Still no balance a year later - with facts

"

treffnix wrote:

OK Dirk, let's try to get some info out of this debate. Never mind how you come to the conclusion that the shadow underperforms. What would you suggest to change that?

You obviously cannot convince others that your conclusion is based on facts, so how about you drop that part and just discuss possible solutions. In general, you'd have had much better responses if you'd just skipped the whole "here I prove I'm right" bit and instead just wrote "I think the shadow is too weak. Could we buff it a bit by doing XXX?".

I'm not interested in buffing shadow, I don't play the game anymore. I'm just giving the information to the people, and reiterating the point that it hasn't changed in 8 months.

As to who is or is not convinced that my "conclusion" is based on facts, again, there isn't really a conclusion, it's pretty much a listing of the information with some rambling thrown in. This is why you people are pissing me off. There's no conclusion, there's just information, and apparently I've made opinions and conclusions? Fuck no.

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

I don't play the game anymore.

/thread

You can ignore important information, if that's what you choose to do I guess. 15% is a pretty large performance gap.

Moreover, since let's just say I know your financial standing is based in some small part to the game's economy, you'd think you would want more players in your game. It's cool with me if you triple supporters want to ignore the crippling balance issues this game faces though and let it continue to rot due to simple easily fixed problems that simply exist because you won't let them be identified.

/Frymeme

I don't know what is the case here, but both possibilities amuse me.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

"

treffnix wrote:

OK Dirk, let's try to get some info out of this debate. Never mind how you come to the conclusion that the shadow underperforms. What would you suggest to change that?

You obviously cannot convince others that your conclusion is based on facts, so how about you drop that part and just discuss possible solutions. In general, you'd have had much better responses if you'd just skipped the whole "here I prove I'm right" bit and instead just wrote "I think the shadow is too weak. Could we buff it a bit by doing XXX?".

I'm not interested in buffing shadow, I don't play the game anymore. I'm just giving the information to the people, and reiterating the point that it hasn't changed in 8 months.

As to who is or is not convinced that my "conclusion" is based on facts, again, there isn't really a conclusion, it's pretty much a listing of the information with some rambling thrown in. This is why you people are pissing me off. There's no conclusion, there's just information, and apparently I've made opinions and conclusions? Fuck no.

I don't get it. I'm trying to see a point to this thread but now you just said there is no point? Why did you keep it running over 12 pages then?

[Removed by Support]

[Relax and enjoy the game] or [don't play, but don't post]. Posting about something you cannot know anymore (since you don't play) [Removed by Support]

"

treffnix wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

"

treffnix wrote:

OK Dirk, let's try to get some info out of this debate. Never mind how you come to the conclusion that the shadow underperforms. What would you suggest to change that?

You obviously cannot convince others that your conclusion is based on facts, so how about you drop that part and just discuss possible solutions. In general, you'd have had much better responses if you'd just skipped the whole "here I prove I'm right" bit and instead just wrote "I think the shadow is too weak. Could we buff it a bit by doing XXX?".

I'm not interested in buffing shadow, I don't play the game anymore. I'm just giving the information to the people, and reiterating the point that it hasn't changed in 8 months.

As to who is or is not convinced that my "conclusion" is based on facts, again, there isn't really a conclusion, it's pretty much a listing of the information with some rambling thrown in. This is why you people are pissing me off. There's no conclusion, there's just information, and apparently I've made opinions and conclusions? Fuck no.

I don't get it. I'm trying to see a point to this thread but now you just said there is no point? Why did you keep it running over 12 pages then?

[Removed by Support]

[Relax and enjoy the game] or [don't play, but don't post]. Posting about something you cannot know anymore (since you don't play) [Removed by Support]

[Removed by support]

Really I'm just astounded that there are this many people who refuse to comprehend facts. It's not like I'm making outlandish claims here, I'm ONLY providing facts and data, which coincidentally follows a pattern similar to 8 months ago.

Just kidding, it's not a coincidence, it's a predictable pattern which people like yourself largely are responsible for. Cheers.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

I'm ONLY providing facts and data

If that were the case, nobody would complain. And you wouldn't be on probation.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

I'm ONLY providing facts and data

If that were the case, nobody would complain. And you wouldn't be on probation.

He will surely thinks once again that GGG was annoyed by the "truth" (hum...) and chose the easy way out by muting him like a martyr.

demanding that a certain playstyle should be buffed to be viable is simply the wrong approach.

sure there are certain games where you have to change the rules of the game to win but in poe
the game challenges you to find viable builds which are fun to play, not the other way around.

Shadow is a good class if you wanna go ES -and you should if you choose to play him. It's just that by level 80-90 the Witch can do any ES build better than Shadow. As simple as that. That's why people prefer Witch. If you wanna progress further than lv90, a shadow needs the ES passives at the Witch starting area, while the Witch can with the extra passives get better DPS passives than Shadow's starting area for any build, or can choose to build tankier, since the DPS passives at the starting area of Shadow is not all that strong.

So why choose the second(or third best, depending on the build) best, if you can choose the best :). If they choose to nerf the Witch starting area though, this would hurt Shadows as well.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

You do know that the higher the level, the less effect your starting position has, right? It takes 10 points to get from the Ranger start to the Shadow Tree and the Witch start to the Shadow tree. Therefore, there is at most a 10 point difference between those classes. When you have 120 passive points at level 100, do you really think 10 points makes so much difference that it makes the Shadow suck compared to Witch and Ranger?

Take 10 points off your build and try.

Are you kidding me? Most of my characters have unused points. I've played characters with as many as 24 unused points. Have you ever played this game? The content stops at level 78. If you can do that content at level 80, those last 20 points are a luxury that only makes the game easier. When things get easier, people get careless and die. Your "data" only shows that people who play Shadows are more careless than people who play Witches. This cannot be disputed because it is based on FACTS.