No, the 5 extra points were not in Berserker, I had one point in berserker and ended up having to remove it just to be able to remove the rest. Sorry but I’m done trying to explain. I looked and made sure that mypoints were not in Berserker or the line to the left of it. I’ve played enough to understand the Passive tree.
Thanks for trying to help understand it. If I replicate it I will take a lot of screen shots to show everything. I was just trying to solve it that time.
Here is another example that I just had doing a respec of a Necro. This should help show what I’m working with. If you can explain this I would be grateful, if not then it must be a bug.
LE Respec Issue
https://imgur.com/iiVQN68
https://imgur.com/SREOh8s
https://imgur.com/bPJSuWR
Thank you
Just because you have enough total points in the passive tree, doesn’t mean you can respec points in every part of the passive tree as you wish.
It does respect the required invested passive points based on how many passive points you have invested, that are accessable prior to a new column.
In your case, you have 15 points invested “below” Aegisfall.
6 Points in “Risen Army”
3 Points in “Cursed Blood”
1 Point in “Blood Armour”
5 Points in “Mortal Tether”
The Node Aegisfall does need a minimum of 15 points invested in the necromancer passive tree.
If you take away any of the above mentioned nodes, you do not have 15 points invested into the Necromancer tree “below” Aegisfall.
Every column in the passive tree does unlock and become allocateable, once you have enough passive points prior to it.
If you respec points here, it doesn’t matter how many passive points you have invested in the necromancer tree in total.
It only cares for everything, that you have allocated, that’s in a column before that.
Ok, if that’s correct then I must have just been reading it wrong.
Thanks!
All this comes down to is standard software programming best practice around usage frequency. This is something all developers (specifically UX (User eXperience)) people deal with when designing an interface.
Premise: The most frequently used actions should be on-screen requiring a single click or interaction, while the least frequently used actions should be off-screen/hidden and require several actions to perform.
Examples:
Now, respeccing falls into the same category that brightness does - infrequently used. So, we do not need to design a quick, easy interface for that - it would be a waste of Dev time when they could be coding something else. We have a Passive Tree UI which already has “Point allocation pre-requisite” logic built into it. Respeccing can simply use that existing UI. Any pain involved (and its minor), is outweighed by the cost (Dev time/money) to implement a secondary “Respec” UI (with sophisticated AI to allow mass-point-reallocations).
TL;DR - its fine as it is because its infrequent
But having to click ok for. Every. Single. Point. Is a massive ballache (which the devs know about)…
Yeah, I guess my point is more about its fundamental design. There is still room for some improvement, for sure.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.