Are Rares realy useless?

[D-Dave]

After restarting Realm play a couple of month ago (and due to this experiencing first hand how the new Ladder start will feel) I still feel irritated everytime I hear people stating how useless Rare items are.

First of all, they are obtained rather easily by gambeling.
All you need is a fair amount of cash and a bit of luck and you can get your hands on some realy remarkable Items - early and easy. Which is a good thing when your Werewolf Druid is using the Horadric Staff throughout Act 2 Normal as he could not find any better Weapon.

Depending on Character Class and Item slot, Rare Items can be more desireable then Uniques or Sets
Good example: my Bow using Amazon - Gloves: +2 Passive Skills, +28% L.Res, +29% F.Res, 3% Dual Leech, 20% IAS
Boots: +39% L.Res, +38% F.Res, +39% C.Res, 30% Faster run/walk, 25% MF, Half Freeze Dur.
Circlet: 20% Res all, +30% Enh Damage, +1 Ama Skills, 6% Life leech, 8% Mana leech, -75% Poison length

So, if there are useful rares, why does everybody treat them like their mother-in-law stopping by for her weekly "you are not good enough for my child" speech?
Three simple reasons:

Number 1:
Top of the line Affixes being magic only.
While I admit that this makes some magic items viable, it turns out to be rare items spine-breaker due to the fact that those affixes can occur on uniques.

Number 2:
Disorganized Affix pool (concerning drops)
Do you like those snazzy Items with 1/2 of the affixes being absolutely pathetic (+1 defense, +1 light, +1 mana on an Ornate Plate, this does NOT make one a happy Barbarian)

Number 3:
Useless Affixes
Paldin Shields with Zeal charges anyone? or maybe you prefer "repairs durability over time" on any non-etheral item or even the all-time-classic -20% requirements on a Studded Leather


Solution:
A Rant without a possible solution is rather out of place when trying to defend rares isn't it.

So here we go:
-No more magic only affixes
-when selecting Affixes, always spawn the highest possible for the selected group (for example hell diablo won't drop an Amulet with the "Might" affix but with "Atlas" instead
-a minimum amount of themed affixes (no more grim wands carrying enhanced damage asnd dual leech but no caster affixes [btw, is anyone else puzzeled what drugs were consumed while assigning 8% mana steal to Sander's Superstition])

Voilá problem solved, rares have the potential to rule.

-dave

[Dozer]

when selecting Affixes, always spawn the highest possible for the selected group (for example hell diablo won't drop an Amulet with the "Might" affix but with "Atlas" instead

Too much. Making 90% of Hell rare weapons have cruel or grandmaster's on them, or BOTH, would take the problem from one end of the spectrum to the other. Think of this rare:
(Any Weapon)
Cruel
Grandmaster's
Fool's
Of Quickness
Of The Lamprey
Of The Vampire (or an ethereal with self repair here)

:o :o :o 500% ed, ~1200 AR boost, 40% IAS, High Dual leech - How does this "balance" rares? Granted, this is an extreme case, but in your third suggestion you say that the combat mods should spawn MORE often on weapons, always picking the highest affix??? :blink: That's just wrong.

[Ignatz]

Well yes, with THOSE rares, sure, rares look great! The Amazon equipment you list there is godly. I mean it. Those are godly stats for rares. You've either been playing a very long time, you're unimaginably lucky, or you're lying. I'll assume one of the former.

Allowing some of the magical only affixes on rares is a good idea. Or, cleaning, significantly, the affix pool would work too. Or, increasing the chances of the higher level affixes appearing from higher level monster drops. Always getting the best affix of a certain group is a terrible solution, though. Then every rare that dropped would be godly. Or at least absurdly good unless you happen to get a ton of stamina and the largest amount of Teeth charges possible.

[WarBlade]

So here we go:
-No more magic only affixes

*shrugs*

-when selecting Affixes, always spawn the highest possible for the selected group (for example hell diablo won't drop an Amulet with the "Might" affix but with "Atlas" instead

What kind of a dopey solution is that? Nah, wait for 1.10. By the sounds of things they've done some tinkering with probabilities so that the full range of mods is still that, but the chance of getting truely crappy ones in the later game is significantly reduced. There's your solution. :P

-a minimum amount of themed affixes (no more grim wands carrying enhanced damage asnd dual leech but no caster affixes [btw, is anyone else puzzeled what drugs were consumed while assigning 8% mana steal to Sander's Superstition])

I'm not. What's wrong with 8% Mana Steal??? That's a Shock Zealot's set, that one. You need a decent sized Mana Steal percentage to compensate for the lack of physical damage and the leeching penalty of Nightmare! :P

Voilá problem solved, rares have the potential to rule.

