Nerf life nodes... while boosting base life so life itself isn't nerfed
|
There is too much % to award high levels but nothing to award the lower levels.
It scales poorly at low level and amazing at high levels. If you had to half the % you need to add a base static to award the lower levels. As you suggested 8% becomes 4%+20 base static Life. 12% becomes 6%+30 base static life. Base HP with 8% life node 50 = 54 100 = 108 250 = 270 500 = 540 1000 = 1080 << scales upwards 1500 = 1620 Base HP with 4%+20 life node 50 = 72 100 = 124 250 = 280 500 = 540 1000 = 1060 << diminishes around here 1500 = 1580 There is just too much % value and not enough static. The other idea would be to remove X % node and turn that into a static node. So we have 8% > 8 % > 12% increased HP It's now 40HP > 40HP > 6% Numbers are always subject to change. My 2 cents on this subject Suggestions
>Alt 'Entrance' & 'Quest NPC'|http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26332090/subtledoorANDquest.png >Alt 'Character Panel'|http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26332090/Stats.png |
|
" I sympathize with the idea, However, I believe the real issue is NOT life and it is NOT monster damage. You will hardly solve the problem by nerfing the life nodes and improving base life, people will still stack life, no matter what. The reason is that life isn't the problem, nor is monster damage, the real issue is the the effectiveness of the defensive mechanisms. People stack life not because they are taking too much damage as in small continuous damage which they can mitigate with flasks etc. They stack life because they are getting one-shotted. Assume we implement what you suggest, a "tanky" build that is viable today for a marauder will still be viable after the (Assumed) resulting in the same total life. Would the marauder drop some life nodes and get some more dps nodes? The answer would be no, he will still be 1/2/3 shotted by Brutus merciless (or Kole or his maps uber-variant). So essentially, as long as the life nodes provide a positive to life, they will always be the preferred choice. Essentially, people are not trading off damage and life and will never do as long as the incoming damage (not monster damage but the final damage subtracted from your life) is such that it one shots the tankiest of characters: Life will always be the priority. As a matter of fact, I am sure that if you add even more life nodes, people will take these and sacrifice their dps instead. There is no such thing as enough life in Wraeclast, so changing just the nodes and how life scales but resulting in the same amounts is not a solution. Why do you think gear pieces without life in end game are worthless? They could have all the dps stats they can they are just not worth it, and this is totally outside the passive tree. The only way (in my humble opionion), for life to become secondary or at least tradebale with other dps stats, is if a buff of the defensive mechanisms is applied. This can either be done through the addition of pure Damage Reduction nodes in the passive tree or to rework how armor mitigates the damage. But as you already noted to another respondent, that is a whole different story and respectfully I will not discuss/pollute this thread with such a discussion. But please consider what I said above, i.e. Life is not the issue here, but it is the inefficiency of defense. Resists trolls
Casts Joy Ninja looter Spreads tar when tickled |
|
" Okay, enough of this. "You will hardly solve the problem by nerfing the life nodes and improving base life, people will still stack life, no matter what." That statement has been made multiple times here, and let me say this: That idea is 100% wrong, at least as far as the passive tree goes. Nerf anything hard enough, and it won't be viable anymore at all: * If the Catalyst cluster by templar gave 3% elemental damage with weapons for the base nodes, and 9% elemental damage with weapons for the Catalyst notable, would people still stack elemental damage with weapons? * If the 3% increased attack speed nodes in the Ranger area were increased to 10% each, would it continue to be the case that no one takes them? But those are silly, because I'm not aiming to nerf life nodes into uselessness anyway, and you say they're not valid examples... " ...because they don't involve survivability. Okay, so here's the real question: if they went through the passive tree and doubled the value of every % armour node, would that be a suggestion you could get behind? Well chew on this: my little suggestion is equal to doubling armour nodes in terms of helping armour-centric builds. And I can prove it... well, that's debatable, but I can put up a really convincing and really math-intensive argument. So without further ado, let's consider my long-delayed response to agbudar, in a spoiler because it contains lots of maths.
