Reset Skill Tree?

It seems one of the biggest argument for a full respec is that "It will drive players away". Well,in my opinion its okay if the no full respec drives some people away. as much as big game companies try your never going to please everyone and when you do, you end up pleasing no one(*cough* D3 *cough*). Its better to stick with their design as it is, they set out to make a hardcore ARPG not a game that is everything to every one. sometimes its better not to compromise and stick to your guns. They don't have to have millions of players to be successful so i think the "it will drive players away argument" is a pretty weak one. D2 didn't seem to have trouble with it and didn't have a respec option for what 10 years, and still has thousands of players log on and play every day more than a decade after release.

So maybe this game isn't for you because you cant live without a full respec option. That is not a bad thing people have different tastes and this game is made to cater to a specific one, if you cant adjust it might just better to move on. We need to quit pretending every game has to meet everyone's specific expectations or its a failure. There is nothing wrong with catering to a specific type of gamer. I mean look at Eve online that's not a game for everyone yet its been a testament that you don't have to sacrifice hardcore mechanics in gameplay in order to be successful and make money which seems to be the prevailing threat pro respec'ers are making.

"

Nightprowler wrote:

Athoy I have to say I find most of your comments purposefully argumentative and it seems you just like hearing yourself 'talk'.

Sure, you are welcome to hold that point of view and I won't stop you. Reading up on the concept of an intellectual discussion is recommended, however.

Be careful in using personal attacks next time though.. you're almost borderline using an ad hominem logical fallacy (don't think you have yet in this case): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"

Nightprowler wrote:

You have no business calling someone out for not reading previous posts when you called me out on something I had previously addressed specifically

Now that's definitely a Tu quoque logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

About our conversation specfically: I did miss your qualifiers of ignoring the points you've made about respec if the game already has systems in place until you've pointed it out to me in the exchange where you said you've mentioned it three times. And I have never apologized at the point, so I'll apologize now. Sorry, my mistake. I promise I did realize it once you said it the very last exchange though and thus didn't argue with you any further simply because I "like hearing myself talk", for instance. It's mainly because you're right about what you said and there was nothing further to discuss/no point in doing so. If only I hadn't found it unnecessary to apologize to slow down the thread, it would've been much more clear that I did acknowledge missing your position's qualifiers. Again, I apologize and hope you forgive me. If I am wrong about something, I always admit it when brought to my attention. Sometimes it just seemed unnecessary to stop the thread and say, "You're right." and have nothing constructive to add. Notice how in most threads, if a certain poster made a mistake/gave out wrong information and another poster corrects him/her, that's the end of the conversation. The first poster don't always go back and say "Haha, lolz. My mistake!" although sometimes they do.

Now notice how the poster I replied to is still harping on respec options even though all his points have been largely refuted by many others (please correct me if you think I am wrong). Besides the fact that all his arguments are so absurdly tenuous/weak, he went in as far as to necro this thread after it died down 5 days later as if all of what was previously said (at least all that he disagrees with) from previous posters have never been said. How ridiculous. It's nonconstructive and the way he condescendingly dismisses people's arguments based on whether they're beta members or not (instead of the actual merits of the arguments) can be a way of segregating the community as it gives off the bad impression (whether intentional or not) that non-beta members don't know squat about the game and shouldn't really have much say in the game's feedback, development, or even contribute their ideas/opinions to the forums.

Instead we should strive to listen to the whole community with an open mind and decide whether they actually make valid points or not (based upon whether their positions have merits by analyzing the arguments' reason, logic, and/or evidence used in supporting them... or if they're simply trolling, haha). For example, if a non-beta member made a thread/post about how the current mechanics of evasion is very weak and should be fixed at some point, I would wholeheartedly agree and wouldn't comment about how he/she hasn't played the game yet, doesn't know enough about the game to talk about it, or is making wild speculations and thus his/her arguments are automatically considered null and void. Does that make sense a bit (apologies if it's unclear)?

"

Nightprowler wrote:

Where are all your facts for your side of the argument other than just falling back on 'this is how the game is currently designed stop being entitled'?

First of all, one of the most confusing concepts in logic is that (surprisingly) not all claims have empirical evidence to back it up (i.e. not all claims are objective nor do we have all the information all the time). That's why I was very careful to say claims should be backed up by reason, logic, and/or evidence (Notice it's not simply worded "and evidence," because otherwise one would be making the incorrect assumption that supporting evidence is available for every case/claim/argument, which is not true). However, that doesn't mean that certain claims cannot be more likely to be correct than other claims based upon the cogent reasons and sound logic (i.e. 2 out of the 3) of said claims compared to others, despite the lack of empirical evidence. I pointed out specific claims of the poster I replied to that he/she has absolutely no way of knowing, are irrational and unfair to assume, and cannot be backed up. That's the difference.

