Ascendancy classes - suggestion

I foresee a great future for this thread.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

Was somebody asking for a devil's advocate?

Always ;)

Regarding the first two points I made, neither of those really matters to me much. I'm going to enjoy the changes regardless of how limiting they are - it'll be a fresh change to play with. The core game remains the same regardless. This suggestion just seems like a harmless way to add more variety, which is why I brought it up. That being said, this suggestion would have potential to impact more than just aesthetics in the same way it does now. (e.g. going Ranger for the 8% attack speed node vs Duelist for Physical+life node). Nothing changes there. Again, very minor, but it does give that little bit of extra variety/option.

Ultimately, having things gated by class is a new concept for PoE. It's going to come with a lot of differing opinions on whether that's healthy for the game or not.

As for my last point, you are correct. That'd be one of those holes I mentioned I tend to overlook. Thanks for pointing it out!

The "scion master race" issue is more an issue with jewels than it is anything else. Jewels have potential to be more efficient than regular nodes, point for point. Scion just happens to have easier access to more of them. Disallowing classes to have all options available to them (at varying degrees of efficiency) is not a direct resolution for that problem. It's a side effect.

Also of note, while the Scion is "closest to any and all starting positions," the length of the travel is not always as important as what is found along the way. There are builds where traveling to or even near the Scion's start is not efficient compared to other options (usually circling the outer ring of the tree).

"

Further more, it detracts from class identity as a whole. It's the limitation that will provide an identity, you will see a shadow and know "ah that dude has x/x and x available as a sub-class", how is he dealing with that and what is he abusing in his particular build.
It's the notion of picking a character to ultimately enhance your build that is of importance, which currently is not the case.

Counterpoint: Is this not the same thing you initially described in your note about personal preference? Other than PvP, the concept of "class identity" is irrelevant to actual gameplay.

"

MonopolyLegend wrote:

Counterpoint: Is this not the same thing you initially described in your note about personal preference? Other than PvP, the concept of "class identity" is irrelevant to actual gameplay.

But it wont be in the future, which is the whole purpose of this introduction.

Making the character choice relevant to alter game-play beyond the scope of the (current)passive tree.

If you allow the picking of other sub-classes(by traveling to their starting positions) you detract from that identity.
It's the limitations that will breed creativity and identity. I don't consider it beneficial for the game to first introduce class-identity to then simply make it irrelevant again before it has been tested properly.

As for the scion argument, it's very much a chicken and the egg story.

The meta shifts based on multiple factors, now if scion is closest to all sub-classes this will impact build design and theory-crafting since you will be able to level one to a very high level and then swap to another build with X sub-class if you so desire.

She would have access to all the sub-classes the easiest so the meta will form around her since people like to diversify and shake things up, mid-league swapping to another build for example.

This in return will dictate most builds will have a "scion version" attached to it and lock her in place for supremacy in meta-theory-crafting.

Further more she can already branch out extensively, now i very much assume GGG has accounted for location in the passive tree when providing powers to certain nodes and sub-classes. In the assumption people will be locked within a reasonable scope of that area.

She is troublesome and fickle for what your suggesting since she would hinder balance and as a result might get sub-classes nerfed because she can pick them and not because the characters for which they are intended use them.

I will leave it at that currently, but my position on this mater is that it will cause more harm then good.

I am looking forward to making a meaningful choice the moment i pick my character in the character selection screen and doing so every time i make a new character. Weighing the up and downs of each class for my craft and working with both it's limitations and benefits.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

MonopolyLegend wrote:

My suggestion is this: by traveling to another character's starting nodes, have said character's sub-classes became available to the original character?

I almost made this exact thread.

In fact, it's so very fucking spooky when I see that you created this one right around the time I was thinking of doing it.

I was going to suggest it be by travelling to the start of the class (as quoted above) or as a notable located in the centre of the class area (Scion would need some thought), I then started to think of other possible solutions/alternatives to the current class only design and then I saw a squirrel...

Personally I'm against this idea.

I think the system as they currently thought it out allows for classes to be more defined (finally)... unlike the past 3+ years... which was basically: "where do you start on the passive tree" and what skill gems do you get as rewards (which is almost gone anyway since 2.0).