Case Study: The Tale of Cal and Ed
So "Cookie Cutter" Cal and "Armour-Enamored" Ed both decide to make 2-handed marauders. As they level them up, the two characters take rather similar paths along the passive tree; however, while Cal does the predictable thing and stacks life, Ed goes rogue and picks up as many armour nodes as possible. Cal and Ed both focus on always having very good gear. They have: * the highest Armour helm/chest/gloves/boots, with two perfect affixes. Cal goes for Life and Strength, Ed goes for flat Armour and % Armour. Neither bothers with quality. * a +30 Amber Amulet with two perfect affixes. Cal goes for Life, Ed goes for % armour rating, both get Strength. * a +40 Leather belt with two perfect affixes. Cal goes for Life, Ed goes for base Armour, both get Strength. * two +30 Coral Rings with two perfect affixes. Both go for Life and Strength. * perfect Perpetual Granite Flask(s) of Iron Skin. So when they're both level 70, this is what it looks like... ...under the current system: * From starting, quests, and levels, both have 510 life. They both have 7 endurance charges. * Cal has these passives, providing 460 Strength, 60 life, 269% increased life, and 20% increased armour. His chest provides 553 armour, 99 life, and 42 Strength; his gloves and boots provide 210 armour, 89 life and 42 Strength each; his helm provides 328 armour, 99 life and 42 Strength; his amulet provides 79 life and 72 strength; his belt provides 139 life and 42 Strength; his rings provide 109 life and 42 strength each. This gives total gear bonuses of 812 life, 366 Strength, and 1301 armour. The grand total is: 826 Strength, 1795 base life with 269% increased life for a final life of 6624, and 5301 armour with 120% increased armour for a final armour of 11663 with granite up. * Ed has these passives, providing 400 Strength, 30 life, 79% increased life, and 351% increased armour. His chest provides 1750 armour, his gloves and boots provide 540 armour each, his helm provides 932 armour; his amulet provides 22% increased armour and 72 Strength; his belt provides 40 life, 322 armour and 42 Strength; his rings provide 109 life and 42 Strength each. This gives total gear bonuses of 258 life, 198 Strength, 3762 armour, and 22% increased armour. The grand total is: 598 Strength, 1097 base life with 79% increased life for a final life of 1964, and 7762 armour with 473% increased armour for a final armour of 44477 with granite up. * How do Cal and Ed compare? When it comes to surviving one-shots, Cal can take a hit of 11560 physical damage and live to tell about it, while Ed can only go as high as about 6565. So when it comes to one-shots, Cal has about 76% more EHP (effective hit points) than Ed against physical. Against hits of 3500 physical damage, however, both have roughly the same EHP; Cal would take about 1515 per hit and go down in five hits, while Ed would only take about 475 damage but still go down in five hits. Against non-physical, obviously Cal would have much even more of an EHP advantage (237% more, to be specific). ...under my suggestion: * From starting, quests, and levels, both have 1020 life. They still both have 7 endurance charges. * Cal's passives provide 460 Strength, 120 life, and 134% increased life. His total gear bonuses remain at 812 life, 366 Strength, and 1301 armour. The grand total is: 826 Strength, 2778 base life with 134% increased life for a final life of 6501. His granite-enabled armour is still 11663. * Ed's passives provide 400 Strength, 60 life, 39% increased life, and 351% increased armour. His total gear bonuses remain at 258 life, 198 Strength, 3762 armour, and 22% increased armour. The grand total is: 598 Strength, 1936 base life with 39% increased life for a final life of 2692, and still 44477 armour with granite up. * How do Cal and Ed compare? When it comes to surviving one-shots, Cal can take a hit of 11370 physical damage and live to tell about it, while Ed can only go as high as about 7940. So when it comes to one-shots, Cal has about 43% more EHP than Ed against physical. Against hits of 4400 physical damage, Cal would take about 2065 and go down in four hits; against the same hits, Ed would take about 850 and also go down in four