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

@GutenTag

Let's see what happens to level 65 Energy Shield characters with no life nodes, 104 Strength, and 5k ES before Chaos Inoculation/Infused Shield (CI+IS).

Current System
* With CI+IS: -491 life, +1000 ES, stuns/freezes counted against 492 life
* Non-CI: 492 life against chaos damage, unless focus on life nodes; stuns/freezes counted against 492 life

My Suggestion
* With CI+IS: -923 life, +1000 ES (CI is still an upgrade), stuns/freezes counted against 924 life
* Non-CI: 924 life against chaos damage, unless focus on life nodes; stuns/freezes counted against 924 life

Verdict
* CI: Straight-up buff, no drawbacks.
* Non-CI: Since we're assuming no life nodes, straight-up buff, no drawbacks.

+1, i really want to build something with less hp nodes, i am bored as balls with them

+1 and I hope the OP catches this post because this is my one and only (major) concern.

How does this affect those of us that are wanting to play a Righteous Fire build?

I am currently running around with about 700 health and 2.6k energy shield. This, through Zealots Oath, 2.5% regen from nodes and 1.7% (roughly) from Vitality allows me to sustain my Righteous Fire indefinitely thanks to Saffell's Frame, Purity and speccing into +5% all max resists. Now at level 63 I'd be sporting another 362 health from level alone, and another 50 odd from strength meaning that my life has spiked from close to 700 to well over 1,100. Prior to your suggestion my RF toon was taking 700 x 1.3 x 0.12 (88% resist) damage, or 109.2 DPS. I am regenerating about 113.4 ES per second, meaning that out of combat my ES is stable, not in decline. At 1,100 health I am taking 171.6 DPS from righteous fire, leaving a shortfall of 58.2 ES per second in my build. Am I now expected to run around with a rejuvenation totem at all times to simply "stay alive" whilst not in combat?

"

auLansalot wrote:

How does this affect those of us that are wanting to play a Righteous Fire build?

You mean ZORF -- Zealot's Oath Righteous Fire. There's a pure life version too (I call it KaRF, the Ka is for Kaom's Heart), although it's less common and more crazy.

Anywho, ZORF actually gets pretty nerfed; my whole suggestion is about increasing base life, after all, and this is the only build where increased max life is actually a drawback. After my suggestion, your particular setup would need about 3.3k ES to break even (ZO regen = RF degen) with your current build, and if you went for the three 0.4 regen nodes in the center you could get it done you could get it done with 2.6k ES (which you may or may not still have, since you'd have to move passive around). It would clearly still be possible, especially late-game, but it wouldn't be quite as powerful.

Did I intentionally nerf ZORF making these suggestions? No. Do I feel bad about nerfing it? Not at all. ZORF is pretty damn powerful, especially with Shavronne's Wrappings, and is definitely strong enough to survive a kick to the pants.

I'm not sold on the exact numbers, pretty much double or halve everything, but I do agree that skewing more effect towards base life and taking away from (perhaps not all) life nodes would have a positive impact on gameplay and build diversity. Problem is, my gut feeling tells me that without also fixing the other problems (scaling to such large numbers) successful builds will still require a similar degree of extensive speccing into life, the "Path of Life Nodes" dilemma would still exist, it'd just be a little more tolerable for builds that did not want to spec so extensively into life. To really fix the problem, imo, the value of all things should be halved, and the balance be scaled on much smaller numbers (nip power creep in the ass, the true culprit here), then implement something like this. But I recognize (as you point out in your op) that is likely never to happen, so a definite +1 from me.

Scrotie, I like your idea- the reduction of life nodes with a compensation to keep survivability the same is a sound one. But I think a slightly different compensation could solve an additional problem besides just the importance of life nodes. Instead of boosting base life to compensate for the nerf to life nodes, I would like to see monster damage nerfed instead. The difference is making up the difference on monster damage makes armor better, which is melee's base mitigation stat.

Example:
-Life nodes halved as before
-Base life not adjusted
-Starting from Normal Act 3, for each Act monsters damage 2.5% less damage. Count every 5 levels of maps as another Act for the purpose of this adjustment. Damage adjustments are staggered because not all life nodes are picked at the same time. This should roughly compensate 1 life node per Act.

In this example, Act 3 Merciless monsters would deal (0.975^7)%=83.8% as much damage which would be roughly equal if you pick 7 life nodes. The difference is that armor would be roughly (100/83.8)%=119% as effective, which is a buff for melee.

