imo Mana, Energy Shield and Leech are not good enough

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

I would never use a bm gem on a caster, ever. Thats what I think about the downside of bm gems. Only char I use one on is cyclone, because it sort of demands it. I make my builds work on mana, I dont have builds that dont work, if it doesnt work I scrap it and move on. Not talking about what I play atm, that works, thats why I play it, Im talking about what should work.

ok, great- but fact remains BM is an easy bandage that bypasses all resource management. so do elreon rings btw, which I kinda left out. another absolutely terrible. zero-cost incinerate should not exist in this game, ever. shit is binary. either have a resource management structure that demands big sacrifice or not have it all. don't have fucking bandages. it's OK to take 20 nodes for resource management. and you can replace that '20' with x really. It's not an axiom that you need <y nodes to deal with resources and rest is life/defense/offense.

"

You guys are on some "negative feedback = player doing it wrong must attack feedback post" mindset and the things you are saying are so misplaced.

no, I have my negative feedback too. so does sid (although I dont want to speak for him).
my negative feedback is that things like BM gem, elreon jewelry, soul taker are absolutely terrible design that deems the part of the game I personally enjoy (resource management and sacrificing some of your defense/offense as needed) unneeded. not only that, that discrepancy makes for terrible balance

I disagree with your point simply because you want to sacrifice nothing and get full mana resource management. you want to min max to the point you're barely investing into mana. I mean, you say BM gem is a huge downside. From that I infer you think resource management should be super cheap, and you would most likely think sacrificing 20 nodes to get mana to not run out is a crazy man thinking. and congrats- that is exactly thinking inside the box.
I think its ok to go against the meta. its ok to have slow clears. you can clear a map twice as slow without those nodes - it wont hurt.

if Im wrong here- and you actually dont think so- please say so. Im 99% sure by sheer logic that you wouldnt like 20 nodes sacrificed for mana.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

grepman I know you mean well but I think you fundamentally misunderstand who I am, what my experiences are and the reason I am making these points. Youre talking to me like theres something you know about sustaining mana in this game that I dont already know, and thats unlikely. I think you mistake my motivations for posting and that is making you dismiss what I say, you are being presumptuous. So am I, my presumption is that I know all you know and have more experience putting it into practice than you with a wider range of budgets. Thats why this conversation isnt going to go anywhere. I already know the person you are arguing against doesnt exist, and for all I know Im completely wrong about you too. Its pointless, I dont feel like we are actually discussing the game.


If you sat down with my at my pc and I showed you builds for half an hour you would understand why the things some of you lot are saying to me are comical.

the difference, snorkle, is that I dont CARE who you are. you can be havoc. you can be kripp. you can be anuhart. you can be johnkeys. you can be etup. you can be chris wilson and mark_GGG all rolled in one.

I judge arguments strictly on the merit of the argument itself, not the stripes of the people making the argument. (there are obviously some sane floors like maybe 80 hours to discuss endgame but we're all hilariously past that floor). judging from your posts, you don't - too bad, but I'm not shedding any tears over that.

also, I dont have to be near your PC for you to explain things. you have time to write long posts, you can explain here in text or make a video. I know math. I know English. I know the game well enough.

you keep on saying that my points are comical without actually explaining how they are comical. those are just words without any argument. they are worthless.

and your explanation has to come independent from words 'ladder', 'meta'. we arent discussing competitive op builds. we're discussing inherent resource management in as much vacuum as possible. we obviously hold some 'pillar' axioms to be true, such as we need non-crazy-low health pool, and that anything in the game can be traded. and we can't zerg content/maps endlessly.

I've invested a lot into this game, but mana is one of the few things that seriously make me not want to contribute again and simply move on. Mana management is not fun.

"

Catchafire2000 wrote:

I've invested a lot into this game, but mana is one of the few things that seriously make me not want to contribute again and simply move on. Mana management is not fun.

why should mana management be 'fun' ?

"

grepman wrote:

and your explanation has to come independent from words 'ladder', 'meta'. we arent discussing competitive op builds. we're discussing inherent resource management in as much vacuum as possible. we obviously hold some 'pillar' axioms to be true, such as we need non-crazy-low health pool, and that anything in the game can be traded. and we can't zerg content/maps endlessly.

This is where you are wrong.

