Passive Tree became kinda boring

"

Kyliathy wrote:

*Snip.*

Truth be told, as it stands, the Passive Tree could dump ~50% of its content and I wouldn't miss a thing. This isn't the way it should be. We should be tempted to go with anything.

What are your thoughts?

What I'm hearing, here, is "There's too much bread in this sandwich."

Not every passive node is gonna be a keystone. There will be plenty of pathway nodes which are simply boosts to "boring" things in which you might not otherwise choose to invest a passive skill point (stats, in particular), were they not in your way, and which you might well miss had you not.

I enjoy the skill tree, and part of my anticipation is in getting closer and closer to those really juicy skills I'm heading toward. The reward comes when you finally get there, even though you're actually accumulating more subtle benefits along the way. =^[.]^=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

Kyliathy wrote:

*Snip.*

Truth be told, as it stands, the Passive Tree could dump ~50% of its content and I wouldn't miss a thing. This isn't the way it should be. We should be tempted to go with anything.

What are your thoughts?

What I'm hearing, here, is "There's too much bread in this sandwich."

Not every passive node is gonna be a keystone. There will be plenty of pathway nodes which are simply boosts to "boring" things in which you might not otherwise choose to invest a passive skill point (stats, in particular), were they not in your way, and which you might well miss had you not.

I enjoy the skill tree, and part of my anticipation is in getting closer and closer to those really juicy skills I'm heading toward. The reward comes when you finally get there, even though you're actually accumulating more subtle benefits along the way. =^[.]^=

Perfectly said.

If everything was a keystone, there would be no keystones.

It seems as if each class has a designated build, and if you build away from that build, your fu**ed. I would also like to see more passives buffed so im encouraged to try wacky builds.

Raycheetah & Primality: that's not what I'm saying AT ALL. Of course not everything should be a Keystone! ::- ). But some Passives need bumping: Flask boosts, per-weapon Boosts.

That is all and exactly what I'm saying.

The stuff about 50% of the tree being useless isn't about the path nodes! It's about Flasks boosts, Totem boosts and other Passives which are pointless to take unless you're experimenting and have great weapons & items to complement for your experimenting with low-R.O.Investment passives.

What I'm saying is that some areas of the tree should be boosted because otherwise the diversity of the tree has to suffer. For example, for my Marauder chars, I can only go with 3-4 different builds, whereas had the Tree been boosted in 2-3 places, the number of builds would increase to 5-6.

Bogeyoggy: I don't think so and that is because:

All: I still am very happy with the tree and it's one of the strengths of this game. AT LEAST WE HAVE BUILDS. *REAL* builds. But it could be better! I just gave a few pointers for areas of improvement.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

Kyliathy wrote:

*Snip.*

Truth be told, as it stands, the Passive Tree could dump ~50% of its content and I wouldn't miss a thing. This isn't the way it should be. We should be tempted to go with anything.

What are your thoughts?

What I'm hearing, here, is "There's too much bread in this sandwich."

No, not at all correct. That is a terrible summary.

He is saying that some little nodes not only go nowhere, but they also do nothing.

An excellent thread that covered this recently is here:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/35134

The point being, if you look at the really effective builds out there, the ones doing MoC and not having much trouble with it, even carrying other people in their party, you're going to find tons of sections of the skill tree that simply aren't used at all.

I disagree with some of what Ky is saying, the things like totem boosts and trap boosts aren't useless to the people that are using them, but there are definitely swaths of the tree that are just bad.

It looks as though some of those weapon specific "advantages" have been made through active skills, such as Glacial Hammer (maces), or Viper Strike (swords).

But yeah I had the exact same reflection: why go for sword/axe/mace with my melee Ranger if I can take One Handed weapon bonuses instead?

On the Marauder side I see "reduced enemy chance to block sword attacks".

"

Kyliathy wrote:

Raycheetah & Primality: that's not what I'm saying AT ALL. Of course not everything should be a Keystone! ::- ). But some Passives need bumping: Flask boosts, per-weapon Boosts.

That is all and exactly what I'm saying.

The stuff about 50% of the tree being useless isn't about the path nodes! It's about Flasks boosts, Totem boosts and other Passives which are pointless to take unless you're experimenting and have great weapons & items to complement for your experimenting with low-R.O.Investment passives.

Before playing each of my characters, I create a concept of that character. What exactly do I want the character to be good at, and what will I have to sacrifice in order to make this happen? After creating the concept, I go to Skilldrassil and plan my route. And a lot of times, I do take per-weapon passives. The reason is because they occur in clusters and the benefits can really stack up.

Here is a good example. I have a dual-wielding duelist who specializes in swords. Early game, I head straight for the sword cluster that gives me % increased damage AND accuracy. Sure the % increased damage per node is less than the 10% increased melee damage nodes, but I'm also getting accuracy and these nodes are clustered so each point is spent on progress toward my character concept. There are no true 'path nodes' in between. And the real benefit is using these clusters as 'path nodes' themselves, on the way to build-defining keystones.

I don't see a problem as majorly as you do. Maybe certain nodes could be buffed, but each node could only be buffed marginally because most of the nodes you are referring to I believe are clustered? Correct me if I'm wrong here, because I most certainly could be. Maybe pointing me to a specific part of the tree where you see a problem, because I mean that thing is HUGE and we could easily be seeing different parts differently...

But, going back to my character concept rant, I would rarely have a hard time choosing between 10% increased melee physical damage vs. % increased sword damage and accuracy -- I would end up trying to find a way to get both on my path, especially because I often play with a Marauder in my party who acts as 'tanky' as he can, and so I can trade in a little bit of survivability for extra DPS.

My keystone comment before was exaggerated but my point still stands -- if there are more of a certain type of node, they will almost surely be weaker per node (i.e., cluster nodes are weaker per node than 10% increased melee damage 'path nodes').

^ This.

There is a reason all those "useless" nodes are there; even if a given player doesn't see it, they provide flexibility in the choices available to others who might. I won't debate the relative value of the nodes themselves (in terms of percentages or the utility of the effects), but the skill tree provides plenty of grist for a creative player's mill. Much of the fun is ferreting out ways to use what is presented, rather than dismissing it all as "boring." =^[.]^=

Well to their defense they made it more manageable by using those circles that have things thematically grouped together. If they could color code these lightly or add visual contrast it might be even easier to read, as a sort of level 1 > level 2 visual separation.

Raycheetah: I said "kinda" boring. Ok, maybe I should've picked a better word ::- D. I wanted to stir the waters a bit ::- ).

Primality: all right. Hm, perhaps I exaggerated a bit with all this. I do think some areas need to be buffed, especially the Flasks stuff which actually started this Topic (under a different title), something you appear to agree as well.