Not really, considering that in Grim Dawn you cannot respec your second class
There is - you cannot have a Sentinel with Judgement and Anomaly in the same skill bar, just as you cannot access the end of two mastery skill trees in the same character. In fact, itās a rather big difference.
You do realize, I hope, that slippery slope is the name of a fallacy, right? Because this kind of reasoning is closer to fearmongering than to the truth.
In fact, itās a fallacy easily twisted around - you could use many of the arguments against Mastery respec to be against skill respec, which is something already in the game. Since you are against Mastery respec, does this mean you think EHG was wrong when they allowed skill respecs?
In GD you canāt respec either of your masteries. LE only has one and you couldnāt respec that either.
GD doesnāt have classes, only mastery combinations.
I donāt know about other people, but me personally, yes. I wish respec was much more strict than it is now. That it required more than 10 minutes to switch a build.
I donāt even want it to take as long as it would to level a new character. Just long enough that it doesnāt feel bad if I want to make a new character in comparison to just respeccing.
I wish respec in LE was more like in D2, where you have 3 respecs (this could include mastery or you could have 3 separate ones for it) and then you have to farm a lot if you want further respecs.
Actually, it only becomes a fallacy if the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects, which is not true here, since there are people already requesting gear/build loadouts, simply because it doesnāt make sense to allow a full mastery respec but not to provide loadouts for quickly swapping (and I agree with that reasoning, thats why we are against EHG taking that first step, which is allowing mastery respec in the first place.)
This is not up to debateā¦ Allowing this WILL make several things change in the long run, as the entire game was always designed and balanced around Masteries being lockedā¦ You gotta do better to counter that argument other than just calling it a fallacy.
Edit: this is all very weirdā¦ we have Mike now questioning people who disagree with this here on their official forums āwhatās the benefit of masteries being lockedā, while this was THEIR philosophy from the beginning. We didnāt make the gameā¦ they did, and we liked how they did it.
On the other hand, Iāve never ever seen a Devās response to any of the very few posts requesting for mastery respec, questioning why would it be good to change one of the chore philosophies of their gameā¦ Weird huh.
Oh, so youāre the kind of debater that calls out āfallaciesā without caring to demonstrate how it would be a fallacy? Even after being proved wrong?
Again, this is not up to debate, even if youāre trying really hard to argue just becauseā¦
This already exists, and Iām gonna upvote every feedback post I see requesting this, because it makes sense to have loadouts in a full-free-respec system, even if Iām not willing to use it at all.
Make the loadout cost the amount it would take to do it manually (full cost for a full Respec). Let the players ārecordā the skill points spent over minimum when saving the loadout, that way when you change loadout youāll start with all skills at the minimum level and theyāll auto-specialize as they level up based on the recorded order. Alternatively, the system could just automatically allocate the points as they come in until the skill tree is filled out.
Itās probably complicated to actually implement, but the concept is relatively simple. Add in the ability to pull gear to and from the stash when changing loadouts (or create something like FFXIVās Armory Chest that stores gear from loadouts) so the gear can change too.
Yes, that would help to facilitate a function that we arenāt attempting to promote. Itās like the Faction swapping. When we announced it, there was a worry that people would be switching back and forth like crazy. I think this is similar. We arenāt trying to promote frequent switching but want to allow āun-brickingā a character.
Iām not saying that a loadout system is impossible to do in the future but itās not an obvious or necessary follow-up to adding an option to respec your mastery.
The problem that I see from an outsiders perspective is that allowing unlimited and effectively free Mastery Respecs absolutely promotes frequent switching and there are options that prevent frequent switching while still allowing characters to be unbricked. A level limit, a limited quest reward, and I suggested earlier in this thread to bring back the Shades mission we used to have but turning it into a 4th dungeon where you pick the mastery youāre wanting to switch to and you enter the void where you fight countless shades of timelines lost where they have base class skills for the weaker enemies and stronger enemies may be any of the three masterirs but only use one or two of the mastery skills, while the final boss would be the iteration of your character that mastered the Mastery youāve chosen so you have to fight to take their place. This would prevent frequent switching while also being an interesting and thematic approach to changing your Mastery while also preventing characters from being bricked. Have it scale to your characters level and youāre good to go.
Iām going to push back on them being effectively free and even if they were, it wouldnāt āabsolutely promote frequent switchingā. It could under the right circumstances but I donāt think we have those. I think the premise of the argument is on very shaky ground.
