>>3789602 (OP)
Yes

>>3789602 (OP)
Respeccing is good if the design of the game doesn't make it clear early on if a build is viable/supported or initially misleading.
Basically, a band-aid to compensate for poor design.

>>3789610
Unfortunately, that characterizes the majority of 90's and 80's rpg's. Especially centauri alliance.

>>3789602 (OP)
it should be in the game but the game shouldn't even try to explain it or contextualize it. it should just be a button in a menu. it's as artificial as save/reload; please don't try to explain it for god's sake

>>3789602 (OP)
Yeah.
There is no actual benefit to forcing the player yet unfamiliar with the game's mechanics and character design philosophy into a choice between "suck dick" and "restart".
I mean some people try to defend it, but that defense almost always amounts to "I like laughing at people worse than me at playing games".

>>3789664
>I mean some people try to defend it
Someone said respec makes choices meaningless. I say retards should practice restraint and not use respec if they don't like it.

No, you should punish retarded players

It sucks that it makes it difficult for devs to make exclusive content, like e.g. you can never have like the wizard academy sidequest that's only for wizard characters because a guy will be a wizard then respect out of it to not miss that content

>>3789602 (OP)
It's a cheap way to circumvent bad design in character progression, so no.
In a good game you never need respec as a mechanic.

>>3789674
That's a good point I had not considered. But I prefer leaving that up to the player. Everyone who dislikes the idea can just not do it.

>just don't use it
This implies games should be designed without requiring it, but as an option for those that wouldn't be able to beat them otherwise, like save-scumming and grinding. But if it's closer to an unpatched exploit, can we even call it a mechanic let alone a good one?

Is there a single game with powerful crafting skills and respec that doesn't break down completely when you combine the two?

>>3789670
It's not a "choice" worth having if it cripples your character, anyway. Ivory tower design is trash.

>>3789672
Go on, elaborate. Why is that?

>>3789715
Considering just powerful crafting alone breaks the game most of the time, I'm not sure the distinction between that and +respec matters.

>>3789731
>I'm not sure the distinction between that and +respec matters.
Because the respec variant isn't accounting for the fact that you're not paying your character building currency in order to gain the benefits associated with it.
It doesn't need to be a crafting skill specifically, just any skill that will continue to provide a tangible benefit after you remove it from your character.
And, if there's no way to account for the missing character building budget then you have no way to provide a challenging experience to the player.

>>3789729
You punish retards for their retarded decisions, duh. What is here to elaborate?

>>3789735
No. That's not an answer.
WHY should you punish them?

No. But if you design a game in a way that most players feel it's necessary, because you can screw yourself over beyond hope of recovery without it being an act of mind-blowing retardation (the difference between, for instance, trying to play a low-Int mage and being completely unable to keep up with checks past midgame if you aren't hyper-specialized), you blew it.
In other words, respeccing is a shit mechanic, but requiring prior knowledge to succeed is shit design.

>>3789753
What if a player wants to try a new playstyle, but not start all over again?

>>3789754
Not my problem

>>3789754
I mean that's unfortunate, but mechanically speaking respec causes more problems than it fixes.
And I can only speak for myself, but I find it a better test of a different playstyle to do so from square one to feel its progression and, in some cases, experience the options it opens up in the earlier parts of a game.

>>3789755
Is respec your problem?

>>3789757
Read the thread

>>3789759
So "No"

>>3789753
>requiring prior knowledge to succeed is shit design
baffles me how accepted it's become to basically demand every new player scour some shitty wiki, read a guide or ask in advance to have a reasonably smooth time
people like to talk smack on modern game design but that IS modern design, I never needed a fucking guide to find a cool unique sword or just not fuck up my stats because of some arbitrary check back in the day

>>3789754
If you mean switching from guns blazing to stealth for a while, isn't that the whole point of consumables like stealth potions?

>>3789746
So they learn.

>>3789805
Realizing the mistake is learning.
How is restarting the game to make a better character a superior solution to simply doing it?
If anything, the ability to experiment is more conductive to learning, as it's easier to test what does and does not work at any given part of the game.

