|
On April 04 2023 23:09 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 22:09 uummpaa wrote:On April 04 2023 20:54 Manit0u wrote:
...
I kind of miss the stat caps in D2. Would definitely be a bit different if say Sorc couldn't ever get more than 25 strength and 50 vitality or something like that. This would not only influence builds but also your gear choices.
D4 not having you spend points into attributes is a missed opportunity IMO. if you have max values for attributes allowing the player to allocate them would loose a lot of value, since you very likely max out all of the ones with low limits anyway. you still need some wiggleroom for actual descisions there. if ~5 lvl ups worth of attributes are enough to max a stat for a class then there is little variation in there making the option rather pointless i do agree thought that its an elegant way of adding a certain feel to classes, a huge barbarian should have way more life and tankiness then a frail wizard/sorc/necro, but not even in d1 that was accomplished since manashield was way to good back then (but htats another discussion) but still, hiding gear options behind stats instead of the class itself adds a lot of possibilties to builds which is always a good thing in arpgs. That's exactly my point. It's not really about making completely different character by allocating your stats differently but rather having those caps that force you into some tough decisions when it comes to gearing. With Sorc as example in D2, do you go full glass cannon or do you get some items that improve your vitality etc. The same thing goes for barb or paladin that wants to use a shield but can't put enough points into dex to achieve max block without getting some +dex on items. It gets more interesting and then it makes powerful items that define your build make actual sense when you need to sacrifice something in order to fulfill the requirements of the item that you want to build your char around. Imagine if items in D2 like Enigma would have requirements like 200 energy to equip and use it and Paladin having 150 energy max or something. Hammerdins would be vastly different from their most common iteration.
oh i didnt want to disagree with you, more adding my 2 cents, i agree with you there ^^
|
Not really too interested in joining the argument, but I think it's not very productive to say that a very specific feature like re-spec should be either this way or that way.
This is the developers' job. They can let players choose their own restrictions for themselves. They can program the game to allow for the removal of the re-spec option, or they can make it harder to unlock with a difficulty setting.
That's the reason why hardcore mode exists. It's exactly the same concept, except absolutely permanent.
Let players enjoy the game however they want. If the developers either can't or don't want to pander to everyone, then that's just something the players have to accept. So I'd say you should speak with the developers if you have feedback of that sort.
|
On April 04 2023 23:09 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 22:09 uummpaa wrote:On April 04 2023 20:54 Manit0u wrote:
...
I kind of miss the stat caps in D2. Would definitely be a bit different if say Sorc couldn't ever get more than 25 strength and 50 vitality or something like that. This would not only influence builds but also your gear choices.
D4 not having you spend points into attributes is a missed opportunity IMO. if you have max values for attributes allowing the player to allocate them would loose a lot of value, since you very likely max out all of the ones with low limits anyway. you still need some wiggleroom for actual descisions there. if ~5 lvl ups worth of attributes are enough to max a stat for a class then there is little variation in there making the option rather pointless i do agree thought that its an elegant way of adding a certain feel to classes, a huge barbarian should have way more life and tankiness then a frail wizard/sorc/necro, but not even in d1 that was accomplished since manashield was way to good back then (but htats another discussion) but still, hiding gear options behind stats instead of the class itself adds a lot of possibilties to builds which is always a good thing in arpgs. That's exactly my point. It's not really about making completely different character by allocating your stats differently but rather having those caps that force you into some tough decisions when it comes to gearing. With Sorc as example in D2, do you go full glass cannon or do you get some items that improve your vitality etc. The same thing goes for barb or paladin that wants to use a shield but can't put enough points into dex to achieve max block without getting some +dex on items. It gets more interesting and then it makes powerful items that define your build make actual sense when you need to sacrifice something in order to fulfill the requirements of the item that you want to build your char around. Imagine if items in D2 like Enigma would have requirements like 200 energy to equip and use it and Paladin having 150 energy max or something. Hammerdins would be vastly different from their most common iteration.
Why do you think that hammerdins would be different/have variety instead of all having 200 energy to use the game breaking item? For something as powerful as enigma you're creating a false choice where your build now requires X or it isn't viable rather than creating variety.
Path of Exile gets around this by having the most powerful notables have downsides typically. In some cases even this is false choice, but it makes it easier to balance in a lot of cases where your build can not take something and that is an advantage in some other way. Stat allocation is just a weak system that doesn't provide the depth or configuration required for good build creation.
