What do folks think of this idea for a new channelled skill?

Hi! So the teaser trailer for one of the three new chanelled skills just released and...well, let's just say I wasn't quite into it. Didn't seem different enough for me, is all.

Anyway, here's an idea for a new chanelled skill I came up with on reflection. Looking for feedback.

So the way this skill works is that you originally channel 3 beams out (of whichever damage type you prefer it to be) that each auto-target separate mobs within a certain range (a decent range, so you won't "need" to increase it, but it won't off-screen by default). The skill also counts as a projectile, so faster/slower projectiles do increase/decrease the range and LMP/GMP do increase the number of beams. However, the skill isn't an AoE and the beams never cross or target the same enemy i.e. no shotgunning (excess beams will just hit the range limit and dissipate).

The skill does good damage and so even with only 7 enemies hit at once (or 9, if you do GMP + LMP), it should clear packs fast enough. There is one big restriction here, though - the skill CANNOT PIERCE (it can fork and chain, though). No, not even with Pierce nodes or Pierce gem. There's a reason for this -

Along with the skill, there is also released a threshold jewel for it. Call it 'Convergence' or 'Focus' or something. This jewel will condense three of your beams into 1 for >3 times the damage. So with the base skill you get 1 powerful beam (which, note, still can't pierce). Very good for boss-killing, but can be blocked by adds or obstacles.

With the jewel and LMP, you'll get 1 powerful beam + 2 weaker beams. 2 jewels + LMP = 1 beam w/ >5 dmg.

With 3 jewels (note that you'll also need to satisfy the threshold conditions for em' to work) + LMP + GMP, you'll get one powerful beam with >9 times the damage, which will positively melt bosses.

Note that the LESS projectile damage modifiers on LMP/GMP do apply to the skill. Also, you can give the skill some capacity to get around the pierce limitation by going Fork/Chain instead, which is balanced since they'll only allow you to hit upto 2 additional enemies (3 with Deadeye node).

Also, if you choose not to use the jewel, then the base skill will fire upto 9 beams (with LMP + GMP), which each can chain (with Chain gem) to 2 additional targets = upto 27 targets hit with the skill, which is more than enough for packs (of course, it'll need enough base dmg to make this work), even if it's that's going overboard and probably not ideal.

So...what do you guys think? Is this a good idea? And if not, how could it be improved? Thanks! :)

Edit: Hmmm..on reflection, I think it might also be a good idea to not let this skill work on totems.
[quote="Qarl"]Fixed a bug where occasionally Fairgraves, Neverdying never dies[/quote]
Last edited by Exile009 on Oct 7, 2016, 10:14:18 AM
Last bumped on Nov 7, 2016, 1:41:31 PM
Also please check out my other thread for an idea on how to fix the channeled skill that GGG has just teased (without just making all three new skills the same thing, just in each elemental damage type). You can find it here - https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1750504/page/1/#p13770046
[quote="Qarl"]Fixed a bug where occasionally Fairgraves, Neverdying never dies[/quote]
Couple i would like to see

A lighting storm like Herald of thunder That starts weak but icreace in strenght the longer is chaneled, mana cost per second will olso increace as the storm growth strongere.


A burning skill That does damage around you based on your missing life and distance to Target, the closer the more damage it does


A cold skill That while chaneling couse an ice explosión on a random enemy every "x" time, each explosión will consume 20% of your remaining mana and deal damage proporcional to the mana consumes.

self found league fan

http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/324242/page/1

bump
[quote="Qarl"]Fixed a bug where occasionally Fairgraves, Neverdying never dies[/quote]
"
Exile009 wrote:

So the way this skill works is that you originally channel 3 beams out (of whichever damage type you prefer it to be) that each auto-target separate mobs within a certain range (a decent range, so you won't "need" to increase it, but it won't off-screen by default).


And how do you think is it going to be possible for players to select 3 different damage types from just one single skill? Or is it one dmg type for all of them? If yes, that skill kinda is reduntant, and the auto targetting would be its only saving grace, but I'll address this later.

