Time Capsule from PoE Closed Beta -- a classic PoE vs D3 thread circa 2012

"

ManiaCCC wrote:

"

I'd rather have a game that caters to my tastes and supports my preferred play style.

Exactly..this is the problem with current generation of "hardcore" players.

games have tons of boundaries already. And in most cases..these boundaries are for good of the game..(like not putting First person view to Diablo or something like that) But boundaries which are just limiting fun to others ..while not providing any benefits are just bad.. and hindered respec system is one of these systems.. this limitations are not creating anything what is not here already.. With or without respec system, hardcore crowd can enjoy the game in exact same form. But for some reasons, they are not happy, until everyone has to play in their way.

Respec system is in Diablo 2 because players were asking for it for years. Since 2004, there were non-stop discussion about respec system in Diablo 2 ... Yea, players developed workaround ... rushing to level 85 in one day... which was tedious, boring and stupidly mandatory .. but that was their response to lack of respec system. How awesome..right?

But limiting respecs is a necessary boundary. If it isn't there, respeccing becomes a gameplay mechanic.

Let's take an example:

In Vanilla WoW, it was mandatory in high-end raids to have every elixir and buff reagent that was beneficial for your class up at all times for maximum proficiency. Because there was no limit on how many elixirs you could have up, this behaviour then forced the developers to balance encounters around a fully buffed up character.
Which made it even more mandatory to always be completely buffed up (because now you were effectively not buffing up by elixirs, but gimping yourself when not using them).

Blizzard's solution to this problem? They imposed limitations on elixirs. You can have only one offensive and one defensive elixir up at any time. Or one (potent) flask.


In this line of reasoning: When respecs are free and unlimited, Blizzard has to take them into account when designing content, because doing otherwise would make players too strong (because they can build builds around any situation) and the content too easy. And then they're integral part of the gameplay.

Having a chosen "character path" in an RPG is not a boundary, in my book. It's more of a staple of RPGs: I play a role. This role is defined by its boundaries, and not the lack thereof.


But, as I said: Different kinds of gamers have different preferences. You're catered to by Diablo III. I'm catered to by PoE. Where's the problem? I like that there's a game for both positions. I would have loved if Diablo III were the game for me, simply because Diablo has had a place in my gamer's heart for over 15 years now.
But PoE is shaping up nicely (if they get rid of the dependency on charges, I hate that mechanic), so I really don't get why you're trying to tell me that more freedom is always better. It isn't
And that's coming from the person that posted the "Quake Done today" link earlier, which kind of frankly states that nowadays, there are too many restrictions in games. And I agree. There is too much hand-holding. And not enough freedom. But respecs do -in my mind- not fall into the category of "desirable freedom".



edit: @Tagek: They require you to either (as far as I'm aware) have a key to SC2 or an active subscription to WoW. I've registered Diablo, Diablo II, StarCraft, and the x-pacs - and when my WoW sub is not active, I can't post on Blizzard forums.

"

Avireyn wrote:

"

ManiaCCC wrote:

"

I'd rather have a game that caters to my tastes and supports my preferred play style.

Exactly..this is the problem with current generation of "hardcore" players.

games have tons of boundaries already. And in most cases..these boundaries are for good of the game..(like not putting First person view to Diablo or something like that) But boundaries which are just limiting fun to others ..while not providing any benefits are just bad.. and hindered respec system is one of these systems.. this limitations are not creating anything what is not here already.. With or without respec system, hardcore crowd can enjoy the game in exact same form. But for some reasons, they are not happy, until everyone has to play in their way.

Respec system is in Diablo 2 because players were asking for it for years. Since 2004, there were non-stop discussion about respec system in Diablo 2 ... Yea, players developed workaround ... rushing to level 85 in one day... which was tedious, boring and stupidly mandatory .. but that was their response to lack of respec system. How awesome..right?

But limiting respecs is a necessary boundary. If it isn't there, respeccing becomes a gameplay mechanic.

Let's take an example:

In Vanilla WoW, it was mandatory in high-end raids to have every elixir and buff reagent that was beneficial for your class up at all times for maximum proficiency. Because there was no limit on how many elixirs you could have up, this behaviour then forced the developers to balance encounters around a fully buffed up character.
Which made it even more mandatory to always be completely buffed up (because now you were effectively not buffing up by elixirs, but gimping yourself by not using them).

