Apparently even just 5% increased radius is considered 'going all-in on aoe' to GGG.

"

Aynix wrote:

"

kms1320 wrote:

More area is still good. Arguably it's even more important now to get all the area nodes that you can.

It's not. Because after some point, getting that 8% elememental damage or 10% spell damage will be way better than 5% more AoE.

well, due to my tree for my planned build for 2.6, I suppose it means I will not need to add an increased area gem, and might be able to run a concentrated effect gem full time for a perm "more" damage multiplier.

"

Nephalim wrote:

"

Aynix wrote:

"

kms1320 wrote:

More area is still good. Arguably it's even more important now to get all the area nodes that you can.

It's not. Because after some point, getting that 8% elememental damage or 10% spell damage will be way better than 5% more AoE.

Not true. High end builds will reach a threshold where more damage does not equate to anymore clear speed so only movespeed(or attack speed for whirling blades) and iaoe will mean anything.

Unless you farm guardians its laughably easy to reach a 1 shot threshold for T15 and under mobs.

Valid point too

GGGs balance team is worst in history

Broke any life witches with EB change. think life is better than ES. Cant fix name lock melee for years.

Oh well we all play by same rules at the end of the day so their imbalanced game effects us all equally meaning its fair.

"

kms1320 wrote:

More area is still good. Arguably it's even more important now to get all the area nodes that you can.

That's probably the other thing that tickles me the most... 'we don't want people feeling compelled to pick up all the area they can, so we're going to nerf it all across the board and make people who *were* already settling for less feel their investment now inadequate, compelling them to pick up more to break even'.


Nerfing extreme area stacking is fine, but there should have been a threshold (above 0%) where a certain 'reasonable' amount of investment breaks even from the changes, and below that even benefits (which is what Rory's words implied, but the numbers didn't live up to).

Like, around 25-35% increased radius seems like reasonable investment to me, where you're not going out of your way much at all. That should be a break-even threshold... adjust the numbers to where anything above that amount gets nerfed, anything below breaks even or is slightly buffed, i.e. multiply existing 'increased radius' values by about 2.25~2.35 when they're converted to 'increased area'.

Instead GGG's multiplied all the existing numbers by 2 or less, which NEVER breaks even, even at the most minor of investments. The only exception is Deadeye's "Endless Munitions" getting multiplied by 2.5, which is kinda funny when you consider these sweeping aoe nerfs everywhere else are already gonna push projectile builds even more to the forefront.

I use vortex, I assume its going to be smaller. I also use the Star of Wraeclast, and apparently even though it is corrupted by default...you can use a divine orb on it now to change the curse aoe modifier?

And if I do, will that stupidly reroll all the other affixes or do the normal corruption rules apply? I'm not even sure if it would actually improve it in the first place.

"

RubySydell wrote:

I use vortex, I assume its going to be smaller. I also use the Star of Wraeclast, and apparently even though it is corrupted by default...you can use a divine orb on it now to change the curse aoe modifier?

And if I do, will that stupidly reroll all the other affixes or do the normal corruption rules apply? I'm not even sure if it would actually improve it in the first place.

can't divine it at all. Even if you could, it'd likely brick the other rolls.

"

Shppy wrote:

"

kms1320 wrote:

More area is still good. Arguably it's even more important now to get all the area nodes that you can.

That's probably the other thing that tickles me the most... 'we don't want people feeling compelled to pick up all the area they can, so we're going to nerf it all across the board and make people who *were* already settling for less feel their investment now inadequate, compelling them to pick up more to break even'.


Nerfing extreme area stacking is fine, but there should have been a threshold (above 0%) where a certain 'reasonable' amount of investment breaks even from the changes, and below that even benefits (which is what Rory's words implied, but the numbers didn't live up to).

Like, around 25-35% increased radius seems like reasonable investment to me, where you're not going out of your way much at all. That should be a break-even threshold... adjust the numbers to where anything above that amount gets nerfed, anything below breaks even or is slightly buffed, i.e. multiply existing 'increased radius' values by about 2.25~2.35 when they're converted to 'increased area'.