hits. Against elemental/chaos attacks, Cal still has a significant EHP advantage over Ed, but not as big a gulf as before (140% more). * How does this model compare with the current one? Ed is more efficient at what he does best; he can take one-shots that are about 20% bigger, and is now on par with the life build in terms of four-shots, not five-shots. Perhaps most importantly, his EHP against non-physical increased more than 40%, covering a potential weak spot in a build focused around preventing physical damage. ...with armour nodes doubled: * Still 510 base life each. Still 7 charges. * Cal still ends with 826 Strength, 1795 base life with 269% increased life for a final life of 6624, and 5301 armour before % increases. The only difference is he now has 140% increased armour, so that's 12723 armour with granite up. * Ed still ends with 598 Strength, 1097 base life with 79% increased life for a final life of 1964, and 7762 armour before % increases. The only difference is he now has 824% increased armour for a whopping 71721 armour with granite up. * How do Cal and Ed compare? When it comes to surviving one-shots, Cal's the same at 11675, while Ed can only go as high as about 8135. So when it comes to one-shots, Cal has about 43% more EHP than Ed against physical. Against hits of 6000 physical damage, Cal would take a little under 3000 and go down in three hits; against the same hits, Ed would take about 905 and also go down in three hits. Against non-physical, however, Ed would be just as weak as he was before; Cal would have 237% more EHP in those departments. * How does this model compare with the current one? Ed is more efficient at what he does best; he can take one-shots that are about 24% bigger, and is now on par with the life build in terms of three-shots, not five-shots. However, his EHP against non-physical hasn't improved one bit. Here are the grand conclusions of all those maths: * In terms of efficiency vs one-shots, under my suggestion the life build has a 43% advantage, and under the double-armour-node scenario the life build also has a 43% advantage (both better than the current system's 76% advantage). It's not a coincidence because, in terms of ratios, 1:2 is the same as 2:4, and that's how the math on that particular kind of calculation works. * My suggestion isn't cut-and-dry superior to the double-armour-node scenario. The advantage mine has is that armour builds gain increased EHP against non-physical damage, while the advantage in the double-armour scenario is increased EHP against physical attacks that are not one-shots. Personally, I feel like covering a build's weaknesses is more important than further playing to its strengths, especially since elemental status duration would be reduced, but opinions may differ here. The point I'd hope gets across is that they're very, very close, and that it's pretty darn close to equal regardless of which you prefer. So, skarrmania, what I propose to you is that you railing against my suggestion is roughly equivalent to denouncing a doubling of the values on armour nodes, which seems rather contradictory for someone who believes the defenses are weak and that increasing their value is the most important thing to be done currently. Kind of a tenuous position, if you ask me... ...but don't feel bad about posting your misgivings here, Skarr. Lots of other people voiced the same sentiment, and you were more eloquent than most in your explanation. I need things like that to motivate me. Also, for what it's worth, my suggestion might not be enough of a buff to defenses; "doubling the values on armour nodes," as strong as it sounds, might not be enough, therefore my suggestion might not be enough either. I do, however, think it's a good first step. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Feb 22, 2013, 3:19:35 AM
|
|
|
I love it when people do calculations like this. What would the stats be if life gain on level and Str was increased and nodes decreased as you propse, AND armour nodes were doubled? At first I went, "Hang on, Granites don't take in your multipliers"... then I remembered my current character was an IR Ranger with no +armour nodes, and my previous character did get the benefits in CB.