|
On April 04 2023 07:25 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 06:04 andrewlt wrote:On April 04 2023 04:07 Miragee wrote:On April 04 2023 00:34 andrewlt wrote:On April 03 2023 07:42 Miragee wrote:
On another note, I would also like to know when this shift happened. Classic RPGs like Baldur's Gate were very successful and I never heard any complaints about not being able to respec. People who only did one casual playthrough were fine without seeing everything or making "wrong" decisions. Today, everyone seems obsessed with the idea of playing the optimal way and getting to experience 100 % of the game, yet they call themselves casuals. Doesn't sound very casual to me but that's another discussion. Baldur's Gate is beloved by the kinds of people who frequently post here but that style of game is pretty niche. Research has shown that the long character creation process before even starting the game is a turn off for most people. You can't make meaningful choices if you haven't even played the game to get a feel for the combat. That kind of western-style crpg is a bit of a dying genre outside a small, passionate fanbase. And other than class, there weren't many choices you need to spec into in Baldur's Gate anyway. Feats, skills and all that jazz for physical damage classes were added in later games. In Baldur's Gate, you just picked a weapon specialization and that's it. Wizards were the only arcane class in BG1 and they can learn everything. You just have to choose which spells to memorize on rest. It's basically a respec! I'm pretty sure clerics and druids can learn everything in BG1 as well but it's been a while. The only choice in BG1 is whether to specialize your wizard in a school and it's not recommended for beginners. For what it's worth, in Diablo 1, you can also pick up all the spells that your class can use with only one character. Being forced to make "meaningful" decisions started with Diablo 2. Some people loved it. Some hated the grind to try more skills. I'm in the latter. I played most classes once then gave up on the game. Is Baldur's Gate really that much of a niche? It's a pretty big name. Like when I talk to people, who don't play video games or not a lot, about RPGs IRL it's way more likely they have heard about Baldur's Gate than PoE for example. BG3 seems to have a fair reach based on its name and on Larian as a studio, which is most famous for Divinity series. The choices at the start are a bit jarring, I agree. But that's a carry-over from pen&paper and I feel like pen&paper games are only becoming more popular these days. About the spells: yeah, memorising spells is kind of a respec. Since it's a whole party, I suppose you have to chose which character learns which spell and if you replace that character you lose access to those spells. Priests and druids have their own spell book. All caster classes have some restrictions for learning spells though I think. I think they are mentioned on the scrolls? Iirc, weapon specialisations cannot be respecced and those carry quite some weight for non-caster classes. BG also had attributes to spec into at the beginning, which couldn't be changed later. Baldur's Gate is the 800-lb gorilla in the Western-style CRPG world but that world is pretty niche. Even JRPGs are pretty niche nowadays aside from games like Elden Ring, which is more of an action game, and Final Fantasy, which is less and less of an RPG with every iteration. The original Baldur's Gate was based on 2nd edition rules. And I think they added the sorceror in BG2? Can't remember the exact timing anymore. Wizards can learn all arcane spells available to the class. They can specialize in a spell school (at character creation) to be able to memorize an extra spell per spell level at the cost of not being able to learn spells of the opposing school. I think clerics and druids back then automatically learn everything available to them and you just need to choose which spells to memorize. Weapon specializations, I feel, are a pen and paper thing and just end up being obnoxious in a video game, especially one with predetermined loot. All it does in the end is limit what weapons your characters can wield the most effectively. It feels more like a drawback rather than a benefit. Ranger specializations are the same thing. Hard to pick what class of monster to hate when you have no idea what monsters you are going to have trouble with. BG had rolls for attributes just like pen and paper. Later games changed it to give players a set amount of points but I can't remember which game started that. For all the name recognition Baldur's Gate gets, it was based on a ruleset that was changed soon after. 3rd edition changed up a lot of things and I think later rulesets are more in the spirit of 3e. I feel like most people would be more familiar with the later rulesets even if they are more familiar with the Baldur's Gate name. I just booted up BG to make sure: Yes it rolled your attributes but basically only the amount of attribute points. This is a stupid system of course because you could reroll forever until you hit max roll. After the roll you could take points away from single attributes and put them into another one. Later on you couldn't change this anymore. For the other stuff I'm not sure what we are arguing about anymore. I just said I don't remember people complaining about no respecs in BG very much and it was a successful game and so was BG2. Both sold 3.5 M copies, respectively, which is massive in the time they got released. There is really nothing niche about them as far as computer gaming goes and the name still carries weight 2 decades after the fact. If you want a more recent example, look at the Witcher. I think there was some respec in the games but it was basically not available to anyone. The games were still very successful. Did Elden Ring have respec? I haven't played that one yet but since you mention it...
I brought up Diablo 1 and Baldur's Gate 1 because my contention is that 1990s games didn't have respec because players are able to learn all spells available to their class in one play through. Forcing players to have to pick skills was added as an artificial way to pad replayability by asking players to make multiples of the same class to try out different spells. It worked in the sense that some people enjoyed making multiple copies of the same class. But I've always felt it to be an unacceptable grind. Respeccing came about to correct that mistake.
|
On April 04 2023 23:31 uummpaa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 23:14 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On April 04 2023 16:20 uummpaa wrote:On April 03 2023 04:43 Miragee wrote:
...
You are trying to explain to us that it doesn't make a difference for us when it obviously does. How is it so hard to understand that all the fun of decision making is gone for some people (e.g. myself) if the decision is meaningless. The disadvantage is clear: The game is not fun, period. This is the same in reverse for you without respec. So no, your TL;DR is wrong. An ARPG with free respec doesn't let me play the way I want because it isn't fun because it feels meaningless.
... free respec: both off us can play how they want (if you need a hard game rule to play the game thats your problem and not that of the rest of the player base) cost respec: its impossible to play how i want to play (no feelings here), i named points why its prohibitive for my playstyle, your point is that the mere existence of the option of respecs (and they will be in the game anyway btw) threatens your playstyle .. free gems: both of us can play how they want, if you want limited gems thats your problem and not that of the rest have to drop and earn gems: its impossible to play how i want to play, its prohibitive for my playstyle of socketing anything instantly and in whatever quantity and quality at any time... it doesn't rly make sense sry. you'd be able to respec for any boss or pvp encounter, other players are there. You could respec for free to earn w/e at some max efficiency. You could do speedrun with free respec. Etc. Every game rule affects all players by affecting other players that you play with or against. thank you for proving me right i guess, make switching talents a 10 s cast/only be done at an npc in town, not in combat etc, all things that solves your points up there, your gem example would make sense if i would argue against a max number of skill, and i never did for one of the things you mentioned so thanks for further showing that the issues against reskilling are artificial for the most part
