Synergies.

[WarBlade]

First, why should Paladins have fewer points to spare for synergies than other classes?

I don't follow. What does more or less points for synergies than other classes have to do with the suggestion that points heavily invested in a Paladin Combat Skill should be invested with a view to using that skill?

Second, let's look Oak Sage.  I think it's not that unusual for a Druid to max this skill.  Yet, how much of the time are they acutally using it?

What does Oak Sage have to do with a Paladin Combat Skill? They're a completely different approach and you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Set up a comparison with Enchant or Shiver Armor, by all means, but Oak Sage??? :blink:

[Roland]

Don't take this personally. ;) I had to get that out of the way. Now, on to it:

My biggest beef with you, or more specifically, your criticisms to my ideas, is that you take all my ideas with one idea in your mind: imbalanced skills. You rant on about imbalancing the game by messing with synergies, yet you do so by assuming that the base skills themselves are still imbalanced. Now, granted, in 1.10's CURRENT form this is of course true, but you make it sound as though someone can't compensate for that. What I mean is, you completely discredit ANY idea on the basis of imbalance without considering the idea that any imbalances can be worked out with the idea. OTOH, since for MY purposes balance is a number one concern, I would of course balance the base skills BEFORE any work on Synergies, just like I did with my last mod. So that point (the point of imbalance) is moot. ;)

But, then, there's one big difference between our thoughts on the issue:
You take your ideas and beliefs based on what Blizzard has handed you, i.e. that Synergies are now a NECESSITY. I, myself, do not want that, in any way. I do NOT feel Synergies should EVER be a necessity, at least for top-end skills, because then you are ultimately forcing the character into one path or another, with no way out of that. By FORCING reliance on synergies, you force reliance on whatever skills those synergies are linked to, thereby enforcing cookie-cutter builds, which is exactly (ironically) what you and I do NOT want. ;) Not trying to label you a hypocrite, or anything, but merely pointing out a few key flaws, or what have you, in your arguments. :)

Hope I didn't step on your toes too much. ;) I just had to point those few things out. I am quite curious on your stance on that issue, however - the issue of whether synergies should be a bonus, or a necessity. Myself, I feel they should never be a necessity. How about you? It certainly raises a crux point, does it not? It's the baseline for ALL work on synergies: are they merely a bonus, a reward of sorts, or are they a necessity? Two completely different lines of thinking, with DRASTICALLY different results. I think, at least in part, that is why you have been so adamantly against all of my proposed ideas, and perhaps that of others. It would certainly explain it, at least to me. :) So, what do you think? Bonus, or necessity? What does everyone else think, for that matter? Should synergies be a necessity, considering how some classes / builds already have too many skill points, while others are stretched so thin that one misplacement cripples them, or should they be solely a bonus?

Just some more questions, and my thoughts on the issue. I would like to hear some more of your suggestions, WarBlade, as you are quick to criticize but very slow to provide any real solutions. Not trying to flame you, but at least others are trying, which was the point of me starting this topic. While I understand your frustration with the direction of some ideas, I think, personally, you are a wee bit too critical at times. But, mayhap I am mistaken. Not trying to rag on you or offend you in any way; just a minor observation. Do as you will, as the old saying goes. :)

[WarBlade]

My biggest beef with you, or more specifically, your criticisms to my ideas, is that you take all my ideas with one idea in your mind: imbalanced skills. You rant on about imbalancing the game by messing with synergies, yet you do so by assuming that the base skills themselves are still imbalanced. Now, granted, in 1.10's CURRENT form this is of course true, but you make it sound as though someone can't compensate for that. What I mean is, you completely discredit ANY idea on the basis of imbalance without considering the idea that any imbalances can be worked out with the idea. OTOH, since for MY purposes balance is a number one concern, I would of course balance the base skills BEFORE any work on Synergies, just like I did with my last mod. So that point (the point of imbalance) is moot. ;)

And yet without any mention of how you have balanced or intend to balance the underlying skills themselves, you pose a question regarding synergies. Also many of my points about imbalancing factors with synergies can be largely taken care of after reading the information on caster/generator-only aspects available to skills, so see why you are bringing them back up.

But, then, there's one big difference between our thoughts on the issue:
You take your ideas and beliefs based on what Blizzard has handed you, i.e. that Synergies are now a NECESSITY.

