Ascendancy classes - suggestion

It seems the majority against this suggestion are for two reasons:

1) Scion is currently* "overpowered."

2) Some want a stronger sense of class identity.


The first is largely irrelevant, in my honest opinion. The game changes with most major patches, and people will find a new FoTM to complain about. I've been playing this game for years (since before Scion was even a thing). I've made 3, maybe 4 scion characters in all of that time, and I don't think I've even played any of them to maps yet. While there are some obvious strengths the Scion has (versatility is the biggest that comes to mind - that's kind of her thing being in the center of the tree and all, and unlikely to change), I think what people are seeing from her is mostly just due to *"FoTM" followers.

A seemingly large portion of the player base simply follow guides or other builds rather than creating builds of their own. The "top tier" players (those most visible through the ladder, streaming, videos, etc.) are usually aiming to eke out that last bit of efficiency from their characters regardless of how reasonable the cost of required gear is for a "regular" player (moreso "perfect" jewels than anything else in this case). Even so, many people will follow the build to the tee because it has proven itself to be strong. That doesn't mean other strong builds or even other variants of said build are not viable.



The second, regarding class identity, has always been a "problem" or "perk" of this game depending on your perspective. Personally, I consider it a perk, so I would not consider this change to be detrimental at all. It would simply keep in line with the design of the game so far. The current iteration of Ascendancy classes changes that. A surprising amount of people are in support of that change.

I can see both sides of the coin, and like I said, I'm still going to enjoy Path of Exile regardless of how the Ascendancy classes end up. The core game is still the same, and the Ascendancy system only adds more options to the game any way you look at it. Personally, I'd prefer it to be less limiting in how many of those new options it opens, but not all agree with that sentiment. At the end of the day, that's GGG's call anyway. ;)

"

Char1983 wrote:

b) If we ignore the Scion, there is no difference anymore between starting as a Shadow or Ranger, as in the example above. The builds are identical. Also, you win nothing: Instead of starting as a Shadow and going to the Ranger area to get the Ranger Ascendancy, you could have started as a Ranger in the beginning and taken the same skill tree. So, you gain, well, nothing. So, doesn't really make a difference except for cosmetics.

hmm thats a point but in that case maybe a char-swap-respec-thing would be nice (once reached another starting point)

"

Char1983 wrote:

c) If we look at the Scion, we realise that that is different. You CAN make Scion builds that reach the Witch starting nodes and that are not possible as the Witch, while you CAN NOT make Witch builds that reach the Scion starting node and are not possible as a Scion. The reason is that the Scion skill tree branches in three directions, while the others essentially only branch in one.

Because of this, I am opposed to this. It is a buff to the Scion, and I don't think the Scion needs a buff.

sounds plausible

Mono, you might wish to read my reply's of this thread



They are somewhat relevant to this discussion.

"

Rob2655 wrote:

hmm thats a point but in that case maybe a char-swap-respec-thing would be nice (once reached another starting point)

That's an interesting thought, IF, it was limited to a "one-time deal per character".

If it would not be limited to one time, then people would simply utilize one lvl 100 character to cross over to any other character they would like to play. Which contradicts the design of this game.

However i do like this concept as a one-time thing. Since it doesn't detract from the character identity portion of this implementation while still allowing people uncomfortable with it now to be able to swap.
(with one-time thing, i mean a one-time thing per individual character created, this would apply globally to all players obviously)

They could add a 50 regret cost or something as to not allow abuses of this early on in a league.

My little toe is nudging me i am overlooking something though.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

However i do like this concept as a one-time thing. Since it doesn't detract from the character identity portion of this implementation while still allowing people uncomfortable with it now to be able to swap.
(with one-time thing, i mean a one-time thing per individual character created, this would apply globally to all players obviously)

i did not thought of this but argree it should be rare; so maybe in addition to the full tree reset granted after heavy tree changes

No, just no.

1) This game is supposed to be a ROLE playing game. In online games the actual ROLE of a character many times ends up just being a bunch of stats. But ROLE PLAYING in pen and paper, and many well made single player RPGs(where lore and story are far more well made and important) is alot more than numbers. It's the theme that connects each character/class to the lore. A marauder is not an assasin and he should not be able to be one -at least thematically- by just travelling to the shadows starting area. It's true that PoE encourages flexibility, and it's true that a marauder IS and SHOULD be able to be a crit dagger character. But he still is not an assasin. He is a tanky behemoth lore wise. So yeah, making a TANKIER varation of a crit dagger build is and will be totally possible and even encouraged. But the Shadow IS the assasin class, lore wise, story wise, and now even stat wise, so HE and only HE should have the edge in actual crit mechanics.

