How "More" multipliers are ruining the new skill design philosophy.

"

Polantaris#1920 wrote:

And the worst part is a lot of the ones that change up the skills also ruin the skill. Chain Support - 50% LESS damage, even before chaining. WHY? The negative is almost always so detrimental that I would never in a million years put it on a skill.

It's always detrimental. Even lvl 40 arc doesn't get enough damage increase from "chain 100% more times" support part to counteract "50% less damage".

I also remember this preview, and I am puzzled by it. Based on the current player experience, every skill requires at least 3 support gems to have basic damage, which means that the base damage of the skill without supports is garbage.

I have a bold guess: GGG initially designed it this way, letting players use garbage damage to clear all content. However, internal testing clearly showed that this would scare away all players, so GGG only added damage to the support gems shortly before release.

I believe that if GGG wanted all support gems to not increase damage, at the very least, they would have to increase the base damage of all skills by 2.5 times. However, they don't have the guts to do this.

how poe 2 was designed:

- someone comes up with some cool ideas
- the ideas are implemented into the game
- someone else comes along and wants to do the exact opposite thing for no reason
- the exact opposite thing is also implemented

the result is a game that looks like it was made by 10 people who never communicated with each other during the development

It's very interesting to compare their vision with what we have today.

Unfortunately, their solutions for avoiding the use of only one powerful primary skill are not the right ones, as most powerful builds are still single skill builds.

"

auspexa#1404 wrote:

how poe 2 was designed:

- someone comes up with some cool ideas
- the ideas are implemented into the game
- someone else comes along and wants to do the exact opposite thing for no reason
- the exact opposite thing is also implemented

the result is a game that looks like it was made by 10 people who never communicated with each other during the development

Unfortunately, this sounds way too accurate

"

_ZLoBny_#7128 wrote:

"

Polantaris#1920 wrote:

And the worst part is a lot of the ones that change up the skills also ruin the skill. Chain Support - 50% LESS damage, even before chaining. WHY? The negative is almost always so detrimental that I would never in a million years put it on a skill.

It's always detrimental. Even lvl 40 arc doesn't get enough damage increase from "chain 100% more times" support part to counteract "50% less damage".

Yes, I agree about Chain always being detrimental, but my point was more towards almost every support that does cool stuff is in its own way detrimental so they all suck. Why would I choose 20% attack speed loss, or 20% less damage, or removing ailments/effects, or self life drain, or a bunch of those others, over more pure damage?

"

IonSugeRau1#1069 wrote:

"

auspexa#1404 wrote:

how poe 2 was designed:

- someone comes up with some cool ideas
- the ideas are implemented into the game
- someone else comes along and wants to do the exact opposite thing for no reason
- the exact opposite thing is also implemented

the result is a game that looks like it was made by 10 people who never communicated with each other during the development

Unfortunately, this sounds way too accurate

Yeah, a holistic approach to the design of some of these mechanics does seem to be missing. It's fine to have disagreements in the early design phase, and to prototype and try a bunch of things to see what works and what doesn't, but at some point you have to decide on a direction and make sure everyone's pulling in that direction together. At least until the project gets to v1.0.

Oh, well... this is what betas are for, right? They'll get there. It's just going to be a messier process than we were expecting, is all.

The damage multiplier for support gems create gameplay too similiar to poe1. I really wish they did remove all damage multipliers and tried to spice up what gems could do.

Chain replaces 1 100% hit with 3 50% hits, thus providing 50% more damage. What's weird, it becomes even weaker for already chaining skills.

Chain: 50% single target, 150% crowd (guaranteed).
Fork and Pierce: 100% single target, in crowd theoretically 100%+, but in practice most likely 150% or even 200%.
So, I agree that Chain is inferior.

But they all might be viable options if there weren't plain 30% more dmg supports.
I still think that dmg supports are fine, but they all should be conditional and provide ~10% more dmg.

"

LeadRaven#6291 wrote:

Chain replaces 1 100% hit with 3 50% hits, thus providing 50% more damage. What's weird, it becomes even weaker for already chaining skills.

Chain: 50% single target, 150% crowd (guaranteed).
Fork and Pierce: 100% single target, in crowd theoretically 100%+, but in practice most likely 150% or even 200%.
So, I agree that Chain is inferior.

But they all might be viable options if there weren't plain 30% more dmg supports.
I still think that dmg supports are fine, but they all should be conditional and provide ~10% more dmg.

fair take.


i suspect there isnt enough ideas for interesting supports without damage gems, but keeping the size of the damage multiplier to more like 10% would do a lot to balance the situation and make choosing utility supports feel like a viable option.