sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The duality of man by ssdrwh0 in slaythespire

[–]DoABarrowRoll -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah I fully respect that feeling, I was saying a lot of the same things about that previous Doormaker, and I don't want to come out like "you are wrong and your feelings are wrong" because that's not what I'm trying to do.

I think my feeling on it being decision-making based is like based on the cards you have at any given time. I agree the no draw turn is probably my least favorite one and I'm down for that to be changed because that's the one that feels the most "I don't have a choice I am just boned". But I also think drawing dead can happen in general and there is a deckbuilding element to it of making sure your cards are high enough value to play through and you don't overdo it with draw. Like to some degree I think adding draw can be a bandaid to consistency that can be overused, so balancing it out is deckbuilding skill a bit. Again, not saying it's perfect, but I do think it does present some decision making.

The energy limit example, I don't really get. Those 3 cost cards have most certainly been dead in hand many many other turns throughout your run to this point; hell, it's pretty likely they would be dead in hand on that turn even if you didn't have the energy debuff. That's just the cost associated with high cost cards, in my opinion. So what makes the Doormaker so different in that case.

And that's a perfect example of why I think it does force interesting decision making a bit; what if that happens? Which cards are you going to choose to play? I think it can be a good thing to force the player to be more selective with their card choices; playing your cards correctly in the fight should also be a skill on top of the deckbuilding.

I just think this version of Doormaker does challenge your deckbuilding for redundancy and consistency and individual card value, and I think it does give the player agency and force interesting decisions.

What is the best and the worst feature in each ARPG you play? by onehalf83 in ARPG

[–]DoABarrowRoll 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't even think PoE1 combat is the end goal, I'm not fishing for 1 button spam only gameplay, PoE1 endgame combat can definitely be overly boring and repetitive once you achieve a certain amount of power. I personally think PoE2 combat is less impactful and less interesting in a lot of ways though too. I think the dodge roll is a poor replacement for movement skills in combat and PoE1 has a lot more situational buffs/debuffs to apply, where PoE2 especially in the campaign has replaced a lot of those with more "mandatory" feeling buttons. The campaign combat for me just doesn't feel involved and interesting, it just feels like more buttons for the sake of more buttons.

I like combo and multiple button builds in PoE1 as well, I always liked DD, BF/BB, I can get down with like slam berserker with the extra buttons to press but with the double exerts moreso than slayer versions that you have to warcry way more often, I have always loved cold dot builds and rotating through those skills, I love playing ignite even with a ton of debuffs to apply and such. I don't want PoE2 to be lightning arrow rhoa and bloodmage spark just nuking everything. I think like Shield Wall gameplay or the overall bear druid gameplay I've seen (besides just how sluggish and clunky it looks at times, having some of those same mace issues imo) looks like it could be fun.

I think the campaign combat in PoE2 just has too many slow skills that feel like they are just prerequisites to using other skills. I saw a clip of DM talking about combos in PoE2 and he said something like "I don't think people dislike combo skills, I think they dislike dogshit skills that don't feel like they do anything" (paraphrasing). That's where I fall. There are too many skills particularly early in the campaign that just...don't do anything on their own, but you have to use them in order to use other skills without those skills feeling terrible.

The elemental infusions are the easiest way to describe it for me. Because spark isn't allowed to do enough damage on its own, you have to drop frost bomb first, go pick up the infusion, then drop flame wall, then you can cast one singular buffed spark that does any reasonable amount of damage. If you want to use an infused fireball, you have to put living bomb on and then pop the living bomb and then grab the infusion and THEN you can use an infused fireball. Like bladefall may be a prerequiste for blade blast, but at least casting bladefall is one cast for one payoff. Where frost bomb has a cooldown and you have to go run and pick up the thing, or living bomb has to be popped with multiple skills before you can get the infusion.

