Update - Anchor system proposal to help 'fix' PoE 2's Skill Tree 'linearity'! (GIFs + Images demo)
" As I said to Evergrey#7535 " And as I also said to Azimuthus#1135 on the first page, I had this to say, " Therefore, nowhere did I say Blizzard did such a great job on their latest Skill Tree changes in D4 (not in the OP, and not in the comments section). Half of you guys here are missing the point and the bigger picture in PoE 2... " Hence, the reason I created this post to begin with to draw attention to a 'linearity' issue that also exists in PoE 2 that will only worsen over time. The developers, therefore, certainly can (yet should not) continue on with the age-old path of 'adding' more Nodes, etc. to the Skill Tree to keep it 'interesting' and 'engaging'. Hear that into silence... Furthermore, the developers have also shown a complete outright 'refusal' to give us more than 124 Points to work with to side-step a growing Skill Tree. What part of this do you guys not understand? So, what are we left with? A perma 124-Point cap? Yea, okay. That's really progressing the game... Enter: the existing of my post and the purpose of it. I hope this better explains the purpose of the OP. Concluvively, when developers (any developers) refuse to budge on a thing, that is when players come here to the Forums to bring something to the table that maybe they actually will budge on! Otherwise, why does this section exist?! Lol. When game developers ignore the criticism that would improve their game, the game fails. Just because a game receives a great amount of praise vs. only a small amount of criticism does not mean to call it a day and make a foolish misplaced assumption that it is perfect. (me) Last edited by HeavyMetalGear#2712 on Apr 21, 2026, 3:08:16 AM
|
|
" I cannot stress enough that just because the title of the OP suggests 'must one day do the same' as another game company that considered fixing a particular thing (e.g., Skill Tree 'linearity'), it does not mean — and does not translate to — suggesting the actual method Blizzard themselves used be 'copied' to help fix D4's Skill Tree 'linearity.' The bigger question is, how do you guys even draw that line of thinking given the fact that both D4 and PoE 2 have Skill Trees that are mechanically and architecturally different from one another?! Literally, the only commonality between the two ARPG titles is they have a Skill Tree 'linearity' issue. Period! Nothing more. It was never that deep, folks, but the majority of you guys' overthinking made it so! The joke's on you guys for those who still don't get it... not on me. Furthermore, did I say D4 actually fixed anything (in the OP or in the comments)? No. If you read the OP carefully, I said Blizzard made the move to do x, y, and z for D4's Skill Tree. Because at least they're trying, and that is the point! Meanwhile, what is GGG doing for PoE 2's Tree that's so groundbreaking? Well... not a whole lot in a good minute! (to be fair) And as far as bringing D4 into the picture here at all — whether or not you guys agree with it or tell me how much it makes no sense — allow me to be completely honest with everyone here... It is a catchy thing to add to a forum post! However, that is not the primary reason I brought D4 into the picture. It just so happened to be convenient. Make sense? In other words, the developers at Blizzard just so happened to be addressing the D4 Skill Tree, and all I did was create a post here for the devs over at GGG to maybe also consider doing the same (NOT method-wise) for PoE 2's Skill Tree. I would really love to be wrong... if only the majority agreed with me on this matter. When game developers ignore the criticism that would improve their game, the game fails. Just because a game receives a great amount of praise vs. only a small amount of criticism does not mean to call it a day and make a foolish misplaced assumption that it is perfect. (me) Last edited by HeavyMetalGear#2712 on Apr 21, 2026, 3:07:40 AM
|
|
" If the developers had that kind of 'dismissive' attitude or mentality (such as the one you exude here), the game would never improve! Ever. The "Don't like our game?! Go play another!" Dinosaurus-Flex line needs to go. It's gotten old! The easy destruction of a proposal is not progress, but a mere escape from the difficulty of creation. To hold the arsonist’s match against 'structure' (or a literal structure) while lacking the architect’s blueprint for its replacement — or to tear down a system (as proposed in the OP) without proposing a superior alternative — is an act of vanity, not reform! In other words, to the critics, I say, come up with something better vs. suggesting nothing be done... Do you guys know how many other mechanics, etc. between PoE 1 and 2 that were argued against, hated, etc. yet that proved to be both a failure or a success? A lot! Criticizing an idea before it has been tested isn't a critique but a prejudice. It is the ultimate paradox to claim something 'won't work' without the data to prove it. Well, guess what? I admittedly don't have the 'data', either, if we're all going to get 'technical' around here! Lol. But what I do have is a proposed 'system' with 'structure' to it that can be: tested, tweaked as needed, etc. And if it fails as a League mechanic where it should be tested first? Then don't make it a core mechanic! Simple. That is the only way anybody's really going to know if an idea truly sucks or not! When game developers ignore the criticism that would improve their game, the game fails.
Just because a game receives a great amount of praise vs. only a small amount of criticism does not mean to call it a day and make a foolish misplaced assumption that it is perfect. (me) |
|
" Lots of words. Let's see how many more words to come, when the big crying of "this game is unbalanced" becomes even bigger. Because that's how you get a bigger mess of unbalanced game. |
|
|
It might be an interesting idea but it's miles ahead of what must be done first before even considering such dramatic changes.
There is no point creating more diversity if it's very difficult to explain, almost impossible without 3rd party tools, what any current build is doing numbers wise. if it takes you hours and hours to build and tune something without proper tools, UX changes etc, then only the same 0.01% of player base will be working on new builds while the rest will be just copying with minor changes as it's working now. There will be more tools in form of jewels, tattoos etc, made available in POE2 over time, offering way more options for end game builds development. It's good that first 40-60 levels all these options virtually do not exist as it would make new players experience quite depressing. |
|
" You seem to be able to comprehend and acknowledge that d4's 'talent tree' cannot and should not be compared to poe2's, yet that is precisely all that you've done. I don't have to propose anything in order to critique your ideas; if you don't want them to be discussed, don't post them publicly. I also have enough self awareness to realize that I am not a game developer, and that most of what I might want to be in the game is either not possible, or not the intention at all. The only reason they are breaking the 'linearity' of the skill twigs in d4 is because they are too incompetent to design a tree with actual depth and variety of choices. They'd rather cut what they have into a thousand of non-cohesive pieces and let the players figure out what the optimal configuration is. Ergo, an illusion of choice that most people like you will easily fall for. Poe2's passive tree seems very linear right now, because the game is in early development and a lot of options to grab things you might want from other parts of it are simply not present. The limitation of not being able to start from and/or travel to any node you want is a design decision, not lack thereof. Last edited by arandan#3174 on Apr 21, 2026, 5:44:53 AM
|
|
|
Here's my take. Keep it simple to start for GGG, that way they don't have to revamp everyhting at once in a single patch.
Make every SOCKET in the passive tree. Linked. The moment you get to a Socket, it not only is a jewel socket but it is also a "portal" so to speak. The player can then spend passive points from ANY other socket in the tree. Start as a Monk, spend those first 10 points to reach the first socket, BAM now you're in the Druids neck of the woods. BAM now you are on the dusty road for a mercenary. BAM now you are a wizard Harry. Obviously still able to spend points continuing down the path where you started. OR maybe not. Maybe GGG would limit it to once you use the passive portal, now your stuck where it lead to, who knows. |
|
" Yes, very simple. BAM, BAM, BAM and then who is going to even attempt to balance any of it, genius? |
|
|
.[/quote] Yes, very simple. BAM, BAM, BAM and then who is going to even attempt to balance any of it, genius?[/quote] hahah nice one IGN : __FrosT__
|
|
|
Honestly, this is an interesting idea. Well presented OP and has value in the discussion, regardless of varying replies (honestly that is precisely WHY the discussion is valuable!).
Even more honestly, I think a big step in the good general direction, without having to think about the "completely exploding out-of-hand balance", would be to allow us spend points to traverse the "Central Wheel" of the current skill tree (1 point per starting "slot") -- this already would allow great deal more build diversity without straying too far from the current system. Bonus data -- great deal of builds from the bottom side of the Skill Tree likely would gravitate to the top where the ES-stuff is located and maybe that would hammer home the ES disparity as the best/most generally useful defensive layer. And would see it brought in line. |
|
