Slayer/Choppa armor set variety

[MiauMio]

First off I'd like to clarify that this is not supposed to be a whine-thread but rather a discussion if any of the named sets have any viability whatsoever.

Let's look at sets like Dominator, Ruin and Redeye just to get an idea if they are of any use for a Choppa apart from 2piece strengh splits like every other set.
The truth is: Choppas can not get tanky even with the most defensive sets due to their class mechanic. But if you throw away all of your offensive potential to have underwhelming set bonuses like 3%crit reduction(3 piece redeye), 55 toughness (5 piece ruin) or the glorious 5% crit reduction on 6 piece DOM you'll be of no use both defensively AND offensively. The only viable defensive stats for Slayer/Chopp are parry/disrupt/evade which are nowhere to be seen even on the supposedly defensive sets (apart from duelist - 10%parry/evade/disrupt proc and 5%parry on 5 piece which makes it the only viable defensive set and proves to be quite awesome at lvl29.)

It seems to be the case that those sets were just not made for Choppa but for all the other MDPS that might have a more tanky build that actually can make use of those mediocre set bonuses.
This effectively limits Slayer/Chopps to wear the few purely offensive sets as splits or the (imo) subpar 6piece CONQ that some people prefer over strengh splits for the 5% crit.
But no one would wear 6 piece DOM or 6 piece ruin if they have a choice (and any clue).

Additionally, even though this seems to be a hot topic for some reason, the Slayer/Choppa does not get a WS bonus on Redeye like all other MDPS do (you'd ask yourself why but thats not the topic here) which makes the set utter garbage due to heaps of useless defensive stats and way too few offensive stats which doesn't even allow for interesting splits - 3%crit reduction on 2 piece, 400 armor on 4 piece.
I could go on explaining why almost all defensive stats are completely wasted stats on a choppa but would rather like to get to that in the discussion to keep this short.
So all I'm trying to point out is the very much lacking variety of usefull/wearable sets for Slayers/Chopps due to the fact that most sets are not specifically made for one class but rather are the same for all MDPS which results in heaps of useless sets for Chopps. To add insult to injury the only class specific set Choppa has would be the Redeye that is actually intentionally way worse than for other MDPS.

To give Slayers and Choppas more room to play around with gear and different builds I'd love to see the overly defensive sets like DOM to change to a more usefull one since it is likely not worn by a single player which is a waste of creative possibilities imo. And inbefore "just because you want it..." or "Choppas can be viable therefor any proposed change is heresy" I'd like to clarify that I'm not proposing to give Slayers/Chopps just more stats for free but making the completely unused sets like DOM wearable so you'd have more creative freedom than choosing your 2piece strengh split of choice.

[Darosh]

Now, if that wall of text didn't consist almost entirely of absolutes instead of actual arguments for your case ~ I still wouldn't agree with you, but could keep atleast a straight face.

[GodlessCrom]

But crit reduction is nice.

[MiauMio]

Now, if that wall of text didn't consist almost entirely of absolutes instead of actual arguments for your case ~ I still wouldn't agree with you, but could keep atleast a straight face.

Well you can't do it right afterall. If i just argued that the variety of wearable sets is too low you'd ask for examples or evidence and the other way around you cry about "wall of text". And if you can't find the abstraction in there you are surely not reading very thoroughly. Additionally I'm not writing this text to entertain you but inform the interested reader about the vast gap in viability of Choppa sets, if you are not interested in that but want to get entertained some more I can reccomend some cat vids on YT.

[mubbl]

But crit reduction is nice.

can be handy no doubt on the first view, but you lose some offensive stats

[NoRKaLKiLLa]

I too would like to see some variety in sets. As well as cat videos on youtube.

[Darosh]

Now, if that wall of text didn't consist almost entirely of absolutes instead of actual arguments for your case ~ I still wouldn't agree with you, but could keep atleast a straight face.

Well you can't do it right afterall. If i just argued that the variety of wearable sets is too low you'd ask for examples or evidence and the other way around you cry about "wall of text". And if you can't find the abstraction in there you are surely not reading very thoroughly. Additionally I'm not writing this text to entertain you but inform the interested reader about the vast gap in viability of Choppa sets, if you are not interested in that but want to get entertained some more I can reccomend some cat vids on YT.

Your entire case boils down to: "I can't imagine myself or anyone use or value set xyz, therefor it should be changed.", it's a natural consequence of making claims to be prompted to produce evidence (e.g.: comparisions, breakdowns of stats, yadayada) isn't it?
Now, mind you, I don't cry about 'wall-of-texts' but rather a lack of content within those wall-of-gibberish ~ it seems to me that you mistake yourself repeating your unsubstantiated claims with abstracting the topic for the 'interested reader'.
Not every 'interested reader' has a grasp on the stat distribution of the sets in question, or the availability of the sets as such (e.g.: your bit about duelist being the only set offering avoidance is either intentionally misleading or plain wrong and to be traced back to missinformation; Overlord, anyone?), so why wouldn't you offer proper examples by default?

You could have posted a breakdown of all available t4 SL/CH sets; i.e.: plain numbers, added a cheeky 'discuss, cunts' and would have done a thousand times better.