In this game, what basis do we have for judgements and comparisons? We can only compare stuff to other stuff. The whole point of the OP is comparing Mana, Energy Shield and Leech builds to other things that appear to be working fine/strongly/well enough/as intended.
In general*, casters are dogshit compared to end-game highly optimised attack-based builds on both the offensive and defensive fronts. You need to balance from the top down, casters may have a higher entry-point and easier low-end scaling, but their ceiling just isn't worth mentioning (in the vast majority of cases). This is where a lot of the people in this thread are coming from. If I'm looking at a build that could be fun, and have a relatively good idea of its destination and I don't like what I see, will I play that build? Not fucking likely.

"

Ashen_Shugar_IV wrote:

"

grepman wrote:

and your explanation has to come independent from words 'ladder', 'meta'. we arent discussing competitive op builds. we're discussing inherent resource management in as much vacuum as possible. we obviously hold some 'pillar' axioms to be true, such as we need non-crazy-low health pool, and that anything in the game can be traded. and we can't zerg content/maps endlessly.

This is where you are wrong.

In this game, what basis do we have for judgements and comparisons? We can only compare stuff to other stuff. The whole point of the OP is comparing Mana, Energy Shield and Leech builds to other things that appear to be working fine/strongly/well enough/as intended.
In general*, casters are dogshit compared to end-game highly optimised attack-based builds on both the offensive and defensive fronts. You need to balance from the top down, casters may have a higher entry-point and easier low-end scaling, but their ceiling just isn't worth mentioning (in the vast majority of cases). This is where a lot of the people in this thread are coming from. If I'm looking at a build that could be fun, and have a relatively good idea of its destination and I don't like what I see, will I play that build? Not fucking likely.

*

Feel free to point out all the "exceptions" you want. That ground has already been covered in other posts.

there are no 'exceptions', we just fundamentally disagree

comparing any build to an 'op' build that is 'competitive' and 'popular', to me, is incredibly fallacious, because you take the most overpowered builds that will get nerfed, to be the baseline- and not the rest of the stuff, which is INTENDED to be the baseline.

the op builds are result of people playing the game and doing so quite sheepishly. they don't want to play by GGG's intentions.

I mean, AA was designed by GGG to be a temp buff, and people then used it in a perma way. GGG at some point thinks enough is enough and takes it away. People QQ about something that wasnt working as intended and was too easy to get. those builds you are saying that are 'working as intended' are really not.

if we're talking about top builds, let's just stop pretending then that we care about resource management. the top builds heavily min/max EVERYTHING and take the easiest paths in any and every way. the top builds want to minimize resource management as much as possible. basically it's going against the whole resource management design. the top builds try to try to squeeze as much free shit as possible and 'circumvent' hurdles GGG specifically puts in order to balance things and make things challenging.

this is why top builds dont invest in mana nowadays. now tell me where Im wrong and where a top build actually sacrifices anything significant for resource management.

sorry, comparing things to op builds is exactly the thinking inside the box Im talking about. nothing good ever comes of it. especially nothing good with resource management

Ive said it before in this thread, WHEN BEST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IS NO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, THEN YOURE DOING IT WRONG. we arrive at conclusion that if we want to play op builds, we need to have no resource management because omgz its too thin elsewhere.

cant wait till BM gem and elreon rings (and hopefully soul taker but Im not holding my breath) are removed. this will actually FORCE people to invest in resource management. some shit like taxes you have to enforce because otherwise people will always find loopholes. it's my conclusion that GGG needs to FORCE people into resource management. the outcry you hear right now is the first wave.

so again, I challenge anyone to show me a 'top' build that doesnt consider resource management an unnecessary burden, and also did so before 2.0 without dumb bandages like EB/BM gem/elreon jewelry

like Ive said, if this is the case and you think its normal to min-max everything and have no resource management being your best form of resource management, lets just remove mana altogether. to me, thats preposterous. but thats what logically is the conclusion. if players dont wanna sacrifice a gem slot, they sure as hell wont want to sacrifice 10+ nodes for resource management

so no, lets not compare to top tier builds. or just agree mana needs to be removed altogether. you either min/max to extreme or don't.

this why I want to separate the flies from the meat- dont mention top builds, dont mention meta. talk about resource management and what its supposed to do in the game

the whole complaint basically boils down to 'I need to invest in resource management but I dont wanna sacrifice damage or eHP, because look at the other guys'. I want the people in question stop pointing fingers at op shit, forget the 'wanna', and realize that resource management is designed to be meaningful for a reason - if not, lets just remove the mana altogether.

just to reiterate- Im REALLY annoyed by the line of thinking 'because top x players play like it that, its working as intended'. that is not only highly and completely illogical, it reeks of sheep.

just because everyone was running with perma AA, IT WASNT INTENDED.

in the same vein if top builds try to bypass resource management any way they can, doesnt mean it's 'working as intended'- on the contrary, it means that GGG needs to ASAP force people to not be able to circumvent it. or remove it altogether so all qqers can enjoy the permaspam

Oh grepman, where to begin?


