I agree with your argument for charge. It is a bit tedious to charge indeed. So for maximum laziness, which I also appreciate, it is better not to. However, I would still go for SOJ over CoE for speed rifting. Reason: with COE you do (way more) dmg 25% of the time and do a bit less 75%.
when COe is down, you will not wait for it to be active again. So basically you need to one shot everything when COE is down. If you can clear the content with COE down then you will clear it faster with SOJ instead. Of course COE is a better dps boost in a higher difficulty but that is beyond the point here. Also, if you don't have a decent SOJ, then I suppose Coe works.
similar arguments works agains RORG. I would argue that the dps increase of SOJ is bigger than RORG of you don't have furnace
if dps permits I would also switch Coe for the pickup ring.
My current setup is with focus / restraint witch charge as activator and movement boost. A bit more work but more consistent than playing with CoE
i would go as far to say that COE is counter productive. You want consistency. You don't want to wait for a full cycle so you can overkill mobs. so 75% of the time you don't have a boost in dps and 25% you have too big of a boost. Even if you insist on keeping RORG, I would recommend to change COE for SOJ. But really i d say focus / restraint is the better choice.
I literally fell of my chair while reading this. Where to start from?
That paragon does not make a big difference? LOL! try with 1k paragon Wizard to do a 102 rift. Even as support you need paragon.
That skill is way more important than paragon? LOL! Since when Diablo 3 has anything to do about skill??? It is freaking 90% Paragon dependable, since anyone can get items VERY easy, specially after cube was introduced and since you can fish for good map layouts.
Do you realize that you provide absolutely no evidence at all? All you say is "you're wrong, because I say otherwise and I'm right". While I believe you ARE right, please step up your game and actually explain WHY with a proper argumentation, or just don't post, it'll get people frustrated, especially those who think you are wrong and realize they are arguing with a wall.
The need to forsake dps for mitigation on gear would only be present at low plvl, after which point, the mitigation is shifted to paragon rather than gear, making it a non-issue. Also, Plvl is relatively easily obtained, as evidenced by seasons. Again, this proposal takes no interest in catering to lower plvls, but rather intends to extend the usefulness of paragon, through minor changes to the current system..
Ok, I get it. But this does not address the "paragon problem" that many have in mind in these discussions, i.e. the linear progression which incentivises dull gameplay and offers outrageous benefits to those who can spend more time in the game.
You should rename your thread accordingly, lest it be misunderstood.
@Psykstrike I've given your proposal some thought. In short, you propose to lessen the mitigation benefits of having high paragon, which will give incentives for people to invest in vita instead of main stat. If vita is to become so important, how will it change for the gap in power between low-to-high paragon? How would your proposal be any different than simply increasing the damage of the mobs in high GR? Those with less paragon will be forced to forsake dps in favor of mitigation on their gear.
Seasons are technically a substitute for power creep. D2 has not seen a power creep for many years yet those who even play it regularly have the feeling of progression.
I did some theorycrafting a while ago on a frenzy build... Have done since ever since Vanilla... but this time around seems like it finally has a chance with legacy of nightmares....
Since I don't have much time to play diablo, I theorycrafted and made a quick simulation to compare 2 gems: bane of the trapped and mirinae.
The idea, as in the OP's post, is to use mirinae on a mob with a lot of stacks of stricken. The source of AOE is berserker's rage.
The following simulations share the same setup:
APS = 3
BASE dmg = 1
Mobs killed: 3 mobs with 3000 life, 17 mobs with 1000 life. (typical blue pack)
Bane of the stricken is equipped.
Crit chance = 0.5,
Crit hit dmg = +300%
The strategy is to focus the mob with the highest amount of life remaining. (this can be improved but will not change the results much).
Here are the results: Mirinae halves our *time to kill*, compared to bane of the trapped. That is, you will kill the pack twice faster with mirinae than you would with bane of the trapped! Both gems are level 50 in this simulation.
