I would love to also elaborate why I think Impale buff is not enough.
I am struggling to figure out what was their intent with it.
Current max solo with it is 132 @ 9K paragons and they give it a buff of 4.41GRs.
That buff does not even bring the guy to GR 140. While we have so many 145+ clears on live servers.
DMKT made conservative buff request of +8 GRs based on 5K top clears.
It does not give DH spot as RGK. Nerfed Crusader will still be ahead, for both solo and group play. Crusaders are killing RGK in non season under 2 mins now in 150s with 5K paragons and no Pylons. DHs is near 5 mins at same gear and paragon lvl.
I think this is about right. The power of barbs has been tolerated by Blizzard. I think that Impale is at least 4-5 Grs below RF. RF is 6 GRs below ww/rend barbs. Therefore, the difference is 10-11 GRs; however, more people would play DH if more powerful so I subtract out a few GRs that gets to about 8 GRs. The damage needs to go from 1X to ~3.5X.
I’m really hoping that they lowballed the HPS buff so they can increase it mid PTR. They are probably tired of catching chit for having to nerf a build mid or post PTR. Better optics if they can add to a buff vs nerfing one.
Its as simple as that, more people would indeed play, if the game wasn’t so specific build centric. Until they tweak all the sets Blizzard is not providing the freedom of playing the game how it was back in season 1. Everyone here has the maps memorized even, thats a bad sign. LOL
Unfortunately, I’m too busy to try the PTR–or do much of anything Diablo-related aside from help Barbs with their builds (and even then, only sporadically). But instead of getting snarky, you might try considering this:
Maybe if you spent more time and energy working for DH buffs and less time complaining, you might, I don’t know, get more DH buffs.
Not quite. It’s about writing a dissertation, submitting articles, and working fellowship and grant proposals while finishing a PhD–all of which are far more important than any of this nonsense.
You need perspective, and you definitely need a vacation.
What you gave isn’t feedback. It’s just salty back talk on a post in which I ask for evaluations from DHs more experienced than I, and express optimism over a buff. You might reply in the same way to DiE, whose post–directly under mine, I might add–expresses a similar optimism. But that wouldn’t quite do what you’re trying to do, would it?
Here’s an idea: Read through the thread I just linked, and think carefully about where/how you want to spend your time on the forum, because this ain’t it.
@Free The biggst issue here is, that a lot of “DHs” (quotation mark intended) are just complaining “meh, it’s not what I wanted. The new set is stupid. Blizzard is stupid.”
There are some voices trying to give constructive feedback, suggesting improvements based on the main philosophy behind the new set. But the loudest voices are just negative, demanding a complete rework. You’re right. With that attitude, we will get nothing.
I believe that the set needs some more damage, and some bugfixing, that’s all. G6-HA provides a new smooth, quick, powerful playstyle. There are several variants possible (more tanky or more glass cannon), at first glance it seems easy to play, but harder to master. All it needs is some more damage (and toughness, probably).
btw.: good luck with your PhD! I know it’s a lot of work, but at the end it feels just great. May I ask in what field?
When the damage buff is big enough, sure. Why not?
Do you think it would it be better in the current situation to not buff the set, but to demand a complete rework? Please be realistic. It’s a PTR, not an internal pre-alpha build (developer-build, not ingame-build), where everything can completely change again.
We (as the DH community) have to work with what we are given now. And most of the pissed-off-comments in the PTR forum don’t help us at all.
Excuse me but what kind of feedback do you expect.
Everyone said set is doing close to no damage.
Developers knew set is doing close to no damage before giving it to us on PTR.
