Can you respec?

[phimseto]

I agree that we need more respec in the world.

 

https://youtu.be/Vqtg_JFGh6I

[Gromnir]

If anything, I think giving trap and lock XP on one side and the bestiary solution (which I actually thought was an intelligent and reasonable compromise) on the other was insulting to the combat XP crowd.  

sure it were insulting.  it were a joke.  bestiary and exploration and lock and trap xp as implemented is little more than a kinda laugh at the folks demanding such.  is the minimum somebody at obsidian thought would be enough to quiet the kill xp folks. the extraordinary thing is, it kinda worked.  woody walked out o' ms. howe's office with a smile on his face?  

 

is no wonder that new folks to the board and beta is still starting combat xp threads.  the folks who didn't buy-in to bestiary recognize that it ain't kill xp, not by a long shot.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[PrimeJunta]

for the folks who somehow manage to find a way to abuse a single respec in a game that is s'posed to be balanced, so what?  is a sp game, no?  if some joker, who likely needs meta knowledge, finds a way to game the game with a single respec, why should we care?   for the upright and pure role-players o' justice who would never use such a filthy feature, respec should be no concern at all, yes? 

 

You really love this strawman, don't you? Just can't bear to let it go. So much easier to address than the actual argument. Which is, if I may remind you:

 

"The very presence of a respec in the game trivializes the character-building choices up to that point, and therefore greatly detracts from the experience for players who consider choice and consequence crucial to the computer role-playing game experience."

 

Nothing to do with "upright and pure role-players o' justice," or caring the least bit how somebody else plays the game.

 

Keep going though, you're quite entertaining, especially with the memes and the videos. I guess they work in the courtroom too, "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" Chewbacca defense and all.

[Stun]

pps since you misunderstood, the imagined dangers we reference is the potential exploitation issues caused by respec.  yes, the level o' frustration from playing a broken character is disturbingly likely.  what is not significant is the damage a player could do to balance o' the game with a single respec.  am not certain why you thought that an unsatisfying respec would amount to a danger, but we apologize for the ambiguity regardless.

I'll ask again. How are you coming to the conclusion that a game with broken build mechanics won't also have an equally broken respec mechanic? Edited March 19, 2015 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

Prediction: he won't answer. We might get an entertaining video or meme though. More likely he'll just repeat the same strawmen he's been wailing away on, though. Or maybe try to change the subject again... he's done XP, so... yeah, romance probably. Or maybe melee engagement. Let's see.

Edited March 19, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[Dongom]

Can classes can be built specialized/differently enough for respec to matter?

I wanna make a druid that focuses on shifting.

[Cantousent]

I definitely see different ways to build the classes I've seen.  There're are decision points to be sure, Don.  ...And that's just from my brief time playing.

[Stun]

Can classes can be built specialized/differently enough for respec to matter?

I wanna make a druid that focuses on shifting.

From my 6+ months of playing the beta, I'd say that Character Builds in PoE can be rather diverse in terms of how they play, but relatively constrained in terms of power differentials. That is to say, for example, that a barbarian can be built so that he's a classic glass canon, or he can be built to be an effective tank, or he can be built to have elements of both. But who's to say whether one build is better than the other? Or that one is Broken while the others aren't?

 

And the stats (mig, con, dex, int, res, per)? They matter, but they don't matter so much as to ruin any build due to point mis-allocation or whatever. People have reported building melee specialists with 3 might. They have confirmed that the build isn't broken at all.

 

So the question is: What would be the purpose of a respec feature in such a system? And the answer is: To change from one build to another. But that's purely a matter of TASTE, not a matter of survivability/viability, because the classes are viable already. The stats and talents are the fine tuning.

 

So I say, Screw that. A true RPG fan knows what he's getting into when he plays a real RPG. And that is: That he'll have to make choices, and then deal with the consequences of those choices. Some people on this thread have professed the desire for "second chances" and they've argued that it would be "more fun" for them to be able to "redo" their builds if they're unhappy with said consequences. But I say that if your enjoyment of the game hinges solely on whether or not one character in your party (out of 6) is built exactly to your personal tastes, you're probably not going to have much fun playing this game even with a respec feature that you can use at will. Because again, True RPGs are built from the ground up with choices and consequences all over the place. You won't have much fun fighting against the system from beginning to end.

