|
On November 09 2022 03:27 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 00:59 andrewlt wrote:On November 08 2022 10:30 Manit0u wrote:
All I wanted to point out was pretty much mentioned above, with GW's emphasis on making all maps instanced it solved a lot of typical MMO issues and helped balance it out. I also think it's a better approach than open world when it comes to ARPG style games. Even Lost Ark could use it, you wouldn't be aggravated by hundreds of bots running around all the time. For ARPGs, yeah, and I think Diablo4 may be going for something similar. For an MMO, I think WoW's mix of open world and instanced dungeons work better. It does have its issues because it is crowded whenever there is new content. But part of the immersion of an MMO is seeing other players out in the wild. I think you are speaking for a lot of people when it comes to immersion in MMOs. The other major point would be no loading screens, as those break immersion as well. However, for some some issues of an open world can make it less immersive. For me for example, the way most MMOs handle mobs in the open world is incredibly unimmersive. They just sit around and do nothing. When you kill them, they just respawn after a short time window. It's one of the more annoying and immersion-breaking things for me in MMOs. Also, meeting other players in the open world can also be very unimmersive, depending on the game and player behavior. Games move more and more towards super flashy microtransactions. If I run through the wilderness and a zerg surrounded by bouncing unicorns and rainbows breaks through the trees completely ruins any immersion I might have had. Btw. I think Diablo 4 is actually aiming for the WoW template: Open world with some instanced dungeons and story instances just for you/your party.
In terms of the open world, the middle of the content cycle is when MMOs are at their most immersive when latecomers and alts are questing in manageable numbers. It can be really unimmersive at the beginning when the players outnumber what the quest givers describe as uncountable enemy hordes. Or maybe they're uncountable because they die too fast before you can count them?
I just know Diablo4 is a mix of instanced dungeons and open world. I haven't followed closely enough to know what the mix is.
|
|
|
Ehh... So it's just like D3. Gazillion difficulty levels where you either struggle or one-shot everything after a few drops and move to next difficulty and struggle again.
Terrible game design.
|
On November 09 2022 12:22 Manit0u wrote:
Terrible game design.
The sad thing is, in abstract this probably looks like good game design.
"The player should constantly feel like they are growing stronger"
"There is a clear and consistent difficulty curve"
"The play experience is relatively consistent between players"
All things one could say are good principles for design that will push a game towards this type of thinking/balancing.
It can be fun to occasionally bump into a particularly tough (or unexpectedly easy) area! It can be fun to get lucky with a good drop and feel OP for a couple of levels! Even if you end up plateaued there a while.
All this discussion around "well if there's one best build then everyone will just go it" is depressing. Are these people not playing these games to express themselves? Choosing the best build to get through the content fastest so you can say you beat it just feels like a hamster running on a treadmill. Every skill doesn't need to be perfectly balanced with every other skill for the game to function. Not if the game is genuinely fun to play and not just Skinner-boxing you.
I acknowledge this is more a rant in general than Diablo IV specific. It just feels like a lot of modern games are too "sanitised", when the warts on the old games often became some of their charm points. Kind of like how you can walk into a beautifully spacious and modern house, with all the trimmings in terms of furnishing, and still it just lacks a certain personality.
|
On November 09 2022 14:07 Turbovolver wrote:The sad thing is, in abstract this probably looks like good game design. "The player should constantly feel like they are growing stronger" "There is a clear and consistent difficulty curve" "The play experience is relatively consistent between players" All things one could say are good principles for design that will push a game towards this type of thinking/balancing. It can be fun to occasionally bump into a particularly tough (or unexpectedly easy) area! It can be fun to get lucky with a good drop and feel OP for a couple of levels! Even if you end up plateaued there a while. All this discussion around "well if there's one best build then everyone will just go it" is depressing. Are these people not playing these games to express themselves? Choosing the best build to get through the content fastest so you can say you beat it just feels like a hamster running on a treadmill. Every skill doesn't need to be perfectly balanced with every other skill for the game to function. Not if the game is genuinely fun to play and not just Skinner-boxing you. I acknowledge this is more a rant in general than Diablo IV specific. It just feels like a lot of modern games are too "sanitised", when the warts on the old games often became some of their charm points. Kind of like how you can walk into a beautifully spacious and modern house, with all the trimmings in terms of furnishing, and still it just lacks a certain personality.
