Its time for fortify+movement skill to die

People still don't realize that killing fortify with MELEE movement skills just hurts MELEE classes and nerfs them by 1 link?? If you want that to stop make spells to need a certain weapon to use them just like all attack skills. Blade vortex = works only with daggers and wands, lightning tendrils = works with wands and staves, fireball = wands and staves, glacial cascade (since it's phys conversion) = daggers wands and staves. Storm call, wands and staves.

In the end this will just kill the variety to use more weapons as an option for casters and i'm FULLY AGAINST removing fortify + melee movement skill. Even if you play caster if you put at melee range to proc the effect you should get it. In fact i play that on my inquisitor and most of the time is just better to stay out of melee range if you want to survive since shield charging into a pack with powerful crits aura can get you one shotted.

"

IIPheXII a écrit :

People still don't realize that killing fortify with MELEE movement skills just hurts MELEE classes and nerfs them by 1 link??

People still don't realize that the change we want is:

a) remove fortify from movement skills (except cyclone)
b) decrease fortify buff duration to .5 or 1 second

...one of those should be enough. Doesn't really matter which one.

And, on top of that:
Add a more melee damage multiplier to fortify, around 30%.

Yes, we will have to put fortify in our main link (instead of maybe ruthless, added fire or maim).

No, melee would not be heavily nerfed.

It would just mean what the title says: fortify + movement skill would die.

It should never have been a fucking support to begin with. GGG never learned their lesson regarding the flexibility of support gems. So many things have been broken and then overnerfed because of 'creative' support gem usage. We had the same problem with COCS -- really cool idea, but so broadly applicable that it was inevitably going to be broken. And it was. And then it was nerfed. Hard. And those who used it 'appropriately' felt the nerf harder than those who cheesed it. That's the sad truth of how GGG balance things: the nerfs always bring the top end into balance but for everyone else, they can render something almost unusable.

Fortify is a great idea that GGG failed to limit it to apply only to the styles that needed or dare I say earned it. Then again, that's opening the can of worms of 'what is melee in PoE anyway?' so fuck it.

And while I do use WB+Fortify 'properly' on my melee builds, I completely see the reasoning behind goetzjam's suggestion. The caster using WB+Fort for free defence is the obvious nail sticking that needs to be hammered. I'm just saying it's a shame that GGG allowed that nail to exist in the first place.

"

Peterlerock a écrit :

People still don't realize that the change we want is:

a) remove fortify from movement skills (except cyclone)
b) decrease fortify buff duration to .5 or 1 second

...one of those should be enough. Doesn't really matter which one.

And, on top of that:
Add a more melee damage multiplier to fortify, around 30%.

Yes, we will have to put fortify in our main link (instead of maybe ruthless, added fire or maim).

No, melee would not be heavily nerfed.

It would just mean what the title says: fortify + movement skill would die.

You even forgot about flicker strike, but see what you want is not fortify + movement skill to die, what you truly want is casters not having fortify, and a fortify buff so you can't choose anymore and have the same damage links in every melee build murdering all the variety left. Which as you said it's just added fire/ruthless/maim.

"

IIPheXII a écrit :

and have the same damage links in every melee build murdering all the variety left. Which as you said it's just added fire/ruthless/maim.

...if that's all the variety we got, I would not shed a tear.

And yes, I would appreciate GGG handing something specifically to melee in its true form. Something like fortify.
Something that compensates for the slower clear speed due to lower AoE coverage, for having to deal with all the mechanics of the different monsters due to being close to them, for the dependance on being more tanky due to being close to them, ...

... because that's how balance works.

And then, next step, we answer this question:
"But if my caster is (voluntarily) in melee range (because I chose a close range skill like BV), how do I protect him?"
...and if we really find no other solution, your BV dude may have his fortify too.

"

goetzjam a écrit :

A common misconception about melee abilities, is only the primary effect is going to give you the fortify buff, for example with frost blades you still have to be close enough to get the initial hit off, for lighting strike you have to hit with the melee portion as well. Maybe sunder has a long enough range for others to use it to gain the buff, but ultimately anyone that wants to get the buff and "do something different" would probably use vigilante strike as it has a longer duration naturally.

I am well aware of how Frost Blades only triggers Fortify on the first hit. That's the only hit of Frost Blades that is melee and thus it's the only one that qualifies for Fortify. But I do mention it because it's one of the longer ranges on melee attacks, and that range is something certain characters would want potentially at the cost of uptime compared to Vigilant Strike.

"

Peterlerock a écrit :

And then, next step, we answer this question:
"But if my caster is (voluntarily) in melee range (because I chose a close range skill like BV), how do I protect him?"
...and if we really find no other solution, your BV dude may have his fortify too.

BV like other spells that have limited range are killed and render too squisy if movement skill + fortify dies so yeah you must find another solution that is not nerfing everything asociated with it. Ofc you can voluntarily use it or not, just like you can voluntarily play melee or not play melee, if it sucks, it sucks and needs something better that doesn't cause the same issue somewhere else.

Ok, remove fortify and then nerf ALL INGAME DAMAGE by 20%.
Seems fair, i agree.

edit: Only if what i just said above is the case, otherwise leave fortify as is. <3 This post is getting too much attention because of the hate i assume, don't listen to it GGG, it's already very hard to survive/level in your shitty spam easy shaped maps meta everyone is bored of because of the death penalty.