Secondly, I think you might have perhaps misquoted me because I don't think I've ever said, "this is how the game is currently designed stop being entitled." I have implied that we should not feel entitled to get free respecs (or anything in the game without putting in any effort on our part, for that matter) given that we already have systems in place to mitigate mistakes (which you seemed to agree with), but I don't think I've ever implied that this is how the current game is, end of story. Not only would that be counter-productive, it would also be a fallacy called appeal to tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition).

Lastly, sure I'd be more than happy to back up my positions/claims, if you'd like me to. I spent a good deal of time painstakingly explaining all my positions and felt I've already done so adequately though =/ and hence the very long posts (apologies about the length by the way, but the details/finer points are important), but I can try to elaborate more/better if it's necessary. Just let me know which specific posts/sentences you're referring to (and please quote me correctly this time) and don't make blanket statements about my positions and how they're unsubstantiated. Notice how I pointed out specifically to the poster which of his unsubstantiated claims I was referring to in the very best attempt to be fair and not make blanket statements? It'll probably be better to do all this via PM though because this thread is becoming unnecessarily long and off-topic.
Sorry mods =/

I hope I've been fair to you and your points in this post, Nightprowler. I can see where you're coming from and understand why you felt the way you felt about my posts in this thread.

I have read the previous posts. I apologize if I was out of state/away from PoE for a few days and that delayed a response.

My point was, is, and has always been, that this is Beta. We are supposed to work through ALL of the mechanics. This would be the best time to test a SINGLE respec at the end of ACT II, to be used prior to Cruel difficulty.

Yes, I do believe that active players have a greater say. We are playing the game. Sorry if that seems emotional. To me, it seems a bit matter of fact.

Still, have your fun. I hope Med school is proceeding well. God save the Queen and all.

TTFN

"

Argyx wrote:

I have read the previous posts. I apologize if I was out of state/away from PoE for a few days and that delayed a response.

My point was, is, and has always been, that this is Beta. We are supposed to work through ALL of the mechanics. This would be the best time to test a SINGLE respec at the end of ACT II, to be used prior to Cruel difficulty.

Yes, I do believe that active players have a greater say. We are playing the game. Sorry if that seems emotional. To me, it seems a bit matter of fact.

Still, have your fun. I hope Med school is proceeding well. God save the Queen and all.

TTFN

Thanks for your good, kind wishes! Hope to see you in game in a couple of months when Open Beta starts, if not sooner! :)

Edit: In case you guys would like to read more about previous relevant discussions on similar issues here are some threads from the past -

http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2379/highlight/

http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/38232

Just started on closed beta a few weeks ago, and I found the skill tree pretty overwhelming at first. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a skill tree that requires some planning and forethought. However, a big part of the fun for me is learning by doing. If I wanted to bury my head in 3 hours of instructions before I do anything, it starts to sound more like work (and in fact, it is pretty much my job). I know that is probably fun for some of you, but not all of us are wired that way.

As soon as I payed for beta access, the first thing I wanted to do was get in there and play, so I did. After a few levels (and after I figured out the respec points I got from quests only repec'd one point...), I definitely felt a sense of permanence from the choices I was making. I also felt like my time played and levels, was a waste of time. The few friends / family that I talked into trying beta all felt the same way.

Obviously I like the game enough to recruit people to play it along with me. It seems like there should be some kind of compromise here. Maybe a one time full respec per difficulty completed? Once a year? Even EVE, the game with one of the steepest learning curves I can think of, lets you remap once a year. Just my 2 cents...

"

MethodAnarchy wrote:

Obviously I like the game enough to recruit people to play it along with me. It seems like there should be some kind of compromise here. Maybe a one time full respec per difficulty completed? Once a year? Even EVE, the game with one of the steepest learning curves I can think of, lets you remap once a year. Just my 2 cents...

Just curious, never played EVE before and know nothing about it so please forgive my ignorance. But does EVE also have systems in place (similar to quest respec points and Orbs of Regrets) where they get to respec part of (and if you're willing to put in the time to farm, all of) the attributes/skill tree/whatever it is that EVE uses or is it more like in D2 where your choices are permanent?

My god this thread is still alive. We should get official response on this matter and close this, because we all know that new players dont like no respec and old players like it. I think that GGG also likes it and that is why we dont have full respec in game.

GGG doesn't like the idea of anytime Full Respec. I agree with that. There is a world of options between None and Anytime though, and now would be the time to test that. With ACTUAL play rather than theory craft.

Again, it comes down to how a low level (~30/End of Act II) respec is an exploit or will ruin the game. I simply don't think this is the case, and would like to test in in Beta.