ROFL! :lol: Fixing problems with bigger problems is something Blizzard tried with movement rates in 1.08 (or 1.07?). And we all know how that turned out! :P :P :P

[unless]

Solution:
A Rant without a possible solution is rather out of place when trying to defend rares isn't it.

So here we go:
-No more magic only affixes
-when selecting Affixes, always spawn the highest possible for the selected group (for example hell diablo won't drop an Amulet with the "Might" affix but with "Atlas" instead
-a minimum amount of themed affixes (no more grim wands carrying enhanced damage asnd dual leech but no caster affixes [btw, is anyone else puzzeled what drugs were consumed while assigning 8% mana steal to Sander's Superstition])

Voilá problem solved, rares have the potential to rule.

-dave

I would suggest that only implementing solution number 2 would be quite enough. This would keep rares from becoming too uber and outpacing uniques. And while the absence of the Magic affix pool would keep most rares from being top-of-the-line items, a guarantee of a reasonably powerful affix set would make rares probably the best items that "most" players would be able to find. In this way, each type of item (magic, rare, unique) would serve a distinct and useful function. And I am certainly in support of anything that will narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

[Guest]

The only rares worth using for most people are.

circlets
jewelry
gloves

It accepted that those 3 can turn out well, but most everything else is fair at best. The odds on getting the other item types to turn out decient are so slim that people dont try.

Hopefully 1.10 changes this.

[Bob]

No more magic only affixes

Not a bad idea, but how about taking it one step further and having rare only affixes, they could be for totally different, and interesting things, things that aren't available as magic affixes at all. They could leave a few magic only affixes - most commom affixes, but a few that are exclusive to each type .

when selecting Affixes, always spawn the highest possible for the selected group (for example hell diablo won't drop an Amulet with the "Might" affix but with "Atlas" instead

How about a certain ammount of the affixes must be high quality. 50% highest, 25% 1 or 2 below highest, 25% anything or something. Of course this could still mean that on a 2 affix rare, the one that gets upgraded is the self repair mod. How about a minimum number of affixes, 2 for items found in normal, 3 for NM and 4 for hell.

-a minimum amount of themed affixes (no more grim wands carrying enhanced damage asnd dual leech but no caster affixes [btw, is anyone else puzzeled what drugs were consumed while assigning 8% mana steal to Sander's Superstition])

Nice one

-Bob

[TaiDaishar]

I think that a good way to make rares viable yet not all too uber would be to make magic only items be able to appear on items only with 50% quality of the real affix/prefix (aka cruel on rare would be 200-250%) and cleaning the affix pool by not having high level monsters drop items with +1 to light (for example) or having a circlet with firebolt charges and the obvious +% dmg on wands...

[D-Dave]

Well yes, with THOSE rares, sure, rares look great! The Amazon equipment you list there is godly. I mean it.

Thats why I listed them as a good example. (btw, rares like that are the result of a serious gambeling problem! Gloves were actualy hardest, I think it took me about 1000-1200 rare gambeled gloves close to the ideal Clvl to get them...on the other hand, I made lots of friends happy with the semi-perfect gambeling laftovers ;) )

Too much. Making 90% of Hell rare weapons have cruel or grandmaster's on them, or BOTH, would take the problem from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Hm, ok, I probably overdid the "power to the rares" thing a bit. Maybe that is due to the fact that I did get all #$%&ty rares for the last 3 weeks apart from gambeling. Better thinking next time, I promise!

You need a decent sized Mana Steal percentage to compensate for the lack of physical damage and the leeching penalty of Nightmare!

I still see no point in having 8% mana steal on a set weapon that only has 7-14 physical damage.
Maybe I am missing something, but with damage being so low, how can one gain any reasonable amount of mana back from this?

