Dear Rory

"

raics написал:

"

NeroNoah написал:

But what about Enlighten?

If you extrapolate on Scrotie's post it can only be 'an abomination yet to come' :)

Extrapolations have no guarantee to be right, so I asked.

About the change, it all comes to the oportunity cost of using Enlighten. Will people have another, equally or more powerful use for that extra slot? If the answer is yes, then it's right. Else, nuke the fuck out of enlighten. I don't know how GGG plans on testing the change when the gem requires absurd grinding to be useful.

"

PrimordialDarkness написал:

From someone who expects this to be locked and to go on probation. Screw freedom of speech. :)

Jojas' Law: Whenever someone betrays ignorance about the forum rules and/or freedom of speech the probability that the content of his post betrays ignorance as well is 1.

"

PrimordialDarkness написал:

I don't want to sound insulting, condescending or anything. Please take this in the kindest way possible:

"

Pick another job for yourself.

lol

the classic internet thing in line of 'I dont mean to be racist but *proceeds to be racist*'. there is no need to preclude your statements with the "I dont want to/I dont mean to". you sound like you sound.

"

But drastically changing balance in a way that will affect everyone's permanent setup? Ruining mechanics that are working perfectly as an attempt at "balance" instead of introducing other mechanics that could give them competition?

you forgot to mention "mechanics that are working perfectly for ME and MY permanent build"

"

From someone who expects this to be locked and to go on probation. Screw freedom of speech. :)

lol. dont worry, Im sure somewhere there is a plaque that will remember your valor as a martyr for "freedom of speech". it will count all the times you wrote "I don't want to sound ____".

"

grepman написал:

the classic internet thing in line of 'I dont mean to be racist but *proceeds to be racist*'.

Ah, you too watched that stream where Pohx complained about not being able to find his afro ex-gf in the dark? In the cutest and most un-racist way possible, of course.

That was pure gold :)

"

raics написал:

"

grepman написал:

the classic internet thing in line of 'I dont mean to be racist but *proceeds to be racist*'.

Ah, you too watched that stream where Pohx complained about not being able to find his afro ex-gf in the dark? In the cutest and most un-racist way possible, of course.

That was pure gold :)

no, but now Im intrigued lol

"

grepman написал:

"

RogueMage написал:

What it's really about is indescriminately breaking a wide swath of builds via passive aggressive sabotage of fundamental resource management mechanisms. Such radical shifts in build dynamics defy any long-term vision of gameplay balance, they serve instead to create maximum disruption with minimal development effort.

I understand poe forums might serve as a good tool to practice eloquent speech and big words, but 'passive aggressive sabotage of ...mechanisms' doesnt make any sense whatsoever. there is nothing 'passive aggressive' about GGG revising (or sabotaging if you'd like) their own game. certainly nothing passive about it.

What was classically passive agressive was overtly labeling the complete nullification of Reduced Mana as a "minor balance adjustment", casually buried in a list of otherwise unremarkable tweaks. I don't think anyone disputes that this is a radical shift in gameplay balance that would literally sabotage a wide swath of currently popular builds. But if you want to take issue with the term "passive agressive", how about "disingenuous"?

"

Panini_aux_olives написал:

Frankly, I quite agree with OP. What I've read about Rory putting in game such heavy changes without a single internal test just baffle me.
Such heavy gameplay mechanic changes should be tested internally on a wide range of builds, then, if satisfied (ie. the change is somehow usable at least), you can push it in public beta for wider validation, and you communicate properly on it, not by saying "no I haven't tested anything myself" which is disastrous from a communication point of view.

as far as I understand, the balance team actually does not do much testing themselves, period.
that is mostly reserved to QA

and what does a 'single internal test' in context of changing reserved mana mean exactly ? lets go from general to particular. give me a good 'use case' to 'test' new changes- that doesnt involve going to any particular meta or build or use existing references to successful builds.

all these changes are 'design' changes and all of them involve purely changing numbers. for the 'testing' part all you need is an aura calculator. this is part of design. there is nothing really to 'test' in the traditional sense.

something tells me that 'testing' in your opinion is quite different from what 'internal testing' actually does.

"

RogueMage написал:

"

grepman написал:

"

RogueMage написал:

What it's really about is indescriminately breaking a wide swath of builds via passive aggressive sabotage of fundamental resource management mechanisms. Such radical shifts in build dynamics defy any long-term vision of gameplay balance, they serve instead to create maximum disruption with minimal development effort.

I understand poe forums might serve as a good tool to practice eloquent speech and big words, but 'passive aggressive sabotage of ...mechanisms' doesnt make any sense whatsoever. there is nothing 'passive aggressive' about GGG revising (or sabotaging if you'd like) their own game. certainly nothing passive about it.

What was classically passive agressive was overtly labeling the complete nullification of Reduced Mana as a "minor balance adjustment", casually buried in a list of otherwise unremarkable tweaks. I don't think anyone disputes that this is a radical shift in gameplay balance that would literally sabotage a wide swath of currently popular builds. But if you want to take issue with the term "passive agressive", how about "disingenuous"?

seems you misinterpreted GGG's statement of a minor update that touched up only on balance as a 'minor balance update'. when you change arbitrary constats in your code, its a minor update.

when you introduce new content, new mechanics or new algorithms in netcode, thats a 'major' update.

they even said so themselves.

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

Balance is not about making everything similar, but about making variety viable. In this context, I literally cannot think of anything which was more overpowered in PoE than the relationship between Reduced Mana and reservation skills.

The two sentences do not follow. Balance is about variety, so reduced mana is bad - what?? How does that follow. Are you suggesting that there should be multiple ways to reduce mana reservation via gems (i.e. more variety)?...

I'm used to you putting more thought into your posts and explanations Scrotie. Please explain why reduced mana is bad. As it is, most people seem to be agreeing that the change doesn't promote diversity. People in leagues will be forced into playing with 1 aura + 1 herald, 1 aura +2 heralds and blood magic, or 3 heralds. They might add one more herald or aura late in the piece once they've travelled all over to get reduced mana reservation. Low-life rich people will still be stacking nearly as many auras as before but will need multiple level 4 enlightens to do so (they mostly already have +1 gem items so that won't hit their bank accounts).

In all honesty, if GGG just bit the bullet hard and said "no more than 4 auras are allowed on any character", that'd be absolutely fine. This change is not achieving the aim of making auras less stackable by the small minority.