Here's How To Fix GGG's Newly Teased Channelled Skill

"

Sure_K4y wrote:

"

Exile009 wrote:

A couple people did suggest this in the thread, but I'll say it too - a really nice way to fix this skill would to make it a base whose damage type is determined by the added damage gems we add to it.

So, you want to "fix" something you haven't even used? What a nice opening, let's see where this goes...

"

Exile009 wrote:

So this would work like this - the base skill does physical damage (as only that type doesn't have any added dmg support gem). With added fire dmg attached to it, it would do its base dmg as fire. Same with added cold, lightning and chaos. So what if we added multiple of them? Well, then it follows the gem order - the first in the order would determine the damage type and the rest of the added gems just add more to that damage type (alternately, they could simply add more of their own damage types, as they do on all other skills, but that would be less distinctive).

Yeah, so... What you're basically saying is, that stacking added dmg to a damage over time skill is preferable to stacking more multipliers, is that right? This is just golden...

"

Exile009 wrote:

Obviously, the graphics of the beam would change accordingly - a white base beam for physical, this flame art for fire, a blue one for lightning, purple for chaos and...a green (Frenzy) beam for cold?

Not that this is ever going to happen, but dark blue for lightning and a bright blue for cold has worked for this game so far....

"

Exile009 wrote:

Why is this a good idea? Because it satisfies BOTH demographics! There are people excited for this skill because they wanted lasers. However, there are others who don't like that fire is getting all the channeled love and also feel it's too similar to Incinerate. Finally, there's those who want lasers of different damage types, but NO ONE wants FIVE versions of the same skill (and GGG has only said they're releasing 3 atm, so two are left out) just to cover each of the damage types.

Who said this is a good idea to begin with?

Oh, nobody wants five versions of the same skill, I see... Then why do you come up with 5 versions of the same skill, only cramped into one gem?

"

Exile009 wrote:

So with this version of the skill, you can satisfy everyone - the ones who want lasers get their laser, the ones who want different damage types get to pick their preference and the ones complaining that it replaces (or loses out to) Incinerate see that it actually has its own thing going for it. GGG covers all the bases with just one skill and the two other ones can be made with their own different mechanical approaches so that they're distinctive (I have my own suggestion for one of them - see my other thread).

I hope the guys at GGG see this and take this suggestion on-board. Thanks for all your work. :)

Alright so, you want to "fix" a skill by being able to alternate its dmg type, when the dmg type isn't the actual problem with the skill at all.

The skill-reveal footage shows two problems only, none of which did you adress at all.

1st: The area covered is too small to justify standing still for longer periods of time, that's dangerous, let alone not feasible in this game.
The reason this doesn't apply to flameblast is that it covers a wider area, and you can cast it so it hits all the things near you.

2nd: The speed at which the beam could be aimed is too slow. When you look at the footage you'll notice that the turning speed while channelling is very low. You can see the templar in the video turning at low, but constant rate thoughout the entire video. Neither flamblast, nor incinerate ever had this issue. This new skill is too clunky for its own good.

"

Exile009 wrote:

I don't care much for the 'max clear speed or GTFO' attitude and there's plenty of others who feel the same. My intention here was to deflect a lot of flavor criticism this skill is getting, not the complaints of those whose only desire is to run infinite Gorges (pre-AoW) with Tornado Shot, Blade Vortex or some other max clear speed build. Their criticisms I see for almost every skill in the game (and usually just ignore them).

And here's the problem with you: You discard criticism towards this new skill as the usual 'max clear speed or GTFO' attitude, and in doing so you deny whatever valid arguments are being presented. Let me be clear about this: If you want to discuss skills thouroughly, you want to include as many opinions as possible, so you can actually come up with some ideas that are more than dmg-type swaps and recolours. OK?

"

Exile009 wrote:

A skill simply needs to be viable and fun. Channeling is viable (depending on the damage, of course). And the responses to that skill teaser mean that quite a few people are liking it for its fun value (all the "Kamehameha!" and "Imma firin' ma LAZOR!" comments). This post was meant to address those concerns expressed on its fun value due to it being tied to fire and overlapping with Incinerate, not changing it completely so as to suit some clear speed agenda (we might as well have just 4-5 skills in the game if we did that...).