"
Exile009 wrote:

The skill also counts as a projectile, so faster/slower projectiles do increase/decrease the range and LMP/GMP do increase the number of beams. However, the skill isn't an AoE and the beams never cross or target the same enemy i.e. no shotgunning (excess beams will just hit the range limit and dissipate).


So, you're saying that, no matter how close the target is, the projectile stream (because that's what this is) will only deal a fraction of the damage it is supposed to do? Why not use one "beam" instead? Where's the benefit in having to run multiple setups?

"
Exile009 wrote:

The skill does good damage and so even with only 7 enemies hit at once (or 9, if you do GMP + LMP), it should clear packs fast enough. There is one big restriction here, though - the skill CANNOT PIERCE (it can fork and chain, though). No, not even with Pierce nodes or Pierce gem. There's a reason for this -


Look, if you do some basic math, or experiment with the skills we currently have available, you'll notice that when you add LMP + GMP the damage takes a huge nosedive, if you add chain/fork on top, you have gimped your projectile skill big time. In saying that with 2 or even 3 "less" multipliers your skill will kill packs quickly, you're also saying that your skill will be completely OP for single target.

And why would someone want to use supports to cover a wider area in the first place? It is much easier to have one proj-stream that just oneshots all the things on rapid fire, epecially since the "beam" will aim for itself. Let alone that people would only need one 5/6 link for this to happen rather than 2.

"
Exile009 wrote:

Along with the skill, there is also released a threshold jewel for it. Call it 'Convergence' or 'Focus' or something. This jewel will condense three of your beams into 1 for >3 times the damage. So with the base skill you get 1 powerful beam (which, note, still can't pierce). Very good for boss-killing, but can be blocked by adds or obstacles.


Yeah, no... Not gonna happen. Remember what happened to shotgunning way back when? Look at how things like magma-orb work when used with LMP/GMP. Either your skill can shotgun to begin with, or it can't at all, it's a safe bet that you can't have one skill doing both things.

"
Exile009 wrote:
With the jewel and LMP, you'll get 1 powerful beam + 2 weaker beams. 2 jewels + LMP = 1 beam w/ >5 dmg.

With 3 jewels (note that you'll also need to satisfy the threshold conditions for em' to work) + LMP + GMP, you'll get one powerful beam with >9 times the damage, which will positively melt bosses.


OK, so with 3 of those jewels I get another version of the recently revealed new skill, that you were not so happy with in the first place. But I get autoaim, because who wants to choose targets anyways? It's not like prioritizing threats matters at all, right?

"
Exile009 wrote:
Note that the LESS projectile damage modifiers on LMP/GMP do apply to the skill. Also, you can give the skill some capacity to get around the pierce limitation by going Fork/Chain instead, which is balanced since they'll only allow you to hit upto 2 additional enemies (3 with Deadeye node).


Yeah, I noticed that stacking less multipliers, which refer to projectiles, actually do apply to projectile based skills. I kinda have the impression that you don't though.

"
Exile009 wrote:

Also, if you choose not to use the jewel, then the base skill will fire upto 9 beams (with LMP + GMP), which each can chain (with Chain gem) to 2 additional targets = upto 27 targets hit with the skill, which is more than enough for packs (of course, it'll need enough base dmg to make this work), even if it's that's going overboard and probably not ideal.


9 chaining proj-streams, yay screenclutter.

Yeah, look, I've no idea what you think you're putting together here, like absolutely no clue. This looks like it's not even been thought through for like 2 hours. You talk about using 3 LESS multipliers for pack clearing, while also being able to melt bosses with what would be a couple gem swaps.

Unless you put numbers and formulas on the table, there's actually nothing to discuss here.

"
Exile009 wrote:
So...what do you guys think? Is this a good idea? And if not, how could it be improved? Thanks! :)

Edit: Hmmm..on reflection, I think it might also be a good idea to not let this skill work on totems.


I think my point of view is made clear already, but I will go right ahead and say: Not good.

