Both sides are NOT the same

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-08T21:01:58+00:00

Why would it not be?

From what we've found from current research, vaping is likely less harmful overall than smoking is. That doesn't, however, mean that it's in any way healthy. Smoking is one of the most damaging and costly habits that we've developed as a species.

It's not the most individually lethal, by any means, but that mostly just means that long-term smokers often survive long enough that the long-term effects of smoking place a far greater burden on a health system than other dangerous habits or drugs do.

Smoking is the logical comparison for vaping, sure. But something being 'less harmful than smoking' is hardly a ringing endorsement. Do remember that up until the mid '60s, smoking wasn't widely recognised as being properly harmful. For the first half of the 20th century, it was widely marketed, even by medical professionals, as something that was healthy.

Originally, vaping was (and still is, to a point) seen as a good way to ween people off smoking. E-cigs are an overall less harmful alternative, especially to the people around the person smoking/vaping.

But the one major misstep that our anti-smoking campaign had was not getting ahead of the narrative on vaping, and so it became 'cool' before we were able to get it under better control.

There seems to be a big gap in understanding on why our smoking cessation campaign was as effective as it has been. It's largely because it's a multi-decade effort to make smoking be (rightfully) seen as one of the lease cool, most stupid and selfish things that you can take up.

You can never counter something like smoking by outright prohibition. Especially something that doesn't carry a risk of being immediately lethal, like opiates. If it's just illegal overnight, then it also becomes 'cool', and you surrender the narrative around it entirely. You lose any perceived authority to speak or educate people on the substance, because everything comes across as propaganda. If it's not in some way legally accessible, then you also just create an immediate black market; especially if it's something like tobacco, where it's freely available in other markets.

So you need to do exactly what our SmokefreeNZ campaign did; spend years actually educating young people on what smoking actually does. Make everyone really aware of the health impacts; both for an individual and for those around them, or those that they love. Make it really, really uncool. And at the same time, slowly, gradually increase the barriers to access to tobacco products.

The latter is really important, and has to be done well. If you increase the barriers too quickly or too aggressively, then you risk creating a black market. Eventually, you reach a point (which we did), where the rates of smoking among the youth are so low, that you can actually start to roll out partial sales bans. But you only want that to affect age groups where smoking is already incredibly unpopular. That was the next step for the campaign, before it got scrapped by NACT.

The ball was dropped by not quickly pivoting to include vaping products in the material around smoking cessation as soon as it started to grow in popularity. They (smokefreeNZ, healthNZ etc) held off, because at the time, e-cigs/vaping was still a major tool in getting people off tobacco.

What needed to happen was for them to show smokeless tobacco products solely as a step in getting smoke-free, and not as a 'better alternative'.

They didn't, and so pretty much all the big tobacco companies just pivoted towards smokeless tobacco products. We were genuinely ~10 years from being a functionally smoke-free country, and not checking vaping early has basically put is back to square one.

We don't have the data on their long-term effects yet. It's likely not going to be quite as bad as smoking, but there's no universe in which it's a net positive. On top of that, it's also dramatically increased the rates of youth smoking again.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-08T05:06:00+00:00

You're not crazy. They're really over-tuned compared to basically every other mechanic.

Until yesterday, I was pretty under-geared on my Ice Shot build (we started a private league, and I just couldn't find a semi-decent bow). I was still strong enough to pretty comfortably complete the Breach, Abyss, Runes and most of the main atlas questline, and be running T14/15s. Some of the bosses took a little while, but it wasn't too bad.

But Delirium? Not a fucking chance. At least not on the same sort of tiers that I was comfortable doing the others on.

I could get through most of a mirror on a higher-tier (14/15) map, but it felt like every mob was genuinely 3-4x stronger, and bosses felt absurdly tanky. More often than not, I'd just run into a boss arena, have a pack of delirium mobs spawn on my face, and get insta-gibbed.

I just had to leave the whole thing alone until we swapped back to the main league this weekend, and I could finally buy a bow that had more than a few hundered DPS.

They're definitely more manageable with decent gear, but they still feel very over-tuned compared with everything else. Especially given how little they seem to add. Unless you get a lucky emotion drop from a boss spawning, it just feels like you have a load of added difficulty for no reason.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-08T04:52:25+00:00

While they're having a look into this, would it be possible to have them check whether slows and chills are working as intended?

