Thoughts on class balance...

Was just looking for Chris's post on challenge progress, and I noticed the race ladders for the 1M event.

The Hardcore ladder https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1434989 has 4 rangers (2 still alive) in the top 100, 6 shadows, and only 3 Duelists (all dead). THere's only one more duelist in the next 100.

That's actually MORE balanced than SC, https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1434978; there we find 7 shadows, 5 rangers and a nice round 0 duelists.
(There are 6 duelists in the next 100).

So... might this indicate just a weensy issue with not only the survivability but (given the SC numbers) the clear speed and general enjoyment to be found round the Dex side of the ladder?
And zero duelists up there shows a resounding No vote for the class in particular, to the point where surely it's an issue worth addressing.

Sure, we're only looking at the best and most devoted players here. But they set many of the trends and much of the tone the rest of us inherit, given how balance seems to be managed around the elite overall.

I think it has less to do with the classes themselves and more to do with which skills are overpowered in terms of racing to level 100 on a low budget, and which tree they function best out of.

Witches are going to have a lot of totem, incinerate, and SRS players because that's just a convenient tree to build those skills from. So that easily explains why there are so many at the top. Scions have access to pretty much any tree and the benefit of a little more flexibility, so thats more of a personal preference for many people and why you see a lot of those.

The lack of duelists and rangers and shadows probably stems from their reliance on high phys builds and/or crit, which is expensive to build for and not all that great for 1-100 from scratch. They aren't bad classes, they just take a little more time to ramp up. That's not really a problem IMO for 98% of the playerbase, and the 2% at the top just use the meta-method and succeed so I doubt they care much other than a lack of variety (which occurs in literally any meta, because that's what a meta is defined as).

So yeah, I don't think the ladder is a good reflection of class balance at all. As a standalone stat it's very weak. Combine it with a dozen other similar stats and you might get me to believe you, but I have a hard time believing rangers and shadows are weak when extremely powerful builds like fakener and tornado shot are generally built out of their trees.

"

Nasreth wrote:

I think it has less to do with the classes themselves and more to do with which skills are overpowered in terms of racing to level 100 on a low budget, and which tree they function best out of.

Hmm, maybe that's what bothers me, then. And possibly others.

Because low-budget ~= not trading much or at all ~= self-found, which is what I am.
(well, I probably put more into guild stash than I take out but do use occasionally).

And what you're effectively saying is "without trading you won't get far, fast, unless maybe if you use a relatively OP cookie-cutter build". Which will be a high nerf risk, if you can even find one.
Still says something about class balance, and emphasises how in the opinion of the "best" players some classes are not worth it without extensive trading?

"

Varana wrote:

Still says something about class balance, and emphasises how in the opinion of the "best" players some classes are not worth it without extensive trading?

Yes, but it's isn't necessarily a bad thing. We have accessible options requiring virtually no trading and little investment otherwise and we also got expensive ones which end up being more powerful once you gather all the pricey parts. It's perfectly normal for accessible options to be overwhelmingly favored in a challenge league, because, contrary to popular opinion, most of us here aren't masochists.