Mastery Respecs are Good for the Game

[mamba]

Originally Posted by Scryer

I don't think there should be another incentive to start a new character, the incentive should be that it's fun to play a new character.

then why do you need to spec out of a mastery to begin with ?

If I can have the fun of experiencing a different high level build by spending some money, why would I start a new char to do so ?

Respecing masteries gives players options and choices, they are both just as meaningful as starting a new character.

Having no requirements for gears also gives the chars options and choices that otherwise would not exist. Options for the sake of having them are not good.

Respecing masteries gives players the incentive to experience a new mastery without being forced to level a new character.

and this is exactly what is wrong with it in my book
So we just went from 'so you can fix a broken build' to 'so you can enjoy a different build without starting over'.

You take away (part of) the incentive of building a new char.

The only redeeming part of respeccing masteries is that there is a low limit for the number of times you are allowed to do it. Personally to me the right limit is exactly 0 times, your number is more like 1 or 2.

[Scryer]

Originally Posted by ASYLUM101

I disagree with this thread entirely. I do not like this idea because if someone really hated a mastery that much, it means the mastery is no fun. If it's no fun, NO ONE will like it.



This is the proof in the pudding, this is where the game should be heading, not for FREE SKILLS ANYTIME YOU WANT TO CHANGE. It has to have some limitations, sandbox games aren't fun.

Maybe they don't like the mechanics of the mastery? Maybe they don't like the style of play even though they thought they would? All mastery mechanics are going to have to be learned, so why not give players options?
Rather then being forced to re-level?

Who said anything about free skills anytime you want? We're talking about putting limits on mastery respecs and making it hard to obtain.

Sandbox games aren't fun? That sounds like an opinion, we're dealing with a game mechanic here, we're talking about facts. Whether or not you like sandbox games has nothing to do with this thread.

I would also argue that mastery respecs do not change the genre of the game to "sandbox." The genre will still be action RPG, except, wow, you have options!

Whether someone respecs or not, it will not effect you.

Originally Posted by mamba

then why do you need to spec out of a mastery to begin with ?

If I can have the fun of experiencing a different high level build by spending some money, why would I start a new char to do so ?

You would start a new character because it's fun to level new characters. According to the argument that should be the reason.

Originally Posted by mamba

Having no requirements for gears also gives the chars options and choices that otherwise would not exist. Options for the sake of having them are not good.

Where is your proof that options for the sake of having them aren't good? Also, how does that pretain to mastery respec in the same way?

Originally Posted by mamba

So we just went from 'so you can fix a broken build' to 'so you can enjoy a different build without starting over'.

You take away (part of) the incentive of building a new char.

The only redeeming part of respeccing masteries is that there is a low limit for the number of times you are allowed to do it. Personally to me the right limit is exactly 0 times, your number is more like 1 or 2.

If mastery respecs are hard to obtain, or even if they are obtainable, how does that ruin anyone's gaming experience? A player could simply choose not to obtain a mastery respec. What's the reason for limiting a player's choices?

If you say it's for incentive, again, the incentive should only be that it's fun to level new characters, otherwise you're forcing the player in an arbitrary manner to stay the same mastery.

[mamba]

Originally Posted by Scryer

Sandbox games aren't fun? That sounds like an opinion, we're dealing with a game mechanic here, we're talking about facts. Whether or not you like sandbox games has nothing to do with this thread.

The reverse is also true, anyone who finds sandbox games enjoyable is also basing it on opinion, not fact. In games you will have a hard time arguing facts, pretty much everything is opinion.

You would start a new character because it's fun to level new characters. According to the argument that should be the reason.

Agreed, and based on the same logic you would enjoy creating a new character, therefore not needing the option to respec the mastery

Where is your proof that options for the sake of having them aren't good? Also, how does that pretain to mastery respec in the same way?

What do you consider proof ? I gave you an example and the proof to me is the opinion of everyone else (but you) on this thread.

If mastery respecs are hard to obtain, or even if they are obtainable, how does that ruin anyone's gaming experience? A player could simply choose not to obtain a mastery respec. What's the reason for limiting a player's choices?

see above, more choice is not always better, that is why it is called game design, not game 'throw all choices in'

[Josho]

I disagree with the idea. Boundaries need to be established in the game. Limiting respeccing to skills is one thing. After all, there are a slew of skills that are available which look good in theory, but actually play out quite badly. All ARPG"s are at fault here and hopefully Crate can strive to change that.