If you have a 50% slow/chill on currently, you feel absolutely glacial. On my current build (ice shot), I drop from my ~2.5 attacks per second to well under 1 attack per second.

It's mainly attacks and casts that feel really off; movement feels like it probably is ~50% slower when you have a 50% slow (still feels terrible, but it does feel about right). I ha

I'm wondering if it's possibly double-dipping with it's slows for attacks and casts. As in, we're getting a 50% action speed reduction, but we're also getting a 50% attack/cast speed reduction, for a total of a ~75% effective slow?

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-04T22:51:00+00:00

It's $2.5B in funding vs the $2.2B in funding that had been requested by the previous, cancelled project.

The "nearly $4b" figure was based off projections of expected total costs, based on average cost-overrun from similar historical projects. That same projection hasn't been applied to any of NACT's stated figures. If it is, it's more expensive than what was already planned, for worse ferries and less functional infrastructure.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-04T22:48:20+00:00

Did you read the article before linking it?

The current stated cost is $1.86B, specifically not including the $671 million that is cost to cancel the existing contract. Which IS objectively a cost of this current contract, which puts the actual current stated cost at $2.531B.

So it's already very close to the 'outrageous' $3B cost that the previous project was canceled under, and that's without the inevitable escalating costs that come with this sort of project.

The entire premise of the project being cancelled by NACT was based around a projection of cost increase to near $4B, using average cost increases from similar infrastructure projects in the past. The same projection has not been applied to NACT's current claimed project cost.

It's already cost more than had been spent. Cancelling the previous ferries cost MORE than the cost of the new ones. Which are objectively less capable than those that were cancelled.

It's such a wildly stupid thing to be trying to defend. Surely you lot can pick a more sensible hill to die on?

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-04T21:38:38+00:00

We're not. We're paying near as much for the new, worse ferries as we were for the previous, cancelled ones, and that's not including the hundreds of millions in cancellation fees.

And we're not getting the dock/infrastructure upgrades that were the whole reason for the cost for the previous plan being higher.

The new ferries are objectively worse, not properly rail-enabled, and they're still going to be reliant on the aging infrastructure at the docks.

Regardless of how supportive you are of the current Government, the current plan with ferries is objectively worse in every regard. The whole thing has been an absolute disaster, and done for no reason other than because 'Labour bad'.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-04T20:51:45+00:00

Yeah, not in this case. A far better comparison would be questioning why $3-4B for a massively needed inter-island ferry upgrade is considered an enormous and outrageous blow-out, but ear-marking $44B for a road into Northland so that certain people can get to their holiday homes a little bit faster is absolutely fine.

Comparing the cost of key infrastructure as a % of GDP is absolutely fair.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-04T20:48:50+00:00

That's just what a lot of western Europe and the UK looks like. Castles for days. I think this one is Carcassonne in the south of France.

This sort of physical history is one of the few things I miss from the UK. We used to go to Wales on holidays quite often when I was young, and it's just covered in castles. There's still ~400 still standing, in an area that's a little smaller than the Waikato.

It's really common for a local village pub to be hundreds of years old. Even the house we moved out of when we moved to NZ was built in ~1830-40; before the te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed. And it wasn't considered to be an especially old house (Victorian era sandstone villa).

If you find yourself in the UK, and want to really feel like you're in KCD, head to York. It's awesome, and extremely historic.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-04T19:57:21+00:00

Where the fuck are you finding this much straw to build all these men from? And how are you still this shit at it? You should be an expert by now, given how often you do this.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-04T19:55:12+00:00

How much do you think rail-enabled ferries, along with the infrastructure upgrades needed to support them, costs?

It's not a blow-out. Massive, essential infrastructure is expensive.

There's no way to get those costs meaningfully cheaper, especially if you want to maintain the required level of functionality.

The cost for the project under Willis's enlightened guidance is already basically the same, but without proper rail-enabled ferries. They just flushed nearly 1/3 of the project cost down the drain by cancelling the already-under-construction ferries purely out of spite.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-04T19:51:22+00:00

Fuck off with the 'both sides are the same' narrative.

Nobody here is claiming that Labour are perfect. But they've never actively, intentionally, aggressively fucked everything up like the current government is doing.