-dave

[kandrathe]

I'd be more in favor of an equitable system of evaluating value, not just of items. That is, each affix would be assigned a usefulness rating as it related to each type of equipment. Affix's are chosen for equipment in a way that favors the best affixes for that type of item. I wouldn't preclude melee affixes from occuring on say wands, or orbs, but it should just be darn rare.

Then when you kill a monster a difficulty rating is established depending on that monsters level and abilites. IMO, harder monster battles should drop better treasure. The value of the drop is determined, each item that is randomly generated must meet certain minimum and maximum requirements in order to be dropped, or that item is re-rolled. Items continue to drop until the "Value" of the drop is met, or exceeded. Hell Bosses, and certain unique and super uniques should always drop the best loot in aggregate.

I would actually be in favor of having affix ranges be tied to mLvl, and or iLvl, and assigned according to a half normal curve. For example ED%, if the theoretical max is %300 ED, then in Normal difficulty, having 1-150% ED, in Nightmare that range would increase to 100% - 200%, and in Hell 150% to 300%. So in normal, you might have a 1/1000th of a chance to get 100% ED, but in nightmare it would be the lowest you could get. It makes sense then that in order to have a chance at the best equipment, one must take on the hardest monsters in Hell difficulty.

[TaiDaishar]

When you say hardest monsters, what do you mean? The highest level monsters? Meaning pindle and baal hell or somesuch act 5 monsters or really the HARDEST monsters in the game, which the title will probably go to frenzytaurs and oblivioun(sp?) knights(or mages?).

Now when I think about it, Blizzard totally screwed with the expansion, the Chaos Sanctuary was (and even in the expansion, still is) probably the hardest place in the game while most of act 5 is a piece of cake compared to Chaos Sanctuary (or even river of flames).

[WarBlade]

I still see no point in having 8% mana steal on a set weapon that only has 7-14 physical damage.
Maybe I am missing something, but with damage being so low, how can one gain any reasonable amount of mana back from this?

Like I already said: It works fine for Zeal.

Fine enough that when I pulled three parts of this set together on a Paladin, it took him through Nightmare and kept him quite competitive, even alongside Werewolves. :P

[Fragbait]

Hail TaiDashar,

Act 5 may be a piece of cake for the 'fighter' classes, but then again, it is not too easy for sorcs and 'caster' classes. I think there are a lot of ice immune monsters, making life harder for cookie-cutter orb-sorcs. Baal is truly a fearful opponent for magic users, this Blood Mana curse is specifically designed against spell-casters, and Frenzy-Taurs cannot be frozen...
True, a melee character can easily and quite quickly whack Baal to death, and Blood Mana doesn't affect him since he most often will have more life than mana.
But don't forget: Act 4 is also a piece of cake for spell-casters. What makes the Chaos Sanctuary so difficult for melees? the Iron Maiden curse. Spell Casters will laugh at that. Diablo also is rather hard for melee characters, because his rather strong magical attacks (almost) never miss them. For a static/ meteor sorc however, he is less than a piece of cake. An M&M perhaps :P .
It is good that static nowadays cannot bring a hell boss under 50%, I remember times when it to some of my sorcs only seconds to kill what was supposed to be the 'final boss'...
Apart from that, I fail to see what is so hard about RoF or ChaosS. In Act 5, the monsters have more HP, can teleport (some), can work together (some), there are suicide-attackers, there are strong Frenzy-Taurs and monsters that chill you, a lethal combination.
True, these corpses are too easy, but the only thing that annoys me is that act 5 gives so much more experience than other acts. Some regions are really awesome. I usually get a lot more experience in act 5 normal than in act 1 nightmare, and same in act 5 nightmare compared to act 1 hell.
Beside of that, I think Blizzard did a great job designing act 5.

Just my 2 cents.


Greetings, Fragbait

[kandrathe]

When you say hardest monsters, what do you mean?

To me, the hardest monsters in the game are(can be) multiple aura enchanted uniques or super uniques. So, Act 3, High Council, Act 4, Seal Bosses, Hephasto, Izual, etc. Now, I would also make Mephisto and Baal harder for melee characters, and I would redesign Durance 3 to give Mephisto a better chance against ranged attackers. Mephisto's thing is lightning, so why not always make him LE. Diablo is already an SOB, so I wouldn't change a thing. Baal could be always CE, and maybe add another cold attack for him. IMO, the act bosses should be at least twice as difficult an any other boss in the level.

