Nerf life nodes... while boosting base life so life itself isn't nerfed

I'm surprised this discussion is ongoing. I actually like this proposal. However. The game is really too far down the commitment lane, headed towards a formal September release, to re-wicker the whole tree like this. Balancing it would be ... a pain. This is a big change.

Ultimately, we should consider the reason why everyone is taking all those life nodes. It's because the game hurts. If this is really a problem, the easy solution is to merely slightly nerf all incoming damage. If you don't think that's the the thing to do, it would appear to be that the complaint is either about a) aesthetics: it is ugly to pick so many life nodes or some other subjective reason for dislike, or b) a lack of other options.

I can't particularly give any complaints of type 'a' much credence. So I'll assume that this is really about 'b'.

You can create those options by merely alleviating the need to choose the life nodes to begin with. That's what the incoming damage nerf would do. Or you could just add N passives to the game through some additional mechanism: several quests could give more passives than they do now. Either way, you have more options, satisfying 'b'.

Those options obviously all make the easier. But anything which frees up passives to be used on anything other than life will in fact make the game easier. This is absolutely inevitable. That's why I say that--if we are to really acknowledge this life issue as a problem--that's my preferred fix. Just make the game easier. Why do it indirectly, when doing it directly is so simple?

Any other fix is merely an illusion, or a fix that does a better job of hiding that it's a difficulty nerf.

--C

"

Courageous wrote:

Why do it indirectly, when doing it directly is so simple?

Because it's actually a lot more complicated. For example, you can't just reduce physical damage by x% -- that provides a buff to players with high armour. On the other hand, you can't just factor in y armour -- there are Acrobatics users with zero armour. My understanding is that GGG's policy on this is manual tuning through alpha testing, which would take even longer than implementing my suggestion. This is why my suggestion is formulated on the basis of equivalent life for life-stacking passive-builds post-suggestion, so that the life baseline doesn't change much, therefore damage doesn't need to be re-tuned; it's meant as a buff for "glass cannon" (few life nodes) builds, not a buff for "tank" (life stacking) builds.

Reducing damage has more-than-would-first-appear impact. I would therefore suggest a modest 5% decrease in damage as a test run. Hell, they could drop it 1-2% a week until it's right and tune from there. That would be a measured response to this situation that, well, that "other company" doesn't know how to do. I don't know if they just have a scalar they can apply on their side that makes it as easy to do as all that, but if they do, then that's how I would do it.

BTW, when I said damage reduction, I meant reduction at the generation source: all mobs would do N% less damage. This would buff all players, not just armor wearers. Although I do get your point with regards to armor, due to its scaling formula.

Anyway, you could also globally change the % value of all life nodes in the tree. Again, this just makes the game easier, as people would go get regrets and spec out of what they didn't need, so this is all a way of making the game easier, unless you also take away total # of passives granted.

But if your doing that, then it starts to look like a concern about aesthetics.

I will say this. I think in retrospect it was a mistake to have life nodes be part of the passive tree. So you are definitely on the right track from a total design perspective. In my opinion.

--C

"

Courageous wrote:

I will say this. I think in retrospect it was a mistake to have life nodes be part of the passive tree. So you are definitely on the right track from a total design perspective. In my opinion.

If you ask me, that's a little like saying cast speed shouldn't be on the passive tree. It is, but at low values, and with good reason... in a way, the current life node situation is a lot like how casters would operate if all of the cast speed nodes were 8% to 12%.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Courageous wrote:

Why do it indirectly, when doing it directly is so simple?

Because it's actually a lot more complicated. For example, you can't just reduce physical damage by x% -- that provides a buff to players with high armour. On the other hand, you can't just factor in y armour -- there are Acrobatics users with zero armour. My understanding is that GGG's policy on this is manual tuning through alpha testing, which would take even longer than implementing my suggestion. This is why my suggestion is formulated on the basis of equivalent life for life-stacking passive-builds post-suggestion, so that the life baseline doesn't change much, therefore damage doesn't need to be re-tuned; it's meant as a buff for "glass cannon" (few life nodes) builds, not a buff for "tank" (life stacking) builds.

I don't know why you persist with this line- as if changing damage requires balance work but changing base life does not.

How much +life mods (from gear or other sources) are you considering as your zero point (the point at which you would be unaffected by the change)? How many percentage life nodes? What is the progression for both of those numbers from level 1-70?

If you are shooting for the average, then anybody who is above the average is "hurt" by this change. Of course that is a side-effect of the intent, but I'm simply saying that changing the relationship between base life and life from gear is no less a balance concern than is changing mob damage. If you pick something well above the average then you don't impact existing builds negatively for investing too heavily in life, but you have buffed life overall for the majority thus reducing the game's challenge. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is not how you have framed the idea as being balance-neutral.

To be fair, we are talking about what is (presumably) small adjustments under either solution, and small adjustments are unlikely to have a large effect. But either way (basic life boost or mob nerf) you are tinkering with balance and there is an equal potential for unforeseen consequence. One option is not superior to the other in this regard. There may be other reasons why one option is superior to the other, but a lack of balance fallout is not one of those reasons.

"

PolarisOrbit wrote:

I don't know why you persist with this line- as if changing damage requires balance work but changing base life does not.

I actually think I partially answered that in the post five minutes before yours; it's my error that I didn't get it at all in the answer to Courageous you quoted. It's the 8%-12% cast speed issue -- even if the difficulty level were adjusted downward such that life wasn't as required, life nodes would still be far too strong; even when more survivability isn't required, with numbers like those it would still be the best way to improve your character, and the result would essentially be "Kaom's for everybody" -- increased killspeed not from extra DPS but from extra recklessness, a general feeling of invulnerability, and continued life node passive tree dominance.

That might actually be worse than the current situation.

"

...with numbers like those it would still be the best way to improve your character...

I don't agree with this conclusion. Plenty of people have characters with life nodes within reach of their tree that they haven't fully needed, and therefore expended the passive points on various other things. With decreased incoming damage, this would only happen more.

No one wants life they don't need. If I could get 3 life nodes refunded in exchange for more critical chance or lightning damage on my LA crit shadow, I'd take 'em.

--C

+1
Im not going to read all this jibber jabber. Im just going to say that I hate spending so many points on life, especially if Im not going to get a +20% node for my troubles.

+1

No, it will never happen so gtfo