Am I wrong in thinking the RoRG affix should be taken off the ring and put on a legendary gem? As it stands it feels like we only have one ring slot to play with, and even then some might argue that second slot is also spoken for. The legendary gems are a great way to add flavour to rings, and the set piece reduction affix should be included in this group.
It just shifts the pressure on to legendary gems then. We would get to pick 2 instead of 3 (arguably less of a problem than picking one of 2 sure but doesn't alleviate the problem)
If anything it should be moved to the HELLFIRE ring, so it is at least craftable. Up drop rates on keys to 100% on tVI.
But really it just shouldn't exist and all 6 sets should be 5 sets and Raekors should be a 2/3/4/ set not a 2/4/5
They already said a few times Rorg will not get nerfed. Instead there will introduce to the game some new "op" rings to rivalise with Rorg, Unity, Soj.
They already said a few times Rorg will not get nerfed. Instead there will introduce to the game some new "op" rings to rivalise with Rorg, Unity, Soj.
......while at the same time saying they're going to increase the emphasis on sets and raise all sets numbers to 6.
Does that sound like a plan for failure or what? If sets weren't so dominant, and if they'd concentrate more on non-set legs to compete with sets, well then RoRg would be far less important than it is now.
Am I wrong in thinking the RoRG affix should be taken off the ring and put on a legendary gem? As it stands it feels like we only have one ring slot to play with, and even then some might argue that second slot is also spoken for. The legendary gems are a great way to add flavour to rings, and the set piece reduction affix should be included in this group.
WE?
I dont use RoRG on any of my characters. I dont feel like I need or want it.
But that's your own choice. Some other people feel the need to mix sets for bonuses that make a RoRG mandatory. Neither of you are right or wrong. I do see the OP's point, and I agree with it. Most people use garbage RoRGs solely for the affix, and it hinders them a tad more than using a better ring.
As Blizzard are moving to 6-pieces sets, it's clear that item diversity is not their aim. And, of course, 5 Piece + RoRG give more diversity than 6 Piece. Also, a Gem with RORG feature will be quite mandatory (there will be exceptions, as there are builds without RoRG for Wizard/Barbarian). And as most builds use BotT, you will have a choice for 1 Gem. Same situation here.
They already said a few times Rorg will not get nerfed. Instead there will introduce to the game some new "op" rings to rivalise with Rorg, Unity, Soj.
......while at the same time saying they're going to increase the emphasis on sets and raise all sets numbers to 6.
Does that sound like a plan for failure or what? If sets weren't so dominant, and if they'd concentrate more on non-set legs to compete with sets, well then RoRg would be far less important than it is now.
I'm not disagreeing (rather I'm agreeing) with you, but I also think I heard them say in an interview that they want sets to be the end game gear that is the most powerful.
It's really sad though, I think you could do an amazing amount of viable builds if you capped the set bonuses at 4 pieces (scaling 6 piece sets down to 4) and buff other legs to be game changing. Having 8/13 (or more) slots locked because that's the only way to get an end-game build is stupid. Knocking that requirement down by a couple pieces exponentially increases the number of viable end game builds.
Moving the affix doesn't help the DH class. Running M6 you only get to swap out 1 item right? With the change from Attack Speed to Resource Management we swapped Tasker and Theo for Cindercoat. Changing to gems makes us have to drop Bane of the Powerful or Zei's. You can't drop Enforcer or Bane of the Trapped.
There is no ring to use other than SoJ. And BoP is the best trade for elite damage.
oving the affix doesn't help the DH class. Running M6 you only get to swap out 1 item right? With the change from Attack Speed to Resource Management we swapped Tasker and Theo for Cindercoat. Changing to gems makes us have to drop Bane of the Powerful or Zei's. You can't drop Enforcer or Bane of the Trapped.There is no ring to use other than SoJ. And BoP is the best trade for elite damage.
You have a choice between Cinder/Yan/Pride. You have a choice between Rucksack/Meticulous. You have a choice between SoJ/Compass Rose combo. And you can choose a weapon. Also, you have a choice between Taeguk/BotP/Enforcer for the third gem, so with RoRG-Gem it will be mandatory to use this gem+Zei+BotT, no choice here. But right now Marauder DH offers some diversity, much more than Condemn Crusader, for example.
Honestly the affix on RoRG is poor design with the way sets currently work. There are few, if any, legendary items capable of competing with multi-part sets.
Removing the affix entirely would be healthier for the game than making it even easier to get.
