You respec a skill and it is leveled up relatively fast. Not sure what you are on about. Try respeccing paragon in d4 or skills in d2.
You’re making a valid point and this is something that bugs me as well. Ignore the naysayers and continue with providing feedback. The devs themselves have explicitly stated there is no issue in creating new threads to provide feedback. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
2 Likes
I’m saying that people blow things out of proportion. They have a gut feeling reaction and reinforce it by mourning how bad it is - when it isn’t.
It’s not as bad, because:
- you are (usually) still powerful enough to progress through story and echoes.
- your skills come back gradually. It might take 20-30 minutes at some point in the game to have them all back, but the first few are rather quick. You aren’t forced to play 30 minutes with 5/10 skill points. That lasts maybe 2 minutes, then it is 6/10.
- once you hit empowered monolith, the first group of enemies gives you already 2-3 skill points back.
- you don’t lose these 20 - 30 minutes, because you still make progress. If you are 5 minutes slower than if you had respecced with all points available, you could consider it a net loss of 5 minutes. In the great scheme of things, this is no big deal.
With fewer words, these arguments were already hinted at - for you to think about it.
This isn’t a rebuttal against the idea of introducing changes to the game.
If I were responsible for designing the game, I would make changes:
- reducing the time to get skillpoints back at lower levels, because you get less EXP
- or having the minimum skill level always be your maximum until 10 skill points, which should cover the campaign.
- implementing a way more user-friendly UI for respeccing passives and skills.
I know some people want the game to have instant swaps, loadouts, etc.
But since the devs don’t want to encourage a gameplay where people swap builds every time they interact with different types of content in the game, re-levelling skills is a decent way of handling things. The implementation for earlier levels isn’t great for new players who would like to experiment with their new toys/skills.
To optimize their build for the part of content they currently engage with.
2 Likes
I am a strong proponent of having build identity and not going a build loadout approach. But OP is exactly right. The current system actually favours build swapping at endgame and punishes early game experimentations where people may not be familiar with skills.
Look at what you said yourself:
The Devs are enabling exactly what they want to discourage.
I don’t know where the devs explicitly said that. I might have missed it.
I can’t possibly think that this would be the prefered way for the devs. They probably said it in a context of “before you don’t post feedback at all, just do a new thread”. Which is ok, but still makes it bad 
But nontheless, it makes the experience for everyone else worse. The forum is a community effort and not solely aimed at new player providing feedback to the devs. But a place for the entirety of the community to have discussions.
Cluttering the forum with 10x the same sentiment in a new thread is making the forum as a whole much worse to have good discussions. Some people might not read all of these threads and so there is a lot of potential for good and cosntructive discussiosn to be had lost.
And if your goal as a poster is not to discuss, but to only give feedback to the devs, posting in an existing thread will achieve the same, without making the experience for other people using the forum worse.
It is totally ok to create a new topic if there is no releveant topic open or maybe if you couldn’t find a appropiate topic.
But still posting without the slightly effort into looking for an existing discussion is just self-ish.
2 Likes
Yes, I think that late game respeccing is too fast to really prevent that.
It’s just uncomfortable enough to make it not appealing in most instances - mainly because there is no quick-loadout swap.
1 Like
I’m very sure at least Hacka mentioned that explicitly before. But, of course, only Andrew would be able to pull the exact source. I am too lazy for that. 
I also, of course, respect your view very much Heavy. You’re not wrong. But even if there have been a few threads, it is not as if the whole front page of the forum is flooded with this exact feedback. I just find the way forum regular disses people who come to the forum to provide feedback (even if it is already heavily discussed), too heavy handed and dismissive. It creates a very toxic and elitist forum environment (kinda like how in Dota 2 new players just gets thumbed down on).
Just to add to this point. Even if OP missed an active thread, I think the better thing for forum regulars to do is to point them to the active thread. Rather than treat them as idiots. There are forum trolls and there are those who genuinely missed it in good faith. In this case, my money is on OP being the latter.
1 Like
I think not many people in the forums would disagree that there are improvements to make to the system to make it quicker at low levels, and longer at high levels, so that it is more balanced.
That being said, I don’t think setting the minimum skill at the highest you’ve unlocked until 10 is a good idea. Having to level up the skills is something that makes the system more engaging, even when you respec the skills, though I guess not everyone is interested in the leveling experience. If you switch from fully leveled skill to fully leveled skill (even only up to level 10), you are going to lose players like myself that dislike the instaswap Diablo 3 experience.
2 Likes
Whatever new players think they’re “testing” or “experimenting” at level 10 or 15 doesn’t matter, and it’s a waste of time.
The game isn’t balanced around the two or three hours players spend with 4-, 5- or 10-point skills. It’s balanced around players in empowered monoliths having 20+ points in a skill. Whatever “discoveries” you think you’re making moving your precious 5 points around are illusory.