Errr . . . what?
"Necessity"? :huh:

Wait a minute. You asked about synergies. People debated them in the belief that you intended to explore their use. Whether Blizzard thinks of them as necessary or not is not the issue here. You asked. I gave some answers.

I, myself, do not want that, in any way. I do NOT feel Synergies should EVER be a necessity, at least for top-end skills, because then you are ultimately forcing the character into one path or another, with no way out of that. By FORCING reliance on synergies, you force reliance on whatever skills those synergies are linked to, thereby enforcing cookie-cutter builds, which is exactly (ironically) what you and I do NOT want. ;) Not trying to label you a hypocrite, or anything, but merely pointing out a few key flaws, or what have you, in your arguments. :)

Namely that I have no idea where all this "necessity" stuff is coming from in the first place. :huh: If you don't want synergies to be a necessity, then leave them out entirely and don't ask people for improved synergies. It's that simple.

Hope I didn't step on your toes too much.

No you just confused the hell of me with with a suggestion of a completely seperate issue being a key factor in my assessment of synergies.

I am quite curious on your stance on that issue, however - the issue of whether synergies should be a bonus, or a necessity.

I'm inclined to say "Nah, get rid of them," but I'm still too tempted by them, pretty much on the strength of those freaking Sorceress Masteries which strike me as being one of the major destabilizing reasons for their existence in the first place. And Auras. Ideally, I'd say go back to the drawing board and rebuild an entirely new skill set from scratch so as to make skill levels go from 1 to 50 with no inter-skill multiplicative effects anywhere.

I think, at least in part, that is why you have been so adamantly against all of my proposed ideas, and perhaps that of others. It would certainly explain it, at least to me.

Actually I doubt it would, because the question of necessity is one that came directly from you in the first place when you asked how people thought synergies should work. If anything it was your question that defined them as necessary.

My criticisms, which are another matter entirely, stem from having looked at the way skills interact with eachother and determining that two combined skills with an additive combination compared with two skills that multiply are never going to be balanced. Looking at what Blizzard put in 1.10, I see other people have reached the same conclusion and taken a little more care in certain areas. Reading this thread I see most people here have not reached the same conclusion and continue to put things together based purely on aesthetic value, with little exploration into potential imbalance hazards.

So, what do you think? Bonus, or necessity? What does everyone else think, for that matter? Should synergies be a necessity, considering how some classes / builds already have too many skill points, while others are stretched so thin that one misplacement cripples them, or should they be solely a bonus?

No, I think the real question is take them out or leave them in. The moment they are in they become a necessity. "Bonus" is too easily another word for "exploit".

Just some more questions, and my thoughts on the issue. I would like to hear some more of your suggestions, WarBlade, as you are quick to criticize but very slow to provide any real solutions. Not trying to flame you, but at least others are trying, which was the point of me starting this topic. While I understand your frustration with the direction of some ideas, I think, personally, you are a wee bit too critical at times. But, mayhap I am mistaken. Not trying to rag on you or offend you in any way; just a minor observation. Do as you will, as the old saying goes.

Yes I am critical, because most of the suggestions I've read so far look like some of my earliest ideas, before I started exploring how they work out under various conditions and realized they weren't going to work and retain balance. Then I noticed some of the ideas I saw failures in were the same ones that Blizzard had also avoided like the plague.

Surprise, surprise.

And then to my horror, I read posts that describe embracing the same game-wrecking concepts I'd already discarded. :blink: Is it any surprise then that my responses to those posts come off as critical??? ;)

[Roland]

I have not tested myself, so I trully cannot say, but it has been said numerous times, and by numerous people, that skills are no longer viable on their own, for the most part. That, in fact, it is a necessity (hence where I got the idea from) to max, or at least invest heavily, in not only a primary skill (or skills), but also one, or even several of its synergy skills, as well. Now, if this is not the case, even half the time, then I apologize for raising the issue, as it therefore would not have nearly as much impact as I had originally took it to have. If, however, the impression I got from the many accounts of other testers is in fact accurate, then my statements and questions regarding synergies being a necessity are valid.

And yet without any mention of how you have balanced or intend to balance the underlying skills themselves, you pose a question regarding synergies. Also many of my points about imbalancing factors with synergies can be largely taken care of after reading the information on caster/generator-only aspects available to skills, so see why you are bringing them back up.

