Reasonable people talk about ascendancy classes

"
SerahWint wrote:
"
Boem wrote:
...

Please reread my proposal. It includes analyzes of the balance issues you brought up.

The only reason for not liking my idea is that you feel a lack of class identity in the game.
And I still don't get that.
The identity is in the starting position, all the choices you make when you build and level your character. Your choice of skills, etc etc.
Thats your "class" identity. You build your own. And thats fantastic. Its the only game on the market that does this. And now suddenly most players it seems, aren't happy with that.
And I find myself scratching my head. Why play Poe then?

You're confusing "your" identity with "class" identity, that's why you don't understand it.
"
SerahWint wrote:
Nicely put together post :)

I sort of arrived at the same solution myself. Gating the new classes via the passive tree.
The main argument for this, and also an argument for why this doesn't create more balance problems for GGG than they have already done for themselves. Is that you can do the reverse already.

That is, If I choose champion and want to take some of the talents from the Templar starting position, I'm completely free to do so. But you cant go from Templar to Champion for some reason... This has nothing to do with balance, but is an artistic choice from GGG side.
Also neglecting the core design philosophy of POE since its inception. That is, complete freedom to create your own character any way you want, within some reasonable limits(talent point efficiency).

And they can keep all their new art assets and everything this way. Its a fairly minor tweak for them to do, and they wont split the community like they are now.


I am going to assume your last post referred to this one?

Your correct in essence that it's irrelevant if you can travel to the other starting position. But it's this irrelevance that makes it a poor argument.

"why not use the other class then?"

And then the answer becomes some exotic personal reason like ,

- i don't like a templar because he has no pants.
- i don't like to play a female character.
- i don't like the audio of character X.

And i already said this in another thread, in all of those cases my response is simple.

Grow up.

Those are not legit argumentation's against the current system in place. they are personal preference which are irrelevant to argument against something that could have profound balance issue's later on.

The exclusivity allows for character identity. Don't like that identity, pick another and work around it.
If you are allowed to travel to another starting position, the identity is no longer limited/exclusive and it undermines the goal of the entire system.
(to differentiate the play-style of a ranger projectile caster, a shadow projectile caster or a witch etc)

also the notion that people lack creativity in the current system is dubious at best, since the same could be posed for people that can't "work" with the new suggested sub-class system.
It to will require a certain amount of creativity to build off-class or snowflake builds.

Peace,

-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
It seems to me that there are only a couple of differences between 'You can select an ascendancy only from your starting class' and 'You can select an ascendancy from any start node connected in your passive tree'.

First, taking an ascendancy from a connected class other than your start means that you have to take two complete sets of starter nodes. This is probably not the most efficient point-wise, and thus might never show up in a min-maxed optimal build guide - the guides that a lot of players base their characters around.

Second, it would let you effectively choose between two (or more) character appearances/voices for the same passive tree investment.

The first is strictly negative, and the second could be achieved in other ways if GGG hears enough interest in altering character appearances - it's purely cosmetic, and could be an MTX.

I see no compelling case for allowing an ascendancy outside your initial class selection with the proposed mechanism.

As to the complaints that an ascendancy forces players into a confining, cookie cutter build and eliminates imagination or creativity, I just don't see that at all in the mechanics of the nodes previewed so far.

Let's consider the one class for which we've got previews of all the ascendancy trees: Duelist.

Could a dual-wielding melee duelist find 6 points worth of useful ascendancy nodes? Certainly, that's a core play style for the class.

Could a melee duelist using a shield find useful nodes? Again, that's a core play style.

Could a two-handed melee duelist find useful nodes? Slayer ascendancy is that on the surface.

Could a bow-using duelist find useful nodes? Easily, since bows are two handed weapons for Slayers.

Could a physical wand-using duelist find useful nodes? Yes.

Could a spell-based duelist find useful nodes? Even in this case, the answer is yes with permanent fortify.

Are all possible builds starting from duelist equally optimal? Not now, not after ascendancy. At least after ascendancy they will not be strictly and objectively weaker than starting the same build from a different class, which means more scope for creative builds.