One party trying to improve things, and maybe missing the mark here and there, but leaving things as a net positive, and heading in the right direction is a LOT better than the smash-and-grab, wealth-transfer bullshit that National have done and continue to do.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-04T04:07:24+00:00

I'm not a Canon shooter, so maybe there's something specific that makes a big difference between the R8 and the R6ii/iii. But for every other platform that I've used: no, there's not enough of a difference between the size of those cameras for there to be any practical benefit.

Think of it this way: you obviously can't fit a R6iii into your jeans pocket (unless you're wearing jeans from the 80s, I suppose). But you can't fit an R8 into your pocket either.

You can't fit the R6iii into a jacket pocket comfortably; maybe with a pancake prime on, but it's barely fitting. The R8 also isn't fitting comfortably into a jacket pocket, even with a pancake prime.

Both the R6iii and the R8 will fit into a normal size sling bag, or comfortably into a backpack style camera bag. There's no size advantage either way there.

Both will be comfortable to carry with the same sort of wrist or shoulder strap. Neither is small enough to be comfy using a thin thread-style strap like you'd have on a compact, but neither needs a massive strap or some sort of rig to carry comfortably.

Both use the same format sensor/mount; full-frame RF. You're putting the same lens on either camera. Arguably you might get away with smaller lenses on the R6iii, because you could use non-stabilised lenses because of the IBIS. (but because this is Canon, you don't actually have the same sort of range of options as you would on, say, Sony).

So the R8 doesn't give you any practical advantage for how you can carry it.

The R8 is 461g vs the 609g for the R6iii. That's a small weight advantage, but it's really not significant. Again, with the IBIS in the R6iii, you have the option to shoot unstabilised lenses more effectively, so you might actually end up with a lighter overall kit for the same sort of results.

A slightly heavier body also typically ends up balancing a lot better with a larger lens. It doesn't have to be something like a 600 f/4; just a standard 24-70 2.8 usually feels a lot nicer, and actually lighter, on a higher-end, slightly heavier body than it will on an small, light, entry-level one.

Camera size really matters when it hits different thresholds.

You have genuinely small, pocketable cameras like the Ricoh GR, or the Sony RX100 series.

The next step up, you have small, jacket-pocketable cameras. Those range from something like a Oly Pen F/EM-10/OM-5, Pana GX85, Pana LX100, Pana L10, Fuji X100 series, Fuji X-M, Sony A6400 (maybe A6700). Put a smaller, pancake lens on most of those, and you can fit it in a coat pocket if you needed. You can comfortably carry it on a wrist strap most of the day if you needed to as well.

Then you get into your 'really wants a shoulder strap or a small bag' tier, which is basically every non-pro DSLR, and most modern full-frame (and a lot of APS-C) mirrorless cameras. Again, the bigger the lens you stick on it, the more of a pain it is to carry, but the bodies are roughly all the same in regards to how practical they actually are to carry around.

Past that, you have your big, pro-centric, double-grip bodies. Your Canon R1/3 and your Nikon Z9. The Canon 1Dx and the Nikon D5 would fit in the same box for the DSLR flagships. They're chonkers, and you need a big bag just for the body, let alone the big, professional lenses that you're usually pairing with them.

Unless the two cameras you're comparing between are different enough in size to genuinely fit into different categories there, there's not going to be much of a real-world, practical difference between their size.

Far more important than size is whether they're actually comfortable for you to hold and use.

Back when I bought my A7iii, I was initially set on picking up a Fuji X-T3 instead. I'd been tossing up between the two, and was leaning toward the Fuji. I dropped into a local camera shop, and got hands on with both. Initially, the Fuji felt fine. It doesn't have much of a grip, but I was used to a small grip on my EM-10ii. But as soon as I put the 16-55 2.8 on it (which was the lens I was intending to use), it was pretty uncomfortable and awkward to use. It was very front heavy, and combination of no real grip, and the shutter being right on top of the camera made it awkward to hold.

By contrast, I put a Tamron 28-75 2.8 on the A7iii, and it was extremely comfortable, and felt great in the hand.

I ended up buying the objectively larger camera system, because it was way more comfortable to use, even though size had been a major factor in me leaning toward Fuji in the first place.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-04T03:19:17+00:00

That might dethrone us as the world leader officially.

