Damage Over Time Changes - Part 1

Are you planning to boost "chill/freeze" ailment and cold damage overall in 3.0?
One of the most frustrating elements of double dipping for players that did not take advantage of it was the reality that many encounters in the game were balanced around its existence. Double-dipping builds that obliterated breach lords or even Guardians in seconds still existed, despite these enemies having orders of magnitude more health than red-tier map bosses.

Is the design intent of correcting double dipping also going to come with a rebalance of end-game monster hp? I ask not because I want to see this content nerfed, but because I'd like to gauge whether or not player power versus monster power will have any similarity in 3.0 compared to now. Double dipping gone won't remove the ability for some builds to practically delete a Guardian, but it may reduce the number of builds that can and result in a lower level of player power in comparison.
Im curious how this will affect minions? Cause Im assuming double dipping will be gone there as well, how will minions scale poison and bleeds since there is zero nodes that state dmg over time for them...not that anyone is doing minion bleeds but aye maybe something in the future opens the door.
I want to kiss you guys.
Can I?
You guys know that only a few select very broken builds can clear content without poison etc, and that most mobs/bosses on high tiers have EXCRUCIATING ABOVE RAIDBOSS LEVEL ammounts of HP right?! Right?! Hope the testers are good and not scaling badly nor making the game too easy or too hard by fixing all the bosses hp you guys will have to fix now.

AND REMOVE POISON/IGNITE/BLEED IMMUNITY (t16 bosses) WTH.
Buff life on the right side of the tree! Just a little! Pretty Please!
The "Ailment status", in my opinion, should increase the crit bonus damage by a small % just based on the status of Ailment being applied. Bleeding for ect., on a moving target. Damage dealt #/% should increase crit chance/bonus based on dot damage min/max applied. Same could be said for Ignite & Poison maybe with a less impact in #/%. It's a very good concept. The reason why I say Ignite, your one fire. That is a bit of an Ailment.
"
raics wrote:
Didn't think you'd take this approach, but I suppose the workarounds with damage properties were too messy and the engine can't do it any other way, but yeah, this will work and it was high time.

However, doubling it is too low, you'll probably need to quadruple it before we get to the point where it's worth the investment.


That was my first thought Raics, you're essentially splitting your build on the passive tree. I mean their probably not expecting you to reach the same damage as before? But I'm not sure if even doubling it will make it feel worthwhile.
The Rusty Shack!
Starforge blown the hell out!
Cyclone Disfavour here I come!
This seems kind of concerning. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting, so here are my concerns.

There are double dips that I would consider intuitive, and ones I would consider completely idiotic. For the latter, here is an example: projectile damage poison double dipping. This is utterly idiotic and requires knowledge that the game just doesn't provide to know it is a thing - I know my friend was making a phys/chaos bow based poison build and I had to explain this to him, the difference was hugely surprising. This wasn't really addressed in the post, though I'm sure it is a consideration, if it was not, PLEASE ADDRESS THESE.

The main concern I have is the approach. From what I gathered, it seems as though any build that does not explicitly focus on these mechanics will basically get zero value out of them.

"
This means that Increased Spell, Attack, or Weapon Damage will no longer influence your Ignite, Poison or Bleed damage at all. It also means that while modifiers to Fire Damage will still apply both to a hit and to the Ignite it causes


My reading of this was that suppose a spell deals at base, 100 damage, and ignites for 20 damage per second over 5 seconds (this includes the doubled ignite buff proposed in the post). Suppose I get 100% increased spell damage, now I have 200 damage on hit, my ignite still at only 20 dps over 5s. Suppose I get area damage, cast speed, etc, all these modifiers - my ignite will not scale from them. I appreciate the thought in saying that scaling the initial hit and the DoT from certain modifiers can be counter-intuitive, but I strongly believe that this would be even more confusing.

Suppose we have a new player who is reasonably competent in the current system, you can imagine something like: 'So ignite damage is based off the damage dealt, and deals fire damage. So if I get more fire damage I will hit harder, and presumably the ignite would also be affected by that fire damage, that sounds interesting!'. Compare this to the new system where you have 'So ignite damage is dealt based on the base damage and is scaled with fire so if I get fire damage both will increase, but if I get spell damage surely the ignite damage will increase since it is a spell effect, or would it not be counted since it doesn't have "modifiers to spell damage also increase this spell's damage over time" on it?'. Immediately more questions are brought up than before.

This is a game that rewards thought and exploration of game mechanics, and this simply adds a very bandaged 'fix' to the system that arguably doesn't need to be done. A much better approach to enable non-DoT builds would be something like passives and skill gems that do the same trick. Imagine a keystone that hugely increases your damage but removes your ability to ignite/poison/bleed. Or support gems in the same vein as elemental focus that remove the ability to damage over time but increase the damage you dealt if you would have ignited or applied bleed/poison. Making mechanics selectively apply to some things and not others just makes the game less approachable and less deep, and this can only be harmful. Furthermore taking power out of double dipping, only to just put more power into the things double dipping affected and making passives apply to both the initial and the DoT kind of just... is a rewording of the whole thing? In general this just seems BAD. Maybe I have it all wrong, but this just does not seem like a good fix to the problem.
Will RF be classified as a DoT now or will it continue to be a degen? Does any of this affect degens?

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info