Reasonable people talk about ascendancy classes

@Andrew: Thanks. I don’t Reddit so I miss what all the game devs are doing these days. Good to know!

"

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

I suppose that depends on your objective and what you consider a convincing argument to be.

Your objective is to avoid class selection mattering in the slightest to builds, i.e. retain the system we have now. Clearly, no situation or argument which is presented in favor of Ascendancy classes being locked to base classes is going to work for you as you disagree with that particular methodology completely. To you, the loss of build flexibility is not worth the gain in build diversity and anyone who thinks otherwise should be playing something other than Path of Exile.

You’re forcing Ascendancy specs to be narrower than they are (“all these things do is force players to use cookie-cutter predetermined builds”) and claiming that an alternative is equivalent when it is not (“skillgem rebalances increase build diversity without causing all these other problems”). People have pointed out dozens of ways to go ‘against class’ with Ascendancies, and skillgem rebalances can’t do a tenth of what Ascendancy classes can do to promote new builds; even the new Skill Threshold stuff is generally not going to do anything to stop four out of five spellcasters from being Incinerate variants, or three out of five melee attackers being Reave spam. What your argument really boils down to is this:

“It’s always been this way. Why do we have to change it now?”

The answer to that is the same as it always is – because the way it’s always been isn’t necessarily the best way for it to be.

Oh jeez, now I finally get it. I was stuck on possible amounts of builds, not what ends up being the case in practice.
Still don't like it, but i get it. And how it creates more diversity among players.
Its essentially a quick and dirty way of "fixing" the original problem with the game.

That is, the number of viable builds and variety within those builds.
This would forcefully split that up in more variety. Instead of actually fixing it the proper way by making more skills viable and by giving us more build tools to support that.
Along with balancing different damage resistances(phys being way to overrepresented)

I must say, this leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. As it sort of shows that GGG don't have control over this "ship" anymore, if they engage in patchwork like this...

I'm not actually sure what your argument is?

Ascendancies make builds possible that weren’t possible before. They add things to the game that no simple skillgem rebalancing could ever add. Tweaking numbers on skills doesn’t really do anything to increase the scope of the game; whether or not Fireball is good or not doesn’t really matter to the overall breadth of Path of Exile. They could make Fireball the next Incinerate, and it wouldn’t really add anything to PoE that Fireball didn’t already add.

Ascendancies open up options and combinations that weren’t really possible before. Deadeye and the Ricochet node is my favorite example – there is so much more you can do with a skill when you’re not spending 50% more mana for 50% less damage to get Chaining projectiles. It reduces link requirements and brings new skills to the fore without GGG having to triple their numbers or whatever else.

If you’re arguing that a set of perfectly balanced skills would bring more variety and build diversity than Ascendancies…that may well be true, but it’s also a false correlation. Ascendancies and skill balancing have nothing to do with each other. You can add Ascendancies without skill balancing, or you can add Ascendancies and also adjust skill balance. The two actions are not exclusive of each other.

I have never once encountered any game where the game’s forum userbase did not decry the game as a horrific nigh-unplayable terribly unbalanced mess, from the day it released to the day it died. If you’re going to wait for the day the forums proclaim that all skills are perfectly balanced before GGG is allowed to try and introduce new features…well, we’ll all be playing 2.1.0 Awakening for a really, really, really, really long time.

Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving. Looks like a lot of stuff has come up here. I'm going to respond to some of it, starting halfway through page 3.

Thanks for the article laminajara. It's much more productive than acting indignant and condescending. I've seen a number of articles and videos, all of which say that GGG wants to make class matter more, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can or can't be locked out from other classes. Ascendancy classes give more class identity in both scenarios. To make guesses as to what GGG wants from all this, we have to know their intent and purpose. Even though these are all 3rd party sources, it's seems pretty conclusive that GGG intended to increase the significance of original class choice. I would much prefer a manifesto about all this, but looking at that article and a few others I'm now pretty sure GGG does not intend at all to make ascendancies accessible to other classes. This thread didn't start with the intent of forming a normative argument about whether they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do this (rather some subjective reactions to try to flesh out what the total implications are), but seeing GGG's intention as one way or the other does give weight to certain other arguments. Unfortunately, it also brings me back to some of my original concerns as well. Some or all of them may be resolvable, or GGG may not care if they're not, but it will be useful to understand what kinds of trade-offs are being made before I apply value judgments.

