Reasonable people talk about ascendancy classes

"

SerahWint wrote:

Well, from my perspective I must admit that all this seems very silly.
Its essentially a fix for people who lack imagination.
Tell me if I'm wrong on that

You're right to some degree. Let's consider another example.
Do you know how classes are currently differentiated? If you look at class wheel it's pretty obvious. Witch is INT, Templar is STR/INT, Marauder is STR and so on. Simple and easy to follow. With that in mind when you look at passive tree it all makes sense as well. Which is covered by lot of INT related stuff where Templar has both INT and STR related nodes. If you leave it at that no one could argue that classes don't have enough identity. But reality is different. There is no restriction for Templar to go into Witch territory, which shifts Templars original paradigm if you will from STR/INT towards INT thus breaking his identity.

Does that make more sense?

"

MrTremere wrote:

"

laminarija wrote:

(...)

What's the issue? There is as much identity to the templar as you want there to be. You get to pick your flavors around the tree, instead of having to pick from a select number of flavors.

We'll I don't have infinite number of examples and arguments to describe the issue for someone who has no interest of understanding it.

"

MrTremere wrote:

Please do not misunderstand me : I do understand your point of view.
However, I do believe that it is important for players to be able to go on radically different directions from the ones that are the most obvious. For example, there was at some point a templar version of a mirror arrow/blink arrow build that was quite powerful. This is a lot less likely to happen with bonuses being locked behind a specific subclass.
This is why I like the idea of being able to gain access to other classes' subclasses.
Subclasses as a way of having sets of nodes that exclude each other is fine.
Subclasses as a way of forcing players into archetypes is terrible.

Hardly true considering that the build is possible because of passive tree/gear which is not going to disappear when next expansion hits us. Second, we're still to see what are the remaining ascendancy classes. Calling end of times before that is silly. Third, being able to access other class ascendancy will eliminate entire reason behind ascendancy in the first place.

"

laminarija wrote:

"

SerahWint wrote:

Well, from my perspective I must admit that all this seems very silly.
Its essentially a fix for people who lack imagination.
Tell me if I'm wrong on that

You're right to some degree. Let's consider another example.
Do you know how classes are currently differentiated? If you look at class wheel it's pretty obvious. Witch is INT, Templar is STR/INT, Marauder is STR and so on. Simple and easy to follow. With that in mind when you look at passive tree it all makes sense as well. Which is covered by lot of INT related stuff where Templar has both INT and STR related nodes. If you leave it at that no one could argue that classes don't have enough identity. But reality is different. There is no restriction for Templar to go into Witch territory, which shifts Templars original paradigm if you will from STR/INT towards INT thus breaking his identity.

Does that make more sense?

Oh for sure. I just don't see why thats a problem.
In the example you gave, you get a spell casting Templar. That would be his new class identity.
Something you as a player created. You as a player did that. Why is that a problem?
Why do you want GGG to narrow that down for you?

"

SerahWint wrote:

Oh for sure. I just don't see why thats a problem.
In the example you gave, you get a spell casting Templar. That would be his new class identity.
Something you as a player created. You as a player did that. Why is that a problem?
Why do you want GGG to narrow that down for you?

First, let me say that I never asked GGG for more class identity. But I do understand the reasoning behind the decision that they made and I welcome it.

I honestly can't think of another way to explain this reasoning than the examples that I've already provided.

If you got to a bar A to get beer X, and then you got to a bar B to get same beer X, does that going to make beer taste differently?

"

SerahWint wrote:

Ok I must admit Im slightly miffed that no one seems to have noticed my point where I adress much of what is discussed here...

Also, a lot of people seem to feel that the classes need more identity.
I just want a clarification on that. Why?
And please give me a well thought out answer. Not just a gut reaction.

I have never felt this because I envision my own identity in the game. For me thats in the process of dreaming up a build.

Because choice with the absence of consequences (current situation) is not really a choice. It's the illusion of choice that has no impact.

And ARPG's are about making choices and then living up to them and dealing with the repercussions of them.

Please note : this last bit will still apply, if you want to make a marauder summoner, people will still be able to do this but in doing so it will profoundly differentiate them from other summoners.

This will provide relevance to the choice or "identity" to the play-style.

As for the "why can't we have all the sub-classes for all characters" debate.

- If we do that we might as-well remove the entire system, since GGG would have to balance their power and unique attributes around the "highest potential" scenario. This in return would push them to passive-tree power status and make them irrelevant.

It's by virtue of their limitation that they are granted substantial power and game-play defining/changing elements.
In the knowledge that a marauder cannot access the assassin tree it can be granted substantial buffs etc, since you automatically remove balance issue's and abuse cases.

A shadow can still travel to the marauder passive tree, but this would imply a sacrifice in passive point investment, which again functions as a balance lever.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : to put my last argument differently or highlight it from another perspective.

Allowing all classes to take all sub-classes would actually be a disfavor to snow-flake players and be a non-issue for min-maxers and power-players.

Since GGG would have to balance them sub-sequentially with min-max and power-players in mind.

So everybody not playing the game like that would be punished as a result. And only the top-tier meta would be able to take a relevant bonus from this expansion.

"

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?

"

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?

I just responded to the question in the text i quoted from you.

I did not read your proposal or even the OP, since i find the tittle laughable at best.

"Reasonable people", really? Condemning all other threads by comparison of being unreasonable.

Ill give your post a read, sec, but this response was in a vacuum to address your question.

Peace,

-Boem-