So you should be able to keep your 'build' based on unbalanced items that should no be in the game anymore, but it is ok to destroy other builds based on the passivise tree that other players have settled in on, and then the tree gets changed?
I have a build get destroyed in this patch from the passive tree because GGG does not know to balance around LL Shavs build (a build even more broken then the items I linked). It was pretty messed up, but it was a build that was hanging on thread in the first place, so there was no point of keeping a build that was about to collapse on itself. Puncture got wrecked hard in this patch, and being a melee character, I got caught in the massive nerf because the skill was broken for bow/trapper builds. I did complain, but GGG has not responded to those complains, so I pretty much stopped since there was no point of fighting over a side skill. I still have another skill in that build that got stronger, so in a sense my build got stronger. I am okay with it.
Now if GGG sets a precedence of changing legacy items, I do not know what I will do at that point.
I will leave this quote here from that other thread you made. This poster is pretty much spot on with this subject.
"wrote:That's the catch 22. Either decision would be damned, and that's why GGG made the right decision. Not because it was the better--there is no "better"--but because it's the one they made. Had they decided otherwise, there would be a whole slew of other problems we'd be discussing now, and yet the same would still remain true; it was the right decision, because this one would present its own problems.
Either balance is valid and deal with it, or standard is the invalid OP league and deal with it. There's nothing you can do to spite the pro's of either ^-^ ..Except, perhaps, to point out that a decision has been made one way, and so community support would wane accompanying a change toward the other.
Not much more really needs to be said about the matter. Legacy items suck, yes, and they also don't suck, also true, but there simply is no good solution to a game with evolving balance except to set the bars impossibly high and make no mistakes ever, and anticipate every future addition conceivable. Short of that, the legacy dilemma has to exist; that is the consequence of combining the pretenses of permanency with an evolving meta.