[Cantousent]

Some people enjoy tinkering with that sort of stuff, though.  I get the idea of choice and consequence.  Generally, the idea is to finish the game to explore an idea and, if it's good, to replay it.  Nevertheless, some folks just don't want it that way.  I'm not a fan of respeccing in a single player game, but I understand that some people are going to really jones for it.  Now, if it took considerable resources to implement it, I would be more miffed, but we already essentially respec when we start the beta anyway.  They can put it in very easily.

 

I think I saw someone mention this above (hard to say because of all the stuff going down and only skimming a lot of posts) but respeccing is open to a lot of abuse.  After all, you spec one way for early levels and then plan a respeccing route.  Still, that's going to take forethought.  Anyone planning on doing that will be planning to edit crap to do it.  So let them do it easier if it lets them enjoy the game.

 

...But, yeah, I have no use for respeccing in a single player game.  Half the fun is playing a while and experimenting and then restarting with a different idea if a really good one comes to you.

[Ohioastro]

I don't like the vibe that I'm getting from some players on this thread: that they want to punish other players for mistakes that they make and that they want to impose their game play preference on others.

 

Letting people keep class, race, gender and change focus within their class does no harm to my game and some people really like doing it.

[Silent Winter]

And people respec in real life all the time.  Otherwise I wouldn't see the flood of 40-50 year olds leaving their careers to become nurses...

Nah - that's dual-classing (They don't lose their previous skills (so it's kinda like 3rd edition not 2nd) and they don't get to add their previous experience to the new job - they start at level 1)

 

I don't like the vibe that I'm getting from some players on this thread: that they want to punish other players for mistakes that they make and that they want to impose their game play preference on others.

 

Letting people keep class, race, gender and change focus within their class does no harm to my game and some people really like doing it.

No harm to me - use the console - why waste time and effort creating and debugging a potentially buggy new feature to fix a potentially buggy build, when the solution is already there? (as it is also the solution to other in-game bugs - not all, sure, some bugs will need a patch and even the consolable ( ) ones should get one - and that's where Obs need to spend their time - fixing bugs, not providing workarounds that we can already do with the console)

Edited March 20, 2015 by Silent Winter

[Gromnir]

 

for the folks who somehow manage to find a way to abuse a single respec in a game that is s'posed to be balanced, so what?  is a sp game, no?  if some joker, who likely needs meta knowledge, finds a way to game the game with a single respec, why should we care?   for the upright and pure role-players o' justice who would never use such a filthy feature, respec should be no concern at all, yes? 

 

You really love this strawman, don't you? Just can't bear to let it go. So much easier to address than the actual argument. Which is, if I may remind you:

 

"The very presence of a respec in the game trivializes the character-building choices up to that point, and therefore greatly detracts from the experience for players who consider choice and consequence crucial to the computer role-playing game experience."

 

Nothing to do with "upright and pure role-players o' justice," or caring the least bit how somebody else plays the game.

 

Keep going though, you're quite entertaining, especially with the memes and the videos. I guess they work in the courtroom too, "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" Chewbacca defense and all.

 

am thinking you don't know strawman any better than stun believes he does.  but if that is the actual rock upon which you wish to reject a possible respec, that the mere presence o' respec, whether used or not offends, we is happy to oblige.  fine.  the dangers obsidian needs concern themselves regarding respec is not as has been mentioned in this and other threads that respec can be used to game the game , but rather that,

 

"The very presence of a respec in the game trivializes the character-building choices up to that point, and therefore greatly detracts from the experience for players who consider choice and consequence crucial to the computer role-playing game experience."

 

*chuckle*

 

don't use it.  can your game be trivialized by the fact that Gromnir or  fenwick or any other player used respec?  