1 Like
They are useful to know if you like the feeling of your skill. For example, if you go for an extremely mana-hungry build, you may feel that it’s frustrating to have to use a mana-generating one afterwards, or to have to wait that mana refills every couple of encounters.
This clearly doesn’t require having all skills at top level, though.
As a new player I think the system is fine unless you start respeccing too early like in the story. Then to a degree you set yourself back a bit. But overall you can get your new skill back up to level pretty quickly.
There should really be a warning for new players to not respec before level 50 or something.
While I would probably try to be more polite, pointing out that people should not create duplicate threads isn’t wrong per se. I would also not expect people who are a bit fed up with having this conversation pop up every couple of days or weeks to search the thread for the OP.
As much faith as I want to have in people - I don’t think most people are even using the search function.
I mostly agree with this. I was never a fan of D3’s system.
I like re-levelling my skills. It lets me experience how the skill changes over time, especially with nodes that change the skill by more than just adding a bit of damage or cast speed.
1 Like
That is a misconception brought on by your dislike of the current system. The difference in level between your respecced skills and your never-changed ones is very quickly low enough that it’s not an issue testing stuff out. Simply try stuff out until you find a build that is to your liking, then once you find one and commit to it, you’ll see that your respecced skills catch up to your non-respecced ones.
1 Like
I don’t dislike it I think it is fine. I changed skills AS much as I wanted when I played through it the first time. My 2nd Character I was more likely to just wait until I had the End of Time open.
Was just pointing out the one area where it may impact a new player, and that is earlier on.
Oh honestly. You can play up to mastery with no points allocated to skills at all. All this fuss is over nothing.
2 Likes
I don’t doubt that many players just miss active threads, although considering that, at this point, there are literally dozens of open threads about it, it seems unlikely. I think the vast majority simply don’t try searching at all.
And yes, it would be much more useful to point them out to one of those, but we are all human. And this feels like being in a playground full of children next to a board with answers. And there’s always a kid coming up to you and asking the same question that’s already on the board. So it’s only natural that, at a certain point, you get fed up with it and are sometimes annoyed by it.
This is something that actually affects both sides of the discussion, tbh. Other than the “regulars” that actually try to answer when they’re not too annoyed by it, the players that support the topic very often don’t bother replying in yet another thread, because there is nothing new to be said about it. Which is why new threads about it tend to have less replies and much less votes. People don’t like to have to say the same things over and over again.
While this is true and apparent to players that have been through it, it’s still true that new players have a negative perception of the system when they first try it out. Most will just keep playing and eventually find out that it’s not an issue and some will complain in the forums/discord/reddit.
But it doesn’t invalidate that their initial perception of it is negative. So while I agree fully that we shouldn’t change respec to insta switch, we should make it so that the initial perception of new players isn’t as negative. In my opinion, we should raise the minimum level at earlier stages and we should increase attrition at later ones, for example only allowing skill respec in the same places where you can respec masteries.
I already find the respec system is too forgiving at later stages and wouldn’t mind some more attrition to it at that point, though not too much more.
2 Likes
Yes, generally the most asked things in games are ‘make it easier’.
That’s a common notion.
Heck… even many many people hold it!
Will it be good for the game though?
Experience from other games have proven: No… no it doesn’t.
It reduces the time people engage with the game which lowers retention rate which lowers their income and which also lowers the amount of time spent per person in the game.
If as a dev you have the choice to provide a core audience of 100 players 1000 hours play time or allow 400 of them 100 hours of play time then the choice becomes clear that the first option already is superior. They’re more prone to pull new people in for the extended investment of time in the game as well as are more eager to pay extra money.
The 2 main sources of income for a long-running online-based game (even if it has offline) is the core audience which you want to switch out as little as possible as they make the safety net for income… as well as the ‘in and out’ group which comes, pays a bit of money and leaves again. The second are a fluctuating and risky endeavor though.
So besides all those points… even if a majority of people want something it never means it’s ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Specifically in terms of retention time it’s a really really weird concept that people generally tend to simplify things until they loose interest. There is never a ‘enough’.
This game provides specific hurdles, if they have specific meaning then answers around that need to be provided which take those into account.
If nobody brings some? Well, it won’t be changed. If that’s a dealbreaker then there’s other games of the genre out there which don’t do that stuff. If they’re all heeded though then before long you’ll have a auto-battler here rather then a proper ARPG.
And we do and also tend to provide the same argumentation as EHG does.
Then people go along with ‘but I want it easier!’ and we provide the reasons for the hurdles… because we don’t enjoy them either after all, we just accept they’re a necessity to make the whole package more enjoyable.
And then it goes on and on and on and nothing comes from it.