Players will always go with a cookie cutter build in order to constantly avoid paying to respec characters. Which is why charging to respec is beyond stupid. It should be free, as who the hell is going to roll a new char just to try a build? Nobody.
|
On November 09 2022 22:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 14:07 Turbovolver wrote:On November 09 2022 12:22 Manit0u wrote:
Terrible game design. The sad thing is, in abstract this probably looks like good game design. "The player should constantly feel like they are growing stronger" "There is a clear and consistent difficulty curve" "The play experience is relatively consistent between players" All things one could say are good principles for design that will push a game towards this type of thinking/balancing. It can be fun to occasionally bump into a particularly tough (or unexpectedly easy) area! It can be fun to get lucky with a good drop and feel OP for a couple of levels! Even if you end up plateaued there a while. All this discussion around "well if there's one best build then everyone will just go it" is depressing. Are these people not playing these games to express themselves? Choosing the best build to get through the content fastest so you can say you beat it just feels like a hamster running on a treadmill. Every skill doesn't need to be perfectly balanced with every other skill for the game to function. Not if the game is genuinely fun to play and not just Skinner-boxing you. I acknowledge this is more a rant in general than Diablo IV specific. It just feels like a lot of modern games are too "sanitised", when the warts on the old games often became some of their charm points. Kind of like how you can walk into a beautifully spacious and modern house, with all the trimmings in terms of furnishing, and still it just lacks a certain personality. in 2022 - no one. Previously? Yep. Not everything in the past was good though, so I agree with you. Respeccing should be free. I dont mind Path of Exiles system on it either though Players will always go with a cookie cutter build in order to constantly avoid paying to respec characters. Which is why charging to respec is beyond stupid. It should be free, as who the hell is going to roll a new char just to try a build? Nobody.
|
On November 09 2022 22:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 14:07 Turbovolver wrote:On November 09 2022 12:22 Manit0u wrote:
Terrible game design. The sad thing is, in abstract this probably looks like good game design. "The player should constantly feel like they are growing stronger" "There is a clear and consistent difficulty curve" "The play experience is relatively consistent between players" All things one could say are good principles for design that will push a game towards this type of thinking/balancing. It can be fun to occasionally bump into a particularly tough (or unexpectedly easy) area! It can be fun to get lucky with a good drop and feel OP for a couple of levels! Even if you end up plateaued there a while. All this discussion around "well if there's one best build then everyone will just go it" is depressing. Are these people not playing these games to express themselves? Choosing the best build to get through the content fastest so you can say you beat it just feels like a hamster running on a treadmill. Every skill doesn't need to be perfectly balanced with every other skill for the game to function. Not if the game is genuinely fun to play and not just Skinner-boxing you. I acknowledge this is more a rant in general than Diablo IV specific. It just feels like a lot of modern games are too "sanitised", when the warts on the old games often became some of their charm points. Kind of like how you can walk into a beautifully spacious and modern house, with all the trimmings in terms of furnishing, and still it just lacks a certain personality. Players will always go with a cookie cutter build in order to constantly avoid paying to respec characters. Which is why charging to respec is beyond stupid. It should be free, as who the hell is going to roll a new char just to try a build? Nobody.
I disagree because it very much depends on the game and what it expects you to do. I think a lot of these creators view every game through their WoW raid goggles. For WoW, I would personally agree, respec should be for free. You need different specs for solo, dungeons, raids etc. GW had free respecs in outposts. The game expected you and your party to prepare for the next area, then tackle it. Great system. For Diablo 2, I don't like the idea of respecs at all for example. The game was fine without respecs because it doesn't have a real end game. The journey through acts to see your character grow is a big part of the game.
For games like PoE or D4 I'm ok with partial respec. I actually think respeccing in PoE is too easy, even. Respeccing should be easy early on to be able to experiment or correct mistakes you inevitably will make. Later on, there should be no respec in these games or a high opportunity costs or you will have no attachment to your character. You can see this in D3. It literally doesn't matter, you switch everything how you like on a whim and the character has no identity. This is different in MMOs because you do much more with your character and have other experiences that give your character identity but in ARPGs the build is an integral part of what makes your character. ARPGs usually don't ask you to compete in super difficult content to get the best gear, either.