The most reasonable argument I've heard in favor of having ascendancy accessible somehow from other classes is from people who simply like one or more character appearances/voices better than others, but still want to be able to play with any mechanics. I'd rather see GGG make an MTX to allow that than change the mechanics of ascendancy, especially if it saves players from having to make crazy unoptimized passive trees.
"
laminarija wrote:
You're confusing "your" identity with "class" identity, that's why you don't understand it.


... I thought this was an RPG. Isn't that the entire point? Creating your own identity in the game by using all the tools you have available?

Why would you want a cut and pasted option decided for you?

.. Yea, you know what, I don't think you and I want the same thing. And thats the rub of it.
I just wish they would have included both of us in the design decisions they make.

The thing that really gets to me is that if they did something like what me and many others have proposed from the start. Everyone would have probably been happy

This just feel unnecessary
Last edited by SerahWint on Nov 25, 2015, 9:36:01 AM
"
1453R wrote:

Choice of Ascendancy class has been stated to be permanent - no switching from Slayer to Gladiator and back. Respecs within the singular chosen Ascendancy class will more than likely be possible, though five points per Asc. respec strikes me as likely.


https://www.reddit.com/r/pathofexile/comments/3tlubz/path_of_exile_ascendancy_official_trailer/cx7mgzy
Last edited by PritzlPoppers on Nov 25, 2015, 10:34:14 AM
@Serah:

I found a very good video the other day that described what it is Ascendancy classes are actually doing. I'll link it below, but will also summarize first because that's what I do.

Essentially, right now there are maybe a dozen-ish Viable Top-End Builds, with various assorted minor variations inamongst them, any single example of which is generally attainable by between two and seven of the starter classes. This is build flexibility - the ability for a single build to encompass multiple starting characters because as every Path of Exile player knows, choice of starting class is the only choice in PoE that has no meaning or impact whatsoever on your character.

What this is not, however, is build diversity. The same build, executable with a five-node difference on four separate classes, is still the same build. It's one build that can be hung on four different VA packs, which does not promote diversity. Rather the opposite, actually - this intense build flexibility harms build diversity by removing a choice from the game - choice of beginning class. Since your class has no identity, specialization, or in fact any other performance impact on your build whatsoever much beyond level 40-ish, that choice is rendered meaningless and thus it is not a choice at all, save a cosmetic one. It's not a choice you can use to differentiate your build from someone else's, because your Ranger build can also be done by anyone running a Shadow, a Duelist, and and Scion, as well.

Ascendancy classes sacrifice build flexibility - the ability to run the same identical build from two to seven 'different' starts - in order to promote much greater build diversity - the ability to create new and different builds that work for you. Can you play the exact same Arc build on Witch, Templar, Shadow and Scion anymore? No, not anymore. Can you play an Arc Witch, an Arc Templar, an Arc Shadow, and an Arc Scion, all of which are viable but each with their own unique spins on how to Arc? Sure, absolutely.

And again, these Ascendancy classes aren't pigeonholing anybody. Let's assume, for the moment, that you want to run a caster Duelist but are for some reason allergic to the Fortify buff. Okay. Let's do this instead. Take Slayer, go with Brutal Fervor, Endless Hunger and Headsman. All of those deal with either 'hits', which spells can do as well as attacks can, or with leeching, which you can do on spells via support gems or Warlord's Mark. While leeching your caster Duelist can't be stunned, they get extra damage while leeching, and also they get a big additive damage bonus against low-life enemies and a chance for Onslaught on kill - all things that could be useful to a caster.

Yes, that set-up ignores the Ascendancy minors and is likely not really 'optimal', but remember - this is a spellcaster using the Slayer Asc. class, which is possibly the biggest mismatch in the currently revealed specializations. And yet you can still derive considerable benefit from the tree, and do so while being a DUELIST and not simply a bad Witch, or a bad Shadow, or a bad Scion. You can leech constantly, even on full life, and be stunproof while you do - that's an Unwavering Stance keystone you don't have to take, which could be just the thing you wanted for a low-life Righteous Fire build or some such.