Blizzard's solution to this problem? They imposed limitations on elixirs. You can have only one offensive and one defensive elixir up at an time. Or one (potent) flask.


In this line of reasoning: When respecs are free and unlimited, Blizzard has to take them into account when designing content, because doing otherwise would make players too strong (because they can build builds around any situation) and the content too easy. And then they're integral part of the gameplay.

Having a chosen "character path" in an RPG is not a boundary, in my book. It's more of a staple of RPGs: I play a role. This role is defined by its boundaries, and not the lack thereof.


But, as I said: Different kinds of gamers have different preferences. You're catered to by Diablo III. I'm catered to by PoE. Where's the problem? I like that there's a game for both positions. I would have loved if Diablo III were the game for me, simply because Diablo has had a place in my gamer's heart for over 15 years now.
But PoE is shaping up nicely (if they get rid of the dependency on charges, I hate that mechanic), so I really don't get why you're trying to tell me that more freedom is always better. It isn't
And that's coming from the person that posted the "Quake Done today" link earlier, which kind of frankly states that nowadays, there are too many restrictions in games. And I agree. There is too much hand-holding. And not enough freedom. But respecs do -in my mind- not fall into the category of "desirable freedom".

That's a rather bad example, respeccing doesn't give you infinitely scaling powers like those elixers did.
But I get what you mean.

However, blizzard has a solution for this: The Nephalem Valor system.

"

Tagek wrote:

That's a rather bad example, respeccing doesn't give you infinitely scaling powers like those elixers did.

They do, however, give you the ability to have spec ready for any situation, making your character effectively a master of all (his) trades. This severely diminishes the "strengths are bought with weaknesses" approach that is typical for RPGs.

"

Also, blizzard has a solution for this: The Nephalem Valor system.

I was thinking of that system when I wrote up my response. In my mind, it takes some right steps: You gain power (though not even power - more of "better luck with drops") by staying true to your spec as long as you don't log out. But does it punish you for re-speccing to always be at your best in every single situation? It's up to the individual gamer to decide if he perceives the Nephalem Valour as a buff or as scrappy mechanic that limits his freedom by gimping his drops when he switches.

My take: It's neither here nor there. It reads like "well, let's see how we can have our cake and eat it, too". It's not bad. But it's not really something I want to see in anything proclaiming itself an RPG, either.

But, granted, I'm an old fart with rigid thinking when it comes to what he likes in them vidja-games *shrug*. I like having chosen my path and then having to walk it, seeing where it leads me.

I agree a lot with what Avireyn said above. With that limitation imposed comes a sense of feeling "special" I suppose. There was a world of difference between being a Summon Necromancer and a Poison Necromancer and it gave you a sort of good feeling to know you were a "master" of sorts in your desired branch of the class you played. I believe this was eloquently said before in this thread so I won't risk being redundant.

The end result with D3's classes is everybody once they're 60 will have complete and unhindered access to everything. It takes away a lot of that "uniqueness" and being in certain situations where your build got dealt a real curveball in terms of enemies. Instead of finding ways to work around the obstructions, you can simply switch a few pictures out and bulldoze right through.

It's like having a Thief in Baldur's Gate II suddenly turn into an Assassin, then into a Swashbuckler depending on the situation. Before a Thief may have had to be more clever, but now they can simply abandon that in favour of having the right build for the situation.

This is a gripe I have with D3, admittedly. As I said before, it will make you look for +Skill gear and who knows how rare that will be with all the abilities in the game and variables in item modifiers. I am not too keen on it being on gear since I feel like they're steering us to use the RMAH which I really wish to avoid for personal reasons.

"

Avireyn wrote:

"

Tagek wrote:

That's a rather bad example, respeccing doesn't give you infinitely scaling powers like those elixers did.

They do, however, give you the ability to have spec ready for any situation, making your character effectively a master of all (his) trades. This severely diminishes the "strengths are bought with weaknesses" approach that is typical for RPGs.