One of the main reasons people fear no respec is the fear of making mistakes. But it's ok to make mistakes. It's ok to not have an optimal build. Nowadays, content creators and community min-max the fun out of every game, even if the game doesn't necessitate it. This is very narrative-driven. After enough circle-jerking people believe this is the only way to have fun somehow.
An interesting, recent example in PoE would be defenses. They were massively buffed a few patches ago, especially some defensive auras. Before that happened, the SC meta was to go glass cannon. Next to no defenses, all damage because if you kill things fast enough, they can't kill you... When they buffed defenses, at first everyone said it wouldn't change anything. Glass cannon would still be the way to go. After a while, content creators changed their tune because they realised it's actually more fun to not get one-shot every second map. And so began the shift towards "mandatory" defenses. After a while, people started complaining how mandatory all the defenses are, to be able to stay alive and it's hard to fit in enough damage. The monster damage never changed during this period though... Long story short, the meta in these types of games doesn't evolve naturally because of competition. It's mostly made up by a few content creators and people will just blindly follow and regurgiate until it becomes "the meta".
|
On November 09 2022 22:54 Miragee wrote:
I disagree because it very much depends on the game and what it expects you to do. I think a lot of these creators view every game through their WoW raid goggles. For WoW, I would personally agree, respec should be for free. You need different specs for solo, dungeons, raids etc. GW had free respecs in outposts. The game expected you and your party to prepare for the next area, then tackle it. Great system. For Diablo 2, I don't like the idea of respecs at all for example. The game was fine without respecs because it doesn't have a real end game. The journey through acts to see your character grow is a big part of the game.
For games like PoE or D4 I'm ok with partial respec. I actually think respeccing in PoE is too easy, even. Respeccing should be easy early on to be able to experiment or correct mistakes you inevitably will make. Later on, there should be no respec in these games or a high opportunity costs or you will have no attachment to your character. You can see this in D3. It literally doesn't matter, you switch everything how you like on a whim and the character has no identity. This is different in MMOs because you do much more with your character and have other experiences that give your character identity but in ARPGs the build is an integral part of what makes your character. ARPGs usually don't ask you to compete in super difficult content to get the best gear, either.
One of the main reasons people fear no respec is the fear of making mistakes. But it's ok to make mistakes. It's ok to not have an optimal build. Nowadays, content creators and community min-max the fun out of every game, even if the game doesn't necessitate it. This is very narrative-driven. After enough circle-jerking people believe this is the only way to have fun somehow.
I agree wholeheartedly. Part of the fun in D2 for me was that I would think of a build, go for it, find out it's not as good as I thought so back to the drawing board for a new char. I didn't mind because actually going through the campaign and leveling from scratch was fun. There was no need for this "end game" that only starts when you're max level.
I also remember my friend's dad had a lot of fun in D2 with sub-optimal builds. He tended to get every single skill for each character and distribute the skills as evenly as possible. Wasn't good but allowed him to clear the game and have fun.
Edit:
Another thing that bothered me once they added respecs to D2 was the rise of "leveling builds", where you use some low level skill only to get through normal only to respec at nightmare into a "proper" build. For me it made the game more shallow as it removed the difficulty of having to struggle with subpar low-level skills until you got to the good stuff. Kinda ruined part of the balance I guess? Previously you could invest in low tier skills to have easier time early on but struggle at higher difficulties because of that (not enough skill points to invest into high tier skills) or you could struggle in the beginning and save your skill points for the high tier skills to be more relevant at higher difficulties. With respecs this aspect of the game is no more as you can simply choose what's best for your current situation since you can always change it.
|
keep in mind when you first played d2 you were a kid with all the time in the world, satisfied to play a game continuously due to pure curiosity and fascination.
now we old fucks and dont have time for that discovery aspect. although i generally agree that the less forgiving game design was probably better for the gameplay experience, i sure as hell wouldnt want a no respec option now. aint got time for that shit
|
On November 09 2022 23:44 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 22:54 Miragee wrote:
I disagree because it very much depends on the game and what it expects you to do. I think a lot of these creators view every game through their WoW raid goggles. For WoW, I would personally agree, respec should be for free. You need different specs for solo, dungeons, raids etc. GW had free respecs in outposts. The game expected you and your party to prepare for the next area, then tackle it. Great system. For Diablo 2, I don't like the idea of respecs at all for example. The game was fine without respecs because it doesn't have a real end game. The journey through acts to see your character grow is a big part of the game.