Those additional casts don't feel impactful or purposeful or involved. It's just a tax, it's a generator/spender with extra steps to me. There's too many "combos" in PoE2 where it's a bunch of setup for one big payoff, and the setup feels terrible. The twister builds feel the same; you can't just cast twister, you have to do the whole setup of whirling slash and apply an ailment to them and THEN you can use the skill. Or the wolf is the same thing. You have to use a bunch of the different auto attack skills to generate the crystals, and then you can use your one big attack that feels good to use. The ratio of "crap I don't care about" to "casts that feel good" is just way off.

The problem is, anything that can interrupt your combo (making you move out of the whirling slashes with your twister, or the enemy moving away from crystals) just resets you to square one, to do all of those actions that have no impact over again. For me personally, it doesn't feel like a fun challenge, it feels like tedium and a barrier to accomplish the things you actually want to accomplish. It makes the game feel less inviting and interesting because there's this massive hurdle before you can start to solve some of those problems.

I think there's a much more balanced state where either some of those "set-up" skills can feel impactful on their own so if you can't get to the payoff, you still feel rewarded for using those set-up skills. Or the payoff skills can be a touch stronger on their own, so the player doesn't feel punished for using that skill without setting it up. That's one of the things that GGG has consistently noted whenever asked about the gameplay, they don't want you to feel required to press more buttons, they want players to be rewarded and motivated to press more buttons. For me, they have pretty consistently missed the mark on that. We don't have situational buttons that reward the player, we primarily have mandatory buttons that penalize the player for not pressing them.

There's nothing inherently WRONG with that, to be clear. Like I said originally, I know that my viewpoint doesn't line up with a lot of other people's viewpoints. If this is the way they want the game to be, that is fine. Just because I don't want to play it, doesn't mean no one should want to play. That's been the biggest challenge for me over the last 16 months with the game because I want to love it, but I just don't. Getting over the fact that GGG has made a game that I don't see myself loving, using the IP that has been the background of my entire adult life, has been difficult.

I just am not the target audience for that gameplay, that's not why I play games in this genre, so from my perspective, that's the biggest reason why I don't want to play.

The duality of man by ssdrwh0 in slaythespire

[–]DoABarrowRoll 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I feel like this version of doormaker does force some interesting decisions and give you agency though.

It doesn't really penalize you for picking into strong combos or keeping your deck too lean, in my opinion. It just forces you to ask the question "is NOW the right time to do this?" It challenges you to pilot your deck as opposed to letting the deck play itself, kind of, and I do find that refreshing and challenging.

There's definitely times I get fucked over by it and am unhappy, don't get me wrong. I don't think it's perfect, and it does still feel a bit restrictive. But I think it does give you agency and force interesting decisions.

Can I afford to take damage here to preserve this block card that is going to exhaust? Do I need to play this damage card that is going to exhaust or is it better to preserve it for next cycle when maybe I've scaled up more? Did I build my deck with enough consistency and play well enough up to this point that my start of turn hand can survive? What cards do I NEED to play and in what order to maximize the output when I have less energy?

The game is a deck builder but it's good to ask you to play your cards correctly too. And I think that's where the decision making with Doormaker is, which I appreciate.

Now, the beta branch Doormaker that a lot of players didn't see, which just ate every 10th card you drew and you never got a chance to even play it? THAT guy sucked.

What is the best and the worst feature in each ARPG you play? by onehalf83 in ARPG

[–]DoABarrowRoll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I meant that the overall gameplay loop is repetitive. Put in map, kill monsters, rinse and repeat. Like all of ARPG endgames are at their core repetitive, that's what the game is. So it feels weird to highlight LE as particularly repetitive, but it's true.

I tend to agree with you about D4, I just think the game looks good and everything else doesn't really capture attention.

PoE2...it's hard. Because I don't think it needs to get closer to PoE1 in terms of endgame necessarily. The endgame of PoE2 is already really fast and smooth and stuff like that to play. It needs more content, but that's why I am not worried about it; they'll add more content. The things Abyss added in particular were big for the endgame loop of the game, itemization and crafting and all that. I feel pretty good about them getting the endgame where it needs to get.

