Why are only melee punished by weapon specific skill gems?

"

Sickness написал:

I would disapprove. Restrictions like that helps differentiate the weapons.

In turn, I would purport that the weapons should differentiate themselves, just as they do among melee skills that don't have these arbitrary restrictions.

"

You want to make weapon selection a pure calculation instead of a meaningful choice.
Since I have played both alot D3 (where weapon selection is pure calculation) and alot of PoE, I can tell you that, for me, it would make the game alot less interesting.

Choosing Sweep and thus giving up the ability to use a shield or an off-hand weapon is an interesting choice. Choosing Sweep and retaining access to two-handed axes and two-handed maces, but losing access to two-handed swords, is not meaningful; it's random.

"

The weapon restrictions does not have to be consistent and streamlined. IMO that would just seem boring and stale. In the end all that matters is that the skill availabilty for each weapon is balanced.

The skill availability for each weapon is not balanced. Sweep is one such example. Directly comparing the skill availability between one-handed axes and one-handed swords is another example. Really, let's stick with that one: when comparing one-handed axes to one-handed swords, is skill availability balanced?

"

Sickness написал:

Objetively, you would have to be very ignorant to argue that bows have an advantage over melee in skill selection when, objectively, every melee weapon have more skills available to them than bows.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"

You are just crying over not being able ot use something that you think you should, without thinking about why it is the way it is.

I wonder what I was thinking about the whole time, then? I must have blacked out or something.

"

If you would have used half the effort you made defending your irrational position to actually try to understand what we are telling you then this thread would not have had to be this long or you could instead have spent your time to make your case for why less meaningful choice in weapon selection is a good thing.

But what would I do with the other half? Well, I suppose I could make a sandwich. I like sandwiches.

I do appreciate you separating your trolling posts and argumentative posts, by the way. That way, the reader can skip all of this useless bantering, mockery and taunting crap and stick to the topic.

I've not been keeping track of the last 20 pages or so... so apologies if I reiterate what has already been said.

I added this page to the wiki.

Melee have it good. Us ranged guys only get TWO WEAPON TYPES!!!

Melee users get to choose between 9 different weapons or go unarmed. All we get is bows and wands.

The worst melee weapon for skill selection are Claws, they get to choose from 12 different skills. Bows can choose between 10 and wands 3.

Dunno why you're complaining when you have so much choice and diversity.

Though, I heard a rumour they are adding crossbows... .

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

Sickness написал:

I would disapprove. Restrictions like that helps differentiate the weapons.

In turn, I would purport that the weapons should differentiate themselves, just as they do among melee skills that don't have these arbitrary restrictions.

I don't see why less differentiation would be better.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

You want to make weapon selection a pure calculation instead of a meaningful choice.
Since I have played both alot D3 (where weapon selection is pure calculation) and alot of PoE, I can tell you that, for me, it would make the game alot less interesting.

Choosing Sweep and thus giving up the ability to use a shield or an off-hand weapon is an interesting choice. Choosing Sweep and retaining access to two-handed axes and two-handed maces, but losing access to two-handed swords, is not meaningful; it's random.

Sure, extremely interesting. It's only been there in every ARPG ever.

Wheter you think it's random or not does not change that it's meaningful. If you choose sweep you face the consequence that you can't use two handed swords, and if you choose a two handed swrod you can't use sweep. So maybe you get situation where you have to choose between using sweep + a weaker weapon or a stronger weapon + a different skill. That is a meaningful choice.
Choosing between using sweep + a greater weapon or sweep + a lesser weapon is not a choice at all.

The restricions make the choices alot deeper.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

The weapon restrictions does not have to be consistent and streamlined. IMO that would just seem boring and stale. In the end all that matters is that the skill availabilty for each weapon is balanced.

The skill availability for each weapon is not balanced. Sweep is one such example. Directly comparing the skill availability between one-handed axes and one-handed swords is another example. Really, let's stick with that one: when comparing one-handed axes to one-handed swords, is skill availability balanced?

Lets get back to that when the game is out of beta shall we?
Concluding anything from the current state balance would be a mistake, as we would have to revise it every other week.

The weapon restrictions still does not have to be consistent and streamlined.

"

AnnanFay написал:

I've not been keeping track of the last 20 pages or so... so apologies if I reiterate what has already been said.