I don't rightly see what having said or not said what I have done or intend to do in regards to balancing the skills has much of anything to do with my questions on synergies. The two are wholly seperate, yet at the same time linked. However, I wasn't looking for people to balance synergies for me, any more than I was looking for them to balance the skills in general. I was looking for ideas on how synergies should interact with other skills, and with one another. Don't confuse two seperate (though linked) issues.

As to your "generator only" ideas, I would be interested in hearing more about your ideas on that. Specifically, what skills, and how should they be altered? And, for that matter, what is so wrong with the Paladin granting the benefit of his auras to other players? How is that any different than, say, the Necromancer with his Curses? Why is it such a bad thing? I just don't understand this vehemient opposition to the Paladin's auras, and more specifically his synergy bonuses, being granted to others, especially since 99% of all synergies are based on the BASE skill levels, and thus do not gain benefit from +skill items. Amazons and Barbarians aren't getting anything they weren't getting before, from Paladin auras, so why the fierce opposition?

Wait a minute. You asked about synergies. People debated them in the belief that you intended to explore their use. Whether Blizzard thinks of them as necessary or not is not the issue here. You asked. I gave some answers.

Actually, it's a core issue, since many people will follow in the same line of thinking, which is NOT the line of thinking that I go by. You are included among those who at least give the impression of thinking synergies are a necessity to be viable (is that clearer? Synergies being a necessity to be VIABLE in Hell difficulty), even if that is not what you believe. To hear suggestions on how to balance synergies when people are making the assumption that they are a necessity to viability can only lead me down the wrong path, and thus wastes my time, and the contributors, which is not something I want to do.

My criticisms, which are another matter entirely, stem from having looked at the way skills interact with eachother and determining that two combined skills with an additive combination compared with two skills that multiply are never going to be balanced. Looking at what Blizzard put in 1.10, I see other people have reached the same conclusion and taken a little more care in certain areas. Reading this thread I see most people here have not reached the same conclusion and continue to put things together based purely on aesthetic value, with little exploration into potential imbalance hazards.

And once again you spout off without giving a single, credible example as to what you are talking about. Just what, precisely, do you mean? I can see your point about plugging synergies together based on aesthetic value, but truly, that is how most of the skill layouts were made in the first place! To ignore that is to ignore the entire base setup of the skills, which is utterly foolish. And please, do give at least SOME examples, and go further into details, on where you see "two skills with an additive combination compared with two skills that multiply". I'm truly intrigued.

No, I think the real question is take them out or leave them in. The moment they are in they become a necessity. "Bonus" is too easily another word for "exploit".

Alright. Let's get back to something that was touched upon, by yourself and myself, earlier on. How do we utilize synergies to make current less-than-desirable / -viable skills more attractive and viable? Do we pick certain sets of skills to be synergistic with one another, thereby granting the user a primary and secondary skill on one little package, while ALSO running into that other wall we did not want (namely, forcing players down pre-planned skill pathways)?

It's a tough path to tread, but it doesn't HAVE to be so black & white as you are painting it. Maybe it's because you've never done modding before, or maybe you're just too stuck in your own way of thinking and viewing to see "outside the box", so to speak, but I just don't see that synergies have to be this all-or-nothing thing, where they're either an absolute necessity or a game-breaking imbalance. There HAS to be a middle road. My problem with you is you either can't or won't see that.

Yes I am critical, because most of the suggestions I've read so far look like some of my earliest ideas, before I started exploring how they work out under various conditions and realized they weren't going to work and retain balance. Then I noticed some of the ideas I saw failures in were the same ones that Blizzard had also avoided like the plague.

Surprise, surprise.

And then to my horror, I read posts that describe embracing the same game-wrecking concepts I'd already discarded. :blink: Is it any surprise then that my responses to those posts come off as critical??? ;)

Give me one example. Please do show me where these huge, glaring imbalances, these game-breaking elements, come into play due to our input on synergies. I'd love to hear this, because frankly I just don't see it. Or, rather, I don't see ONLY that, unlike you. Enlighten me, or give it your best shot. Maybe one of us will walk away with a few new things to ponder.

[WarBlade]

I have not tested myself, so I trully cannot say, but it has been said numerous times, and by numerous people, that skills are no longer viable on their own, for the most part.