It sucks that the RoRG feels mandatory, but it is what it is. I agree that the best solution is to just decrease the number of set pieces need to activate bonuses; that's the only way to satisfy everyone without making something else feel mandatory at the same time. I will also point out, however, that a lot of people seem to be trying to farm up their RoRG before they even have enough set pieces to make it useful, which is backwards thinking to me. As a stand-alone ring, it doesn't have a lot staying power; there are tons of better ones you can wear until you collect most of your set(s) and make it worthwhile to get your RoRG. Plus, once you DO collect most of your set(s)/crafted gear, you will be able to run higher-Torment bounties, which will make it easier to farm the ring. It kills me when I see people who have been running bounties in Act I all day looking for a "perfect" RoRG, and they only have one (or none!) set piece so far; I mean, why bother, especially on Torment I?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i would choose my own religion and worship my own spirit, but if he ever preached to me i wouldn't want to hear it. i'd drop him, a forgotten god, languishing in shame; and then if i hit stormy seas, i'd have myself to blame.
It sucks that the RoRG feels mandatory, but it is what it is. I agree that the best solution is to just decrease the number of set pieces need to activate bonuses; that's the only way to satisfy everyone without making something else feel mandatory at the same time. I will also point out, however, that a lot of people seem to be trying to farm up their RoRG before they even have enough set pieces to make it useful, which is backwards thinking to me. As a stand-alone ring, it doesn't have a lot staying power; there are tons of better ones you can wear until you collect most of your set(s) and make it worthwhile to get your RoRG. Plus, once you DO collect most of your set(s)/crafted gear, you will be able to run higher-Torment bounties, which will make it easier to farm the ring. It kills me when I see people who have been running bounties in Act I all day looking for a "perfect" RoRG, and they only have one (or none!) set piece so far; I mean, why bother, especially on Torment I?
I agree with your first point. RoRG should be done away with. They should bake-in the RoRG bonus to all existing sets. This would bring more build diversity.
Although I agree with the second point, it's really not exclusive to the RoRG, and therefore not a design flaw of RoRG. As with any game (or any task in life), not all people will do it with the most optimal efficiency. It's usually due to OCD or simply a lack of information about relative value. It's just another thing that differentiates good players from the rest. There's nothing to do about it anyway.
There are few things they can do to allow more diversity:
1) Decrease sets to 4 or 5 pieces max
2) Move to RORG bonus to paragon and have it cost 100 or more points.
3) Make all sets have n+1 pieces (much like Firebirds)
4) move legendaries with synergy to non-set pieces.
Any of those, or all of those could help with the issue. The problem is that if sets are the way to power (like they are currently are) then RORG is mandatory in circumstances (like all WD sets) where the legendaries that have good synergy with the set overlap with one of the pieces.
It does suck though, that even if you only use one set, it's often still pretty required to use RORG, as not using results in a HUGE efficiency loss.
"Baking" RoRG into all sets won't increase diversity. It'll be at best a zero change.
If you want to increase diversity you don't homogenize things, you provide multiple competing options. The RoRG effect actually REDUCES diversity no matter how you gain access to it.
Imagine for a moment if you had to wear a 6p set to get the good bonuses. Now imagine all legendaries have compelling useful effects. You're left with a choice between having a cohesive set of focused bonuses (a set) or a combination of more disparate effects which result in similar total power (legendaries). As it stands legendaries don't, as a whole, have compelling effects in most slots, and the ones that do are absolutely mandatory to wear with their thematically appropriate 6p sets thereby requiring a RoRG because there are no competing effects in the ring slot.
In theory just adding competitive ring affixes would make RoRG less mandatory thereby increasing diversity. That's part of why Halo of Arlyse found its way into the game. Unfortunately you need more than 3 good rings to get to a diverse item pool.
At the end of the day RoRG is bad design which is reducing build diversity. Fortunately there are solutions.
And no. None of those solutions which increase build diversity involve making the affix more accessible.
I just wish rorg had better attributes roll on it from the start. In mosts builds a rorg is required, but you rarely can get one with great stats. People farm for it and then have to settle for the crappy rolls. I have 2 ancients and they still arent that great.
I see a few people suggesting "make sets require fewer pieces for their bonus" to make RoRG less mandatory.
Wouldn't that actually make it even MORE powerful and thus MORE mandatory, by giving even greater scope for getting multiple top set bonuses simultaneously?
e.g. instead of equipping 5 pieces of a 6 piece set + RoRG you could now equip 3 pieces each of two different 4 piece sets, plus RoRG, getting two powerful set bonuses?
