Single target needs some love

Vigilant Strike vs. Fortify goes into the same direction.
On the one hand we have a slow skill with OK damage and a restriction on usage that will give you a nice bonus - on the other we have a support that has a chance to grant that bonus, which you can spam with any (also single target, to be honest) melee attack, and also has a bonus to damage. So why use the single target VS, when you can just support any AoE skill with Fortify?

Vigilant Strike is actually one of the better 4Ls right now because it keeps Fortify off your AoE and thus adds a socket of damage. However, Fortify on a movement skill is better still..

^

Give single target oriented skills "damage cannot be reflected back to the player"

Give lmp/gmp/melee splash "removes reflect immunity from linked skill"

Then apply all of your suggested changes :o)

Just to say /signed

But you know that already i imagine.

Peace,

-Boem-

@Boem: Don't really get why you made that suggestion. Doesn't resonate with me at all.

Are you still "/signed" without it?

Using a 4 link to 6 link is kinda an unfair comparison you know right.

4 link single target ability isn't worth it anymore (unless it's extra like frenzy, puncture, ect) because the damage loss in the AoE ability or turning into AoE is evened out by having 2 more damage gems added in.

I mean it's kinda obvious here.

Of course i am.

I completely understand the reasoning for your changes and there potential impact.

What i was aiming for, was providing a player utility mechanic to the single target skills as-well, to provoke them into being more mainstream utilized.

Reflect has become very noticeable at the moment(i mean that they are clearly visible now compared to there old iteration) and as such a swap to a single target to burst it down could be provided to tempt players into utilizing both a single and multi target set-up.

I don't feel that the utility of "bursting down something faster" would be enough to provoke the player-base into using them, specially since the time/kill comparison will be extremely low when comparing a 4-link single with a 6-link aoe skill, even with your proposed changes.

I feel your changes are great for the good of the game, as you already noted earlier, ZiggyD made a fair assessment of his set-up, his AOE did the same potential damage as his single target, therefore he had no reason to use it.

What if that single target, apart from doing "similar" damage output also provided better utility?

I guess what i am trying to say, are your changes enough? Is there a need to re-instate the utility of single target skills into the game as a whole?

Because let's face it, if there only saving grace is "deals similar damage in a 4-link compared to a 6-link" then people will still flock to that 6-link like bee's to honey. It's just "easier" and people are pragmatic by nature.

The only way to "tempt" a change in this behavior is to add a cherry on-top of the single skills honey.
At least that's what i believe.

Though i should add that i have no clue if this is desired. But if re-instating single target skills is the goal, or providing viability for them, this change alone will not cut it. It will help, most likely in early game and that will be it.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

Of course i am.

I completely understand the reasoning for your changes and there potential impact.

:)

"

Boem wrote:

What i was aiming for, was providing a player utility mechanic to the single target skills as-well, to provoke them into being more mainstream utilized.

I'm not really aiming for that. I'm not the fun police, I'm not trying to tell people "hey, you better run a single-target 4L." If they want to single-skill spam and run some automated utility on that 4L I'm cool with that. I just want the option to run a viable single-target 4L myself.

"

Boem wrote:

I don't feel that the utility of "bursting down something faster" would be enough to provoke the player-base into using them, specially since the time/kill comparison will be extremely low when comparing a 4-link single with a 6-link aoe skill, even with your proposed changes.

The single-target DPS difference between 4L single-target and 6L LMP should be rather low in my opinion. LMP should be that compromise option for the single-skill spammers.

However, single-target 4L vs GMP 6L should be a different story. At least on the projectile end of things, I'm pretty much making the comparison "just 6L LMP" vs "single-target 4L + 6L GMP." Not "just 6L LMP" vs "single-target 4L + 6L LMP."

Let's say I went with this more ambitious version:

• 50% more single-projectile/single-target-melee damage (yes, 50%)
• 40% less damage penalty (from 15%) for glvl 21 LMP (so 50% at glvl 1)
• 50% less damage penalty (from 25%) for glvl 21 GMP (so 60% at glvl 1)
• some similar deal for Melee Splash

If a damage support is 50% more damage (which is not always the case), this would mean a single-target 4L would do 11% more single-target damage than LMP but 33% more single-target damage than GMP. In general, LMP setups would see a 6% damage buff overall and GMP setups would see no change.

That set of numbers might be taking things too far. Bow builds have two potential 6Ls and would get nutty single-target essentially for free.

My main suggestion instead is:

• 36% more single-projectile/single-target-melee damage
• 35% less damage penalty (from 15%) for glvl 21 LMP (so 45% at glvl 1)
• 45% less damage penalty (from 25%) for glvl 21 GMP (so 55% at glvl 1)
• some similar deal for Melee Splash

Assuming 50% more damage for damage support, that's 3% more with 4L than LMP and 21% more than GMP. 4% net LMP buff, GMP DPS again unaffected. I'm not confident 21% more would always be worth a 4L, but when the damage support is only 40% more (not 50%) it definitely would be, so it would see some use. Some use is fine.

"

Boem wrote:

I feel your changes are great for the good of the game, as you already noted earlier, ZiggyD made a fair assessment of his set-up, his AOE did the same potential damage as his single target, therefore he had no reason to use it.

Exactly.

^

Bump