Imo there's no point of even adding the system, if everyone (who travels to X sector of the tree) can choose "another/different set of ascendency classes/tiers/whatever".

This just my opinion though mind you and I do understand if you don't agree.

You either like this system, or you don't. Give it a try either way. All this complaining before there's even a chance to see what it will be like is really juvenile.

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

You either like this system, or you don't. Give it a try either way. All this complaining before there's even a chance to see what it will be like is really juvenile.

Nah, there are game design philosophies to discuss. Class distinction reduces build flexibility (that's the reason some people want non class specific ascendancy classes) but adds class identity and it can make balance a little more easier (that's the part the people that suggest that should consider), so it would improve build diversity. This video details this line of reasoning.

I think ascendancy classes should stay class specific.

I think they should stay class specific or at least impose a greater penalty than node traversal. Many builds at the moment already take nodes near or entirely from another class' starting. I also really like the idea of having to level more than a few characters and just respeccing every few months with a new patch.

Prior, I could really use witch for any spell or ES based build(not that anyone actually uses manual cast ES builds anymore), ranger for life based attack builds and have Scion cover the remaining. These 3 classes alone could really adapt to any existing build, perhaps not 100% optimally but pretty damned close.

However, I hope we never see class or ascendant specific gear ala diablo 2 which is what I fear may eventually happen but no one can know what GGG is planning months down the road.

One of the larger issues with Path of Exile pre-Ascendancy is, although it has systems for commitment to particular choices instead of others, those systems are largely rendered ineffective...

• Gear and jewels have Str/Dex/Int attribute requirements, but it's pretty much a given that your build will have enough Str, Dex, and Int to run pretty much everything, and your build is very niche if for some reason it doesn't do this.
• Classes have unique starting positions on the passive tree, but the game provides enough points, and the tree itself is small enough relative to these points, that often the only difference between two passive tree builds is the first five nodes, making the choice between them mostly (albeit not entirely) cosmetic.
• There are thousands of theoretical combinations for supporting your active skills, but in practice there is rarely more than 1-3 possible six-links of a skill which can be considered correct.

I call this the "Type 1 problem." It's a Magic: the Gathering reference, in regards to Magic's precious color pie, the division of abilities according to five specific resources you can invest in to varying degrees (for example, a deck can invest heavily in red, or heavily in green, or a little bit in both, with three very different but hopefully close to equally powered decks as a result). However, in its oldest format, Type 1, the color pie still exists, and there are cards with truly horrendous color-pie balance which should theoretically kill diversity (ex: Ancestral Recall), but if you're familiar with the format this imbalance doesn't really matter, because in Type 1 the color pie doesn't really matter. Why not? Because the tools to get the colors you want, when you want them, are so plentiful that just put the best stuff from every single color into your deck and ignore the commitment mechanic altogether 95+% of the time. Path of Exile, in its pre-Ascendancy form, has the same problem (and will likely continue to have it). I mean, giving one of PoE's colors (blue, ironically) area of effect modification AND critical strike modification AND a plethora of ranged abilities is a color pie balance nightmare, but no one really cares because everyone of every class can use every gem anyway so whoop de doo.

The effect of this, on both Type 1 MtG and PoE, is that the core of most builds is the same or strikingly similar when comparing two viable builds. I don't want to say there isn't a variety of different builds out there, in both games/formats, but there is a tendency towards a common core, and the archetype-defining stuff tends to be a small component of differentiation built upon that common core; the 20% difference determines the archetype, the 80% common core is just assumed. This effects collecting behavior. In Type 1 MtG and in PoE there tends to be a surprisingly small set of power items to collect which the core builds use very frequently, and the overall amount of build variety shrinks as a result, even as the number of different viable archetypes seems to remain healthy. In both games, either you have the good shit, or you don't.

Now, PoE's "color pie" of Str/Dex/Int is in no way benefiting from these Ascendancy changes, but class selection will be different. And I guess people are scared of commitment, especially those who already have well-established characters and significant wealth in the current common-core items. But variety is good, Ascendancy classes should at best increase it a lot and at worst basically keep things where they are, and suggestions which try to subvert mechanics which should increase commitment and thus increase real variety are, well, not very good suggestions.

Gonna have to respectfully disagree with MonopolyLegend here.