For games like PoE or D4 I'm ok with partial respec. I actually think respeccing in PoE is too easy, even. Respeccing should be easy early on to be able to experiment or correct mistakes you inevitably will make. Later on, there should be no respec in these games or a high opportunity costs or you will have no attachment to your character. You can see this in D3. It literally doesn't matter, you switch everything how you like on a whim and the character has no identity. This is different in MMOs because you do much more with your character and have other experiences that give your character identity but in ARPGs the build is an integral part of what makes your character. ARPGs usually don't ask you to compete in super difficult content to get the best gear, either.
One of the main reasons people fear no respec is the fear of making mistakes. But it's ok to make mistakes. It's ok to not have an optimal build. Nowadays, content creators and community min-max the fun out of every game, even if the game doesn't necessitate it. This is very narrative-driven. After enough circle-jerking people believe this is the only way to have fun somehow.
I agree wholeheartedly. Part of the fun in D2 for me was that I would think of a build, go for it, find out it's not as good as I thought so back to the drawing board for a new char. I didn't mind because actually going through the campaign and leveling from scratch was fun. There was no need for this "end game" that only starts when you're max level. I also remember my friend's dad had a lot of fun in D2 with sub-optimal builds. He tended to get every single skill for each character and distribute the skills as evenly as possible. Wasn't good but allowed him to clear the game and have fun. Edit: Another thing that bothered me once they added respecs to D2 was the rise of "leveling builds", where you use some low level skill only to get through normal only to respec at nightmare into a "proper" build. For me it made the game more shallow as it removed the difficulty of having to struggle with subpar low-level skills until you got to the good stuff. Kinda ruined part of the balance I guess? Previously you could invest in low tier skills to have easier time early on but struggle at higher difficulties because of that (not enough skill points to invest into high tier skills) or you could struggle in the beginning and save your skill points for the high tier skills to be more relevant at higher difficulties. With respecs this aspect of the game is no more as you can simply choose what's best for your current situation since you can always change it.
I completely agree, especially with your edit. Part of the fun leveling up is to see the build growing and struggling with a subpar version of it for some time until you get all the skills. People don't seem to want that anymore though. In PoE, most players use leveling builds and then switch to their proper build once they reach maps (or a bit earlier or later depending on the build). I always try to switch to play with the abilities I want use later on as soon as I can get them. It's "less optimal" or slower but more fun to see the build progress. To me anyway.
On November 10 2022 01:09 evilfatsh1t wrote:
keep in mind when you first played d2 you were a kid with all the time in the world, satisfied to play a game continuously due to pure curiosity and fascination.
now we old fucks and dont have time for that discovery aspect. although i generally agree that the less forgiving game design was probably better for the gameplay experience, i sure as hell wouldnt want a no respec option now. aint got time for that shit
I think as kids we weren't as aware of "the meta" and caught in the "efficiency spiral". I actually think for a lot of adults the efficiency mentality has been hammered into them IRL for such a long time they cannot let got even in a game. I personally notice this, too. It's harder and harder to let go. It's completely irrational because games are supposed to give you an enjoyable time. If you enjoy making a new character, how is that wasting your time? This idea is only true for games that actually try to waste your time for a different purpose. For example, I always felt like WoW was designed to waste my time to make me pay the subscription for a longer period of time. I thought that even as a kid when WoW was released...
|
On November 10 2022 01:09 evilfatsh1t wrote:
keep in mind when you first played d2 you were a kid with all the time in the world, satisfied to play a game continuously due to pure curiosity and fascination.
now we old fucks and dont have time for that discovery aspect. although i generally agree that the less forgiving game design was probably better for the gameplay experience, i sure as hell wouldnt want a no respec option now. aint got time for that shit
I really don't mind the no respec option. I'd rather have sub-optimal but fun character with some identity than a character with no identity at all and that's what you get with respeccing. You're no longer playing as Akasha, the Fire Enchantress, but Akasha, the Whatever I Fancy Today Enchantress.
