Physical Builds and Melee Builds are Not Good - Why and Suggestions

even with such defensive options, would it be enough?

mechanically melee, strikers specifically are royally "effed". GGG's uber pinnacle encounters teach us, dont play melee. you will not succeed.

stand in place for 1-2 seconds and prepare to die
[Removed by Support]
1. Would it be OP? I would agree on that before Ghost Dance. Right now i cant see that anymore. Put it on the opposite side of the tree from Ghost Dance and many Builds will still prefere that.
Could also easily make it melee only with a Downside on the Keystone. Something like "You can only Deal Damage with Melee Attack Skills. You have Overleech."

3. There are just no viable Bleed builds anymore and you dont benefit from the Downside either. You want Big Hits not necessarily slow Hits. Stunning yourself every time you Attack is Bad in every Build.


I really wouldnt call "give more Mana Reservation Efficiency" an easy or a good fix. But i think we should just agree that we disagree at this Point.
Last edited by Vepa#4873 on Jun 15, 2022, 2:23:27 AM
I've read a pretty cool suggestion for fortify on the forums and I think its worth repeating. Revert the buff back so it no longer has stacks and make the duration scale off the damage number instead.

I'm ok with needing to invest a bit to make fast attacking builds have proper uptime. Not all melee builds need to have the same strengths. But that would make it impossible for any build that doesn't do a significant amount of damage to keep fortify up without being actively attacking in melee.

Cast while channeling builds are also melee, the fact that they deal damage with a spell shouldn't prevent them from enjoying fortify as long as they are actively hitting with cyclone and thus, in melee.
"
itsLiak wrote:
"
kenbak wrote:
* The Southwest region of the tree needs a lot of tweaking, especially in defense. Ironically this region currently seems to be the worst for scaling defenses.


This is very true. And its mostly because fortify rework did not work. Fortify effect being replaced by +1 fortification would be fine if we could actually gain fortification. Even builds that can are not able to rely on it as a defense since it usually drops or gets reduced in-between packs.


Nice to see someone else mention it too, feel like I'm losing my fucking mind when I tell people that fortify is STILL dysfunctional.
HC balance should be separate from SC I don't care which outdated 1993 game dev philosophy this goes against. youtube/twitch.tv/DESPAIR268

REVERT SUNDER :) REVERT SEISMIC CRY :) REVERT IMPALER :) REVERT GAME :)) MAKE DUALWIELD GREAT AGAIN :)
"
itsLiak wrote:
I've read a pretty cool suggestion for fortify on the forums and I think its worth repeating. Revert the buff back so it no longer has stacks and make the duration scale off the damage number instead.

I'm ok with needing to invest a bit to make fast attacking builds have proper uptime. Not all melee builds need to have the same strengths. But that would make it impossible for any build that doesn't do a significant amount of damage to keep fortify up without being actively attacking in melee.

Cast while channeling builds are also melee, the fact that they deal damage with a spell shouldn't prevent them from enjoying fortify as long as they are actively hitting with cyclone and thus, in melee.



Maybe it should be based on the range of the melee hit connected? That way even "ranged" melee skills would only proc if the first enemy hit by the skill is in X range of the player.

Still... I don't like that fortify support gem even exists for melee. The only way I see it truly balanced is that if GGG reworks every single melee gem and give them innate fortify that activates when hitting a nearby enemy.

And rework or remove the Fortify vfx, it is ugly :d

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info