Corruption - The worst system ever added to the game?

[xStevooo]

Uninspiring, boring, dull, lack of creativity, shit - few ways to describe the corruption system and 8.2/8.3 in general.

[Unholyground]

Corruption is objectively bad because there is no way as a player to truly control the outcome of any corruption effect that is not a flat stat increase, and in fact it is worse in some regards than titan/warforging. Thankfully it will be gone when the Shadowlands pre-patch hits September 15th.

[Raelbo]

Corruption is objectively bad because there is no way as a player to truly control the outcome of any corruption effect that is not a flat stat increase and in fact it is worse in some regards than titan/warforging.

You can't claim things as objective or factual without some kind of warrant or backing. That would be subjective and in your opinion.

[Unholyground]

You can't claim things as objective or factual without some kind of warrant or backing. That would be subjective and in your opinion.

RNG is objectively bad when it effects throughput as it has this final major patch, that is objective, it is not an opinion it actually makes the game harder to play effectively.

Corruption effects are about 80% RNG.

Less player agency = bad

[Doffen]

Not really, because getting "BiS Corruption" is about getting a combination of items. And, statistically, getting such a combination prior to the vendor was extremely improbable.

That's not how it works in reality. If you don't get that combination, then what? It was filled with RNG, and there are so few that actually argues against that, so I'll take that as something as widely accepted truth about the system.

But I am not talking about going for just 1 item. Every serious mount collector has that "Invincible" (in my case it's Rivendare's Deathcharger) that simply won't drop. But that doesn't stop one from being able to collect the 400 mounts you need for A Horde of Hoofbeats (or the next achievement that comes along).

And that's my whole point about corruption. It's not all or nothing. You might not have gotten the exact corruption that you wanted, but what you will get is almost as good. Certainly sufficient to get the job done and likely on par (ie within a few %) with 95% of your peers.

You do take two things and bring it into one though. Your point about all or nothing is true in my eyes. But the other side of it when it comes to rng, it's just too unbalanced and too much rng. You might not have gotten the exact corruption that you wanted, and the things you get might be far from what you wanted is just as applicable.

I am not talking about 5 corruption pieces per player. I am talking about 50 pieces per player (per month). The probability of not getting something at least half-decent out of that is completely negligible.

Math does not work like that. What you also seem to ignore that ilvl is important for some corruptions. You can get 40 445 pieces and 10 465 pieces per month, but since there are more than 54 different corruptions, the chance of getting what you want isn't good.

You've just demonstrated my point. You're creating a hypothetical scenario with no basis in fact in order to try and demonstrate the existence of a real problem. What I am saying is that unless your hypothetical scenario does reflect reality, it cannot be used as the basis of proof. But this is what a lot of people will do: They'll look at what corruptions they got, compare it to what is theoretically possible, regardless of how improbable and then then take that as the baseline against which to compare their own situation. And if someone is constantly measuring their own luck against an unrealistic benchmark, of course it's going to feel like they've been royally screwed over by the system.

Interested to hear what you point is. This is something that happens everyday, in every guild, pug etc. This happens all the time, I used "upset" because people might not get really upset, it's a team effort, it's a game etc. But for each individual it is unfair that the rng is in the way of having equal terms. You say that "if someone is constantly measuring their own luck against unrealistic benchmark, of course it's going to feel like they've been royally screwed over by the system." Thanks, for that's my point. And it's not unrealistic. You do look at it in a big pool of players, while you should rank this as something individually. I don't care what other people got, but I do care what I got(this is my personal view on both leggo and corruption system). What I did in the effort to acquire the power I wanted, but it never happened.

For people playing in a mythic guild, the number of chances they're going to have at getting corrupted items are so numerous that the probability of not getting something better than 50% of the next guy is practically impossible. Sure, there will be differences in luck, which will translate directly into outputs, but what I am saying is that, in reality, these differences are a lot smaller than most people intuitively think it is.

Sure, but that doesn't stop the fact that this system has a lot of rng, and the actual throughput differences in bad vs good luck can be up to 10-20%, because you are right that even if we don't have the best corruption, you can still do good, you can still do your job easily. But that's not what the issue is. The issue is that there still is a noticeable difference in that throughput, and people notice that. Then you could argue, should they really care, but people do care. I see it in game everyday.

I've never seen evidence of this actually happening in any serious guild.

You misunderstand what I mean then. You will know that you got subpar corruption that does 10% of your throughput, it's not just a perception from players. It's a real thing. Let's say I got Twisted Appendage. Not BiS, but pretty decent. It does 10% if my damage, let's say 500k. Then the other got Infinite stars and that does 30% of his damage, 1.5million. The rest is the same, gear, skill etc. This is a reality in 8.3.

Personally I think that the arguments against both Corruptions and Legiondaries suffer from a similar fallacy in that people get overly upset if they don't have the perfect item drop for them. Certainly with Legiondaries there were acceptable substitutes which were good enough, even if not the best, and the same is true of Corruptions.

Agree.

However there is one legitimate point about Legiondaries and that has to do with the bug that made it impossible to get more than 4 in the beginning of Legion.

Which lasted 2 months and 2 weeks, less than 10 % of the time we spent in Legion. It wasn't a bug but intentional, but yeah, I am being pedantic there. But then you already had 4 legendaries.

Also, I would argue that with Corruption, the frequency with which you get corrupted items means that you're far less likely to get screwed by not getting something reasonably decent.

Disagree. The dice got 6 times as many sides and on top of that you got two more dices(ilvl + items to drop) and the throughput balance is worse.

I do have argued this in and out for too long, so I'm done, for now. Thanks for the discussion, even though I disagree with some stuff, your arguments are good and I enjoy that. I will of course read your next reply.

[kaminaris]

Corruption is objectively bad because there is no way as a player to truly control the outcome of any corruption effect that is not a flat stat increase, and in fact it is worse in some regards than titan/warforging. Thankfully it will be gone when the Shadowlands pre-patch hits September 15th.

There is no such thing as objectively bad that is one. Giving player true control of the outcome is the same as making it another gear tax.
And people are stupid thinking no-rng gear is fun and exciting - it isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Personally I think that the arguments against both Corruptions and Legiondaries suffer from a similar fallacy in that people get overly upset if they don't have the perfect item drop for them. Certainly with Legiondaries there were acceptable substitutes which were good enough, even if not the best, and the same is true of Corruptions.

However there is one legitimate point about Legiondaries and that has to do with the bug that made it impossible to get more than 4 in the beginning of Legion.

Also, I would argue that with Corruption, the frequency with which you get corrupted items means that you're far less likely to get screwed by not getting something reasonably decent.

It wasn't a bug. It was intentional, bad luck protection stopped working after 4th leggo but due to having astronomically low base change, you rarely sew people with more than 4. Blizzard admitted it and removed that softcap.

The bug made couple of people have all class legiondaries in like first week.

[Unholyground]

There is no such thing as objectively bad that is one. Giving player true control of the outcome is the same as making it another gear tax.
And people are stupid thinking no-rng gear is fun and exciting - it isn't.

There are limits though, one must agree that corruption is not great, It was only great if you lucked out and got a max rank of something early on and then it becomes subjectively good to that player's personal experience because the wow gods blessed them. RNG is fine when it is confined and much smaller impact on throughput.

[Raelbo]

RNG is objectively bad when it effects throughput as it has this final major patch, that is objective, it is not an opinion it actually makes the game harder to play effectively.

When RNG affects success or failure, then I would agree that is objectively bad. But I do not believe that this is the case here. First and foremost, we get to choose what corruptions we use. Secondly, adapting, on the fly to what RNG throws at you during an encounter is a matter of skill.

Whether or not you personally like this is a subjective thing, but I would argue that objectively they at least make the game more interesting.

[Unholyground]

When RNG affects success or failure, then I would agree that is objectively bad. But I do not believe that this is the case here. First and foremost, we get to choose what corruptions we use. Secondly, adapting, on the fly to what RNG throws at you during an encounter is a matter of skill.

Whether or not you personally like this is a subjective thing, but I would argue that objectively they at least make the game more interesting.

You choosing your corruption was not as it was intended though, they put that in a tiny patch because so many people complained how horrible it was to get them randomly.

[Raelbo]

That's not how it works in reality. If you don't get that combination, then what? It was filled with RNG, and there are so few that actually argues against that, so I'll take that as something as widely accepted truth about the system.

I prefer to judge arguments based on logic and reason than popularity. Because, let's face it, popular arguments are popular because they appeal to the lowest common denominator. Just sayin'

To answer your question though: If you don't get your BiS combination (ie 99.9% of players) then you figure out what the best is you can do with what you have. As you progress, you get pieces which represent upgrades and you converge towards BiS.

You do take two things and bring it into one though. Your point about all or nothing is true in my eyes. But the other side of it when it comes to rng, it's just too unbalanced and too much rng. You might not have gotten the exact corruption that you wanted, and the things you get might be far from what you wanted is just as applicable.

For any given item, sure, it could be decent, or it could be terrible. But when you look across all the possible corruptions, most are at least usable, and half are decent in either single target or aoe.

If I look at what Mother sells, I count 52 possible corruptions. That's 19 different effects (16 of them come in 3 levels, 1 of them comes in 2 levels and 2 as only 1 level). Granted, I haven't studied every class combination, but I play MM hunter, so let's go with that. My best per corruption point effect, for single target, is IS. It does roughly double the output to the 10th best effect - Masterful, which puts it (IS) at, I would say, roughly 20-25% of my total potential output. What that means in reality is that even if all I ever get are items in the bottom half of the table, I am still only 10-12% down on my total output (compared to BiS). More likely though, especially if I am putting some effort into collecting corruptions, I will land up with some of the better corruptions, that are producing 75-80% of my potential (compared to BiS). That means I should be able to achieve 95% of my potential dps even with pretty poor luck.

Math does not work like that.

I suspect that you and I are not on the same page regarding what it is you think I am saying the math says. I am not saying that there is any guarantee at all that you'll get your best corruption. Simply that you'll get something reasonably good (as described above).

What you also seem to ignore that ilvl is important for some corruptions. You can get 40 445 pieces and 10 465 pieces per month

While you make a valid point about some corruptions relying on ilevel, you're clearly underestimating here. If all you're doing is horrific visions, that's 4x470 and 4x465 items guaranteed. Any semi-serious player, for whom having good corruptions actually matters, is going to be doing a lot more content, including raiding (heroic and mythic) and M+.

but since there are more than 54 different corruptions, the chance of getting what you want isn't good.

There are 19 different corruption effects though - eg IS 1,2,3, so your odds are roughly 3x higher than what you're saying. If you count 1/4 of those as being within 25% of your maximum potential, taken across the number of corrupted items you're likely to be getting, most mythic raiders were probably up to between 70% and 80% of their corruption output potential in the first month.

Interested to hear what you point is. This is something that happens everyday, in every guild, pug etc. This happens all the time,

No. It. Doesn't.

Even before considering the reality that people exaggerate and people lie, most players simply don't have a good grasp of what is normal nor do most players have a particular strong analytical ability. And so they go around believing that the corruptions they got are far worse (in the bigger picture) than what they really are.

I used "upset" because people might not get really upset, it's a team effort, it's a game etc. But for each individual it is unfair that the rng is in the way of having equal terms.

I think that the idea of equality in this context is greatly overrated, and if we ever actually got it, we'd really hate it. Having some randomness, or luck, as part of the equation, I believe, contributes significantly to our enjoyment of the game because on some level it absolves us of the responsibility for not being the best all the time.

You say that "if someone is constantly measuring their own luck against unrealistic benchmark, of course it's going to feel like they've been royally screwed over by the system." Thanks, for that's my point. And it's not unrealistic. You do look at it in a big pool of players, while you should rank this as something individually. I don't care what other people got, but I do care what I got(this is my personal view on both leggo and corruption system). What I did in the effort to acquire the power I wanted, but it never happened.

Of course we all care about what we got. But let's not pretend that as human beings we don't measure ourselves against others and use that as a gauge for our own satisfaction.

It's like fashion magazines which have pictures of unrealistically gorgeous supermodels on the cover, and how that results in millions of women who see those covers feeling inadequate about their own looks because they know don't measure up. And of course they can't measure up, because those pictures are manipulated to distort one's perception of reality - of what is normal.

Likewise, with corruptions, a lot of players have this idealized vision of what everyone else has, and then they look at what they have, of course they're going to feel like they came off second best.

Sure, but that doesn't stop the fact that this system has a lot of rng, and the actual throughput differences in bad vs good luck can be up to 10-20%

That's simply not true. Across a raiding guild, differences in luck with what corruptions you got were more likely to be in the region of 5% (and that was before the vendor was added, at which point "luck" was no longer a factor)

because you are right that even if we don't have the best corruption, you can still do good, you can still do your job easily. But that's not what the issue is. The issue is that there still is a noticeable difference in that throughput, and people notice that. Then you could argue, should they really care, but people do care. I see it in game everyday.

Yes, but how much of that is down to proper understanding, and how much is down to misperception? What I see in the game everyday is people exaggerating. I mean, I totally get it. If I was consistently performing 20% below another player in my raidteam purely because he got lucky with corruptions I would be pretty pissed. What I am saying though is that if there is actually a 20% difference that's not due to luck with corruptions because that simply cannot happen realistically. If the difference is accounted for purely in terms of corruption it means either they're running with more corruption (a choice), or they put in a lot more effort to acquire corruptions and hence have landed up with significantly more benefit which was earned. The other explanation is that the other player is simply better - and that's not often something that most people are willing to accept.

You misunderstand what I mean then. You will know that you got subpar corruption that does 10% of your throughput, it's not just a perception from players. It's a real thing. Let's say I got Twisted Appendage. Not BiS, but pretty decent. It does 10% if my damage, let's say 500k. Then the other got Infinite stars and that does 30% of his damage, 1.5million. The rest is the same, gear, skill etc. This is a reality in 8.3.

No. That's not reality - that's an exaggeration. (Please note: I am not calling you dishonest, rather trying to illustrate that you have a skewed perception based on what you've been led to believe).

For my spec (I can't speak for all though) IS does about 50% more damage than TA. Not 200% more. And let's be honest, if it were the case that TA really does suck that much for your spec, then you're probably going to have access to something else that is better.

Secondly, 30% of dps from IS is a bit of an exaggeration - at least if you're wanting to argue what was actually happening pre-vendor. That would pretty much require 2xIS3 for most specs, which wasn't possible early on. A more realistic figure would be 15-20%

So let's rework the numbers: Someone got really lucky and scored IS3+1 and it boosts their dps by 20%. Another player with mediocre luck got a mix of stuff that was on par with TA and it added 13%. The difference there is only 7%.

But because someone on MMO-C linked a parse which shows some fluke where some mage managed to get 30% of their damage from IS, and because the person running TA actually has a mix of stat boosts and TA, so TA only shows up as 10% of damage, suddenly there is the perception that someone else is doing 3 times better because of pure luck.

- - - Updated - - -

You choosing your corruption was not as it was intended though

From the moment you had looted more corrupted items than your corruption budget could handle, you've had a choice in what you use. Sure, that choice didn't include every option available in the game, but it was still some measure of control.

Now I don't know about you, but as a casual raider, I had to start making choices on about day 1 of the corruption system being introduced. I would imagine that for any serious mythic raider, they probably had to start making choices about which corrupted items to vendor/scrap/disenchant in order to free up bank space.

they put that in a tiny patch because so many people complained how horrible it was to get them randomly.

They waited 4 months to do it because that's around the time that it made sense to do so. The fact of this game is that some people always complain. At the start of the tier, those complaints pretty much came across as whining. It's a progression tier. Your gear, and corruption is meant to improve over time, until it's enough to clear the content. And that is exactly what happened. Honestly, I don't believe there is a single guild in the world that didn't manage to clear Nya'Lotha on the basis of RNG corruptions before the vendor patch was released.

So, four months in the tier, once progression was done and dusted for anyone even half serious about the game, sure, expecting people who still hadn't got the exact corruption they wanted to stay patient and not feel frustrated was no longer reasonable nor fair. So it made sense to introduce the vendor option and let people play around with the corruptions they want.

[Unholyground]

I prefer to judge arguments based on logic and reason than popularity. Because, let's face it, popular arguments are popular because they appeal to the lowest common denominator. Just sayin'

To answer your question though: If you don't get your BiS combination (ie 99.9% of players) then you figure out what the best is you can do with what you have. As you progress, you get pieces which represent upgrades and you converge towards BiS.



For any given item, sure, it could be decent, or it could be terrible. But when you look across all the possible corruptions, most are at least usable, and half are decent in either single target or aoe.

If I look at what Mother sells, I count 52 possible corruptions. That's 19 different effects (16 of them come in 3 levels, 1 of them comes in 2 levels and 2 as only 1 level). Granted, I haven't studied every class combination, but I play MM hunter, so let's go with that. My best per corruption point effect, for single target, is IS. It does roughly double the output to the 10th best effect - Masterful, which puts it (IS) at, I would say, roughly 20-25% of my total potential output. What that means in reality is that even if all I ever get are items in the bottom half of the table, I am still only 10-12% down on my total output (compared to BiS). More likely though, especially if I am putting some effort into collecting corruptions, I will land up with some of the better corruptions, that are producing 75-80% of my potential (compared to BiS). That means I should be able to achieve 95% of my potential dps even with pretty poor luck.



