GGG Hypocrisy

It's been "Any class can do anything" for years now, and that was always something I liked. I Could make whomever I wanted to hear/see for a build and it'd work.

Now which class you pick is absolutely important.

I mean, what about all the players that weren't complaining about classes being meaningless because they enjoyed that? Now it's them complaining, and apparently if they keep complaining they have reason to believe something might get done about it.
I am not with this.
I think classes, races or whatever, should have even more accentuated differences.
That you can create a completly diferent looking character and the only diferences they can have are a few nods irritates me.

My idea of bigger tree with a separated stats tree was a bad idea it seems. Then diferences between characters should be even more noticeables. Making the initial roots of the tree of each character, LARGER.
Last edited by katchwi on Nov 24, 2015, 7:52:15 PM
i should have never told the devs that "they will never be able to balance this system". it's all my fault, sorry.

*drops a tear*
age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill!
"
vio wrote:
i should have never told the devs that "they will never be able to balance this system". it's all my fault, sorry.

*drops a tear*



I mean we already knew that back in the CB though. It was gonna be very difficult to balance because you couldn't differentiate between ranged and melee, and now you can.
"
katchwi wrote:
I am not with this.
I think classes, races or whatever, should have even more accentuated differences.
That you can create a completly diferent looking character and the only diferences they can have are a few nods irritates me.

My idea of bigger tree with a separated stats tree was a bad idea it seems. Then diferences between characters should be even more noticeables. Making the initial roots of the tree of each character, LARGER.


So let me get this straight. The game, right now, allows you to choose only those classes that are most appropriate for your build (choose only ranger for bow builds, shadow for daggers, etc.), but it ALSO allows other to choose something else, and possible a rather wacky combination (Templar bow and trap user, or something).

you do not like this, and would rather it be such that EVERYONE is FORCED to pick only a particular class for a particular build? Everyone must play only the way you want to, instead of playing how they want to while the game allowing you to play how you want?


When people argue against the current, possibly-false freedom the tree provides, they are usually using valid argument having to do with passive and active skill balance. OTOH, this quoted post here is just whole other level of selfish and/or narcissism.
Opening up the asc-tree's to any class does not prevent anyone who likes the current restriction from doing whatever they were going to do - it simply proves additional options for others.

If you argument is about balance or something else, then I do not see why you are not championing the replacement of the current passive-tree too.

Giving every class access to only a modified version of their area plus the two adjacent areas, would certainly make balance much easier for GGG and would make class much more defined for us.

It would also match up much better with the current restrictions of the asc classes, instead of how the two are in direct opposition like they are now.


Narcissists would also get their wish of everyone bending to their will and playing as restricted as they do now fullfilled. EVERYONE WINS!!!
"
BINARYGOD wrote:
Opening up the asc-tree's to any class does not prevent anyone who likes the current restriction from doing whatever they were going to do - it simply proves additional options for others.


True. Adding an option to buy a legacy 6link Kaom's with 6 white sockets for an alch shard from the vendor doesn't stop anyone from playing the traditional way either. It is still a pretty shitty idea. Games live on the fact that there are restrictions. I like this restriction, based on basically nothing other than that I like it. Also, the most common idea is to give access if you reach the starting node of another class, which would (compared to locked ascendancy classes) be a buff to the Scion and irrelevant for everyone else.


"
BINARYGOD wrote:
If you argument is about balance or something else, then I do not see why you are not championing the replacement of the current passive-tree too.

Giving every class access to only a modified version of their area plus the two adjacent areas, would certainly make balance much easier for GGG and would make class much more defined for us.

It would also match up much better with the current restrictions of the asc classes, instead of how the two are in direct opposition like they are now.


Maybe they being different is intentional? They are not on the same skill tree, and the points for them are earned in different ways.


"
BINARYGOD wrote:
Narcissists would also get their wish of everyone bending to their will and playing as restricted as they do now fullfilled. EVERYONE WINS!!!


... except the people that make unusual (but maybe very powerful) builds that require to travel a lot on the skill tree.
Remove Horticrafting station storage limit.
"
Char1983 wrote:
"
BINARYGOD wrote:
Opening up the asc-tree's to any class does not prevent anyone who likes the current restriction from doing whatever they were going to do - it simply proves additional options for others.


