of my list though, since I've already tried a high-Dex StrafeZon who I respecced (for testing) to Multi in A4/A5 just to confirm that she was similar in strength to the StrafeZon.

Consider reviewing the design (Readme button in D2SE) for skills that are confusing (section 9 is where skills start). Also keep in mind that skills of different starting levels don't compare easily (level 30 spells do roughly 10x what level 1 spells do, and of course cost a bit more (but not 10x more)), since I intentionally made later skills start with relatively high damage (most things balance out by around char level 40-50, or A3 Norm, since it's pretty hard to predict player decisions before then).

Consider reviewing the Gems webpage for stats on later tier gems.

I'd agree that the early game contains imbalances, but depending on how you want to define that some of them are nearly unavoidable. While modding D2 towards some goal, you're constantly hit with obstacles like how the mana cost of spells can only ever grow in a straight line (you choose the starting cost and mana per level, so if the game's challenge grows exponentially (this is pretty much required to alleviate boredom) then your spells will be imbalanced for some section of the game. I decided that since Norm (before A3 in particular) is over in a day, I may as well let the early game be the unbalanced part. There is a way around some of this, but it occurred to me too late to implement (probably weeks of adjusting many skills and items).


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:01 am 

Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:36 am
Posts: 928
I'd love to hear the design decision a couple things. First is difficulty. While I cannot comment on anything beyond normal leoric, those units in the past have at least offered mild difficulty. Face tanked them on a pure energy sorc with no es. Killed them faster than a fully twinked level 9 bowazon could in older patches.

As for icebolt firebolt, icebolt is just leaps and bounds ahead of firebolt minus the mana cost. Skills have always gone up sequentially, that is if firebolt did 20 damage each level added 15. Icebolt does 150, each level adds 50. The synergies are the same, so the icebolt will be more powerful, or is there the ability to make later levels in the skill add more? Because the weaker starting spells were always balanced around a high synergy modifier to make them viable in the past.

What design decision made you add passives you can't even see? Why be so cryptic about it?

Lastly I would like you input on design decision of removing qol changes. Enchant duration I can sort of kind of understand since people commonly made alts to chant them. The same could be said for bo. But why low durations on shapeshifted forms? What does this add? Why, if I chose to, would I play the monotony that is an enchanter in it's current form? Duration aside, having to individually target people is completely garbage. It makes chanting summons impossible. Why was this reverted?


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:11 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:28 am
Posts: 1091
Location: Vancouver, BC
TL;DR: +1 vote for Chantress

Angel wrote:
I'd love to hear the design decision a couple things. First is difficulty. While I cannot comment on anything beyond normal leoric, those units in the past have at least offered mild difficulty. Face tanked them on a pure energy sorc with no es. Killed them faster than a fully twinked level 9 bowazon could in older patches. You mentioned being level 22 (although perhaps younger for your first attempt at Leoric). Andarial is level 25, so you should find a bit more challenge in Cats2. That aside, during the testing phase it was agreed that the changes in HUv1.7 would add extra difficulty, so the early game (especially A1 and A2) should be made easier to compensate. All of Norm isn't especially hard (once you get used to the changes), as was noticed when the public test started in August, but A4 and A5 go by much smoother if you play with a partner.

As for icebolt firebolt, icebolt is just leaps and bounds ahead of firebolt minus the mana cost. Skills have always gone up sequentially, that is if firebolt did 20 damage each level added 15. Icebolt does 150, each level adds 50. The synergies are the same, so the icebolt will be more powerful, or is there the ability to make later levels in the skill add more? Because the weaker starting spells were always balanced around a high synergy modifier to make them viable in the past. FireBolt is balanced to be a standard Single-Target spell (about 60% of MonHP per cast). IceBolt is balanced to be the highest damage spell in HUv1.7 (100% on MonHP per cast). IceBolt costs more than FireBolt (about 50% more), and synergizes with a spell that does no damage (reducing your options when you encounter cold resistant monsters). One reason the difference between those spells is very noticeable is because monster stats change linearly from level 1 (30HP) to level 20 (600HP), so a level 6 spell would start out 6x stronger than a level 1, but might not cost 6x more. The reason the monster stat growth is linear is because it's based on the OpenWounds formula. I later realized that I should have ignored that formula for the early levels because balancing around linear growth for some parts of the game and exponential growth in later parts was an unnecessary challenge (it's not like people care about the first 20 levels anyways, at least not after their first few characters). For HUv1.9 I'd recommend rebalancing level 1 monsters to have more HP (100? I have no Math to justify this yet)