haha not at all but it is pointless with ppl like u eh^^
|
On April 05 2023 01:22 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 07:25 Miragee wrote:On April 04 2023 06:04 andrewlt wrote:On April 04 2023 04:07 Miragee wrote:On April 04 2023 00:34 andrewlt wrote:On April 03 2023 07:42 Miragee wrote:
On another note, I would also like to know when this shift happened. Classic RPGs like Baldur's Gate were very successful and I never heard any complaints about not being able to respec. People who only did one casual playthrough were fine without seeing everything or making "wrong" decisions. Today, everyone seems obsessed with the idea of playing the optimal way and getting to experience 100 % of the game, yet they call themselves casuals. Doesn't sound very casual to me but that's another discussion. Baldur's Gate is beloved by the kinds of people who frequently post here but that style of game is pretty niche. Research has shown that the long character creation process before even starting the game is a turn off for most people. You can't make meaningful choices if you haven't even played the game to get a feel for the combat. That kind of western-style crpg is a bit of a dying genre outside a small, passionate fanbase. And other than class, there weren't many choices you need to spec into in Baldur's Gate anyway. Feats, skills and all that jazz for physical damage classes were added in later games. In Baldur's Gate, you just picked a weapon specialization and that's it. Wizards were the only arcane class in BG1 and they can learn everything. You just have to choose which spells to memorize on rest. It's basically a respec! I'm pretty sure clerics and druids can learn everything in BG1 as well but it's been a while. The only choice in BG1 is whether to specialize your wizard in a school and it's not recommended for beginners. For what it's worth, in Diablo 1, you can also pick up all the spells that your class can use with only one character. Being forced to make "meaningful" decisions started with Diablo 2. Some people loved it. Some hated the grind to try more skills. I'm in the latter. I played most classes once then gave up on the game. Is Baldur's Gate really that much of a niche? It's a pretty big name. Like when I talk to people, who don't play video games or not a lot, about RPGs IRL it's way more likely they have heard about Baldur's Gate than PoE for example. BG3 seems to have a fair reach based on its name and on Larian as a studio, which is most famous for Divinity series. The choices at the start are a bit jarring, I agree. But that's a carry-over from pen&paper and I feel like pen&paper games are only becoming more popular these days. About the spells: yeah, memorising spells is kind of a respec. Since it's a whole party, I suppose you have to chose which character learns which spell and if you replace that character you lose access to those spells. Priests and druids have their own spell book. All caster classes have some restrictions for learning spells though I think. I think they are mentioned on the scrolls? Iirc, weapon specialisations cannot be respecced and those carry quite some weight for non-caster classes. BG also had attributes to spec into at the beginning, which couldn't be changed later. Baldur's Gate is the 800-lb gorilla in the Western-style CRPG world but that world is pretty niche. Even JRPGs are pretty niche nowadays aside from games like Elden Ring, which is more of an action game, and Final Fantasy, which is less and less of an RPG with every iteration. The original Baldur's Gate was based on 2nd edition rules. And I think they added the sorceror in BG2? Can't remember the exact timing anymore. Wizards can learn all arcane spells available to the class. They can specialize in a spell school (at character creation) to be able to memorize an extra spell per spell level at the cost of not being able to learn spells of the opposing school. I think clerics and druids back then automatically learn everything available to them and you just need to choose which spells to memorize. Weapon specializations, I feel, are a pen and paper thing and just end up being obnoxious in a video game, especially one with predetermined loot. All it does in the end is limit what weapons your characters can wield the most effectively. It feels more like a drawback rather than a benefit. Ranger specializations are the same thing. Hard to pick what class of monster to hate when you have no idea what monsters you are going to have trouble with. BG had rolls for attributes just like pen and paper. Later games changed it to give players a set amount of points but I can't remember which game started that. For all the name recognition Baldur's Gate gets, it was based on a ruleset that was changed soon after. 3rd edition changed up a lot of things and I think later rulesets are more in the spirit of 3e. I feel like most people would be more familiar with the later rulesets even if they are more familiar with the Baldur's Gate name. I just booted up BG to make sure: Yes it rolled your attributes but basically only the amount of attribute points. This is a stupid system of course because you could reroll forever until you hit max roll. After the roll you could take points away from single attributes and put them into another one. Later on you couldn't change this anymore. For the other stuff I'm not sure what we are arguing about anymore. I just said I don't remember people complaining about no respecs in BG very much and it was a successful game and so was BG2. Both sold 3.5 M copies, respectively, which is massive in the time they got released. There is really nothing niche about them as far as computer gaming goes and the name still carries weight 2 decades after the fact. If you want a more recent example, look at the Witcher. I think there was some respec in the games but it was basically not available to anyone. The games were still very successful. Did Elden Ring have respec? I haven't played that one yet but since you mention it... I brought up Diablo 1 and Baldur's Gate 1 because my contention is that 1990s games didn't have respec because players are able to learn all spells available to their class in one play through. Forcing players to have to pick skills was added as an artificial way to pad replayability by asking players to make multiples of the same class to try out different spells. It worked in the sense that some people enjoyed making multiple copies of the same class. But I've always felt it to be an unacceptable grind. Respeccing came about to correct that mistake.
Ok, I think I got it, then we were talking past each other. I brought those up because they had allocation of some sort that wasn't respec-able. How about Diablo 2 then? That game didn't have respec for the longest time and I never heard many complaints. Here you couldn't just learn everything. They actually added respec exactly around the time everybody was complaining about free respecs in D3. My cynical side clearly took that as "fuck you for bringing up D2 having no respec, we are changing that now...". :D
I get that people want to have more freedom in games. Don't be tied down to decisions the same way they are IRL. For other people making decisions is fun if they are permanent. If I make "incorrect" decisions and fail, learning from it and succeeding the next time feels that much better. Hence I said not every game can nor needs to be for everyone. In this regard, I just wish there are games with free, limited and no respec and everyone can pick the ones they want. If a new game is being developed I might be interested in I'm of course going to argue for my personal favourite but if the devs decide against it, so be it. I still think arguing for it has value, especially when you are in the minority like I am on this point. Or else we will end up in a situation where 100 % of games are made for 80 % of people and 0 % are being made for 20 % (numbers are made up, just an example).