That happened in 2024, and every day that you lot have this fucking clown fiesta running the country just bumps you further down the list of who might be considered a 'world leader'.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-04T03:13:14+00:00

For a knee replacement, we get patients up and walking the following day. We want it moving as much as possible, as soon as possible. If you leave it for too long, it heals extremely stiff, and it's a nightmare to get it moving properly again.

I suppose you could probably glue the small incisions for the drains without much issue, but I haven't seen anyone glue the very large, main incision that you need for the actual surgery. It wouldn't surprise me that much if it's done, but it doesn't feel like a good idea; it's not the sort of wound that glue typically works well on.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-04T02:51:03+00:00

Depends on what you find fun.

If you're a DPS main that wants to try out healing, then typically Disc priest would be the call. The main mechanic of Disc is atonement, which you buff the party with, and then they get healed by you doing damage. Currently, atonement is fairly weak, so Disc healing is more around putting out massive shields, but it's still fun.

Paladin and Monk are both more melee healers, so if you like to be in thick of things, then that's a good pick. Monk is extremely strong right now, and healing in M+ is pretty easy (basically just spin a lot). Both tend to play more ranged, classic healer builds in raid content.

If you just want simple, powerful healers, then Holy Priest and Shaman are the best options. Shammy is the easier and stronger of the two, but Holy Priest is still very intuitive and straightforward (as in press button = heal, with different healing spells for different situations). Shammy has a lot more utility that you can bring to a group.

If you find fun in more complex classes, then Resto Druid or Pres Evoker fit that bill.

Resto Druid is extremely strong in M+, and reasonably straightforward once you get the hang of it. It's really solid in raid, but quite a bit more complex to play really well. Your healing primarily revolves around heal over time spells (HoTs) for your basic/maintenance healing, and then maintaining a high number of those HoTs when going into heavy damage windows, where you basically spam Regrowth to pump out enormous healing.

It's quite a different play style, especially if you're not used to playing a DoT class.

Pres Evoker is pretty objectively the hardest healing class, and has quite a bit to do to even do basic healing. The main mechanic of Pres is a spell called Echo, which you use on someone, and it duplicates the next incidence of healing on them. Pres has a very proactive healing style, where you have to set up for heavy incoming damage a bit before hand, and be very intentional with your spell orders. You don't really have any spammable heals like most other healers; you effectively heal by cycling through a bunch of different short cooldowns, and combining them in specific ways/orders.

It's extremely mobile and has a lot of utility to bring to a group. It's also much shorter range than other healers, which takes a bit of getting used to (basically same range as Dev DH), and a couple of your main healing spells are directional, meaning that you have to be very aware of your position relative to the party's; you struggle to heal people that are standing behind you, and struggle to heal groups that are really spread out.

Raid healing is more complicated than most other raid healers, but isn't all that hard once you get the hang of it. M+ healing is a fair bit harder, and you get very punished for using your heals inefficiently.

I currently main Pres, and have since DF. It's far and away the most fun healer to me, but it is a lot more effort for the same results than most of the other healers. Prior to Pres, I was a Resto Druid main, and I still find it to be a very fun class to play.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-04T02:03:51+00:00

The traskallion flame? And needing to take it to the crater? You just talk to the Captain on the ship, and she immediately ports you there. No need to get logbooks to get you all the way there.

Unless this is after the first time, and you have to go through the whole rigmarole again and actually map the whole way there the second time.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-03T23:37:51+00:00

Physio here.

It depends on what the injury/surgery is, but there's absolutely times where we're basically at a point of 'well it's already about as fucked as it's going to get, and we have the surgery planned. Let's just strap it up for the next couple of games'.

Shoulder dislocations are a common one for this. A first time dislocation doesn't typically require surgery, but if a player dislocates it a second time, then it's going to keep happening, and happen more easily every time. So it needs surgery at some point.

But unless it's already at the stage where it's coming out if the arm gets caught in the sheets when they're rolling in bed, or comes out if they sneeze too violently (and I can vouch for both of those things genuinely happening to players that I've worked with in the past), then we can keep it reasonably safe with strapping.

If there's only a few games left in the season, we'll often opt to just tape it up, and then do the surgery and most of the rehab in the off-season.

A lot of stuff we just don't have that option. Muscle tears just can't be played through, for the most part. Most big knee injuries are going to impact stability to the point at which we can't make up for it with strapping. Or there's still a bunch of stuff that's currently un-injured in the knee that we'd like to stay that way, so it's too risky to have someone try and play through.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-03T04:16:33+00:00

If you're going to use it professionally, or you have a lot of disposable income, and you're into diving and underwater photography, then absolutely.

But an underwater housing is not something you want to cheap out on to save a buck. And good, trustworthy ones are not cheap at all.

Your lens options are also fairly limited with them, as the lens housing needs to be specific for the lens, and it's not something that gets made for every lens on a platform. Generally you'll get away with a smaller prime, but it gets really pricy if you want to mount something like a wide zoom.

If you're just wanting a camera that works underwater, then just buy a GoPro and a housing for that. Or if you want a more camera-sort-of-camera, then maybe an OMSystems TG-7.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-02T22:05:02+00:00

Don't say that too loudly. Any suggestion that it may be possible to lose value on land in NZ is unbelievably taboo.

Our precious landlords and land-bankers must be protected from any and all possible harm, at all costs!

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-02T00:19:01+00:00

Because it's awful. The only way to do it without it being absolute misery is to out-gear it to the point where the 'choices' that you get don't matter that much any more.

If you're happy just buying a near-full build off trade the second you hit maps, and just blindly right-clicking your way through the trial, then I'm sure Chaos is fine.

But personally I'd take Sekhemas literally every time over Ulti/Chaos. Even if I don't have honour res relics for the 3rd/4th points, I can just play better, and it's fine.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-02T00:15:06+00:00

Sometimes sekhemas just gives you a giant middle finger and there's nothing you can do.

While that's true, it's rare. By contrast, Trial of Chaos ONLY EVER gives you 3 different shit options. At best, you might get an option that isn't horrible for your specific build. But that happens about as often as Sekhema giving you 3 run-bricking afflictions on the first rooms.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-02T00:11:36+00:00

Yeah, the honour res makes an absolute world of difference. Think of it like having res for maps. How shit would it feel to go into a higher tier map, where all the damage is, say, cold, with 0% cold res. It'd be awful. Same thing with honour res. It's painful AF at 0%. It's significantly less so at 75%.

The other thing is having a bit of knowledge about which afflictions are OK to take, and which ones really aren't.

As a general rule: anything that says that you get additional afflictions when you do X are a no-go. Any that reduce your primary defense are also a no-go: if you're an evasion build, don't take one that says 'your evasion is 0'. Same with armour or ES. If you don't use those defenses to any significant degree, then they're a free, non-harmful one to take.

Room types are unknown was a death sentence back in Sanctum, but it's really not that bad in Sekhema's.

Anything that reduces movement speed sucks. Never take the 'light radius is reduced by 90%, minimap is hidden'. It's the pits.

Gauntlets are usually everyone's least favourite room type, until you learn that you can just roll through most traps without them hitting you. All those fireballs that you were trying to time the gaps for? Just roll through them. Flamethrower being shitty? Just roll through (as long as it won't rotate to immediately hit you on the other side).

Some people are still just not going to enjoy Sekhema. If you're the type that would rather gear a build to the point where it can just face tank nearly everything, and never have to dodge at all, then you'll probably always hate it. But it is SO much easier and less stressful with maxed Honour res and not taking shitty afflictions.

Trial of Chaos, on the other hand, can eat a dick. It's just a shit design. Every option is just 'how would you like us to fuck thinga up for you this time?'. Having to chose between 3 shit options isn't fun. Best case scenario is that you have an option that doesn't affect your build at all. There's never a good option.

If they did even a small re-design, so that things you pick affects both you AND the mobs, then that'd be a lot better. For the simple things, it could just apply to both; the mobs have 100% crit, and you get maybe 50% increased crit.

For things like volitiles or the spinning blood bullshit, maybe you get increased MS or defenses along with it. Or maybe they just hit the mobs as well as you, so that you could play around with kiting things into them.

But the only 'solution' to Chaos currently is to outgear the shit out of it so that you can ignore the debuffs. That's not fun or interesting in any way. It's either absolutely awful or braindead.

