Well you initially said that the only reason you use beacons is for aggro, not RR. What i said was the fact that the beacons are OP due to their RR, coverage and trash clearing, and again you said that its only for the aggro
I said the main benefit is aggro, trash clearing and RR comes next.
I also agreed they are OP and must be nerfed.
But i can live without their RR because it’s just more enjoyable experience than running after each lazy mob who decides to ignore you.
Look, i dont want you to believe i have personal issues about yourself or anyone else. My stuff is related to the broken beacons which basically makes stuff look stronger than they actually are, fact that could further be taken into account for nerfs to chars too. The way i see these beacon runs is like i’d attempt callagadra and say its a solo, no pot, whatever fastest kill while you have a friend with a secondary full dedicated support deceiver, buffing and healing you and debuffing callagadra. You cant call that a personal achievement.
101 and 102 tribute cost mean that with initial 100 tributes you will end up with 99 and 98 tributes after 3 (or 4) runs respectively. Which means you’ll have to complete 1-10 wave every once in a while to compensate the loss. Without any cheats.
You need to go for a walk and clear your head maybe. This is some serious grudge out of nowhere.
You need 88 tributes to farm with 4 blessings and 3 level one Storm beacons if your build is able to make 3 or 4 runs during blessings duration. You do need to do one 1-10 run each ~8 (or is it 10?) 4+3 runs if you start with 100 tributes.
Where does this “101 or 102 tributes” is even coming from?
Not sure if you are trolling or something. All top-builders base the buff/banner setup on realistic farming models. Farming 4+3 is realistic and I explained why in a previous post. Yes, extra 1-10 run once in a while might seem like a choir, but it literally takes less than 2 minutes (and it actually let’s you farm a bit of mats).
Another thing is that 99% of the builds are more consistent in 4+3 setup rather than 3+1. But everyone knows all that already, not sure why you are doubting this at this point.
I dont intend to troll anybody. Not that kind of person. Just being sarcastic related to the subject. My point still stands that 4+3 doesnt prove the real capability of a build. Low aoe builds look like they overperform with them while high aoe builds like cyclone have a great time withe the rr spread and extra damage added via consistency of extra lightning bolts. My point is, they help the builds too much to the point where it creates a false impression that the build could be op.
I agree with you here. But Crucible is designed in a way that Blessings/Banners in any kind of setup make any build better. It’s meant to be like that. Sure, 4+3 makes a lot of builds work and look better than 3+1, for example Ulzuin’s buff can cover your mana regeneration problems if you were lazy building your spec and ignored mana sustain in favour of more damage, same with DA.
But it’s up to builders to post niche specs that are only really good in 4+3 environment but kind of sucky for everything else or post well-rounded specs that thrive in 4+3 runs but can also hold their own in other game mods. And it’s up to players to decide which kind of builds they want to follow.
Totally agree with this, 100%. But they must take into consideration that will nerf them based on that performance which isnt realistic. It results in being game breaking. Try doing a naked run with clairvoyant now after all those nerfs. Or even a normal 3+1 run to see how much it got hammered based on them buffs and banners.
Alright, I’ll indulge the sarcasm. I’m not trying to be hostile but to make a point:
Just like speedrunners in general have categories, people post very clearly the conditions they do their GD stuff in. Nobody’s saying to consider their results outside that context. Times and strategy are not only included in builds but are front and centre, by convention. So there’s no obscuring of conditions nor delusions of grandeur going on. Everybody knows what any given build post is showing.
Now, whether or not the context that people decide to do things within is something that you find impressive is up to you, but airing it and criticising people for their choice of stomping ground seems unfair to me.
I think you are underrating Z’s intelligence here. If clairvoyant is a case for past over-nerfing based on skewed high-end cruci metrics idk what to say because it’s still head and shoulders above most other sets for plug and play value in a broad setting.
Nor does 3+1, or any help of buffs and banners. So your and Fluff’s obsession with 3+1 is contradicting your puristic beliefs.
Furthermore, 4+3 or 3+3+1(lvl2) with Storm beacons is actually better than 3+1 for comparing builds performance:
Beacons eliminate (for the most part) aggro bugs of Crucible, the gamemode where monsters should attack you, not the other way around.
Crucible, unlike MC or shards, is heavily AoE focused, to the point of inviability of many single target focused builds. Additional aggro and dmg from the beacons helps to close the gap between more single target focused and AoE focused builds.
Storm beacons give very generic traits: aggro, RR and some standalone dmg. Vanguard on the other hand gives one very specific bonus - tons of OA. So builds that focus on dots or depend on crit chance (phys and pierce for the most part) will see much higher boost to performance from Vanguard than other builds.
For instance, my Rahbinger with it’s high %dmg value and no dots has practically no use of Vanguard. While for some phys and pierce builds with naturally low OA Vanguard will be simply build-enabling for Crucible.
I hope when 18.104.22.168 hits we’ll put this stupid discussion to rest.