GGG Hypocrisy

"

Natharias wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

I love how you attack every person that post's in your threads.
This seems to be a reoccurring symptom, might wanna get that checked.

As for the topic, so far ascensions have a wide variety of clusters that apply to many different things. So there will certainly be other classes that can abuse a certain sub-set of them to facilitate a trapper.

Sometimes it takes more then simply reading "trapper" and then concluding every other node is worthless for such a build.
It's funny that you mention this as a counter argument to grepman but cant apply the same logic to this sub-class system.

I am sure there is a joke in here somewhere.

Peace,

-Boem-

No the problem is that these forums have degraded. You're old enough and present enough to know how raics and I used to be and what we are now.

And you attack me the way you claim I simply attack everyone else. If you had read up on the Saboteur (dunno how you got the word trapper from that. Very different spelling) you would know what it has:
"20% faster cooldown recovery speed for throwing traps"
"When your traps trigger, your nearby traps also trigger"
"30% chance when placing mines to place an additional mine"

Yeah. So how would a non-Shadow trapper compare to a Shadow trapper? Right, it wouldn't.

So, which classes have you made trappers with? Please link your Maurader Trapper build. I want to compare it to a Shadow Trapper since you think they are equal. If you just want to tell me which character and unhide it, that'd be easier than linking your gear and tree.

At the moment it is absolutely impossible to know how the different subclasses pan out with different builds. Yes, there is a very real possibility that GGG screws up and the subclasses stifle build diversity. However, there is also the possibility that the power gained from one subclass allows for a competitive and distinct difference compared to another subclass when both are running nearly the same build or are using the same primary skills.

In the case of shadow's saboteur/trap subclass, it does clearly have quite powerful direct trap support. However, another subclass might have similarly powerful indirect trap support. It's possible there will be a Deadeye trapper build focused on ranged attack traps. There's potential for a Gladiator caster build using Cybil's Paw and physical damage spells.

It's fine to be concerned about the chance that subclasses do become the antithesis of the game's original intent to allow for huge build and class diversity, but don't go saying the sky is falling until we actually have concrete numbers to theorycraft with.

"

Natharias wrote:

So "classes" were initially made on the same skill tree but at different starting positions so that all characters could become the same build.

But now if I want to make a trapper, I can only do so if I make a Shadow. And that's not a class I like using.

If I want to make a summoner, I can no longer use a Scion and enjoy some elemental resistance nodes.

If I want to make a tanky character, I can no longer just allocate a ton of life/ES, MoM...it has to be either a Marauder or Duelist. Having Fortify up 24/7 sure helps with support gems.

Really GGG? At least tell us that you're willing to change our classes just like you currently change our names.

Edit:

I mean what's the point of making and leveling a character to be something when it'll be rendered useless with this actual class system?

PATH OF EXILE WAS NOT MEANT TO HAVE DIVERSITY DUE TO CLASS, GGG. It was supposed to be something you chose over time with passive points.

Change the system now to something you can choose regardless of your base class.

Ignoring the "hypocrisy!" bs and hostile tone etc, I think Natharias has a point here.

I was sort of surprised (when watching the Ascension video) that each class is only entitled to three options in lieu of all of them. Why do things this way? What does further distinction between classes achieve? (Not meant to be rhetorical...)

I've posted this before, but it's a total 180 from how they've been doing the classes where it affects nothing except quest rewards and starting location. Not only does it go against their ideals, but it's also a gigantic "screw you" to people who made (for example) a trapper witch and spent months building that one character. Their tree might otherwise be identical to a Shadow, but they'll never be able to get that 20% trap CDR which is a very big deal to any trapper, let alone the other passives on that tree.

This is literally only going to kill customisation and build diversity.

"

Hemmingfish wrote:

I've posted this before, but it's a total 180 from how they've been doing the classes where it affects nothing except quest rewards and starting location. Not only does it go against their ideals, but it's also a gigantic "screw you" to people who made (for example) a trapper witch and spent months building that one character. Their tree might otherwise be identical to a Shadow, but they'll never be able to get that 20% trap CDR which is a very big deal to any trapper, let alone the other passives on that tree.