[TaiDaishar]

Hail Fragbait

I disagree, you say act 5 is very easy to melee'ers yet hard on spellcasters but you fail to remember that the frenzy-taurs are a melee'ers worst nightmare (extra fast groups especially) , everything else is just a piece of cake for both ranged, meleeand spellcasters, ranged and spellcasters hardly (if at all) get hit simply because the ranged attackers have very laughable damage for their ranged attacks that could hardly harm a fly.

Oh and the mana curse, you find the succubs very seldom outside of level 2 caves and even though the curse is annoying it's not lethal, the thing is Blizzard made the curse animation so... 'shiny' and adding in the casting delays it's considered just as a minor set back before it'll be off and you will kill those nasty sucubbs with one orb/firewall/meteor/CL/etc' because their Health can be compared to one of the bugs in act 2.

Also remember that you hardly need resistances in act 5 AT ALL while if you went to chaos sanctuary without resists (assuming you're not incredibly higher level than the monsters there) you will be toasted like an egg on a road on a very hot day while in act 5 there's hardly attacks to resist except for the frozens which their attack has very low damage and only really hurts by that it makes you chilled and you move slower.

Oh and chaos sanctuary easy on spellcasters while hard on melee'ers? The wraiths and mages are cold immune while the knights are fire immune not to mention the mages are the real threat here, they can decerify(sp) and then the knights/venom lords will eat you alive (notice I'm not considering the very high level sorcs or the ones with uber gear) or they could simply kick your ass by themselves because of their incredibly strong ranged attack (I think I saw somewhere that a hell mage's attack would do around 250 damage) and the projectile are very fast so it'll be harder to avoid them.

The above is also for melee'ers, Iron Maiden, while has a very lethal option if cast is not that hard to over come, it's cast very infrequently and you can always see when you get Iron Maiden on ya, probably the most feared option is to be IM'ed while you're zealing/fending/WW'ing and then you could be screwed if you just started the above attacks, but considering the IM's infrequent casting and considering it'll be cast on you exactly at the moment you were starting/ half way WW'ing is very slim, but the option exists and it petrifies most melee'ers

[Fragbait]

.. but will you agree with me that Baal is easier to kill with a melee char, and Diablo is easier with a ranged attacker?

A few reasons:

• Ranged attackers 'love' the tentacles that come out of the ground
  <>
  
• Blood Mana course is a horror for fast cast magic attackers
  <>
  
• Baal can dublicate and double attack you with magic, and ranged attackers normaly have less life
  <>
  
• Baal's nova is far better than Diablo's
  <>
  
• Baal has no in-built shield like Diablo (I think)
  <>
  
• Diablo cannot teleport
  <>
  
• Diablo's ranged attacks are easy to avoid
  <>
  
• Diablo has chilling touch and charge
  <>
  
• Diablo's room is easier to fight in for ranged attackers
  <>
  
• Diablo cannot curse
  <>
  
• Diablo often does few things to use pressure against you<>
  [st]
  
  Just my 2 cents.
  
  Greetings, Fragbait

[WarBlade]

.. but will you agree with me that Baal is easier to kill with a melee char, and Diablo is easier with a ranged attacker?

It depends on the melee character. Super-fast heavy hitters with high leeching will rip him apart fairly quickly. Chargers have trouble getting at him and have to default to backup skills, Werebears without Cannot be Frozen slow to a crawl, melee Sorceresses have their Energy shield shredded in the first blast of Baal's puke missile etc.