"

PolarisOrbit wrote:

I would like to see monster damage nerfed instead...

-Starting from Normal Act 3, for each Act monsters damage 2.5% less damage. Count every 5 levels of maps as another Act for the purpose of this adjustment. Damage adjustments are staggered because not all life nodes are picked at the same time. This should roughly compensate 1 life node per Act.

In this example, Act 3 Merciless monsters would deal (0.975^7)%=83.8% as much damage which would be roughly equal if you pick 7 life nodes. The difference is that armor would be roughly (100/83.8)%=119% as effective, which is a buff for melee.

It's a buff for armour, which is not to be confused as a buff for melee. You'd probably see more Strength-based characters, but you probably wouldn't see more of them holding maces, just more of them linking Iron Will to Freezing Pulse, or using Iron Grip with Lightning Arrow.

GGG couldn't just apply a simply formula for that, since the difference between armour-based and non-armour characters would become so different. They'd have to go and rebalance everything through actual playtesting, which is a meticulous process that pretty much ensures they wouldn't have time to do it.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

It's a buff for armour, which is not to be confused as a buff for melee. You'd probably see more Strength-based characters, but you probably wouldn't see more of them holding maces, just more of them linking Iron Will to Freezing Pulse, or using Iron Grip with Lightning Arrow.

GGG couldn't just apply a simply formula for that, since the difference between armour-based and non-armour characters would become so different. They'd have to go and rebalance everything through actual playtesting, which is a meticulous process that pretty much ensures they wouldn't have time to do it.

I'm confused, are you saying that if armor was worth stacking that this would be a problem? I do not see much value in armor; it is fair to buff damage mitigation if it is not effective. While armor may not be completely synonymous with melee, it is definitely linked. I don't see any logical way of buffing melee survivability without improving armor.

re: playtesting
The difference between the 3 armor types is already significant. The only one that is really viable is energy shield with chaos innoculation. Bringing one of the others up to a reasonable level is going to take testing no matter when they do it, so I don't see how playtesting is a con so much as a necessity. Unless you are under the assumption that all of them being weak makes them perfectly balanced with each other. I'm fine with them bringing up one at a time, and would argue that it is a more practical method of making them viable which would require less playtesting. Assuming armor is first, the viable options will be life builds and armor builds. Eventually they fix evasion and the viable builds are life builds, armor builds, and evasion builds. Finally they bring up energy shield (without chaos innoculation) and all 4 are viable options.

I just want to get the ball rolling. Nerfing life nodes by itself makes the strongest defensive options (deservedly) weaker, but if that's all you do you are balancing the game solely through nerfs. I philosophically disagree that nerfs should be the only tool in the chest.

"

PolarisOrbit wrote:

I'm confused, are you saying that if armor was worth stacking that this would be a problem? I do not see much value in armor; it is fair to buff damage mitigation if it is not effective.

Armour on gear is worth stacking. It's actually the best defense, thanks to a synergy with endurance charges. Evasion is nice to add to your armour stacking, but horrible on its own. Both the CI and non-CI version of energy shield builds are viable; for the non-CI builds, armour/ES and evasion/ES are both effective.

Armour in the passive tree is not very good compared to more life.

"

PolarisOrbit wrote:

While armor may not be completely synonymous with melee, it is definitely linked. I don't see any logical way of buffing melee survivability without improving armor.

Strength seems to be linked to melee, but Iron Grip and Iron Will both play with that link, and with those tools available Strength is as linked to casting and arrow-slinging as it is to melee.

As a result, armour isn't really tied to melee, either. Even Marauders aren't very strongly tied to melee; many IG/IW characters start there.

What IG+IW mean from a design standpoint is that it's impossible to give Strength-based melee a targeted survivability buff through Strength, Armour, or passives, because any playstyle can commandeer that buff and use it for ranged or caster instead. (I think in the OP I say otherwise; I know better know.)

It's a tough problem. Fortunately, it doesn't have much to do with my suggestion; once I can prove to myself beyond a reasonable doubt that Strength/Armour/passives won't fix the problem, it's beyond the scope of my suggestion. Not saying it wouldn't be nice, but what I'm really trying to do here is increase passive build diversity, not fix every problem in the game simultaneously.

another side effect of boosting base life is that it would make Koam Heart less OP !