In some cases that's true, but you're incorrect in assuming I came up with such a statement. In fact a Sorceress of mine converted straight to 1.10 was doing fine in Act 5 Hell with a Maxed Hyra and Mastery with only one point in each of the synergy skills, and even she paled in comparison to an Amazon using Goldstrike to deliver Freezing Arrow while having only one point in the synergies. So no, some skills beg for support, some skills don't and many skills have power relative external influences impacting on all parts of the scale.

I don't rightly see what having said or not said what I have done or intend to do in regards to balancing the skills has much of anything to do with my questions on synergies.

Internal skill balancing had no relevance to anything in my posts that I can think of at all. And then you came out with " You rant on about imbalancing the game by messing with synergies, yet you do so by assuming that the base skills themselves are still imbalanced." Anything I said about synergies was purely comparative and general, in keeping with your original question. You brought up that separate issue of balancing the skills yourself.

The two are wholly seperate.

Gaaaaah! Of course they're separate! So why did you bring it up in the first place??? :lol:

yet at the same time linked. However, I wasn't looking for people to balance synergies for me, any more than I was looking for them to balance the skills in general. I was looking for ideas on how synergies should interact with other skills, and with one another. Don't confuse two seperate (though linked) issues.

Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow.
Hey keyboard facial imprints come back out again right? :unsure:

As to your "generator only" ideas, I would be interested in hearing more about your ideas on that. Specifically, what skills, and how should they be altered?

The 'stickable' the Paladin Auras. The synergy benefits and only the synergy benefits should be Paladin only, while the aura behaves 'unsynergized' when planted on partied units. Otherwise the synergies get multiplied by the number of partied units they are stuck to. The imbalance doesn't happen within the character itself, it happens in conjunction with external influences - Imagine what 40 points invested towards Fanaticism might be like and go stand next to two multishot Amazons, then stick 40 towards Holy Shock and go stand next to two multishot Amazons . . . You see a difference now right?

Blizzard's workaround was to leave synergy upgrades off the multiplicative Auras and for that matter they also left supportive Warcries in duration modifying territory only, there are no Curse multipliers, etc. Practically everything that provides upgrades to another partied character got left off the list, and with good reason.

And, for that matter, what is so wrong with the Paladin granting the benefit of his auras to other players? How is that any different than, say, the Necromancer with his Curses? Why is it such a bad thing? I just don't understand this vehemient opposition to the Paladin's auras, and more specifically his synergy bonuses, being granted to others, especially since 99% of all synergies are based on the BASE skill levels, and thus do not gain benefit from +skill items.

+ Skill items are another irrelevant side step from the debate. <_<

Amazons and Barbarians aren't getting anything they weren't getting before, from Paladin auras, so why the fierce opposition?

They won't? Well not if you can exclude them, sure, but if you can't and you want to do any of the following . . .

Might - Blessed Aim, Concentration, Fanaticism
Blessed Aim - Might, Concentration, Fanaticism
Concentration - Might, Blessed Aim, Fanatacism
Fanaticism - Might, Blessed Aim, Concentration

. . . then I expect they will. In spades.

And once again you spout off without giving a single, credible example as to what you are talking about. Just what, precisely, do you mean?

I present to you the Holy Shock/Fanaticism comparison I gave above.

I can see your point about plugging synergies together based on aesthetic value, but truly, that is how most of the skill layouts were made in the first place! To ignore that is to ignore the entire base setup of the skills, which is utterly foolish.

And to bypass the fact that there are some trees and parts of trees that have no consistant theme on certain characters is equally flawed. I've never ignored the fact that some skill trees maintain consistant themes, I'm simply pointing out that you can't necessarily apply the same "stick to aesthetics" rule across the board and hope it will work.

Alright. Let's get back to something that was touched upon, by yourself and myself, earlier on. How do we utilize synergies to make current less-than-desirable / -viable skills more attractive and viable? Do we pick certain sets of skills to be synergistic with one another, thereby granting the user a primary and secondary skill on one little package, while ALSO running into that other wall we did not want (namely, forcing players down pre-planned skill pathways)?

I'd start by looking at the undesirable skills individually and hammering out a plan to fit each class based on what you see. Come up with some rules like the "this kind of skill can't enhance damage" rules you see throughout 1.10. Then go back to tackling the skills individually again. I'd do it in a frame work something like this:

Step 1
Make some rules to govern ongoing skill balancing while keeping Synergies controlled and balanced.

1.a. Establish what Synergies are supposed to achieve.
1.b. Define the purpose of each skill tree and establish how each will use synergies. In some cases custom rule sets will need to be generated for specific skills within trees.

