Anchors

This. The change isn't something anyone asked for (afaik) but if you're going through the trouble to do it, it needs to be the same logic applying both ways, otherwise it's going to confuse anyone trying to understand the system that didn't read these specific patch notes (and still might confuse some who do). There's no reason to only do half of the change because it's such a sweeping system change that there's no way they'd *undo* it, therefore you should just *do it both ways* so it's at least consistent. But I will echo the other sentiment that this had no reason to be prioritized, worked on and done when all it does is lessen the effectiveness of a common build type (toward S/L Def and to a lesser extent Res) without any actual systemic changes to better enable people to adapt to the change you're making, by making IO set bonuses that afford non-S/L Def in more sets, and/or at better values, to better build for the diversity you're enforcing them to branch out to by devaluing the S/L Def type. You're strictly making people feel worse with this change without any actual gameplay or build options changed to allow them to adapt, so everyone will just feel weaker (Even if, by some accounts, it is 'not very noticeable'). But what's done is done. My question now is: Why did you make this change and not add easier/better access to non-S/L def types to enable adaptation to the changes? And, if it was explicitly meant as a nerf (as these two things combined amount to), why didn't you just say that clearly and own up to it? Honesty is necessary, even if it's not what someone wants to hear, and if a nerf is needed for whatever game design plans/ideas/thinking the devs have, they should communicate that clearly to the players. I disagree more with the way this change was handled moreso than the change itself.