"
I'm a fan of the Culling Strike mechanic itself, but design-wise this gem is a disaster.
Despite its name, what it does currently is make all kinds of modifications to your cast/attack speed and damage. Nothing about culling strike itself is changed, which is weird considering it's based on a number (10%)...
Culling Strike itself is the really interesting part of the mechanic. Treating your enemy's health as 10% lower is pretty much the same as 11% more damage... assuming your enemy doesn't have energy shield. What if they do? Things get a lot more interesting. You can try to get around Culling Strike's relative weakness against energy shield by investing heavily in chaos damage; you might even be able to ignore the shields on some monsters by using a chaos damage + Culling Strike combo. Very interesting, very hidden synergy, which reminds me of the way Blind is and the things it synergizes with.
However, it instead gets those unreleated bonuses.
A better design would be: - Remove all the cast/attack/damage stuff from the gem.
- Have the "insta-kill" percent increase with levels. You definitely wouldn't want to increase that number above 30% though, that's 42.8% more damage against purelife enemies. Maybe 10% to 30%, one per level; maybe 5% to 25% (lower starting value); maybe 10% to 20% (half a point per level).
- Have the quality bonus something along the lines of "Steals 20% of enemy life at time of death" (that would be max quality). Even for a 30% insta-kill percent, that would be equivalent to 6% life leech at perfect efficiency, and efficiency is likely to be far from perfect... but the point is, make it something that actually cares about how much life enemies have at time of death.
- Recalibrate mana cost multiplier accordingly.
That design adds a challenge within the skill itself, and also emphasizes its hidden synergy with chaos damage.
The cast and attack speed bonuses are there for the same reasons they're on the "iron" gems.
"Culling Strike" is a defined mechanic. It isn't variable. The mods are to "balance" the gem at lower levels.
Admittedly speed penalties are kind've the wrong way to do it. They make sense on the Iron gems. Not so much on culling strike. I would instead change it to "chance to _____" on kill.
No idea what it would be. Possibly regenerate something. Or a short term buff.
IGN - PlutoChthon, Talvathir
|
Posted byAutocthonon Mar 26, 2013, 8:26:42 PM
|
"
"Culling Strike" is a defined mechanic. It isn't variable.
That is the current situation.
I'm saying that should be changed.
Remember Crushing Blow from Diablo 2? Yeah, that. Just replace the keyword on existing legendaries (and Power Siphon) with Culling Strike x%.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
Posted byScrotieMcBon Mar 27, 2013, 5:45:46 AM
|
|
I don't feel like that's the way to go about it.
Remember how crushing blow was basically required on a melee if you wanted to be able to get anywhere? Thats what culling strike would be like if they increased the threshold.
IGN - PlutoChthon, Talvathir
|
Posted byAutocthonon Mar 27, 2013, 6:06:35 AM
|
"
Remember how crushing blow was basically required on a melee if you wanted to be able to get anywhere? Thats what culling strike would be like if they increased the threshold.
Not at all. The degenerate thing about Crushing Blow was a repeated, percent-based drain on monster health that encouraged hyper-fast, relatively low-damage attacks. Culling Strike is not a once-per-hit mechanic, it's a once-per-monster mechanic.
Increasing the threshold would be the equivalent of adding more damage. That's more, not increased, so yes, it would be good. However, it's already on stuff like Weapon Elemental Damage, Melee Physical Damage. Actually this would be a variable almost-"more", like Fire/Cold/Lightning Penetration or Added Fire Damage; it's an almost-more because the target having ES messes with the math, decreasing effectiveness unless you synergize with chaos damage. Good supports? Yes. Required? No.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Mar 27, 2013, 7:28:18 AM
|
Posted byScrotieMcBon Mar 27, 2013, 7:21:00 AM
|
"
I'm a fan of the Culling Strike mechanic itself, but design-wise this gem is a disaster.
Despite its name, what it does currently is make all kinds of modifications to your cast/attack speed and damage. Nothing about culling strike itself is changed, which is weird considering it's based on a number (10%)...
Culling Strike itself is the really interesting part of the mechanic. Treating your enemy's health as 10% lower is pretty much the same as 11% more damage... assuming your enemy doesn't have energy shield. What if they do? Things get a lot more interesting. You can try to get around Culling Strike's relative weakness against energy shield by investing heavily in chaos damage; you might even be able to ignore the shields on some monsters by using a chaos damage + Culling Strike combo. Very interesting, very hidden synergy, which reminds me of the way Blind is and the things it synergizes with.
However, it instead gets those unreleated bonuses.
A better design would be: - Remove all the cast/attack/damage stuff from the gem.
- Have the "insta-kill" percent increase with levels. You definitely wouldn't want to increase that number above 30% though, that's 42.8% more damage against purelife enemies. Maybe 10% to 30%, one per level; maybe 5% to 25% (lower starting value); maybe 10% to 20% (half a point per level).
- Have the quality bonus something along the lines of "Steals 20% of enemy life at time of death" (that would be max quality). Even for a 30% insta-kill percent, that would be equivalent to 6% life leech at perfect efficiency, and efficiency is likely to be far from perfect... but the point is, make it something that actually cares about how much life enemies have at time of death.
- Recalibrate mana cost multiplier accordingly.