What design decision made you add passives you can't even see? Why be so cryptic about it? It's been mentioned elsewhere (e.g. HUv1.7 feedback/development threads) that a problem was found where players could have enough different buff-states or passive-states on them that they caused other players to Drop from multiplayer games. The solution we implemented reduced the numbers of states available to players. For example, it is very likely that a Barb would buff his party with BCommand, BO, and Shout, so we could just give all the stats to one of those skills and bring players 2 states further from Dropping their party.

In HUv1.7 I've been using the oSkill feature that limits the +Skills to 3 for the skill owner as a means of balancing items. Rather than put 15%PhysRes on some item it could have +10IronSkin (%PhysRes/Lvl). This way I can balance classes a bit by giving some stat to all of them, but less of that stat to the class that already has a lot of it. Another benefit of this idea is that as players gain +AllSkills, they get more benefits from the items with oSkills which helps balancing the changes between Basic, Exceptional, and Elite items. In some cases (ISkin, ElemMasteries) those oSkills are so common on items that it's just a matter of time before your character picks them up, so rather than have items adding 6 more states to your character, I could given everyone 2 states at character creation that give the stats of the 6 oSkills only when you've gained access to those skills. This brought characters another 4 states further from Dropping other players, but has the side-effect of making +AllSkills very important (this mod is very common though, so is a small price to pay). I don't think there's a way to make these 2 char-creation skills visible because they are Passives (unlike "Attack", "Unsummon", "Throw", etc).

For weapon Masteries, it was decided that rather than have 3 states, we could just place the state on every weapon so that a character would never be able to have more than 2 of the 3 states at a time. This brings characters 1 state further from Dropping other players. If you're interested in modding a later version of HU, then I don't mind discussing the implementation details. There's also some information in the "Readme for modding HUv1.7.txt" CoreFile. The states added to weapons were made invisible because making them visible seemed likely to confuse people. Those states do nothing unless you've got points in a weapon mastery.


Lastly I would like you input on design decision of removing qol changes. Enchant duration I can sort of kind of understand since people commonly made alts to chant them. The same could be said for bo.
But why low durations on shapeshifted forms? What does this add? I don't know what durations they had in v1.4 to v1.6, but the current duration was never brought up as an issue. They have pretty standard HUv1.7 durations (relatively long if you've got a point in Lycanthropy). I'm sorry if this displeases some folks used to a different version.
Why, if I chose to, would I play the monotony that is an enchanter in it's current form? Duration aside, having to individually target people is completely garbage. It makes chanting summons impossible. Why was this reverted? I've recently read that after v1.3 Enchant, FArmor, (and HBolt?) were made into AoE buffs (maybe like a Shout or Curse)? I considered that change, but decided against it because it was unfair for a Chantress to not need to target with her spell while most other builds must target a monster for their spell. If Enchant were rebalanced to assume more targets (maybe 4: you, your friend, your two mercs; so 4x mana cost), then the extra mana cost would be a complaint for people playing solo. As a single-target spell, the Chantress has more control over how much mana she spends and when.

One of the benefits of NormRes is that it's easier to target things, while one of the benefits of HighRes is that you can target things further away. I prefer when there are choices for players to make because it makes the game more interesting as you watch players deviate. Their choices aren't necessarily wrong, they're just different.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:18 pm 

Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:36 am
Posts: 928
The only time I saw someone disconnect from too many states was from too many auras on their merc.