"

goetzjam a écrit :

"

And if we're at this point, in discussing further "improvements", Fortify should have some additional "benefits" for hitting an enemy in a radius of 16 around the character.

I'm trying to focus on these things one at a time. GGG specifically said a year ago movement skills are out of control. This would help with both of those issues and if you want to tone it more further, by all means.

"

As Fortify should not help characters that move via movement skills, let's keep it helpful for melee as in close proximity attacks, heck, even spells if they respect range requirements - as all various forms of attack, be them attacks, projectiles or spells, if they require you to "hit" your enemy in a 16 radius should be "de facto melee"...

Spell casters and ranged builds get other benefits from being close to the enemy that they don't need the defensive bonus for being close.

Ranged builds can grab point blank and get a large damage multiplier. Spell builds like freezing pulse doing more damage and having a higher freeze chance.

Channeling spells have a psuedo defensive support they can use that was released this patch. If skills like BV or something still suffer they can make other adjustments going forward.

Spell builds can typically pretty easily go into MOM, melee builds have a much harder time utilizing it and getting a large pool to abuse it.


So can we stop trying to make this as if others NEED fortify. They don't. It wasn't intended for them in the first place and they have other defenses available for them.

Firstly, please do use my name when replying to one of my posts, as that highlights that someone replied to one of my comments if you're going for a dialogue, instead of a monologue - especially as this subject is very interesting, and for me very impactful, as I tend to play solely melee characters.

Secondly, IF GGG want's to bring movement skill "under control", they really just need to add a delay for EACH movement skill, in a way that actually encourages their use as a TACTICAL ADDITION to the game, not a "mindless spamming" one with not impact whatsoever, except for maybe obtaining a further benefit, beside mobility.

Fun fact, all those "melee" skills that have a "projectile" component, can use that "Point Blank" keystone to great effect, even when you're not specifically invested in amplifying the projectile damage.

Spell builds might get easier access to MOM, and they might not need Fortify, but when hitting an enemy with an "attack" in a 16 radius, they do act like "melee" so they should be able to obtain Fortify.

If GGG's intention would be to separate attack builds from spell builds, Fortify should have ALWAYS applied a drastic reduction in SPELL DAMAGE, like >75% LESS DAMAGE, but for someone that goes Mjoll/Cospri CoC and actually "legitimately" uses Fortify in a 6L like via Molten Strike, that would actually work against the "melee" build...

Another fun fact. Fortify was always intended for those players that HIT an enemy in a "melee" range (or at least that was ALWAYS the impression left by the GGG), and I would like an official GGG acknowledgement that "melee" = a 16 radius around your character, while also separating better all those other "AoE/ranged melee" that hit enemies in a larger radius then that without specifically requiring the INITIAL HIT to connect with an opponent in said 16 radius - because we all know that GGG loves their "accurate wording and exact gem tags"...

We could continue on this discussion and I think that there were already multiple proposed solutions to the problem - and I am personally still standing by my recommendation of separating the Fortify buff effect and duration on a usage scenario while also increasing/decreasing those aspects on the proximity to the attacked enemy, as that would make the most sense IF GGG actually wants to address and improve the situation...

"

The_Scourge a écrit :

It should never have been a fucking support to begin with. GGG never learned their lesson regarding the flexibility of support gems. So many things have been broken and then overnerfed because of 'creative' support gem usage. We had the same problem with COCS -- really cool idea, but so broadly applicable that it was inevitably going to be broken. And it was. And then it was nerfed. Hard. And those who used it 'appropriately' felt the nerf harder than those who cheesed it. That's the sad truth of how GGG balance things: the nerfs always bring the top end into balance but for everyone else, they can render something almost unusable.

Fortify is a great idea that GGG failed to limit it to apply only to the styles that needed or dare I say earned it. Then again, that's opening the can of worms of 'what is melee in PoE anyway?' so fuck it.

And while I do use WB+Fortify 'properly' on my melee builds, I completely see the reasoning behind goetzjam's suggestion. The caster using WB+Fort for free defence is the obvious nail sticking that needs to be hammered. I'm just saying it's a shame that GGG allowed that nail to exist in the first place.

Well said, and I think that all of those invested in this dialogue actually agree and share your point of view.

Unfortunately, as with may other "sore spots" concerning PoE, GGG have to address this blatant "nail sticking", but the question remains what should be the best solution going forward, as they also have the "talent" of breaking more things than repairing at times...

Actually I think the solution might be simple. Restrict support gems to certain weapon types. For example, Fortify no longer working on daggers, with daggers being a very viable caster alternative? Bam, solved. WB+Fortify still works for claws and one handed swords, neither of which are really considered as viable for casters as daggers.

COCS, in contrast, could have easily been a wand-only support. And that way Cast On Melee Crit could have been its own thing, balanced completely separately to COCS. And so on. Basically COCS was and is too flexible for one support. Great idea, way too easily broken.

I suspect there is no existing architecture for this (supports are limited only by active skill gems) but I think it would solve a lot of problems. And for those support gems that are harmless, just don't list any weapon restrictions at all.

And yeah, this brings us much closer to the more traditional 'defined class roles' model rather than the 'do whatever the fuck you want on any character' style of existing PoE, but no cookies for anyone who can tell me which is easier to balance.