BLUE PACK
Top graph: mirinae. We kill the pack in 600 hits (=200 sec with 3 attacks per second). We accumulate our stacks of bane of the stricken on the blue mobs (the lines on the top). The white mobs get killed by the random mirinae hits and by the AOE when we crit. Once the white mobs are killed, there is a higher chance of a mirinae proc on a mob with a high stack of trapped, resulting in big drop in the mobs life. (the average slope is way steeper).
Bottom graph: bane of the trapped. We again focus on the mob with the biggest remaining life. This is clearly a disappointing result. The white pack is dying as a result of the AOE from the crits on the blue guys.
YELLOW PACK
Same as above, but the pack is yellow: yellow mob has 6k life, his minions have 2k, and other white mobs have 1k.
The time to kill is pretty much the same as a blue pack. But for bane of the trapped, it is even slower!
Finally, let's do the same simulations with base dmg of 0: we ignore the dmg done by frenzy, we only take into account mirinae procs:
With only mirinae, we take only about 3 more time to kill!
--> mirinae seems to be the most powerful gem for our frenzy barb.
I guess eventually you want to min/max it a little more for every class depending on what items are most commonly used
I don't think min/max means what you think it means. It is only ever meaningful in a game theoretic setting, where it is a criterion for decision which maximizes the minimum payoff you'll get, whatever your opponent's strategy is. It is a very conservative criterion, too, in that you may miss big benefits to avoid an extermely unlikely outcome.
This is clearly not the case here. Min/max cannot be used here. What you meant was "optimize", or "refine".
I know it is off-topic but this abuse of language needs to stop, I've seen it everywhere in the diablo community, but it has absolutely nothing to do there. Help spread correct terminology!
[On-topic]
Great post OP. I'd like to see your exact formula in the main page in a transparent way so we can contribute to improve upon it and min-max it a bit. (haha, kidding with that last one)
We got your point Shurgosa. It's just not interesting in the present discussion, as you are asking for a different game entirely. Here, we are talking about a new type of affix and its immediate consequence on diablo 3's current iteration of patch 2.4. We are not talking about what Diablo 3 could have been, or failed to be.
Don't get me (us) wrong, we would like to make Diablo 3 as exciting as it could be, and we all have wild ideas on how to achieve that. But this is beyond the point here. And definitely comparing Diablo 3 to Wow is off-topic. Feel free to create your own topic on these lines, but I think we should not discuss these further here.
Whatever the itemization problems that diablo may have, the new type of affix seems to go into the right direction (assuming proper balancing). Quinn says it is not. Wyatt, and most of us here, after thinking it through, think that it is. That is all there is to it.
I think the discussion is closed and that the conclusion is: wyatt cheng knows better than quinn, has thought through this questions more thoroughly, realized that there is a trade-off, and has chosen for the trade-off that would make the game move forward in the correct direction.
So having "millions of combinations" reduces the game to an optimization problem where one build/gearset will be better, and there is no straightforward way to balance the items so that the second best option is close enough. The new items allow to balance the game more easily, in an orthogonal fashion for each build (so balancing the gearset for one build does not affect the other build), so the second-best option may indeed be very close to first best, so close that we may have true end-game variety in builds. Something that we currently don't have.
While he is at it, he may also realize that "randomizing end-game content" is not equivalent to "making end-game content replayable". Quite the opposite.
Frankly, I can't really think of any other game where this would be different. There're always top-builds. Tried being in the tops. Boring. Staying in the 'gray zone' ever since for fun and embracing all varieties of builds :3 Quite new to d3, but not gonna change my attitude here. And tops seem to be occupied by bots in d3 anyway. Don't think they care about variety. Casual players and new-comers have got much choice here so far.
OK so. None of this is a personal attack against you....but here it is:
MANY games do not suffer from this disease of "best build"
Starcraft did not have best units......Hearthstone does not have best cards........and Wow does not have a best arena or raid composition.
