Page 3 of 7

Re: Petition for Devastator Set 5pc bonus change

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:20 pm
by Genisaurus
Nameless wrote:Better give Quickening for duelist set since dps AM and dps shamans are more dependent of skills with cast time.
Fair enough, I'm still collecting feedback.

Re: Petition for Devastator Set 5pc bonus change

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:27 pm
by TenTonHammer
everyone is having fun with there deva mara set and i only have 60 medals, gonna takes ages for me to farm full deva but grab dulist in like a week :(

Come T4 corrosion will never be relevant on mara or WL due to multi tree specing

Re: Petition for Devastator Set 5pc bonus change

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:38 pm
by Sizer
If thats the case how about giving my choppa a better one. 10% to proc your next ability not costing ap is beyond useless. If i need ap il just use a pot.

Also my sorc too, quickening is terrible. If youre playing a single target build like sorcs should be doing this is almost totally worthless.

Probably more useless ones out there but thats the two biggest i can think of atm.

Re: Petition for Devastator Set 5pc bonus change

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:42 pm
by TenTonHammer
Gen already said he is changing choppa duelist bonus to barrier

but i can tell you right now....116 dmg absorb is so dam weak, thats 1 AA atmost

Re: Petition for Devastator Set 5pc bonus change

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:44 pm
by WALSHE93
Please not Clarity for WL, i think it should be changed to Guile, atleast then we'd have a 25% IC Heal debuff on a 10% proc which gives us abit more utility compared to Mara that has 50% IC Healdebuff on a 5s CD, also the same Armor Debuff as us and not to mention a Wounds debuff... This would open up more options and group combos... Maybe Double WL would be viable then, both with 25% IC Healdebuff. Just a thought, what do you guys think?

Simba - WL R32 RR40

Re: Petition for Devastator Set 5pc bonus change

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:51 pm
by TenTonHammer
NO

No wl should never get any form of Inc HD, an inc hd on a class with that much frontload burst is just far to strong

Re: Petition for Devastator Set 5pc bonus change

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:51 pm
by mursie
WALSHE93 wrote:Please not Clarity for WL, i think it should be changed to Guile, atleast then we'd have a 25% IC Heal debuff on a 10% proc which gives us abit more utility compared to Mara that has 50% IC Healdebuff on a 5s CD, also the same Armor Debuff as us and not to mention a Wounds debuff... This would open up more options and group combos... Maybe Double WL would be viable then, both with 25% IC Healdebuff. Just a thought, what do you guys think?

Simba - WL R32 RR40
Would love to have Guile on WL. 5 pc devastator would be absolutely BIS with Guile.

Re: Petition for Devastator Set 5pc bonus change

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:53 pm
by mursie
TenTonHammer wrote:NO

No wl should never get any form of Inc HD, an inc hd on a class with that much frontload burst is just far to strong
Interesting. The front load burst indicates it is happening in the first few hits. The proc is a 10% chance for HD after a hit. In effect, one could argue that if the WL is only a front load burst, and his HD is a proc chance after burst lands... it actually is irrelevant to said WL.

Obviously this is tongue in cheek - but there is always a hint of truth in everything.

Re: Petition for Devastator Set 5pc bonus change

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:54 pm
by WALSHE93
TenTonHammer wrote:NO

No wl should never get any form of Inc HD, an inc hd on a class with that much frontload burst is just far to strong
Oh so its okay for mara to have the same armor debuff and a 50% ic heal debuff aswell as a wounds debuff without a pet?... Soon as our pet dies we're the lowest melee dps in the game... A 25% IC Healdebuff on a 10% proc is good for WL imo

Re: Petition for Devastator Set 5pc bonus change

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:56 pm
by mursie
In all seriousness - it would be nice to have procs that make the 5 pc devastator "worth using". This should be BIS gear for t3.

I applaud Genis for even looking at this. But I hope that final proc status is aimed at achieving the point above.