True. Adding an option to buy a legacy 6link Kaom's with 6 white sockets for an alch shard from the vendor doesn't stop anyone from playing the traditional way either. It is still a pretty shitty idea. Games live on the fact that there are restrictions. I like this restriction, based on basically nothing other than that I like it. Also, the most common idea is to give access if you reach the starting node of another class, which would (compared to locked ascendancy classes) be a buff to the Scion and irrelevant for everyone else.


"
BINARYGOD wrote:
If you argument is about balance or something else, then I do not see why you are not championing the replacement of the current passive-tree too.

Giving every class access to only a modified version of their area plus the two adjacent areas, would certainly make balance much easier for GGG and would make class much more defined for us.

It would also match up much better with the current restrictions of the asc classes, instead of how the two are in direct opposition like they are now.


Maybe they being different is intentional? They are not on the same skill tree, and the points for them are earned in different ways.


"
BINARYGOD wrote:
Narcissists would also get their wish of everyone bending to their will and playing as restricted as they do now fullfilled. EVERYONE WINS!!!


... except the people that make unusual (but maybe very powerful) builds that require to travel a lot on the skill tree.


To the first reply - that is a gross over exaggeration of an example to use.

To the second - yes, of course the differentiation is intentional. It's not like I think it was an accident.

To the third - my post had a lot of tongue-in-cheek to it, not sure if that was obvious now. Allowing any class to access any of the asc-tree's would aid the usual builds, at least more so compared to restricting them (and certainly so if the restrictions decrease the occurrence of them).
"
Whenever more power gets added to the characters, GGG must balance around the maximum potential. If they don't rebalance the game then the game becomes trivially easy in the face of how much raw power a certain build can bring forth. PoE was created specifically to be hard, so if it becomes easy then the game basically falls apart due to the audience not having what they wanted from the game in the first place.

So if the suboptimal, but still playable, build gets no boosts but the optimal build does get boosted, the optimal build will now be the balance point and thus the balance point is increased. The gap widens between the suboptimal build and the optimal one. There is a very real possibility that the suboptimal build then becomes unplayable due to how weak it is in comparison to the harder content.

Nice theory, but in practice, my Witch Trapper isn't really concerned about being "suboptimal", it's surviving spike damage that's the issue. She's currently in her 80's and has not yet taken on Merciless Act 4 Piety and Malachai. You can check out her build and gear in my profile.

Why groom a Witch into a Trapper? Partially because she straddles the Shadow and Templar Passive Tree nodes I had in mind, but mostly for thematic reasons. I modeled the build on a Diablo II Assassin and felt like the Witch best fit the femme fatale aspect of the character. Then I figured out how to use Lightning Warp to imitate Teleport and went with a hybrid HP + ES approach, much like a Sorceress, another female Diablo II character. No reason I couldn't have used a Shadow, but he didn't offer any real advantage at the time.

This build currently uses jewels to boost Trap damage and throwing speed. That makes it unnecessary to stretch into the Ranger area to grab all available Passive Tree Trap nodes. While some might call that suboptimal, I consider it a worthwhile trade-off that allows me to greatly expand Trap AoE radius. This Witch has speed, mobility, and more than enough firepower to solo mid-range maps. What she's lacking is not the Shadow's upcoming Ascendency buffs, but the ability to survive solo boss fights. She's got over 4K HP and a good ES buffer, but repeated spike damage eventually drains her reserves. Leech doesn't work on Traps, so when she takes a big hit, she has no quick way to recover.

What I'll be looking for in Ascendancy is not a new way to buff Traps, but defensive boosts that help a Trapper survive more abuse. While that may not fit the Witch's upcoming sub-class strengths, it so far doesn't appear the Shadow will offer much either.

Last edited by RogueMage on Nov 25, 2015, 3:22:01 PM
Every build needs offenses. Every build needs defenses.

Why can't one take a defensive Ascendancy, and then pick up more offensive passives then regular?

If there really aren't enough offensive passives, you could always add more. But Many traps builds could probably already get more of something that is already on the tree.


Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info