Totems or not, doesn't matter. I'll tell you what the problem is. You've put this together without doing any upfront math, while also completely disregarding core-mechanics of this game. And before you play the "you're not a coder card", and assuming you would be right in saying so to begin with: You don't have to be a coder to inform yourself about how things in this game work mechanically. Your skill doesn't look "doable".

And it doesn't look good on paper, because the most important aspect isn't written down yet, and that would be raw numbers. Terms like "positively melt", or "OK damage", or "clear packs fast enough" mean nothing. Not only are these terms highly subjective, they also make your skill look like it can do about anything just right, because people love their one-skill-does-all builds, which require no actual thought and coordination on the player's side, let alone skill. Your's even comes with autoaim, because why not wash the dishes while putting a paper-weight on a mouse button?
[quote="ScrotieMcB"]It's just, like, people's opinions, man.

But I cannot respect motherf♪♫♫♪rs calling something a simulator, when it isn't one.[/quote]

Mors edited this post first.
"
Sure_K4y wrote:
"
Exile009 wrote:

So the way this skill works is that you originally channel 3 beams out (of whichever damage type you prefer it to be) that each auto-target separate mobs within a certain range (a decent range, so you won't "need" to increase it, but it won't off-screen by default).


And how do you think is it going to be possible for players to select 3 different damage types from just one single skill? Or is it one dmg type for all of them? If yes, that skill kinda is reduntant, and the auto targetting would be its only saving grace, but I'll address this later.

"
Exile009 wrote:

The skill also counts as a projectile, so faster/slower projectiles do increase/decrease the range and LMP/GMP do increase the number of beams. However, the skill isn't an AoE and the beams never cross or target the same enemy i.e. no shotgunning (excess beams will just hit the range limit and dissipate).


So, you're saying that, no matter how close the target is, the projectile stream (because that's what this is) will only deal a fraction of the damage it is supposed to do? Why not use one "beam" instead? Where's the benefit in having to run multiple setups?

"
Exile009 wrote:

The skill does good damage and so even with only 7 enemies hit at once (or 9, if you do GMP + LMP), it should clear packs fast enough. There is one big restriction here, though - the skill CANNOT PIERCE (it can fork and chain, though). No, not even with Pierce nodes or Pierce gem. There's a reason for this -


Look, if you do some basic math, or experiment with the skills we currently have available, you'll notice that when you add LMP + GMP the damage takes a huge nosedive, if you add chain/fork on top, you have gimped your projectile skill big time. In saying that with 2 or even 3 "less" multipliers your skill will kill packs quickly, you're also saying that your skill will be completely OP for single target.

And why would someone want to use supports to cover a wider area in the first place? It is much easier to have one proj-stream that just oneshots all the things on rapid fire, epecially since the "beam" will aim for itself. Let alone that people would only need one 5/6 link for this to happen rather than 2.

"
Exile009 wrote:

Along with the skill, there is also released a threshold jewel for it. Call it 'Convergence' or 'Focus' or something. This jewel will condense three of your beams into 1 for >3 times the damage. So with the base skill you get 1 powerful beam (which, note, still can't pierce). Very good for boss-killing, but can be blocked by adds or obstacles.


Yeah, no... Not gonna happen. Remember what happened to shotgunning way back when? Look at how things like magma-orb work when used with LMP/GMP. Either your skill can shotgun to begin with, or it can't at all, it's a safe bet that you can't have one skill doing both things.

"
Exile009 wrote:
With the jewel and LMP, you'll get 1 powerful beam + 2 weaker beams. 2 jewels + LMP = 1 beam w/ >5 dmg.

With 3 jewels (note that you'll also need to satisfy the threshold conditions for em' to work) + LMP + GMP, you'll get one powerful beam with >9 times the damage, which will positively melt bosses.


OK, so with 3 of those jewels I get another version of the recently revealed new skill, that you were not so happy with in the first place. But I get autoaim, because who wants to choose targets anyways? It's not like prioritizing threats matters at all, right?

