Difference between melee and range builds.

"

Imo in this game clear speed are a way to high considering most ranged attacks.
Without touching initial hit's damage clear speed can be tuned down nearly to melee clear speed. It could be done by reducing projectiles damage by 25% less by each enemy hit with same projectile, and reducing pierce chance after each pierced enemy by same projectile by 25% less.

You realize that is almost exclusively a targeted nerf at bow users and probably 1\3 of the spells are "projectile based"

Yes, and I see nothing wrong about it. It won't nerf single target dps and will nerf clear speed which is desired. Sure, maybe some skillgems will need some afterward tweaking and that is expected.

edit: yes, forgot to add, that it should be applied to spells as well.

"

ffogell wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

"

ffogell wrote:

While as a ranged or a caster I clear ahead of me thus looting as I move. You would not think about it but this is HUGE...

no its not

well if its not the case for you ,it is for me on my coc cyclone build vs my ranged build.

you think its going to stop you winning the ladder race to 100 or something? Your coc cyclone has to spend a little more time looting than your ranged spec because sometimes you kill mobs that are behind you? Youre playing cyclone, probably the slowest clearing skill I would even consider using, so I would say if you want to clear maps fast youve got bigger problems than loot dropping behind you, it doesnt seem to be doing much to hinder vaal sparks leveling speeds right now. But then vaal spark is a spell so we only talk about it when it suits us, we dont mention the loot issue, the fact its so ridiculously map restricted and bad against many bosses. We only talk about those issues when they effect a particular melee skill, and then we use than 1 example to make a blanket statement about melee as an entire concept even though we know its a lie because it suits an agenda we believe to have some larger truth that excuses us just straight up talking bullshit when it comes to the details.

"

goetzjam wrote:

"

ACGIFT wrote:

Yeah, how readily Fortify was co-opted for casters is kinda sad. An easy solution would be to prohibit the Fortify gem from supporting MOVEMENT melee skills. (barring Cyclone, akin to the Haku mission rule) It would end the silly meta of "all casters focus knives so they can just use Whirling Blades+Fortify now."

Sometimes I wonder why people suggest things without thinking of the consequences, you realize that wb+fortify isn't the only way to gain the buff. Some people, for example that use the atziri's axe have leap slam linked with fortify, endurance charge on melee stun and faster attacks, your simply nerfing a melee build because you didn't think of the consequences of that.

Not sure if you've done WB without having attackspeed on on a pure caster, its "fast" but not insanely fast your still in many circumstances putting your character at risk, at least of taking "more" damage then they would have otherwise gotten.



What actually gets me is people are complaining about an interaction that will LITERALLY be free when ascendancy hits for one of the duelist classes. In addition its the SAME one that will likely be "best" for an overall party buffer\tanky support.

Take a look for yourself....

https://i.imgur.com/Z9SUJpf.jpg

I love how spells are apparently so op compared to melee because they kill everything offscreen and dont get in melee range of mobs, but fortify is also broken because casters are using it to leap into the face of mobs in order to activate fortify, presumably while also offscreening the mob and taking 0 risk because ranged op?








Why are we doing this guys? Why are so many of you saying things you know are false, deep down you know you are at best over exaggerating and at worst flat out consciously lying in order to try and support a position? If you cant make a point without actually being logical, informed, honest people maybe you dont have a point worth making? Its ok to make a small point people, its ok to say heres an issue and thats all it is, you dont have to fabricate a whole load of shit to give your point weight. I think the op made a smaller point without drifting into absolute fantasy land, he point something out thats basically true. Ultimately his weapon is what is going to make his melee do more or less damage than a spell but obviously he was using the best weapon he had been presented with by the game and it wasnt good enough. If he had a 5L geofris maul at the right level for that to be used properly and he was comparing it to a 3 link fireball then it would absolutely be the other way around and the melee would shit all over content probably 10 levels higher than the fireball. What he says is not some definitive proof of a big issue with spells and melee, its an anecdote presented for what it is. All this "yeah man, and melee isnt even viable in most of the game man omg, and effective melee builds have exactly the same defenses as effective spell builds and ggg dont even try and balance the game any different omg melee so bad blah blah.." No, sorry that stuff is not true, not even remotely true and the people saying it know its not true/ Can we just stop making up bullshit because it seems to suit the agenda? If you got an honest point make it honestly.

@Snorkle_uk

"

I love how spells are apparently so op compared to melee because they kill everything offscreen and dont get in melee range of mobs, but fortify is also broken because casters are using it to leap into the face of mobs in order to activate fortify, presumably while also offscreening the mob and taking 0 risk because ranged op?

Yes, they are doing both, offscreening mobs with vaal spark and whirling blades with fortify into a monster to get the buff. Don't you watch havoc, Kappa.

"

goetzjam wrote:

Don't you watch havoc, Kappa.

