Warrior nerfs just don't make sense

"

LVSviral#3689 เขียน:

"

The block changes are not a buff. There's not even that many attacks that were unblockable

Most larger hits from rare enemies and modifiers etc. are AoE.

"

and if there were, they were usually boss attacks, most of them easily dodge-able.

By that same logic there is no reason to build armour or resistances or max life.

"

but with the life nerfed (from 5k to 3.7k)

"

LVSviral#3689 เขียน:

"

but with the life nerfed (from 5k to 3.7k)

How the fuck do you have 1300 strength?

"

I don't. I have 673? I think. Therefore losing 673 life from the changes would result in me losing 1300 life with all the #% increased maximum life.

"

LVSviral#3689 เขียน:

Resistances are calculated before armour. Most people don't know this since armour is the first thing calculated for physical damage, but only because physical resistance isn't a mechanic. Armour applying to elemental damage is more effective the higher your maximum res is. Armour applying to elemental damage can be gained and stacked from a lot of sources too; including Str gear suffixes, runes/soulcores, a banner support gem and presumably the new passive tree clusters among potentially more.

The block changes are also a massive buff to shields as well, even if a disturbing amount of people don't understand the math behind it and have no concept of opportunity cost.

Giant's Blood is a weird change. after the attribute changes players will need 150 less strength to use the heaviest hammers in the game with it aka ~460 is the new endgame strength goal. Needing 150 less strength makes the keystone far easier to use, but losing ~460 max life will suck. Take in mind the above defensive change(s) will probably offset the tankyness lost by this change.

Perfect strike does ~21% less damage, but has an insane amount of range now. Players' innate accuracy has been buffed and enemy evasion has been nerfed too so you wont need to invest in accuracy for this either.

Most of this "warrior nerf" stuff is just out of context adjustments. People are looking at a 'give and take' situation and hyper-fixating on the 'take'.

"

LVSviral#3689 เขียน:

"

I don't. I have 673? I think. Therefore losing 673 life from the changes would result in me losing 1300 life with all the #% increased maximum life.

This implies that you have 100% increased max life in your build and only 2,500 base life with ~650 strength. Even if that is somehow correct that is by no way standard.

"

Your statement on armour vs. resistances computation order is also wrong -- as stated by GGG themselves.

"

Less damage is NEVER better than more range -- nobody was using perfect strike for mapping.

"

Block is not categorically better. You will be hit twice as often for strikes and projectiles (and this is simple math which surely you can understand). Nobody was dying to ground effects, nor AoEs -- so these being blockable is not a good trade.

"

LVSviral#3689 เขียน:

"

Your statement on armour vs. resistances computation order is also wrong -- as stated by GGG themselves.

Yeah, my original source was faulty and I verified with a better source. I edited the original comment to avoid spreading more confusion.

"

Less damage is NEVER better than more range -- nobody was using perfect strike for mapping.

I won't say I'd choose to give up ~21% damage for double range on a single target skill. Being able to attack more without needing to reposition as much or get super close in boss fights isn't without merit though.

"

Block is not categorically better. You will be hit twice as often for strikes and projectiles (and this is simple math which surely you can understand). Nobody was dying to ground effects, nor AoEs -- so these being blockable is not a good trade.

You will block half as often, at capped block chance, single target hits, but you will block all AoE damage. Many seemingly 'single target' hits also have a less noticeable AoE component attached to them too; more obvious examples being fireball projectiles and small ground slams. I think you would be surprised how many enemy hits in this game actually do AoE damage. The old 75% capped block is realistically closer to ~45% of all hits actually blocked.

Take in mind too that you only compared capped block chance; not how much investment it takes to reach the cap. Not having a perfectly rolled block chance prefix on your shield, or even just not having the mod at all, will be far less punishing after the 0.3 adjustments. Block chance rune(s) on a shield are also proportionately stronger as well. Magma Barrier also now grants a global 25% increased block chance. The investment cost and wiggle room for capping out block chance will now be much cheaper to work with. Investing nothing in block chance while using a shield is also a comparatively stronger baseline. Investment saved can be spent on more defense or damage elsewhere.

This is all before counting that skills that RAISE SHIELD overwrite your block chance to 100% for all hits that are in front of you now too.

"

You are once again wrong. They nerfed all the sources of Increased Block Chance so getting to 50% cap is just as difficult as getting to 75%.

"

LVSviral#3689 เขียน:

"

You are once again wrong. They nerfed all the sources of Increased Block Chance so getting to 50% cap is just as difficult as getting to 75%.

The patch notes only show shield prefixes being reduced. Before the highest base block shield with a perfect prefix would reach 47% block requiring 60% increased global block chance to hit the old 75% cap. Now the perfect prefix shield reaches 33% block chance needing only 52% increased global block chance to reach the new 50% cap.

The above is also calculated with perfect rolls which is weighted in favor of the old block system where the prefix is more impactful and it's still easier to cap block now with less investment.