A few reasons:

• 
  <>
  
• Ranged attackers 'love' the tentacles that come out of the ground
  
  <>
  
• Blood Mana course is a horror for fast cast magic attackers
  
  <>
  
• Baal can dublicate and double attack you with magic, and ranged attackers normaly have less life
  
  <>
  
• Baal's nova is far better than Diablo's
  
  <>
  
• Baal has no in-built shield like Diablo (I think)
  
  <>
  
• Diablo cannot teleport
  
  <>
  
• Diablo's ranged attacks&nbsp; are easy to avoid
  
  <>
  
• Diablo has chilling touch and charge
  
  <>
  
• Diablo's room is easier to fight in for ranged attackers
  
  <>
  
• Diablo cannot curse
  
  <>
  
• Diablo often does few things to use pressure against you
  
  <>
  [st]

- The tentacles are a pain for almost everyone.
- Blood Mana only drops on characters with higher Mana than Life. Consequently not many players have trouble with that curse, except in Normal where the need for more Life hasn't really kicked in and the need for Mana is great.
- Baal's Duplicate is often as much a problem for meleers. Personally I find the Sorceress has a better opportunity to run which is a decent enough match for a meleer's leeching. You have a point though. Sometimes the Duplicate and a teleporting Baal himself can wind up on top of you and then a ranged attacker can get into trouble.
- Baal's nova better than Diablo's? Well considering they're both crap, that's not saying much.
- Built in shield?
- Teleport? Agreed. But then again it's almost as much a problem for meleers. While it's true meleers have the capacity to lock it up rendering Baal somewhat impotent at times, the dreaded teleport-then-cold-wedge combo hammers most meleers, except for leaping Barbarians.
- Diablo's ranged attacks? Hmm. Sorceress yes, bow Amazon yes, but Summoner Necros and Druids lose their armies faster than fast, so you're back to a situational argument on that score.
- Diablo's chilling touch and Charge? Ok. I'm not sure what point you haave there.
- I find that Diablo's room is no easier or harder to fight in than Baal's
- Diablo cannot curse? This has no bearing on a Sorceress being better for Diablo fights.
- Diablo doing few things to pressure you? I'm lost on that one too I'm afraid.

I agree that Diablo is generally trickiest for meleers, but I find your arguments to support this position fall largely flat for one reason or another. :huh:

As for Baal, his difficulty is dependant on a wide variety of factors outside of a melee versus ranged debate. Some builds have it easy. Others don't.

[Fragbait]

Hail WarBlade,

seems that our opinions differ a little :D :

- Baal refuses to cast tentacles when I whack him with a melee character. He only does this when I am away from him and cast or run. And then again, ranged characters have less life (quite often)
- My Sorc had trouble due to the BM curse in nightmare - she is a fastcast Frostnova sorc with over 700 Mana but under 400 life (her act 5 Merc usually tanks for her)
- I find that dublicates almost never prove a problem for my melee chars. I keep on whacking on the real baal, and when he teleports away, I leave the dublicate behind.
- You have a point with the nova, but baals missile attack as well as his cold wave have an indefinite reach and are fast. Diablo's deatch blast and his fire storm are either slower or have a definite reach.
- Diablo has a built in 51% chance to not being hit at all, like a shield.
- Agreed on the teleport-then-cold-wedge combo.
- Alright, some builds simply are weaker on bosses than on masses. Javazon and Summon-Necros can be tricky to fight diablo at times, but Baal might as well if not more be a challenge; in addition his tentacles distract your minions from actually attacking him, and his strong yellow missile - well, it hits.
- Chilling touch as well as Charge are the greater peril for melee fighters. Baals cold wave has an indefinite reach => gets your ranged attackers, too.
- I find that Diablo's room is easier, because there is more space to dodge his ranged attacks. Besides, you cannot cast spells across the void inside of Baals chamber...
- This was meant to demonstrate that Diablo can do next to nothing except some minor firewall against ranged attackers. Not even curse them ! :o
- Last point is a repetition, I'm afraid.

I hope I expressed myself in a more significant manner. I tend to babble at times :D .


Greetings, Fragbait

[WarBlade]

Hail WarBlade,

seems that our opinions differ a little :D :

Obviously. B)

- Baal refuses to cast tentacles when I whack him with a melee character. He only does this when I am away from him and cast or run. And then again, ranged characters have less life (quite often)

Melee opens up a couple of new attack options for Baal which signifantly impacts on the likelihood of casting his festering appendages. The appendages really become an annoyance to the Zeal and Fury based characters who suddenly find some of their attacks diverted.

- My Sorc had trouble due to the BM curse in nightmare - she is a fastcast Frostnova sorc with over 700 Mana but under 400 life (her act 5 Merc usually tanks for her)

When talking about Ranged Attackers one tends to conjure an image of something a little further away than, say, point blank. ;) Now I begin to see your problem . . .