>>3789812
this guy gets it

>>3789754
Then you make a new character, faggot. Do you think every game should be like FFXIV?

>>3789818
>Then you make a new character
Starting over again?
>Do you think every game should be like FFXIV?
I haven't played it, so no I do not.

>>3789820
>Starting over again?
Yes. Or learn to adapt, which is more than possible in most video games.

>>3789812
Then there is no reason to have an in-game explanation for respeccing, simply have a cheat code to do it.

>>3789826
I mean, you won't have me argue about the specifics of implementation. The point is having respec in ANY form. If it's a console command or cheat or something, sure, why the fuck not.

>>3789824
No, I'll just respec and have a good time

>>3789829
You're a womanly male afraid of adversity.

>>3789831
Spending more time on playing video games is adversity to you kids nowadays?

>>3789834
>deflection and cope
Yep.

>>3789831
Are you a slav? Only they fetishize inconvenience to that extent.

>>3789836
>inconvenience is when I'm a retarded tranny that can't stick to the choices I made for my character

>>3789835
Okay run along now and find adversity in your video games

>>3789845
So true, every game should be like a class-based shooter like Overwatch!

i'm surprised you newfags are arguing about respecs as if you don't all run to google to look up guides and wikis to build your characters with anyway. just frontin' at this point.

>>3789846
Looks like this anon broke

>>3789602 (OP)
Exclusivity and missing out can be a good thing
It's the same line of reasoning as to why you get more invested in a roguelike character that can fucking die thus losing you x hours of progress
If you could just save/load/respawn then it cheapens the experience, so to speak
Thus having to think about your build and making meaningful decisions gives more weight to the game. Now, obviously there's the caveat of the game being balanced and assuming the player won't be an absolute retard, potentially bricking their own character, if that's possible. If you have difficulty settings(which is a topic worthy of its separate discussion) then I could see the easy difficulty having respecs while normal not having any or maybe limiting it to 1.

it's a good mechanic in the context of fixing a set of bad mechanics
otherwise no, it's stupid
in a properly designed rpg you're supposed to be the character
their struggle is your struggle, their effort is your effort
if you can just push a button and redistribute points and now all of your progress and building toward a goal is lost and you instantly gain a similar amount of progress toward an entirely different path with its own struggles and requirement of effort, it undermines the entire process and trivializes the scaffolding upon which your progress takes place
however in some cases it makes sense to add into games where the stat system is essentially irrelevant to the core elements and exists as a separate aspect of the game from the story, characterization, world building, etc, which is itself poor design

like BG3 for example. does the fact that you're a bard or a cleric REALLY matter to anything except combat? not really. you get a couple different dialogue options. so if you want to respec in BG3 to change some element of combat, sure go for it, because combat is basically entirely separate from everything else and you're basically playing two games at the same time that kind of sync up with eachother
but this delineation is really only reinforced by the fact that you can just respec - it emphasizes that your class choices and your progress and experience are not tied in any way to your characterization, the story, the world you're in, the perception of your strength or capabilities

>>3789952
I agree with everything you said, and want to add that the ability to brick your character is extremely poor game design and so is having a difficulty setting

>>3789984
>like BG3 for example. does the fact that you're a bard or a cleric REALLY matter to anything except combat? not really.
Yes? You can't name a single game where your build has more influence outside of combat than BG3.
It's not just a couple of dialogue lines, it's a lot. And they often offer different paths to a situation. And it affects exploration too. Like can you jump far enough/fly to reach an area? Are you a small race or do you have shapeshifting spells to reduce your size and fit through a hole? Can you speak to that animal to learn about whatever secret? Can you lockpick that door?

Are there any RPGs that anticipate and expect the player to respec? Like certain builds are good early on, but then you basically need to respec into different builds later on.

>>3789602 (OP)
In Underrail, yes, in something like DCSS, no.

