No, it’s not. It converts 200-300% pierce to chaos on Whirling Death. 100% would be enough, I think… Unless there are other optons for chaos dw melee save Fangs of Ch’thon.
And a thousand other little things. Listed in a thread that was rolled back.
Does this thing have a reset button? I think it’s stuck on repeat.
Other options for chaos dw melee include a Witchblade, dual wielding Corruptor’s Servitors and equipping Mythical Voidsteel Gauntlets. That way you get +55%weapon damage to Cadence, 100% physical converted to chaos to Cadence, and flat chaos damage added to Cadence. True, that means you can’t use Touch of Chaos that comes with Rah’Zin, but I think monstrous chaos Cadence hits should be enough to compensate for it. And you get a buff to Zolhan’s Technique from Rah’Zin.
And, with 35% rr plus rings and weapon augment, how would this compare to Belgo, Deathmarked or Venomblade?
EDIT: Oh, and did I mention that they’re NERFING DYING GOD AGAIN (again nerfing not again mention) which is a direct nerf to Rah’Zin? No cdr means 50% uptime now… So, there’s little choice but to take Aeon and give up on Korvaak or other key devotions. This actually seems like a meganerf to a very lackluster build.
-‘Markovian was capable of maintaining a defensive stance nearly indefinitely at the cost of his offense’
-add -10% shield recovery time to it
hurr durr
I am very curious how Stoneguard Warlord will be after the patch. Maybe it will be better to dump markovian defense and rotate overguard with ascension while the hardest SR fights go overguard+ascension - aether shard - overguard + ascension - die - wait for shard cd - repeat.
Where did this come from…sounds like the agreement is a bit too casual. I assure you that you have to really work for Belgo to be that good in crucible or reliable in any way in SR.
As for Deathmarked It’s also fine the set itse’f. If infiltrator is stronger than Dervish, That’s another issue
Well I take issue with the word complain, it’s negative and the forum primarily uses the word feedback. There may be a line when persistent and repeated comments become a nuisance but giving the impression that any feedback is some burdensome complaint is simply not right.
Anyway, there is a contradiction to complaining about complaints; why do you get to complain about the way another behaves but I don’t get to complain about Crate’s balance? Trying to silence or guilt-trip people giving feedback won’t make the playerbase believe that balance changes are reasonable either.
What do responses like this mean? Feedback acknowledged? totally disagree? partially disagree? It can be hard to gauge your thoughts sometimes.
I am on this forum to try to contribute constructive feedback but sometimes I feel the culture (both community and dev responses) around feedback (or complaints as some people call it?) is becoming too inhibitive.
What do responses like this mean? Feedback acknowledged? totally disagree? partially disagree? It can be hard to gauge your thoughts sometimes.
I think it means something like:
[i]"I should have never said something in Discord about patch probably coming tomorrow.
If I would have waited till patch is there a few more people would have tried the changes with their toons in game and not complain with only theorycrafting.
Then we could have changed some things via a later Hotfix if needed."[/i]
There is feedback, and there is general panic and complaint over things that weren’t even tested.
In the past, devs comunicated with the community well but now it happens even more often and openly. This can lead players to feel frustrated when they don’t get their way(i’ve done it too a bit). It’s kinda like in a relationship i guess, when certain barriers are crossed.
So it’s really up to the community in the end to treat things fairly, pace itself, and not take the relationship for granted
a) Only a minority (I might be wrong) appreciate the changes which are made and are clearly buffs or QoL-Features. Mostly complaints or “Thank you, but…”
b) Nobody has tried anything except Praetorians. Yeah, some changes might be not the way they should be but a proper feedback would be:
Read it.
Test it.
Make suggestions how to make it better.
c) (related to b)). Even if there are some really good suggestions in this thread, it is a mess to find them between the whole other postings. After testing it a separate thread for each issue would make things a lot easier to Devs.
Have you considered to increase the cooldown of the ravens mend flesh ability, so it can do more damage instead burst healing all over the place? Or increase the effect of mend flesh and inrease cooldown.
I think you missed what I meant. Preview purpose is to catch the most unfair changes, like things that were weak in the first place but received more nerfs (e.g resilience). Testing is not always necessary as in a case like this we have more powerful resilience and it is still weak to invest in…
I do get that decent feedback may be few and far between though.
If you think e. g. Resilience was weak and is now even weaker (I personally wouldn´t say it was “weak” in the first place), then there should have been a thread long before this preview.
Pretty sure the purpose of these previews isn’t for people to point out what they deem unfair changes without first testing them, considering Z has asked (both now and in the past) for pretty much the complete opposite of that. :eek:
