"You need less life on tree"

To get 5k life you need over 200% max life on tree , lets be honest you can't do high lvl maps in beyond with 3.5k life...
Can't really understand these changes , everything was fine IMO.

discuss
This thread has been automatically archived. Replies are disabled.
Since that "bloodmagic is now better than it ever was" words from Chris (they even buffed it to 60% from that initial 30%), I take all these kind of quotes from him like jokes. It was obvious after his words, at least for me, that with the new tree we would have to invest the same number of skill points in life, and that's how it is right now. I had a small hope that they would maintain the same %, reduce the number of points and scatter them through the tree, but not.
♠RaGoN♦
"
RaGoNXIII wrote:
Since that "bloodmagic is now better than it ever was" words from Chris (they even buffed it to 60% from that initial 30%), I take all these kind of quotes from him like jokes. It was obvious after his words, at least for me, that with the new tree we would have to invest the same number of skill points in life, and that's how it is right now. I had a small hope that they would maintain the same %, reduce the number of points and scatter them through the tree, but not.


MC was never 30%. And technically BM is actually better than it ever was because higher base life and more readily available regeneration has massively increased usability.

The viability at top tier is a different matter, though it's much closer to viable than it was before patch. I managed an accidental 240% life in a 100 point build. Now if only we can make auras non-mandatory. At which point I would happily run an aura or two on life.
IGN - PlutoChthon, Talvathir
Last edited by Autocthon on Aug 27, 2014, 8:19:44 PM
"
Alea wrote:
"
Autocthon wrote:
"
RaGoNXIII wrote:
Since that "bloodmagic is now better than it ever was" words from Chris (they even buffed it to 60% from that initial 30%), I take all these kind of quotes from him like jokes. It was obvious after his words, at least for me, that with the new tree we would have to invest the same number of skill points in life, and that's how it is right now. I had a small hope that they would maintain the same %, reduce the number of points and scatter them through the tree, but not.


MC was never 30%. And technically BM is actually better than it ever was because higher base life and more readily available regeneration has massively increased usability.

The viability at top tier is a different matter, though it's much closer to viable than it was before patch. I managed an accidental 240% life in a 100 point build. Now if only we can make auras non-mandatory. At which point I would happily run an aura or two on life.


did you ever played high maps?
obviously i means getting a character over level 65 rofl?
240% HP now is somewhere in the vicinity of 6k or 7k HP give or take an HP item.

The issue is how auras work and the fact that they're essentially mandatory to have (all three purities, plus at least one offensive). It isn't a problem with BM or MC.
IGN - PlutoChthon, Talvathir
That quote from Chris was pretty silly but tbh you're exaggerating a lot. I have 177% life and 44 str from passive tree, I got over 5k hp at level 82 and most of my life rolls are not top tier.
Last edited by MIIKKAAA on Aug 27, 2014, 9:53:15 PM
Less life on tree my ass.
If they wanted to reduce the amount of lifenodes that we have to take, they should have buffed base life without nerfing all the lifenodes on the tree to nullify the baselife buff.
Last edited by gh0un on Aug 27, 2014, 11:59:39 PM
"
Alea wrote:
"
gh0un wrote:
Less life on tree my ass.
If they wanted to reduce the amount of lifenodes that we have to take, they should have buffed base life without nerfing all the lifenodes on the tree to nullify the baselife buff.


Problem is some "builds" only taking life & regen, like RF...

The best way should be to establish "dimishing returns" on life nodes once a defined total %life is reached, or a maximum total %.


Arbitrary cutoffs aren't good for the game. %-life already has diminishing (multiplicative) returns as you stack it, just like %-increased phys damage does. If RF is a huge problem, nerf RF or make other options more appealing.
IGN: SplitEpimorphism
"
syrioforel wrote:

Arbitrary cutoffs aren't good for the game. %-life already has diminishing (multiplicative) returns as you stack it, just like %-increased phys damage does.


How?

Taking a 6% life node at +0% life provides the same amount of maximum life as taking a 6% life node when you already stacked 200%. There are no diminishing returns.



---

@OP

"You need less life on the tree" is misleading. You need about the same amount of skillpoints in life nodes in 1.2 to get to the same amount of maximum hp you had in 1.1.

But what you actually can do, is not take too many life nodes while levelling (as your health pool grows slightly faster than before).
3.5 build: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2299519
"
Peterlerock wrote:
"
syrioforel wrote:

Arbitrary cutoffs aren't good for the game. %-life already has diminishing (multiplicative) returns as you stack it, just like %-increased phys damage does.


How?

Taking a 6% life node at +0% life provides the same amount of maximum life as taking a 6% life node when you already stacked 200%. There are no diminishing returns.



I said multiplicative returns. I'm talking about (EHP after adding in a new node)/(EHP before adding in the node).

A 6% life node at +0% life provides 6% more survivability. A 6% life node at +100% life provides 3% more survivability.
IGN: SplitEpimorphism
Last edited by syrioforel on Aug 28, 2014, 3:10:11 AM
Rf wasnt the problem I got 500 more life now than before patch using noliffers double curse maru. He got 900 more and is sitting at 10,000 life no kaoms. RF was buffed. Regen was buffed meaning we dont need missing elemental adaption and can take more life. More life = more DPS and more EHP.

Git R Dun!
Last edited by Aim_Deep on Aug 28, 2014, 3:25:50 AM

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info