I suspect that you and I are not on the same page regarding what it is you think I am saying the math says. I am not saying that there is any guarantee at all that you'll get your best corruption. Simply that you'll get something reasonably good (as described above).



While you make a valid point about some corruptions relying on ilevel, you're clearly underestimating here. If all you're doing is horrific visions, that's 4x470 and 4x465 items guaranteed. Any semi-serious player, for whom having good corruptions actually matters, is going to be doing a lot more content, including raiding (heroic and mythic) and M+.



There are 19 different corruption effects though - eg IS 1,2,3, so your odds are roughly 3x higher than what you're saying. If you count 1/4 of those as being within 25% of your maximum potential, taken across the number of corrupted items you're likely to be getting, most mythic raiders were probably up to between 70% and 80% of their corruption output potential in the first month.





No. It. Doesn't.

Even before considering the reality that people exaggerate and people lie, most players simply don't have a good grasp of what is normal nor do most players have a particular strong analytical ability. And so they go around believing that the corruptions they got are far worse (in the bigger picture) than what they really are.



I think that the idea of equality in this context is greatly overrated, and if we ever actually got it, we'd really hate it. Having some randomness, or luck, as part of the equation, I believe, contributes significantly to our enjoyment of the game because on some level it absolves us of the responsibility for not being the best all the time.



Of course we all care about what we got. But let's not pretend that as human beings we don't measure ourselves against others and use that as a gauge for our own satisfaction.

It's like fashion magazines which have pictures of unrealistically gorgeous supermodels on the cover, and how that results in millions of women who see those covers feeling inadequate about their own looks because they know don't measure up. And of course they can't measure up, because those pictures are manipulated to distort one's perception of reality - of what is normal.

Likewise, with corruptions, a lot of players have this idealized vision of what everyone else has, and then they look at what they have, of course they're going to feel like they came off second best.




That's simply not true. Across a raiding guild, differences in luck with what corruptions you got were more likely to be in the region of 5% (and that was before the vendor was added, at which point "luck" was no longer a factor)



Yes, but how much of that is down to proper understanding, and how much is down to misperception? What I see in the game everyday is people exaggerating. I mean, I totally get it. If I was consistently performing 20% below another player in my raidteam purely because he got lucky with corruptions I would be pretty pissed. What I am saying though is that if there is actually a 20% difference that's not due to luck with corruptions because that simply cannot happen realistically. If the difference is accounted for purely in terms of corruption it means either they're running with more corruption (a choice), or they put in a lot more effort to acquire corruptions and hence have landed up with significantly more benefit which was earned. The other explanation is that the other player is simply better - and that's not often something that most people are willing to accept.



No. That's not reality - that's an exaggeration. (Please note: I am not calling you dishonest, rather trying to illustrate that you have a skewed perception based on what you've been led to believe).

For my spec (I can't speak for all though) IS does about 50% more damage than TA. Not 200% more. And let's be honest, if it were the case that TA really does suck that much for your spec, then you're probably going to have access to something else that is better.

Secondly, 30% of dps from IS is a bit of an exaggeration - at least if you're wanting to argue what was actually happening pre-vendor. That would pretty much require 2xIS3 for most specs, which wasn't possible early on. A more realistic figure would be 15-20%

So let's rework the numbers: Someone got really lucky and scored IS3+1 and it boosts their dps by 20%. Another player with mediocre luck got a mix of stuff that was on par with TA and it added 13%. The difference there is only 7%.

But because someone on MMO-C linked a parse which shows some fluke where some mage managed to get 30% of their damage from IS, and because the person running TA actually has a mix of stat boosts and TA, so TA only shows up as 10% of damage, suddenly there is the perception that someone else is doing 3 times better because of pure luck.

- - - Updated - - -



From the moment you had looted more corrupted items than your corruption budget could handle, you've had a choice in what you use. Sure, that choice didn't include every option available in the game, but it was still some measure of control.

Now I don't know about you, but as a casual raider, I had to start making choices on about day 1 of the corruption system being introduced. I would imagine that for any serious mythic raider, they probably had to start making choices about which corrupted items to vendor/scrap/disenchant in order to free up bank space.



They waited 4 months to do it because that's around the time that it made sense to do so. The fact of this game is that some people always complain. At the start of the tier, those complaints pretty much came across as whining. It's a progression tier. Your gear, and corruption is meant to improve over time, until it's enough to clear the content. And that is exactly what happened. Honestly, I don't believe there is a single guild in the world that didn't manage to clear Nya'Lotha on the basis of RNG corruptions before the vendor patch was released.

So, four months in the tier, once progression was done and dusted for anyone even half serious about the game, sure, expecting people who still hadn't got the exact corruption they wanted to stay patient and not feel frustrated was no longer reasonable nor fair. So it made sense to introduce the vendor option and let people play around with the corruptions they want.

Regardless even from a developers standpoint it was a bad system that was impossible to balance, blizzard devs themselves have conceded to this in interviews, horses mouth and all that friend.

[WowIsDead64]

I agree that idea is conceptually sound. I just think in the execution here it's really bad. Another example of that system was reforging. Or even socketing / enchanting your gear. Limited slots, limited choices, but arrange it how you please.

Those had minor effects on gameplay, and there's probably a nice sweet spot between a marginal difference on "engineering" your character and put this infinite stars on to one shot everything.

I'll say this... crafting legendaries seems like it could be much closer to the ideal in that regard.

When I say "engineering", I mean system, where you have limited slots/tonnage and need to optimally fill it with several components, that take X slots/tonnage. Your choices may change, when slots/tonnage limit increases and when you get new components. You also have choice between fitting that big thing vs equipping several small ones. I just like that kind of system and like games, that are "war constructors".

[Doffen]

I prefer to judge arguments based on logic and reason than popularity. Because, let's face it, popular arguments are popular because they appeal to the lowest common denominator. Just sayin'

I think your logic is different than mine then, I'm gonna leave it at that. Anyway, there is one thing to point out for me and it's this:

There are 19 different corruption effects though - eg IS 1,2,3, so your odds are roughly 3x higher than what you're saying. If you count 1/4 of those as being within 25% of your maximum potential, taken across the number of corrupted items you're likely to be getting, most mythic raiders were probably up to between 70% and 80% of their corruption output potential in the first month.

It's 52 different corruptions. There are ranks of 3, 2 and 1 depending on which one. To get rank 3 IS, by your example, you need to get 3 rank 1 IS corruptions to get a rank 3 one. Which would make it harder to get than 1 rank 3 IS since they all have the same chance to drop. To get what you needed you had 1 in 52 chance to get what you want. And that's the same odds every time. 52 to 1. That's not a good chance no matter what. So to get 3 rank 1 IS, the chance to get 3 of them is as 3X lower as getting a rank 3 IS because the chance is always 52 to 1. You might say that since there are 19 unique one the chance to get what you want is 3X higher, while in fact you gotta triple what I am saying because you need 3 of them to be equal to a rank 3 IS. And it's power also highly affected by item level. With a 52 to 1 chance to get.

But if you go by that count, then sure, I now understand why you think Corruption is fine for what it is. Corruption however got 4 layers of RNG, lets not forget it took 2 months for them to make HV drop guaranteed corruption, but still it is not guaranteed, because for your example of how many pieces you got, you could get 4 Azerite Armor pieces. And 4 layers of rng:

1. Item level.
2. Item proc Corruption
3. The right corruption
4. The right rank.

I also think you are downplaying the amount of rng and power the corruption do and what they did according to several of your points. So yeah, just wanted to say that you are wrong that there is only 19 different corruptions you can get. They got ranks too. 19 unique ones, sure. But that won't help if you need three rank 1 to get the effect of a rank 3.

Secondly, 30% of dps from IS is a bit of an exaggeration - at least if you're wanting to argue what was actually happening pre-vendor. That would pretty much require 2xIS3 for most specs, which wasn't possible early on. A more realistic figure would be 15-20%

So let's rework the numbers: Someone got really lucky and scored IS3+1 and it boosts their dps by 20%. Another player with mediocre luck got a mix of stuff that was on par with TA and it added 13%. The difference there is only 7%.