>>3790036
>You can't name a single game where your build has more influence outside of combat than BG3.
Fallout 2, Arcanum, Vampire Bloodlines, Alpha Protocol, Disco Elysium
But you missed the point in favor of fanboying over a game you like. Don't worry, I like BG3 too.
However, your attributes do not meaningfully impact the plot, faction alignment, character arc, perception by others in a way that’s not just a binary success/fail skill check

>It's not just a couple of dialogue lines, it's a lot. And they often offer different paths to a situation.
They very, very rarely offer a unique option that isn't available another way. Typically it amounts to
1. End the encounter without a fight
2. End the encounter with a fight
And both of those options were available anyway. They add some flavor, which is nice, but this is not deep characterization as a result of its stat system.

>And it affects exploration too. Like can you jump far enough/fly to reach an area?
>Are you a small race or do you have shapeshifting spells to reduce your size and fit through a hole?
>Can you speak to that animal to learn about whatever secret?
>Can you lockpick that door?
Are these actual joke examples? All of these are accomplished by items and have nothing to do with serious RPG elements. And you can respec at any time to "fix the problem."

This question illustrates my point: If you never respec in BG3, or you respec 50,000 times to optimize every situation, does the game itself ever recognize the difference via story, characterization, etc? If the answer is no then what you change via respec is irrelevant except for the trivial things you mentioned - a few dialogue options, the ability to jump far without an item

>>3790041
Diablo 2 is rife with this, let's look at the Thorns aura; Thorns is ridiculously good in normal and decent in nightmare, but the massive HP inflation in Hell mode means that its damage simply cannot keep up.

To give some math, a Hell Bovine, a rather strong enemy, does 38 damage/hit and has 250 HP, meaning you would need 650% retalation to kill it in one shot with Thorns. This can be accomplished with Lv11 Thorns, which is very reasonable when you fight hell bovines.

In Nightmare, they do 80 damage and have 3600 HP, one-shotting now needs 4500% which is simply not possible to get. At Lv20 (the skillpoint cap) you have a retaliation of 1000% enemy damage (or in this case 800). Not too shabby, but at this point you need to be buffing an army of minions from a necromancer or druid to keep it as an offensive measure.

In Hell it becomes completely useless. The cows now do 140 damage and have 14000 HP, a 100-fold increase, and Thorns being physical is further nerfed in Hell due to global damage resistance giving the cows an effective 28000 HP in the face of pure physical damage.

To save you the math, if you somehow managed to amass enough items and charms to get thorns up to level 60, it would return x26 damage and do another 900 on top of it. This will dish out 4540 to cows, but someone capable of concentrating this much power into a single skill has far, far better options to choose from.

Worst part is that thorns only works if you actually get hit, and every Diablo character can be described as a glass cannon.

>>3789754
It's understandable that people don't have the time to restart games constantly, or maybe just want to play a game once and finish.
But please stop feeling entitled to being able to see and do everything in one playthrough, experience every class and ability. It just makes everything shallow.

>>3789602 (OP)
it's not because it ruins game balance. games should have their level of challenge to be adjusted in a way that the worst bricked ass build can barely beat the game. playing smart should be rewarded and being retarded should be punished. with respec the game is tuned for the average build which makes it either too hard or too easy. games should be shorter and starting over should be offered as a replacement for respec.

>>3790150
>playing smart should be rewarded and being retarded should be punished
That's assuming the game is well balanced and designed enough, which most games aren't at all. In other words you'd need a failsafe.

>>3790140
>But please stop feeling entitled to being able to see and do everything in one playthrough, experience every class and ability. It just makes everything shallow.
I don't.

And I'm willing to bet the ones who complain about it are the ones who do everything if given the chance.

>>3790140
POV of a dev. Spend time making content for 8% players instead of everyone. If I have time to make 5 levels and 3 classes and decide to make 1 level exclusive for each class, my game ends up having 3 levels unless you play through it 3 times, than it's 5. If all levels are available, player gets to see all my work and game is bigger.
POV of the player. There are 2 levels not for you. You have to play 2 more times to see them. Who plays through more than 1 time?
>But only mage should open magic door. Immersion.
-Change the door

respec is the equivalent of redoing moves in chess when you're in midgame. it undermines the notion of progression completely.

