Reasonable people talk about ascendancy classes

"

Biznits wrote:

Yeah, I think I know what you're saying on the first point. The ascendancy classes only have 6 points, but they're kind of like a very compact cluster of new keystones, just like MoM/BM/EE etc. I think this is a good way to look at it. And if they're accessible through the tree rather than just locked into classes, I feel it gives more options for people to take gladiator and lose their spell block gear, or keep their spell block gear, still go down to Duelist for the block nodes, and maybe use the witch necromancer class with facebreaker dominating blow. The third point is that you can more easily find a class that matches the identity of your actual build if you have access to all of them. This is especially relevant for new players who usually build a class from the ground up with an idea of what they want to do, but haven't planned out every detail like veterans would.

Well, if you're looking from a pure choice perspective then yes, you're absolutely right. Having ascendancy nodes on a tree just like every Keystone would create more choices. But on the other hand Keystones are not clustered, and in most cases have a negative side as well, were ascendancy nodes don't really have that. If say Duelist would be able to select nodes from Duelist ascendancy and Marauder, it quite possibly would create such balancing issues that eventually GGG would either reduce the benefits of those nodes, or do something else to make it manageable which in turn will reduce your "more" choices to something like a few.
Again, that's how I see it, and I might be missing something here.

"

PsionicKitten wrote:

I'm not talking how you view how poe should be or how things have worked up until now, but rather given what GGG has released on them and how they are implemented as class exclusives, how you can see what they are changing and come to the conclusion that they specifically don't want to make class choice matter more?

Well that's easy. If they're not totally exclusive then original class choice matters more, but to a small enough degree that that's not the obvious and foremost intention of the changes. It could well be just to add more choices, not necessarily enrich the first choice. As far as I know, there's not yet any information that says they cannot be accessed by other classes. Without that information your overwhelming bias is not actually so apparent. I have not read every single thing reported on the classes though, and maybe it somewhere has been stated they won't be accessible by other classes. If this were the case, though, the approach of your response would be very out of place, so I'm thinking maybe you should just lay off the bold and underlines a bit.

"

1453R wrote:

As Psi has stated, the specific, explicitly stated design intent for Ascendancy classes is to differentiate the origin classes and to make class choice matter to characters, as it currently does not.

Has this been explicitly stated? Providing that statement would add a much more constructive context for further discussion.

"

1453R wrote:

I'm not sure the two will ever see eye to eye, though it'd be nice if their arguments could make sense. 'Melee Witches' and 'spellcasting Marauders' never worked the same as straight melees or straight casters in the first place, how is the new system any different?

This one's also easy. I'm sure you'll be able to still build a melee witch in the new patch, but if she has no melee ascendancy, and no access to other ascendancies, and ascendancies represent a significant power increase (as they appear to), the gap between them and other melees widens. As that gap widens, the emphasis on efficiency matters more, and you won't see melee witches from a practical standpoint. Sure, the build is still possible, but realistically it's not. This argument is one I think just about everyone can see and is concerned about regardless of whether they like or dislike ascendancies.

Elemental builds will now be pantless. Elemental penetration ..

"

Biznits wrote:

"

1453R wrote:

As Psi has stated, the specific, explicitly stated design intent for Ascendancy classes is to differentiate the origin classes and to make class choice matter to characters, as it currently does not.

Has this been explicitly stated? Providing that statement would add a much more constructive context for further discussion.

"

mmorpg wrote:

Action RPGs live or die on their ability to create a satisfying item hunt experience, but Path of Exile is also known for its insane skill grid which features over 1,400 individual nodes. Between the items and the skill grid, players create some fascinating builds in the game, but GGG felt there was some valid criticism gamers have leveled about how classes are somewhat meaningless in the game. Sure, players can select from a number of different classes when they start out, but in practice, this just means that your class starts at a different section of the grid. This doesn’t afford the game much in the way of class identity, and that’s where Ascendancy’s 19 new Ascendancy classes come in.

Artice

I remember there were two or three others that said the same, as well. Found another here:

"

Complete the Labyrinth once and you’ll gain access to new Ascendancy Classes, which slot into the very center of your skill tree. Speaking to Grinding Gear, they said a common complaint is that there’s little to distinguish the game’s classes at a certain point—since the skill trees are all combined, you could essentially start the game as a melee-heavy character and end up heavy into magic by the end, or vice versa.

Original article link

I read something like twentyish articles on the matter while bored at work, unfortunately I can't remember exactly which ones had these quotes in them, but I do recall it being a common theme. Whether the words ever came directly out of GGG's mouth in a video, I cannot recall, but I would consider multiple articles attributing GGG's desire to listen to the complaints of its playerbase that its class selections were stale and meaningless to be pretty explicit, myself.

"

Biznits wrote:

As far as I know, there's not yet any information that says they cannot be accessed by other classes. Without that information your overwhelming bias is not actually so apparent. I have not read every single thing reported on the classes though, and maybe it somewhere has been stated they won't be accessible by other classes.

I guess we've found a crux of the problem. How do you expect to have a proper conversation or suggest how something should be implemented when you don't even have the facts to begin with? That's actually a rhetorical question. You don't need to answer that.

Ok I must admit Im slightly miffed that no one seems to have noticed my point where I adress much of what is discussed here...

Also, a lot of people seem to feel that the classes need more identity.
I just want a clarification on that. Why?
And please give me a well thought out answer. Not just a gut reaction.

I have never felt this because I envision my own identity in the game. For me thats in the process of dreaming up a build.

"

SerahWint wrote:

Ok I must admit Im slightly miffed that no one seems to have noticed my point where I adress much of what is discussed here...

Also, a lot of people seem to feel that the classes need more identity.
I just want a clarification on that. Why?
And please give me a well thought out answer. Not just a gut reaction.

I have never felt this because I envision my own identity in the game. For me thats in the process of dreaming up a build.

What works for you does not necessarily work for others, and if there is significant enough group of people concerned about that, it is reasonable to expect that something like this eventually is going to happen.
I myself see no real difference between Templar and Witch running same exact build, when I don't try to minmax stuff, which makes my class choices matter less, and with expansion this can change.
Sure there are cases currently where something can only be achieved by a certain class only and you could argue that it's sufficient for a identity, but I would guess that number is really low.
The problem is that many people think "I want to create Necromancer", they see "Necromancer" subclass and immediate reaction is "That's the one I need, so I have to pick Witch". And to be honest with you, a lot will do exactly that, which in turn creates an this idea of a "forced choice".

"

laminarija wrote:

"

SerahWint wrote:

Ok I must admit Im slightly miffed that no one seems to have noticed my point where I adress much of what is discussed here...

Also, a lot of people seem to feel that the classes need more identity.
I just want a clarification on that. Why?
And please give me a well thought out answer. Not just a gut reaction.

I have never felt this because I envision my own identity in the game. For me thats in the process of dreaming up a build.

What works for you does not necessarily work for others, and if there is significant enough group of people concerned about that, it is reasonable to expect that something like this eventually is going to happen.
I myself see no real difference between Templar and Witch running same exact build, when I don't try to minmax stuff, which makes my class choices matter less, and with expansion this can change.
Sure there are cases currently where something can only be achieved by a certain class only and you could argue that it's sufficient for a identity, but I would guess that number is really low.
The problem is that many people think "I want to create Necromancer", they see "Necromancer" subclass and immediate reaction is "That's the one I need, so I have to pick Witch". And to be honest with you, a lot will do exactly that, which in turn creates an this idea of a "forced choice".

Well, from my perspective I must admit that all this seems very silly.
Its essentially a fix for people who lack imagination.
Tell me if I'm wrong on that