So in latest patch we got this The Desolator: increased % Physical dealt as Fire to 100%
And we have a fun set with single coversion on it where we have 84% phys->lightning in imaginarium perfect world.
But let’s be honest-Ultos Stormseeker is one of the most overloaded axe with needed stats in the game and it’s almost unreal to get 54% on axe when you try to get as maximum stats as you can.
So my suggestions here:
1 - increase phys->lightning conversion for full set from 30% to 60% so we can have full lightning builds with lightning based set wich have only one converion on it
2 - increase phys->lightning conversion for full set from 30% to 100% and replace conversion on the axe with 5/7% OA for examle because outside of Druid other classes lacks oa
I’m not sure that we can call this a bump, when set overall is mediocre (if not worse). Survivability is ok with latest regen buffs, but damage… it’s like 10 steps away if we compare it with other sets like avenger. So no, it will not be a big bump, just good qol change
Imo the set power is fine, especially for how good primal strike/savagery are on their own.
But I agreed that having damage left unconverted is frustrating, I would enjoy for example having Ultos rebalanced to have full conversion while keeping the current power. A waste of resource for the developers probably
re Z’s mention
you are the premiere builder of Ultos
and both your versions clear SR + Celestials in decent times? “that’s technically all a build needs”.
Not every build has to be = to avenger or even any of the top20 spots, those are “outliers” and should be treated as such, not avg balancing benchmarks.
*this is not me arguing the suggested change is egregious in anyway, just reminding people of how things work/the actual stated guidelines for buff requests/“top20 comparison is not a good argument”
Reminding who? Remember, most people who read this thread and your nonsensical reply are longtime vets of GD and not some casual who just wants a good build. They (the casuals who you continue to pretend to be the voice for-yet have over 3k hrs); won’t notice the difference between current Ultos and potentially buffed version.
The top players will always advocate for buffs ofc but it is mostly within reason BC they understand a bit of the balance and what’s broken in current meta; and consequently what needs to be buffed
And the devs don’t need to be reminded of 'how things work 'cause I’m pretty dang sure they built and balanced the game…
… my man, i’m literally stating the devs own prior mentions
you even have Z directly asking if it’s actually necessary “i’m guessing for a reason”
you have Zantai expressly mention several times top20 is not a balancing argument/goal; “these are outliers” - so trying to use said argument “as reason for buffs”, kinda doesn’t work? and seems like it might then actually need reminding of, even to those vets ?
we even had an expressly stated time frame at some point where anything “within this”, sub 5 crucible “probably shouldn’t be suggested for buffs”, and that’s additioanlly outside of top20 outliers
yet here we are, a veteran, with a build perfectly in line with the stated goals “asking for buffs anyway”
again i’m not arguing it’s an egregious or wrong request, but by dev’s ptr’s balancing/buff request definition it’s definitely not really “necessary”, but since it’s requested anyway seems like yes it might deserve reminding?..
so even if it’s not egregious, since the build is technically performing perfectly within accepted peformance specs; yes it’s literal “powercreep”,and for powercreep’s reason too - that deserves “scrutiny”/reminding on its own
because, as usual, it seems like people are actually forgetting these things, for one reason or another
maybe it could be summed up as a bunch of buff requests aren’t actual needs but (personal power?) desires
and buffs wasn’t intended to just keep piling on onto already solid stuff, but bumping underperforming stuff… stuff that needs it
top 20 builds have been nerfed because of top20? *sometimes other collaterally
but you can’t use that as an argument either for buffing a not only not underperfoming build, but a build perfectly in performance metrics tolerances, and a totally unrelated build on top
Avenger being nerfed is not an arguement for subsequently buffing avenger. Avenger being strong and nerfed is not an argument for buffing X other/unrelated build “when that build is 100% within specs, even if not on par with avenger”
…
yes in essence the stated tolerances will always be arbitrary, but as long as they are there that’s what we should work within, and keep in mind when then requesting to make buffs. We’re not really supposed to ask for buffs just for buffs sakes, but because it’s to some degree actual “necessary” (and yes i get the irony of that since a bunch of buff requests fall out of that and is still granted )
Top20? What a nonsense you talking about here? I don’t care about top20. I’m just talking about concrete set and it’s state. Yes, you can kill dog…for like 3,5 mins and if will be lucky enough to survive. Same with calla, 6+ mins SR 30-31, 6-7 mins naked ex cr. I’m not asking here to rework or even remove thunderous strike (even if there are some reasons). And I will never write a feedback without a reason
Absolutely agree, but not 10 steps behind
Yes and that’s the point why I know what I’m talking about-i spent too much time to test it and not only with warder
And yes, how much dps will you gain for 16% additional phys->lightning when you still affected by -28% tdm? Like 2%? Nice bump. Huuuge
And last-if you will look closely at dog fight you will see some cool stuff-huge problems with mana, misses (thanks huge 3k oa and you can’t take points from physique and invest them to cunning-you have 2700 DA already), “nice” LL and damage (thanks -tdm) and only regen can’t help here
25 steps behind is totally fine, when that point of origin is top20/avenger
avenger is a top20 build, with above and beyond norm/“expectations” performance, hence why i’m saying it’s not a good arguement to use
sure, i’m not invalidating your builds or anything remember?
i’m merely stating that your build post literally puts it currently in what was the sweetspot targetframe for regular build balancing consideration, and not underperforming.
i even stressed i’m not saying the request is egregious
but your build/its performance is smack right perfect in guidelines for expected/tolerated performance, so even if it’s a tiny bump, by definition it doesn’t really need it, right?
if it constantly died/couldn’t’ reliably clear 30-31, like VoS ultos druid couldn’t, then it suddenly makes sense something is missing? But your Ultos is technically currently doing just fine, right? - even if it’s not on avenger level
idono, if Z changes/updates the prior stance of what’s expected/tolerable performance metrics, then it would make totally sense no matter how big or tiny the request was.
I’m bringing it up because yours was in the sweetspot for builds, and seemed like sometimes it gets lost sight of.
sure, but the use and context also matters
When avenger set gets put in play, it’s a top20 build, because it’s that strong, that means whatever survival/dmg comparison you’re drawing on for the set, doesnt’ really hold up; because it’s technically (currently) a nerf worthy set (dont’ tell Lee that part )
idono maybe i’m phrasing it wrong.
You’re arguing for bonus X to Ultos, i’m not saying that’s wrong/bad, i’m saying on a technical level your Ultos metrics is fine.
You’re then using an overpowered set, forming an overpowered build, as validation for Ultos being in need. But if Avenger “should” be nerfed down because it’s so strong, that disparity comparison then isn’t the same anymore.
i think that’s why it stood out so much, because balance comparison wise Avenger is like a horrible example to use, since it’s just so “egregiously” great a build
- that deserves “scrutiny”/reminding on its own
)
builds, and seemed like sometimes it gets lost sight of.