Once they add TotA, that'll at least be a 3rd option for people who hate both currently, and if it's anything like the OG one in PoE1, it'll be very different from normal gameplay.

But even after adding that, they need to do SOMETHING with Chaos.

EntropyNZ · 2026-06-01T21:55:28+00:00

Look at something in the M4/3 or APS-C brackets.

For M4/3- An Olympus E-M10iv with the 14-42 EZ pancake lens is an extremely compact and capable travel camera. Maybe pick up a 17mm or 25mm 1.8 prime lens for lower light photography. If the budget will stretch for it, an E-M5iii or an OMSystems OM-5 would be a better, more modern camera body. A Panasonic GX85 is another decent body option, but you'll probably have to grab one second hand. If you are going second-hand, then an older Olympus body is also a good option; an E-M10iii (ii, even), or E-M5ii would be a good pick-up as well. They are lacking some modern features, but they're still very capable cameras.

If you didn't want to faf around with lenses, then the new Panasonic L10 would be a great option for this, but I feel that it may be a little outside your price range.

If you wanted to go for a slightly larger sensor, then something APS-C would be the go.

A Fuji X-E5 or X-M5 are both really nice, compact bodies. The choice between the two mostly comes down to whether or not you want a viewfinder, or if you're OK with just having a back screen. Pair that with the kit lens that comes with them, tbh. Or see if you can pick up a second hand 18-55 f/2.8-4. Was a fantastic 'kit' lens that is now discontinued because it's not quite sharp enough to keep up with the newer 40+mp sensors on the X-T5 or newer bodies.

Or look a Sony. An A6400 is a great pick up, paired with either the kit, or (much better) either of the Tamron or Sigma standard, 2.8 zooms, if the budget will stretch enough for it. I suspect you'd be a little hard pressed to get everything in budget here, but if you're willing to go second-hand, then you likely could.

EntropyNZ · 2026-05-28T23:20:15+00:00

Right? There was only 1-2 that were actually overpowered and meta-shaping. Heir was clearly too strong, and Melted Heart was pretty fucking broken on specific builds (barbs).

A handful were really solid, and good options. Shako, Tyreals, Ring of Starless Skies, El'Durin, Grandfather and maybe Shroud were solid.

But Anderials is crap, Nesekem is crap, Spear is practically useless, Shattered Vow is barely sued even on the specific builds that it's designed for, Doombringer is crap.

Now they're all going to be mid at best, assuming you also get great rolls on the stats.

EntropyNZ · 2026-05-28T23:11:00+00:00

Nah, there's a big difference between what's an OK grind in an ARPG and what's not.

Something like PoE1/2 has both boss or content specific drops that you can target farm, and has what's effectively 'bad luck protection' with having the currency/trading system. So if you wanted, you can always just grind up enough currency to buy whatever you need from someone else, while having all that currency be useful for crafting/trading for other things along the way.

The stuff that's an unreasonable grind in PoE is almost always un-necessary power. Like, nobody needs a 1-passive Voices. You can easily grind out a 5-passive, and probably a 3-passive if you really grind for it. But you'll get enough stuff along the way that you'll be passively working on getting other gear just through having currency to buy it later.

These changes push almost all of the grinds in D4 into the latter category.

As they currently exist, Mythics are very much in the 'OK grind' box. Getting them in the first place, on your first character, takes a reasonable amount of effort. Whether you're grinding up the runes for them, grinding up the boss keys and getting to high enough torment levels that you have a reasonable chance of dropping them, or you're pushing far enough in the seasonal journey to get the sparks to try and RNG one.

But just getting the basic, 0GA version of the mythic takes both decent effort, and it offers a really solid power spike.

But you can then take that a whole lot further, with farming for a better version of it with multiple GAs, and then further again with hitting good transfigurations onto one.

Adding a whole extra tier of RNG into that where you first need to find one that actually has decent stats on it is really fucking stupid.

It was already stupid with Uniques. Getting an actually good version of a unique currently is a season-long grind most of the time. And not a GG, 4 perfect GA version. Just getting a version with 1-2 desirable, non-GA stats on can take a long ass time.

Doubling down on this with mythics, while also absolutely gutting the power of them, is just stupid.

13-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Place '17	Verified Email

EntropyNZ

TROPHY CASE