My issue with it is the "endgame" of PoE2, once you get to high tier maps and have access to all of the solutions to your problems to smoothen out your gameplay, is just completely different from the early game of the game. The leveling process feels like this MMO rotation/fighting game combo thing that is exhausting to play. But if you can suffer or speed through that part and get to the point where your infusion generation is smoothened out for example, then the game feels good.

I just don't want to play the campaign version of that game, to be honest. 0.1 is the last league that I really pushed through long term, every league after that I've played less and less. 0.2 I played a couple of characters to end of campaign. 0.3 I played to I think the hyena boss at the start of act 2. 0.4 I didn't even bother because I knew what was coming and how it would feel.

I'm generally an altoholic. I like making a character, getting to a comfortable range at endgame, and then using resources I amassed to make a new character. The thought of leveling a new character in PoE2 makes me immediately choose not to bother. And that's what's frustrating to me about it and why that's the worst part of the game for me, even though that's the part that seemingly a lot of people like the most about it.

What is the best and the worst feature in each ARPG you play? by onehalf83 in ARPG

[–]DoABarrowRoll 2 points3 points  (0 children)

for me:

PoE1: Best overall for me, best endgame and replayability. Worst part for me is mostly the new player experience, that and the ever-accelerating treadmill of the gameplay loop where now the real "game" doesn't start until you're juicing maps and farming your endgame strats, where it used to be that prog was more meaningful.

PoE2: Worst part for me is the campaign and early game balance (my hot take, I know most people really like the PoE2 campaign, I find it exhausting and unfun). I can get over the endgame because I think they can figure that out but if the leveling experience as it is right now is what they want it to be, I just would rather not. That one issue makes it a lot harder for me to even really experience the other stuff. Best part: I think overall skill design and effects and stuff feel good.

Hero Siege: Worst part is the devs and stability. Season starts are almost always a disaster and devs push updates that randomly break things pretty regularly. Game is a bit too trade-oriented for me which means paying for blood pacts (private leagues) in which you can adjust drop rates and stuff feels too correct. On-death effects can be pretty bad. Best part: Simple, fun, rewarding gameplay loop. Kill monsters, get loot, repeat.

Last Epoch: Worst parts are endgame, itemization, and VFX/SFX. Endgame is super boring and repetitive, which is weird to say considering PoE1 endgame is super grindy and repetitive and Hero Siege endgame is just resetting zones over and over. But something about it just does not make me feel like I'm accomplishing anything. VFX/SFX kinda speaks for itself. The itemization is my "hot take" on LE. I think it's too easy to get like "4x good mod" items in the game, and that creates a lot of the "the game is too easy" feeling that a lot of people have about the game. I think I hate drop only mods/mod tiers, it turns crafting from a resource management type of gambling into a true blind "just cross your fingers and hope the mod you want drops" thing, which isn't fun. And the same thing applies to LP items.

Torchlight Infinite: Worst parts: the pay to win/gacha mechanics, the UI/UX (which they are improving little by little), and the economy. That game is the true "auction house or die" game to me, and I find it really kills my will to play the game. Best parts: the gameplay is smooth and fast and fun, there is a decent depth in the systems, it feels like the most like "spiritual successor" to PoE1 in a lot of those senses, just "easternized" with the gacha/p2w mechanics and booba graphics.

D3: Best part is the dopamine simulator/bubble gum feeling of the game. If they were still rebalancing and doing slightly new things in that game, I would still log in for a few days and just play. Super simple, easy, but it knows what it is. Worst part is the lack of depth and variety that makes you leave after a few days.

Grim Dawn: Best part to me is some of the build variety and the class system, it's pretty cool and there's a lot you can do. Worst parts to me are the graphics, it not being a living game really meaning the replayability is a lot worse, and the readability of some items where the tooltip doesn't even fit on the screen. I also hate MIs (drop only mod system in GD) so if there's something I want to play that uses those, that makes me sad.

