Skill tree: Easy way to move passive points

"

The whole point of the way the respec currently works is to allow players to make small changes easily, while making massive changes very hard to do.
This suggestion remains in this kind of mentality : switching paths to a part of the tree is a minor change done to optimize the build rather than fundamentally change it. By allowing this kind of thing, GGG would make it easier to spend your points as you level up, thus making the game more comfortable, while allowing the players to more easily optimize their build during end-game, when it is needed.

What's wrong with that?!?

I've already said what is wrong with that the game literally gives you ways to do what he wants right now.

You should pay the price to change your tree, thats literally why GGG has passive respec quest as well as currency in game to do it.

"

"

goetzjam wrote:

I've already said what is wrong with that the game literally gives you ways to do what he wants right now.

You should pay the price to change your tree, thats literally why GGG has passive respec quest as well as currency in game to do it.

This doesn't answer my question. Currently having thing A doesn't make thing B wrong.

People already do that, they level as something similar or around what they want to do endgame and use quest and regrets to change endgame. I've made example like RF type builds do that.

What is wrong with making it cheaper or free?

It basically completely removes the purpose of the quest and the economy surrounding the tax certain players spend on doing such things. While it could be nice to have a smoother leveling experience by not worrying about allocating points incorrectly it doesn't fit the whole idea of the game, especially when they have orbs that allow for you to do it.

Someone tried to make an argument about charging as an MTX for full tree respec, if you follow your logic the only difference would be one GGG gives for free and other other GGG charges real money.

"

You and OP are completely ignoring the fact the game gives you passive respect points thru optional and non optional quest, OP is literally complaining about 1 wasted respect point. I cannot begin to explain why this doesn't need to be discussed because of it.

Then please do not explain it, because I am not ignoring the fact that you get respec points. That's never been the issue of what I have been talking about. What I have been talking about are scenarios where wanting to move around several points in the tree should cost that amount of respec points and not having to take points from elsewhere to first make a new path before the old one can be removed. It's cumbersome, unnecessary, and not needed when what the goal of someone wanting to do that is to move a few points around (usually attribute nodes) to path a different way and spend the same amount of points to do so. Maybe gain one or two extra passives to place elsewhere, but one to two points are hardly anything big in the grand scheme of things. It's simply a matter of having an even 1:1 ratio of points reclaimed to then points redistributed and cutting out the unnecessary 'expenses'.

Doesn't matter how many passive respec points the devs give you, the point about having to spend more than what should logically be done for a simple point move in the scenario I gave and what the OP gave is unneeded.

"

You say its fine people can avoid spending "tax" regret points to change from a 2 handed build to an RF build simply because those life\regen nodes would be wasted if they got those for leveling instead of following this leveling path, but that is the exact reason the game gives you respec as quest rewards and drops orbs to change it.

I'm not saying it's 'fine' at all. I'm saying that it's illogical to take those points in advance unless you're already well-versed in the tree and mechanics of the game, and you have the gear to transition into such a build change. If you're leveling without twink gear (which I stated many new players and fresh league starters will be doing) then you will not waste those points into life regen and burning damage and other nodes that you need for RF and won't help as you're progressing as a 2H build. And even with the aforementioned passive points you get from questing, you're still going to have unspec 2H damage nodes that you took, and possibly even during the leveling process you might have used some to switch from one weapon type to another because, again, RNG decided to give you a far better 2H Mace than the 2H axe you're currently using, etc, etc. That can mean even more points needed to ensure a smoother leveling process even before you transition from 2H to RF. Nevermind the fact that you'll be switching out clusters of nodes/notables in the transition from 2H to RF and that's going to cost a lot more in the long run than just with my example of switch over 5 points from one starting path to another.

It can't be looked at in a vacuum, which is what I was going for in my examples and showing you and others that multiple factors exist and it's not as cut and dry as it might appear to be. If you have the gear, currency and experience necessary to where you can take those 'inefficient at the time' nodes to plan ahead for RF, then by all means do so, but understand that there are plenty of scenarios where that is not a good idea, and having to worry about a few less unneeded respec hoops to jump through is not a bad thing when it comes to how many points you need.