 

you are speaking utter nonsense.  

 

and we already addressed this point regardless:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/71211-can-you-respec/?p=1586759

 

you have the problem reversed.  developer errors in the form o' bugs and ambiguities is what, "detracts from the experience for players who consider choice and consequence crucial to the computer role-playing game experience."  when factors complete out of our control, such as poor written talent descriptions and bugs, invalidate our choices,  there should be a way relative painless way to fix the wrong that otherwise made mockery o' those choices.

 

so, stand up for CRPG Justice and demand that developer error should never be an excuse for robbing you o' the meaning o' your crucial choices.

 

HA!

 

you and stun, what a pair?

 

"I'll ask again. How are you coming to the conclusion that a game with broken build mechanics won't also have an equally broken respec mechanic?"

 

nominee for dumbest response o' the day?  the mere possibility that a fix or feature could be buggy is hardly a reason to avoid adding a feature.  am certain if you genuine reflect for even a few seconds you will realize the utter ridiculousness o' the slippery-slope bound suggestion.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps pj we also forgot to mention pj's obvious naughty.  respec, by its very nature, leaves most choices and consequences resulting from player actions and dialogue untouched.  skip the fight with Bert the Bucolic, but got labeled as a coward in Kustak Village?  respec don't change that.  is only the future consequences and choices resulting from altered character-building choices that is gonna be impacted... which is kinda the point. 

Edited March 20, 2015 by Gromnir

[PrimeJunta]

don't use it.  can your game be trivialized by the fact that Gromnir or  fenwick or any other player used respec?

Annnd, there it is again, that strawman. Just can't bear to let it go, can you? You really have lost this debate, haven't you?

 

Weren't you quite supportive of Josh's attempts at eliminating most broken game mechanics resulting in easy but dull exploits? You do realize that "don't use it" is the lazy (and invalid) counter-"argument" against that too. Rest-spamming? "Don't use it." Etc.

 

As to the "but the bugs!" argument, we already addressed that. Bugs should be addressed by patches, and, as an ultimate last resort, the console, not by adding features that make the game worse.

 

ps pj we also forgot to mention pj's obvious naughty.  respec, by its very nature, leaves most choices and consequences resulting from player actions and dialogue untouched.  skip the fight with Bert the Bucolic, but got labeled as a coward in Kustak Village?  respec don't change that.  is only the future consequences and choices resulting from altered character-building choices that is gonna be impacted... which is kinda the point.

Thing is, those choices and consequences are every bit as central to my experience as role-playing choices and consequences. It's the other side of the coin: the impact I've had on the world, and the character I've become.

 

Weak, Gromz. Weak.

Edited March 20, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[GreyZ]

Respeccing has been around forever. Even AD&D had rules for respeccing proficiencies and wizards of course could "respec" their spells.

I can see where people can have issues when respeccing basically wipes your entire character clean and lets you start from scratch since that can hamper the attachment you build with your character.

 

Personally in a game like PoE right from the get go you make some pretty important choices such as race, class, stats and background that already form a strong foundation of your character.

I wouldn't see too much of an issue with having abilities and talents be retrainable. 

 

It can be a bit frustrating to be stuck with something that turns out to be completely useless for you and not everyone has the time to start a big game like poe all over again.

[PrimeJunta]

There's another assertion that the Rt. Hon. Gromnir also made. Namely, that P:E's character mechanics are so obscure and/or broken that it's easy to make a "completely useless" character.

 

Now, I've only put, like, 75 hours or so into the BB, but in my experience this is just not true. I've made lots of characters in lots of classes, some "straight," some "against type." I've only had one that felt like a chore to play, and that was because the class was broken (and subsequently fixed).

 

So: will people end up with genuinely poor/borderline unplayable characters at all frequently? No, they won't.

 

Will they end up with characters they won't be happy with for whatever other reason? Hell yes. I made a totally badass berserker in BG2 the other day and then decided that running around just hitting things was kind of dull so I started over with a mage. That's all part of the fun.