Or is the answer to try to make all the most powerful set bonuses effectively exclusive, by making them buff specific skills?
I see a few people suggesting "make sets require fewer pieces for their bonus" to make RoRG less mandatory.
Wouldn't that actually make it even MORE powerful and thus MORE mandatory, by giving even greater scope for getting multiple top set bonuses simultaneously?
e.g. instead of equipping 5 pieces of a 6 piece set + RoRG you could now equip 3 pieces each of two different 4 piece sets, plus RoRG, getting two powerful set bonuses?
Or is the answer to try to make all the most powerful set bonuses effectively exclusive, by making them buff specific skills?
The solution is to remove RoRG form the game and not change sets at all.
Then you're either getting 6P Jade Doctor or Double DoT damage. Not both. Funny thing is that change might actually result in an environment where legendary and set builds are competing wit hone another.
Or the sets that would be "crushed" without RoRG could be balanced instead of having to account for RoRG in their balance (which is why they're weaker without RoRG than other options).
Keeping is AND lowering set piece requirements would just make itemization even worse. Especially as more legendaries get added to the game.
Or make rorg only work for 6 piece sets. Blizzard can and has made certain item changes retroactive (see Marauders). A few people run less than 6 piece sets so it would lessen the value of rorg somewhat while still keeping in a nice item to use.
Am I wrong in thinking the RoRG affix should be taken off the ring and put on a legendary gem? As it stands it feels like we only have one ring slot to play with, and even then some might argue that second slot is also spoken for. The legendary gems are a great way to add flavour to rings, and the set piece reduction affix should be included in this group.
It just shifts the pressure on to legendary gems then. We would get to pick 2 instead of 3 (arguably less of a problem than picking one of 2 sure but doesn't alleviate the problem)
If anything it should be moved to the HELLFIRE ring, so it is at least craftable. Up drop rates on keys to 100% on tVI.
But really it just shouldn't exist and all 6 sets should be 5 sets and Raekors should be a 2/3/4/ set not a 2/4/5
They already said a few times Rorg will not get nerfed. Instead there will introduce to the game some new "op" rings to rivalise with Rorg, Unity, Soj.
Season 11 Necromancer vids: https://www.youtube.com/c/RavennWo
......while at the same time saying they're going to increase the emphasis on sets and raise all sets numbers to 6.
Does that sound like a plan for failure or what? If sets weren't so dominant, and if they'd concentrate more on non-set legs to compete with sets, well then RoRg would be far less important than it is now.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
But that's your own choice. Some other people feel the need to mix sets for bonuses that make a RoRG mandatory. Neither of you are right or wrong. I do see the OP's point, and I agree with it. Most people use garbage RoRGs solely for the affix, and it hinders them a tad more than using a better ring.
Battle.net Profile / Diablo Progress Profile
As Blizzard are moving to 6-pieces sets, it's clear that item diversity is not their aim. And, of course, 5 Piece + RoRG give more diversity than 6 Piece. Also, a Gem with RORG feature will be quite mandatory (there will be exceptions, as there are builds without RoRG for Wizard/Barbarian). And as most builds use BotT, you will have a choice for 1 Gem. Same situation here.
I'm not disagreeing (rather I'm agreeing) with you, but I also think I heard them say in an interview that they want sets to be the end game gear that is the most powerful.
It's really sad though, I think you could do an amazing amount of viable builds if you capped the set bonuses at 4 pieces (scaling 6 piece sets down to 4) and buff other legs to be game changing. Having 8/13 (or more) slots locked because that's the only way to get an end-game build is stupid. Knocking that requirement down by a couple pieces exponentially increases the number of viable end game builds.
Moving the affix doesn't help the DH class. Running M6 you only get to swap out 1 item right? With the change from Attack Speed to Resource Management we swapped Tasker and Theo for Cindercoat. Changing to gems makes us have to drop Bane of the Powerful or Zei's. You can't drop Enforcer or Bane of the Trapped.
There is no ring to use other than SoJ. And BoP is the best trade for elite damage.
Honestly the affix on RoRG is poor design with the way sets currently work. There are few, if any, legendary items capable of competing with multi-part sets.
Removing the affix entirely would be healthier for the game than making it even easier to get.
