I dislike the fact that IMC says they want fairness with class choices vs damage, while stating earlier ranks will remain weaker.
In my opinion there is no reason for that since they changed the damage formula to be % based and it wouldnt make earlier classes OP for leveling (they can always change early level weapon or monster’s stats anyway to prevent that).
Instead they want to introduce the “master circle” for early ranks… It is nice and all that they will get new skills and attributes, but i hate the fact that it would be mandatory if i want to stay relevant.
For example my Wizard only has Pyro2, currently no plans to get circle 3 because doesnt seem worth it. In the future i have to pick 2 more pyro ranks (3 + master) if i want to do relevant damage with the skills i have now (since they will probably have attributes to boost the first circle skills).
Or i stay at circle 2 for only the utility of enchant fire and fire pillar (which is also pve-only “stun”) since all the damage skills will still do subpar damage.
Of course the whole balancing changes we got so far help with the damage department, but what they are saying doesnt comply to their speech of diversity when you need to spend 4 ranks for some classes to work well endgame.
(This is also subject to change once they finish the massive skill balance they started with the Cleric tree, tho.)