"
Exile009 wrote:
Note that the LESS projectile damage modifiers on LMP/GMP do apply to the skill. Also, you can give the skill some capacity to get around the pierce limitation by going Fork/Chain instead, which is balanced since they'll only allow you to hit upto 2 additional enemies (3 with Deadeye node).


Yeah, I noticed that stacking less multipliers, which refer to projectiles, actually do apply to projectile based skills. I kinda have the impression that you don't though.

"
Exile009 wrote:

Also, if you choose not to use the jewel, then the base skill will fire upto 9 beams (with LMP + GMP), which each can chain (with Chain gem) to 2 additional targets = upto 27 targets hit with the skill, which is more than enough for packs (of course, it'll need enough base dmg to make this work), even if it's that's going overboard and probably not ideal.


9 chaining proj-streams, yay screenclutter.

Yeah, look, I've no idea what you think you're putting together here, like absolutely no clue. This looks like it's not even been thought through for like 2 hours. You talk about using 3 LESS multipliers for pack clearing, while also being able to melt bosses with what would be a couple gem swaps.

Unless you put numbers and formulas on the table, there's actually nothing to discuss here.

"
Exile009 wrote:
So...what do you guys think? Is this a good idea? And if not, how could it be improved? Thanks! :)

Edit: Hmmm..on reflection, I think it might also be a good idea to not let this skill work on totems.


I think my point of view is made clear already, but I will go right ahead and say: Not good.

Totems or not, doesn't matter. I'll tell you what the problem is. You've put this together without doing any upfront math, while also completely disregarding core-mechanics of this game. And before you play the "you're not a coder card", and assuming you would be right in saying so to begin with: You don't have to be a coder to inform yourself about how things in this game work mechanically. Your skill doesn't look "doable".

And it doesn't look good on paper, because the most important aspect isn't written down yet, and that would be raw numbers. Terms like "positively melt", or "OK damage", or "clear packs fast enough" mean nothing. Not only are these terms highly subjective, they also make your skill look like it can do about anything just right, because people love their one-skill-does-all builds, which require no actual thought and coordination on the player's side, let alone skill. Your's even comes with autoaim, because why not wash the dishes while putting a paper-weight on a mouse button?


1) I didn't say it would have 3 different damage types. It'd have one damage type. I just haven't settled on which one it should be, so folks are free to suggest whichever one they'd like.

2) What "multiple setups"? As for the damage, no it isn't "doing a fraction of the damage it's supposed to do". For clarity, the tooltip damage will most likely list the damage PER BEAM. If combined (with the jewel), then you simply multiply that number with the number of beams that've been combined. This is exactly the same as, say, split arrow or tornado shot - and people still use them despite that not all the arrows are hitting enemies. You don't hear them complaining that their skill is doing a "fraction of the damage it's supposed to do", do you?

3) I've already acknowledged that balancing the damage numbers right will be the real challenge in designing this skill. That said, it isn't my intention that every setup will be viable. If you run Frenzy + LMP + GMP + Chain, it likely will do a pitiable level of damage. Probably this skill will be the same - and that's okay! That's the point - you get to choose which level of spread/focus suits your needs. Maybe it'll still be okay with packs with LMP, but LMP + GMP makes it too weak. So be it. If you choose to focus the beam and take mobs out rapidly one-by-one instead, that's fine too. Clear-speed focused chars will likely say that's too slow for them, which is why diffusing the damage more is an option. Again, this is the same as many other skills in the game - diffuse or focus the damage.

4) This IS NOT one skill doing both things. It's one skill that can be switched between doing one thing or another. EITHER you have multiple streams OR you have a single powerful stream (which is the same as swapping out GMP on some other skills). You don't have both. Shotgunning involved having both - you could cover an area with projectiles or you get close and overlap them. This skill doesn't allow that. Yes, you can have some of the beams converged and a few extra ones non-converged (with, say, 1 jewel + LMP = 3 beams converged into one + 2 extra), but even there you are giving up some of the spread for the sake of a stronger single-target beam (in that example, where you would have had 5 beams, you now have only 3). Again, it's about finding the right balance to suit your needs - you can't have equally wide spread with equally intense focus.

