I think the current system could do with a change.
1: When you do a full respec of your choosen skill or change it for a new one you should get back the same amount of points you have already earned for the new or existing one.
Example - I remove 20 points from Rive with the unlearn skill option I should then have 20 points ready to go when I change skills.
2: I don’t really think the +skills on items removal/re-add is consistant or works as intended as I have reported this in game before when testing with Hammer Throw specifically but have noticed with other skills. This can also weirdly lead you to be down a point or 2 and end up having to re-earn them the same was you do in example 1. I know there is a system in place as it’s repeatedly pointed out by a specific casual player on these forums but it actually doesn’t work properly.
Respec - points should be fully re-allocated upon changing skills for a respec / gold cost can stay that is the norm for games but regaining the points is stupid.
There might have been past reason to have this system in place but now with the current builds, skills and power creep there isn’t. None of the meta’s require respec’ing for a boss or echoes. It’s not just top meta’s its a shit ton of builds that are all capable of killing uber and farming high level corruption.
Fuckit, since they put in mastery respec they might as well carry on down that slippery slope & go full D3/4 & have full instant respecs whenever wherever. “Build permanence”, identity & choices mattering clearly aren’t important (anymore).
It does, the only thing that doesn’t work about it is that the nodes that had points removed aren’t highlighted anymore (apparently they are offline, quite why this is a difference I don’t know). As has been explained an uncountably large number of times (this is sarcasm btw), the nodes that have their points removed are random(ish) such that the tree isn’t broken & some other parameters which I can’t remember.
That wasn’t related to the reasons, which have also been stated an uncountably large number of times (also sarcasm).
And the thing here is Raxx has 426k subs man so if he’s saying a lot of people have this issue or dont like it then its not just 1 or 2 lol, he gets a ton of views on his videos but they won’t even take that into consideration when it comes to their game and how to attract players. They should (the devs/Judd) ask him and Kripp and Darth, “hey come play S5 and stream it for us” (probably nicer than that) this game could be so much more popular.
Let’s be realistic, nicer than that would have to be something like, “Hey, here is a $100,000 cheque, please stream our game and get your sheep, errr we mean followers, to come and play it.”
Not even saying that’s a bad thing, this is how the world rolls.
Well if their job is playing a game to make money then it’s no different to sponsored posts on instagram by companies via “influencers” - you want audience reach so pay them a bit, rather they spend a few bucks for a bunch of players than keep losing players every single league until the peak player count on day one of a new season is 0.
This is what is called a ‘sponsored stream’ and streamers have going rates for that.
So yes.
But EHG cannot afford the largest ones available which would show a significant interest, like for example CohhCarnage, the rates those people ask for a sponsored stream are very very high given their reach.
As for the initial post:
Yes, full recovery of points should be the norm. And unlike @Llama8 states this is not a inherent slippery slope, it has options to keep it sensible. First, rising respec costs the higher progressed you are. Skills don’t have any attached cost, which needs to be attached.
And secondly basing the cost on a system which provides a reliable rough estimate of how much you get of said resource in a specific timeframe. Which EHG utterly demolished with Gold and MG, but that’s a separate issue, hence we need to ignore the existence of the mess that MG as a system in itself is and go from the core premise.
This ensures that there is flexibility but no ‘willy nilly’ changes non-stop which counter the expected stability of a character identity. This needs a proper handling… and EHG has not shown proper handling of anything major since a good while sadly.
It works as intended but is a shitshow anyway. Convoluted and unintuitive. Hence it asks for exchanging it anyway.
And the reasons for the existence never changed, but the solutions and magnitude of effect it has definitely has. This hence needs a severe re-evaluation, since a long while by now.
There’s definitely a relatively famous streamer (of arpgs) who’s an employee of EHG.
Sorry, I was thinking of Karv, not Kripp, though apparently he’s not streamed in a while?
So asking to make things easier that have already been made easier isn’t a slippery slope? What would you call it?
Which people would then ask to be nerfed/be made even moar easierer! Not in a slope-y fashion though. Any existing cost or friction will always be asked by some fraction of a playerbase to be removed or reduced until it’s at the D3/4 level of complexity.
And that’s a slippery-slope fallacy. To declare something will inherently reach the extreme end-point is not causal with it actually doing so.
Everything is ‘a slippery slope’ towards a direction of extremes. The question solely stays with prevalence for that happening as well as the reasons to why it would.
Your follow-up is the same fallacy. It is the same.
Oh, this is intended though? If I take off my +2 amulet and apply the points again after putting it on into something else… and then remove the helmet again then other points will be removed with a high chance.
You still didn’t get what the exact situation is I’m talking about and hence take it wrongly.
Still not what you think I’m talking about. Sorry to say it… but I know a bit better what I try to say then you do unless you’re a mind reader.
I’m only fractionally responsible for the application of the ‘four-sides model’ at work.
But they’ve already done it. The request to get rid of the need to re-level your gems is people asking for it to be made even easier than it was. Back when I started playing LE, there were no minimum skill levels, no accelerated xp & higher xp required to hit higher levels. So how is it a fallacy if people are actually doing it?
Please, for the love of all that’s good and holy read what I’ve said.
If you put the points back into the same nodes that they were in before (ie, arriving back to the same number of points in the same nodes) then remove the gear again, the points removed will be from the same nodes as they were earlier. This is what Donzpie (& you) said wasn’t happening.
Maybe you’re translating it “wrongly” then.
I mean, you’re responsible for 3 out of 4 parts of that as the (alleged) communicator & 1/2 responsible for the other one, so you’re responsible for 87.5% of the failure to explain something.
What you’re talking about is making a existing system more lenient.
What I’m talking about is exchanging it to a better functioning system. Those are two different things.
Slippery slope arguments hence don’t even apply in the first place. Secondary, the ultimate possible extreme end-result provided as a possible outcome is in itself the slippery slope fallacy. Always upholds unless proven that the outcome is very likely, not that it’s just a possibility.
I do, I just decide not to engage in the wrangling of words needlessly, so I simply stay in the exact lane I started.
Have fun with the frustration or act according to stay within the framework of the discussion.
Also once more you’re putting words in my mouth which I didn’t say. That’s a really bad habit when I’ve already rectified it earlier what was meant. Stay in lane as mentioned or suffer from having a frustrating argument, it’s that simple. I’m not playing those word-games anymore with you.
Nope, it’s in this case on your side, very very sure. But if you accept that or stay stubborn about it is your choice.
Learn the model instead of sharing false ideas. This is a factually false statement. You can screw off with that if it was intentional, and if it wasn’t then re-learn the model.