TLDR: Obfuscation != abstraction.

[mubbl]

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Now, if that wall of text didn't consist almost entirely of absolutes instead of actual arguments for your case ~ I still wouldn't agree with you, but could keep atleast a straight face.

Well you can't do it right afterall. If i just argued that the variety of wearable sets is too low you'd ask for examples or evidence and the other way around you cry about "wall of text". And if you can't find the abstraction in there you are surely not reading very thoroughly. Additionally I'm not writing this text to entertain you but inform the interested reader about the vast gap in viability of Choppa sets, if you are not interested in that but want to get entertained some more I can reccomend some cat vids on YT.

Your entire case boils down to: "I can't imagine myself or anyone use or value set xyz, therefor it should be changed.", it's a natural consequence of making claims to be prompted to produce evidence (e.g.: comparisions, breakdowns of stats, yadayada) isn't it?
Now, mind you, I don't cry about 'wall-of-texts' but rather a lack of content within those wall-of-gibberish ~ it seems to me that you mistake yourself repeating your unsubstantiated claims with abstracting the topic for the 'interested reader'.
Not every 'interested reader' has a grasp on the stat distribution of the sets in question, or the availability of the sets as such (e.g.: your bit about duelist being the only set offering avoidance is either intentionally misleading or plain wrong and to be traced back to missinformation; Overlord, anyone?), so why wouldn't you offer proper examples by default?

You could have posted a breakdown of all available t4 SL/CH sets; i.e.: plain numbers, added a cheeky 'discuss, cunts' and would have done a thousand times better.

TLDR: Obfuscation != abstraction.

you could have done the same, but no you just to be a troll or are guy with no attitude instead of been grown up...looked through your last post. seems like you just can provokate if you disagree with someone and be nice if you want something.....behavouir of a child.

I too would like to see some variety in sets. As well as cat videos on youtube.

me too, but we still have some sets to get in the future we may get some varity in gear...hopefully

[Darosh]

Spoiler:

you could have done the same, but no you just to be a troll or are guy with no attitude instead of been grown up...looked through your last post. seems like you just can provokate if you disagree with someone and be nice if you want something.....behavouir of a child.

Why would I provide evidence for a claim I didn't make, let alone disagree with?
Moreso, what exactly do I want and am acting nice for? ~ Give me some context for that one, kinda baffling, tbh; I try to be consistent, whether I am consistently a **** or not isn't relevant to me in that regard.

I certainly won't apologize or 'feel bad' for challenging a badly composed OP ~ have a look through the balance proposals, there are plenty of posts I'd vividly disagree with, yet wouldn't tear on like I do here, why? Simple: basic effort and a lack of mindless absolutes.

Mind you, if I were a mere troll I'd be in it for shits and giggles... I wouldn't waste my time giving hints as to how altercations with cunts like me could be avoided.

Bleh.

Abbd.:

Spoiler:

1. Point towards this (mind minor discrepancies), the respective wiki page(s) or a custom compilation of stat distribution/sets.
2. State your observations (e.g.: conflict between standardized sets and class mechanics; 'All SL/CH sets are [almost] identical.', w/e) and your suggestion.
3. State what could go wrong (e.g.: stat/class themed sets + group synergy = potential mayhem [powercreep or discrepancy of gear value; 'Why add more sets if by the end of it new sets entirely invalidate all others?' or w/e], gear acquisition ['Where are shinies supposed to come from?' ~ Change Redeye and everyone complains about BiS from PvE*...]).
4. ??? (Best case scenario: You've convinced people that have no clue about the topic with data [some of which will now argue for their class to receive altered shinies based on consensus], discussion yields better ideas because you now have an influx of perspectives from all over ~ not just a small circle of derps [like me].)
5. Profit. (= Devs fancy a particular idea and implement it; no unsubstantial +1 circlejerk.)

* I could see a mixed set aqcuisition work out for new (class-themed) sets, e.g.: 7/7, 3/7 from RvR, 2/7 PvE, 2/7 Scenario ~ or Forts/Cities w/e.

[mubbl]

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

you could have done the same, but no you just to be a troll or are guy with no attitude instead of been grown up...looked through your last post. seems like you just can provokate if you disagree with someone and be nice if you want something.....behavouir of a child.

Why would I provide evidence for a claim I didn't make, let alone disagree with?
Moreso, what exactly do I want and am acting nice for? ~ Give me some context for that one, kinda baffling, tbh; I try to be consistent, whether I am consistently a **** or not isn't relevant to me in that regard.

I certainly won't apologize or 'feel bad' for challenging a badly composed OP ~ have a look through the balance proposals, there are plenty of posts I'd vividly disagree with, yet wouldn't tear on like I do here, why? Simple: basic effort and a lack of mindless absolutes.

Mind you, if I were a mere troll I'd be in it for shits and giggles... I wouldn't waste my time giving hints as to how altercations with cunts like me could be avoided.

Bleh.

hmm i see you got your principles, even i dont like them. im sure facts have the porblem they are mostly absolutes cause thats what facts do, do they? but what so ever your principles and mine wont go along.
so you agree with the topic? cause otherwise you could shatter these absolutes