If you’re good at running monolith content… you’re good at running monolith content. It doesn’t matter if your goal is 50c or 5000c… that has no meaning for your skill.
Same with other content.
Personal goals have no bearing on your skill as a player. I can have the lofty goal of beating the whole game deathless… but if my skill makes me die regularly even in Act 2 then it won’t happen. Simple as that.
The same the other way around. My goal is to make a baseline functioning build… but if I’m so darn good then everything will kill all content in the game and bring me to quite a high corruption level compared to others.
Personal skill and personal goals are two different topics. One is a metric for balancing, the other is not
But less so. As said, range reduced.
Also as for the numbers… because it was asked what the premise for decision was… that was provided.
What are you even arguing about? You’ve completely lost the topic and argue for the sake of arguing by now.
Nope, they did a breakdown a few times for their Classes. Not specific build, but they also mentioned they have it, didn’t provide it though.
I’m not talking about skill. I’m talking about the definition of “decent build” nothing else.
An altoholic or even a casual player considers a “decent build” one that can reach 100c.
An “average” player might consider it one that can reach 300c.
A competitive player only considers a decent build one that can do 1000c.
Within those, you can them apply your skill metric.
What you’re trying to do is not only defining an arbitrary metric, but also defining an arbitrary goal (even if based on what Mike said) that doesn’t apply to everyone.
Why would a decent build only be applicable for balancing? There was nothing in the question post about balancing only as a metric.
It’s the same thing. They don’t provide it. So you don’t have actual data to base your metrics on. All you can go on, even with a more specific metric, is gut feeling. So what is the point of imposing a specific metric for a subjective discussion when you can’t even use any data to quantify it?
How do you discern if a build is ‘decent’?
You can’t do so by saying ‘it can reach xyz’ since that’s based on player skill purely as mentioned above.
Which pulled off the whole discussion about quantifying that to a degree to reduce the range in which we talk about.
That’s all it was, I still don’t understand where you’re going with your whole argumentation since that’s a part of ‘decent’ after all. You can’t discern if something is ‘decent’ if you don’t declare which range of players should reach said goal. 100% of em? The top 1% only? That’s the whole friggin point here Nothing else.
Yes, and my whole point is that you can’t just define an arbitrary goal like reaching 300c as a requirement for being decent when many players consider builds decent either much lower or much higher.
So you’d have to break it down:
-Decent builds for altoholics/casuals: 50% of the players in the group can reach empowered monos with it in 3 tries (whatever that means, since it’s a metric that only seems aplicable to bosses)
-Decent builds for “regular” players: 50% of the players in the group can reach 300c in 3 tries
-Decent builds for competitive players: 50% of the players of the players in the group can reach 1000c+.
That’s all I’m arguing about. You’re making an arbitrary metric to measure builds and you’re also making an arbitrary goal to define “decent”. And you’re saying that applies to the majority.
At that point it would just be easier to pick a build tier list and say that decent builds are C or better, and it would probably be less arbitrary.
Wah?
That’s also a fairly nonsensical argument. You can’t even begin to discuss something like that!
So we need that ‘arbitrary goal’ to have a baseline. A universal… arbitrary… goal.
One which is the closest to what we know that the devs might see as a viable arbitrary goal given that 320c is the last direct corruption based content for CoF and 300 overall for Aberroth.
So 300c is a very good arbitrary goal-line. And saying that 50% of people should be viable to reach this core aspect unless simply quitting beforehand - hence solely skill-based - is also a very viable argumentation line.
Your notion is utterly… and entirely… baffling. Trying to cut it between different play-styles is not only making the whole discussion impossible as it splits into as many discussions as you design benchmarks for (in your case 3) but it’s also outright detrimental since the discussion is about baseline balancing here, not about targeted and specific content related balance. Corruption is the one core game mechanic which everyone followed, similar to maps in PoE or the - however they are called - timeline thingies in Torchlight Infinite.
Hence by mandatory design of the topic it follows the ‘regular’ player benchmark by default, anything else would be quite useless to even start with…
And…
How would you decide if it’s ‘C’ though? After all you don’t have any data, right?
It is already impossible since you have no way to reliably say that build X can do Aberroth in 3 tries for 50% of the players.
That is what you added in the last few posts. The original question said nothing about balancing.
The whole thing started with Typhon asking what is a decent build and then proceeding to give his opinion on it, providing metrics for narrowing down his personal definition of it.
Not even Mike talks about decent builds. He always simply said they are “successful” if they can reach 300c. Because “decent” is a very sunjective term that will change based on personal preferences and goals.
So you can’t just decide that if a build can’t do 300c it isn’t a “decent” build because a large number of people will disagree with that. You’re trying to force multiple arbitrary parameters into shoehorning something that is a subjective term globally (it’s usually not so subjective in personal terms) into an objective term.
What you’re doing is the equivalent of saying that if a game has less than x players, it’s objectively a bad game. Or that if it has more than y players, it’s objectively good.
It’s still less arbitrary than saying that decent builds have to reach 300c by half the playerbase.
Really? That’s very bad.
I was under the impression that almost all build guides talk about gearing… Must be because I never (ever) watch videos, I only look at written guides. They are probably more detailed.
[Side note, my post was not meant to be an attack towards Baal. More like general advice to everyone following builds, I have seen many threads where people say build guides aim too high because they focus on the gear.]
Yes, written build guides do tend to be more specific about this type of information. And, to be fair, so do some video guides. I know AaronRPG mentions it on his guides and so do a few others.
But there are also plenty that don’t and some players that aren’t aware of there being alternatives or if it’s important for the build or not are often put off by it. There was even a post about this a month ago.
I, at least, didn’t take it as an attack, so no worries from my part.
The second the baseline was mentioned to be ‘arbitrary’ the only metric which can be used is player skill, which together with balancing is directly causal to the outcome.
So if they are not ‘successful’ then they ‘failed’
A ‘decent’ build obviously isn’t allowed to ‘fail’ as a baseline, which yes… I would say holds up quite well?
I still don’t know what you’re on about.
How does it differ? Explain.
The ‘C’ has to come from somewhere, what’s the metric for this decision making?
Sadly so, the majority of build guides for LE are quite sub-par still.
I don’t know why not? I’ve played several decent builds which aren’t successful by EHG standards. However, it’s decent by mine.
It differs that it contains only one arbitrary decision, rather than several.
Anyway, I don’t want to keep escalating this. I’ve explained that I’ve read that post as a simple introduction to discussing what people consider a decent build.
You and Typhon apparently are interested only in discussing builds that fulfill several arbitrary metrics.
I gave my opinion on what I consider to be a decent build. I don’t have much to contribute to the side-discussion you both apparently want to have because I don’t agree with your arbitrary metrics. Especially because you’re trying to objectively quantify something that is subjective and dependent on personal preferences.
Lastly, I just want to point out that if you’re using the 50% of players metric, then decent builds are builds that can finish the campaign, since that is where 50% of players stop playing. Any further goal like empowered monos or 300c will fail because 50% of the players won’t reach it.
But I’ll excuse myself from this particular discussion. There’s no point in escalating this further when we’re obviously discussing 2 different things.
I only failed by EHG standards, not my own. I’m not worried about balance (I usually actively avoid OP builds) or doing all content (haven’t even killed half the harbingers). I don’t have to use the standards EHG uses, nor the standards competitive players use, nor the standards you want to use.
My standards are: Was it a fun build to play and did I reach empowered monos? Then it’s a decent build. If it does more than that, then it’s a good one.
Nothing else.