>>3790216
Pick axes, dev doesn't put any axes in the game.
MUH PROGRESSION!!!!!!!!

>>3790264
The solution is to remove the unsupported skill or actually support it, not to torpedo your own game with a bad mechanic like respec.
Again, all these complaints for why respec is actually needed only work in badly designed games.

>>3790264
Blame the dev, shit out a negative review. Band aiding with respec is not a solution

>>3790216
>respec is the equivalent of redoing moves in chess
That's loading savegames

>>3789602 (OP)
It's a must-have. Developers can't design their companion NPCs for shit. If not for Respec mod in Pathfinder, I would've dropped the game.

>>3790276
Very few devs are actually good at balancing their games (retards outright get triggered by it on this board), ensuring choices are properly supported and things are well communicated when relevant beforehand.

Thus, respeccing becomes a necessity to compensate for the design problems of the game.

>>3790298
>Very few devs are actually good at balancing their games
Have you ever tried balancing a RPG?

I just prefer the Final Fantasy approach where you can just level everything on one character if you were so inclined and switch jobs if you want to try something else.

Don't know why so many games decide to lock the player into choices like this.

>>3790302
>Have you ever tried balancing a RPG?
Actually yes, I'm an industry professional. No I won't divulge what since I leave personal stuff outside of 4chan.

Balancing is incredibly important and a lot of people on this board has no idea what balancing even means.

>>3790307
>Actually yes, I'm an industry professional.
We all are

>>3790280
>>3790276
Shit balancing has been a problem even during the golden era of rpg's. Magically believe things will get better.
A mechanic exists that can help with this. Shit on it because of gatekeeper role-playing or your own sunk cost fallacy.
And i am not even talking about megatraveller like, but even pure combat stuff like dungeon crawlers.

>>3790297
Companion NPCs were a mistake too.
Games that allow you to create entire parties are superior.
>but my friendship/dating sims!
Were a mistake. Either give me a set main character (like most JRPGs) and build the story around him, or let me create the whole group.

>>3790307
>I'm an industry professional
you should sign your posts with this so people know to ignore you.

>>3790341
Don't worry, I ignore pretty much what everyone says here since pretty much everyone, including you, is utterly ignorant and biased when it comes to the subject matter.

>>3790344
don't worry, i ignore the games you shovelware guys make too. industry is rife with idiots like you, preaching "good design".

>>3790339
>Games that allow you to create entire parties are superior.
Yes.

>Either give me a set main character (like most JRPGs) and build the story around him, or let me create the whole group.
... or do what "Storm of Zehir" did and give me an option for my party members to speak when I want them to, what I want them to.

>>3790216
>>3790287
It's more like changing your pieces to new one's

>>3789602 (OP)
If you need respeccung in your game it means you made a shit game.

It's not a good mechanic, but it's not necessarily a bad mechanic. It's bad when it's a bandaid, but it doesn't mean the game would be more fun with that "wound" left open, either. And in other cases it might be a mechanic that's nice to have with no good reason not to have it, but I wouldn't call it good per se.
In some, the game might just be designed specifically around offering respec in late/end/postgame, and since we're not talking MMO, a good chunk of the experience will still depend on the build choices you make throughout. But, well, it goes without saying that games should aim to actually explain what the fuck each stat/skill/whatever will do instead of accepting that you'll fuck something up first time as a given. It's fine if something like race selection affects your playthrough in unexpected ways - especially if the setting is new to you - but not stats.

>>3790885
Also, to comment on "just don't use it": I don't think that's a valid excuse in general.
In this context, if respec-ing prevented you from minmaxing a build or even intentionally made you miss out on one quest or a few unique dialogue options, then yes, "not using it" is obviously a valid choice that is presented. But if a game is designed with the expectation that most people will use a certain mechanic since there's no downside or a parallel alternative, being able not to use it because you think it's shit doesn't make it any less shit. But again, I don't think respec is inherently shit. So yeah.

>>3790892
>But if a game is designed with the expectation that most people will use
Is there a game that expects respecs?

>>3790896
I suppose that phrasing doesn't quite fit here, but it'd mean that the devs might expect you to respec if you need to and design the game accordingly - in ways that could make the experience worse overall for someone who won't respec vs if the game never had respec in the first place. Unlike modders who can stick the functionality right in without playtesting, devs would have to make sure it doesn't break any build-dependent content (even narratively). More often than not they'll probably just not bother with such content rather than add failsafes, let alone unique branches that would take respecs into account.

>>3790903
>it'd mean that the devs might expect you to respec if you need to and design the game accordingly
Does a game like that exist?

>>3790907
Technically applies to pretty much every game with respec implemented properly.
If you're still asking whether games where the devs expect most players to respec at some point exist, then yeah, definitely. Though they'd be mostly ARPG - or a hybrid like Borderlands, which might just be a prime example.

>>3790923
How are they worse for someone who doesn't respec?

>>3790923
Borderlands isn't an RPG though. It's just an action game with skill trees.

Depends on how respec is used.
“Oops, I messed up my build, so I’m taking a different feat/skill/talent/ability/whatever, but I’m still playing essentially the same character” is fine
“My build is only endgame viable so I’m going to play a different build for 90% of the game and then swap to something completely different” is a sign of bad game design
“lol I’m going from a female chaotic elf ranger to a male lawful human mage” is retarded

>>3790957
>Borderlands isn't an RPG though. It's just an action game with skill trees.
Pretty much all skills are passive upgrades, you just have a single character ability.

>>3790757
it's like putting your piece back to initial starting position and then moving it the amount of times you had touched it
>okay so i respec my bishop back to start then I move it 4 times... so hmm.. ah checkmate!
incredibly lame, anachronistic progression that makes no sense.

Respec is only bad if it's free and unlimited.
If someone has played a game for +40 hours and the game wasn't balanced well enough for their build to work out, allowing the player to course correct instead of banging their head against the wall or replay those +40 hours IS good design. It just needs to have a cost or be limited so players can't spam respec and actually think a bit more about when and if they respec.

This is not even factoring in that games are updated and rebalanced, so a build you had that was good because you cheesed something or parts of it were overtuned could now turn into unviable trash it'd be silly to not allow for respecs.

>>3791372
Chess is an incredibly bad analogy that doesn't even appy. Just because both involve "redo" doesn't mean it's the same or even similar.
Analogies are also made to simplify and make things more easy to understand, something most people that try to use them fail to understand. Which is ironic. Doubly so because the often don't understand the initial idea or point and instead end up doing a fallacy instead of an analogy.

>>3791380
chess is a good example because it has a natural progression where pieces moved in the order they are moved in forms the story of the chessboard. letting one player trace back steps to make a better move ruins the cohesion of that story if the opponent doesnt have the same luxury. at least when loading a save it redos moves for both players so it's fair. respec is just an even more unfair savestate that any real gamer immediately recognizes as an abomination.

>>3791381
Embarrassing. All you're trying to say is "it's a good example because the bullshit serves my point".
Doubly embarrassing for unironically using the term "real gamer".

>>3791389
and all you're trying to say is... nothing. there's no argument whatsoever.

>>3791381
>says chess is a good example
>after multiple failed analogies

Kek at this thread. I love the cutie brainlets of /vrpg/

>>3791381
>chess is a good example
It's not. Anyone with a functioning brain understands this.

One is a 1v1 competitive turn based game with specific pieces where each move is either directly tied to the prior moves the opponent made or where you predict your and their pieces will be several turns in advance.
If you let a player undo several moves and not the opponent it breaks the entire match right then and there because all of their pieces were placed with your placement in mind.
This can be massively expanded upon what the monumental ramifications actually are, but you're clearly not intelligent enough to even grasp this simplified layman breakdown, so why bother.

Now respeccing in an RPG affects absolutely nothing but the player character. Enemies and the game isn't dynamic where they have been speccing into anti fire and slashing weapons because you specced into fire and greatswords.
Respeccing has absolutely no impact on the rest of the game, apart from how the player interacts with it from that point on.

Like holy fucking shit, this is such and insanely retarded comparisong to make initially, but you being so astronomically fucking stupid that you want to die on this hill makes you so unbelievably stupid I'm right now wasting my fucking time trying to reason with you in the vain hope you have a speck of rationality and intelligence in you.

I say again ANALOGIES ARE MADE TO SIMPLIFY THINGS, WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE TO BE EXTREMELY SIMILAR TO BE GOOD ANALOGIES. Chess by itself is an entirely different fucking thing that functions entirely differently from a fucking roleplaying leveling system with builds in it. The fact that you even compare TURNS of all things from chess is by far the dumbest fucking shit.
Holy fuck you are some dumb piece of shit. Don't ever type something again and dare waste anyone else's time reading your mongoloid drivel.

>>3791380
>Rebalance aka nerfs in SP games
eh oh el

>>3791398
>I say again ANALOGIES ARE MADE TO SIMPLIFY THINGS
Like chess and checkers!

>>3791398
turns in chess are progression. you have defensive options. you can mount up an offensive. you are essentially making a build in early game. mid game is when that build is put to a test against the enemy build. it's a very distilled comparison to rpgs. It's understandable you got mad when someone illustrates how your beloved respec feature is actually goo goo gaga babyshit.

>>3791405
>you are essentially making a build
Then you build it again for the next battle?

>>3791410
Lol, midwit chess schizo makes an argument for respec unintentionally.

>>3791398
>ANALOGIES ARE MADE TO SIMPLIFY THINGS, WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE TO BE EXTREMELY SIMILAR TO BE GOOD ANALOGIES.
Analogies only have to be similar in regards to a single point of comparison, not in every aspect. They certainly don't have to be "extremely similar," or similar in every regard.

"Her smile was like sunshine, brightening everyone's day."
Her smile was not extremely similar to sunshine. Her smile was not similar to waves of warming light, it isn't similar to photons, to electromagnetic radiation cast as a result of a burning star. dOn'T yOu SeE, tHeY aReN't SiMiLaR eNoUgH!!!!

You should get yourself checked for autism.

>>3791410
>>3791501
That's just replaying the game

>>3789602 (OP)
WRPGs need them because they are all poorly designed turds

Only after beating the main story of the game or in NG+

>>3791521
Guy obsessed with his bad chess analogies calls other people autistic?

>3790216
>3790264
>3790287
>3790757
>3791372
>3791380
>3791381
>3791389
>3791393
>3791395
>3791398
>3791401
>3791405
>3791410
>3791501
>3791521
>3791551
>Guy obsessed with his bad chess analogies calls other people autistic?

>>3789602 (OP)
Its only bad if you are forced to do it to beat the game.
If its completely optional and exists just for playstyle purposes then its not bad.

If you get bored and wanted to respec into something else that is fine.
If you reached a place where you are stuck and you are forced to respec then the game was poorly designed

If you made a poor build and you are struggling with the game then it can save you hours of progression, which is good. instead of playing again from the start you can respec and continue playing.

So its good if you want:
-change your playstyle
-fix your bad build

Its bad if:
-You are forced to change your build to progress the game because you made a good build but the game was poorly designed around build variety and viable classes so you are forced to change your desired class to progress the game

>>3791521
>Analogies only have to be similar in regards to a single point of comparison, not in every aspect. They certainly don't have to be "extremely similar," or similar in every regard.

The more vauge or dissimilar an analogy is, the worse it is and eventually it can even detract because it does the opposite. Like with idiotic chess example. It added NOTHING to the discussion and when your mongoloid ass wants to die on the hill of
>n-no my retarded attempt at """analogy""" was actually great!
over discussing the topic at hand you make it fucking clear you're an irrational close-minded idiot that has absolutely zero interest in challenging their ideas.