You can't compare these with diablo. Starcraft is a strategy game: you adapt to your opponent. If your opponent does strictly the same thing all the time, you will find one best way to beat him (e.g. in the campaign).
Hearthstone's "campaign" mode suffers from the very same thing: for every boss, you have one best deck to defeat it.
yes you can compare the two games despite them being different genres. why then can programmers mix the elements of first person shooters and roleplaying games at all? why did they make so many guns in borderlands? why is Deus Ex even a thing? why are there classes in Team Fortress classic? Isn't there a law against mixing genres? what good can mixing genres even do? why does destiny and call of duty and modern warfare and all that shit have "loadouts and ranks and stats and experience and levels? how was that possible?
why do situations where the Hearthstone AI does the exact same thing every time reinforce your argument and destroy mine when the situation you describe is hardly even possible without being able to choose what cards both you and him will draw? why is that?
In the case of starcrafts campaign, you may coast through campaign mode and find the AI doing the same thing over and over again....
But then you have to ignore the entire player vs player portion of the game, the portion upon which the legacy of the game was built. why the hell would you do that? why would you not see the good portion of the whole game as you state exactly "adapt to your opponent" why?
Why ignore the decade spanning legacy of starcraft PVP and latch on to the short comings of its AI????
and yet.... when you fight the same brain dead enemies in D3 year in year out....thats perfectly OK? why?
You can't compare these games to diablo because their replayability is based on pvp, while Diablo isn't.
You may also consider changing your tone and actually thinking your answer through for your next post, although I think by now that you may just be a troll.
0
I agree with your argument for charge. It is a bit tedious to charge indeed. So for maximum laziness, which I also appreciate, it is better not to. However, I would still go for SOJ over CoE for speed rifting. Reason: with COE you do (way more) dmg 25% of the time and do a bit less 75%.
when COe is down, you will not wait for it to be active again. So basically you need to one shot everything when COE is down. If you can clear the content with COE down then you will clear it faster with SOJ instead. Of course COE is a better dps boost in a higher difficulty but that is beyond the point here. Also, if you don't have a decent SOJ, then I suppose Coe works.
similar arguments works agains RORG. I would argue that the dps increase of SOJ is bigger than RORG of you don't have furnace
if dps permits I would also switch Coe for the pickup ring.
0
My current setup is with focus / restraint witch charge as activator and movement boost. A bit more work but more consistent than playing with CoE
i would go as far to say that COE is counter productive. You want consistency. You don't want to wait for a full cycle so you can overkill mobs. so 75% of the time you don't have a boost in dps and 25% you have too big of a boost. Even if you insist on keeping RORG, I would recommend to change COE for SOJ. But really i d say focus / restraint is the better choice.
0
Isn't RORG too big a price to pay for either of pants or shoulders?
I'd say a solid SOJ would compete , especially for those who don't yet have the cubed furnace.
0
Basically, this thread tells me that the frog knows what's going on with game design. Read his posts and get insight, folks. Can't add much more.
0
0
0
You should rename your thread accordingly, lest it be misunderstood.
0
@Psykstrike I've given your proposal some thought. In short, you propose to lessen the mitigation benefits of having high paragon, which will give incentives for people to invest in vita instead of main stat. If vita is to become so important, how will it change for the gap in power between low-to-high paragon? How would your proposal be any different than simply increasing the damage of the mobs in high GR? Those with less paragon will be forced to forsake dps in favor of mitigation on their gear.
0
1
Seasons are technically a substitute for power creep. D2 has not seen a power creep for many years yet those who even play it regularly have the feeling of progression.
0
Hey guys,
I did some theorycrafting a while ago on a frenzy build... Have done since ever since Vanilla... but this time around seems like it finally has a chance with legacy of nightmares....
Since I don't have much time to play diablo, I theorycrafted and made a quick simulation to compare 2 gems: bane of the trapped and mirinae.