Big part of the enjoyment in such games for me is creating an indentity for my characters, getting gear to match it visually too etc. - the RPG aspect if you will.
I remember to this day the first time I've found some unique poison dagger in D2. This item alone made me do a dagger-wielding melee poison necro. Wasn't very good but was a lot of fun and that's what's important. I think many games nowadays forget that maybe it's OK if majority of people never reach max level on their chars etc. I really hate the idea that the game doesn't really start before you hit level cap (it's still usually false cap with all the paragon levels and other shit like that). People as well as designers seem to be obsessed with this notion for some reason. I guess we have to thank the hardcore raiding community from WoW for this...
Also, if you want to start the "real" game at level cap why make it a chore? I'll point to GW1 again, which also kinda had this idea although leveling was still fun since there were only 20 levels to go so it wasn't a big task and served as a form of extended tutorial to get the hang of things and used to your skills.
|
I think people overvalue not being able to respec.
I played a lot of Grim Dawn in the last year. One thing i notice: Despite respecs being cheaply available, i rarely use them. I basically plan a rough direction of a character, and sometimes try out new skills. But i usually respec only 2-3 times throughout the lifetime of a character, and only partially.
The first respec is usually getting rid of some skills that i don't like or which are not as effective as i would have hoped. The second respec is refining what i am doing for a final build, but usually that only involves moving a few points, but sometimes i shift around a lot of the devotion points.
The huge advantage of this is that i don't have to completely plan everything before spending the first point, i can go at it with a rough idea and just get playing. I found that very liberating.
And yet my character still keeps their identity, because i don't do massive swaps, i just refine what i am already doing.
|
I play games the same way Simberto does. Even with free respecs, I rarely do so because it involves changing equipment and skill loadout and all that jazz. I'm just too lazy to do so very often. Respecs, even free ones, is a major decision for me.
I enjoyed D3's leveling more than D2's. In D3, I tried out every single skill and would use the new one as I level up. In D2, I was afraid to try new skills because there's no taking back points put in skills I ended up not liking. I always ended up hoarding points until I was absolutely sure what I wanted to do. There were many skills I never tried because I couldn't be assed leveling a new char just to try them out.
It's enjoyable to be able to spend points as I play and refine the build later. Permanence leads to analysis paralysis.
The beginning of the discussion, however, reminds me of why I hate open-world games with "dynamic leveling". If the world levels up with me, I actually get weaker whenever I level up until my equipment catches up to my new level. It also means that if I go straight for the big, bad dragon, it will be weaker than the rats in the kitchen I initially skipped.
|
yeah im on the same page as simberto and andrewlt. having respecs available doesnt mean i abuse it and am changing builds entirely every other week.
usually theres still a particular build or style i wish to play, and in most games your character will also have equips that are tailored to a build. respeccing in that situation would be akin to making a new character but skipping the leveling process. in that case id probably just make the new character so i could have multiple characters with different builds.
not having a respec in my experience forces me to have to do wayyyy too much research before im even playing the game, because i dont want to have to waste points on useless shit and then find later that my character is sub optimal. i remember when i was young and played maplestory, and back then no one really grasped the concept of stat allocations. i had stats all over the place and objectively the character was weak af. once i realised that there was an optimal way to build the character i ended up having to dump the character entirely and start over, which sucked.
|
|
|
On November 10 2022 07:05 andrewlt wrote:
I play games the same way Simberto does. Even with free respecs, I rarely do so because it involves changing equipment and skill loadout and all that jazz. I'm just too lazy to do so very often. Respecs, even free ones, is a major decision for me.
I enjoyed D3's leveling more than D2's. In D3, I tried out every single skill and would use the new one as I level up. In D2, I was afraid to try new skills because there's no taking back points put in skills I ended up not liking. I always ended up hoarding points until I was absolutely sure what I wanted to do. There were many skills I never tried because I couldn't be assed leveling a new char just to try them out.