>"Her smile was like sunshine, brightening everyone's day."
That is not an rhetoric analogy for discussion, dumb fuck. It applies to inductive reasoning. Jesus fucking christ you're retarded.

In this context (inductive argumentation) analogies are used to take something complex someone has trouble understanding and recontextualize it with something they have a frame of reference for.
Instead YOU use it to feed your confirmation bias, as some "proof" that respeccing is bad because "look it would be terrible in this totally different scenario that isn't even remotely applicable 1:1 to the point where it isn't applicable at all!". As in, someone already having made up their mind with zero interest in challenging it. ie. a fucking close-minded idiot.

I'll use an example even an uncultured idiot like you have most likely seen, where a common analogy to describe folding space is by folding paper and making a hole in it. That is taking something complex and dumbing it down with an analogy to make it easier for laymen to understand it. In other words, the proper usage of an analogy in a discussion.

>>3791405
Read the above, you fucking mentally handicapped mongoloid and stop shitting up the thread with your close-minded shitposting.

>>3791878
>"look it would be terrible in this totally different scenario that isn't even remotely applicable 1:1 to the point where it isn't applicable at all!"
more like "im gonna misunderstand and misrepresent the analogy on purpose and then go on a delirious tangent in an effort to emotionally manipulate the readers to disregard the guy I disagree with!"
it's okay dude no one is gonna remove respec from games. it's a modern feature that "everyone" likes so rejoice.

>>3791915
>hehehe i'll dismiss everything what was said that disproved me to write a shitpost where i just deflect with fallacies, that'll prove how right i am
>if i just bury my head in the sand long and ignore what others are saying i'll never be wrong about anything since i just ignore everything that doesn't align with what i already believe
Big brain move.

>>3791950
you think this is about being right or wrong? I don't like respec as a feature so I made a comment in an attempt to demonstrate why it invokes such a repulsion in me. of course it was a bit farcical example, I find the feature as equally farcical as the "bad" analogy. and if you cant figure this nuance out by yourself then I don't know what to say really. maybe write another vagina of a post trying to gain someone's approval here.

>>3791956
>you think this is about being right or wrong?
You and potentially some other idiot wanted to die on the hill of defending that the chess example was a good analogy. You downplaying it as if you just made one comment and then kept focusing on respecccing is delusional when the facts are plain to see ITT.
Multiple people told you it was bad and you stil kept defending it.

Even in this very post you made you keep defending that example while pretending you're not and you're totally discussing respecs. You even shift the blame to others constantly like
>oh you people aren't smart enough to understand my amazing analogy
fucking get a grip.

An actually mature rational person would've taken the L long ago and discussed respeccing (which you claim to do, but don't).
But go ahead and prove me right with more deflections and keep on defending your chess example. That's ll you're good for since discussing respeccing is clearly beyond you.

>>3789602 (OP)
I respecced at a buffet today

>>3791878
Analogies don't have to be similar at all. They require a single point of comparison. If the comparison is too strong it actually ceases to have heuristic value.

"Memory is like a muscle—you strengthen it with use." Is a good analogy.

You want something more like, "A bicycle is like a motorcycle. They both stand up when in motion." A trivial category comparison where two things are extremely similar with minor differences. This is because you're autistic. You probably screech at your mother when the chair is moved because it becomes a completely different room and makes you anxious.

Your rhetorical skill amounts to sperging out and saying "fuck" and variants on "stupid" as much as you can, while being incorrect. I want you to know that this style isn't compelling. I didn't generate the chess analogy, I'm a third party. There's nothing wrong with the analogy. If anything it's still too similar because they're both games and both convey undoing progress in games, which makes it weak rhetorically but not incorrect.

Here are some better analogies:
..like switching your college major the day before graduation and receiving a different degree.

..like letting someone change their entire career path the day before retirement and collect a pension as if they’d done that job all along.

..like repainting a finished canvas while it hangs in a gallery.

I asked AI using a very simple and straightforward prompt to come up with analogies for why respeccing is bad in videogames. It gave me five and the fifth one was about chess.

