I’ll illustrate the idea first. Take a fireball for example. Let’s say that the default interaction is that the fireball explodes on impact but can changed into one that pierces enemies with a skill node. If you happen to miss, it might be useful to have some functionality that lets you detonate the fireball on demand. My question is whether or not that detonate functionality should come with a skill node (thus costing another skill point, in the same build path or maybe different path) or come for free but have some execution requirement (ie, press once to cast, twitce to detonate or press to channel the fireball and release to detonate). I’m bringing this up because there are a few skills that have nodes that “expand” the functionality of a skill but also replace the default functionality. Then to justify the cost, the damage is indirectly increased by being more useful in the new use case while being worse (or unusable) in the original use case. My point being that these kinds of nodes can’t be 100% justified as upgrades with their current design. Maintaining both the original and new functionality can actually be justified as useful utility because the same skill (the fireball in our case) can serve different roles depending on the button input.
On the flip side, there are nodes that expand the functionality of a skill while performing their original role but better. This begs the question, “Why wouldn’t you pick this node?” Then it becomes a matter of balancing how far into the skill tree the node should be or tuning the damage numbers instead of just worrying about keeping the skill interesting. In general, it seems many skills have the potential to support one button build playstyles but I still think it would be more interesting to support multiple functionalities on the same button (the swiss army knife approach) instead of being “press one button to wipe the screen”. This could open up the combat design for dungeons to support more complicated mechanics.
By choice you remove the Fireballs ability to explode on impact by making it piercing and now you want the option back to make it explode? That is completely contradicting skill choices and their pros and cons. So thx but no thx.
This is exactly my point because you have to justify the skill point cost along with how far into the tree the node is. If you have to pay a point for it, should you really lose some functionality in exchange? Not that it’s always going to be right or wrong to do so but more like when and where.
Yeah but your fireball example is the worst possible example to pick. Normal exploding fireball can hit a few enemies. Piercing fireball can hit hundrets of enemies. Not hitting enemies = player skill issues and not issues with how a skill works.
Most of LE skills are thought through very well and offer a lot of options to choose from. It’s up to the player to descide what they want to play. When I play my Totem Spriggan with one hand in my pants while controlling with the other and watching a film on the side I know this build isn’tt groundbreaking but I have a good time with it running down tha game. That’s my choice to do instead of playing a build where I have to use all my skills the whole time.
Take a good look at the skills and you might find they are thought out well and allow for a lot of different playstyles. There is most likely no need to change systems in place BUT (!) your idea with a remotely explodable fireball no matter how you skilled it might be a neat idea for unique. That’s a whole other terretory and in the realms of possibility to be seen one day.
That’s just my oppinion after all maybe you get more input on the topic besides my narrowminded one ^^.
I admit it’s completely fine to lock into a playstyle but my question is basically about double dipping on a single skill. Having a extra layer of decision making on the same button press can come with pros and cons. You obviously get the option of using the same skills in different ways on the fly but maybe you have different cooldowns or are forced to channel the skill and locked out of using mobility in a dangerous situation. My perspective is that if EHG wants to continuously expand on the variety in the game, would it be easier/more sustainable to make new classes with new archetypes or expand on existing content with skill node changes? I’d say adding uniques to support a specific playstyle is a pretty common solution but if the design already supports a variety of playstyles through skill builds, it might not be necessary to rely on uniques to deal with this. I say that because the number of uniques in the game increases with time but this also contributes to inflating the item pool. With the trading system in place, EHG would have to decide how to balance players dependence on trade to support their playstyle (especially early into a season) vs how many wacky combinations of uniques they want to keep track of.