It's enjoyable to be able to spend points as I play and refine the build later. Permanence leads to analysis paralysis.
The beginning of the discussion, however, reminds me of why I hate open-world games with "dynamic leveling". If the world levels up with me, I actually get weaker whenever I level up until my equipment catches up to my new level. It also means that if I go straight for the big, bad dragon, it will be weaker than the rats in the kitchen I initially skipped.
Yeah I hate it when to world level is tied to my char level. Thats why I gave up playing GW2 after a few hours and that's what made me almost skip TES Oblivion back in the day. I want the big bad dragon to one shot me early on but later I can come back for revenge and tame the beast Muhahaa. The biggest part of RPG's for me is the growing stronger and powerful part and with scaling world this is just moot
|
On November 10 2022 19:20 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 07:05 andrewlt wrote:
I play games the same way Simberto does. Even with free respecs, I rarely do so because it involves changing equipment and skill loadout and all that jazz. I'm just too lazy to do so very often. Respecs, even free ones, is a major decision for me.
I enjoyed D3's leveling more than D2's. In D3, I tried out every single skill and would use the new one as I level up. In D2, I was afraid to try new skills because there's no taking back points put in skills I ended up not liking. I always ended up hoarding points until I was absolutely sure what I wanted to do. There were many skills I never tried because I couldn't be assed leveling a new char just to try them out.
It's enjoyable to be able to spend points as I play and refine the build later. Permanence leads to analysis paralysis.
The beginning of the discussion, however, reminds me of why I hate open-world games with "dynamic leveling". If the world levels up with me, I actually get weaker whenever I level up until my equipment catches up to my new level. It also means that if I go straight for the big, bad dragon, it will be weaker than the rats in the kitchen I initially skipped. Yeah I hate it when to world level is tied to my char level. Thats why I gave up playing GW2 after a few hours and that's what made me almost skip TES Oblivion back in the day. I want the big bad dragon to one shot me early on but later I can come back for revenge and tame the beast Muhahaa. The biggest part of RPG's for me is the growing stronger and powerful part and with scaling world this is just moot
In GW2 you scale to the world, not the other way around though. If you visit a low level area as big baddie you'll be scaled down (but you keep your bonus skills/specializations from higher levels, only your stats and gear get scaled down/up). Good for balancing the encounters I guess. Personally I don't mind but I can imagine people might.
|
On November 10 2022 19:41 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2022 19:20 Harris1st wrote:On November 10 2022 07:05 andrewlt wrote:
I play games the same way Simberto does. Even with free respecs, I rarely do so because it involves changing equipment and skill loadout and all that jazz. I'm just too lazy to do so very often. Respecs, even free ones, is a major decision for me.
I enjoyed D3's leveling more than D2's. In D3, I tried out every single skill and would use the new one as I level up. In D2, I was afraid to try new skills because there's no taking back points put in skills I ended up not liking. I always ended up hoarding points until I was absolutely sure what I wanted to do. There were many skills I never tried because I couldn't be assed leveling a new char just to try them out.
It's enjoyable to be able to spend points as I play and refine the build later. Permanence leads to analysis paralysis.
The beginning of the discussion, however, reminds me of why I hate open-world games with "dynamic leveling". If the world levels up with me, I actually get weaker whenever I level up until my equipment catches up to my new level. It also means that if I go straight for the big, bad dragon, it will be weaker than the rats in the kitchen I initially skipped. Yeah I hate it when to world level is tied to my char level. Thats why I gave up playing GW2 after a few hours and that's what made me almost skip TES Oblivion back in the day. I want the big bad dragon to one shot me early on but later I can come back for revenge and tame the beast Muhahaa. The biggest part of RPG's for me is the growing stronger and powerful part and with scaling world this is just moot In GW2 you scale to the world, not the other way around though. If you visit a low level area as big baddie you'll be scaled down (but you keep your bonus skills/specializations from higher levels, only your stats and gear get scaled down/up). Good for balancing the encounters I guess. Personally I don't mind but I can imagine people might.