5) I've already posted about how the new skill may be changed. Also, the point is that this skill allows you to play around with its design more. If you want to make it look more like a single laser beam, so be it. But you can play it other ways too. Considering the differences between this skill and the new skill that was teased, it seems silly to consider them the same just cos you can convert one seemingly into the other. There's far more difference between this skill and the new skill than between the new skill and Incinerate. Hell, there's more differences here than between Incinerate and Flame Totem or even Earthquake and Ground Slam and Ice Crash. Defining one's threshold for minimum level of allowable difference between skills too large narrows the design space considerably such that GGG would probably already have exhausted every idea that it's possible to implement. But that's cos you've narrowed their options too much. As long as people see a meaningful enough difference between those examples I gave earlier (Incinerate, Flame Totem, EQ, Ground Slam, Ice Crash) and many others that I could have given, I submit that this skill is definitely unique enough to get in.

6) Yes, LESS multipliers apply. So what? If you haven't noticed, they don't each cut your damage by half, but by a lesser amount (and yes, I know they multiply with each other). Converging two of the beams (slightly) more than doubles the damage of the new single beam at the cost of coverage. There's a reason I chose to make it that way - it was precisely to counteract the LESS damage modifiers you'd be running in order to maximize the potential of that mechanic. Again, these are numbers and I've already stated that the numbers will need a lot of balance testing (which applies to EVERY skill in the game). The point is to work out if the mechanic is viable, which is why no numbers are posted.

7) Now you're just being silly. 9 beams is screen-clutter? Uh huh. I guess you've never played Split Arrow, Tornado Shot or, oh yeah, Spark. Please! Even a dual-Flame Totem build with GMP will have more beams than this.

8) And finally we get to the crux of the matter - you're criticizing a skill IDEA based on the fact that it has no "raw numbers" in it yet. Forget about coding, I do hope you've never had to work in design (of anything) before, because that kind of attitude won't get you very far in the field. Numbers are important once you've worked out a concept. Yes, they can disqualify that concept later, but plugging in random numbers is not the first step in designing a concept. Why? Cos numbers can be tweaked, whereas concepts are much more fundamental i.e. there's only a certain amount you can adjust a concept before it no longer resembles your original idea. I posted a skill concept here and was looking for feedback on the same i.e. the concept, not a dismissal on the premise that the numbers (of which I posted exactly ZERO) don't work out. Numbers are flexible - change them to your hearts content.

Most players don't judge skills based on just their numbers, but on whether they seem fun to play, which is a CONCEPTUAL choice. GGG (and every other games company) designs that way too, which is why we still have only a skill teaser video and not a released skill - the skill is already coded and ready to implement (as shown in that teaser video), yet not released yet because they're now adjusting the numbers to keep it balanced. The same would apply to this skill. If you want to design by the numbers, then all you need to do is implement a skill which damages monsters on using it (absent any mechanics whatsoever, just straight up damages monsters around you) and then just work out how much damage it should do. Then you implement several "different" skills, whose only differentiating factor is the amount of damage they do/number of monsters they hit. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I rather suspect most players wouldn't care to play any of those skills (or maybe just one).
[quote="Qarl"]Fixed a bug where occasionally Fairgraves, Neverdying never dies[/quote]
Last edited by Exile009 on Oct 9, 2016, 11:42:34 AM
"
Exile009 wrote:

1) I didn't say it would have 3 different damage types. It'd have one damage type. I just haven't settled on which one it should be, so folks are free to suggest whichever one they'd like.


Well, yeah, this is something different in terms of of what you said. When you say "of whichever type you prefer it to be" you kinda imply that players can choose on an individual basis. Or rather you don't rule that out, for lack of a better term.

"
Exile009 wrote:
2) What "multiple setups"? As for the damage, no it isn't "doing a fraction of the damage it's supposed to do". For clarity, the tooltip damage will most likely list the damage PER BEAM. If combined (with the jewel), then you simply multiply that number with the number of beams that've been combined. This is exactly the same as, say, split arrow or tornado shot - and people still use them despite that not all the arrows are hitting enemies. You don't hear them complaining that their skill is doing a "fraction of the damage it's supposed to do", do you?


