2.6.0 Area of Effect Changes

"

Tin_Foil_Hat wrote:

Sweet, great information.

Edit
Melee splashes "buff" is soo minuscule that it isnt even funny, most people werent running Area of Effect gems either, but people who did now have been massively nerfed.

Yo time to take off that tin foil hat for a second, you just answered your question there boi. Most weren't even using aoe gems that's why it's a buff.

Also no shit, why would anyone consider more than one utility gem escapes me. Maybe now they will learn to have only one.

GGG creating better players by force since 2017.

"

Aynix wrote:

I know that. But since we gain less AoE from Inc. AoE gem, its safe to say that conc effect will reduce our AoE by less than before.
Just my assumption.

If they treat it as every other area modifying mod (so they apply to the actual area and not to the radius) and assuming numbers stay the same, yea, that would actually be a buff to conc effect, weight of the penalty on the actual area the skill can cover would be around 75% compared to what it is now.

And I actually think it will hardly stay like this, they either didn't think about it (and by watching reave changes I might even believe this) or they're just hiding that for now

Great, after the previous 2 leagues i've played spellcasters (my life long buddy made me promise him that i won't touch ranged chars for a while). Welp i'm back to ranged chars again?? i've played like 3 leagues in a row Tonado Shot. For the next league i was planning to do a bino's Blade Flurry. Well not anymore! Burning arrow Elementalist here i come!

Anyone knows what happends to icestorm?

So... if everything is being changed to effect the area, does this mean that Concentrated Effect is technically buffed?

"

HoneyBadGerMan wrote:

Think of the Aurabots, won't someone please think of the Aurabots?

Seriously, like, AoE is their number one thing, because their whole purpose is to buff their party members, and in a party of 3 or 4 people it's just not possible to stay standing right next to all of your party members at all times. More to the point, since auras do not deal damage directly like other AoE skills I think there is a good reason for treating their AoE differently than skills which directly deal damage. At the moment it's possible for an Aura character to get their Aura AoE to fully cover their own screen and perhaps a bit extra off the edges (I'm not quite sure how much since I can't see it, and I haven't sat down and worked it out in Excel) which is super handy for making sure that the Aurabots aura coverage is large enough to keep party members buffed most of the time. I don't know what the effect on Aura AoE will actually look like, but if this nerf works for aura AoE in the way that GGG seems to intend for AoE on everything else then it could have the potential to make playing Aurabot support a lot less worthwhile, which would be a shame from a build diversity perspective.

I'd like to hear from someone at GGG on this, some information about before and after radius difference for Auras given an Aurabot taking all the aura AoE nodes in the passives tree would be very useful. The whole point of an Aurabot is to keep party members buffed, this is why the generosity support gem exists. Therefore, from an Aurabot perspective, even if there are diminishing returns on investing in Aura AoE in the passives tree, that's just something the Aurabot will have to put up with. The Aurabot will probably still get all of the Aura AoE nodes in the tree because the AoE is necessary to keep party members buffed and that is the only reason for playing an Aurabot.

Cheers.

"

JensBrandt wrote:

"

HoneyBadGerMan wrote:

Think of the Aurabots, won't someone please think of the Aurabots?

Seriously, like, AoE is their number one thing, because their whole purpose is to buff their party members, and in a party of 3 or 4 people it's just not possible to stay standing right next to all of your party members at all times. More to the point, since auras do not deal damage directly like other AoE skills I think there is a good reason for treating their AoE differently than skills which directly deal damage. At the moment it's possible for an Aura character to get their Aura AoE to fully cover their own screen and perhaps a bit extra off the edges (I'm not quite sure how much since I can't see it, and I haven't sat down and worked it out in Excel) which is super handy for making sure that the Aurabots aura coverage is large enough to keep party members buffed most of the time. I don't know what the effect on Aura AoE will actually look like, but if this nerf works for aura AoE in the way that GGG seems to intend for AoE on everything else then it could have the potential to make playing Aurabot support a lot less worthwhile, which would be a shame from a build diversity perspective.

I'd like to hear from someone at GGG on this, some information about before and after radius difference for Auras given an Aurabot taking all the aura AoE nodes in the passives tree would be very useful. The whole point of an Aurabot is to keep party members buffed, this is why the generosity support gem exists. Therefore, from an Aurabot perspective, even if there are diminishing returns on investing in Aura AoE in the passives tree, that's just something the Aurabot will have to put up with. The Aurabot will probably still get all of the Aura AoE nodes in the tree because the AoE is necessary to keep party members buffed and that is the only reason for playing an Aurabot.