Chant is an after effect to a sorc build, especially now since you took it's attack synergies away. It's literally something you throw points into to help others. Irregardless of what other build you mix with it, my choice was forb for this example, there is no decision making. It's just monotony to keep the buff up on people now. Rather than try to balance things around mana cost, which is such a flawed concept since mana is not a resource in this game, you should be balancing it around other things. An aoe cast with a short duration so you have to keep casting it, but without the monotony of single targeting things. Tell me how enchanting a full summoners army, a tank barb, a bowazon, and all their mercs every two minutes is fun. There is no decision making, you do it for damage, all you've done is added absurd monotony. It would be exactly like making bo single target. Every barb is going to take it, every unit is going to want it.

As long as there are mana pots and as long as there is no meaningful way to regen outside of them balancing around mana is pointless. Take wow for example, the monotony of having to drink mana potions just to sustain your dps rotation would kill the game. On the same note, healers having no mana implications because they could chug mana pots would kill the game.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:48 pm
Posts: 1661
Angel wrote:
The only time I saw someone disconnect from too many states was from too many auras on their merc.


Trust me, this was a big problem on 1.7. Even without auras on-equip.

_________________
PureRage-DoD wrote:
Cowards die in shame, I ain't afraid to lose a char, it's not like it's important. :lol:


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:42 pm 

Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:36 am
Posts: 928
What made it a problem? It wasn't one in 1.6 to my knowledge.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:06 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:48 pm
Posts: 1661
Angel wrote:
What made it a problem? It wasn't one in 1.6 to my knowledge.


It's always been a problem, and HC players can actually manipulate it to freeze/drop other players and get them killed. Even on 1.3 or 1.4 (can't remember), Kev and I were dropping from state overload as a DUO mostly because of the old unique Black Hades that had several CTC armors on it. It was either 1.5 or 1.6 that implemented the bo/shout synergies applying to BC for this very reason- to collapse those states into one. Some builds don't struggle with it at all, but it only takes one person to drop your party. Barbs and shift druids were among the biggest offenders. Here is my incomplete list of states I had on my shifter in a 3man party:

1. Oak
2. Lycan
3. Werebear
4. Feral Rage
5. Maul
6. Geddon
7. Cane
8. Iron Skin (armor runeword oskill)
9. Inc Speed (boot craft oskill)
10. Crit Strike (glove craft oskill)
11. Vampiric Touch (unique belt)
12. Chilling armor (unique staff swap)
13. Enchant (unique staff swap)
14. Energy Shield (unique staff swap)

15. prayer from pali
16. Bo
17. BC

I think I am missing several. Obviously I didn't NEED many of those, but I was quite enjoying expanding the number of hotkeys I was using, and why should we inhibit our playstyle due to an ancient bug? If nothing was done about state overload large parties would basically be impossible to have, unless everyone gimped themselves or geared specifically to not have many states. That would be dumb.

Also, each dyed piece of gear is a state. Also realize that this problem is exacerbated in larger parties.

_________________
PureRage-DoD wrote:
Cowards die in shame, I ain't afraid to lose a char, it's not like it's important. :lol:


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:10 am 

Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:36 am
Posts: 928
Barb had:
Frenzy buff
Fanat - weap
Sanctuary - weap
BO
BC
Shout
Enchant
Chilling Armor
Weapon mastery
Iron Skin
Nat res
Inc Speed
Blood Bath
Fervor
Gale Force
Blood of the ancients
Throwing mastery
Rend

Occasionally
Oak
Fade

Merc
Conc
Might
Defiance
Prayer
Vigor

Literally never once dc'd, and I very commonly played with 4-5 people, providing just about every buff in the game. I'd rather options be taken away than options hidden behind invisible passives that aren't even explained beyond "remember to equip and unequip a +all skills item every level up!".

Also an item having 15% damage reduction opposed to oskill ironskill is far better in terms of being easy to understand.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:28 am
Posts: 1091
Location: Vancouver, BC
TL;DR:
+1 vote for Frenzy/DThrow Barb.
Anyone playing a build they hate?
Which build (state 3 main skills) and what about it isn't working for you?