:D


I tried, but I got so jelly about his ability to speed clear lvl75 canyon maps for 5 hours straight without picking up any loot that I had to rage quit my entire net browser.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

"

goetzjam wrote:

Don't you watch havoc, Kappa.

:D


I tried, but I got so jelly about his ability to speed clear lvl75 canyon maps for 5 hours straight without picking up any loot that I had to rage quit my entire net browser.

Epic, was that him just leveling and not giving a fuck? Or was that one of those times where he had a "support" character loot for him and share part of the drops.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

I love how spells are apparently so op compared to melee because they kill everything offscreen and dont get in melee range of mobs, but fortify is also broken because casters are using it to leap into the face of mobs in order to activate fortify, presumably while also offscreening the mob and taking 0 risk because ranged op?

It's not pure black and white. Spellcasters aren't 100% offscreening things, especially in boss fights.

However, it does not nullify the point because, well, melee characters are NEVER offscreening things. So "offscreening 50-90% of the time" is STILL much safer than "ALWAYS has to be in the thick of mobs." It doesn't have to be a perfect opposite.

For a more real-world example, let's look at Atziri; if you're melee, once she starts flameblasting or lightning calling, that basically spells "no more DPS for a bit," because you are going to be rushing to the rare safe spot, which often enough (because most of the room will be instant-death) will prevent you from being close enough to attack. Got range? You can still take shots at her.

Fortify was meant to be a consolation for that, but yes, thanks to some movement skill combinations, ranged users can just go ahead and benefit from it too while they move on by.

"

goetzjam wrote:

What actually gets me is people are complaining about an interaction that will LITERALLY be free when ascendancy hits for one of the duelist classes. In addition its the SAME one that will likely be "best" for an overall party buffer\tanky support.

What actually gets me is when people don't understand what 'free' means (or 'literally', for that matter). There is an opportunity cost for getting that perma-fortify, and it's a pretty lofty one: not being able to take any of the other ascendancy classes and get any of the other far more valuable and harder-to-match high-end passives.

Other classes provide stuff like 100% block chance applied to spells, +1 chain, +1 projectile (with anti-pointblank on the way, hooray for more offscreening), extra charges and/or chances to generate charges, massive crit bonuses... passing on any of that to get a permanent fortify is quite the opposite of free, and a tremendous folly for any character capable of getting fortify with a movement skill they were already going to use. In the end all that passive does is give an opportunity to get fortify to people that don't use melee-movement skills, i.e. archers (and maybe unarmed characters)

"

Shppy wrote:

"

goetzjam wrote:

What actually gets me is people are complaining about an interaction that will LITERALLY be free when ascendancy hits for one of the duelist classes. In addition its the SAME one that will likely be "best" for an overall party buffer\tanky support.

What actually gets me is when people don't understand what 'free' means (or 'literally', for that matter). There is an opportunity cost for getting that perma-fortify, and it's a pretty lofty one: not being able to take any of the other ascendancy classes and get any of the other far more valuable and harder-to-match high-end passives.

Other classes provide stuff like 100% block chance applied to spells, +1 chain, +1 projectile (with anti-pointblank on the way, hooray for more offscreening), extra charges and/or chances to generate charges, massive crit bonuses... passing on any of that to get a permanent fortify is quite the opposite of free, and a tremendous folly for any character capable of getting fortify with a movement skill they were already going to use. In the end all that passive does is give an opportunity to get fortify to people that don't use melee-movement skills, i.e. archers (and maybe unarmed characters)

But your complaining about a playstyle being able to get access to something that even if they remove fortify from movement skills they will be able to have access to!

Yes other stuff has an "opportunity cost" but so does giving up links, or using a dagger instead of a wand. Whatever other things you could possibly bring up.

You have to keep in mind I pretty much play exclusively in the hc temp leagues now so getting more damage shit isn't as important as staying alive, you lose time, currency and the willingness to play if you die in HC sometimes. As the saying goes, you can't do damage if your dead.


In terms of preventing a playstyle from getting access to something, GGG has NEVER been able to do that because playstyles are restricted at all, its part of the appeal of the game that allows for more depth and interesting mechanics\interactions.


But I didn't mean to interrupt the weekly melee is so shit circle jerk threads.

The reason for the "melee is shit" threads is because short-range is shit in this game.

That, and by "melee" what they mean is short-ranged. Hence "melee vs ranged," what they really mean is "ranged vs not." I personally wouldn't say skills like Ground Slam, Reave, or Ice Crash are shit, but the reason these skills are usable is precisely because they are not short-range skills, and retain the ability to murder entire screens of monsters without really getting close. They are not "true melee," at least not in the sense of "melee vs ranged;" they're ranged melee.

And that's what a skill needs to be viable in this meta: murdering whole screens without getting close. Because if you do need to get close, then you're putting yourself at a disadvantage compared to if you were ranged.