Cheers.

GGG Has said they are buffing aura's and curses to keep them in line with the current radius and area of effect as they are now. They had no reason to address it in this post.

I really loved Reave and only did two builds with it this league. I'll admit dying sun plus vaal reave did clear quite a lot, but the boss damage was laughable in most regards later on in the game.

I'm okay if you want destroy the reave radius, players will just have to stack MORE aoe to get something close, or not very much and use cleave, but could you please increase the base damage to all the melee skills you are gutting?

This feels like, take take take for melee, what are you giving?

"

Aynix wrote:

"

Mateo_swe wrote:

The game was hard enough before these changes, why do this?

Was what? PoE Hard in 2017? I though you remember hard PoE since you joined in Feb 5, 2013

I guess it depends if you only play the meta builds or try other stuff.
I dont feel PoE got much easier since it was released.

It usually have been nerf after nerf until they suddely realize it has gone to far and then they make a major boost change in one of the uppdates and suddenly many skills are super OP.
Then the cycle repeats, nerf, nerf, nerf, nerf, nerf, then MAJOR Boost and repeat.

Its the GGG way, and i would prefer it was done differently.

AND, it way more fun when PoE is at one of the "peaks" and skills do more damage.

"

Scarfa33 wrote:

Thing that I don't understand is: GGG claims that the build variations is one of the best things of the game.
BUT melee already was very weak comparing to other builds, and we don't even have to talk about armour + life + regen, against ES + vaal pact. So we keep waiting for some balance, some melee and life improvements, and what we get? Melee and AOE nerf.
That doesn't make sense at all, projectiles and spells have been stronger for a while, so why make melee weaker? Why nerf the most popular melee skill (EQ) since it's still weaker than ranged? I really don't get it...

And nerfing reave, makes no sense at all, BALANCE MEANS MAKING THE WEAKER STRONGER, OR MAKING THE STRONGER WEAKER. If you make the weaker even more weaker, THAT'S CALLED UNBALANCING.

Legacy league = Spells and projectiles league. Kaom's heart 1 fus, 500 dps 2h 1 fus, and wands and 5l ES based 1ex+.

And if you disagree, I dare you to play melee AOE the next week.

Well, to the uninformed, yes the balancing does look like continual repeated nerfing for years on end.


This is balanced by introducing something new that is way overpowered, which they then nerf repeatedly, and for years on the really good 'balancings.'


Like Mjolner for instance. It was popular, and even the 'meta' for awhile. I always avoid those builds, but after a couple of pretty strong nerfs I happened to get one, like a year later. So I made a build, not exactly like the current popular one, but somewhat like it.

So I spent several months worth of effort into making it pretty good.

Well, that needed more balance (evidently because people were still playing it), so we nerfed it a couple more times.

As it happens, these nerfs didn't really affect me at all since my build wasn't exactly like the popular one.

However, since people were still playing it, we had to nerf it a couple more times until it became unusable in any form, now you pretty much can't use mj at all - see, balance.



I've also had this melee ci claw for years, and even though it was pretty awful, I liked it. I literally put close to a hundred exalts.

Which took a long time as I don't sell stuff and only trade up currency mainly through masters and then sell fuse for exalts (Which was also 'balanced' and is pretty much impossible amymore), and buy the occasional good item in it and it was still not very good - playable, but so so at best.

Given claws/leech are mainly phys I was stuck with reave (because the other skills I used had also been 'balanced' out of usability) I didn't like reave much, so when Blade Flurry came out I tried that. (after they were done balancing my previous main out of playability)


And it works pretty good, kinda like you might expect with nearly 100ex investment. I guess I should have been madly double dipping - however you go about that, because now we are going to balance Blade Flurry because of this Double Dipping thing.

Don't worry, I'm sure it will be balanced right into the ground.

One of their favorite 'balances' is when something else like double dipping is being done, and then instead of fixing that, they nerf the base skill into the ground so nobody can use it - they balance like this quite a bit. I've lost count of the number of times I've been 'balanced' like this over the years.


In fact, even though I've gone way out of my way to avoid anything 'meta' or 'popular' I have had every build I've ever had 'balanced' until they are no longer playable, all the way back to open beta - or shortly afterwards actually.

They really released a big whack of overpowered stuff they could 'balance' at actual open beta release.



They are really good at this balancing too.

That's why we have major 'balancing' constantly.

Oh, sorry if we destroy your build(s, over and over and over), its best for the game.



There, now you understand balancing.