Instead of 4 useless gems for that slot we'd have 5 useless gems, the situation would remain the same. Replacing a "must-have", "no choice" emerald in weapon with a "no choice" legendary gem doesn't solve the problem at all. Some of the questions raised here can be answered easily:ġ) "Why not legendary gems in weapons they said they would do something about the 'normal gems' such as emeralds being the only choice for weapons": Oh boy, this thread's discussion is so heated. because your standard choice isn't "some form of Damage+surv, damage, damage, damage". There is 0 diversity, those stats are: Damage, damage, damage + surv, damage, damage.Ī find the helm and shoulders to be more diverse than rings/gloves/bracers/etc. Then I can choose between Ele damage, attack speed, or DMG. Here is what I MUST have on a ring or jewelry - CC, CHD, Main stat. Going away from the CC/CHD plague that have plaguedthe game for more then 2 years.īut as my previous post id rather see legendary gems in weapons and Off-hands rather then Jewelery. and hopefully the new legendary gems is going to make CDR, AS, Min-Max, AD% and CRC more attractive. (but one can always hope they do something about that ) making Min-max D + AS% or CRC + AS% or CDR + AD% be viable as option. that only leaves 2 slots and in the current stat weights it will always be CC and CHD. and making those slot have a must have mandatory affix slot is just stupid and Main stat is already semi mandotory. Thing is that Rings and amulets are the 2 most diverse slots in the game ATM. Seems some people just can't give anything up unless it's negligible (like a chest socket) I agree with the design philosophy of keeping them limited to jewelry. People can't help but complain about nice new things.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |