With the rejection of report 2335, I thought I'd at least bring my personal comments up along with some math. So first, my ramble-y comment on the report itself because paragraphs are hard:
Originally I was going to reject this with a joke about how 'poor people shouldn't be allowed to pk', but looking at the math depressed me. When you get endgame, you get +7% bal or +7% eq. There is no pker since enhancements have come out that has successfully competed at even mid tier without enhancing properly. In fact, there have been fights lost because of a reincarnation and forgetting to set enhances. And in addition to THAT, the bread-and-butter skill of Templars was nerfed 5% to make the class more 'balanced'. With numbers in that range established as 'strongly meaningful to balance', we can then say that a crown is likewise strongly meaningful to balance. In the past, it was argued that classes were balanced AROUND crown, but that can't be accurate - most classes that use crown now don't rely on passives for their primary affliction output, meaning they use the crown every round for their primary output. At -7% affliction rate, unartifacted is weak. At +7% balanced affliction rate, artifacted is OP. So you can't balance to no arties, and you can't balance to artied. If you split the difference (+/-3.5%) there's still a 7% difference between the two, making artied almost significantly OP (using the measure of Templar's 5% nerf), and unartied significantly weak. Class balance for an EQ class cannot exist while the crown artifact is implemented. It requires a $270 pay-in to play an EQ class, limits multiclass options, and is in general bad for the game in every way except for IRE's cash flow. While I'm sympathetic to the need to make sales to keep the game going, I firmly believe crown is not the way to do it.
Arbre-Today at 7:27 PM
You're a vindictive lil unicorn
Lartus-Today at 7:16 PM
oh wait, toz is famous
Karhast-Today at 7:01 PM
You're a singularity of unicorns awfulness Toz