On April 04 2023 19:10 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 07:25 Miragee wrote:On April 04 2023 06:04 andrewlt wrote:On April 04 2023 04:07 Miragee wrote:On April 04 2023 00:34 andrewlt wrote:On April 03 2023 07:42 Miragee wrote:
On another note, I would also like to know when this shift happened. Classic RPGs like Baldur's Gate were very successful and I never heard any complaints about not being able to respec. People who only did one casual playthrough were fine without seeing everything or making "wrong" decisions. Today, everyone seems obsessed with the idea of playing the optimal way and getting to experience 100 % of the game, yet they call themselves casuals. Doesn't sound very casual to me but that's another discussion. Baldur's Gate is beloved by the kinds of people who frequently post here but that style of game is pretty niche. Research has shown that the long character creation process before even starting the game is a turn off for most people. You can't make meaningful choices if you haven't even played the game to get a feel for the combat. That kind of western-style crpg is a bit of a dying genre outside a small, passionate fanbase. And other than class, there weren't many choices you need to spec into in Baldur's Gate anyway. Feats, skills and all that jazz for physical damage classes were added in later games. In Baldur's Gate, you just picked a weapon specialization and that's it. Wizards were the only arcane class in BG1 and they can learn everything. You just have to choose which spells to memorize on rest. It's basically a respec! I'm pretty sure clerics and druids can learn everything in BG1 as well but it's been a while. The only choice in BG1 is whether to specialize your wizard in a school and it's not recommended for beginners. For what it's worth, in Diablo 1, you can also pick up all the spells that your class can use with only one character. Being forced to make "meaningful" decisions started with Diablo 2. Some people loved it. Some hated the grind to try more skills. I'm in the latter. I played most classes once then gave up on the game. Is Baldur's Gate really that much of a niche? It's a pretty big name. Like when I talk to people, who don't play video games or not a lot, about RPGs IRL it's way more likely they have heard about Baldur's Gate than PoE for example. BG3 seems to have a fair reach based on its name and on Larian as a studio, which is most famous for Divinity series. The choices at the start are a bit jarring, I agree. But that's a carry-over from pen&paper and I feel like pen&paper games are only becoming more popular these days. About the spells: yeah, memorising spells is kind of a respec. Since it's a whole party, I suppose you have to chose which character learns which spell and if you replace that character you lose access to those spells. Priests and druids have their own spell book. All caster classes have some restrictions for learning spells though I think. I think they are mentioned on the scrolls? Iirc, weapon specialisations cannot be respecced and those carry quite some weight for non-caster classes. BG also had attributes to spec into at the beginning, which couldn't be changed later. Baldur's Gate is the 800-lb gorilla in the Western-style CRPG world but that world is pretty niche. Even JRPGs are pretty niche nowadays aside from games like Elden Ring, which is more of an action game, and Final Fantasy, which is less and less of an RPG with every iteration. The original Baldur's Gate was based on 2nd edition rules. And I think they added the sorceror in BG2? Can't remember the exact timing anymore. Wizards can learn all arcane spells available to the class. They can specialize in a spell school (at character creation) to be able to memorize an extra spell per spell level at the cost of not being able to learn spells of the opposing school. I think clerics and druids back then automatically learn everything available to them and you just need to choose which spells to memorize. Weapon specializations, I feel, are a pen and paper thing and just end up being obnoxious in a video game, especially one with predetermined loot. All it does in the end is limit what weapons your characters can wield the most effectively. It feels more like a drawback rather than a benefit. Ranger specializations are the same thing. Hard to pick what class of monster to hate when you have no idea what monsters you are going to have trouble with. BG had rolls for attributes just like pen and paper. Later games changed it to give players a set amount of points but I can't remember which game started that. For all the name recognition Baldur's Gate gets, it was based on a ruleset that was changed soon after. 3rd edition changed up a lot of things and I think later rulesets are more in the spirit of 3e. I feel like most people would be more familiar with the later rulesets even if they are more familiar with the Baldur's Gate name. I just booted up BG to make sure: Yes it rolled your attributes but basically only the amount of attribute points. This is a stupid system of course because you could reroll forever until you hit max roll. After the roll you could take points away from single attributes and put them into another one. Later on you couldn't change this anymore. For the other stuff I'm not sure what we are arguing about anymore. I just said I don't remember people complaining about no respecs in BG very much and it was a successful game and so was BG2. Both sold 3.5 M copies, respectively, which is massive in the time they got released. There is really nothing niche about them as far as computer gaming goes and the name still carries weight 2 decades after the fact. If you want a more recent example, look at the Witcher. I think there was some respec in the games but it was basically not available to anyone. The games were still very successful. Did Elden Ring have respec? I haven't played that one yet but since you mention it... On April 04 2023 06:13 BluemoonSC wrote:On April 04 2023 04:07 Miragee wrote:On April 04 2023 01:51 BluemoonSC wrote:On April 03 2023 04:52 Manit0u wrote:
In D3 you didn't really need respecs because there wasn't much of a "build" to begin with and then everything really depended on your items, not your skills, so whatever you choose was pretty much meaningless anyway.