Also, I want to see a web series of Cal and Ed now. Wherein bad things happen to both of them, but Ed is plucky and presses on while Cal rages. I'm not sure I've said it before, but I don't think the proposed change to life, by itself, is enough. I do think that it's a necessary first step, and once it is done we can look to buff the other defences, notably armour and evasion, but also energy shield. |
|
" I actually think armour is pretty usable and potentially abusable if one really commits to endurance charges; for example, 9 charges, which is possible with uniques. You'd lose some life, but with Ed's build under the current system, you'd be outright immune (100% reduction) against hits of 3000 physical damage or less with granite up. Under the double-armour scenario he could get 100% mitigation against 6000-damage hits using the same method. The counterpoint to that is that armour with less endurance charges and granite down is pathetically weak. With zero charges, the same 3500 hits he previous could eat five of become dangerously close to one-shots, and without granite you can drop the "close to" part. Since endurance charges are not innately present, the skills that create them are few, and they have an annoyingly short duration, this makes armour very frustrating to play, even if it has opportunities at breaking the game. The endurance charge + armour synergy really needs to be disbanded completely (endurance charges separate after armour) or nearly completely (endurance charges separate before armour); I'm leaning towards the latter, so there's still a little synergy left. This would make armour + endurance similar to evasion + dodge, completely closing any chances at 100% mitigation. This, of course, would cripple armour, so you'd have to rebuild it virtually from scratch to regain its proper usefulness. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Feb 22, 2013, 5:30:03 AM
|
|
|
Thanks for answering
" I agree to a certain extent, there is of course a difference between nerfing a node and making a node totally useless. In general and given the ammount of useless nodes (especially on the melee side), I would think that being aware of this, you would try to make the passive tree more attractive instead of making it less attractive by yet adding another layer of uselessness, albeit not total uselessness. " Absolutely not, even doubling armour as a flat value would be something silly to do, it only displaces the problem, it doesnt make armour effectiveness any better. If you read my post I suggested as examples: the addition of flat damage reduction nodes and/or reworking how the armor mitigates damage. In no instance have I suggested the "doubling" of armor nodes. But anyway, let us hear it...:-) " Multipling numbers with percentages is more accounting than maths, even more true here. Maths uses general symbolism and abstraction to prove an argument. Unless to provide a proof as a counter-example, maths do not use a single over tuned example to derive general conclusions, but I am not here to discuss semantics. I thank you for providing that example, what it shows in all 3 instances is that the guy who has taken more life nodes has better survivability than the one who has stacked armour. So essentially confirming what I said and what is already well known, life is still the priority, and is hardly worth trading with armor. Even if total armour is doubled (not the nodes, the whole armour) it is still not sufficient to be on par with life. This also goes for the other defensive stats, block and evasion, that just tells you that we are very far away from the point of being able to trade life nodes with dps nodes. " Humm, of course if you buff the life of the guy who has very little he would have more chances. Again, you show yourself that life is as important in your suggestion. Decreasing the importance of life nodes, DOES NOT decrease the importance of life. " Ok so now we are mixing other sources of damage? for non-physical damage we have resist nodes. This makes the conclusion a bit fallacious, and by that I am refering to the following :"armour builds gain increased EHP against non-physical damage" which is not wrong in its context but is a fallacious conclusion. You are simply buffing life outside the passive tree and nerfing the increase nodes do provide, this applies equally to all builds and is not restricted to armour builds, i.e. All builds that did not spend points on life nodes would benefit from this. " Again, if you put as much care in reading my post as I do yours ;) you will see the following: " and the following: " This in no way implies that I wanted a doubling of the armour nodes. In fact it is more silly than what you are trying to do with life. When I state that the defensive mechanisms effectiveness need a buff, I refer not to the value of armour, but as how effective armour is. I have made some plots in some other thread that show how Armour becomes more efficient by adding a flat damage reduction value (in that case it was due to endurance charges). This is why I suggested adding a flat additive DR node (make it as costly as you want in terms of skills) which will make armour effectiveness scale better with incoming damage. This in turn makes life slightly less important for survibability and armour slightly more important, and takles the problem at its roots. The roots of the problem is not the amount of life provided by passive tree nodes, but the absolute necessity of life and a lot of it in end game. " always happy to debate things and exchange ideas in a civil way, but I can be a troll if taunted :-). Resists trolls