"

If you don't think this matters then GGG should just give everyone free tree respecs whenever they want, while his situation isn't as dramatic it does open up the ability to benefit from a completely different tree and change it at a later point for a lessor cost.

Goetz...come on...don't resort to petty hyperbole and slippery slope here...you can do much better than that. I do think it matters and GGG should not give out free respecs...builds should come with investment and they do, and mistakes should be punished, but only so far. What I am simply saying is that the respeccing process has this particular thing that we've been discussing is something that should be addressed. By all means if a player makes a bad build then he/she will aptly get pounded by the game's mechanics because they made bad decisions and then make the choice of either quitting the game (worst case scenario), restart a new character using the knowledge they've obtained from their mistakes and other advice, or try and fix their character.

However, what I have said and what I believe the OP is saying is none of the above. All that I want to see is a way to be able to make path/point respeccing a bit easier and to have a more 1:1 matching cost without needing to be overly cumbersome and wasting unnecessary respec points for the same thing. You believe it will lead to exploits and I disagree with you there, and do not think it's going to cause the great issues that you've presented. Nor do I believe that simply being allowed to respec out of nodes like I presented in my example when RNG and other factors are involved is going to make respeccing so easy that 'GGG should just give everyone free tree respecs whenever they want', because that's again going down the hyperbolic/slippery slope path. There's still going to be investment needed, all this is doing is saving some time and hassle and costs that don't need to be paid when all one wants to do is switch a few nodes to reconnect a path and maybe gain 1-3 damage boost nodes at best, which in the grand scheme of passive tree construction and gearing up is min/max territory.

I'll just agree to disagree with OP and your suggestion to make the tree somehow able to respec 1 for 1 while breaking part of the tree in the process.

I understand people make mistakes, but people also purposely do things like OP has done in order to benefit from things they need AT THE TIME. Why on earth should it be cheaper to respec points you've used in the past to path simply because you feel it should be? You took advantage of the points when it was given to you to path in a way you thought was right, only later to change your mind?

Its not the end of the world to spent an extra regret or two to fix this, he should feel lucky that is all it cost him. I had a build in the past that had to spend 5+ EXTRA to change pathing, do you think I will make the same mistake in the future? Probably not or at least I will plan better and save regrets just in case.

Trying to use logic that the 1 for 1 trade should always be equal is the problem you and OP have, again you completely ignore benefiting from using said points before hand, the premium to changing it now is spending more to change.

"

silumit wrote:

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

But, with this 3 prereserved "additional" passive points, its STILL just 3 nodes to respec for 3 nodes to respec. The only issue is to 'invest' the next three levels (or bonus skillpoints) prior to doing the respec itself - just close the gap.

Sure, this is so easy to do at high levels...

At high levels you should have already planned for optimizing your tree. Even the OP would not have a problem if he wouldn't have spent his last 3 points. He chose the immediate gratification of using those points right away instead of making the alternate path, which after completing he would only need 3 respec points to free up the reduntant nodes.

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

silumit wrote:

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

But, with this 3 prereserved "additional" passive points, its STILL just 3 nodes to respec for 3 nodes to respec. The only issue is to 'invest' the next three levels (or bonus skillpoints) prior to doing the respec itself - just close the gap.

Sure, this is so easy to do at high levels...

At high levels you should have already planned for optimizing your tree. Even the OP would not have a problem if he wouldn't have spent his last 3 points. He chose the immediate gratification of using those points right away instead of making the alternate path, which after completing he would only need 3 respec points to free up the reduntant nodes.

He actually only need 1 point in order to not be forced into spending extra, but nope its a lack of foresight from GGG on this clearly its intended to work as it is now.

"

goetzjam wrote:

this clearly its intended to work as it is now.

FFS, we all know this is how it works now. But we don't know for sure that this behaviour in this situation is what was intended. Maybe it was just an oversight on devs' side. They are human too.