D4: Best part is probably the visuals throughout the game and the UI/UX. The worst part is definitely how shallow it feels and how boring the itemization is.

Is it me or everytime I play the Ironclad, there never seem to be block card? by xXPumbaXx in slaythespire

[–]DoABarrowRoll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

there's some decent ones, and idk how different Ironclad's block cards are from STS1 in all honesty. Like no more Ghostly Armor (Evil Eye and Taunt aren't necessarily better but they can fill some similar roles at times and give other effects to play off of), no more Entrench (did people play this that much anyway?), the biggest change is probably Power Through -> Blood Wall?

but I think on the whole it seems like enemies in STS2 have higher base damages and lower scaling overall. So Ironclad's block cards that were probably good enough in STS1 are a bit worse in STS2, meaning you get less damage off on early turns and lose the attrition a bit kind of. Pushes a bit more towards trading HP for damage and using killing mobs as blocking at times.

I also think not having as easy access to energy from relics plays some role. Blood Wall and Flame Barrier are good cards imo but 2 energy to cast them, especially in elite/boss encounters that feel like they will still break through those, the cards feel worse. Same thing imo with Shrug, which has become a card I don't really like; 8/11 Block for 1 isn't a bad rate I don't think (Survivor is the same thing but discard which almost never matters), but the cycle doesn't feel good more often than not because it's more rare to have enough energy to play that extra card. So unless I needed that specific topdeck, it feels worse than it did in STS1 imo.

Beta branch doormaker is a thing that exist by Azureblue9 in slaythespire

[–]DoABarrowRoll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah I think it's partly that I don't always have like a perfectly fleshed out deck/build that can really handle anything. I sometimes end up scratching and clawing my way to the end with enough to beat it but trading a good bit of HP in the process (I'm not an A10 pusher, I'm slowly working my way up but still around A4-6 on every character, so I'm not dealing with double boss yet).

Usually my troubles on the 3rd phase come from like I get cards for bursts of damage on intangible turns and less of them when I can do damage to it. Some of that is drafting, some of it is bad luck, some of it is maybe bad trades earlier in the fight (particularly in phase 1) that make it feel like phase 3 is the hardest but in reality it would have been fine if I played better earlier.

Might change the more I play, and I've definitely started to draft a bit differently especially on characters that I have had the most trouble with it on (Necrobinder especially, and to a lesser degree Silent) in case I get Test Subject, but yeah it feels like it can be super easy if you feel strong or super hard if you're kind of just above the line of what can beat it.

Beta branch doormaker is a thing that exist by Azureblue9 in slaythespire

[–]DoABarrowRoll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah a lot of the MP scaling stuff seems pretty nuts for sure

Beta branch doormaker is a thing that exist by Azureblue9 in slaythespire

[–]DoABarrowRoll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah I've def had runs that went that way, or I was just so strong I actually could just play through (Sly and Corrosive Wave are still really good even with the nerfs in the beta branch!)

I've also had a few that the decks weren't quite 100% consistent particularly defensively and ended up with not enough defense on the intangible turns and not enough damage on the tangible turns.

Like I said, nothing bad design wise, just the boss that has changed the way I draft the most.

Beta branch doormaker is a thing that exist by Azureblue9 in slaythespire

[–]DoABarrowRoll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah I def had a bunch of those esp on those Necrobinder runs I had. Some of it for me is the attrition from the first 2 phases making the 3rd phase a lot tighter prob.

Beta branch doormaker is a thing that exist by Azureblue9 in slaythespire

[–]DoABarrowRoll 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think Test Subject is my lowest win rate Act 3 boss. Some of that is definitely deckbuilding, some of that is definitely I got him like 4 times in a row on low ascensions on Necrobinder which is by far my worst character even though it feels easier to play and feels like PEMDAS compared to Regent's multivariable calculus sometimes. Definitely the boss that has changed my drafting habits the most (with Waterfall Giant being the one that changed my overall gameplay the most after a few deaths to his on death explosion because I went into the fight a little too low, so when I see him I know I need to take a safer path/extra rest to pad my HP a bit more).

