Developer video on the new skill tree

"

goslaw3 wrote:

when we can check new tree on official website? also monday?

Yes, the site content will be updated along with the game as usual.

Interesting; will be fun to try out once it's released.

My opinion is that I welcome a more linear tree for those who wish to build a traditional character; it was disheartening to basically have to scrap several of my early builds because some of the first nodes that looked good (critical strike damage multiplier comes to mind) turned out to be not so great. Confusing...and potentially a permanent deal-breaker to more casual gamers.

While some will say (rightly) that the tree has been "dumbed down", for many players that's not a bad thing. Sure, you can choose whether to build a cold witch, fire witch, lightning witch, poison witch, summoning witch or any combination of a couple of disciplines, but if the early nodes keep you from wrecking your character on the way toward that day of decision I'm all for it.

That being said, I very much support early "side roads" that lead to the more exotic builds. It looks like GGG endeavored to make these alternate paths very identifiable as potentially risky, but also sought to make the routes between trees as short as possible...and the visual synergy suffered as a result. I find it fascinating that so many arguments centered around form rather than function. Great stuff that. Hopefully someone will save their current build and compare how many points they used with the olde tree versus the new tree to make their character all it could be.

I don't think it's unreasonable that building a high-strength dual-wielding melee witch should be possible and viable, but I believe that that build should never be as innately powerful as a high strength dual-wielding marauder....unless such equality is achieved via, you guessed it, magical means. Traditional builds should remain viable options, and I have no problems with putting up a few signposts to help out players that only have a few hours every week for gaming. Hopefully, GGG can strike a balance here, and keep the advanced folks happy as well. Nice work on the video, let's see how it plays.

"

Strill wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

siffin wrote:

Astute observation fellow chap. Let's go boil some amm sammies shall we.

Also a good tip:

Look ahead on the skilldrasil to find the shortest path between the point you're at and the point you're trying to reach.

Not necessarily. Unless you're in a huge hurry to get there, sometimes the longer route nets you more useful/interesting nodes, or close connections to revisit later. It's a tradeoff to consider.

Getting there can be half the fun. =^[.]^=

No, part of my point was that one gets you there with either one less skill point, or the same skill points and 10 additional strength. There's really no reason to take one route unless you're skipping the witch starting area entirely.

Ah. I wasn't speaking about that specific instance, only about your more general advice about counting nodes on the way to a destination in the tree. It is possible to get more value taking a somewhat longer route, depending on what your build is. It can be worth looking at the tradeoff. =^[.]^=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Ah. I wasn't speaking about that specific instance, only about your more general advice about counting nodes on the way to a destination in the tree. It is possible to get more value taking a somewhat longer route, depending on what your build is. It can be worth looking at the tradeoff. =^[.]^=

The shorter route gets you more attribute points, gets you to the destination faster, AND unlocks potential branches while the alternative unlocks none. Literally the only good thing about the longer route is that it gets you out of the Witch starting point without having to take any witch starting skills. Other classes entering the witch starting area wouldn't even want it because the short and long routes both lead to the witch starting passives, but the short route leads farther along on the witch inner starting highway as well.

Because of that, I think they should make that path one node longer, but attach it one node closer to the starting point so that it's the same length, but it's obvious that it's not a good path to use unless you're skipping the witch starting area.

"

Strill wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Ah. I wasn't speaking about that specific instance, only about your more general advice about counting nodes on the way to a destination in the tree. It is possible to get more value taking a somewhat longer route, depending on what your build is. It can be worth looking at the tradeoff. =^[.]^=

The shorter route gets you more attribute points, gets you to the destination faster, AND unlocks potential branches while the alternative unlocks none. Literally the only good thing about the longer route is that it gets you out of the Witch starting point without having to take any witch starting skills. Other classes entering the witch starting area wouldn't even want it because the short and long routes both lead to the witch starting passives, but the short route leads farther along on the witch inner starting highway as well.

Because of that, I think they should make that path one node longer, but attach it one node closer to the starting point so that it's the same length, but it's obvious that it's not a good path to use unless you're skipping the witch starting area.

That's the whole point though isn't it, that it's there for skipping the witch starting area.

"

OldeSchool wrote:

It looks like GGG endeavored to make these alternate paths very identifiable as potentially risky, but also sought to make the routes between trees as short as possible...and the visual synergy suffered as a result. I find it fascinating that so many arguments centered around form rather than function.

Correct, I have only to complain about the ascetics because there isn't enough information to know whether this patch is making passives clearer or if it's actually being dumbed down.

"

ionface wrote:

"

OldeSchool wrote:

It looks like GGG endeavored to make these alternate paths very identifiable as potentially risky, but also sought to make the routes between trees as short as possible...and the visual synergy suffered as a result. I find it fascinating that so many arguments centered around form rather than function.

Correct, I have only to complain about the ascetics because there isn't enough information to know whether this patch is making passives clearer or if it's actually being dumbed down.

Why isn't there enough information? We have a full map and we know what all the passives do. What's stopping you?

Also, don't rag on ascetics. Ascetics can be nice people too.

"

Strill wrote:

"

ionface wrote:

"

OldeSchool wrote:

It looks like GGG endeavored to make these alternate paths very identifiable as potentially risky, but also sought to make the routes between trees as short as possible...and the visual synergy suffered as a result. I find it fascinating that so many arguments centered around form rather than function.

Correct, I have only to complain about the ascetics because there isn't enough information to know whether this patch is making passives clearer or if it's actually being dumbed down.

Why isn't there enough information? We have a full map and we know what all the passives do. What's stopping you?

Also, don't rag on ascetics. Ascetics can be nice people too.

Because many folks are to lazy to be bothered to either learn what each node does by appearance or to load up the picture of the new map and a picture of the current map and compare them side by side.

"

Fiveby5 wrote:

Challenge Accepted.



I went through the entire video and built the tree with screenshots at 1080p. I didn't have to much time to refine the image but it will give you guys what you've been wanting.

It should be noted I cleared this with Chris before posting it, so have fun with it. :D

You, sir, are a hero. Thanks a bunch, now i can contemplate how screwed up my build will be.