Yeah, OK, thing is you chose the wrong examples here. Split arrow and tornado shot can pierce, or even have built-in pierce. That makes them desireable. On top of that tornado shot does pretty much all the things with just one setup, while being effective at clearing things in pretty much all directions at once.

And yeah, if you want to do all the things with your skill, you will most likely want an AOE setup and a single target setup.

"
Exile009 wrote:
5) I've already posted about how the new skill may be changed. Also, the point is that this skill allows you to play around with its design more. If you want to make it look more like a single laser beam, so be it. But you can play it other ways too. Considering the differences between this skill and the new skill that was teased, it seems silly to consider them the same just cos you can convert one seemingly into the other. There's far more difference between this skill and the new skill than between the new skill and Incinerate. Hell, there's more differences here than between Incinerate and Flame Totem or even Earthquake and Ground Slam and Ice Crash. Defining one's threshold for minimum level of allowable difference between skills too large narrows the design space considerably such that GGG would probably already have exhausted every idea that it's possible to implement. But that's cos you've narrowed their options too much. As long as people see a meaningful enough difference between those examples I gave earlier (Incinerate, Flame Totem, EQ, Ground Slam, Ice Crash) and many others that I could have given, I submit that this skill is definitely unique enough to get in.


Care to explain in which way "we"/"I" could have narrowed down GGG's options too much? If you start accusing me, or someone else of something, you'd better make clear what you're all about.

"
Exile009 wrote:
6) Yes, LESS multipliers apply. So what? If you haven't noticed, they don't each cut your damage by half, but by a lesser amount (and yes, I know they multiply with each other). Converging two of the beams (slightly) more than doubles the damage of the new single beam at the cost of coverage. There's a reason I chose to make it that way - it was precisely to counteract the LESS damage modifiers you'd be running in order to maximize the potential of that mechanic. Again, these are numbers and I've already stated that the numbers will need a lot of balance testing (which applies to EVERY skill in the game). The point is to work out if the mechanic is viable, which is why no numbers are posted.


OK, so either I stick to minigunning, or shooting around the place, and all that comes with jewels. And you expect people to be willing to use a skill which may force them into swapping gems and jewels in case they only have one 5/6 link available.

"
Exile009 wrote:
7) Now you're just being silly. 9 beams is screen-clutter? Uh huh. I guess you've never played Split Arrow, Tornado Shot or, oh yeah, Spark. Please! Even a dual-Flame Totem build with GMP will have more beams than this.


Look, if your think I haven't figured you out already, you're slightly mistaken. The difference between split arrow, tornado shot, spark and your skill is, that arrows don't mess up your screen as much a glowing projectile stream (or 9, for that matter) that has a screenwide range (Which flametotems usually don't have). And spark is relatively subtle for it's sheer number of projectiles, unless of course you use that spider-spark MTX, which can get a bit confusing at times.

You're trying to be too smart for your own good, but that you can believe. Flametotem fires single projectiles at relatively low distances, you are talking about having a "BEAM" which is comprised of projectiles, which is a different matter entirely, let alone you're talking about having 9 (!) of those available tops, or focusing several ones onto one single target. But no, say it isn't so.

"
Exile009 wrote:
8) And finally we get to the crux of the matter - you're criticizing a skill IDEA based on the fact that it has no "raw numbers" in it yet. Forget about coding, I do hope you've never had to work in design (of anything) before, because that kind of attitude won't get you very far in the field. Numbers are important once you've worked out a concept. Yes, they can disqualify that concept later, but plugging in random numbers is not the first step in designing a concept. Why? Cos numbers can be tweaked, whereas concepts are much more fundamental i.e. there's only a certain amount you can adjust a concept before it no longer resembles your original idea. I posted a skill concept here and was looking for feedback on the same i.e. the concept, not a dismissal on the premise that the numbers (of which I posted exactly ZERO) don't work out. Numbers are flexible - change them to your hearts content.