Unfortunately D4 seems to be heading the same way, something I've been against from the start and have been vocal about in this thread. IMO items should not be the focal point of your build, nor should they define it. Might as well just omit the talent tree and skills altogether, to get rid of the illusion that you're actually "building" your character in any other way than finding items. in d3 different activities absolutely required you to respec into different versions of the build you were playing, or a different build entirely because it was more efficient. especially later on when many of the legendaries were altered and power level for sets took you into deep greater rifts, but you could cut pieces for high torment rifts/farming or bounties. i'm not sure what else you're advocating for, if not items being important to your build in d4. if you are playing a certain build and a piece of gear drops for another, it's by no means going to force you to play that build the way that d3's set bonuses forced you to pick those pieces of gear. what other system would work in a game that is built around killing monsters and picking up their items? this isn't a proper MMORPG with fixed loot and drop tables from endgame bosses. I think what he is saying that the items which drop should enhance your build, not define it. Like, a build should work without interactions caused by items, which in D4's case are provided by legendary affixes. I'm on the fence on this point. Both can work imho. In D2, builds largely worked on their own, although there were some build-enabling items. PoE has a ton more build-enabling items and I think that's cool. There are also a ton of builds which don't rely on specific items of course. GW would be on the opposite end of the spectrum because everything is about the skills and their interaction. Items really only enhance the build a bit (some attributes, cast/recharge rate, armour, that's basically it). I think the problem with D3 was that items defined builds in the most boring way possible: no choices. i guess i just don't understand where the impetus to chase down items (or a better version of your current item) comes from in a game where there isn't a strict loot table or strict drops (ie: every XYZ legendary has the same XYZ rolls, but different values in the range) builds not being tied to items works in games like wow because you have to repeat the same instance and kill the same boss to obtain the item you're after and it is like every other version of that same item. if your build is complete before you even kill a monster at max level in a game where any monster can drop the item you're looking for, what's the point of killing monsters? PoE has a ton more build-enabling items and I think that's cool. There are also a ton of builds which don't rely on specific items of course. i actually don't agree with the notion that there are a ton of builds that don't rely on a specific item. in poe you're either chasing a particular unique or you're trying to craft a specific rare item for your build. you will never make it to red maps, let alone pinnacle bosses without items that make your build functional. the most simplistic example being resistances on certain slots allowing you to have other important suffixes in your other slots (ie: spell suppression). if you want a poison build, poison chance doesn't come naturally on many skills. mana reservation is a big offender. the list goes on. To your first point: First of, in the case of GW there is more strife for skins than power. Max items are, except for rare instances, very easy to acquire. Then you are chasing rare skins. Now that's not an option for D4 (not only because of the shop they are designing). However, it's still possible to give the items power without letting them define your build. Your build still can become stronger by getting stronger items. That doesn't mean those items need to define the build or the build wouldn't work without them in a weaker way. To make a very stupid example to make it obvious: Imagine there is a skill which costs 120 mana but your max mana is 100 and the only way to get to 120+ is one certain item. That build defining. Or a single target skill with low damage, which doesn't kill anything even with the best generic damage items in the game but there is a specific item that gives it a billion damage and aoe. That would be build defining. Using generic items to enhance the power of a build is fine and actually what Manitou wants, if I understood it correctly. So you are chasing stronger items, not ones that enable your build. It's also what I meant about PoE and this is to your second point: A lot of builds don't need certain uniques in PoE. They function just fine with generic rares giving you damage and defenses. Yes, you might need a certain amount of damage or of a certain stat but there are many sources to get those. They aren't tied to one specific item or set. I also bet you there is a ton of builds with just generic rares which can play in red maps and probably also kill pinnacle bosses. They won't kill them in seconds, it will take a while, of course. But they are still functional and that's what I meant. At some point you will always need more powerful items to make a build push into higher content, sure, but I don't think that's a point of contention. Elden Rings respec is quite unique: You have to defeat a specific story boss to unlock it and need a unique ressource which guaranted drops about 12-14 (not sure, can probably google the exact amount) times per playthrough from specifics bosses / chests. This story boss is about after 25% of the game (20 hours in or sth.). If you are good and know what you do, you can be there quicker ofc The respec is only for the gained levels and will not affect the base stats of your class which will always stay the same. Though there is a class which basically starts with zero base stats
Thank you, that sounds like an interesting system!
|
On April 05 2023 00:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 23:09 Manit0u wrote:On April 04 2023 22:09 uummpaa wrote:On April 04 2023 20:54 Manit0u wrote:
...
I kind of miss the stat caps in D2. Would definitely be a bit different if say Sorc couldn't ever get more than 25 strength and 50 vitality or something like that. This would not only influence builds but also your gear choices.
D4 not having you spend points into attributes is a missed opportunity IMO. if you have max values for attributes allowing the player to allocate them would loose a lot of value, since you very likely max out all of the ones with low limits anyway. you still need some wiggleroom for actual descisions there. if ~5 lvl ups worth of attributes are enough to max a stat for a class then there is little variation in there making the option rather pointless i do agree thought that its an elegant way of adding a certain feel to classes, a huge barbarian should have way more life and tankiness then a frail wizard/sorc/necro, but not even in d1 that was accomplished since manashield was way to good back then (but htats another discussion) but still, hiding gear options behind stats instead of the class itself adds a lot of possibilties to builds which is always a good thing in arpgs. That's exactly my point. It's not really about making completely different character by allocating your stats differently but rather having those caps that force you into some tough decisions when it comes to gearing. With Sorc as example in D2, do you go full glass cannon or do you get some items that improve your vitality etc. The same thing goes for barb or paladin that wants to use a shield but can't put enough points into dex to achieve max block without getting some +dex on items. It gets more interesting and then it makes powerful items that define your build make actual sense when you need to sacrifice something in order to fulfill the requirements of the item that you want to build your char around. Imagine if items in D2 like Enigma would have requirements like 200 energy to equip and use it and Paladin having 150 energy max or something. Hammerdins would be vastly different from their most common iteration. Why do you think that hammerdins would be different/have variety instead of all having 200 energy to use the game breaking item? For something as powerful as enigma you're creating a false choice where your build now requires X or it isn't viable rather than creating variety.
Hammerdins wouldn't have more variety but they would be more varied from other Paladin builds. Also, how much of the other stuff you'd have to sacrifice to get to 200 energy (which is pretty much a worthless stat in D2)? Currently in D2 pretty much all top Paladin builds run almost the same stats and eq (different weapon and a few mods but most of it is rather samey).
But I guess this is mostly the fault of runewords being way too good (which also makes it so everyone and their mother is running pretty much the same merc).
|
On April 04 2023 23:31 uummpaa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 23:14 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On April 04 2023 16:20 uummpaa wrote:On April 03 2023 04:43 Miragee wrote:
...
You are trying to explain to us that it doesn't make a difference for us when it obviously does. How is it so hard to understand that all the fun of decision making is gone for some people (e.g. myself) if the decision is meaningless. The disadvantage is clear: The game is not fun, period. This is the same in reverse for you without respec. So no, your TL;DR is wrong. An ARPG with free respec doesn't let me play the way I want because it isn't fun because it feels meaningless.