This is literally only going to kill customisation and build diversity.

If one already made a suboptimal toon before (let say a trapper marauder), how will not getting some cool things in the saboteur subtree affect him ? I mean hes already verys suboptimal so clearly he wasnt minmaxing things, and it will still be suboptimal after.

except in this case he can choose some other cool perks that dont relate to traps but maybe to his own survivability and find some interesting synergies. for example if youre a trapping templar, that keystone that ignores elemental resists on crit should go well with fire trap if you arent cursing a lot. just an example really.

"

grepman wrote:

"

Hemmingfish wrote:

I've posted this before, but it's a total 180 from how they've been doing the classes where it affects nothing except quest rewards and starting location. Not only does it go against their ideals, but it's also a gigantic "screw you" to people who made (for example) a trapper witch and spent months building that one character. Their tree might otherwise be identical to a Shadow, but they'll never be able to get that 20% trap CDR which is a very big deal to any trapper, let alone the other passives on that tree.

This is literally only going to kill customisation and build diversity.

If one already made a suboptimal toon before (let say a trapper marauder), how will not getting some cool things in the saboteur subtree affect him ? I mean hes already verys suboptimal so clearly he wasnt minmaxing things, and it will still be suboptimal after.

except in this case he can choose some other cool perks that dont relate to traps but maybe to his own survivability and find some interesting synergies. for example if youre a trapping templar, that keystone that ignores elemental resists on crit should go well with fire trap if you arent cursing a lot. just an example really.

Daily reminder Witch isn't a suboptimal class for a trapper, but after the patch it will be.

1. I'm not convinced you won't see Inquisitors (or other unreleased Ascension classes) throwing some traps around. The only thing Saboteurs have that I doubt any other trapper could match is "20% faster cooldown recovery speed for throwing traps," which is indeed pretty strong if you're dedicated to a single trap skill, but for two-skill combos which involve some degree of rotation (such as trap + Vaal skill) I think there could be some serious competition. Although it's kinda fuzzy if you'd call such dual-skill builds "trappers" or classify them under a different archetype.

2. I don't believe the opening post succeeds in tying the recent design decisions with the titular hypocrisy. "GGG flip-flopping," perhaps. It does seem to me that they've abandoned one of their earliest design decisions, after a sheer weight of feedback, suggestions, and presumably data have convinced them the design wasn't having the desired effect. However, changing one's mind under the belief one was previously wrong does not constitute hypocrisy in my book; otherwise, the acknowledgement of any previous action believed to be in error would automatically constitute hypocrisy, when I believe the more appropriate term for such behavior is usually "progress."

"

Hemmingfish wrote:

I've posted this before, but it's a total 180 from how they've been doing the classes where it affects nothing except quest rewards and starting location. Not only does it go against their ideals, but it's also a gigantic "screw you" to people who made (for example) a trapper witch and spent months building that one character. Their tree might otherwise be identical to a Shadow, but they'll never be able to get that 20% trap CDR which is a very big deal to any trapper, let alone the other passives on that tree.

This is literally only going to kill customisation and build diversity.

What makes you so sure that one of the Witch specializations won't be equally as powerful? Traps cast spells. Are you sure there won't be anything that would be equally as beneficial?

Besides, they've never worried about keeping old builds viable. How is this any different than any other patch ever? They design for making new characters in temp leagues. It's not a secret. Everybody knows this. So saying a build is going to be screwed over in a perm league is like saying the sun will set tomorrow.

From the mmorpg.com article

"

but GGG felt there was some valid criticism gamers have leveled about how classes are somewhat meaningless in the game

.

So now we're complaining about GGG taking feedback and acting on it? What is this forum even for if GGG isn't allowed to change their game in ways they feel make it better?