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

It is an interesting idea, but it would be another mechanic that would add "load" to the onboarding for new players

The same functionality could be achieved with a new unique jewel that would be slotted in a linked jewel slot on tree, and then allow allocating points in other unlinked jewel slots on tree

But I think there should be more than just -2 passive points as cost (and making the jewel rare would defeat the objective here).
Maybe something like jewel slots no longer offer bonuses from slotted jewels ?

So I think it could work as a drop from lvl 60+ allowing to create more diverse builds while keeping it in "framework" of poe

The only way this could work is if each and every section of the tree had points for literally every archetype, weapon, ascendancy, main stat etc.

If i wanted to play a strength based monk, but i still want to use Quarterstaffs, and slams where do i start on the tree? All of the Qstaff damage bonuses are on the Monk path. The slam stuff in on the warrior ish path. I need strength for slams, and dex for Quarterstaffs. etc.

If they changed nodes to say "Gives damage to any weapon" The game is ruined. Class identity is gone.

The game isn't perfect, but this wouldn't be it.

I humored the post knowing it's ragebait. lol. D4 had a skill twig, and now it has a small plant.

"

bloomhead#3858 wrote:

Lots of words.

No. Not just 'lots of words', as if none of what I said holds any water at all.

I stepped away from this topic for a day or so, come back, and this is the best most of you guys can do other than a few other players here who commented and actually tried to contribute something of value to the discussion at hand? Come on...

"

bloomhead#3858 wrote:

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.

That is a classic case of 'balance-paralysis', the idea that if a game isn't mathematically perfect, it’s broken... Why not steer the conversation away from the fear of 'imbalance' and toward the goal of 'fun'?

Hyper-focusing on 'balance' is the fastest way to make a game stale, be it PoE 2 or any other game out there. Better to take a risk with a new system for the sake of 'progress' than let the game stagnate in the name of 'safety'.

Why not prioritize the experiment (tried and tested as a League mechanic first, just like any other new League mechanic) over the fear of the math all the time?

"

HeavyMetalGear#2712 wrote:

The "Don't like our game?! Go play another!" Dinosaurus-Flex line needs to go. It's gotten old!

We have such people here. They cruing about the game being too easy, please stick to the vision, yet against any meaningful changes to the game. Essentially those ppl contributing to the game being just POE1.5 but slower? Why we have this sequel then? Isn't it should bring more new, refined features and not blatantly repeat mistakes that been already solved in POE1? I don't understand that. Just because POE2 have prettier graphics and better animation while still being built on outdated foundation, isn't worth being called a sequel. Why do we even need two copies of the same game???

"

Dnoble23#4456 wrote:

The only way this could work is if each and every section of the tree had points for literally every archetype, weapon, ascendancy, main stat etc.

If i wanted to play a strength based monk, but i still want to use Quarterstaffs, and slams where do i start on the tree? All of the Qstaff damage bonuses are on the Monk path. The slam stuff in on the warrior ish path. I need strength for slams, and dex for Quarterstaffs. etc.

If they changed nodes to say "Gives damage to any weapon" The game is ruined. Class identity is gone.

The game isn't perfect, but this wouldn't be it.

You misunderstood the OP's proposal... It helps to read more than just a few sentences, here and then, come to a conclusion that is actually 'inconclusive' based only on minimal information, and then comment.

I never suggested changing Nodes to generic 'damage to any weapon' that would, yes, indeed ruin the game. Instead, the Nodes stay exactly as they are in the original proposed idea.

In fact, your Strength Monk example is the perfect argument for this system. Right now, a Monk using Slams is penalized by an extreme 'travel tax' just to reach the Warrior area!

However, with Anchor Points system (the OP says up to 2 can be used), you do not lose Class 'identity'. Instead, you keep your Monk Ascendancy but gain the 'freedom' to spend your Skill Points on 'actual power' instead of empty travel Nodes. In other words, the OP talks about removing the 'leash', not the archetypes!

Class 'identity' is defined in the Ascendancy of a Class, not any of the starting areas for each Class. Your Monk, therefore, will always be a Monk because of its unique Ascendancy powers, regardless of where you branch out on the Skill Tree (via the use of up to 2 Anchor Points).

My point is that PoE 2 gives us freedom of 'Weapons' and 'Skills', yet keeps us 'leashed' on the Skill Tree at our start locations. This is made very clear in the OP.

Allowing 2 Anchor Points does not make the tree generic; it just means players can finally stop following 'meta-lanes' and actually build hybrids builds the game claims to support without being mathematically punished for pathing along the Skill Tree, wasting up to %16-20% of our Points in the process.

And by the way, there will still be 'travel taxes' even in the new proposed Anchor system (especially to get to certain Keystones), yet the tax will not be as bad as how the Skill Tree is right now, thereby allowing for greater build 'creativity' and 'utility' in the end.

"

Dnoble23#4456 wrote:

I humored the post knowing it's ragebait. lol.

The ragebait is your response rooted either in 'dismissiveness' of what the OP actual says or sheer ignorance on purpose.

"

Dnoble23#4456 wrote:

D4 had a skill twig, and now it has a small plant.

That is the only thing I agree with you on that actually holds truth.

I also responded with this, on the first page, in the comments,

"

HeavyMetalGear2712 wrote:

To put it simply, D4 went from having Skill Tree 'twigs' (as the old joke goes) to having 'baby' Skill Trees that actually look more like a Skill Tree. It is not much of an improvement, imho, but an improvement nonetheless. D4's newest Skill Tree changes, therefore, can still have more meat to them.

I therefore never said, anywhere here, that Blizzard actually fixed anything! LoL. Just that they made the move in an attempt to try and fix Skill Tree 'linearity' in D4 and how the developers of PoE 2 should consider doing the same thing one day using a different method for a different Skill Tree architecture in PoE 2.

You know, I may not have said exactly that, word-for-word, but it is my mistake for thinking it would be obvious enough to anyone who actually read the OP all the way through.

"

ninefiners#1609 wrote:

It is an interesting idea, but it would be another mechanic that would add "load" to the onboarding for new players.

Not at all :) I have that ground covered already. The OP states this,

"

The OP wrote:

Anchor Points will be available to ALL players right from the start of the game to help get everyone involved! It will be an incredible new system that will require NO Questing, that will not be 'gated' behind other forms of progression, and that will not require any exclusive 'guide' to learn about.

"

ninefiners#1609 wrote:

The same functionality could be achieved with a new unique jewel that would be slotted in a linked jewel slot on tree, and then allow allocating points in other unlinked jewel slots on tree

But I think there should be more than just -2 passive points as cost (and making the jewel rare would defeat the objective here).
Maybe something like jewel slots no longer offer bonuses from slotted jewels ?

So I think it could work as a drop from lvl 60+ allowing to create more diverse builds while keeping it in "framework" of poe

This is the next-best counter-proposal I have seen thus far in this comment section compared to adding nothing at all to the discussion. Thank you for that :)

However, I believe your counter-proposal, with all due respect, will actually add unnecessary 'load' itself and be more of a learning curve for new players, seeing as you seem to suggest that the counter-mechanic you just proposed will not be unlocked (or explained to players) until 'later' in the game.

The OP, on the other hand, seeks to remove that learning curve for the new 'Anchor' system completely, right from the get-go — from the new character creation/tutorial stage all the way through the rest of the game.

In other words, the Anchor system will be clearly explained to new players (and encouraged to use at least 1x Anchor Point) in the very beginning of the game. So, that solves that problem.

P.S. I will be sure to add that piece of information closer to the top of the OP within the Talking Points Table of Contents spoiler.

Thank you for your helpful feedback!

"

HeavyMetalGear#2712 wrote:

"

bloomhead#3858 wrote:

Lots of words.

No. Not just 'lots of words', as if none of what I said holds any water at all.

I stepped away from this topic for a day so, come back, and this is the best most of you guys can do other than a few other players here who commented and actually tried to contribute something of value to the discussion at hand? Come on...

"

bloomhead#3858 wrote:

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.

That is a classic case of 'balance-paralysis', the idea that if a game isn't mathematically perfect, it’s broken... Why not steer the conversation away from the fear of 'imbalance' and toward the goal of 'fun'?

Hyper-focusing on 'balance' is the fastest way to make a game stale, be it PoE 2 or any other game out there. Better to take a risk with a new system for the sake of 'progress' than let the game stagnate in the name of 'safety'.

Why not prioritize the experiment (tried and tested as a League mechanic first, just like any other new League mechanic) over the fear of the math all the time?

Maybe you should look up how many threads in this forum are about balance and "no build variety".

Always fun when people propose stuff, don't think 1mm ahead and defend their points profoundly without being able to take even the slightest criticism.

Don't post on a forum when you can't handle criticism.

Not a big fan of these super rambly and way too long posts. If you want to get discussion going maybe try to be more concise.

Also, doesnt what youre trying to suggest already exist in the game in a lesser form ? You have unique jewels like the one from king in the mists that let you assign points around a keystone.

Im not sure what problem youre trying to solve with this since there already is good build varieties with many off-archetype builds for respective classes too. Allowing everyone to path at far off points on the tree from these "anchor points" would introduce too much power creep I think. Having there be an opportunity cost to path to far off nodes is intended.

"

Argonlo#6237 wrote:

Not a big fan of these super rambly and way too long posts. If you want to get discussion going maybe try to be more concise.

Also, doesnt what youre trying to suggest already exist in the game in a lesser form ? You have unique jewels like the one from king in the mists that let you assign points around a keystone.

Im not sure what problem youre trying to solve with this since there already is good build varieties with many off-archetype builds for respective classes too. Allowing everyone to path at far off points on the tree from these "anchor points" would introduce too much power creep I think. Having there be an opportunity cost to path to far off nodes is intended.

TL;DR: The OP suggests for players to be able to place up to 2x of these Anchor Nodes on any Small Passive Node on the Skill Tree (except ones within 8 Nodes from any Keystone Node).

P.S. Made the OP much more concise, added more Spoilers, and removed 'repeated' and 'redundant' information.

Thank you for your feedback on this!

"

Argonlo#6237 wrote:

Not a big fan of these super rambly and way too long posts. If you want to get discussion going maybe try to be more concise.

Also, doesnt what youre trying to suggest already exist in the game in a lesser form ? You have unique jewels like the one from king in the mists that let you assign points around a keystone.

Im not sure what problem youre trying to solve with this since there already is good build varieties with many off-archetype builds for respective classes too. Allowing everyone to path at far off points on the tree from these "anchor points" would introduce too much power creep I think. Having there be an opportunity cost to path to far off nodes is intended.

Agreed


Also massive -1 to that idea above OP