I added this page to the wiki.

Melee have it good. Us ranged guys only get TWO WEAPON TYPES!!!

Melee users get to choose between 9 different weapons or go unarmed. All we get is bows and wands.

The worst melee weapon for skill selection are Claws, they get to choose from 12 different skills. Bows can choose between 10 and wands 3.

Dunno why you're complaining when you have so much choice and diversity.

Though, I heard a rumour they are adding crossbows... .

Apparently you are looking at the wrong numbers!

"

Sickness написал:

I don't see why less differeniation would be better.

A fair point. Let me rephrase: I feel that less differentiation in total would be a superior model to the current one, which is *inconsistent* differentiation.

Or, to step further: I'd prefer either consistent differentiation, or little-to-no differentiation, over the current model of inconsistent differentiation.

"

Sure, extremely interesting. It's only been there in every ARPG ever.

Name seven!

"

Wheter you think it's random or not does not change that it's meaningful. If you choose sweep you face the consequence that you can't use two handed swords, and if you choose a two handed swrod you can't use sweep. So maybe you get situation where you have to choose between using sweep + a weaker weapon or a stronger weapon + a different skill. That is a meaningful choice.

That is true, and I concede the point. To elaborate still further, we can even consider an aspect of the current model that I think we can both agree is interesting: the comparison of two-handed swords to two-handed axes. Here, we find a lot of overlap, naturally. The exceptions are: two-handed axes can use Sweep; and, two-handed swords can use Puncture and Viper Strike.

Thus we see that each weapon has a slightly different selection of skills available to it. Indeed, I'll further purport that the fact that one weapon has more choices than the other doesn't violate any sort of principle of diversity; again, we're not looking for perfection here. Thus we simply see that two-handed axes are *different* from two-handed swords, by merit of the specific skills that each can use and the other can't. Within the confines of this model -- an interesting model; a meaningful model -- Sweep fits fine.

Where this fails, though, is when looking at other weapons. Comparing the one-handed versions of these same weapons, we see that one-handed swords have access to three additional skills. One-handed axes, however, receive *no benefit whatsoever*. There is nothing, nothing at all, to counter-balance one-handed sword's versatility as compared to one-handed axes. One-handed swords are in every way in the advantage. Even intrinsic attributes do not accommodate for this disparity; quite the opposite, in fact. I suppose we could start looking at weapon speed ranges and ability score requirements next, but I for one think we'd be going too far astray.

"

Choosing between using sweep + a greater weapon or sweep + a lesser weapon is not a choice at all.

It could be, depending on (a) what you mean by lesser/greater weapons and (b) what other skills the wielder might be intending to use in combination.

"

The restricions make the choices alot deeper.

I still (stubbornly) maintain that the restrictions are random, not deep. To be deep, there would be a consistent, readily identifiable, underlying principle driving the pattern. There isn't one, other than for variety's own sake.

"

"

Xaxyx написал:

Really, let's stick with that one: when comparing one-handed axes to one-handed swords, is skill availability balanced?

Lets get back to that when the game is out of beta shall we?

Playing the Beta card isn't particularly helpful; hell, this forum is called "Beta General Discussion" for a reason. Like you, I'd like to see the game improved for the better. This is one such venue in which I feel it could use some improvement. If you meant to imply that some skills will be coming out to re-establish Balance In All Things, well, that certainly is possible -- it is, as you say, still in beta -- but I for one would prefer to see it established that skills are being built in accordance with a specific, underlying principle, whatever that may turn out to be.

You pick a weapon type and as a consequence you are limited to a particular set of skills, true for all weapons. (1)

Contradiction:
Bows are not restricted to a particual set of skills because they can use every ranged skill (or that it's heavily imbalanced because bows can use every ranged skill except one).


Imagine if they added nunchucks and a bunch of "martial art skills" that could only be used with the nunchucks. That would be perfectly consistent with (1), yet they can use every "martial art skill" just like bows can use every ranged skill. So if (1) is true for one it must be true for the other, and since (1) is true for nunchucks it must also be true for bows and we conclude that the contradiction is false.

This is simple logic.

"

Sickness написал:

Скрытый текст

"

AnnanFay написал:

I've not been keeping track of the last 20 pages or so... so apologies if I reiterate what has already been said.

I added this page to the wiki.

