The three trees though

[Oliphant]

Already doing level gating, why not let people spend their points in as many trees as they want? Then people can stop debating whether 5 twists is better than 3 trees. The fixed EDP is plenty of gravity to keep it grounded.

Feeling like you'd have to be too stingy with Tier 1 then? No, stop it! Just don't make it even worse and let people have as many trees as they want. Super simple actually.

[Pandjed]

Already doing level gating, why not let people spend their points in as many trees as they want? Then people can stop debating whether 5 twists is better than 3 trees. The fixed EDP is plenty of gravity to keep it grounded.

Feeling like you'd have to be too stingy with Tier 1 then? No, stop it! Just don't make it even worse and let people have as many trees as they want. Super simple actually.

Well, it is, unless... you consider the increase of Destiny Points that's bound to happen. If the new level cap becomes 40, that's 40 more points. With each new ED (three in planning) there will be another one by unlocking it. With every 4 EPL, there will be two (three ETRs = 1 Fate Point, 3 Fate Points = 1 DP; each 12 ETRs = 1 DP extra).
So if we assume that the new level cap will be 40, they add the three new destinies, and they add one divine, primal, and martial EPL to catch up with arcane PLs, then you get additional 43 DP for everyone and 4 additional for the completionists among us, which equals to 95 DP for everyone, 11 for all EPL, 1 for tome of destiny, 1 for +3 tome of fate, in addition to any other new tomes or mechanics they may want to add (total 108 points). That's where being able to spend in every tree will most likely cause some issues.

How to avoid a fate you work towards to? By setting mechanics to lower the chance to break something in the first place. Super simple, actually.

[Oliphant]

Ah, all those points.

All those points jammed into only three trees is generic.

[droid327]

Because cores are way more powerful than T1-4 enhancements. If you werent limited to 9 cores, you'd just go 1/6/11 points in every tree and stack up crazy MP/RP and goodies like Evasion

[Oliphant]

Ok good point and its a little late compared to their early November release goal but heroics have cores, there's no "three trees" and it works.

This is their "let's be boring and just have three OP cores per tree" mistake poking me in the eye.

[Oliphant]

The dinkiness of just three cores, the ungainliness of them being OP.

How much more generic can we get where you only get three trees AND they strongly incentivize filling out ALL 9 cores. That is literally a combinatoric space of 1 option. Optimally boring.

[Oliphant]

Revising recommendation to:

• Unlimited trees.
• Have 6 cores, more gradual progression, higher spending requirement to all 6 than the 3 now.

The issue with the three cores being too OP is just an artifact of this new chunky three cores preview version. The design decision I would guess was pigeon holeing the builds in the first place by limiting to 3 trees and the cores design followed from that logic. In practice, for example, DDO without everyone getting some self heals is great for lore and role play but is actually a nightmare except for a rarified few with a big static network they probably take for granted. I like the option for people to go full meta and max dps with zero heals for max skull raid team play, but I hate the idea of forcing people to sacrifice 25% of their role strength to access a scrap of heals since most people don't have the toon or network for that to be fun.

[salmag]

Revising recommendation to:

• Unlimited trees.
• Have 6 cores, more gradual progression, higher spending requirement to all 6 than the 3 now.

The issue with the three cores being too OP is just an artifact of this new chunky three cores preview version. The design decision I would guess was pigeon holeing the builds in the first place by limiting to 3 trees and the cores design followed from that logic. In practice, for example, DDO without everyone getting some self heals is great for lore and role play but is actually a nightmare except for a rarified few with a big static network they probably take for granted. I like the option for people to go full meta and max dps with zero heals for max skull raid team play, but I hate the idea of forcing people to sacrifice 25% of their role strength to access a scrap of heals since most people don't have the toon or network for that to be fun.

+1

This is a good recommendation.

However, this group of SSG Devs have already completed the work so we're getting this garbage. They wouldn't change it regardless, because they didn't think of it.

They always say they listen (and maybe one or two minor changes happen), but 99% of the time they aren't.

Bright spot - there is always the 1%.

[Gljosh]

I am underwhelmed by this "upgrade". Going from "technically" max of 6 trees to max of 3 trees, is a direct downgrade.

Having looked at the trees, I have a hard time finding enough "hey that looks neat, can't wait."

Now as someone that plays using a controller (wrist issues from using a keyboard for long hours everyday), less options for hotkey moves will probably make layout decisions easy...yay?

I have a bad feeling, that a potential High Tier Expansion perk could be unlock a 4th tree.

[DRoark]

Gated play with forced ERing through it to get "points" we never needed, failure to fix ANY of the old issues such as broken filigrees, capstones, augments not registering,
heroic monk damage and IPS still nerfed despite data showing they were underperforming (and them charging us feat tax to "help"), new ED'd are so scattered nothing
makes sense anymore, old twists locked behind Mantles so you can't use them (and those nerfed), Bard mantle triggering AOEs and causing agro (yeah, great plan, derp),
loss of multiple feats, loss of more stat points.... and still more....

The ball didn't just drop, it got fired into an adamantine floor.

[DRoark]

They always say they listen (and maybe one or two minor changes happen), but 99% of the time they aren't.

Bright spot - there is always the 1%.

I'd say 1% of them listening, is overestimated by 2%. They usually do the exact opposite.