If people are interested, they're welcome to search online for more information about the Diablo2 State Cap (the IP packet problems occur around 19 states, game crashes around 27 states). I trust SlappyNuts and the other Testers enough that when he mentioned the problem was occurring for him and his friends, and the online research implied that it probably should have occurred, we all put forward solutions and I implemented them. I'm sorry if this issue has had unforeseen side effects that are affecting people, we've tried to make things as invisible as the D2 modding interface allows.

I didn't want to put more information in the download post regarding this issue because it wasn't relevant to downloads (although I wanted to make a few quick notes or reminders where players would see them -- it's an important issue), and I thought people would remember when it was discussed in other threads (about a week beforehand).

The Diablo2 bug with passives, that has always been there, is that when Passives give a stat that isn't based on their level (maybe based on Strength, or the level of another skill (i.e. a synergy)), then the Passive's stats ignore those non-level based changes until you've changed the level of the Passive somehow. This isn't a new bug, but I can understand if players new to HU don't know about it, it usually only shows up in D2 mods.

I'd agree that 15%PhysRes mod is easier to understand when you don't already know the stats of IronSkin. Once you've taken a look at a few characters or talked to folks who have played them, it becomes easier to understand the mods granted by skills of other classes. I know people can figure things out, but I can't change how D2 handles 15%PhysRes mod and the IronSkin oSkill, and the oSkill has more benefits.

For anyone else not sure about the stats given by oSkills, consider using this time before the reset to examine more characters and skills. Sorc's Masteries, IronSkin, IncreasedStamina, HolyAuras, Fade, EnergyShield, and Pierce are pretty common on items. PoisonMastery and MagicMastery follow exactly the same pattern as Sorc's Masteries. VampiricTouch, ChillTouch, and ShockingGrasp follow the pattern of Enchant (and do not stack with Enchant; they synergize with 2 of: BoneArmor, ShiverArmor, and EnergyShield).


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:34 am 

Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:36 am
Posts: 928
Feel free to link information on it, google shows nothing.

I also fail to see how a numerical % is less obtrusive than an oskill. Especially given the fact despite knowing how ironskin works, I have no idea how it functions after you fuck around with the numbers. How does the diminishing returns function? At which point is it less valuable? Obscurity beyond the obscure to replace something as simple as % dr, unless you're saying suffixes and prefixes are states? In which case every character would break the cap.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:28 am
Posts: 1091
Location: Vancouver, BC
For the oSkill vs Flat Bonus explanation, I posted a thread in the Homemade Modifications forum for it, since it's a pretty good concept for future modders to be aware of (rather than buried in some Strats&Tactics thread).

I can see where someone might have trouble finding the State information, but you might also just be trolling, so here are some SearchTips and GoogleFunctions that are genuinely handy to know.
  • D2:LoD v1.13 Patch Notes, the 4th major bug fix for v1.13c is the States issue. Note that HU can't use v1.13 because the D2ModSystem doesn't work with it. Besides, I kinda like how we can use charges of skills to synergize other skills, but Blizzard "fixed" that after v1.10.
  • Article discussing how you can PK folks using the States issue, it's the first exploit discussed.
  • A couple modders on PhrozenKeep briefly experimenting trying to figure out details of the problem, looks like they gave up before solid conclusions were reached.

The mods on items are not states. Some PassiveSkills are not states (e.g. SkeletonMastery has always just edited the values on your SkellySkills, rather than affected your character (i.e. SkeletonMastery is just a very fancy Synergy)). In theory, anything that affects your char screen (ignore attack skills) or has a duration (even HP/MP Pots) probably has a State associated with it that counts towards the limit, but after reviewing the States articles above I'm not 100% sure how D2 is determining which states are counted towards the limit or when. Maybe they're only counted toward the limit at specific times (maybe when a player first enters your minimap screen?).

I'm not sure why diminishing returns was brought up, but consider expanding that question in a new Strategy and Tactics post, and I'll be happy to answer the question if I can.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:35 pm 

Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:36 am
Posts: 928
I typed in literally what you said, diablo2 state cap and came up with nothing. In regards to this topic in the entirety of playing the only time I saw an issue was rasta's barb combined with his merc. And it was almost exclusively based on the auras it had and the number of procs, sorc armor, chant, fade.