Same same. If I am a super powerful wizard I want low lvl monster to die just seeing me. Like the Thunder Storm in D2. Every monster that got in my screen gets zapped and dies lol :D
For me this kind of progression is what makes it immersive.
I walk to some landmark
Oh oh a big Troll guy with a treasure.
Lets kill it.
Boom I'm dead.
Okay lets try to get around it to the treasure.
Boom I'm dead.
Okay lets mark this spot and come back later
|
On November 10 2022 13:25 evilfatsh1t wrote:
yeah im on the same page as simberto and andrewlt. having respecs available doesnt mean i abuse it and am changing builds entirely every other week.
usually theres still a particular build or style i wish to play, and in most games your character will also have equips that are tailored to a build. respeccing in that situation would be akin to making a new character but skipping the leveling process. in that case id probably just make the new character so i could have multiple characters with different builds.
not having a respec in my experience forces me to have to do wayyyy too much research before im even playing the game, because i dont want to have to waste points on useless shit and then find later that my character is sub optimal. i remember when i was young and played maplestory, and back then no one really grasped the concept of stat allocations. i had stats all over the place and objectively the character was weak af. once i realised that there was an optimal way to build the character i ended up having to dump the character entirely and start over, which sucked.
The problem with stat allocation is that it is a false choice. In Maplestory half the stats do literally nothing for your character and then one gives you damage and one is for equipment or accuracy. It's trivial to understand the optimal stat allocation which means there is no value in the player doing it. Diablo 2 has almost the same problem where the optimal is to put everything into vit with just enough str/dex for equipment/block cap.
The game becomes suffering through the early levels (or more likely trist/sanctuary/baal runs) because you can't use insight yet and have to constantly chug mana potions because you don't want to ruin your build by allocating energy for more mana. This is just bad game design imo and shouldn't happen in today's game. Way back in the day of path of exile they had this same problem where leveling your skill gem increased the mana cost for a neglible damage increase. This is just a trap for newer players and again bad game design.
Then we get Diablo 3 where you don't have to waste your time allocating predetermined stat points, but people hate that even more.
|
On November 11 2022 03:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
The problem with stat allocation is that it is a false choice. In Maplestory half the stats do literally nothing for your character and then one gives you damage and one is for equipment or accuracy. It's trivial to understand the optimal stat allocation which means there is no value in the player doing it. Diablo 2 has almost the same problem where the optimal is to put everything into vit with just enough str/dex for equipment/block cap.
Energy has low value in D2 but both str and dex you can find your own balance for depending not just on what weapon you want to reach requirements for, but for how much you want to be able to hit and how much you can hit for cause str gives you +% damage bonus per point and dex also has such an effect on ranged weapons. Dumping as much as you can into vitality works but you would increase your health pool at the cost of hit power and your hit power also impacts your survivability so.. on my HC chars I don't usually put all points into vitality. Also depends on build and class, also if using shield depends on which shield you are using as it may cost a lot to get the +75% block.. Energy still has some value for putting a few points in it (still some choice to make as to exactly how much you put into it) and depending again on class and build if you're not using insight (imo adding insight into the game was one of the actual mistakes, look how many uniques are invalidated by runewords like insight or spirit when comparing rarity). Before 1.10 you can't even buy mana potions from NPCs so you want to have enough energy to sustain your kills as you drop mana potions. Well and mana steal plays into that.
I like stat allocation a lot and I think Elden Ring gives quite a great example of how you can have 8 stats in the game and allow for a lot of different allocations.
When it comes to respecs having costs that may justify building an extra character of the same class or more, I honestly also like that because I like the idea that it is also a choice you can make when creating characters, of making more than 1 of the same class. Just because you already have a barbarian doesn't mean the choice of making a new barbarian is always going to be bad, it may benefit you and what you're trying to do with your account and character roster, I like that. Maybe on a season you'd want to have 3 barbarians and nothing else, maybe on the next you'll have 5 chars of 5 different classes, or 2 characters of the same class and 3 of different classes, etc. Then it would be ideal that the game gives you goals that are achievable by playing a bunch of characters, which you couldn't necessarily achieve as efficiently (or perhaps even at all) with just one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