The idea, as in the OP's post, is to use mirinae on a mob with a lot of stacks of stricken. The source of AOE is berserker's rage.
The following simulations share the same setup:
APS = 3
BASE dmg = 1
Mobs killed: 3 mobs with 3000 life, 17 mobs with 1000 life. (typical blue pack)
Bane of the stricken is equipped.
Crit chance = 0.5,
Crit hit dmg = +300%
The strategy is to focus the mob with the highest amount of life remaining. (this can be improved but will not change the results much).
Here are the results: Mirinae halves our *time to kill*, compared to bane of the trapped. That is, you will kill the pack twice faster with mirinae than you would with bane of the trapped! Both gems are level 50 in this simulation.
BLUE PACK
Top graph: mirinae. We kill the pack in 600 hits (=200 sec with 3 attacks per second). We accumulate our stacks of bane of the stricken on the blue mobs (the lines on the top). The white mobs get killed by the random mirinae hits and by the AOE when we crit. Once the white mobs are killed, there is a higher chance of a mirinae proc on a mob with a high stack of trapped, resulting in big drop in the mobs life. (the average slope is way steeper).
Bottom graph: bane of the trapped. We again focus on the mob with the biggest remaining life. This is clearly a disappointing result. The white pack is dying as a result of the AOE from the crits on the blue guys.
YELLOW PACK
Same as above, but the pack is yellow: yellow mob has 6k life, his minions have 2k, and other white mobs have 1k.
The time to kill is pretty much the same as a blue pack. But for bane of the trapped, it is even slower!
Finally, let's do the same simulations with base dmg of 0: we ignore the dmg done by frenzy, we only take into account mirinae procs:
With only mirinae, we take only about 3 more time to kill!
--> mirinae seems to be the most powerful gem for our frenzy barb.
0
I don't think min/max means what you think it means. It is only ever meaningful in a game theoretic setting, where it is a criterion for decision which maximizes the minimum payoff you'll get, whatever your opponent's strategy is. It is a very conservative criterion, too, in that you may miss big benefits to avoid an extermely unlikely outcome.
This is clearly not the case here. Min/max cannot be used here. What you meant was "optimize", or "refine".
I know it is off-topic but this abuse of language needs to stop, I've seen it everywhere in the diablo community, but it has absolutely nothing to do there. Help spread correct terminology!
[On-topic]
Great post OP. I'd like to see your exact formula in the main page in a transparent way so we can contribute to improve upon it and min-max it a bit. (haha, kidding with that last one)
0
Don't get me (us) wrong, we would like to make Diablo 3 as exciting as it could be, and we all have wild ideas on how to achieve that. But this is beyond the point here. And definitely comparing Diablo 3 to Wow is off-topic. Feel free to create your own topic on these lines, but I think we should not discuss these further here.
Whatever the itemization problems that diablo may have, the new type of affix seems to go into the right direction (assuming proper balancing). Quinn says it is not. Wyatt, and most of us here, after thinking it through, think that it is. That is all there is to it.
0
I think the discussion is closed and that the conclusion is: wyatt cheng knows better than quinn, has thought through this questions more thoroughly, realized that there is a trade-off, and has chosen for the trade-off that would make the game move forward in the correct direction.
So having "millions of combinations" reduces the game to an optimization problem where one build/gearset will be better, and there is no straightforward way to balance the items so that the second best option is close enough. The new items allow to balance the game more easily, in an orthogonal fashion for each build (so balancing the gearset for one build does not affect the other build), so the second-best option may indeed be very close to first best, so close that we may have true end-game variety in builds. Something that we currently don't have.
While he is at it, he may also realize that "randomizing end-game content" is not equivalent to "making end-game content replayable". Quite the opposite.
0
You may also consider changing your tone and actually thinking your answer through for your next post, although I think by now that you may just be a troll.