"

Also, blizzard has a solution for this: The Nephalem Valor system.

I was thinking of that system when I wrote up my response. In my mind, it takes some right steps: You gain power (though not even power - more of "better luck with drops") by staying true to your spec as long as you don't log out. But does it punish you for re-speccing to always be at your best in every single situation? It's up to the individual gamer to decide if he perceives the Nephalem Valour as a buff or as scrappy mechanic that limits his freedom by gimping his drops when he switches.

My take: It's neither here nor there. It reads like "well, let's see how we can have our cake and eat it, too". It's not bad. But it's not really something I want to see in anything proclaiming itself an RPG, either.

But, granted, I'm an old fart with rigid thinking when it comes to what he likes in them vidja-games *shrug*. I like having chosen my path and then having to walk it, seeing where it leads me.

What you're forgetting is that diablo (2) is far more about the loot than about the bosses, they were never truly hard (although they'll probably be harder in D3), and not using the system would just be gimping yourself. After all, what point is there to beating the boss in an easier way when you get crappy loot out of it.

What you should also realise is that respeccing doesn't suddenly make content easy. Sure, maybe you now have a build that's a little more suitable to deal with a certain situation, but that doesn't mean it won't still be hard.

"

Disillusioned wrote:

I agree a lot with what Avireyn said above. With that limitation imposed comes a sense of feeling "special" I suppose. There was a world of difference between being a Summon Necromancer and a Poison Necromancer and it gave you a sort of good feeling to know you were a "master" of sorts in your desired branch of the class you played. I believe this was eloquently said before in this thread so I won't risk being redundant.

The end result with D3's classes is everybody once they're 60 will have complete and unhindered access to everything. It takes away a lot of that "uniqueness" and being in certain situations where your build got dealt a real curveball in terms of enemies. Instead of finding ways to work around the obstructions, you can simply switch a few pictures out and bulldoze right through.

It's like having a Thief in Baldur's Gate II suddenly turn into an Assassin, then into a Swashbuckler depending on the situation. Before a Thief may have had to be more clever, but now they can simply abandon that in favour of having the right build for the situation.

This is a gripe I have with D3, admittedly. As I said before, it will make you look for +Skill gear and who knows how rare that will be with all the abilities in the game and variables in item modifiers. I am not too keen on it being on gear since I feel like they're steering us to use the RMAH which I really wish to avoid for personal reasons.

I'd say a lot of what they wanted to achieve with the current system is stopping you from being stuck with a crappy build. In diablo 2, even a lot of the common builds were rather weak unless you had insane gear.
Take poison necromancer for example, or smite paladin (yeah, the best class in the game with good gear, but total shite without it).
They really didn't do anything at all unless your gear was top notch.

"

Erevos wrote:

"

Avireyn wrote:

"

Erevos wrote:

What he is trying to tell you is that just because D3 lets you change skills on the fly, you DON'T HAVE TO, its optional, you can play as you wish! you can have 5-6 total diferent Barb builds with 5-6 different Barbs.

And what I'm trying to tell him is that game design is about setting limits for players, not players limiting themselves.

The developers set the boundaries, they make the rules. And they apply to everyone, are not arbitrary.
They pose both the challenges and the tools to overcome them.
And if free and unlimited respecs are in, the rules will have work with that: They can impose challenges that require you to switch specs since that is the way the game is built.

Sure, I can then still impose my own restrictions or goals on me (like the Iron Man challenge in World Of WarCraft).

But it is an immense difference if I am bound by outside, "objective" rules or by my own volition, and if others are bound by those rules or not.

It's like imposing a penalty on myself in order to enjoy a game that really doesn't stand for anything I want to support. So why would I?

I'd rather have a game that caters to my tastes and supports my preferred play style.



