Update - Anchor system proposal to help 'fix' PoE 2's Skill Tree 'linearity'! (GIFs + Images demo)

"

yosheee89#3525 wrote:

The new D4 skill tree has actually made it even less like a POE passive tree by removing passive-like nodes and instead focusing on skills alone.

I never claimed an exact similarity between D4 and PoE 2, as no such exact similarity exists.

You cannot quote the OP saying any such thing other than what I actually pointed out, as follows regarding D4, "...the Skill Tree system has been significantly reworked to allow for greater, less-linear customization, moving away from a strict linear path to Skills, etc. toward a more 'sandbox-style' approach." with 'less linear' being the keywords.

The post highlights Blizzard’s efforts to address Skill Tree 'linearity' in D4, while pointing out that PoE 2 faces its own issues with Skill Tree 'linearity' when pathing. This change is actually necessary if the game is to remain engaging and relevant for years to come vs. making the Skill Tree bigger than it is already.

"

yosheee89#3525 wrote:

We already have gem system for specific skills in POE. Not really sure what the point of this thread even is, sorry.

TL;DR: Scaling via Skill Gems is not the same as Skill Tree progression. They are two different systems...

You have missed the core parts of the OP as if you didn’t even read it at all!

Conflating Active Skill scaling with Passive Tree architecture is also a common point of confusion.

Skill Gems: Define what you do (example: "I fire a freezing bolt")

Passive Skill Tree: Defines who you are (example: "I am a glass cannon with high critical strikes")

And regardless of PoE 2's Skill Tree size, if every build (notably 'meta' builds) must take the same first 15-20 nodes to be viable? The Skill Tree itself is functionally 'linear' by definition. Facts!

My suggestion for two additional branching start-points (Anchors) directly addresses the 'pathing tax' in PoE 2. The premise of the post is simple: Give players two additional areas to branch out from in addition to the default starting location we are already given.

The Skill Tree governs raw stats, damage conversions, and Keystones for survival (Life, ES, etc.). We are therefore not talking about changing actual Skill 'behavior'!

That is what certain Support Gems are for, all of which is a completely different topic!

That level of modification happens in the game, Last Epoch, where a node fundamentally changes how a Skill functions rather than just increasing its DPS output.

-1

1st Red Flag -> "MUST do the same" as another, inferior game.
2nd Red Flag -> Ideas supported by subjective feelings, no numbers.
3rd Red Flag -> Not considering balance issues and systems revamp proposed change would cause.
4th Red Flag -> Proposed by an evident Diablo4 enjoyer.

Just let GGG cook, copying patterns from worse games is not a good idea.

-1

I would prefer classes having more class identity, not less. Aside from that, poe2 being a game much more complicate than d4 to balance would turn even worse.

"

I would prefer classes having more class identity, not less.

This. And, by the way, D4 made "skill trees" because everyone hated D3 tree-less system. But they handled that task poorly (as many other tasks as well, except visual).

"

HeavyMetalGear#2712 wrote:

The LATEST in Diablo 4 news:

For those who do not follow what some of the competition is doing out there in the world of ARPGs, Blizzard's newest D4 - Lord of Hatred expansion (on their end of game development) has made the move where the Skill Tree system has been significantly reworked to allow for greater, less-linear customization, moving away from a strict linear path to Skills, etc. toward a more 'sandbox-style' approach.

Such a change will enable players to choose their own synergies and customize Skills to fit their preferred playstyle (e.g., turning a Fire Hydra into a Frost Hydra) rather than being funneled into a predetermined Build.

This is where Path of Exile1/2 has gotten it wrong... for years! And this is coming from a veteran player. The game needs to let us, as players, break away from our single linear path that our 124 Skill Points are used on.

D4 didn`t have skill tree. It was pretty much d3 system with really minor tweaks, but presented like a tree. Or branch to be exact. What will this new tree achieve or enable is a thing to be seen. So far its only marketing. I truly hope 2 paid dlcs and like 15 seasons are enough to make character progress at least decent. Right now even last epoch is miles ahead of d4 in terms of skill trees and if i had to bet my money i`d say it still will. But im just blizzard hater.

"

Evergrey#7535 wrote:

-1

1st Red Flag -> "MUST do the same" as another, inferior game.
2nd Red Flag -> Ideas supported by subjective feelings, no numbers.
3rd Red Flag -> Not considering balance issues and systems revamp proposed change would cause.
4th Red Flag -> Proposed by an evident Diablo4 enjoyer.

Just let GGG cook, copying patterns from worse games is not a good idea.

Although I agree no need to bring d4 into this as I have no idea what d4 is doing but his proposal is valid at its core.

I also think d4 isn't a good game but inspiration comes from any source good or bad

Class identity goes out the window once you lock skills to weapon types.

Since when do discussions need to be validated by numbers.
Thats for ggg to figure out.

Poe 1 has scion which is basically what hes proposing for if you break it down.

My con is balance - or power Creep as well buttttt that can always be adjusted and it opens up build diversity.

Id prioritize build diversity over an argument of class identity which goes out the window when you have locked skills/weapon types.

Definitely something ggg could play around with
Does it have to be implemented exactly as he stated, no
But the core reason of the post is 100% valid.

The only lesson to take from diablo 4 is to do the exact opposite of what they're doing.
Any game/genre the modern blizzard has touched in fact, not just the arpgs.

That title fails at the very basics of game development, and no amount of changes and rehashes is going to improve it.
The whole core gameplay loop is meaningless, since without the game pushing back onto players, there is no real need to build/gear your character, or interact with any of the game's systems.
That is why the half-life of a typical d4 season is a weekend.

Anything that can offer to improvise i m ok with it. But we know how GGG behaves on situation like these... What i wanna scream about current talent system is there is too much +stat players have to put on.


Reduce stat requirement on skill even further increase their inherent bonuses as compensated , allow players to reach out more "noteable" talents.



If i m not mistaken currently my lvl 99 char spent over 35-40+ on stats only...

-1 NO! if u dont like poe2 tree, u have d4, go play that.

TL;DR: The primary strong point of the OP is to encourage the devs to critically re-evaluate the Path of Exile Skill Tree to address its own 'linearity' issues! This is in contrast to the developers' historical approach of simply 'expanding' the Skill Tree, OR repositioning existing Nodes, just to maintain engagement... a strategy, by the way, that will prove unsustainable for the game in the long-term!

However, you did not catch any of that... You just call the OP 'bad' with nothing to really back up your general disapproval (except in regards to 'no numbers').

The encouragement (along with an idea/proposed system) to 'consider' fixing PoE 2's Skill Tree 'linearity' is what was suggested to the devs in the OP, not the exact method in how Blizzard attempted to do so with Diablo 4! That is where you are wrong.

Also, the proposed system/mechanics (as laid out in the OP) are also far from a copy/paste. The change itself would be unique for PoE 2 Skill Tree, not D4's Skill Tree!

"

Evergrey#7535 wrote:

Just let GGG cook, copying patterns from worse games is not a good idea.

This kind of remark alone is what stagnates growth in any game, and it really serves no purpose. That is why this is called the Early Access Feedback section of the PoE forums. Tell me I am wrong...

It is hard to take you seriously when you bring nothing to the table here other than the equivalent of ragebait at best.

Fun fact: Smart developers actually do look at what the competition is doing! That does not inherently mean 'copying' one another!

And when players within the PoE 2 community bring up issues like this? It does not suggest the devs over at GGG are dumb! It's called creating what starts out as a 'talking point' to encourage growth for the game!

Only those with a truly fragile ego would interpret constructive feedback as an insult, and PoE's devs are not that way! They are far more receptive than Blizzard ever thought of being regarding feedback.

Enter: the beginning of the collapse of your misplaced assumption(s) when you said, "Proposed by an evident Diablo4 enjoyer." Far from it!

I simply look at what other games are doing across the board; I have played all ARPGs, and I have constructively criticized them in their respective forums. In other words, I do not pick favorites, and no ARPG is exempt whenever I bring ideas, proposals, or issues to the table.

Let my nearly 1,800 forum posts here within the PoE community (80%+ of which are feedback posts) serve as proof of my unwavering loyalty to the game and to this community.

And that is not a flex! This is me saying I have been around the PoE forums for quite some time, and I know better than to speak foolishly before posting. :)

"

Evergrey#7535 wrote:

-1. 1st Red Flag -> "MUST do the same" as another, inferior game.

Look. It is one thing to disagree with a post or proposal, but it is an entirely different matter to completely misunderstand the core strong points of the OP and, in the process, present just above zero facts in your counterclaims (a significant difference). Either that, or you're rage-baiting, as mentioned earlier. It’s one of the two.

The only thing you said that has any weight was in regard to 'no numbers,' and there is a very logical reason for that!

When I brought up GGG having to one day address Skill Tree 'linearity' issues in PoE? I strongly suggested that they will need to do something eventually in a different way not the same way as how Blizzard addressed D4's Skill Tree 'linearity' issue (after the expansion releases).

The proposed Anchor System for the Skill Tree — and the mechanics for it I laid out — is, therefore, absolutely nothing like what Blizzard did with D4 to HELP fix 'linearity' issues. Two completely different Skill Trees; two completely different ways to solve Skill Tree 'linearity'! I cannot make it clearer than that.

I also never said D4 did such a fantastic, groundbreaking job in the OP or comments here. What I did say in the OP was, "Blizzard has made the move where the Skill Tree system has been significantly reworked to allow for greater, less-linear customization, moving away from a strict linear path to Skills, etc. toward a more 'sandbox-style' approach."

Guess what the title of the OP says? It encourages the PoE 2 devs to do the same, to also make a move to address the game's own Skill Tree 'linearity' issue that's been around for years now! That does not in any way translate to GGG 'copying' another game! Lol.

"

Evergrey#7535 wrote:

2nd Red Flag -> Ideas supported by subjective feelings, no numbers.

No. The OP's foundation is supported by solid 'logic', through and through. And as far actual numbers go? Yea, you are right! I'll give you that. No 'numbers' exist... yet!

The system must therefore first be 'tested', internally, and then released for players to play. And that goes for any new system: they get tested, there are bugs, and then fixes and rebalancing happen!

You seem to believe the 'Anchor' system, as proposed, is not balanceable at all. In other words, instead of outright castrating an entire idea and calling it 'bad', give me a chance to make tweaks to the idea! Lol.

I even brought up in the OP the idea should be a League mechanic first instead of making it a core mechanic right away.

Again, no actual 'numbers' will exist until any new system is tested by the players. To perpetually 'fear' that a 'change' is going to break the game (as you are doing) only 'stagnates' the growth of a game (or any game)!

"

Evergrey#7535 wrote:

3rd Red Flag -> Not considering balance issues and systems revamp proposed change would cause.

You read only what you wanted, stopped, and then drew cataclysmic wrong conclusions...

The above quoted from you is proof you did not read the OP passed maybe a paragraph or two.

The OP, very clearly, has a header titled Anchor mechanic RULES. It has been there. Those are the balances!

Further, I just added a new 'rule' to the system today that reads: "* NEW - Cannot 'Anchor' onto Small Passives Nodes within 10 Nodes of any Keystone. Players who attempt to Anchor onto any Small Passive Nodes within 10 nodes of a Keystone will receive an error message stating that the action is prohibited."

So yea, I actually do think before posting in the Forums here. Rigorously. And guess who failed to do that? Exactly.

"

Evergrey#7535 wrote:

4th Red Flag -> Proposed by an evident Diablo4 enjoyer.

You are very wrong for many already-mentioned reasons. One thousandfold!