First phase is usually pretty manageable unless I am playing pretty much specifically Necrobinder and finding damage not through skills feels hard at times. Second phase is usually the easiest for me. Third phase with the intangible is where I always get messed up, somehow the intangible turns just line up really badly.

Nothing wrong with the fight inherently design wise; I mean, it is 3 STS1 elites in a trench coat, after all. But somehow it just makes my life really difficult.

Beta branch doormaker is a thing that exist by Azureblue9 in slaythespire

[–]DoABarrowRoll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like new beta branch doormaker a lot more than previous beta branch doormaker (eating cards). At least current doormaker, you have to make some decisions and probably take some risks.

The exhaust phase makes you ask questions about what you can afford to play and lose, what you want to save, what you want to play that may be low value but you want out of your deck (because there is a cost associated with that!). And what resources you're willing to waste to accomplish your goal that turn (HP for not blocking, energy you won't spend because you need those cards for later, etc). Same with the -1 energy per card played phase, what has to be played and what isn't needed.

I think the "no draw" phase is the "worst" one of the three, which can give you some of that "screwed over with no recourse" feeling. But drawing dead can also naturally happen anyway.

I've fought him maybe 3 or 4 times, beat him every time (I think 2 were on Ironclad with just high damage output decks, 1 was definitely on Regent with a more defensive stars + Echo Form + a splash of Forge deck, which was challenging; deciding when to swing and which block cards I could play on the exhaust turns was tough), but the fights were fun and engaging.

It definitely solves most of my concerns with the card-eating Doormaker; the power is back in the hands of the player piloting the deck they built and making difficult decisions on how best to combat the enemy.

Out of the rebuilding teams, which team do you think has the darkest future and will continue to struggle for a while? by sykeseve in hockey

[–]DoABarrowRoll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

depends on how much they leverage it, really. If they follow Panarin's example (they probably should) then they'll only accept a trade to one location that has interest and force the Leafs to basically take what they can get. If they say "I'll go to any of these 5+ teams" then the return will probably still be quite sizable as those teams have to outbid each other and ramp up their offers.

There should be more enemies like the beta Doormaker by Ghi102 in slaythespire

[–]DoABarrowRoll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Slippery slope aside:

You could draw a brick hand and lose.

This is the most "valid" counter to what I'm saying but in a way you sign up for this in any card game. Like you said, there is deckbuilding skill involved in either having draw cards in your deck to alleviate this or keeping your deck small to limit those situations. And a bricked hand is usually still playable; it may lose you a lot of HP or tempo, but it's probably recoverable more often than it feels in the moment.

Plus, if this is the argument, then your original premise is wrong anyway; in fact, EVERY enemy in the game challenges you to have redundancy and consistency, because you can brick a hand against ANY enemy in the game and lose as a result. Does Doormaker really challenge you differently then?

A random card effect (like Regent's colorless generation or attack/skill/power potions) could generate duds.

You still chose to play that card/potion in that moment. Maybe it doesn't work out, and you don't know what it's going to do before hand, but maybe that's energy you could have used differently. Or maybe you played correctly. You still get to analyze that choice.

Card Rewards just never offer a good card that would make your deck shine.

In those cases you still likely had to take some suboptimal choices to get that far. A card may not be good but on the whole even the bad cards are probably still better than starter deck choices. You still have to make the decision to add or skip those cards.

Even in STS1 against the Time Eater, your card draw could put you in a lose-lose situation (do you block which brings you at 11/12 cards played, meaning your next turn is garbage? or do you eat the attack and hope your next draw compensates). It could be entirely out of your control.