P.S.: Respecs in Diablo II are in since when? 2011? About ten years AFTER the game's release? And they are neither free nor unlimited.
And why are they in? Because in itself, Diablo II's skill system is broken: Too many skills you can acquire before level 30 are seldom worth putting more than one point into it, making at least playing through normal on any toon either a waste of points better spent elsewhere, or playing with underpowered abilities, hoarding points until level 30.

ok lets see it in another way, for example you wanna build a Bash Barb (a single target skill) with passives and other supporting skills with certain rune choices, to help the Bash, and you are at lvl 40 or 50 with all your gear giving bonuses to Bash and the supporting runed/passive skills, even if you can change your Bash and go for Cleave (a skill that strikes multiply enemies with lesser damage and a different style of play) would you do it? i really dont think so, i would have reroll a Barb to try a Cleave build

"

Disillusioned wrote:

I agree a lot with what Avireyn said above.

my friend read my last post uniqueness isnt lost...

"

Tagek wrote:

What you're forgetting is that diablo (2) is far more about the loot than about the bosses, they were never truly hard (although they'll probably be harder in D3), and not using the system would just be gimping yourself. After all, what point is there to beating the boss in an easier way when you get crappy loot out of it.

I'm not only talking about Diablo II. I'm talking gameplay mechanics in general. If you give your players tools, they will use them. They will even try to use tools you don't give them.
Personally, I don't play for the loot. I play for the gameplay. Sure, getting loot is nice. But I never have and never will do hundreds of boss runs just to obtain better loot. Exception: If it's something that just vibes design-wise with my character (I've run Rivendare in WoW until my warrior had his two [Skullforge Reavers]).

And considering your example of Diablo II:
Duriel was an ass-hard boss for anyone (try soloing hardcore...). He hits like a mack-truck, he has his slowing aura, he charges and has massive health.

As a summon-mancer? You were SOL. As a sorceress specialized in anything other than Blaze you simply expected to die 5-10 times before taking him down. Same went for several other builds.

Now consider respec a la Diablo 3: The summonmancer goes bonemancer, the sorceress shifts to "max out blaze", and suddenly the encounter is very much different in terms of difficulty.

And it's not just boss battles: Being able to dish out AoE damage was beneficial in some encounter,s while in others, having monstrously powerful single target attacks won the day (the was a barbarian build centered around Leap Attack with a Polearm which excelled in single target damage but sucked in all else).
In Diablo II you would have had to weigh the pros and cons, because there are many different gameplay situations that play out differently with different builds.
With unlimited respecs, you can master them easily with the best suited spec for your task.
Take Diablo's Sanctuary: Go in with a highly mobile AoE build, clear the area. Switch to Single-DPS build (maybe with lightning and fire resists for his red frizz of death), summon Diablo, mow him down in five strikes.

"

What you should also realise is that respeccing doesn't suddenly make content easy. Sure, maybe you now have a build that's a little more suitable to deal with a certain situation, but that doesn't mean it won't still be hard.

But it means that all situations have to be designed in a way that makes anything other than using that respec gimping yourself.
And that makes the "optional" respec not so optional any more.

"

Tagek wrote:

I'd say a lot of what they wanted to achieve with the current system is stopping you from being stuck with a crappy build. In diablo 2, even a lot of the common builds were rather weak unless you had insane gear.
Take poison necromancer for example, or smite paladin (yeah, the best class in the game with good gear, but total shite without it).
They really didn't do anything at all unless your gear was top notch.

But that dependency on gear is something of a home-brewed design flaw by Blizzard. They're the ones making their games more and more about gear being the only real character progression.

"

Avireyn wrote:

"

Tagek wrote:

I'd say a lot of what they wanted to achieve with the current system is stopping you from being stuck with a crappy build. In diablo 2, even a lot of the common builds were rather weak unless you had insane gear.
Take poison necromancer for example, or smite paladin (yeah, the best class in the game with good gear, but total shite without it).
They really didn't do anything at all unless your gear was top notch.

But that dependency on gear is something of a home-brewed design flaw by Blizzard. They're the ones making their games more and more about gear being the only real character progression.

It's just an issue with builds that are extremely diverse.
You can't keep every build viable while also making it difficult for every build. Hence why they just threw out being tied down to a build.
I mean, if you built wrong in diablo 2 you had to make a new character and do it over. There it wasn't such a big issue, because in less than a day you had a lvl 85 due to boosting glitches. I'd say it's very likely that these kinds of glitches won't be in diablo 3, or atleast to a lesser extent, so having to remake a character would be an extremely tedious process that well over 95% of the player base would not enjoy.