Before I revisit some of my original thoughts though, I have a bit to say on class identity and then build diversity. It doesn't matter if someone's reason for liking or hating ascendancies is an exotic personal reason. There's no reason to consider their personal feeling as carrying any less weight than functional gameplay, and in fact, most feedback I've ever seen that desires more class identity comes from just those kinds of arguments, ie "I want my duelist to FEEL like a duelist etc. I don't know if I've ever seen someone say "I want my duelist to function more like a duelist." The point here is really just a reiteration of the idea that class mattering more doesn't necessitate ascendancies being locked out or not.

On build diversity, there's a lot here that gets assumed but hasn't really been fleshed out. When people talk about their build, they see it as a total sum of all the choices they've made with their character, but then perhaps because we're conditioned by games where the skill tree is essential to and definitive of the build we often call the passive skill path we've chosen our build. While I think the sum total view is probably the most accurate definition of a build, it makes comparisons between pre- and post-ascension very difficult. When you see a build guide, the tree is a relatively small portion of the build as a whole. Gear, while also important, is not the definition of the build. While I don't have a decisive argument for this, if anyone can tell me something more fundamentally defining for any build than the skill gems used, I'd love to hear it. Some supports define the build functioning more than others, and gear and passives often support the usability or effectiveness of the build (often by replacing or substituting the function of an existing support gem), but I don't see how the gem links are not the best definition of what a build is outside the total view approach. Because this is getting lengthy, I'm going to continue my thoughts on build diversity in the following post.

It's important to note that PoE has historically chosen to allow unrestricted access in the passive tree for the very purpose of build variety. Pick a skill, make it work however you choose, that's your build. On that note, 1453R mentions the Ziggy article, which I think has some valid points, but I don't think it's entirely correct either. First, none of the things he said increased build diversity wouldn't apply if you had access to other ascendancies. Second, while I do think he makes a valuable differentiation between diversity and flexibility, he sets these as contrary terms and I don't think they are. I agree that the old system had more skill tree flexibility, but flexibility is a subset of diversity. Skill trees varied slightly around one type of build. What the build was was determined by the skill used, not by the tree used, which is something that has always been a part of GGG design philosophy. Pre-ascendancy skill trees were more like variations on a theme with the skills themselves providing the theme. Locked ascensions may provide more ways to make builds work (largely by taking the place of a gem slot or interacting in ways gems already do, like I mentioned in one of my earlier posts comparing Juggernaut and Champion), but I think we're stretching the truth if we say they introduce original builds. I don't think they add build diversity, but they may add diversity within builds. In that sense, I don't think it's fair to say they flat increase diversity at the cost of flexibility. Ziggy can weigh in here if he wants, I'd love to hear his thoughts.

Now, if there is more diversity in the way you make a build work, in the variations on themes, I again don't entirely see why that wouldn't be possible with access to any or all. You could here abandon the build diversity point, accept that there would likely be a loss of flexibility, and still say it's great because it adds new class identities (let's be clear, it doesn't enrich the original identity, just replaces it with 1 of 3 new ones - sidenote: I'm kinda surprised there's no benefit or named ascendancy for each original class name). This would be weighing two different kinds of things against each other, and we can do that, but I'm not going to do it here simply because this portion is just about build diversity. From a perspective entirely within build diversity, I don't see how ascendancies create more core builds. I do see how they enable latent or underutilized builds, and there's certainly value in that. Someone said that they do what no amount of skill gem rebalance does, and I think that's ludicrous considering that most of them do, in fact, do exactly what a skill gem does. BUT balancing can be very difficult when every active skill gem has to interact with a support gem in the same way. Ascendancies can function as mini skill gems, more build ennabling than a unique item, and much moreso than the rest of the skill tree (except maybe some keystone nodes), but not introducing new skills. I can get behind the value in that, and though I haven't fully thought it out, I actually am now liking it a lot. Again, though, I don't yet see how they wouldn't do that if openly accessible.

So a few final thoughts on my initial concerns. Sorry this is turning into a lot of text, but I hope the thoughts are valuable additions to the dialogue.

I still feel like ascensions make the skill tree as it is much less meaningful. They don't make existing classes more meaningful, but introduce 3 meaningful things in the place of each class. Not knowing what the skill trees will end up looking like, this concern could come out less meaningful than it feels now.

It does still make me feel like archetypes that don't match ascendancies would be lost. What if I wanted the sharp-witted rapier wielding duelist and now I'm portrayed as a tanky champion, gritty gladiator, or bloodthirsty slayer? Without access to other ascendancies, I think this risk is still something to be considered. Even with ascendancies this may not be resolved, however, so that's worth something.

I saw somewhere else it was suggested players be given an option to reset their class along with their skill tree, and that might alleviate the "damage" done to existing characters.

