Dear Rory
" Extrapolations have no guarantee to be right, so I asked. About the change, it all comes to the oportunity cost of using Enlighten. Will people have another, equally or more powerful use for that extra slot? If the answer is yes, then it's right. Else, nuke the fuck out of enlighten. I don't know how GGG plans on testing the change when the gem requires absurd grinding to be useful. Add a Forsaken Masters questline
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942 |
![]() |
" Jojas' Law: Whenever someone betrays ignorance about the forum rules and/or freedom of speech the probability that the content of his post betrays ignorance as well is 1. |
![]() |
" " lol the classic internet thing in line of 'I dont mean to be racist but *proceeds to be racist*'. there is no need to preclude your statements with the "I dont want to/I dont mean to". you sound like you sound. " you forgot to mention "mechanics that are working perfectly for ME and MY permanent build" " lol. dont worry, Im sure somewhere there is a plaque that will remember your valor as a martyr for "freedom of speech". it will count all the times you wrote "I don't want to sound ____". |
![]() |
" Ah, you too watched that stream where Pohx complained about not being able to find his afro ex-gf in the dark? In the cutest and most un-racist way possible, of course. That was pure gold :) Wish the armchair developers would go back to developing armchairs.
◄[www.moddb.com/mods/balancedux]► ◄[www.moddb.com/mods/one-vision1]► |
![]() |
"no, but now Im intrigued lol |
![]() |
Frankly, I quite agree with OP. What I've read about Rory putting in game such heavy changes without a single internal test just baffle me.
Such heavy gameplay mechanic changes should be tested internally on a wide range of builds, then, if satisfied (ie. the change is somehow usable at least), you can push it in public beta for wider validation, and you communicate properly on it, not by saying "no I haven't tested anything myself" which is disastrous from a communication point of view. Ranger builds list: /917964 When two witches watch two watches, which witch watches which watch? If the witches watching watches watch the same watch while you watch which witch watches which watch, they switch watches; then, the watch switching witches watch which watch you watch. Watching witches watch watches is not for the faint of heart... Последняя редакция: Panini_aux_olives#1967. Время: 8 мая 2015 г., 17:48:49
|
![]() |
" What was classically passive agressive was overtly labeling the complete nullification of Reduced Mana as a "minor balance adjustment", casually buried in a list of otherwise unremarkable tweaks. I don't think anyone disputes that this is a radical shift in gameplay balance that would literally sabotage a wide swath of currently popular builds. But if you want to take issue with the term "passive agressive", how about "disingenuous"? Последняя редакция: RogueMage#7621. Время: 8 мая 2015 г., 18:00:09
|
![]() |
" as far as I understand, the balance team actually does not do much testing themselves, period. that is mostly reserved to QA and what does a 'single internal test' in context of changing reserved mana mean exactly ? lets go from general to particular. give me a good 'use case' to 'test' new changes- that doesnt involve going to any particular meta or build or use existing references to successful builds. all these changes are 'design' changes and all of them involve purely changing numbers. for the 'testing' part all you need is an aura calculator. this is part of design. there is nothing really to 'test' in the traditional sense. something tells me that 'testing' in your opinion is quite different from what 'internal testing' actually does. |
![]() |
" seems you misinterpreted GGG's statement of a minor update that touched up only on balance as a 'minor balance update'. when you change arbitrary constats in your code, its a minor update. when you introduce new content, new mechanics or new algorithms in netcode, thats a 'major' update. they even said so themselves. |
![]() |
" The two sentences do not follow. Balance is about variety, so reduced mana is bad - what?? How does that follow. Are you suggesting that there should be multiple ways to reduce mana reservation via gems (i.e. more variety)?... I'm used to you putting more thought into your posts and explanations Scrotie. Please explain why reduced mana is bad. As it is, most people seem to be agreeing that the change doesn't promote diversity. People in leagues will be forced into playing with 1 aura + 1 herald, 1 aura +2 heralds and blood magic, or 3 heralds. They might add one more herald or aura late in the piece once they've travelled all over to get reduced mana reservation. Low-life rich people will still be stacking nearly as many auras as before but will need multiple level 4 enlightens to do so (they mostly already have +1 gem items so that won't hit their bank accounts). In all honesty, if GGG just bit the bullet hard and said "no more than 4 auras are allowed on any character", that'd be absolutely fine. This change is not achieving the aim of making auras less stackable by the small minority. |
![]() |