It sucks that the RoRG feels mandatory, but it is what it is. I agree that the best solution is to just decrease the number of set pieces need to activate bonuses; that's the only way to satisfy everyone without making something else feel mandatory at the same time. I will also point out, however, that a lot of people seem to be trying to farm up their RoRG before they even have enough set pieces to make it useful, which is backwards thinking to me. As a stand-alone ring, it doesn't have a lot staying power; there are tons of better ones you can wear until you collect most of your set(s) and make it worthwhile to get your RoRG. Plus, once you DO collect most of your set(s)/crafted gear, you will be able to run higher-Torment bounties, which will make it easier to farm the ring. It kills me when I see people who have been running bounties in Act I all day looking for a "perfect" RoRG, and they only have one (or none!) set piece so far; I mean, why bother, especially on Torment I?
I agree with your first point. RoRG should be done away with. They should bake-in the RoRG bonus to all existing sets. This would bring more build diversity.
Although I agree with the second point, it's really not exclusive to the RoRG, and therefore not a design flaw of RoRG. As with any game (or any task in life), not all people will do it with the most optimal efficiency. It's usually due to OCD or simply a lack of information about relative value. It's just another thing that differentiates good players from the rest. There's nothing to do about it anyway.
There are few things they can do to allow more diversity:
1) Decrease sets to 4 or 5 pieces max
2) Move to RORG bonus to paragon and have it cost 100 or more points.
3) Make all sets have n+1 pieces (much like Firebirds)
4) move legendaries with synergy to non-set pieces.
Any of those, or all of those could help with the issue. The problem is that if sets are the way to power (like they are currently are) then RORG is mandatory in circumstances (like all WD sets) where the legendaries that have good synergy with the set overlap with one of the pieces.
It does suck though, that even if you only use one set, it's often still pretty required to use RORG, as not using results in a HUGE efficiency loss.
"Baking" RoRG into all sets won't increase diversity. It'll be at best a zero change.
If you want to increase diversity you don't homogenize things, you provide multiple competing options. The RoRG effect actually REDUCES diversity no matter how you gain access to it.
Imagine for a moment if you had to wear a 6p set to get the good bonuses. Now imagine all legendaries have compelling useful effects. You're left with a choice between having a cohesive set of focused bonuses (a set) or a combination of more disparate effects which result in similar total power (legendaries). As it stands legendaries don't, as a whole, have compelling effects in most slots, and the ones that do are absolutely mandatory to wear with their thematically appropriate 6p sets thereby requiring a RoRG because there are no competing effects in the ring slot.
In theory just adding competitive ring affixes would make RoRG less mandatory thereby increasing diversity. That's part of why Halo of Arlyse found its way into the game. Unfortunately you need more than 3 good rings to get to a diverse item pool.
At the end of the day RoRG is bad design which is reducing build diversity. Fortunately there are solutions.
And no. None of those solutions which increase build diversity involve making the affix more accessible.
6 pc bonuses should be just 5. or they should increase the items, similar to firebirds.
I doubt they'd change rorg anymore
I just wish rorg had better attributes roll on it from the start. In mosts builds a rorg is required, but you rarely can get one with great stats. People farm for it and then have to settle for the crappy rolls. I have 2 ancients and they still arent that great.
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/pantherdane-1591/hero/39933784
I see a few people suggesting "make sets require fewer pieces for their bonus" to make RoRG less mandatory.
Wouldn't that actually make it even MORE powerful and thus MORE mandatory, by giving even greater scope for getting multiple top set bonuses simultaneously?
e.g. instead of equipping 5 pieces of a 6 piece set + RoRG you could now equip 3 pieces each of two different 4 piece sets, plus RoRG, getting two powerful set bonuses?
Or is the answer to try to make all the most powerful set bonuses effectively exclusive, by making them buff specific skills?
The solution is to remove RoRG form the game and not change sets at all.
Then you're either getting 6P Jade Doctor or Double DoT damage. Not both. Funny thing is that change might actually result in an environment where legendary and set builds are competing wit hone another.
Or the sets that would be "crushed" without RoRG could be balanced instead of having to account for RoRG in their balance (which is why they're weaker without RoRG than other options).
Keeping is AND lowering set piece requirements would just make itemization even worse. Especially as more legendaries get added to the game.
Or make rorg only work for 6 piece sets. Blizzard can and has made certain item changes retroactive (see Marauders). A few people run less than 6 piece sets so it would lessen the value of rorg somewhat while still keeping in a nice item to use.
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/pantherdane-1591/hero/39933784