Micro-pay survives on loyalty. Forced re-rolling doesn't build loyalty, especially in a game you are going to play through, and let me repeat this, FOUR TIMES per character to max that character. What builds loyalty is sucking players into a number of key characters and having them customize those characters.

Also, I encourage you to check out historical micro-pay games to see what works (LoL anyone?) and what doesn't. Consider Lego's entry. A total care bear game that should have been a money making machine. The biggest drain was players never leaving the free zone though. Basically, players continually re-rolling!

I am very aware there's no "free zone" in PoE, but think about this factor a bit. Think about how companies make money off of long term loyalty. Imagine if apple announced iPhones every two days. That's what a forced reroll is versus a longer term strategy.

...also, about to fly out again for a week. Apologies if I reply back in a number of days. I'll be on a beach, with a hot wife, drinking too much :P

Have not read the entire thread but I just have to say that one of the things that made diablo 3 so friggin boring was the lack meaningfull choices.
I love that in PoE your choices matter. You can respec enough to adjust the build you have made slowly over time but you cannot jsut change spec depending on the enemies you are facing.

The whole respec once a month idea seems weird to me. Why dont you just start a new char and try a different build?
It takes what 2-3 hours to reach lvl 20-30?
And you will still get useable loot in the form of orbs.
One of the main selling points of this game is the ability to make vastly different character builds.

On another note most people getting stuck before reaching endgame most likely have a weak gem setup or have ignored any kind of defence in the passive tree.

My advice to newcommers would be to go marauder 2 hander with alot of defensive talents. An easy way to learn the game and not that hard to play.

"

Argyx wrote:

GGG doesn't like the idea of anytime Full Respec. I agree with that. There is a world of options between None and Anytime though, and now would be the time to test that.

You're right, there are options between None and Anytime. The current solution is respec points from quests and Orbs of Regret. It's just not completely cheap/free/handed to us in a silver platter, that's all.

"

Argyx wrote:

Again, it comes down to how a low level (~30/End of Act II) respec is an exploit or will ruin the game. I simply don't think this is the case, and would like to test in in Beta.

You've made this point so many times, and I am confused as to why. Who in this whole thread is continually saying that a respec will be an exploit? It's already been mentioned that it's a very minor point. Of all the issues you can address (e.g. lack of reward for making good/innovative builds via planning, lack of character permanence, and numerous others), it seems as if you're going the victim route about how implementing a rather unnecessary solution to a problem we already have a solution to is not an exploit. Strawman much?

What about the part where there are actually not many good reasons for implementing such a respec option, especially since the game already has other respec options in place. It's not a traditional type of respec option, but a respec option, nonetheless.

"

Argyx wrote:

Micro-pay survives on loyalty. Forced re-rolling doesn't build loyalty, especially in a game you are going to play through, and let me repeat this, FOUR TIMES per character to max that character. What builds loyalty is sucking players into a number of key characters and having them customize those characters

Here's the part where you start stating speculations as facts again. "Forced re-rolling doesn't build loyalty, especially in a game you are going to play through,... What builds loyalty is sucking players into a number of key characters and having them customize those characters." How do you know that? How can anybody know that? Proof? D2 is a type of game where there was "forced re-rolling," did that game garner loyal fans?

"

Argyx wrote:

Also, I encourage you to check out historical micro-pay games to see what works (LoL anyone?) and what doesn't. Consider Lego's entry. A total care bear game that should have been a money making machine. The biggest drain was players never leaving the free zone though. Basically, players continually re-rolling!

I am very aware there's no "free zone" in PoE, but think about this factor a bit. Think about how companies make money off of long term loyalty. Imagine if apple announced iPhones every two days. That's what a forced reroll is versus a longer term strategy.

It's certainly wise for GGG to keep in mind the best way of becoming successful with ethical microtransactions as their business model. However, when designing a good game, developers would probably be wise not to focus on how to make the most amount of $$/revenue as a design philosophy. They should instead be focuses on actually making a good game that's fun for players. This will likely (although I admit I have no direct evidence and am not stating this as fact and hence admit that I can be very wrong) garner them more $$ and loyal fans in the long run. Consumers (and gamers are consumers of games) aren't stupid. If there's a good product, they'll buy it/pay for it and if GGG makes a great game, they'll be able to make a good profit at the end of the day. On the other hand, if the game product had the design of money-making as their top priority instead of good gameplay, it tends to show and the consequences might not be good. Look at D2 vs D3 (That Other Game) as a case study.

Edit: Sorry, I know I've said previously that I won't be posting anymore on this thread, but accusations made against my replies and also such profound ignorance seen throughout this thread can be frustrating. I got carried away, forgot this isn't real life. It's the internet and I should just not give a damn.