Ascendacy Classes looks like a step backwards

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

Oh yay! This week's thread! Glad to see another one of these! We need to hear everyone's opinions again about something they haven't even tried yet! And more exclamation points, this time!

The characters weren't distinctive before. Now they will be. Big. Fucking. Deal.

"

Vias_Myton wrote:

Im pretty sure someone already expressed my worries, but well, this is what Im worried about:

nerfs to utility and secondary abilities

We already know ele resist flask are going to be nerfed, because it will be easier to pick up max resists for some specialisations. Those who wont pick these ascendancy classes will take a hit. Especially considering that they are very likely to increase monster damage. And Im pretty sure those max resist nodes wont be on the regular tree for anyone to take.

I hope there wont be too much of "because that specialisation would be too OP, this has to be nerfed for everyone else".

"

You still can make your boring cyclone builds, so what is up?

"

Varkorium wrote:

I will refrain from making too many assumption's though, until Ascendancy actually hit's.

"

AJConsul wrote:

"

You still can make your boring cyclone builds, so what is up?

Plus new and exciting Cyclone builds - Walk the Aether as a trickster to get a 0-mana cost Cyclone and you can use Cloak of Defiance or Mind Over Matter keystone without ever having to worry about being left unable to act by a big hit, then you've got the option of also taking Weave the Arcane to keep your mana refreshed and ready to block damage, and still have enough points left over for Swift Killer and frenzy charge mayhem. Delicious.

"

WillisTheWillis wrote:

Sound like the one who keep saying "Ascendancy classes kill build diversity" is the one who only care about the build(s) he/she play.

If you are really serious on being the strongest, go for it. No one will stop you to pick the "strongest" classes on your "strongest" build. But you know what, no matter how the content be changed, there is one and only one way to be the strongest. Ascendancy classes do nothing on changing this rule. What it just does is to make you consider more stuff before choosing your "strongest" class.

If you think "crit node on Assassin is so damn OP that make everyone pick him on crit build" or "that Necromancer is the best class on summoner limit the play style of being a summoner". I will say you are wrong in two aspects.

1. Like what I have typed above, nothing changes if you are the min/maxers. Before Ascendancy, you will pick witch for summoner as it's the most suitable class and the strongest for being a summoner. Now, you will still pick Necromancer for summoner since it's still the strongest. What only changes is the class name you pick. It is changed from "Witch" to "Witch/Necromancer".

2. There are a lot of people like experimenting builds, trying some builds that no one try/everyone think they are weak, and hate being min/maxers. For those players, introducing Ascendancy classes is great. Now, trying different classes on a similar build is pointless, as the differences between the classes are only starting location and visual effect (maybe quest rewards, but who care?). After introducing Ascendancy classes, we now have a better incentive to pick different classes on a similar build. Therefore, even for some special build like summoners, there will be more people using class other than witch to play with. How we call this phenomenon in English? We call it "diversity".

If Ascendancy classes kill diversity, starting location of passive tree should kill diversity too, since they both have the same function on "making difference". If Ascendancy classes is making PoE step backwards, should we make all classes start on the same location to make PoE step forwards? You can now pick any classes for any builds and cheat yourself that diversity is improved.

Like most of the game, change make players feel uncomfortable, so many people will again change. No matter the change is nerfing/buff a skill, or introducing difference between classes. The only difference is the number of complainers. Introducing Ascendancy classes is a huge change, followed with huge uncomfortableness and opportunity. I think the direction of Ascendancy classes are great so far. Of course, imbalance does exist between classes, but it also exists between skills too. As long as the direction is right, the only things leave behind is just numbers, which are easy to be modified, but hard to be perfect. It needs time.

"

tryhardgg wrote:

"

WillisTheWillis wrote:

Sound like the one who keep saying "Ascendancy classes kill build diversity" is the one who only care about the build(s) he/she play.

If you are really serious on being the strongest, go for it. No one will stop you to pick the "strongest" classes on your "strongest" build. But you know what, no matter how the content be changed, there is one and only one way to be the strongest. Ascendancy classes do nothing on changing this rule. What it just does is to make you consider more stuff before choosing your "strongest" class.

If you think "crit node on Assassin is so damn OP that make everyone pick him on crit build" or "that Necromancer is the best class on summoner limit the play style of being a summoner". I will say you are wrong in two aspects.

1. Like what I have typed above, nothing changes if you are the min/maxers. Before Ascendancy, you will pick witch for summoner as it's the most suitable class and the strongest for being a summoner. Now, you will still pick Necromancer for summoner since it's still the strongest. What only changes is the class name you pick. It is changed from "Witch" to "Witch/Necromancer".

2. There are a lot of people like experimenting builds, trying some builds that no one try/everyone think they are weak, and hate being min/maxers. For those players, introducing Ascendancy classes is great. Now, trying different classes on a similar build is pointless, as the differences between the classes are only starting location and visual effect (maybe quest rewards, but who care?). After introducing Ascendancy classes, we now have a better incentive to pick different classes on a similar build. Therefore, even for some special build like summoners, there will be more people using class other than witch to play with. How we call this phenomenon in English? We call it "diversity".

If Ascendancy classes kill diversity, starting location of passive tree should kill diversity too, since they both have the same function on "making difference". If Ascendancy classes is making PoE step backwards, should we make all classes start on the same location to make PoE step forwards? You can now pick any classes for any builds and cheat yourself that diversity is improved.

Like most of the game, change make players feel uncomfortable, so many people will again change. No matter the change is nerfing/buff a skill, or introducing difference between classes. The only difference is the number of complainers. Introducing Ascendancy classes is a huge change, followed with huge uncomfortableness and opportunity. I think the direction of Ascendancy classes are great so far. Of course, imbalance does exist between classes, but it also exists between skills too. As long as the direction is right, the only things leave behind is just numbers, which are easy to be modified, but hard to be perfect. It needs time.

Not sure if trolling or just "special " .