Finally, I like the idea of a duelist shooting leech fireballs, but in practice there are only so many optimal trees coming out of his immediate nodes. Without the flexibility of the passive tree you can't make it work in the first place, and weakening that foundation by introducing locked ascendancies may not be a net gain and is a bit dangerous. Sacrificing that flexibility to make new things work will only make them work if done very carefully. Is anyone going to do it and be a duelist and take the melee damage or attack speed nodes when they could just be a witch with a cool elemental ascendancy and come down for unwavering stance or wear an Eye? Probably. Will the FotM meta change at all for the better if this is an option? Probably not.

I am seeing a lot more value in ascendancies, and I'm still cautiously optimistic about them. I'm still not convinced we can't keep the flexibility and get new options as well by opening them up, but there is something to be said for innate identity, which is why most games have separate trees for each class. I'd be particularly interested in thoughts about the value of class identity as well as thoughts on build diversity.
/end

"

Biznits wrote:

...

I'll be honest with you, but I haven't read everything you've just posted yet. But from what I've read so far it seems your missing key reasoning for the ascendancy classes. I'll make my point again.
If you allow any class to access any ascendancies, or allow access by reaching certain starting position, this will remove the key reason why ascendancies are introduced. Let me give you an example. If Duelist would be allowed to access Witch ascendancy, what would make Duelist have more identity than he already has? Nothing. Because every other class would also have access to Witch ascendancies. Locking means that Duelist has something unique which makes you think/play/build differently for him, than you'll be doing for Marauder. This is something that affects your gameplay unlike something visual.

"

Biznits wrote:

...Someone said that they do what no amount of skill gem rebalance does, and I think that's ludicrous considering that most of them do, in fact, do exactly what a skill gem does...

That was me. To elaborate a little, since it does seem an odd point:

Say they decided to just flat double Fireball's damage. I'm not familiar enough with the game state at mapping levels to know if that'd be overkill, or not enough, but generally when you double something's damage output it gets attention. Regardless, say they adjust Fireball's damage to the point where it's competitive with Incinerate.

They have now added a new skill to the Short List of Acceptable Things To Do In Parties...but they haven't really added anything to the game. Fireball builds existed before this rebalance, and they'll continue to do so in mostly the same state they did before except people will actually use them, instead of it being relegated to casuals who play to 50 then realize their builds sucks and quit PoE. "Good Fireball" builds use the same support gems, the same supporting skill set-ups, the same gear, and the same everything else as "Bad Fireball" builds. There's no real difference between GF and BF when it comes to build set-up - most people with a few months' experience in the game and/or some forum lurking under their belt know how to set up a skill like Fireball to maximize its impact, regardless of how great or small that impact is in the final tally.

Ascendancies, on the other hand, act more like keystones in that they tend to change the rules on you. A Templar Fireball build (which would heavily emphasize crit to get those insane resistance-ignoring crits and blow through even the burliest of defenses) would be put together in fundamentally different ways than a Deadeye Fireball build (which would likely go for Endless Munitions and Powerful Precision, gaining piercing Fireballs that deal more damage in a wider area the further they move and spreadfiring without need for LMP/GMP), which would itself be fundamentally different than a Saboteur Fireball build (lay fifty Fireball traps, have them all explode at once, and watch the world burn). Those are different builds, which would use different supports, different supporting skillsets, different equipment and different passive tree allocations, because their Ascendancies cause their primary skill to behave in different ways.

Rebalancing skillgems would bring more skills to the fore, but those skills would still have what amounts to One Singular Optimal Set-Up. A Templar Fireball would work the same way as a Ranger Fireball would work the same way as a Shadow Fireball would work the same way as any other Fireball build on any other character. Ascendancies let two different classes play the same skill in very different ways, which I personally find to be more valuable than broadening the number of skills that can be run on same-y trees that only differ in execution during the first half of Normal.

There is a simple but however some what long term fix for this and thats only allow new characters access to the new Ascendency passives or we WILL have problems with people feeling that there beloved standard toon is the wrong class for the build they currently have.

Genuinely ask yourself if you would be happy to play your favourite build knowing that it is not now built correctly. And before people say yes but you could take a different Ascendency passive and be just as good that is true IF and only IF there weren't any build specific synergies like the necromancer any way you look at that if you want to build the best minion build you can you are going necro or its sub optimal.

Now I completely support this change as class identity is non existent in POE and I like the new synergies this will create, but it will narrow the options for certain builds to one or two classes vastly more than we had before because the Ascendancy passive match up so strongly with some builds that you cant ignore them and still be the same build.

Standard players will get a refund so they can switch build pretty easily, besides that they can level a new char to have the class they want for their favourite build (if they haven't got one already, this is standard after all...)