Instead GGG's multiplied all the existing numbers by 2 or less, which NEVER breaks even, even at the most minor of investments. The only exception is Deadeye's "Endless Munitions" getting multiplied by 2.5, which is kinda funny when you consider these sweeping aoe nerfs everywhere else are already gonna push projectile builds even more to the forefront.

if your job was to make increased aoe gem and increased area nodes/items feel non-mandatory, what would you do ?

lets say you HAVE to make something else besides aoe gem (and conc, obviously for swapping) be at least one in a 10. out of 10 players using an aoe skill ibe would use something else aside from aoe gem and doesnt go straight for aoe nodes.

projectile coverage heavily depends on hard less damage reductions. chain that is not built-in has a serious downside. so does GMP. even LMP, really. all the original coverage increasers in projectile area (and I dont mean stuff like slow proj, pierce multiplier, etc) have had a heavy cost. and as such, projectile users have some meaningful choice.

what does aoe gem has as a downside ? nothing. it provides humongous coverage and when you face a boss not only you swap in conc for a huge more multiplier.

you gotta admit, their logic makes a lot of sense.
what are some aoe builds that dont want to invest heavily in aoe ? the very,very few are those that already has a decent base aoe.

hell, Chris even explicitly says the aoe changes were to create choice.

"

grepman wrote:

if your job was to make increased aoe gem and increased area nodes/items feel non-mandatory, what would you do ?

You'll never make increased aoe mechs feel less mandatory. That's a ridiculously foolish notion, that's like saying extra arrow mechanics shouldn't feel mandatory for most bow skills... there's skill options that don't need it, sure, but there's many that do to clear effectively and you're not about to change that. If there were extra projectile passives in the tree, everyone and their mother running a projectile build would find them mandatory too.


If you want increased aoe support to feel like more of an option? Add a 'less damage' line and let it stay at about the same overall area increase it'd currently give (about 95% increased area at level 20). While they're at it, nerf the shit out of concentrated effect's 'more area damage' line because that's just a stupid degree of damage amp that's allowing area skills to out-damage single-target skills. Conc effect should be like slower projectiles, it should have a modest damage amp and a cut to the aoe that can have mechanical advantages for some skills (like firestorm and bladefall, in the same way slower proj has extra mechanical advantages for ball lightning and spectral throw). Basically, inc aoe and conc effect should be to area what gmp and slower proj are to projectiles.


If you want increased area nodes in the tree to not feel mandatory? Tough shit, you won't. The only way they won't feel mandatory to some degree is if they don't exist. Otherwise, I think the better way to handle it would be to lower the increased area of the existing two clusters (in exchange for adding more area damage or other utility) and add area clusters in every other class' areas of comparable strength... the nearby ones will still feel like mandatory gets, but stretching out to grab further away class' areas wouldn't be wise unless you functionally NEED it. Leaving those two clusters as the only places to get it doesn't make them feel less mandatory even if they're nerfed... it just punishes people that do need to get them to function.

so then, isnt your answer an indictment of the increased aoe nodes in the tree? and thus indirectly justifying having them be reduced in power? yeah it'd be better if they didn't exist but they do for now.

I also don't understand the 'foolish notion' part. Sure you want extra projs but it's not like every build runs GMP. so there's a breakpoint at which it's not worth it to get more projectiles,for some builds.

pre aoe change, there is no such breakpoint for aoe. whereas there's a meaningful choice between lmp and GMP to which the answer is 'depends' the answer to aoe is a simple 'yes'.

finally, I never got or get the affinity for builds that barely work by maxing a certain mechanic. there's always builds like that in every mechanic that will get shat on once that mechanic is nerfed. that doesn't mean it shouldn't be nerfed

that's like opposing poison nerf because a build that uses poison to make something like cleave decent will be 'not functional' now. if there's ever a foolish notion, it's that one imo