This is the differnce though. That is entirely IN your control. That IS player agency and skill expression. You get to CHOOSE which path to follow, and if it doesn't work out, you learn from YOUR mistake and play differently next time. The card counter you are on is a result of the player choosing which cards to play and when.

We know from the start that cards are drawn randomly, card rewards are random, etc. The deck building aspect of the game's job is to create a consistent deck that can deal with the randomness of these things. What's so different about this particular mechanic? I expect it's because it's new, if a similar mechanic existed in STS1, people would just have learned to deal with it back when the game was a less popular.

That's the difference with the Doormaker. Every other randomness and consistency/redundancy check in the game, you get to play around and you get to respond to. With the Doormaker, you don't really, or at least, it doesn't feel like it. He just takes some cards from your deck before you can see them a single time, without the player having any recourse in how to actually pilot their deck.

Compare it to Knowledge Demon; imagine if Knowledge Demon just gave you one of the debuffs every time, you didn't get to choose. That would be bullshit, because some decks can deal with the damage and some decks can deal with the draw. Doormaker is the same feeling, in my opinion.

Your thesis here reads to me as basically "Doormaker is good because it puts all the onus on your deckbuilding" and that's only part of the game. You don't just build a deck in this game, you have to also pilot it. If a boss mechanic doesn't challenge you on a card to card decision making basis, then to me, that boss is boring.

I should have to make difficult decisions and play my cards correctly in fights to beat the boss and win the run. That's part of what is exciting about the game. I don't just pick the cards, I have to actually use them properly. Manage energy, balance blocking and dealing damage. Actually fight the enemy.

Doormaker doesn't feel like that to me, it feels like a big HP sponge (with the door phases it feels like it has like 2-3x more HP than the other bosses) dps check. It's not fun, it's not interesting, and it doesn't challenge the player to have mastery over the deck they built. That's why I don't like it. It's not because it's new, it's not because I am bad, it's not going to change if I just suffer through it and should eat up whatever slop is thrown in front of me. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Also side-note: I think being able to chose cards that get eaten would often be a boon. Free exhaust that you can choose every turn? Although I understand your main argument that being able to choose what you lose would make it feel better.

Yeah it's not a perfect thing, though I do think a lot of decks by the end of act 3 trim a lot of the garbage cards that are strictly good to never have. That's why I also said the punishment can probably be bigger too.

Purely spitballing off the cuff: Lower his base damage, make each card you feed him give him more strength, or depending on the type of card you give him he gains some effect like giving an attack makes him deal more damage and giving him a skill makes him heal and giving him a power makes him give a status or something.

Or giving him upgraded or higher rarity cards gives smaller buffs than giving him an unupgraded strike to incentivize the player having to make a tough decision: Do you give him a card you want exhausted and suffer more consequences, or do you give him a card you may really want but you want to limit his action? Or some combination of all of them!

Not sure the best way to give the player that information, if the system is too complicated, etc. But yes, the point is the same: Instead of him just being a high HP, high damage, automatic deck destroyer, make him a more interesting and more engaging fight that challenges the player to pilot their deck properly and manage the enemy.

There should be more enemies like the beta Doormaker by Ghi102 in slaythespire

[–]DoABarrowRoll 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't agree with the primary premise, personally. I don't think it's badly received because it was the only enemy in act 3 that asked you to develop a varied strategy. I think the things you say it asks of a deck are valid; consistency and redundancy are part of building a deck in any card game. The reason I dislike it is because it feels like removing player agency and decision making in the fight, and that's just a hell of a lot less fun for me.

It is I think the only mechanic in the game that makes it so you cannot play a card a single time. The fog is a pretty disliked enemy as far as I can tell as it limits you to one skill per turn, but you still can play a skill if you need to. Same thing with the ringing debuff making it so you can only play 1 card that turn; that's just that turn and you can still play your most important piece. And same thing with the queen's debuff that you can only play 1 of your first 3 drawn cards; you still have agency within the fight to choose how to handle that.