If there is a third party program available that can allow a respec of a mastery, so be it, that is the player's choice to go against the design decision. I believe when a player makes a choice, they then need to be prepared to ride the whole wave of their decision, both the good parts and the bad parts. That's just one part of the gameplay element. By allowing class respec, then the character loses its uniqueness, no longer is it a character, but instead a potential master of everything that can change itself at whim. It loses its role within the gameworld.

As an example, consider Oblivion. The characters could have some skills tagged as being dominant, while the rest were lesser skills. Yet, it was possible to level up all skills, and as such, the roleplaying element of the game was lost. Why should a wizard be able to jump into an arena and swing a mace with ease and more skill than the arena champion?

I bolded roleplaying for a reason. We have to remember that this is an Action RolePlaying Game. True, many D&D geeks can argue that ARPG's are really RPG-lite, but better to have some sort of roleplaying than none at all, which is what is at risk if class respeccing is brought in.

[Scryer]

Originally Posted by mamba

The reverse is also true, anyone who finds sandbox games enjoyable is also basing it on opinion, not fact. In games you will have a hard time arguing facts, pretty much everything is opinion.

I disagree, a lot of what goes into games are based on facts and psychological facts. For example, a game generally not fun when you give the player all the power from the start. This would make the game too easy and boring in most cases when you're talking about an ARPG. That is indeed a hard fact about almost every ARPG. Lets say the player has access to every item in the game from the start. That is poor design, it's not facilitating any difficulty. I wouldn't really call it an opinion, it's simply bad design.

Originally Posted by mamba

Agreed, and based on the same logic you would enjoy creating a new character, therefore not needing the option to respec the mastery

Not at all my point. The option to respec masteries comes from play-style testing. With 5 masteries to try out, how will a player try any of the combinations and come to enjoy them the way they are expected to? Neither of us know that, so what will taking the option out of the game do? It will arbitrarily limit the player.

Originally Posted by mamba

What do you consider proof ? I gave you an example and the proof to me is the opinion of everyone else (but you) on this thread.

Just because I'm the only one defending the idea does not make it a flawed idea. I consider proof essentially where a game has been "bad" because you were allowed to change classes at high levels. The main reason you may not see many games that allow this seems more to be along the lines of traditional value. Traditional value alone is not the best way to develop a game. As long as the "old school" feel of it doesn't interfere with the actual game mechanics. How would a mastery respec do this? It's an option. How does that hurt a player specifically?

Originally Posted by mamba

see above, more choice is not always better, that is why it is called game design, not game 'throw all choices in'

It's not "throw all choices in" it's "give the player a chance to see what he likes without being forced to re-level." If you don't care about the option to respec masteries, why ruin the experience for those that want the option?

Originally Posted by Josho

I disagree with the idea. Boundaries need to be established in the game. Limiting respeccing to skills is one thing. After all, there are a slew of skills that are available which look good in theory, but actually play out quite badly. All ARPG"s are at fault here and hopefully Crate can strive to change that.

I agree that if Crate makes exceptional skills then this may never be a problem. However, I don't see how not having mastery respecs are a necessary boundary.

Originally Posted by Josho

If there is a third party program available that can allow a respec of a mastery, so be it, that is the player's choice to go against the design decision. I believe when a player makes a choice, they then need to be prepared to ride the whole wave of their decision, both the good parts and the bad parts. That's just one part of the gameplay element. By allowing class respec, then the character loses its uniqueness, no longer is it a character, but instead a potential master of everything that can change itself at whim. It loses its role within the gameworld.

First of all, your first paragraph disagrees with your second. You're saying that it's not okay to let players respec masteries, even though they may make bad decisions? That (seems to) imply 2 that te player will end up making bad choices and not be allowed to correct them unless he starts a new character.

I don't see how a character looses his uniqueness when he respecs masteries. Characters are unique based on the skills they choose more-so then the masteries they choose. The masteries are simply a means to an end. The role that the player has in any ARPG is the role they want to have, so having to option to change that role would actually help the game play. Also, no one here is arguing for the ability to change a mastery "at whim."

Originally Posted by Josho

As an example, consider Oblivion. The characters could have some skills tagged as being dominant, while the rest were lesser skills. Yet, it was possible to level up all skills, and as such, the roleplaying element of the game was lost. Why should a wizard be able to jump into an arena and swing a mace with ease and more skill than the arena champion?

I loved Oblivion, I think it's a wonderful game, it let you master everything if you wanted to. But that's absolutely not what I'm suggesting. Masteries can only be combined by 2, so there is no way to master everything, indeed it shouldn't even be possible. However, the option to change your mastery should be possible, because it would be an option to the dedicated player.