 

Therefore, a respec is not the "necessity" the Rt. Hon. Gromnir makes it out to be. It's there to accommodate people in category 2. I do not feel it is necessary or contributes to the quality of the game.

[Cantousent]

Yeah, that's one thing they seemed pretty committed to achieving from the get go.  They wanted a game that would make it hard for the player to screw himself completely with bad decisions.  I'm sure someone will either be determined enough or simply have that combination of ignorance and luck to contrive a terrible character, but it looks pretty solid in helping to keep people from making hopeless characters.  I don't even think that's the biggest fear from most folks regardless of the various arguments.  I think the biggest reason folks like the idea of respeccing is just 'cause.  Some folks really want to tinker with stuff and don't want to be forced to restart to do it.  Then there's the fact that some games have made it easier to create characters who were hopeless and then the player would complain about it being too hard/unfun, so that's in the back of some folks' minds.

[PrimeJunta]

I'm all for someone hacking together a savegame+character editor to accommodate that. I might even use it myself somewhere along the line. Mods, modding tools, console commands, other things like that are fun. But they do things that don't belong in the game.

[Stun]

the mere possibility that a fix or feature could be buggy is hardly a reason to avoid adding a feature.

And yet, you have advocated that the mere presence of bugs is reason enough to not even buy this game until a year from now. Edited March 20, 2015 by Stun

[Stun]

when factors complete out of our control, such as poor written talent descriptions and bugs, invalidate our choices,  there should be a way relative painless way to fix the wrong that otherwise made mockery o' those choices.

I'm truly sorry for trying to rain on your optimism, but I have bad news for you. A respec feature will not fix broken talent descriptions - painlessly or otherwise. It might, however, allow you to replace one broken talent with another. So rejoice in that! Edited March 20, 2015 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

There is also the resource issue. Implementing features takes time and effort. It also always introduces new bugs, which will then have to be hunted down and killed. That time could instead be spent on making things less buggy to start with. That approach makes more sense to me.

[Ohioastro]

Some people just like to try on different choices for fun. If I do multiple playthroughs I would try different classes, not the same class with a different approach. This is not a short game.

 

I'm also sure that they'd have an opt out for people who want it. Resources are a legit reservation, but this can be a high impact option, and it would probably be quite popular.

[Eurhetemec]

There is also the resource issue. Implementing features takes time and effort. It also always introduces new bugs, which will then have to be hunted down and killed. That time could instead be spent on making things less buggy to start with. That approach makes more sense to me.

 

In a modern game, the resource issues associated with developing respec'ing are typically fairly trivial, so this is a very weak, short-term-ish argument. It's also unrealistic, because there always will be bugs, and cutting a feature like this isn't likely to reduce them. I accept that with Eternity they may have made specific choices that make it too much of a cost, programming-wise, but in a broader sense, this isn't a sensible approach.*

 

What not having the respec'ing of mechanical abilities (as opposed to background elements) does is place tremendous weight on the designers to get those elements right the first time, and further, to not screw them up in updates. Historically, very few developers have been entirely successful at this. On the upside, it does tend to concentrate the mind of developers - on the downside, it tends to also make them far more cautious, design-wise.

 

Two specific examples of problems (obviously these are the tip of the iceberg):

 

1) New player doesn't fully understand mechanics, picks ability that sounds good but really is not - they may well long-term cripple their character with no respec.

 

Doesn't matter how smug people are about it being "their dumb choice" or whatever, the experience of the game is damaged for them, and they can't fix it themselves.

 

2) Experienced player makes very strong build, but relies on something that is dramatically changed in an update, and the build becomes sub-par (I've seen this happen countless times in CRPGs and MMOs). Without respecs, there's literally nothing he can. His experience of the game is damaged, and many people will simply stop playing that character, and may not start another, especially if they enjoyed the style they had before.

 

I actually totally understand where "respec'ing changes the tone of the game" people are coming from, but they seem to be ignoring the incredibly obvious solution. It's the same one as the solution to save-scumming. Have an option to disable it in the game setup. Not an option you can change once a character has been started, only before.