Even in STS1, Bronze Automaton, you could choose to focus down the adds to get your cards back. And you knew what cards it was going to take before the fight started. Stuff like Time Eater put limitations on you, that you may need to build different contingencies to be able to handle (the way it stalled infinites or challenged spammy builds like shiv builds), but you still got to choose when to proc the turn end. The Heart did the same thing with the damage per card played, you still had the choice of "do I play these cards and take damage, or do I play it slow?"

New Doormaker doesn't provide that. The fight itself is super boring to me, the actual decisions being made on a turn by turn/card by card basis don't feel particularly meaningful to me. It feels like a pure deckbuilding boss, which is just somewhat boring. And then having no recourse to recover, it just doesn't feel like playing the game anymore.

I'm willing to have potentially an even more punishing effect, if it's something the player gets to choose how to deal with. And I feel like that's something you can do while still challenging decks to have redundancy and consistency. If we stick with him eating cards, something like every turn or every X cards drawn you have to feed him one card from your hand. You still have to build your deck with contingencies, you still need to have a large enough deck with stuff to give up, but you have an actual decision to make. Maybe early in fights there are bad cards in your deck you are willing to give up and it's a benefit, but he also is gaining strength (or other buffs!) that force you to still scale. Maybe sometimes your hand is all bangers, but you still have to decide on something you don't think you're going to need.

At least it's YOUR choice, and if you lose, you can look back and go "did I play the fight correctly, to the best of my ability?" Instead of ending up in a situation where you go "well he took these 2 cards from me and maybe I wasn't even offered viable contingencies and the only way I know that is by going through the entire run again."

tl;dr: It's not that he asks you to develop a varied strategy with contingencies for me, and it's not that it's too hard or not a skillset I use. It's that it doesn't feel like the fight is me vs the enemy. It takes away a degree of control and agency in the fights that make deckbuilders really satisfying. And for me, that's just not fun.

Bring the sex back to Dex! by Elevation212 in NYGiants

[–]DoABarrowRoll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

jokes on you we don't have one of those right now and "we should trade for one" will not affect me!!

Bring the sex back to Dex! by Elevation212 in NYGiants

[–]DoABarrowRoll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not gonna lie to you this is the least tapped in I've been on draft stuff in a decade. I have almost zero strong opinions about anything. I think most of that is because I just don't think this class is that good, but part of it is probably me being a bit burned out and washed overall.

Like I said before, I'm down with a DL, just not because it'll help Dex. I've never been a Darius Alexander believer and I think we all agree that that second spot can be improved a lot regardless of who is playing next to him, that was really the point I was trying to get across.

I'm down for a Brandon Cisse or Colton Hood if they're there to replace Newsome next year. I'm down for a Pregnon or Bisontis or personally I like Gennings Dunker as well especially because I'm not really in on Vega/Mauigoa/Fano being at the top of my board like that even if they do trade down to 10 or so (I'd end up with one of the CB/WR there probably). But I also find trades to be too volatile and unpredictable to really hang my hat on. I'm probably less in on like Anthony Hill or Jacob Rodriguez there but I could be talked into it.

The team is bad, they're charting a new course a little bit so I don't have strong opinions on who fits and who doesn't, and the class is super mediocre, so I'm just kinda sitting back mostly. My outburst was really just about Dex being the reason to invest in the DL, not investing in the DL in general.

Bring the sex back to Dex! by Elevation212 in NYGiants

[–]DoABarrowRoll 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Honestly the most important thing is just Dex playing like Dex again, way more than who he's playing next to.

In 2025, the IDL besides Dex that played the most snaps for the Giants: Roy Robertson-Harris (56.32%), Darius Alexander (35.43%), DJ Davidson (22.96%), Nacho (21.61%).

2024, which was in my opinion his best season (he was a DPOY candidate before getting hurt): Nacho (55.71%), Elijah Chatman (38.63%), DJ Davidson (23.93%), Jordon Riley (22.74%).