- I find that dublicates almost never prove a problem for my melee chars. I keep on whacking on the real baal, and when he teleports away, I leave the dublicate behind.

Really? I find that getting caught a the crossfire can really start hammering the potion supply. :(

- You have a point with the nova, but baals missile attack as well as his cold wave have an indefinite reach and are fast. Diablo's deatch blast and his fire storm are either slower or have a definite reach.

Actually the worst of Baal's attacks is quite finite in its reach, with a range maybe slightly longer than Diablo's LBoD.

- Diablo has a built in 51% chance to not being hit at all, like a shield.
- Agreed on the teleport-then-cold-wedge combo.

Ah, inherent blocking. True. there's half your primary argument for classifying Diablo as difficult for many meleers right there (the other half being the aimed fire attack).

- Alright, some builds simply are weaker on bosses than on masses. Javazon and Summon-Necros can be tricky to fight diablo at times, but Baal might as well if not more be a challenge; in addition his tentacles distract your minions from actually attacking him, and his strong yellow missile - well, it hits.

Baal and Diablo are about even for summoners, ie both bloody horrible! :blink:

- Chilling touch as well as Charge are the greater peril for melee fighters. Baals cold wave has an indefinite reach => gets your ranged attackers, too.

That Charge attack is weak. You can even outmanoevre him so that you won't have to face it and once closed to melee range he can no longer Charge.

- I find that Diablo's room is easier, because there is more space to dodge his ranged attacks. Besides, you cannot cast spells across the void inside of Baals chamber...

No, but you can hide behind pillars and scurry off into far corners and that room up the top. There's really no difference in the fighting venues.

- This was meant to demonstrate that Diablo can do next to nothing except some minor firewall against ranged attackers. Not even curse them ! :o

So you've never been positioned dead centre, without time to react, in that fiery river he shoots? It's even worse in Hell level at beyond visual range when it's invisible sometimes . . . you just run in looking for the first fire ring to indicate his position and watch your character's life bar plummet to 0 in less than a second. <_< Getting stuck in a Bone Prison while he's still in view is another unpleasant experience.

I hope I expressed myself in a more significant manner. I tend to babble at times&nbsp; :D .

True. :unsure:

[Fragbait]

Couple of minor points:

Melee opens up a couple of new attack options for Baal which signifantly impacts on the likelihood of casting his festering appendages. The appendages really become an annoyance to the Zeal and Fury based characters who suddenly find some of their attacks diverted.

My solution: try and get him in the path in the middle. Then he has not too much room for his tentacles.

Really? I find that getting caught a the crossfire can really start hammering the potion supply.

Solution: don't get caught. B) Seriously: It most often is possible to approach from one direction where one of them is blocked. It only takes quick reaction.

Actually the worst of Baal's attacks is quite finite in its reach, with a range maybe slightly longer than Diablo's LBoD

Yeah, but if the room you're fighting in is smaller, this actually gets to a problem.

That Charge attack is weak. You can even outmanoevre him so that you won't have to face it and once closed to melee range he can no longer Charge.

True, but when your resists don't allow you to stay in his lightning or fire attacks, you occasionally have to flee and take potions. Melee characters must get close afterwards, ranged mustn't.

No, but you can hide behind pillars and scurry off into far corners and that room up the top. There's really no difference in the fighting venues

I disagree. You can't shoot either when behind a pillar. As a melee character, that won't help you much either, and in Diablo's room, there's plenty of space to hide, too, if you really want to.

So you've never been positioned dead centre, without time to react, in that fiery river he shoots? It's even worse in Hell level at beyond visual range when it's invisible sometimes . . . you just run in looking for the first fire ring to indicate his position and watch your character's life bar plummet to 0 in less than a second.&nbsp; Getting stuck in a Bone Prison while he's still in view is another unpleasant experience

No, I've never experienced this. I did fight him in Hell/act4 quite often, but I never experienced this. Maybe your resists and reduce magic damage weren't too good? Then again, I just recently (a few months ago) upgraded to 1.09d. It could have been improved very much.

As you mentioned, we have different opinions, and it's obvious. I hope this further post didn't annoy you too much with yet more babbling, but I find the knowledge exchange very interesting indeed.


Greetings, Fragbait