That design adds a challenge within the skill itself, and also emphasizes its hidden synergy with chaos damage.
"Treating your enemy's health as 10% lower is pretty much the same as 11% more damage" Sorry, theorycrafting is not your thing.
IGN: SynergyHC Last edited by Synergy1337 on Apr 21, 2013, 4:19:14 PM
|
Posted bySynergy1337on Apr 21, 2013, 4:17:56 PM
|
"
"
I'm a fan of the Culling Strike mechanic itself, but design-wise this gem is a disaster.
Despite its name, what it does currently is make all kinds of modifications to your cast/attack speed and damage. Nothing about culling strike itself is changed, which is weird considering it's based on a number (10%)...
Culling Strike itself is the really interesting part of the mechanic. Treating your enemy's health as 10% lower is pretty much the same as 11% more damage... assuming your enemy doesn't have energy shield. What if they do? Things get a lot more interesting. You can try to get around Culling Strike's relative weakness against energy shield by investing heavily in chaos damage; you might even be able to ignore the shields on some monsters by using a chaos damage + Culling Strike combo. Very interesting, very hidden synergy, which reminds me of the way Blind is and the things it synergizes with.
However, it instead gets those unreleated bonuses.
A better design would be: - Remove all the cast/attack/damage stuff from the gem.
- Have the "insta-kill" percent increase with levels. You definitely wouldn't want to increase that number above 30% though, that's 42.8% more damage against purelife enemies. Maybe 10% to 30%, one per level; maybe 5% to 25% (lower starting value); maybe 10% to 20% (half a point per level).
- Have the quality bonus something along the lines of "Steals 20% of enemy life at time of death" (that would be max quality). Even for a 30% insta-kill percent, that would be equivalent to 6% life leech at perfect efficiency, and efficiency is likely to be far from perfect... but the point is, make it something that actually cares about how much life enemies have at time of death.
- Recalibrate mana cost multiplier accordingly.
That design adds a challenge within the skill itself, and also emphasizes its hidden synergy with chaos damage.
"Treating your enemy's health as 10% lower is pretty much the same as 11% more damage" Sorry, theorycrafting is not your thing.
It made sense to me, could you elaborate instead of just insult the guy?
|
Posted byPackersFTWon Apr 22, 2013, 3:02:19 PM
|
|
There is simply no correlation between 10% hp pool of a monster and 11% more damage of a character. They are two differnt variables. Monsters have different hp pools. If i do 100hp in damage to a monster per hit and that monster have 10k hp, do you really think 11% more damage equates to 10% of that monsters hp pool? No, doing 11% more damage means doing 111hp per hit instead of 100hp per hit.
Sorry if i come of harsh, but this is really obvious 101 stuff.
IGN: SynergyHC
|
Posted bySynergy1337on Apr 22, 2013, 5:38:22 PM
|
"
There is simply no correlation between 10% hp pool of a monster and 11% more damage of a character. They are two differnt variables. Monsters have different hp pools. If i do 100hp in damage to a monster per hit and that monster have 10k hp, do you really think 11% more damage equates to 10% of that monsters hp pool? No, doing 11% more damage means doing 111hp per hit instead of 100hp per hit.
Sorry if i come of harsh, but this is really obvious 101 stuff.
 Don't worry, you're not coming off harsh at all.
Let's say you deal 100 damage per hit against a monster with 1000 hit points.
Without Culling Strike, you kill it in exactly 10 hits.
With Culling Strike, you kill it in exactly 9 hits. That's equivalent to 111.111 damage per hit.
That's assuming it doesn't have energy shield... which I clearly listed as a caveat in my first post in this thread.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Apr 24, 2013, 11:05:47 AM
|
Posted byScrotieMcBon Apr 24, 2013, 11:03:04 AM
|
"
"
There is simply no correlation between 10% hp pool of a monster and 11% more damage of a character. They are two differnt variables. Monsters have different hp pools. If i do 100hp in damage to a monster per hit and that monster have 10k hp, do you really think 11% more damage equates to 10% of that monsters hp pool? No, doing 11% more damage means doing 111hp per hit instead of 100hp per hit.
Sorry if i come of harsh, but this is really obvious 101 stuff.
Don't worry, you're not coming off harsh at all.
Let's say you deal 100 damage per hit against a monster with 1000 hit points.
Without Culling Strike, you kill it in exactly 10 hits.
With Culling Strike, you kill it in exactly 9 hits. That's equivalent to 111.111 damage per hit.
That's assuming it doesn't have energy shield... which I clearly listed as a caveat in my first post in this thread.
The other guy is right. Your example worked because you chose numbers that already matched up. Try it with 700 damage to a monster with 1000 HP.
|
Posted byPackersFTWon Apr 24, 2013, 2:23:03 PM
|
"
The other guy is right. Your example worked because you chose numbers that already matched up. Try it with 700 damage to a monster with 1000 HP.
Try 10% more damage in the same situation. They both have no effect.
Against zero-ES opponents, Culling Strike will always function identical to 11.11% more damage, both in situations where every point of damage counts, and also in situations where the extra damage does little or nothing.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Apr 24, 2013, 2:33:21 PM
|
Posted byScrotieMcBon Apr 24, 2013, 2:23:44 PM
|