... free respec: both off us can play how they want (if you need a hard game rule to play the game thats your problem and not that of the rest of the player base) cost respec: its impossible to play how i want to play (no feelings here), i named points why its prohibitive for my playstyle, your point is that the mere existence of the option of respecs (and they will be in the game anyway btw) threatens your playstyle .. free gems: both of us can play how they want, if you want limited gems thats your problem and not that of the rest have to drop and earn gems: its impossible to play how i want to play, its prohibitive for my playstyle of socketing anything instantly and in whatever quantity and quality at any time... it doesn't rly make sense sry. you'd be able to respec for any boss or pvp encounter, other players are there. You could respec for free to earn w/e at some max efficiency. You could do speedrun with free respec. Etc. Every game rule affects all players by affecting other players that you play with or against. thank you for proving me right i guess, make switching talents a 10 s cast/only be done at an npc in town, not in combat etc, all things that solves your points up there, your gem example would make sense if i would argue against a max number of skill, and i never did for one of the things you mentioned so thanks for further showing that the issues against reskilling are artificial for the most part
The point being made with the gem example is that every element of a game can potentially be made convenient or challenging or costly. Someone can just as easily say respecs must be convenient as someone can say gems must be conveniently available. Through the lens of your poor arguments about how much it affects other players, "just don't use it if you don't like it!", both respecs and the gem scenario function equivalently.
Hey look, I have kids and don't get a lot of gaming time. I decree now that I should be able to max out my character within 3 hours playtime. Otherwise I just can't enjoy myself!
Do you see how meaningless that would make the game for everyone looking for something meatier?
The point is, what is or isn't made convenient is a design decision and it affects how different people will perceive the quality of your game. I think I mentioned this a few pages ago but Etrian Odyssey makes you draw your own maps instead of mapping for you. For players who are into it, they love the feature. It's a unique selling point. Meanwhile there are others screeching about "automap technology has existed for decades!" or god knows, calling it an accessibility issue or something.
The simple fact is, not every game needs to be made to every player. And on a forum full of hardcore nerds from the good ol' days, there will be pushback against the trend that every game wants to cater to the lowest common denominator because that's where the most money lies.
Players that make 8 versions of the same class to explore builds might be the minority, but the piece of the pie that want to feel invested in their choices and their character and not just click some buttons whatever I'll change it later anyway when my fave face-in-thumbnail YouTuber tells me NEW HOTTEST CLASS X BUILD, I would posit that it's a bit larger than that first minority.
|
The gem example doesn't hold, though, because they aren't equivalent mechanisms. You're trying to prove that you can adjust other systems to be so convenient as to be meaningless, but respec doesn't make your choices in build meaningless. Your comparison would be more apt being put against a player getting to choose and freely adjust what level their character is, not reassign where their skill points go.
I like respec systems, either free or slightly inconvenient. Not having one in a game where build choices matter feels more like filler than actual content.
I wholly agree on games being made for different people, though!
|
On April 05 2023 11:03 Fleetfeet wrote:
The gem example doesn't hold, though, because they aren't equivalent mechanisms. You're trying to prove that you can adjust other systems to be so convenient as to be meaningless, but respec doesn't make your choices in build meaningless. Your comparison would be more apt being put against a player getting to choose and freely adjust what level their character is, not reassign where their skill points go.
They're absolutely not equivalent mechanisms, that's true. I didn't propose the gem example, merely spoke to it, but I presume it was chosen as a deliberately extreme example of the same logic being applied. It's intent is not to argue that allowing respecs is as detrimental as giving away one important currency for free, it's to argue that "Not giving me X is a pointless inconvenience, people who don't want X can just choose not to use it!" is a flawed simplification.
What many would call game design "flaws" are also what makes a lot of games wonderful. The limited control schemes of Diablo 1 or early Resident Evils are horrible products of their time, and yet for some people they enhance the feeling of powerlessness, and hence, the game. Often in a subconscious way that isn't realised, leading to self-assured proclamations of good or bad design that can totally miss the point.
One of my go-to examples for this is fast travel in Morrowind versus Skyrim. In Morrowind, I go talk to the silt strider guy in town and pay some money. Or I choose not to pay, save myself a little cash and get an opportunity to go pick some alchemy ingredients and find some new locations to explore as I traverse the world. In Skyrim, I need to deliberately ignore a built-in game feature freely accessible from the map screen to get the same effect. Reductionist takes will call Skyrim strictly better in this regard, because fast travel is more available and "you can just not use it if you don't want to!" but it works out completely different! In one the game is encouraging exploration and charging the player a cost not to explore and immerse themselves in its world. In the other, the game is basically encouraging you not to engage with some of its best content.
I was looking up some details of fast travel to make sure my post was accurate and lo and behold, I'm not a crazy loon on this (well, at least not the only crazy loon on this):
Why Morrowind's Fast Travel is Better than Skyrim's
|
On April 05 2023 13:18 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2023 11:03 Fleetfeet wrote:
The gem example doesn't hold, though, because they aren't equivalent mechanisms. You're trying to prove that you can adjust other systems to be so convenient as to be meaningless, but respec doesn't make your choices in build meaningless. Your comparison would be more apt being put against a player getting to choose and freely adjust what level their character is, not reassign where their skill points go. They're absolutely not equivalent mechanisms, that's true. I didn't propose the gem example, merely spoke to it, but I presume it was chosen as a deliberately extreme example of the same logic being applied. It's intent is not to argue that allowing respecs is as detrimental as giving away one important currency for free, it's to argue that "Not giving me X is a pointless inconvenience, people who don't want X can just choose not to use it!" is a flawed simplification. What many would call game design "flaws" are also what makes a lot of games wonderful. The limited control schemes of Diablo 1 or early Resident Evils are horrible products of their time, and yet for some people they enhance the feeling of powerlessness, and hence, the game. Often in a subconscious way that isn't realised, leading to self-assured proclamations of good or bad design that can totally miss the point. One of my go-to examples for this is fast travel in Morrowind versus Skyrim. In Morrowind, I go talk to the silt strider guy in town and pay some money. Or I choose not to pay, save myself a little cash and get an opportunity to go pick some alchemy ingredients and find some new locations to explore as I traverse the world. In Skyrim, I need to deliberately ignore a built-in game feature freely accessible from the map screen to get the same effect. Reductionist takes will call Skyrim strictly better in this regard, because fast travel is more available and "you can just not use it if you don't want to!" but it works out completely different! In one the game is encouraging exploration and charging the player a cost not to explore and immerse themselves in its world. In the other, the game is basically encouraging you not to engage with some of its best content. I was looking up some details of fast travel to make sure my post was accurate and lo and behold, I'm not a crazy loon on this (well, at least not the only crazy loon on this): Why Morrowind's Fast Travel is Better than Skyrim's
Morrowinds travel system was amazing. I also remember eventually just designing a spell that allowed me to very quickly jump across half the continent (And a ring of flight or slow fall to stop where i want and not kersplat into the ground) That is basically my only extremely strong memory of travelling in a game, because i felt so fucking smart.