I am not talking about whats "OP" or "meta" or "flavour of the month" I am talking about an exile's path.
Their path from being dumped on the Twilight Strand to challenging the gods of Wraeclast.
When I start or play a build, I do not want some lulzy docks farmer that isn't really good for much else. I want to invest, I want to keep chasing my ceiling, you understand this is irrespective of the specifics of the build or the community? Balance needs to come from the ceiling --> down.

This thread has been talking about comparisons between different ceilings and why they aren't as balanced as they could or should be.

Regarding temporary buffs; If I find myself using a temporary buff, I might also find myself asking "How can I get the most out of this buff?" The most obvious answer is to have it on as much as possible (ie, all the time). I see a goal and aim towards it. You want an optimal outcome, to extract maximum benefit. This is basic human nature no?

If a "finished" build struggles with its resources, it is not "finished". Resource Management represents an obstacle to overcome, nothing more.

"

Ashen_Shugar_IV wrote:

Oh grepman, where to begin?


I am not talking about whats "OP" or "meta" or "flavour of the month" I am talking about an exile's path.
Their path from being dumped on the Twilight Strand to challenging the gods of Wraeclast.
When I start or play a build, I do not want some lulzy docks farmer that isn't really good for much else.

and some others dont even get to maps. so ?

"

I want to invest, I want to keep chasing my ceiling, you understand this is irrespective of the specifics of the build or the community?

sure

"

Balance needs to come from the ceiling --> down.

Im not sure what this means, if this means curbing builds that stand out, I agree.

"

This thread has been talking about comparisons between different ceilings and why they aren't as balanced as they could or should be.

no, this thread is about specific resource management mechanics compared to the most powerful builds. anything compared to the top builds will feel inadequate. therefore its pointless to compare anything to top level builds.

"

Regarding temporary buffs; If I find myself using a temporary buff, I might also find myself asking "How can I get the most out of this buff?" The most obvious answer is to have it on as much as possible (ie, all the time). I see a goal and aim towards it. You want an optimal outcome, to extract maximum benefit. This is basic human nature no?

my point if it was designed as temporary buff, you should not find a way to keep it on as much as possible to the point of having it perma-on and act like ITS INTENDED. that would be just lying to yourself and to others.

"

If a "finished" build struggles with its resources, it is not "finished". Resource Management represents an obstacle to overcome, nothing more.

define 'struggling'. to some, thats using several tools/skills and maybe pots to sustain mana. if thats the case, then sure it's a finished build. no one said a finished build doesnt have to use 1)mana pot 2)warcries 3)clarity 4)reduced mana cost/mana nodes/RM gem and so on. there is no such rule, sorry.
if you mean struggling as in even if you employ many different tools and sacrificing a good amount of your survivability and damage, you still fail to muster some mana for your build, I agree then.

"

Calling Horseshit on this one. Level 1 AA was ludicrously easy to sustain, even on pure STR characters. Suggesting the devs did not intend or expect for characters to have low levels (at least) of Arctic Armour permanently active is just asinine.

I dont know about low levels, but devs themselves have stated that AA was supposed to be and designed as a temp buff, just like RF. so if you're calling horseshit on that, you're effectively calling them liars.

"

grepman wrote:

if you mean struggling as in even if you employ many different tools and sacrificing a good amount of your survivability and damage, you still fail to muster some mana for your build, I agree then.

This is basically the thread.

"

grepman wrote:

devs themselves have stated that AA was supposed to be and designed as a temp buff, just like RF. so if you're calling horseshit on that, you're effectively calling them liars.

Good call. By definition they are temporary because they expired when certain conditions were met. This does not necessarily mean that players were never intended to be able to delay or avoid those conditions indefinitely. Actions speak louder than words. In the case of Righteous Fire it's never been particularly difficult to achieve permanency, GGG even approved a supporter's unique specifically meant to help enable Permanent RF. Why would they contradict their own intentions in this manner?