Step 2
Sort out where the Synergies will be and what they will do, before adding in values.

2.a. Apply rough values in keeping with previous rules.
2.b. Attenuate levels to balance.
2.c. Investigate the 'wishful thinking' element for possible further spice.

It's a tough path to tread, but it doesn't HAVE to be so black & white as you are painting it. Maybe it's because you've never done modding before, or maybe you're just too stuck in your own way of thinking and viewing to see "outside the box", so to speak, but I just don't see that synergies have to be this all-or-nothing thing, where they're either an absolute necessity or a game-breaking imbalance. There HAS to be a middle road. My problem with you is you either can't or won't see that.

Oh, I've done modding before, just not with D2. Truth be known, I consider my tinkering with rules in the old paper and dice RPGs to be a far more valuable background for D2 related thoughts.

As for supposing what "I can't or won't see"? <_< I doubt you are trying to piss me off, but that was just outright insulting ok? <_<

[whyBish]

I have not tested myself, so I trully cannot say, but it has been said numerous times, and by numerous people, that skills are no longer viable on their own, for the most part. That, in fact, it is a necessity (hence where I got the idea from) to max, or at least invest heavily, in not only a primary skill (or skills), but also one, or even several of its synergy skills, as well.

The problem here is skills that do damage. Balance of skills and synergies is a lot simpler to achieve with non-damage skills.

For damage skills you have the following issues at a minimum to consider:
- sorc pretty much has only skills that differ in method of damage delivery. Once they have invested 20 points in that skill they can only increase their damage through synergy (I count mastery as a synergy). My pref here would be to re-do sorc skills so that they aren't all just different damage skills. Sticking with the current trees however, synergies (+masteries) are pretty much required to avoid the I am at full damage capacity at level X problem. This does however lead to the problem of forcing investment heavily in one tree (i.e. skill + its synergies). A real blunt 'fix' would be to have all masteries affect all trees, and have no other synergy. This way you could have a couple of primary skills maxed on different trees without being forced into a further skill just to boost one of those primary skills. (Note this idea is not fleshed out, e.g. lit/fire mastery would need to be rebalanced perhaps lit mastery returning to mana cost reduction or other)
- Physical attackers can upgrade their damage through multiple means. Most of these are multiplicative. An example is the amazon:
Upgrade weapon damage (on weapon, on active skill(e.g. strafe), on passive skill (e.g. crit strike))
Upgrade chance to hit (on weapon/equip, on active skill, on passive skill (penetrate))
Upgrade attack speed (on weapon/equip, on active skill (non-zon e.g. frenzy/fanat))
Upgrade (potential) number of hits per skill use (active skill (strafe/MS), pierce)
Reduce time not attacking (through skills such as vigor, minion skills/hireling, defensive skills and equipment)

Summary:
- Caster v.s. fighter issue: caster essentially needs to need synergies otherwise they are maxxed out at level X
- Fighter issue: how to control multipliers?

This is essentially where I see diminishing returns fitting in. Make offensive skills (methods of damage delivery) not be essential to max, make them inherently diminishing (examples to follow). Why? This allows pumping of other 'passives' that multiply all offence skills so that you can have a number of different offence skills used (i.e. no one trick ponies).
Examples, again the amazon. Strafe is essentially diminishing (has a cap on number of extra arrows) if you ignore the damage %. Same for zeal. After the initial levels the later levels should offer some alternative to damage (e.g. +ar%, boring I know but I'm sure there are plenty of other options, e.g. adding stun or other novelties etc.)

[whyBish]

I don't.
Skills with sharp dimishing returns are akin to one point wonders, and those are broken to me.
What's the point of having 20 skill ranks if no one in their right mind is going to use them ?

I like the idea of diminishing skills, but not *sharp* diminishing skills. Adding points should give something, but maybe not as much as the first five-10 points. Diminishing returns also make balancing much easier than linear returns, especially with the offensive skills.

As to the second part, I would say that the passive tree for the zon is the almost perfect example. No-one would think of maxing Dodge or evade or avoid et. al. but they can custom invest to their own preference without feeling like they need to plonk in 20 points. This reduces 'one trick ponies' syndrome that is essentially forced on certain characters such as the sorc (e.g. she pretty much is forced into 20/20 skill mastery which means two useful skills to use at ~level 80)