First things first: I have no reason - nor intention - to trust your reasoning; it works or it doesn't, whatever change either acknowledges all aspects of the initial problem or it doesn't.Azarael wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:46 pmProbably. Does that make me any different from, say, anyone else in the world? If something gets changed - by anyone - it means they are unhappy with it. The question is whether or not you trust my reasoning, and if you don't, and not everyone will then... I'm afraid my answer to that is "What the hell."Darosh wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:15 pmPersonal preference is a strawman if you use it as base for argumentation, just to contradict yourself later on down the road... the ability to use/support something you do not like doesn't turn you into a saint, it just shows that your personal preference is in essence meaningless (as is the personal preference of everyone else).
Is it to be expected, that if you someday happen do dislike xyz in the game, xyz is being hammered away on in spite of it functioning; in spite of its actually flaws and shortcomings?
For all I know and care you can be upset about a forest in flames and go about extinguishing the fires, if you don't acknowledge the possibility of a dimwit lighting the fires your efforts are meaningless; if you rather resort to razing the forest to prevent further and future harm than to acknowledge possibility of a dimwit lighting the fires ... "What the hell."
Yes, you have succesfully tampered with the class, and made 2h semi-reliable in and of itself (as in 'working'/'playable'), but by no means solved the issue at hand. ID did obscure the actual ST trees, not because it's been overperforming, but because the alternatives were and are, afterall, garbage ~ your rework of Violent Impacts being a diamond within the dirt, I have to admit.Azarael wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:46 pm Probably. Does that make me any different from, say, anyone else in the world? If something gets changed - by anyone - it means they are unhappy with it. The question is whether or not you trust my reasoning, and if you don't, and not everyone will then... I'm afraid my answer to that is "What the hell."Sorry, but I de facto did solve the problem I set out to solve. That's not arguable. You now spec single target for single target and you spec AoE for AoE. I set out not to create the perfect class but to prevent Skavenslayer from being used for everything - and I "tampered" (your continued use of this word is beginning to annoy me) with the parts of Skavenslayer which were specifically being used for ST. My core problem was never "ID is mandatory" - would I complain that Ether Dance is mandatory in damaging SM builds? My core problem was that ID did everything and obscured the actual ST trees. If you're going to reply to me, acknowledge that.Darosh wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:15 pmYou didn't solve the shortcomings with the mastery trees either, you essentially moved a problem from one tree to another while subjecting the entire class to the implications of it, whilst tampering with the bits unrelated to the issues that you deemed too strong of a competition for your rework ~ without any consideration whatsoever of how paper-play conflicts with what is actually being played.
You've singled out ID whilst completly neglecting the other aspects that play into the terrible design and shortcomings of Giantslayer - ID has been fancied, and still is being fancied over 2h (bar roleplaying purposes and rule of cool) because it comes with, for example, dual wield and shatter limbs (you can pick up SL with 2h, but whats the point running 2h and sacrificing mastery points if you get better returns investing into everything but giantslayer?). You, again, moved problems around, you didn't fix them. If I were to describe your approach with one word: Tunnelvision.
On a sidenote: What's the point of reinforcing a finisher-weaving playstyle if the majority of relevant finishers have a +10s CD? It essentially consitutes Power-Through-lite ~ low-uptime on-demand burst that lacks behind in terms of reliability if compared to plain pressure any dual wield spec offers, whilst softlocking you into red regardless (you'll see yourself spamming just whatever finisher to get out of red, to buffer for the invetiable focus [credit where credit is due, your change to the detaunt alleviated it a bit] and AP starve yourself while you are at it)? It's playable, yes, it is also still outclassed outside of pug scenarios by others specs available and, more importantly, other classes - in terms of the latter: by miles - as it comes to ease of use, plain sustain, pressure, burst, utility and overall maintainence.
Abbd.:
In essence: two-ish crippled dualwield ST specs (one utilizing Giantslayer due to tactic dependency, the other utilizing Skavenslayer for the casual picks), an afterall lackluster 2h ST spec, and a slightly crippled AoE spec that is still essentially a dualwield ST with slightly diffrent picks.
What has your rework added to Giantslayer that outweighs ID, Short Temper, HD, Rampage, SL (,NE) - when do you see yourself playing a spec that brings no utility whatsoever (that another class with a more lenient maintainence couldn't bring without making unnecessary compromises) over a spec that performs well enough in every format, even with its lowered potency?
The abstract of the above is what I am worried about, good intention - rushed (not necessarily bad, it's not doom and gloom) execution.
I refer to the change made to the blorc specficially, why did you single out this ability while there are dozens others that have the very same issue? The lines you draw are arbitrary.Azarael wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:46 pmAgain - I changed 3 skills, two of which mirror one another, on a class, to be uncleansable, in response to a particular problem which was localized to those two classes. I see no reason whatsoever to cause further disruption by making the likes of Slasha, Mind Killer, Hack, Rend and other 3x stackers act as improved covers. You localize the change to the class you watn to change.Darosh wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:15 pmIn regards to the stacking hierachy, well, I take it, you rather change every single ability in the game to circumvent it - or rather the abilities that aren't to your personal liking - than the backend of it? For that as is, you've changed here a few abilities and there a few abilities, while the bulk of them are left untouched, you are essentially introducing more and more inconsistency for no good reason - is tackling the root of the issue really that much more of hassle than continuously fighting its symptoms?
That's an overly simplistic and convenient take on the matter, did it cross your mind that people held back with their criticism of your 'means' because they didn't expect you to continue your spree? Moreso, whatever the intention, does the criticism lose its validity based on the instant of time it is being issued in? Now imagine someone worked it backwards, criticized your means first and specific changes later on.Azarael wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:46 pm I guess I've expended about as much effort as I'm prepared to against your opinion. I will judge myself by the end, and not opinions about the means. I have already said that I'm going to allow some time to stabilize while I work on some other things, but I was merely annoyed that the goalposts seem to have been moved to criticism of my means, rather than criticism of the end - I had read some comments earlier which seemed to be very similar - as if people couldn't criticise the class they were talking about in terms of its performance, so they looked harder for a nice stick, sufficiently tangentially related, with which to beat me.
Again, I appreciate your effort, moreso I gotta give you credit for your inititaive and some really well crafted changes (and the fact that you are willing to deal with me, I am not a particularly pleasant derp to deal with, I am aware of that :p) - the vast majority of changes has been asked for since ages, that I'll give you too, however rushing it doesn't help the situation.
Now, in terms of consistency, bugs and yadayada, considering you are actively working on the combat-related backend, you might want to throw the community a bone and for the sake of spotting issues - atleast - 'hint' about what is being changed and what should be looked for (e.g.: abilities directly affected by the changes - iirc someone pointed out some odds things to me concerning procs), especially if you plan to churn out more changes (regardless of the pace at which you implement them).
E: Spelling, grammar. Too many words.