As I said previously, if it does end up being a problem, we are prepared to make adjustments as we always are. We will be paying close attention to feedback and adjust accordingly if necessary.
Well, as long as you all continue to monitor it thatās all we can ask for now that itās a done deal. I do wish there was a community poll, especially given than 4 days before the announcement you were still saying it was never going to happen lol. I know you already addressed that though.
I agree with this bit.
As I explained in another thread, I donāt really care about mastery respec.
My problem is that I donāt understand their design philosophy anymore, if there is still one.
Fair enough, but why do you think that a gold cost is an effective deterent to frequent switching? Is there much of a difference between gold balances for MG characters & CoF characters (& Iām aware that this could be difficult to see given gold is shared between them in modes where there are both on an account)? Iād assume there would be which would make it difficult to balance the respec cost to be an effective deterent for both MG & CoF.
I donāt really see how you can balance that. Itās either a low cost that CoF players donāt mind (like the passive respec) but that will open the way to being able to respec mastery 20 times a day, or itās a higher cost that will deter CoF players but sitll allow MG players to respec 5 times a day.
Still, while Iām generally disappointed with this change, I guess thereās no point in further discussing it. Points for both sides have been made, Mike (and the rest of the team, I assume) are very aware of this issue and EHG does have a knack for delivering things in a way that tends to please most people.
So I guess Iāll wait for the actual details of this before continuing this discussion. I will give EHG the benefit of the doubt for now, albeit with some trepidation.
Iāve never actually been too sure about how that works. I think so, but itās not very intuitive. And it probably has some limitations, because I do see that build guides will often tell you to join one or the other, otherwise they would just tell you to join one in one difficulty and the other in another.
Probably because when you join one you gain reputation with that faction, but lose reputation with the opposing one. So I assume you canāt really max both, even if you unlock them both in different difficulties.
But I assume that works fine for the smith, though.
You can pick a different option in the lower difficulty but I canāt remember how that affects what they can craft for a high level character is a lower level difficulty.
I think you will shoot yourself in the foot when you implement a mastery respec first and then observe what is happening. Because going back from something like this will cause more outrage. Taking something away from people that you granted them earlier always will feel worse than slowly adjusting the limitations/stipulations.
From the sound of it you donāt have any plans to make mastery respec a hurdle, so I assume it will be some neglectable gold cost and thatās it.
I really think you should start the other way around and give it some crazy stipulations and then based on feedback lower them.
I really despise this approach of going from 0 to 100 in a singular patch, whiel the previous 6 years it was always pushed back on.
This is not the EHG that I knwo from all the previous patch cycles, where you always found a very good middleground between the two camps. (e.g. shard vaccum instead of auto-loot, minimum respec levels + catchup instead of no penalty, MG/CoF to make both sides of the spectrum happy).
Now this mastery respec seems to have no middleground it simply changed from nope to yes.
I think they have shifted their stances because of pressure of loud camps.
Which isnt exactly that bad persay, but I view abby as a prime example.
The end game now has a āpinnacleā boss, but 1.1 still felt meh cause there wasnt that much content other then abby.
To me the content pipeline should be polish(balance/finishing class skills/graphical updates etc) ā Monolith rework/content filling ā pinnacle boss
But they jumped right to pinnacle boss, because certain camps of players were vocally upset about how there was no āfinal build checkmarkā or whatever. So abby dropped in an otherwise somewhat barren end game. Most arpgs dont get their final boss before the end game has been fleshed out right? Every arpg ive played adds the final boss after they have set the tone/pacing of the game. Shaper wasnt in 1.0 poe.
it feels insane to me that for months and months since 1.0 and 1.1 the game has had unbalanced classes unchanged for literally 4+ years in many cases with missing skills, old ugly effects, old passive trees etc. How are we adding super end game bosses when the mid game is flat, and some character archetypes literally have 4 year old skill trees and passive trees? That seems so backwards to meā¦
But with 1.0 they got tons of General ARPG players, and now need to compete with other titles, if the other titles have mastery respec(PoE) and pinnacle bosses(PoE) then so must LE.
I just wanted to correct your use of āpersayā and Iām trying to find a way to communicate that Iām not doing this to be pedantic or a grammar nazi, but rather in an informative way, mostly because I know itās not an english term and it felt odd reading it that way.
I hope this suffices but if you take it wrongly or dislike it, I apologize in advance.
Anyway, the correct spelling is āper seā and it comes from latin. It literally translates as āby itselfā.
