That is just good advice in general.
Though after some initial more specific post-patch testing just now (albeit still less and less structured/methodical than on the PTR), I'll stand by my previous findings.
Having Holy Freeze noticeably increases the curse rate overall, obviously, seeing how it simply adds a 2nd trigger for said curse.
However, there is no reliably noticeable difference in curse rate between 1-2 targets or 10+-15+ for me which still strongly suggests a check per tick, rather than per target.
Additionally, the real curse rate on larger packs (10+ minimum) is noticeably far below what it should be if it was checking per target. That was reliably noticeable across a couple of Flayer Jungle clears. Didn't count the packs specifically so however many that adds up to might not yet be statistically significant but it lines up with my previous results none the less.
And lastly, if you specifically hunt for spread out packs and stand in the middle of them to wait for a tick curse, it still cursed either all or none every single time, no exception (same # disclaimer as above post-patch). If it was per target then it would be an "on striking" equivalent trigger, meaning the cursing should normally be aimed at that target and since a TZ96 Heph should come with a 12.6yd freeze radius along with a 14.6yd amp radius (roughly at least, trusting maxroll for those 2 numbers real quick, too lazy to double-check atm ^^), you should then see cases of only "one side" of your aura-affected targets being cursed as the curse is triggered by (-> aimed at) a target on the far side of the screen which then wouldn't have enough of a curse range to cover most of the other side of your aura range. You wouldn't expect that all the time of course but it should still happen every so often. If it was per tick, it'd instead generally be cast "on self" as there is no target to consider, meaning it would indeed always cover the entire freeze range (plus 2 yds, technically). Given, there is a chance that aura-cursing gets special treatment and counts as "on striking but with no aim target", can't say I've ever dug into the source code to look at that possibility, but it would be another deviation from the norm at least.
Either way, I won't bother doing even more testing on that as I really don't have a horse in this race. To me, the results seemed clear and the same every time. But even if they weren't, it wouldn't change my bound demon choice so..don't really care.
DKBam
Ehfull
Google [Bot]
human_being
klmklm27
krathkor
leox
LXD33R
mmcooley33
phreak208
pssd
Schnorki
Ungern
Schnorki
5222Moderator