This change is giving the players more choice Serah, not less. For the first time in PoE history, class selection will be more than an unfortunately permanent cosmetic selection. I think that's awesome, and I want to see where this goes.

Mentioned video:
ZiggyD on Asc. Classes and Diversity
.
Last edited by Entropic_Fire on Oct 26, 2016, 5:14:24 PM
"
1453R wrote:
@Serah:

I found a very good video the other day that described what it is Ascendancy classes are actually doing. I'll link it below, but will also summarize first because that's what I do.

Essentially, right now there are maybe a dozen-ish Viable Top-End Builds, with various assorted minor variations inamongst them, any single example of which is generally attainable by between two and seven of the starter classes. This is build flexibility - the ability for a single build to encompass multiple starting characters because as every Path of Exile player knows, choice of starting class is the only choice in PoE that has no meaning or impact whatsoever on your character.

What this is not, however, is build diversity. The same build, executable with a five-node difference on four separate classes, is still the same build. It's one build that can be hung on four different VA packs, which does not promote diversity. Rather the opposite, actually - this intense build flexibility harms build diversity by removing a choice from the game - choice of beginning class. Since your class has no identity, specialization, or in fact any other performance impact on your build whatsoever much beyond level 40-ish, that choice is rendered meaningless and thus it is not a choice at all, save a cosmetic one. It's not a choice you can use to differentiate your build from someone else's, because your Ranger build can also be done by anyone running a Shadow, a Duelist, and and Scion, as well.

Ascendancy classes sacrifice build flexibility - the ability to run the same identical build from two to seven 'different' starts - in order to promote much greater build diversity - the ability to create new and different builds that work for you. Can you play the exact same Arc build on Witch, Templar, Shadow and Scion anymore? No, not anymore. Can you play an Arc Witch, an Arc Templar, an Arc Shadow, and an Arc Scion, all of which are viable but each with their own unique spins on how to Arc? Sure, absolutely.

And again, these Ascendancy classes aren't pigeonholing anybody. Let's assume, for the moment, that you want to run a caster Duelist but are for some reason allergic to the Fortify buff. Okay. Let's do this instead. Take Slayer, go with Brutal Fervor, Endless Hunger and Headsman. All of those deal with either 'hits', which spells can do as well as attacks can, or with leeching, which you can do on spells via support gems or Warlord's Mark. While leeching your caster Duelist can't be stunned, they get extra damage while leeching, and also they get a big additive damage bonus against low-life enemies and a chance for Onslaught on kill - all things that could be useful to a caster.

Yes, that set-up ignores the Ascendancy minors and is likely not really 'optimal', but remember - this is a spellcaster using the Slayer Asc. class, which is possibly the biggest mismatch in the currently revealed specializations. And yet you can still derive considerable benefit from the tree, and do so while being a DUELIST and not simply a bad Witch, or a bad Shadow, or a bad Scion. You can leech constantly, even on full life, and be stunproof while you do - that's an Unwavering Stance keystone you don't have to take, which could be just the thing you wanted for a low-life Righteous Fire build or some such.

This change is giving the players more choice Serah, not less. For the first time in PoE history, class selection will be more than an unfortunately permanent cosmetic selection. I think that's awesome, and I want to see where this goes.

Mentioned video:
ZiggyD on Asc. Classes and Diversity


I did see that video when it first came out. It didn't make a convincing argument as to why you have to lock classes to promote diversity.
In fact, it doesn't make one at all.

If you want more build diversity you make more skills viable end game, and introduce more tools into the game to do that. You don't need this
"
SerahWint wrote:

I did see that video when it first came out. It didn't make a convincing argument as to why you have to lock classes to promote diversity.
In fact, it doesn't make one at all.

If you want more build diversity you make more skills viable end game, and introduce more tools into the game to do that. You don't need this

Well, to me it looks that GGG did exactly what you're saying. Yet with very next sentence you're contradicting yourself.
You're continuing saying the same thing no matter what argument anyone provides, this does not make a meaningful discussion.
The thread tittle is a lie!

Peace,

-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info