 

* = Even with Eternity, it sounds like Sawyer was concerned that people might change stuff that had already impacted the plot - i.e. that a character had passed a conversation option requiring N stat, and now only had N-4 stat and wouldn't have passed it. In that case I think you just limit what you can respec to stuff that doesn't impact things. Abilities and Perks look like prime candidates.

 

EDIT - I think we can pretty much bet that unless saves are somehow locked up tight, there will be a mod or out-of-game utility which will allow respec'ing, and that'll help more expert/serious players, so there's that.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Eurhetemec

[PrimeJunta]

Two specific examples of problems (obviously these are the tip of the iceberg):

 

1) New player doesn't fully understand mechanics, picks ability that sounds good but really is not - they may well long-term cripple their character with no respec.

 

Doesn't matter how smug people are about it being "their dumb choice" or whatever, the experience of the game is damaged for them, and they can't fix it themselves.

 

IME with the BB, this is not the case with P:E. Sure, some talents are better than others, and some combinations of talents are better than other combinations (e.g. not stacking Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization on a fighter is sub-optimal), but I've (intentionally and not) made such "dumb" choices when playing with the BB, and while they do make a noticeable difference, it's not so big that my sub-optimal character feels "crippled" in any way. Compared to, say, an IWD fighter specializing in quarterstaves (no good fighter-usable quarterstaves in the game), or a DnD3 fighter with low STR and a stupid selection of feats.

 

I.e., in this case I am fairly convinced that this is a theoretical rather than practical issue. I don't know how closely the P:E designers feel they've reached their "no trap choices" goal, but that has been a goal from the start and from where I'm at it shows.

 

2) Experienced player makes very strong build, but relies on something that is dramatically changed in an update, and the build becomes sub-par (I've seen this happen countless times in CRPGs and MMOs). Without respecs, there's literally nothing he can. His experience of the game is damaged, and many people will simply stop playing that character, and may not start another, especially if they enjoyed the style they had before.

 

In an MMO I can totally understand that.

 

In a single-player game, not so much. Experienced players that give up at the first sign of frustration don't exist, because they never get experienced that way. They will just start a new game. Probably several. They enjoy playing with different builds after all.

 

I actually totally understand where "respec'ing changes the tone of the game" people are coming from, but they seem to be ignoring the incredibly obvious solution. It's the same one as the solution to save-scumming. Have an option to disable it in the game setup. Not an option you can change once a character has been started, only before.

 

I could live with that, no problem.

 

That said, many people ITT have been arguing for a single respec tied to the story, not a feature comparable to Trial of Iron. That's not something you typically disable in an option. I've had that at the back of my mind when discussing it.

[Eurhetemec]

 

Two specific examples of problems (obviously these are the tip of the iceberg):

 

1) New player doesn't fully understand mechanics, picks ability that sounds good but really is not - they may well long-term cripple their character with no respec.

 

Doesn't matter how smug people are about it being "their dumb choice" or whatever, the experience of the game is damaged for them, and they can't fix it themselves.

 

IME with the BB, this is not the case with P:E. Sure, some talents are better than others, and some combinations of talents are better than other combinations (e.g. not stacking Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization on a fighter is sub-optimal), but I've (intentionally and not) made such "dumb" choices when playing with the BB, and while they do make a noticeable difference, it's not so big that my sub-optimal character feels "crippled" in any way. Compared to, say, an IWD fighter specializing in quarterstaves (no good fighter-usable quarterstaves in the game), or a DnD3 fighter with low STR and a stupid selection of feats.

 

I.e., in this case I am fairly convinced that this is a theoretical rather than practical issue. I don't know how closely the P:E designers feel they've reached their "no trap choices" goal, but that has been a goal from the start and from where I'm at it shows.

 

2) Experienced player makes very strong build, but relies on something that is dramatically changed in an update, and the build becomes sub-par (I've seen this happen countless times in CRPGs and MMOs). Without respecs, there's literally nothing he can. His experience of the game is damaged, and many people will simply stop playing that character, and may not start another, especially if they enjoyed the style they had before.