Anyways, as for ironskin as an oskill, I don't see the benefits. Let's assuming ironskin gives 2% per point up until 10 points, thereafter its 1%. First 10 points is 20% dr, following 30 is 30% dr. So you need 40 ironskin to hit cap. The difference is pointless, all it actually does is make people who don't know the scaling uncertain as to how to gear. It's not like it is a big decision anyways, every class wants to hit cap asap. Just like every class wants max res.

If you replace flat ele pierce with the sorc masteries, you just shit on sorc's ability to stack pierce.

The biggest issue is you now need a handbook to play appropriately. You haven't given out the handbook, if you had it's buried in threads no one is going to look in. You refer everyone to your class design page, shits fucking longer than a building design proposal. Have you played on the realms? Half of the people who play don't speak what I would call functional english. And now they have to read a novel if you ever provide it, in english, explaining invisible stats and how to benefit from them when there wasn't a problem in the first place.

As for slappy's gripe, fuck off hurricane and armagheddon does nothing on a physical melee class. The whole integrity of the game didn't have to change because you wanted to overload the amount of states for no strategic benefit. Playing barb optimally, which has the most states of any class, even being a fucking grinch and keeping up fade/shiver/chant never caused an issue after the bo combination.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:48 pm
Posts: 1661
Angel wrote:
The biggest issue is you now need a handbook to play appropriately.


You're a man, and you need an instruction manual? How about you try it past a2 norm.

Angel wrote:
As for slappy's gripe, fuck off hurricane and armagheddon does nothing on a physical melee class. The whole integrity of the game didn't have to change because you wanted to overload the amount of states for no strategic benefit.


Firstly, you have no idea what my build was. After 2 legit playthroughs on a druid, and dozens of re-specs, I believe I have found the most optimal build for this patch. You said yourself that you think synergies are useless. That was also my first impression this patch, so I ignored synergies and tried things that would be considered useless prior to this patch. I began typing out an explanation of my build, but I decided not to share with the likes of you. I'll see you on the ladder ;)

You speak of integrity, but I speak of playability. If it weren't for Brevan and Purerage's creative solutions, we would never see things like Mana burn being fixed. If you don't like their means of fixing said problems, feel free to provide alternative solutions rather than just bitching. My party straight up quit our beta playthrough because of the state overloads stopping us from continuing. It literally prevented us from continuing unless we changed gear or stopped using skills.

EDIT: Secret tip: the super secret strategic benefit to geddon/cane on a melee build is some aoe dmg :o

_________________
PureRage-DoD wrote:
Cowards die in shame, I ain't afraid to lose a char, it's not like it's important. :lol:


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:58 pm 

Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:36 am
Posts: 928
Fuck yeah I need a manual, ESPECIALLY when shit is hidden behind invisible passives and autistic parameters.

Fuck when I started I didn't even know dex weighted higher than %ED jewels because the information wasn't readily available. These things should be clearly defined, especially when you go and muck up the entire essence of the game.

Sounds like an issue with 1.7 not the prior patches with state overloads. I didn't play it the beta, but new hidden mechanics shouldn't have to be introduced to fix a problem created by them in the first place.

And if arma and hurricane were doing even mildly decent damage, that's clearly a problem with the current state of the game. And you know what? I can see them doing damage, because the fucking skill synergies are so redundant and the entire skill's damage is front-loaded onto 20 point investments. With pierce being removed to a substantial degree and I'm assuming the resistances being balanced around that, it'll make those skills strong. But you'd never get decent damage in prior versions on hurricane or arma unless you were running fireclaws/frostbite. To say otherwise is simply lying.

But hey:
20 hurricane
20 arma
20 lycan
20 bear/wolf
20 fury

Sounds like your build in a nutshell.


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: First build for v1.7?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:04 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:48 pm
Posts: 1661
Angel wrote:
But hey:
20 hurricane
20 arma
20 lycan
20 bear/wolf
20 fury


nice try but no

_________________
PureRage-DoD wrote:
Cowards die in shame, I ain't afraid to lose a char, it's not like it's important. :lol:


Top
 Offline Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: