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

"

Mashgesture#2912 wrote:

Agreed


Also massive -1 to that idea above OP

There are plenty of images in the OP that visually explains the concept as well.

You say massive -1 and yet provide no valid reason why in spite countless 'measures' put in place to make it a viable, fun system that can be balanced out.

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

Thank you for that feedback :) That is feedback I can actually work with!

I agree. I think if the passive tree had “anchor nodes”, or perhaps better “wormhole nodes” (going from one place to another), it would increase the theory crafting by 10x and open up a lot of interesting ideas.

It’ll be difficult to balance, but with AI I think they should be able to balance things quite well.
The main issue is what they should do in case people find even more crazy combinations than they already do at the moment, and the economy is going to 💩 as a result. But we just had a crazy season of drops and everything seemed “ok enough”, so I’d say that shouldn’t hold back this idea either

"

bloomhead#3858 wrote:

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.

Except your criticism you call actual 'feedback' has absolutely no validity to it that equates to a 'generalization' of 'bad', in the single most dismissive word! That's it! That's all you have!

I didn't just 'explain' the concept itself; I literally designed it myself, went so far as to add an animation for the concept (for showcase purposes), and then put 'rules' in place for 'balance' by not allowing Small Passive Nodes within 8 nodes of any Keystone to be turned into an Anchor Node, among other 'rules' laid out in the OP.

Your failure to actually read the 'rules' laid out in the OP isn't my fault, nor is it a design flaw in the Anchor system I've proposed.

"

bloomhead#3858 wrote:

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

Feedback/criticism and dismissal are two totally different things. That's all you do is 'dismiss'. Lol.

Dismissal does not help me improve the design.

"

bloomhead#3858 wrote:

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.

Pretty much, the poster before me posted why adding these things would be problematic for power creep. And that we already have things like it in the game already, instead of just handed out.

As well as the over text nature of their post and I agreed with their points.


Seems the OP doesn't want to take criticism and then say we are the ones who arent valid in response.

"

TheBalrogslayer#7574 wrote:

I agree. I think if the passive tree had “anchor nodes”, or perhaps better “wormhole nodes” (going from one place to another), it would increase the theory crafting by 10x and open up a lot of interesting ideas.

It’ll be difficult to balance, but with AI I think they should be able to balance things quite well.
The main issue is what they should do in case people find even more crazy combinations than they already do at the moment, and the economy is going to 💩 as a result. But we just had a crazy season of drops and everything seemed “ok enough”, so I’d say that shouldn’t hold back this idea either

That's what I am saying... It's not like PoE does not have a history of 'overpowered' mechanics, but let's instead just add nothing 'fun' to the game at all and cry over 'imbalance' all the time...

I am very aware (in spite of the 'rules'/'measures' put in place in the OP) that the Anchor system concept for the Skill Tree I designed will be a little OP. Okay... So what?!

Why NOT? turn this into a League mechanic first and see where it goes?! Doing nothing at all will just make PoE boring over time.

If some of you here had played PoE for as long as I have (since 2013), you would clearly see and understand the 'linearity' issue with the current 124-point system we have, expanding only from a single starting Class location.

Why is that problem so hard to comprehend?

The developers can add 300 more new Skill Tree nodes tomorrow, juggle or move them around, and that is not going to fix the 'linearity' issue over time!

My proposed system does the opposite of: juggling, moving around, or 'adding' more Nodes to the Skill Tree; it is a new system that will (and can) co-exist with the current 124-point system.

"

Mashgesture#2912 wrote:

"

bloomhead#3858 wrote:

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.

Pretty much, the poster before me posted why adding these things would be problematic for power creep. And that we already have things like it in the game already, instead of just handed out.

As well as the over text nature of their post and I agreed with their points.


Seems the OP doesn't want to take criticism and then say we are the ones who arent valid in response.

I made the OP much more concise, added more Spoilers, and removed 'repeated' or 'redundant' information.

Thank you guys for your feedback on that :)

"

Sheldon_ballantyne#2597 wrote:

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.

Going back through the Comments, I missed this one. You're one of the few who 'gets' it. The correlation between the OP's concept and the Scion Class is a very close one.

"

Sheldon_ballantyne#2597 wrote:

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

There is no mention at all in the OP that suggests or talks about 'locking Skills to Weapon types'.

The OP simply states and makes the point that Class's are given the freedom to 'use'/'equip' any Weapon or Skill they want, yet they are not given that level of freedom regarding Skill Tree travel to utilize Weapons and Skills 'better' that are not exactly for their Class.

My main and biggest reason for creating the Anchor Node system is to allow players to experiment with creating true hybrid builds, etc. using Weapons and Skills not really for their Class while still keeping the current 124-Point Skill Tree system intact.

Thank you for your feedback and the correlation you made about the Scion :)

Bump

- Changed the title of the thread to draw less attention to D4 and more attention to the actual proposal to the devs at GGG to specifically 'fix' PoE 2's own Skill Tree 'linearity' issue going on.

- Greatly re-worked the OP to make it more 'concise', clean, and easier to follow and understand (thanks to your feedback on that).

- Rearranged the order in which info, etc. is presented to readers.

- Added GIFs/animations to better portray the mechanic(s) of the Anchor system for the Skill Tree in PoE 2.

- Added a second, major NEW 'rule' (within the Anchor mechanic RULES & BALANCES for this system Spoiler) that proves the system can be worked with and balanced.



I appreciate ALL the helpful feedback I can actually work with! Enjoy :)

i think op summed it up nicely when he said he was aiming to make it more of a sandbox.
and i think that says everything and that message even fits in a classic twitter post!

and i don't feel the need to comment any further than that.

"

freudo#0225 wrote:

i think op summed it up nicely when he said he was aiming to make it more of a sandbox.
and i think that says everything and that message even fits in a classic twitter post!

and i don't feel the need to comment any further than that.

You're one of the few here who actually read the OP :) Your comment prompted me to move that 'sandbox' info to the top of the post, rather than leaving it tucked away in the Talking Points spoiler.

I thank you for your feedback!