Casts Joy Ninja looter Spreads tar when tickled |
|
"I'm pretty sure that the point is that nerfing is pointless in this case and will just create new problems. |
|
" That's what I think too and it's a problem that cannot be solved just by nerfing life nodes, since life would still be an absolute necessity and it would still be amassed by any possible means. To solve this problem GGG has to rework completely how all the defences work and it's not a simple thing to do. It should have been done months ago, when the game was still in closed beta or even before, when testing the basic mechanics, since it should have been evident even then. It's the basic mechanic of life that is too efficient in comparison to ALL the mechanics which mitigate damage, so it's those mechanics that they have to work on to make them at least a viable option. But this could require an awful amount of work, not much for changing formulas (they probably appear in just a bunch of functions), but to recalibrate any single skill or mob in the game after the change (a complex and looooong database editing). Nonetheless, they'll have to do sooner or later, and I'm for the sooner better than later. Last edited by Sdrumax#6273 on Feb 22, 2013, 9:37:59 AM
|
|
" Obligatory hyperbole warning: Of course doubling armour nodes would make armour effectiveness better. Let's just pretend you said "doesn't improve armour effectiveness enough to matter." " The main issue I have with this comment is that you make my calculations the crux of one of your arguments immediately after undermining the legitimacy of so-called "accounting" as a method for gauging the effects of balance changes. Yes, my suggestion alone would not be enough to fix armour. I acknowledge that. It would, however, make things about 40% better. The same basic concept applies to life nodes vs DPS nodes; after my suggestion, things would be better, although perhaps not fully fixed. I fail to see the antagonism for a step in the right direction. The real question is: What would you suggest? What would you do differently? If you do nothing but criticize a suggestion, not because it's not in the direction you agree with but because it's not extreme enough, you're just a talking-head complainer. Give me something better, or pick from among the available suggestions the one that does the most (and I don't think anyone is proposing anything as extreme as me, as seriously as me) and support that. Don't go all entitlement mentality on me. " Well, yeah, I'm not decreasing the importance of life... why would I? Is your crusade one against the red bulb itself, or against life nodes dominating all passive builds? Unless you go CI, I can't see you making this game work without life... and I am not trying to make life unimportant, or the title of this thread would be "nerf life nodes, nerf life, let's tear down how this game works and rebuild it from the ground up." Except I'd never do that, because I know GGG is roughly 20 people, and they can't rebuild it from the ground up even if they wanted to. I think I've misjudged you. There's a clear distinction between people who want the defense systems in this game to be viable and worth investing in, and those who have some kind of wierd hatred of life as a resource and want every defense to be like ES, completely displacing the need for life. I fear you're in that latter group, and honestly there's not much I can say to someone from that camp except that its basic premises are insane and completely contradictory to how PoE should work. Among us people who see the usefulness of life as a mechanic, the problem is not the absolute necessity of life and a lot of it in the game — because seriously, under what crackpot, non-ES system would it not be necessary? — but the OP nature of life nodes in passive tree builds. Which is, you know, the exact opposite of the text you bolded. So we might be at an impasse here. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
|
Rather than nerfing the life nodes why not get rid of the majority of them entirely? I'm not saying all nodes but those small clusters of three 8% nodes are really uninspired. Why not replace them with something interesting. Maybe make the witch have easy access to an instant cast fireball (put in a small cooldown if need be), or the duelist side can have a retaliate on block skill (auto strike that triggers on block) but only when dual wielding. I'm not trying to make game-breaking suggestions but it would be interesting to see nodes that can really change certain skills and play-styles.
Maybe even make some of these nodes cost more than one skill point. The whole 8% cluster was 3, 4, or 5 skills why not have skills that were worth saving 3 points for? As it stands currently every successful build takes a ridiculous amount of 8% life nodes as that is boring as hell. This would create diversity in builds and probably result in less new players quitting their first glass cannon character. |
|