 

In an MMO I can totally understand that.

 

In a single-player game, not so much. Experienced players that give up at the first sign of frustration don't exist, because they never get experienced that way. They will just start a new game. Probably several. They enjoy playing with different builds after all.

 

I actually totally understand where "respec'ing changes the tone of the game" people are coming from, but they seem to be ignoring the incredibly obvious solution. It's the same one as the solution to save-scumming. Have an option to disable it in the game setup. Not an option you can change once a character has been started, only before.

 

I could live with that, no problem.

 

That said, many people ITT have been arguing for a single respec tied to the story, not a feature comparable to Trial of Iron. That's not something you typically disable in an option. I've had that at the back of my mind when discussing it.

 

 

Going through this linearly:

 

1) "They've avoided trap choices".

 

I think you will understand my skepticism here. I can't even count the games (computer and tabletop) where the designers claim they've "avoided trap choices" and the like, yet, when you actually play them, they've got plenty of them. And yes always the fans of the game will say "Oh that's theoretical rubbish!" until two months post-release when they're writing an angry post about how unbalanced Ability X is!

 

If they've achieved it, awesome, and the whole issue will become merely "how well did we explain abilities" instead, but like, I'll believe it when I've seen it.

 

2) "Experienced players don't quit at the first sign of frustration".

 

I agree. What I'm describing isn't "the first sign of frustration", it's a character going from powerful and able to sub-par. I've seen this happen in single-player games due to patches, many times, and I am an experienced+ player, and whilst I do not go like RAAAAGEQUIT!! or whatever, what I know happens is that I play less and less because it's so disappointing, until I trail off and stop. And I think less of the game, permanently.

 

I might try it again in a year or two or whatever, but that kind of power-drop is a game-breaker for me, and hurts DLC/expansion/sequel sales.

 

What's made it vastly less common is that respecs have become more common, and they usually negate the issue (unless the entire class stops working, which is rare). MMOs pretty always have respecs so...

 

"Enjoy playing different builds..." is irrelevant to the problem. When you're playing a character you like, and they go from effective to kinda-rubbish, that's not "playing a different build", that's having your PC ruined. Also, you're totally mistaken to suggest that ALL experienced CRPGs like playing different builds. You really couldn't be more wrong - most of the keen CRPG buyers I know buy a game, play the HELL out of it, including every sidequest and DLC they can find, with one character, then either don't play it again for years, or half-heartedly try some other characters, but never get very far.

 

Whereas I tend to play dozens of builds not very far until I find one I love. But I'm atypical, as I said. I'm beyond just "experienced" and into "hobbyist" or the like - many posters here are too.

 

3) Well yeah, I don't like the "one quest" approach, as it's the worst of both worlds - in that you know you can respec, but only once ever, so don't mess it up!

 

Better to go with an Iron Man-style approach where you can either do it when necessary, or not do it at all and live with stuff.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Eurhetemec

[PrimeJunta]

1) "They've avoided trap choices".

 

I think you will understand my skepticism here. I can't even count the games (computer and tabletop) where the designers claim they've "avoided trap choices" and the like, yet, when you actually play them, they've got plenty of them. And yes always the fans of the game will say "Oh that's theoretical rubbish!" until two months post-release when they're writing an angry post about how unbalanced Ability X is!

 

If they've achieved it, awesome, and the whole issue will become merely "how well did we explain abilities" instead, but like, I'll believe it when I've seen it.

I've seen it. I just haven't been able to make a character that's anywhere close to unplayable, other than the ranger in one of the BB's which was because the ranger class was borderline unplayable.

 

Again, there are plenty of balance issues there for sure, but nothing close to genuine trap choices à la quarterstaff specialization in IWD or, say, Toughness, Great Fortitude, a couple of Skill Focuses and CHA 18/STR 10 for a D&D3 fighter. As far as I can tell anyway.