|
On April 05 2023 09:03 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 23:31 uummpaa wrote:On April 04 2023 23:14 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On April 04 2023 16:20 uummpaa wrote:On April 03 2023 04:43 Miragee wrote:
...
You are trying to explain to us that it doesn't make a difference for us when it obviously does. How is it so hard to understand that all the fun of decision making is gone for some people (e.g. myself) if the decision is meaningless. The disadvantage is clear: The game is not fun, period. This is the same in reverse for you without respec. So no, your TL;DR is wrong. An ARPG with free respec doesn't let me play the way I want because it isn't fun because it feels meaningless.
... free respec: both off us can play how they want (if you need a hard game rule to play the game thats your problem and not that of the rest of the player base) cost respec: its impossible to play how i want to play (no feelings here), i named points why its prohibitive for my playstyle, your point is that the mere existence of the option of respecs (and they will be in the game anyway btw) threatens your playstyle .. free gems: both of us can play how they want, if you want limited gems thats your problem and not that of the rest have to drop and earn gems: its impossible to play how i want to play, its prohibitive for my playstyle of socketing anything instantly and in whatever quantity and quality at any time... it doesn't rly make sense sry. you'd be able to respec for any boss or pvp encounter, other players are there. You could respec for free to earn w/e at some max efficiency. You could do speedrun with free respec. Etc. Every game rule affects all players by affecting other players that you play with or against. thank you for proving me right i guess, make switching talents a 10 s cast/only be done at an npc in town, not in combat etc, all things that solves your points up there, your gem example would make sense if i would argue against a max number of skill, and i never did for one of the things you mentioned so thanks for further showing that the issues against reskilling are artificial for the most part The point being made with the gem example is that every element of a game can potentially be made convenient or challenging or costly. Someone can just as easily say respecs must be convenient as someone can say gems must be conveniently available. Through the lens of your poor arguments about how much it affects other players, "just don't use it if you don't like it!", both respecs and the gem scenario function equivalently. Hey look, I have kids and don't get a lot of gaming time. I decree now that I should be able to max out my character within 3 hours playtime. Otherwise I just can't enjoy myself! Do you see how meaningless that would make the game for everyone looking for something meatier? The point is, what is or isn't made convenient is a design decision and it affects how different people will perceive the quality of your game. I think I mentioned this a few pages ago but Etrian Odyssey makes you draw your own maps instead of mapping for you. For players who are into it, they love the feature. It's a unique selling point. Meanwhile there are others screeching about "automap technology has existed for decades!" or god knows, calling it an accessibility issue or something. The simple fact is, not every game needs to be made to every player. And on a forum full of hardcore nerds from the good ol' days, there will be pushback against the trend that every game wants to cater to the lowest common denominator because that's where the most money lies.
maybe i should clarify that i am making two points here:
my first one is that things like this silly gem example can be used for or against absolutely anything
oh you like ease of talentswitches? - >Why not start at maxlvl with bis gear? Not everything can be for free you know.
Oh you don’t want talents to be switched at all. Why not make gear permanent as well? Your choices should matter shouldn’t they?
Oh you want to interact bound to the left mousebotton, you should use a “/interact” command for that since mechanical skill is important in a game
Etc
All are equally pointless just as the “game is not made for everyone”, “every decision affects everyone” bs. Of course it isn’t, no game is nor can be but it again adds nothing to any argument you might have since you can use that on any feedback ever made.
That’s why I consider those as a non-argument and if it’s the only one someone makes its reads to me as that you simply don’t have any factual points to bring to the discussion.
And for the skill swap in particular:
Its clear that some like them for free, some not at all and everything in between. My point the entire time was that if they are not possible at all, some cant play the way they like with the skill system, its simply not doable in the game.
The other way round, everybody still can play how they want, except the game is targeted at players that know very sure that talent choice NEED to be permanent to make the game good but are still insecure enough that the mere existence of a respect option tempts/forces them to much to do it.
The only actual argument ive heard so far was that ppl that swap talents to specific tasks would have an advantage over players that ignore the feature. but guess what ppl will have specialized builds for everything as long as the shared stash is a thing in the game anyway so I excluding players like me wont change anything there.
Players that make 8 versions of the same class to explore builds might be the minority, but the piece of the pie that want to feel invested in their choices and their character and not just click some buttons whatever I'll change it later anyway when my fave face-in-thumbnail YouTuber tells me NEW HOTTEST CLASS X BUILD, I would posit that it's a bit larger than that first minority.
same as above, ppl who use builds form youtubers will use them no matter what, just swap NEW HOTTEST for THE ONLY BARB BUILD YOU WILL NEED THIS SEASON and i could use it for my ways, both are equally worthless points in a discussion to the feature
|
On April 05 2023 17:16 uummpaa wrote:
maybe i should clarify that i am making two points here:
my first one is that things like this silly gem example can be used for or against absolutely anything
oh you like ease of talentswitches? - >Why not start at maxlvl with bis gear? Not everything can be for free you know.
