Well every HOTA build is dead without Gavel of the First Men combo. Wastes with no Zodiac, BK Swords, or Skull Grasp? Uhh… salvage. IK straight up with no specific items is a dud since it’s bonus is global and thus low.
The only real build that can be played with limited item support is probably R6/IK4. Maybe LeapQuake too since it’s so tanky. R6 by itself might be 3rd.
I honestly don’t even think the other builds would even rank in 2.6.5+. But maybe I’m too cynical.
Well R6/IK4 is the easiest to play imo. You charge around. Slam or Toss. Repeat as needed.
LeapQuake is pretty strong and because it is so tanky can be easy to play at lower levels. Definitely requires full itemization and excellent gameplay for pushing though.
R6 by itself plays like R6/IK4, except with R6 you can go HOTA which has the two best individual items in the Barbarian class imo. 3 if you count BoM ring. However R6 HOTA relies on horrible glitchy mechanics à la wall charging.
IK6/R4 is pretty self explanatory. But it requires more fishing than R6/IK4 imo which makes it harder. Keeping your movement speed buffs constantly cycled gets tedious too imo.
Wastes is probably the worst build to play without optimized gear. Because you really do need an additional 7 items. Highly specific stats on the gear. Then the fishing… oh the fishing. The rift density needs to be so high it causes some players to lag still apparently.
I know nothing about Barbs or how to play them, so forgive me for butting in.
MicroRNA didn’t say anything about “Barb builds”. They asked you to rank Barb Sets and LoN Sets from best to worst. It also sounds like they want you to show their relation to Greater Rift Levels.
Sorry @MicroRNA if I didn’t get that exactly correct.
Maybe that’s the answer they’re looking for. But, I think they wanted your opinion on it.
Free’s opinion will be the same listing as the Top 5 Thread post on the forums here…guaranteed. That list is put in rank of best to worst as far as the highest GR each can push.
Best to worst at… what? GRs? Speed-farming? zDPS? These are radically different activities. Am I being asked to evaluate the quality of each set’s design?
I’m happy to answer the question, but I need some clarification. Help me out, Micro.
What I was asking was relative to solo greater rift clears.
For each build, there are two key modifiers of power.
The “functional” power of the set bonus (here I am referring to either 6 piece or LoN.
The second is the modifier power contributed by support legendaries.
For example, you could have two builds with equal power where the class set is 20x while the supporting legendaries provide 5x. The same power level can be achieved if the class set modifier is 50x and the support legendaries are 2x.
As we all know, if the power of support legendaries is too high, often it is a greater benefit to use LoN rather than a six piece set.
Our LON builds are terrible. Only LoN HOTA has any strength, and without the Season buff, it’s going to drop in power. A LoD version may not even be as strong since we’ll need to drop a gem.
Supporting legendaries are where buffs need to come from so that A) our set-based builds are stronger, and B) our LoN builds are stronger.
Rage and I did the math on our items and builds. All of that, including calculations for LoN, is plugged into the proposal. I’m not sure how else to answer your question. Can you clarify further or rephrase it?
This is true, mah dude. Regularly spilling coffee on my dang self while posting. I’m a shameful mess, smdh
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Rage meant it as an insult. I think it was a good-natured joke.
Again, can we agree on = make a post when you know things. It is that simple.
Again you talk about something you clearly don’t know about. So why are you hung up about STILL defending yourself with another post about something you don’t know anything about?
Yeah, definitely not trying to insult you, and glad you could see the humor there.
As for LON vs other sets, what matters is how much of a cumulative set bonus you can get vs the 9750% LON bonus. The individual legendaries don’t really matter.
For instance, if you have a legendary that gives +X% to Whirlwind damage, this is going to give nearly the same bonus to LON, which gives you +9750% damage (to everything), and Wrath of the Wastes, which give you +10000% damage (to WW). If you increased the effectiveness of that legendary 10x, it would still be relatively the same when compared between those two sets.
This is how Free and I concluded that Wastes (6) needed to include Rend in the damage bonus in order for Rend to be viable. Because if you were to just apply a massive Rend bonus to a legendary, enough to make Rend usable with the Wastes set, it would become super-overpowered when used with LON.
I really do not mind people having their opinions. But around 80 percent of his posts, it just don’t make sense… Like, it’s PROVEN, from Blizzards OWN numbers and buggy mechanics, that there is something wrong with Barbarians AND on top of that, Free have written several posts about it… Yet this guy still goes on and on and on about stuff he clearly does not know much about. I’m like… Regretting ever reading it…
Sadly I think deRp is right. MicroRNA takes both sides of multiple “arguments”, and appears to make the same posts over and over again, and has shown an extreme interest in the forum rankings.
He just keeps beating a dead horse without any real clean analysis like what Free and Rage have put together. Their math checks out. The “barbs are in the meta” is frankly a bs excuse and feels like a crutch to me for him to continue his arguing…and rack his posting up.
…………………