Jump to content

Njall

Members
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Njall last won the day on August 10 2015

Njall had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

68 Excellent

About Njall

  • Rank
    (3) Conjurer
  1. It'd be cool if AE worked on deflection attacks as well, but only if you're not using a shield (or even just a single one handed weapon.) It wouldn't be as powerful ( since the talent works best when def-acc=50, and stacking that much defense, be it deflecrion or reflex , without a shield isn't that easy for a rogue, especially on PotD) but it would synergize with riposte and help make the single-weapon rogue/swashbuckler slightly more appealing.
  2. Nah. We're not even talking "minor" changes in this case, we're talking "inconsequential changes". Really, the impact is so small that the only thing such a change achieves is making people feel less rewarded when they stick to their paladin's moral code. And the difference between "change for change sake" and "not changing for not changing sake" is that the latter costs a grand total of 0 resources, doesn't introduce any more bugs in a game already rife with them and doesn't require people to relearn/reevaluate the underlying math of the game every time a frickin' patch lands. This is not a
  3. Whilst I agree that it's a dumb nerf, I think it might also be the actual reason. Yeah, maybe. It's besides the point, though: it's still unasked for, unneeded, pointless and ultimately contributes to the rollercoaster of semi-random buff/nerfs/later-reverted-but-not-so-much-nerfs and so forth that the game's undergone since launch, and which makes it look like, sometimes, rather than aiming for balance they're just throwing random stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. I love the game, and, while I can accept that some changes are needed, really, we're talking a single player gam
  4. Sure, a nerf intended to promote pointless symmetry. Sounds real neat.
  5. ...meh? I can understand the nerf to the other defenses, but why bother tuning deflection by what, 2 points? I mean, does anyone think that such a small amount even has a noticeable impact in actual play? Like, was anyone complaining that paladins were 2% more durable than intended? Honestly, that's the kind of nerf that leaves me baffled: it's change for change's sake, it adds nothing to the game aside from making players feel less rewarded when upholding to their's paladin's order tenets...
  6. I installed it some days ago, but haven't played since. I noticed a couple of bugs ( stuff like Savage Attacker applying its accuracy penalty twice ) and at least one potential change ( Reckless Assault not stacking with the damage bonus from Savage Attacker anymore, not sure if it's intended ). Aside from that, I didn't notice any other major changes, but I only fiddled with it for like half an hour.
  7. Characters in PoE don't need a weapon to actually deflect a blow: as you can see when you take off their melee weapon and wade into combat, their deflection score isn't penalized. Thus, we can infer that PoE's characters deflect most blows with nothing but their teeth. That takes a significant amount of resolve to execute properly.
  8. Defender by any name would be a bad ability. +2 engagement for -5 deflection is just a terrible return on investment. Now if they combined the new prone attack on disengagement with Defender or Wary Defender then you'd have something interesting that'd open up new possibilities. I disagree. +2 engagement for -5 deflection would just be a bad return on investment. Now, +2 engagement for -5 deflection and being locked out of any other useful modal is actually terrible
  9. Enemies don't engage no matte what I throw at them with my fighter..........they just run past the fighter even if my fighter hits'em like a truck and when they run past him, it doesn't trigger that passive knock down attack since there was no engagement to break to begin with........ The passive should work on disengagement attacks, IIRC ( I'm at work atm and can't check the wording ). Thus, it shouldn't matter if they don't engage you, disengagement attacks trigger when they move away after you've engaged them. I checked it, it only triggers if an enemy is 'engaged' to your fighte
  10. Enemies don't engage no matte what I throw at them with my fighter..........they just run past the fighter even if my fighter hits'em like a truck and when they run past him, it doesn't trigger that passive knock down attack since there was no engagement to break to begin with........ The passive should work on disengagement attacks, IIRC ( I'm at work atm and can't check the wording ). Thus, it shouldn't matter if they don't engage you, disengagement attacks trigger when they move away after you've engaged them.
  11. Fighters now get a level 7 passive that knocks down an opponent who breaks engagement. Coupled with Hold the Line and/or Defender you can probably actually hold the line properly now
  12. Not to mention that defenses generally grant increasing returns, so increasing your squishies' deflection by such a trivial amount isn't even a big deal. Yeah, it's like they were intentionally shooting for the title of "worst modal of the game, hands down". Well, congrats, I guess...?
  13. That'd actually be semi-decent. Or at least, not so terribly bad that you shouldn't even consider it. Unfortunately, the deflection bonus doesn't apply to the fighter, it only affects his allies (yeah, this modal is strictly worse, and a lot worse, than the 9th level chant nobody uses, ever: it comes with a penalty and doesn't even increase your tank's deflection); it's a losing proposition on both a dps fighter and a tank.
  14. I don't think they're compensating in any way; this is a straight up nerf, the decrease in power is, to my understanding, very much intended.
  15. I feel for you, OP. Yeah, pouring a lot of time into a game, coming to enjoy the mechanics and then having the rug pulled from under one's feet sucks. Don't misunderstand: I think that per-encounter spells as they were before 3.0 were too good, in the context of how the game was (supposed to be) balanced; OTOH, a change of this magnitude is, IMHO, more suited to a sequel than a DLC/expansion. Just my two cents, anyway; I really hope you'll enjoy the second part of the expansion despite the disappointment.
×
×
  • Create New...