A new design for the PoE passive skill tree - by me

People still don't get it.. The problem is there not cause of how more or less the life nodes are spread out on tree.

The problem is mobs' damage do not scale well with their HP proportionally that you do not have to invest offensive nodes as much as you do for defensive ones. Most of the +70 lvl players already one-shot monsters one way or another, so why one on earth would ever want to spend an offensive node in the tree to be a viable end-game build ? Simply makes no sense.

The problematic thing is you don't have to be doing millions of damage, that is not necessary at all other than pvp maybe. On the other hand you 'must' stack and stack HP + the combination of two defensive options as much as possible which makes all the build mentality dumb down and dull as it ever could get.

This is not a skill tree problem.
"This is too good for you, very powerful ! You want - You take"
"
BrecMadak wrote:
People still don't get it.. The problem is there not cause of how more or less the life nodes are spread out on tree.

The problem is mobs' damage do not scale well with their HP proportionally that you do not have to invest offensive nodes as much as you do for defensive ones. Most of the +70 lvl players already one-shot monsters one way or another, so why one on earth would ever want to spend an offensive node in the tree to be a viable end-game build ? Simply makes no sense.

The problematic thing is you don't have to be doing millions of damage, that is not necessary at all other than pvp maybe. On the other hand you 'must' stack and stack HP + the combination of two defensive options as much as possible which makes all the build mentality dumb down and dull as it ever could get.

This is not a skill tree problem.
You have a very good point there.

It should be:
  • Want to one-shot monsters as ranged? Sure... but you'll need to dedicate all your supports and a lot of passives to the job, and you'll pretty much get two-shot by everything, and one-shot by a couple things.
  • Want to face-tank everything? Sure... but you'll need to dedicate all your supports and a lot of your passives to the job, and you'll only very slowly grind away at opposing monsters.

Right now it's just too easy to do the first of these things; you have entirely too much room left to add survivability. I think the solution is to increase mob life, increase melee weapon damage, and reduce the damage effectiveness of Lightning Strike projectiles (the main hit can stay the same).
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 Apr 15, 2013, 11:49:44 AM
"
BrecMadak wrote:
The problematic thing is you don't have to be doing millions of damage, that is not necessary at all other than pvp maybe. On the other hand you 'must' stack and stack HP + the combination of two defensive options as much as possible which makes all the build mentality dumb down and dull as it ever could get.


I wanted to single this out from your post. You do make a good point. In your post. But I will say people don't need to tank beyond what the game requires. They also don't need to one shot kill things with tons of dos to spare. Both extremes are just that. Extremes and overkill. But people like to do this. They like to push the limits of their builds. Even when the game as long since stopped needing all this extra power to beat it.

I don't agree with you that life node position is not an issue at all. But I do agree with you that monster health/damage needs to be better balanced in this game to have a better curve of difficulty throughout the game. I think it's a combination of both that will be the fix. And nothing is in isolation. Change one thing and it effects many other things as well.
Last edited by the8thark#4359 on Apr 16, 2013, 12:43:15 AM

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info