But how many take the actual effort to find solutions taking the limitations into account which have been mentioned around a bazillion times here in by now hundreds of threads? 1? 2?.
Those are the worthwhile ones and get completely buried between the low effort things simply regurgitated over and over without rhyme or reason.
Even if not it has no effect on the outcome.
A minority can ask for a fantastic chance which causes the game to gain traction even more.
A majority can provide a bad idea and cause the game to be left by those people even asking for it in the first place.
That’s why proper research in development methods of other games of the same genre are important… how you position your product on the market and what sort of target audience you have.
And yes, a decent chunk of the people complaining wash over from other ARPGs, some of them often more forgiving in specific areas and then asking for the same because all in all they enjoy the game and have simply gripes with aspects of it. That doesn’t change that those bits quite often are made that way with clear intent.
And simple let them have free reign in influencing the devs?
No thanks, the people which have come and found a place for years and enjoy those parts of the game and see it for the reason they’re made need to speak up and argument why it wouldn’t be good.
Point taken, frustration clearly comes through, but those people are the ones which also keep the game intact in the state which EHG provided it. And plainly spoken? They made one hell of a job, not even for a first-time game dev but overall, shaming the other companies which are massively larger and tackling the same genre with the quality of their product.
Because there’s meaning behind those systems.
In that case to hinder switching between AoE and single target builds during content freely.
Also it opens the question: ‘Why do you need to play with peak efficiency?’ This is a game, not your job where you’re paid by results. Enjoy the ride. It’s a marathon here, not a sprint.
This is the first fully viable argument!
The rate of gaining the skill points in early game after switching is a bit low. It’s been mentioned repeatedly and EHG is actively looking into that as well actually.
I would enjoy it to be changed since it does make it a bit bothersome for new players without providing any upside. Just a bit of a hurdle, but something that can be fleshed out for sure.
Absolutely! But do we need 8 different threads talking about the exact same thing per week without even a tad of variance?
Take the time, read through the whole thread… if it’s something which bothers you one can expect that time investment for bettering the game after all.
That’s actively clashing with what the devs do though.
So you’re basically running up a wall there. It’s one of their major design-points. Those need to be adhered until proper and very solid argumentation can be brought forth as to why changing them would be warranted.
It’s the whole game identity after all which lays on those foundations.
Which I 100% agree warrants a change!
A modicum of effort (not even 5 minutes) is warranted though. That’s the basic effort to expect.
If you’re not investing that amount of time but instead blindly write the same topic which has been talked about in the same way in 4 different threads at the top of the first page repeatedly over the last day even… then I don’t know why OP should warrant to be treated with respect beyond what his decisions where.
It’s been called out, it went towards being defensive lightly rather then saying ‘Ah sorry, my bad, I messed up’ and hence here we are.
People humor others generally when they admit to mistakes, it’s a very important thing to do… arguments are based on that premise entirely, lack of the ability makes it simply 2 camps yelling at each other rather then people working together to find a consensus which works for everyone (or as much as possible at least).
Missing it in good faith is fine. Doubling down and becoming defensive is not.
Yeah, true.
Reducing the gap related to experience acquisition between the different game stages would be a fairly good thing though. To have it feel more or less ‘same’ in terms of speed… or slowing a little bit down towards end-game.
It’s fine if respec in end-game takes a few minutes longer… but early game it’s a necessity to allow it for a player to settle into a comfort zone which then can be kept.
Let that be their problem rather then be a limitation of the game.
If it has no inherent downsides then it’s a viable thing to ask for… and actually a good thing since it allows the early game experience to be more ‘smooth’.
One doesn’t invalidate the other.
The new player experience is a very important one, LE does a great job there. Asking for it to be ignored is nonsensical and actually detrimental to the game.
1 Like
Because there are currently over 80,000 players in-game right now and yet throughout the Forum and subreddit I can only find a dozen threads regarding the subject.
Leads me to think that it’s a small minority through sheer statistics and percentages. Usually those unhappy with certain features or rules will make their opinion known, and yet it’s still an extremely small percentage of the average daily user-count.
If that isn’t a small minority, what is?
1 Like
This is not a viable methodology to asses a situation. It’s coming from a prejudice.
To actually know if it’s a minority or majority you would need to asses the percentile of people actively interacting with the forum and reddit and from which section of the playerbase they’re coming.
Do the come here if all’s fine?
Do they come here when simply frustrated?
Are they especially active or non-active with differences to their predispositions?
And much more.
Which is why one of the best methods is still a simple poll, in-game preferred while pushing itself annoyingly into the front. Second-best from whatever platform the most people access the game.
If we simply go by the perception then the loudest people are suddenly ‘the majority’… which leads to very very shit decisions at times.
1 Like