Melee have it good. Us ranged guys only get TWO WEAPON TYPES!!!

Melee users get to choose between 9 different weapons or go unarmed. All we get is bows and wands.

The worst melee weapon for skill selection are Claws, they get to choose from 12 different skills. Bows can choose between 10 and wands 3.

Dunno why you're complaining when you have so much choice and diversity.

Though, I heard a rumour they are adding crossbows... .

Apparently you are looking at the wrong numbers!

What do you mean?

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

Sickness написал:

I don't see why less differeniation would be better.

A fair point. Let me rephrase: I feel that less differentiation in total would be a superior model to the current one, which is *inconsistent* differentiation.

Or, to step further: I'd prefer either consistent differentiation, or little-to-no differentiation, over the current model of inconsistent differentiation.

Why is the inconsistency so bad in this case? I don't really see the harm it does, but I see all the good it does in differentiating the weapons. I have played the streamlined version, it's what they did in D3, and while D3 is a pretty good game I did not like this aspect of it very much at all.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

Sure, extremely interesting. It's only been there in every ARPG ever.

Name seven!

I name them all Steven.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

Wheter you think it's random or not does not change that it's meaningful. If you choose sweep you face the consequence that you can't use two handed swords, and if you choose a two handed swrod you can't use sweep. So maybe you get situation where you have to choose between using sweep + a weaker weapon or a stronger weapon + a different skill. That is a meaningful choice.

That is true, and I concede the point. To elaborate still further, we can even consider an aspect of the current model that I think we can both agree is interesting: the comparison of two-handed swords to two-handed axes. Here, we find a lot of overlap, naturally. The exceptions are: two-handed axes can use Sweep; and, two-handed swords can use Puncture and Viper Strike.

Thus we see that each weapon has a slightly different selection of skills available to it. Indeed, I'll further purport that the fact that one weapon has more choices than the other doesn't violate any sort of principle of diversity; again, we're not looking for perfection here. Thus we simply see that two-handed axes are *different* from two-handed swords, by merit of the specific skills that each can use and the other can't. Within the confines of this model -- an interesting model; a meaningful model -- Sweep fits fine.

Where this fails, though, is when looking at other weapons. Comparing the one-handed versions of these same weapons, we see that one-handed swords have access to three additional skills. One-handed axes, however, receive *no benefit whatsoever*. There is nothing, nothing at all, to counter-balance one-handed sword's versatility as compared to one-handed axes. One-handed swords are in every way in the advantage. Even intrinsic attributes do not accommodate for this disparity; quite the opposite, in fact. I suppose we could start looking at weapon speed ranges and ability score requirements next, but I for one think we'd be going too far astray.

"

Xaxyx написал:

Playing the Beta card isn't particularly helpful; hell, this forum is called "Beta General Discussion" for a reason. Like you, I'd like to see the game improved for the better. This is one such venue in which I feel it could use some improvement. If you meant to imply that some skills will be coming out to re-establish Balance In All Things, well, that certainly is possible -- it is, as you say, still in beta -- but I for one would prefer to see it established that skills are being built in accordance with a specific, underlying principle, whatever that may turn out to be.

Since it's beta and there are alot of skills still to be released I think that it's a huge mistake to change the entire system in reaction to the current balance.
The current system can be balanced, it's just a matter of adding and tuning skills.

To kill diversity and choice just to have it balanced NOW would be silly.
The weapon restrictions still does not have to be consistent and streamlined.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

Choosing between using sweep + a greater weapon or sweep + a lesser weapon is not a choice at all.

It could be, depending on (a) what you mean by lesser/greater weapons and (b) what other skills the wielder might be intending to use in combination.

(a) Lesser/greater in terms of their stats (ie DPS)
(b) Why does that matter when your point is that you want to make every skill available for every melee weapon?

So no, it's not.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

The restricions make the choices alot deeper.

I still (stubbornly) maintain that the restrictions are random, not deep. To be deep, there would be a consistent, readily identifiable, underlying principle driving the pattern. There isn't one, other than for variety's own sake.

Streamlined is not the definition of deep.

"

AnnanFay написал:

What do you mean?

He's being sarcastic; it's meant as a slight against me, not you. He's implying that my assertion is that my numbers are more significant than yours, from earlier tangents wherein we turned those numbers in different directions.