Originally Posted by Josho

I bolded roleplaying for a reason. We have to remember that this is an Action RolePlaying Game. True, many D&D geeks can argue that ARPG's are really RPG-lite, but better to have some sort of roleplaying than none at all, which is what is at risk if class respeccing is brought in.

There is no risk here. The role-playing is still facilitated by the player. Respecs would be a costly and difficult thing to attain. Notice, the premise of the game is that you select your masteries at level 2 after leveling up, so why should it be so hard to unlearn those masteries and re-learn a new one? The game world is that of magic, and as such almost anything is possible. The mastery respec option could be built right into the lore. I don't see it causing any problems to anyone. Masteries are also very loosely defined classes.

[hooby]

I'm just really not able to understand. So please, Scryer, just answer me the following question:

If having to level up is so much of a punishment for you, why do you want to level up your first character?

I mean, going by your arguments, wouldn't it be better to remove character levels completely, and let players create new characters at max level already?

What argument against leveling up your second character is not an argument against leveling up your first one too?

What argument for leveling up your first character is not true for your second character too?

How can leveling up be simultaneously good and bad for two different characters?

Isn't it either good for all characters, or bad for all characters? I mean, how does the character itself make a difference there?

[Scryer]

Originally Posted by hooby

I'm just really not able to understand. So please, Scryer, just answer me the following question:

I will do the best I can to answer your questions. Maybe you will answer a few of mine?

Originally Posted by hooby

If having to level up is so much of a punishment for you, why do you want to level up your first character?

Leveling up is not a punishment, it should be something enjoyed at least one time through, and if the player so decides it will be enjoyed more then one time through. Each new character however will bring about a similar experience, not based on the actual masteries, but based on the fact that each time through will have the same story and events. this is the case of diminishing returns. Also, this similar experience is not generally enjoyed by those who wish to play a role that isn't broken or isn't enjoyable based on the mechanics of the originally chosen masteries.

Originally Posted by hooby

I mean, going by your arguments, wouldn't it be better to remove character levels completely, and let players create new characters at max level already?

No, my argument simply states that the player should be given option at max level to correct their mastery choices to be more suitable to their play-style. The act of leveling up has already been facilitated and not granted to the player. (I.E. once you've leveled up you realize the end mastery choices do not work for your play-style.) Going through the story at least once is always important.

Originally Posted by hooby

What argument against leveling up your second character is not an argument against leveling up your first one too?

Leveling up a second character would be helpful and useful for players that don't want to take on the arduous task of respecing their mastery, or for players that simply want two or more classes with different play-styles simply because they enjoy them. Notice that no-where do I say mastery respecs should be easy or whimsical, yet your question seems to imply that they will be.

Originally Posted by hooby

What argument for leveling up your first character is not true for your second character too?

Leveling up your "first" character is based solely on the faith that the two masteries chosen will be what is expected for a specific play-style. If the masteries are completely not what one expected them to be then the player would be forced to make a second character based on the fact that the play-style did not match up with the player's desired effect.

So what makes the difference is based solely on the fact that the player will not have had the proper information available to them to decide if the two masteries will be their preferred play-style for them for the first character. For the second character the player will now know two thirds of the classes to choose and combine.

Also, the second character could facilitate other play-styles if the player wishes to have multiple characters with multiple play-styles. Having the option to respec masteries on their first character does not give the player a second character in which to enjoy different play-styles. The player still only has one character, and that is not the same as having two characters with different play-styles.

Originally Posted by hooby

How can leveling up be simultaneously good and bad for two different characters?

Leveling is good for both characters. It gives the player the ability to have two different characters with two different play-styles. Mastery respecs are for single characters and thus only provide a single play-style 100% of the time.

Originally Posted by hooby

Isn't it either good for all characters, or bad for all characters? I mean, how does the character itself make a difference there?

Leveling is good for all characters, it provides the benefit of play experience. However, max level play is different from low level play. The character is important to the player because of the experience that goes into him, and the leveling process.

If you're trying to say that mastery respecs will cause players to never level another character, I wold ask you, why should the player level another character? My answer is this - to have other characters with different play-styles. Leveling should be fun in any case.

The answer I've been getting, over and over again is this - players should have to level up again if they want to try a new mastery, there should be no options given to the player to change this, and the player should be forced through the story again.

