Sanguinor2 wrote: »Also note how the DoT class is the only class that Needs a class passive to be buffed in order for their DoTs to perform as well as the DoT Standard.
Sanguinor2 wrote: »Also note how the DoT class is the only class that Needs a class passive to be buffed in order for their DoTs to perform as well as the DoT Standard.
To be fair, Necromancer also has a stronger DoT passive.
Sanguinor2 wrote: »Also note how the DoT class is the only class that Needs a class passive to be buffed in order for their DoTs to perform as well as the DoT Standard.
These changes were done to ensure these abilities keep up with our current DoT standards, and to help emphasize the Dragonknight’s more attrition-based combat style.
The power goal of these abilities are meant to empower you to smash your opponent to bits, rather than speed up the process of slowly killing them. Please note that some item sets have not received an audit (yet) to properly flag them as Direct Damage or Damage over Time, and may behave strangely with this mechanism.
These changes were done to ensure these abilities keep up with our current DoT standards, and to help emphasize the Dragonknight’s more attrition-based combat style.The power goal of these abilities are meant to empower you to smash your opponent to bits, rather than speed up the process of slowly killing them. Please note that some item sets have not received an audit (yet) to properly flag them as Direct Damage or Damage over Time, and may behave strangely with this mechanism.
"We want DKs to be attrition-based, but not really. In fact, we don't really know.".
These changes were done to ensure these abilities keep up with our current DoT standards, and to help emphasize the Dragonknight’s more attrition-based combat style.The power goal of these abilities are meant to empower you to smash your opponent to bits, rather than speed up the process of slowly killing them. Please note that some item sets have not received an audit (yet) to properly flag them as Direct Damage or Damage over Time, and may behave strangely with this mechanism.
"We want DKs to be attrition-based, but not really. In fact, we don't really know.".
This....bloody this
Sandman929 wrote: »They created a situation where the ult, which was strong, was made too strong. And the solution is the nerf the ult.
Sandman929 wrote: »They created a situation where the ult, which was strong, was made too strong. And the solution is the nerf the ult.
A simple solution would of been..oh i don't know...have Corrosive armor not work on Bleeds?
*grin*.
Sandman929 wrote: »They created a situation where the ult, which was strong, was made too strong. And the solution is the nerf the ult.
A simple solution would of been..oh i don't know...have Corrosive armor not work on Bleeds?
*grin*.
No that wouldn't solve anything. It would turn every other DoT into a bleed basically.
TheRealSniker wrote: »Another nerf to AFK damage that made bad players decent at the game? Yes please!!!
These changes were done to ensure these abilities keep up with our current DoT standards, and to help emphasize the Dragonknight’s more attrition-based combat style.The power goal of these abilities are meant to empower you to smash your opponent to bits, rather than speed up the process of slowly killing them. Please note that some item sets have not received an audit (yet) to properly flag them as Direct Damage or Damage over Time, and may behave strangely with this mechanism.
"We want DKs to be attrition-based, but not really. In fact, we don't really know.".
These changes were done to ensure these abilities keep up with our current DoT standards, and to help emphasize the Dragonknight’s more attrition-based combat style.The power goal of these abilities are meant to empower you to smash your opponent to bits, rather than speed up the process of slowly killing them. Please note that some item sets have not received an audit (yet) to properly flag them as Direct Damage or Damage over Time, and may behave strangely with this mechanism.
"We want DKs to be attrition-based, but not really. In fact, we don't really know.".