GGG moves towrads the right direction with this move, both in terms of lore, and it terms of actual balance and distiction between classes. AND IMO, it is not new. I will repost a relavant reply, in response to a post that claimed that PoE was all about openess and was against class distinctions or limitations. IMO PoE is in favour of flexibility, but also is in favour of each class being somewhat unique, and have worked towards this since release.

The changes they did(GGG) over time prove the exact opposite. Not locked, but class distinctions is something they worked towards. In closed beta people reached mainly level 60-70 at best, so at these levels class choice was very important. Then they introduced the scion class that blocked they easy travelling through the middle that was happening before. People bitched about it at the time, and Chris went out and said it clearly that it was intentional, and if you wanna be a jack of all trades that travells easily anywhere, you have to be a scion. Then they progressively made starting areas bigger(and stronger), and they moved keystones around, to where they make more sense from role-playing/lore point of view. Notably mind over matter, Iron reflexes and of course vaal pact. And now we have the subclasses. So making classes matter more is something that GGG has been working since the release of the game, after realising in Open Beta how much faster people are leveling now compared to closed beta, when this was not an issue.

It's clear that the faster the leveling proscess is, the more GGG wants to introduce radical ways to make classes unique. Besides ultimately what PoE's strongest point is supposed to be, is variety and rerolling. This time around this would be a more joyfull proscess, even if you use identical gear, since from now on, say an HP based crit Shadow, will develop completely different than an HP based Duelist, and so on.

So this is not new. The skill tree was initially balanced around players that reached levels 60-70 at best in Closed Beta, so class limitations and class uniquness were there. Then, with the introduction of Scion to block easy travelling through the middle, bigger and more powerfull starting areas between other means, and now the subclasses, in my book shows that GGG always indeed wanted to make class choice to matter more, and for each class to play differently. It is not something new. For me it was never INTENTIONAL, for classes to matter only in looks, or for the 4-5 first starting nodes.

2) The changes you propose will largely benefit Scion compared to other classes. This has nothing to do with the meta shift or the current version of he skill tree. Scion will always be the class that can travel easily through the middle, so by definition she will have the advantage. EG. She wants the Assasin sublass, and then some HP and some passives over in the templar/marauder/duelist section? No problem. Few passives to get at the shadow start, and then through her starting areas she can go pretty much everywhere.

The freedom to make an "assassin marauder" has forever been an option in PoE, and one I've quite enjoyed. Again, I get that's not for everyone. PoE has always offered that for the "Johnny" in me. The bit about closed beta having class restrictions was largely untrue. Cross-tree travel still happened. I can't even begin to count how many people were playing elemental bow marauders back then. I had all kind of wacky things going on as well - most memorable were running my Shadows down to Blood Magic (both when it was in the center of the tree and after it was moved farther down to the Marauder/Duelist area where it is now).

The earliest version of the offline skill tree I have saved is from 0.9.11, which was after BM was moved. The shorted possible route from Shadow to Blood Magic (over in Marauder/Duelist, the polar opposite of the tree) was only 19 points compared to 26 points now. While you obtained fewer points overall, cross-tree travel generally required fewer as well. Life passives were roughly 8% each rather than ~5% each, and characters typically only had ~3-3.5k life. You didn't need to spread as many feelers out for life nodes as is required now, and damage nodes were generally significantly less valuable then. Keystones were what really made up a build back then, imo, and the penalty for choosing "off-class" keystones was having to spend points to get to them as it is now.

Point being, off-class characters were a thing in CB, OB, and current iterations of the game. They will continue to be a thing regardless of how Ascendancy is introduced, perhaps even moreso.

EDIT: Yes, I get it. Scion has generally easier access to multiple paths across the tree. That's the point of the Scion...I disagree that that makes her overpowered. I find it generally matters little except in weird circumstances where you are trying to branch across 3-4 different characters areas of the tree for something niche (aura effectiveness, for example), and before Jewels, it was often inefficient to go through her weak starting nodes in the first place for a large majority of builds. Thus, Scion has never been an attractive option to me.

"

MonopolyLegend wrote:

The freedom to make an "assassin marauder" has forever been an option in PoE, and one I've quite enjoyed.

What exactly prevents you from doing that in Ascendancy? Nothing. You can still do it. It won't be optimal, but neither is it in 2.0. And on top of that, you now get something as a "reward" that the normal assassin doesn't get - access to the Marauder Ascendancy classes. And I am pretty sure you will find something in there that will benefit your Marauder assassin.

I edited the post to make some things clearer. Anyway, no you could never do a Marauder assasin. You could do a marauder with high crit. But he is not an assasin. Don't ignore what i wrote about lore and story.

