Strike Range Changes

The history of PoE shows GGG got no love for melee and especially not for Strike skills.

Problem:

"Melee Range is given at very small values on many Strike Gems, and characters lack diverse ways to invest in Melee Range on the passive tree and gear."

Expected Solution:

"We increased the melee strike range across the board on all Strike Skill Gems".

Solution in reality:

Therefore we removed additional strike range modifiers from the gems itself that came with gem levels and locked them behind valueable skill points.

Question:

In what universe is that an appropriate solution to the identified problem where melee strike range was already really bad. This is pure contradiction.

I get it we are supposed to play Casters, Minions and Ranged gem level scaling characters not actual weapon based characters that go to melee range. But why the hatred against melee GGG?

"

zzang wrote:

Expected Solution:

"We increased the melee strike range across the board on all Strike Skill Gems".

Ideal solution:

Implement a real melee targeting system instead of whatever we got now.

worst part of it:

this system is ALREADY implemented. Multistrike/Ancestral Call uses it.

but player's character uses some ancient abomination instead

"

raics wrote:

"

zzang wrote:

Expected Solution:

"We increased the melee strike range across the board on all Strike Skill Gems".

Ideal solution:

Implement a real melee targeting system instead of whatever we got now.

I tried Static Strike (lets walk and explode build) In Anomaleague and targeting is still the worst thing ever...Completely kills the joy of playing character :(

Even if it turns out we can get more range on the tree, I agree that the gems need more power, not the tree. More than likely the +range nodes will be ones that require you to sacrifice damage to obtain.

"

VolcanoElixir wrote:

More than likely the +range nodes will be ones that require you to sacrifice damage to obtain.

Sadly, that might very well be the case, which - of course - would be very bad. I honestly think it's about time that strike skills got a built in +2/3 ancestral call effect, especially strike skills without a secondary AoE/projectile effect, like Double Strike, Dual Strike, Heavy Strike - and, of course, strike range.

And for GGG to go the opposite direction is for me jaw dropping.

Yeah, getting more range through affixes and the passive tree is all well and good but I hardly think striking skills would be broken if they kept their base increase. If anything they need all the help they can get, if any gem group deserves to gain sometehing without having something else taken away it's strikes

"

Moethelion wrote:

„We have added new sources on the passive tree to make up for it“ - This is almost always a nerf, because you know… passive points are limited.

This is was bothers me. What if i don't want to take "Strike Range" since it barely does anything? No damage, no defense.

"

sidtherat wrote:

masteries arent free. they also heavily incentivise specialising in one type of nodes.

also passive tree lost A LOT of damage stuff, so you are more than ever forced to pick all that is left (alternative is to get good gear but most players cannot do that)

3.16 is even larger nerf than 3.15 but this time GGG did the PR spin well and people still believe we got defensive buffs :)

Exactly, but you need a brain to understand this, some people obviously have a hard time using it ....
So glad there is someone who sees through the lies.

They can't fix the targeting problem so instead they decided to make it worse and they think that is the move?

Who the hell is going to give up passive points for strike range?
Do they really think Strike Range > Life/Defence/Power/etc.?
Do any of them actually play melee other than Cyclone?


Literally 2 minutes playing a strike skill and you can automatically tell what is wrong with it. THE TARGETING SUCKS!!!

Why is every other ARPG able to have melee be functioning and competitive but this game can't?

I bet they are going cripple attack speed again.