Oh you don’t want talents to be switched at all. Why not make gear permanent as well? Your choices should matter shouldn’t they?
Oh you want to interact bound to the left mousebotton, you should use a “/interact” command for that since mechanical skill is important in a game
Etc
All are equally pointless just as the “game is not made for everyone”, “every decision affects everyone” bs. Of course it isn’t, no game is nor can be but it again adds nothing to any argument you might have since you can use that on any feedback ever made.
That’s why I consider those as a non-argument and if it’s the only one someone makes its reads to me as that you simply don’t have any factual points to bring to the discussion.
Precisely! I'm glad we agree that over-simplified logic, which includes both the logic behind the gem example and the logic you gave for the respec example (they're the same logic), is insufficient. That was my whole point.
|
On April 05 2023 19:21 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2023 17:16 uummpaa wrote:
maybe i should clarify that i am making two points here:
my first one is that things like this silly gem example can be used for or against absolutely anything
oh you like ease of talentswitches? - >Why not start at maxlvl with bis gear? Not everything can be for free you know.
Oh you don’t want talents to be switched at all. Why not make gear permanent as well? Your choices should matter shouldn’t they?
Oh you want to interact bound to the left mousebotton, you should use a “/interact” command for that since mechanical skill is important in a game
Etc
All are equally pointless just as the “game is not made for everyone”, “every decision affects everyone” bs. Of course it isn’t, no game is nor can be but it again adds nothing to any argument you might have since you can use that on any feedback ever made.
That’s why I consider those as a non-argument and if it’s the only one someone makes its reads to me as that you simply don’t have any factual points to bring to the discussion. Precisely! I'm glad we agree that over-simplified logic, which includes both the logic behind the gem example and the logic you gave for the respec example (they're the same logic), is insufficient. That was my whole point.
how are they the same when one completly locks me out of playing the way i want and the other way round both side can play as they wish?
but whatever, you dont need a reason to randomly exclude players from a game i guess, ggs with d4 enjoy your game
|
A lot of people said Sekiro locked them out of playing the way they wanted by being too hard, too.
|
On April 05 2023 19:45 Turbovolver wrote:
A lot of people said Sekiro locked them out of playing the way they wanted by being too hard, too.
oh another random example great, you can stop with them we agreed on how helpful they are
but if you would have a problem with sekiro when they added something to the game that you could freely ignore but enabeld more players then thats your very own problem
|
You don't get it. I don't even have a problem with respecs specifically. I think they fit in some games and don't fit in others. I am not opposed to D4 having respecs, and while I think free respecs might cheapen things slightly, that's not a strong feeling.
What I have a problem with is people like you who make the disingenuous argument that "if you don't like a feature don't use it!" And it's always only used to justify specifically what they want, and not what others want. We've tried to demonstrate this to you by giving ridiculous examples of what other players might want/demand, but you are so utterly unable to step outside your own perspective to see that. The gem example might be silly, but the Sekiro one is very real, there were many pieces in games media about it, all using your precise logic of not being able to play how they wanted (and then a backlash against them). Yet you dismiss it as just another unhelpful example.
Would I have a problem with Sekiro introducing a separate easy mode? No. Would I have a problem with them adding a "skip boss" feature that players could "just ignore if they feel it cheapens it and don't want to use it"? Absolutely.
How these things are done matters.
|
It's easy to say people can freely ignore a thing, while in reality we can observe a sub-group of them utilizing that thing when it's being offered to them despite them having absolutely no prior interest in it. It's well-known in psychology that complete freedom of choice does not allow for complete self-determination.
This is because of psychological phenomena like that of seeking out pleasurable results even when they're much less frequent than unpleasant results, like in most forms of gambling as well as more innocuous things like TikTok, Youtube Shorts, etc.
This kind of psychology ends up hurting some people's experience with a game and it's therefore a valid complaint from them to say that they don't want certain features to be available at all. That doesn't mean they should be pandered to, but they're not wrong to prefer certain options being limited or unavailable.
|
i dont know sekiro so i cant say anything to that but you once again compare respecing to a "skip boss" feature, which gets tiresome really...
and yes if there would be an easy to implement way to give different playstyles a go (im not talking difficulty, never did) and they refuse to do it then it would also be bad design but again, i dont no about the game so take that with a grain of salt.
obvioulsy if youd had to rework the fundamentals of the game to cater to more playstyles thats not something i ever voted for at all, just to make that clear
(somewhat) complex skill trees are a part of d4, thats a given, as is the possibility to change them, i am not asking for any bonus features, skips or easymodes, depsite all your efforts to paint them as such
all i am asking is that the mechanic thats in the game already is made accesible to as many playstyles as possible, without taking away from others, if you have that option (especially if its 0 effort to implement) and dont use it, then i will always call that bad game design, if that makes me "utterly unable to step outside your own perspective" then so be it.
i really dont get why you have such a problem with ignoring certain features in games, in d2,3 and now 4 are things i really dont care for at all, so i simply dont/wont touch them, no need to run around and demand them changed, others sure will enjoy them and who am i to interfere with that.
but maybe, just maybe you too are "utterly unable to step outside your own perspective" on this one
|
On April 05 2023 20:16 Turbovolver wrote:
Would I have a problem with Sekiro introducing a separate easy mode? No. Would I have a problem with them adding a "skip boss" feature that players could "just ignore if they feel it cheapens it and don't want to use it"? Absolutely.
How these things are done matters.
I think that is a rather beautiful example!
On that note, Blizzard could actually add another layer of difficulties:
- Normal (free respec and whatever else)
- Veteran (costly and limited amount of respec, plus other features making the game slightly harder)
- Hardcore (no respec, death means death)
Voila, catering to all kind of players needs 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