Yeah, yeah... Sure I won't get far in the field, because I'm not working in it since like 13 years already.

Here's the thing, you say numbers can disqualify a concept later, I say you can put in any numbers you like, do some simple math, and either end up with a skill that is OP for single target, or OP for packs. The moment you said it can kill packs fast with a+b+c, and it will positively melt bosses with x+y+z, I knew what was cooking.

Yeah, concepts are fundamental, that's why I criticised you for designing a skill that ignores the core concepts of the very game that you want to see it in. Is that so hard understand? Your core concept, the idea of converging beams, won't work in this game. Had you done your homework, you would have known from the start. In this game you can only have either one of these: Hitting one thing with all your projectiles, or hitting one thing with only a fraction of them. And before you come up with that jewel of yours: One skill can only do one of these things regardless of what jewels you have on your tree. Once Again I refer to what has been done to shotgunning with projectiles in this game some time ago.

"
Exile009 wrote:
Most players don't judge skills based on just their numbers, but on whether they seem fun to play, which is a CONCEPTUAL choice. GGG (and every other games company) designs that way too, which is why we still have only a skill teaser video and not a released skill - the skill is already coded and ready to implement (as shown in that teaser video), yet not released yet because they're now adjusting the numbers to keep it balanced. The same would apply to this skill. If you want to design by the numbers, then all you need to do is implement a skill which damages monsters on using it (absent any mechanics whatsoever, just straight up damages monsters around you) and then just work out how much damage it should do. Then you implement several "different" skills, whose only differentiating factor is the amount of damage they do/number of monsters they hit. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I rather suspect most players wouldn't care to play any of those skills (or maybe just one).


Yeah, yeah, skill needs to look good and sound good too, otherwise people don't like it, It's not like you're telling me something new here.

Yeah, fun to play, let's talk about this one. A skill that kills packs at a reasonable pace is rewarding to use. If your skill doesn't do that, it isn't fun to play. The same applies to fighting bosses. And before you swing that clearspeed-meta-bat of yours: I said reasonable. OK?

Oh, and there are skills that simply damage all things around you, and they're being used every day. Vortex, Bladevortex, Cyclone, Ice nova, discharge (yes people still play that), Righteous fire, static strike, shock nova, sweep... Which ones of these are being used the most, eventhough numbers and clearspeed don't matter? See the problem now?

Your skill, aside of being conceptually "undoable", is redudant already. You think it's different enough, because you came up with jewel-based mechanics and whatnot, but the fact of the matter is that we have skills that do what your skill does already, and all we need to do is swap a couple gems. Sure, it won't look like a "BEAM", but otherwise we can already emulate what your single target, or AOE solution would be like. The only difference is that we can't do that with just one skill gem at the moment...

Nah, screw it... I've said my piece. And if you think that disregarding things like core mechanics, technical limitations, and maybe even balance, makes you a good designer, think again. If you're getting paid for simply throwing ideas around, regardless of wether or not they can be realized, consider yourself lucky, because most of us get paid for results and finished products, and rightfully so.

I remember some podcast with Rory Rackham, where he said he had an idea for a skill or an item, and went to ask one of the coders if it was doable in the first place. Do you know why he did that? I sure do. Again, your idea doesn't look doable at all, because you've overlooked/ignored certain things that this game has working in the background. So basically you're simply discussing an idea for the sake of discussing an idea, as long as you don't educate yourself on what is doable and what isn't. And that doesn't make you a good designer, it makes you an ignorant designer. At the very least you should be willing to change parts of your concept so it can be realized in some way shape or form at all. But yeah, like I said already, I think I got you figured out already, but maybe I'm fortunate enough to be proven wrong.
[quote="ScrotieMcB"]It's just, like, people's opinions, man.

But I cannot respect motherf♪♫♫♪rs calling something a simulator, when it isn't one.[/quote]

Mors edited this post first.

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info