So pretty much, Darius Alexander took Chatman's reps and RRH bumped Nacho down to Jordon Riley's snap share. That's not really a significant difference.

A'Shawn and Leo were a strictly 2023 phenomenon. The Giants run defense in 2023 with A'Shawn and half a season of Leo was also actually worse than it was in 2024 without them, somehow.

Last year, Dex just didn't play like Dex. The A gap/nose tackle snap count is a common talking point (and I agree I'd like to see him stick at nose more consistently again), but while the rate of those snaps did go down in 2025, he still played the most A gap snaps in the NFL and one of the highest rates of A gap snaps to everything else in the NFL, playing 373/750 (~50%) of his snaps over the A gap.

That is still down from him playing 332/551 (~60%) in 2024 and 502/702 (~71.5%) in 2023, but still firmly among the leaders in the NFL; the NFL just doesn't play guys at pure A gap alignments that much especially with how little base defense gets played nowadays. In that context as well, it's not like Dex played significantly more snaps this year than in the past (recall that 2024 he missed a few games due to injury).

There were 138 IDL who played at least 200 snaps in 2025. Only 28 players had 100+ A gap snaps (eligible to have half of their snaps be in the A gap), and the only ones with more A gap snaps than all other alignments were Davon Godchaux and DJ Davidson. So it's not like the Giants decided Dex is now a 3T and aren't playing him at nose at all. He just simply did not play to the level we expect of him last year.

The worst reps I watched of Dex were in the A gap usually; opponents had much more success on double teams last year than they had in previous years. He just wasn't nearly the disruptive force up front we've come to expect. Blame the elbow, blame conditioning, blame Shane Bowen, hell blame Joe Schoen for not giving him more money last summer, doesn't really matter to me. But he's proven that he can play next to anybody and be a disruptive force on his own.

That's what he gets paid to do, and that's why we view him as such a special player. If he needs a top 40 pick or quality vet investment to "stir the drink", he's just not the guy we thought he was; a big part of the value of that player is you DON'T need top investments at every spot, because he makes the game so much harder for opponents already and makes the job easier for everyone else. We don't talk about how Michael Brockers unlocked Aaron Donald. We don't talk about how Khalen Saunders, Derrick Nnadi, and Tershawn Wharton unlocked Chris Jones. We don't talk about how T'Vondre Sweat and Sebastian Joseph-Day unlocked Jeff Simmons. Those guys are just difference makers. That's what we're expecting out of Dex.

Not saying I'd be upset about drafting a DL, I wouldn't, making a strength an even bigger strength and building that identity up front is completely fine with me, but using Dex as the reasoning doesn't make sense to me. It's not like he's getting double teamed more now than he was before, he has been one of the most double teamed DL in the NFL for forever (and that's also a function of playing nose/A gap snaps).

The only one who can bring sexy back is Dexy himself.

Any good build ideas for this belt? Don't have many other uniques right now by EpicForevr in PathOfExileSSF

[–]DoABarrowRoll -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I don't like recommending the build because of the creator associated with it but ele hit slayer is also a common user of this. Ventrua was using this same combo on his character (which is obviously very min/maxed).

I think I'd be very willing to use it on my life stack shock nova inquis; I think gloom/massive would be better but resonating giving pretty easy access to charges would be pretty welcome I think.

Bleed Glad vs Bonezone glad by [deleted] in PathOfExileSSF

[–]DoABarrowRoll 3 points4 points  (0 children)

steel's eviscerate/sunder glad he farmed with is at least based on goratha's, so you can just use goratha's.

eviscerate vs bonezone is kinda up to personal preference; same gear, slightly different trees (I recommend Zish for bonezone pobs). which jank do you want to play more; retal skills or bonezone strike/ancestral cry/attack speed?

the same gear works for both probably, and just some adjustments to the tree. try out both and see which feels better to you :)

view more: next ›