If you mean what you are saying here, then you didn't play in 8.3, or you did not experience this. Early on the difference was greater than it is now. First of all you could be very lucky to get a rank 3 IS on a 475 item, while the other player got TA. But early on those did a bigger % of your damage because your character was lower in both ilvl and power than they are now in relative to player vs player. Not to mention the rng on those proc based corruptions as well. You could have your TA do 3% of your damage, while the other player got 20% of his Infinite Stars. Maybe it wasn't 30% then as in sheer numbers from your damage meters, though it was definitely like that from the first post-nerf on. But in terms of difference player vs player it was greater. So no, I am talking from experience and warcraftlogs.

Just to say it, I got 1 rank IS on a 470 item on my main that I got in early May. Which I got traded from another raider... long after we had the raid on farm. I got a 450 IS from a HV in end of May. Unfortunately I had quit by then and only got it because a guildie asked if I could log in and boost him in there. You are highly exaggerating how easy it was to get BiS.

But again, I agree that need is not the same as want. But you could say that by any system, legendaries included. Which is what the discussion was in the first place.

My reasoning is based on logic and experience btw. There are numbers on warcraftlogs you could check. If you followed bloodmallet too you could see insane difference.

[Hero2Zer0]

The only thing nice about corruption was the passive stat increase. Being able to get to 55% haste without any buffs was hilarious. The amount of RNG that could happen with getting crappy corruptions was annoying. The vendor was too late as most of my guild had gotten bored of bad RNG from chests.

[Aesahaettr]

It's the worse thing I've ever seen in game.

For so many reasons. And if anything adding the vendor made it worse, I hate the grind for the echoes. If I get a new piece of lot I feel deflated as I'll need to go and grind crap I don't really want to do, and then potentially have to wait several weeks dirt it be available from the vendor again, before I can even use this new piece of loot.

Horrible, horrible system and I'll be glad when it's gone.

[kaminaris]

Yes, but how much of that is down to proper understanding, and how much is down to misperception? What I see in the game everyday is people exaggerating. I mean, I totally get it. If I was consistently performing 20% below another player in my raidteam purely because he got lucky with corruptions I would be pretty pissed. What I am saying though is that if there is actually a 20% difference that's not due to luck with corruptions because that simply cannot happen realistically. If the difference is accounted for purely in terms of corruption it means either they're running with more corruption (a choice), or they put in a lot more effort to acquire corruptions and hence have landed up with significantly more benefit which was earned. The other explanation is that the other player is simply better - and that's not often something that most people are willing to accept.

Yep, that seems accurate, it's really hard for people to accept someone is better so people tend to blame it on corruptions.

And as you said, you got showered in corruptions vs having to farm all shit and useless content just to boost your BLP. Not even close to as bad as legiondaries were.

[Doffen]

Yep, that seems accurate, it's really hard for people to accept someone is better so people tend to blame it on corruptions.

And as you said, you got showered in corruptions vs having to farm all shit and useless content just to boost your BLP. Not even close to as bad as legiondaries were.

It was the exact same thing with legendaries. You did not need bis one. If was something players blamed on. It was also way better balanced.

Again, everything applied to corruption you apply to legendaries.

[kaminaris]

It was the exact same thing with legendaries. You did not need bis one. If was something players blamed on. It was also way better balanced.

Again, everything applied to corruption you apply to legendaries.

Nope, couldn't buy them, had to do shit content to boost luck, didn't get showered in them.

Also nobody knew when blizzard is going to finally remove softcap so people just rolled another alt of same class just to not be in shitter for half of expansion.

[Kehego]

It was the exact same thing with legendaries. You did not need bis one. If was something players blamed on. It was also way better balanced.

Again, everything applied to corruption you apply to legendaries.

except you're guaranteed 2 corrupted items at near mythic level, 3 months into the system (plus more if you do more visions)


Surprising you haven't figured out why IS on a shield is laughable yet but not really

[Doffen]

except you're guaranteed 2 corrupted items at near mythic level, 3 months into the system (plus more if you do more visions)


Surprising you haven't figured out why IS on a shield is laughable yet but not really

Yeah, can you tell me? I hope it is what I think it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, couldn't buy them, had to do shit content to boost luck, didn't get showered in them.

Also nobody knew when blizzard is going to finally remove softcap so people just rolled another alt of same class just to not be in shitter for half of expansion.

Yeah you could buy them. After progress was done. Same with leggos. Just not on a rotation lmao. I bet you love everytime you get showered in avoidance and leech.