OK, so a skill needs to be viable. Viable for what? Dried lake farming? Uber lab farming? Shaper farming? (Uber) Atziri farming? Looking awesome while firin' mah LAZOR?

And you want a skill to be fun. Why is a phys based beam more fun than any other dmg type? Why is a skill that (so far) has shown clunky behaviour fun? Look, nobody's used this thing so far, we've only seen footage with a skill that behaves unresponsive, and unless the behaviour doesn't improve, or the skill comes with significant perks while channelling, it won't be fun for long.

1) I'm hardly the only one unhappy with that skill. The reasons have been provided by many others before (in that very thread, in fact) as well as in this thread by way of mentioning many of the groups who responded to it. Also, you just dismissed an idea that, far from not having been used yet, hasn't even been created yet! What's that phrase again? The pot calling the kettle black?

2) I DID NOT say that stacking added dmg gems would be better than stacking more multipliers. You only need 1 added dmg gem to change it to the damage type you want (and none, if you're happy with doing physical damage). I mentioned how added dmg gems would affect it, NOT that they're the best supports for maximizing the damage of the skill.

3) Dark blue for lightning and light blue for cold is fine too. I'm not attached to the colors.

4) "Who said this is a good idea to begin with?" is just being catty towards a figure of speech. And by 5 versions of the same skill I was referring to having 5 different skill gems (which, note, we're not even getting). Having one flexible skill is, imo, better since you'd be able to do any of the modes you prefer from it rather than being upset that you dropped,say, the fire version of the skill when you wanted the cold version (or that your class only gets the fire version from vendors). And yes, I know trade exists. Don't even bother.

5) That's a criticism you can apply to other skills in the game just as well and which players get around. Each skill is meant to have its own downsides - that's what makes them distinctive. The point is that the majority of the complaints were NOT about that - they were about it being a fire skill and overlapping with Incinerate. Also, didn't you just say "So, you want to "fix" something you haven't even used?" Errr...

6) Turning rate is a number. Once again, you're way too pre-occupied with numbers when judging a concept. Please take a course in design (literally any design). I'm not trying to be an engineer here, so please stop expecting me to be (and btw, no one in that thread was talking numbers either).

7) "Max clear speed or GTFO" is an attitude that is unhelpful precisely because it dismisses other concerns. It narrows thinking down to only the most efficient when there's other things people care about. Skills only need to be viable and fun, not competitively optimum (there's obviously going to be losers there), for people to value it. If max clear speed is all you want, then play that. But that's no reason to dismiss a skill/area/item as having no right to exist in the game. There's other people besides your ilk who play this game.

And "damage-type swaps" make a functional difference as each damage type has its own mechanics attached to it. I mean, that's WHY people engage in damage conversion in this game to begin with. And I have come up with ideas that are more than just damage swaps in my other thread (and yes, I know you've responded there as well - I've replied). This is for the skill GGG has just teased and the reason it doesn't change the core nature of the skill completely is because it would then be a completely different skill, which wasn't my intention here.

8) Viable for whatever it is you wish to do with it. Generally speaking, for most players that seems to hover around mid-tier mapping. Farming is NOT the be all and end all of this game. As for fun, go read that skill teaser thread again - plenty of people seem to love the idea of firing a laser. Some of them wished it could be of a different damage type, though, which is what this suggestion is for.

"

Exile009 wrote:

"

Gravethought wrote:

Isnt a much better way to implement an elemental choice for a skill to make it a white gem (like portal) and have it deal the damage type depending on the gem socket color it is in?

Yes, that would be another potential way of doing it. The main issue with that is that it'd then be hard to get a physical beam (which would need a white socket) and pretty much impossible to get a chaos beam (since there are no purple sockets). Hence why I chose to start with a base physical beam and change it according to the added dmg gems attached to it (which cover all the other damage types and are all equally as easy to obtain).

How should a physical beam even work. I can imagine beams of electricity or, usually lasers just burn stuff and even cold I could imagine. But physical? That doesn't make sense. So there isn't a reason to make it physical in the first place. From a more technical point a lot of spells should be a bit physical but from a game design standpoint splitting the damage of ice spear in physical and cold just makes it harder to use. For the laser though you would have another issue. If you support your beam with added fire not only would you have to use added fire, the gem would also be entirely useless, because by socketing added fire the beam would deal fire damage not benefitting from added fire anymore (of course it could be converted damage, so the beam could still be physical... which is even worse).

"

Emphasy wrote:

"

Exile009 wrote:

"

Gravethought wrote:

Isnt a much better way to implement an elemental choice for a skill to make it a white gem (like portal) and have it deal the damage type depending on the gem socket color it is in?

Yes, that would be another potential way of doing it. The main issue with that is that it'd then be hard to get a physical beam (which would need a white socket) and pretty much impossible to get a chaos beam (since there are no purple sockets). Hence why I chose to start with a base physical beam and change it according to the added dmg gems attached to it (which cover all the other damage types and are all equally as easy to obtain).

How should a physical beam even work. I can imagine beams of electricity or, usually lasers just burn stuff and even cold I could imagine. But physical? That doesn't make sense. So there isn't a reason to make it physical in the first place. From a more technical point a lot of spells should be a bit physical but from a game design standpoint splitting the damage of ice spear in physical and cold just makes it harder to use. For the laser though you would have another issue. If you support your beam with added fire not only would you have to use added fire, the gem would also be entirely useless, because by socketing added fire the beam would deal fire damage not benefitting from added fire anymore (of course it could be converted damage, so the beam could still be physical... which is even worse).

A physical beam would be like a funnel of rocks/blades being thrown continually at enemies. Or maybe a beam of blood, GGG likes the blood effects.

"

Emphasy wrote:

"

Exile009 wrote:

"

Gravethought wrote:

Isnt a much better way to implement an elemental choice for a skill to make it a white gem (like portal) and have it deal the damage type depending on the gem socket color it is in?

Yes, that would be another potential way of doing it. The main issue with that is that it'd then be hard to get a physical beam (which would need a white socket) and pretty much impossible to get a chaos beam (since there are no purple sockets). Hence why I chose to start with a base physical beam and change it according to the added dmg gems attached to it (which cover all the other damage types and are all equally as easy to obtain).

How should a physical beam even work. I can imagine beams of electricity or, usually lasers just burn stuff and even cold I could imagine. But physical? That doesn't make sense. So there isn't a reason to make it physical in the first place. From a more technical point a lot of spells should be a bit physical but from a game design standpoint splitting the damage of ice spear in physical and cold just makes it harder to use. For the laser though you would have another issue. If you support your beam with added fire not only would you have to use added fire, the gem would also be entirely useless, because by socketing added fire the beam would deal fire damage not benefitting from added fire anymore (of course it could be converted damage, so the beam could still be physical... which is even worse).

Just to clarify regarding the Added Fire gem - yes, the whole damage would be converted to fire damage as you say. So yes, because of its unique behavior, added fire gem would then be useless except as a conversion mechanism. There's two ways to think of this -

1) Maybe that's actually okay since, if you want a fire stream, then you can simply play Incinerate instead. In this case, the added fire gem interaction is there simply for the sake of consistency with the other gems.

2) Alternately, added fire could be coded to work somewhat differently with this skill. It could be made to act the same as the other added damage gems and give a certain amount of fire damage to the skill, besides also converting the damage type (as the other gems do).

I'm okay with either approach, frankly, since my main purpose here was to let the other damage types in on the fun.

Oh, and as for a physical beam, I've no idea what's it's supposed to "be" exactly, but you can find such things in other games. For instance, check out some of the guns in the game Hellgate London.

"

Exile009 wrote:

1) I'm hardly the only one unhappy with that skill. The reasons have been provided by many others before (in that very thread, in fact) as well as in this thread by way of mentioning many of the groups who responded to it. Also, you just dismissed an idea that, far from not having been used yet, hasn't even been created yet! What's that phrase again? The pot calling the kettle black?

Look, I know you wanna be all creative and whatnot, but fact of the matter is you're on a wild goose chase here. That new channelled skill is a fire-based DOT, that much we can tell from the footage. And what we can also tell is that this skill is unlike incinerate in terms of mechanics. But if you think that giving it a damage conversion will make it look less than what these people think it to be, you're mistaken. That new skill is disliked by most people for the sake of disliking it.

"

Exile009 wrote:

2) I DID NOT say that stacking added dmg gems would be better than stacking more multipliers. You only need 1 added dmg gem to change it to the damage type you want (and none, if you're happy with doing physical damage). I mentioned how added dmg gems would affect it, NOT that they're the best supports for maximizing the damage of the skill.

I repeat: It's a DOT. You don't link any "added" gems to DOTs, because they do nothing. And if you think the idea of wasting a gem socket just to do the conversion is any appealing, you're out of luck, because DOT cannot be converted. And even if you could covert a burn DOT into anything you'd like, most people would either stick to fire, because we have the appropriate supports for that, or run lightning because shock = OP, and very few would run chaos with a wither totem support, whereas in HC people would maybe run the cold variant for added safety. That being said, even if the choice for different elements was possible, people would soon figure out which is strongest and just run with it, this one you can believe.

"

Exile009 wrote:

4) "Who said this is a good idea to begin with?" is just being catty towards a figure of speech. And by 5 versions of the same skill I was referring to having 5 different skill gems (which, note, we're not even getting). Having one flexible skill is, imo, better since you'd be able to do any of the modes you prefer from it rather than being upset that you dropped,say, the fire version of the skill when you wanted the cold version (or that your class only gets the fire version from vendors). And yes, I know trade exists. Don't even bother.

The issue is that, when you have a skill that deals different types of damage under different circumstances, you still don't have a flexible skill. If you want to convert to cold, you need a green socket, lightning and chaos would be a blue one, fire would be red. People won't recolour their items all the time to get a different dmg type. At best they try each type once and then stick to one for a long time. This is why your idea is not good to begin with, regardless of how you think you can dismiss this simple fact of the matter.

"

Exile009 wrote:

5) That's a criticism you can apply to other skills in the game just as well and which players get around. Each skill is meant to have its own downsides - that's what makes them distinctive. The point is that the majority of the complaints were NOT about that - they were about it being a fire skill and overlapping with Incinerate. Also, didn't you just say "So, you want to "fix" something you haven't even used?" Errr...

There are certain things you can see in the footage when you take a good look. I did just that. When all you do is fire a straight line, you don't hit many things. Use incinerate (no LMP/GMP), or barrage in the open, while getting attacked from multiple different angles. See for yourself why I am right with my concerns.

"

Exile009 wrote:

6) Turning rate is a number. Once again, you're way too pre-occupied with numbers when judging a concept. Please take a course in design (literally any design). I'm not trying to be an engineer here, so please stop expecting me to be (and btw, no one in that thread was talking numbers either).

OK, now you're being even more dismissive than you think I am. You know what, mate? When someone wants me to design a plug-in for a program, in order to add certain functions, I design the plug-in's functions, then I work on implementation, and only after all that (and quite a bit more, actually) I present my work to the customer.

Yeah, turning rate is a number that can be changed, but you know what you can't just change like that? A skill's Identity, and technical limitations, and that's what I referred to. The skill we will be getting won't be like that one people may or may not know from D3. This new skill will always be slow to aim in comparison.

"

Exile009 wrote:

7) "Max clear speed or GTFO" is an attitude that is unhelpful precisely because it dismisses other concerns. It narrows thinking down to only the most efficient when there's other things people care about. Skills only need to be viable and fun, not competitively optimum (there's obviously going to be losers there), for people to value it. If max clear speed is all you want, then play that. But that's no reason to dismiss a skill/area/item as having no right to exist in the game. There's other people besides your ilk who play this game.

"My ilk"? OK.

You still did not define what "viable" means. Well, let me help you, because why not?

When people say "viable" in this game, they are referring to things that are in this game. A skill can be shaper-viable, or atziri-viable, or end-game-viable, and so on, OK?

I never said it would have to be able to compete with bladevortex or anything else, for that matter. That's only what you think I do, because you are projecting so hard that it just baffles me.

"

Exile009 wrote:

And "damage-type swaps" make a functional difference as each damage type has its own mechanics attached to it. I mean, that's WHY people engage in damage conversion in this game to begin with. And I have come up with ideas that are more than just damage swaps in my other thread (and yes, I know you've responded there as well - I've replied). This is for the skill GGG has just teased and the reason it doesn't change the core nature of the skill completely is because it would then be a completely different skill, which wasn't my intention here.

There are three, maybe four main reasons for conversion in this game.

-Convert X to chaos, because poison and reflect.

-Cold to fire, because vortex and elemental equilibrium.

-And phys to lightning, because Vinktar.

-And some some lesser used/known stuff.

"

Exile009 wrote:

8) Viable for whatever it is you wish to do with it. Generally speaking, for most players that seems to hover around mid-tier mapping. Farming is NOT the be all and end all of this game. As for fun, go read that skill teaser thread again - plenty of people seem to love the idea of firing a laser. Some of them wished it could be of a different damage type, though, which is what this suggestion is for.

Look, the simple reality is that a lot of these people will try this skill for a bit of time, and then discard it, because it doesn't get them anywhere. It does not matter how many times you take a swing at the oh-so-evil-clearspeed-gang, at some point in time, people will want to progress to higher tier content, because they just want to see what's in the game. And when that new skill, regardless of what you may or may not add to it, does not provide them with the tool they need, they will discard it in favour of something else.

Let me tell you something you already know: People who complain about the current BV pathfinder meta, run these builds themselves, more often than not. And those who don't regret their decision to some extent, because they know they could have been much better off. There's one thing you can't change, and that's the player's desire to experience all the content in a reasonable amount of time.

"

Exile009 wrote:

A couple people did suggest this in the thread, but I'll say it too - a really nice way to fix this skill would to make it a base whose damage type is determined by the added damage gems we add to it.

So this would work like this - the base skill does physical damage (as only that type doesn't have any added dmg support gem). With added fire dmg attached to it, it would do its base dmg as fire. Same with added cold, lightning and chaos. So what if we added multiple of them? Well, then it follows the gem order - the first in the order would determine the damage type and the rest of the added gems just add more to that damage type (alternately, they could simply add more of their own damage types, as they do on all other skills, but that would be less distinctive).

Obviously, the graphics of the beam would change accordingly - a white base beam for physical, this flame art for fire, a blue one for lightning, purple for chaos and...a green (Frenzy) beam for cold?

Why is this a good idea? Because it satisfies BOTH demographics! There are people excited for this skill because they wanted lasers. However, there are others who don't like that fire is getting all the channeled love and also feel it's too similar to Incinerate. Finally, there's those who want lasers of different damage types, but NO ONE wants FIVE versions of the same skill (and GGG has only said they're releasing 3 atm, so two are left out) just to cover each of the damage types.

So with this version of the skill, you can satisfy everyone - the ones who want lasers get their laser, the ones who want different damage types get to pick their preference and the ones complaining that it replaces (or loses out to) Incinerate see that it actually has its own thing going for it. GGG covers all the bases with just one skill and the two other ones can be made with their own different mechanical approaches so that they're distinctive (I have my own suggestion for one of them - see my other thread).

I hope the guys at GGG see this and take this suggestion on-board. Thanks for all your work. :)

Thus is unfair to all other elemental skills. Arc and fireball and firestorm and flame blast ect ect dont change damage types by using added x. Are you saying then that the channeled skill also should do base damage as chaos if you use added chaos. That would be OP.