His visage marked equally by tribal tattoos and the scars of battle, the imposing Marauder is a survivor of many bloody battles. The clanging, scraping and screaming of war is music to his ears, and he delights in crushing the skulls of his foes underfoot. He is a monster of a man, towering above his cohorts and quick to show his strength and ferocity. A master armsman, the Marauder is versed in many weapons, but he generally prefers the heft of a heavy two-handed axe or mace. He plunges into battle with a cry of delight, and woe be to anyone foolish enough to get in his way.




A flicker of movement, a knife from the dark. By the time you've seen him, it's already too late. The Shadow kills silently, without hesitation, without mercy. He is versed in many weapons, but prefers ambush and subterfuge. Hundreds have met their deaths shrieking in his traps. The Shadow has come from the Guild of the Night in Oriath for one purpose: to inflict pain and suffering on anyone who's wronged him. Exile is merely an inconvenience.

oooo that sounds neat.

Like a mysterious pool, portal, volcano you leap into, then you select from any character class that you've obtained a starting node of, and then it poops you out as that character. Or it could work as an NPC (surgeon/doctor, standing beside a table with many probey slicey thingies... and a vat of fat/organs) or *magic*. I'm used to this concept though, since DDO (dungeons and dragons online, basically the epitome of roleplaying lore/geekiness) had reincarnations and completionist bonuses (it pooped you out at level 1, but you got perks/feats for having a past life of a given class; some players have reached uber completionist status, having 87 total past life feats (it's like leveling from 1-90 87 times) - if you want grind, that game puts PoE to shame).

Anyway, atmosphere aside, if a class change process were to be implemented I'd probably make it unlimited, with a currency cost (not more than 50 regret) and a -1 level penalty every time you do it.

One pro (or con, depending on your view) is that players could use it to reset their passive tree while staying as the same class. I think that would be fine, since they'd be choosing to accept a level penalty in return for a lower currency cost of resetting a large number of passives. IMO it's better to encourage/facilitate play than having someone bench their character until the next reset.

While some may find temp leagues /rerolling enjoyable there are customers (or potential customers) who stay invested in a perm league for a long time and can really get discouraged after a reset, especially if they play more casually. GGG should have proper data on this but I suspect many less experienced players foobar their character after a passive reset (failing to meet stat requirements or finding out they can no longer sustain casting cost or finding out their survivability isn't up to par or a that skill/item they built around doesn't work the way it used to, etc., and subsequently bench the character or stop playing). [I've always thought passive resets should have a 1-2 hour window before they're locked in, to make the process friendlier to a typical gaming audience (i.e. people without a "degree" in PoE/MTG/ARPGs). General forum attitude seems to be to pretend such players don't matter and should be looked upon disdainfully].

One of the concerns I have with the ascendency system is being locked in to an ascendency class. It doesn't jive with sweeping balance/meta changes and passive resets every ~6 months. I am hoping that GGG is including a way to change your ascendency class when passives are reset. Linking ascendency class to starting nodes is one way to do that, since they'd be reset when the tree is reset, which is one of the reasons I like the OP's suggestion.

"

Char1983 wrote:

"

MonopolyLegend wrote:

The freedom to make an "assassin marauder" has forever been an option in PoE, and one I've quite enjoyed.

What exactly prevents you from doing that in Ascendancy? Nothing. You can still do it. It won't be optimal, but neither is it in 2.0. And on top of that, you now get something as a "reward" that the normal assassin doesn't get - access to the Marauder Ascendancy classes. And I am pretty sure you will find something in there that will benefit your Marauder assassin.

Historically and currently, being non-optimal i.e. running an off-class build, costs maybe 3 passive points. You're looking at a bit of wasted or lost life, damage, or cast speed. It's not significant. The cost to play the build you want on the "avatar" you like or to repurpose a long-standing character for a new build in a new meta is not high. I've viewed that flexibility as a major perk in PoE, especially since PoE does major meta/passive/mechanics changes and additions semiannually. All of this talk of class identity and choices that matter would seem more relevant if the game was in a fixed balance state.

With ascendency this cost really jumps up. It wouldn't be such a big deal if some of the ascendency passives weren't, literally, 50+ times more powerful than regular passives. For some builds/skills, I just don't see it being possible to enjoy unless you're using the appropriate ascendency class.

Edit:
This may be OK in a vacuum. But IMO it's not OK when everything gets recombobulated (discombobulated?) so frequently. Nor is it OK when it costs such a significant amount in maps/currency to reach levels 94+. Some people have spent hundreds/thousands of hours on a single character. I think it would be a mistake to present those players with a choice to either start over or forever abandon certain builds that are just too non-optimal for their class. There should be a 3rd option, or higher leveling / map accessibility should be made way easier.