My answer is this - the player should be given options even if they are hard to obtain, if the player wants to level a new character it should be because they want to do it, not because they are being forced to do it, play-styles can vary at high level and thus an option to respec ones masteries would facilitate a better game for those that want the option. The player should not be forced through the game again especially just to create a new mastery with the proper play-style. Those that do not want the option will not have a problem with this, because they can choose not to use the option, thus is the nature of options.

[Josho]

First of all, your first paragraph disagrees with your second.

The two paragraphs do not so much disagree as to make a point regarding boundaries. If Crate were to say no to mastery respec, that is the design decision that has been made. It is one such boundary that has been established, for whatever reason Crate (or any other developer) were to feel as being important with regards to either gameplay or character development.

However, if a third party unendorsed mod to the game file were brought out by a member of the public, and a player were to use this to respec their character, that is fine also It is their character after all. It breaks the design boundaries which the developer sought to create, but that may simply be due to a different visage of what matters to the player. The community will have differing opinions, as you can see here, but ultimately, it won't be true to the game design. And people exist who like to live within the rules set forth by the game, even if they may not agree wit them.

For instance, the great strength of the Titan Quest fan patch was that it only went ahead and fixed the bugs. At no point did the team who did it try and bring in their own ideas of how the game should play, or balance out, and change the nature of the game to suit their vision.

You're saying that it's not okay to let players respec masteries, even though they may make bad decisions? That implies 2 things, that either Crate will make the masteries not fit well together, or the player will end up making bad choices and not be allowed to correct them unless he starts a new character.

What you've done is now put words in my mouth. In no way did I say, or imply that masteries won't fit well together, or the player will make bad choices. In fact, I challenge you to go through my post yet again and point out where I said that. I said the player should be prepared to tackle the consequences of their decision, both the good and the bad.

It might be that a character combination isn't suited to one area, and so will serve as a challenge, while in another area, the player will be at an advantage. Or they find some equipment which would be much better when used with a different class than what they have, but have to ignore it. And sure, if they keep on playing, remain persistent with the character, they may in fact find a new item which is in fact better suited to the decision made regarding skill choice. I believe the gameplay is lost if the player can continue to adapt to meet every single threat with ease. That isn't how a player improves their skill with a game, a player improves by being challenged, looking at the tools they have on hand and using them.

I loved Oblivion, I think it's a wonderful game, it let you master everything if you wanted to. But that's absolutely not what I'm suggesting. Masteries can only be combined by 2, so there is no way to master everything, indeed it shouldn't even be possible. However, the option to change your mastery should be possible, because it would be an option to the dedicated player.

I know within the 2 class system there is no way to master everything. However, at no point will there be a true Achilles Heel on the player if they are able to change themselves at will to meet whatever new threat that raises the bar with difficulty. Forgot to add. By at will, I should say that making a simple gold cost is realistically at will, considering gold is easy to come by late game. Which, if following the idea you also mention of only allowing a respec at max level, will not be a problem.

[Scryer]

Originally Posted by Josho

I know within the 2 class system there is no way to master everything. However, at no point will there be a true Achilles Heel on the player if they are able to change themselves at will to meet whatever new threat that raises the bar with difficulty. Forgot to add. By at will, I should say that making a simple gold cost is realistically at will, considering gold is easy to come by late game. Which, if following the idea you also mention of only allowing a respec at max level, will not be a problem.

Sorry if you think I was putting words in your mouth, I was just trying to make a point, however, I will concede to that and say that I'm sorry.

Where will there not be a true Achilles' Heel? If a player is only ever allowed to respec into two masteries, or one even, what exactly will make them invincible in a properly balanced game?

Also, I never say that respecs should be easy, I think gold cost is not the only way to make such a thing difficult for the player to attain. However, if gold were balanced right I don't see how a high gold cost would be a problem.

Here's some ways to limit mastery respecs and make them hard to do.

- Extreme gold cost.

- Extreme gold cost + rare item + a difficult quest.

- Extreme gold cost + rare item + rare item + rare item + combined rare items

- Extreme gold cost, only allowable at level 200.

Note: Rare items are not equipment, they are random drops that must be farmed.

This is what I mean by the dedicated player, it's still an option, how does that hurt the game? I think it enhances the game.

[Josho]

One final thing I forgot to mention, if Crate say yes to mastery respec, there will be no nerd rage from me. Like I said, it is up to them to set the design vision of the game, and how they want it to go.

To be honest, I'm all for experimenting with mechanics, but personally, I just don't see mastery respec as being one way to push the game forward.