>>3792042
Any food analogies?

>>3792044
There wasn't but here's one I specifically asked for for you

>>3792046
Kek
>respec = magic powers to make anything you want
Can you tell it to argue against respec?

>>3792042
>I asked AI using a very simple and straightforward prompt to come up with analogies for why respeccing is bad in videogames.
Doesn't list the entire prompt that probably has "PLZ MENTION CHESS".
Fucking autistic retard shitting up this thread as usual.

>>3792048

>>3792057
The prompt was
"What's a good analogy to point out the problem with being able to change your "spec" in a videogame that shows how it's like undoing progress and getting a do over"

>Please mention chess as the fifth point!
>You're actually the autistic one!
>Fucking retard fuck stupid you're fucking
This doesn't get old to you?

>>3792060
>Make sure you mention chess in the summary!!!!

>>3792057
Notice how my three "better examples" were extracted from this

>>3792060
That should be given to players to reconsider. For me the strongest point not to respec is the roleplaying aspect.

But let's face it: someone respeccing in Dark Souls doesn't give a shit about any of this.

Anyways, good explanations from AI.

>>3789602 (OP)
Depends on the game, in a game like Underrail its bad because that game is shit

This entire thread is pointless. Arguments on both sides amount to "my preferences should be forced upon others". It's your problem if you seethe about being unable to do everything in one playthrough, AND it's your problem if you can't keep it in your pants and just not use an option that ruins your immersion. Both camps need to go fuck themselves.

>>3792103
Respec isn't about doing everything in one playthrough, so up yours too, pointless anon.

>>3792116
Look man I wasn't gonna write a fucking novel, but whatever the argument is, I assure you that's a personal problem too, and not reason enough to either force respec into more games or rid the world of it entirely.

>>3789602 (OP)
Only if a game has set classes. Respeccing from a knight to a mage is bad design.

>>3792120
I WILL play a hybrid and you can't stop me

>>3792121
Are hybrids a good design choice?

>>3792103
All personal preferences are irrelevant and pointless, go fuck yourself.

>>3792126
Classless systems are superior and hybrid classes are a step toward classlessism, therefore yes they are a good design choice.

>>3792130
>classlessism
Kek

>>3792126
Any system that has classes should have trade offs. If you can select battlemage and have all the benefits of a warrior and of a mage then there's no reason to select those two. If instead the net effect on stats/skills is similar for combat potency then it's just flavor and therefore good

Classes need restrictions and restrictions help define the way a player engages with a game just as much as available options. Making a coherent game is more important than having this or that feature or design principle. These threads are indeed pointless babbling, it's better to talk about actual games.

>>3792145
>These threads are indeed pointless babbling, it's better to talk about actual games.
Where's your thread and why are you bumping this one?

>>3792146
You have the threads sorted by Last Reply? I don't have a thread going right now because there's nothing I want to talk about in particular, I don't care that this thread exists or is bumped, but I'm stating reality. Nothing will come of this, none of you will make a game and being against a feature is meaningless when what matters is how everything works together. Feature threads are dumb, "good design" is a dumb concept. Holistic discussion is the only way to approach games, dissection is for midwits.
This will probably go over your head.

>>3792147
>there's nothing I want to talk about in particular

>>3792148
>dissects post
Do you think that's a gotcha? You're dumber than I thought.

Any time you discuss a theoretical topic you always have people telling you they don't want to talk about it and you shouldn't talk about it.
>It's pointless to analyze game design if you don't design a game
>You can't talk about film theory if you aren't a director
>You can't have opinions on what good acting might look like, you have to only talk about a particular performance
Completely retarded. If the topic is pointless your comment that it's pointless is even more pointless

>>3792155
>immediately moves to film analogies
This tells you everything. /tv/fags are the worst posters on this site.

>>3792161
Red Herring kike debate tactic
Just lead with "I'm Jewish" next time so people can ignore you

>>3792185
>hates movies
>must be a jew
Who runs your cucked industry?

>>3792217
I made an analogy involving movies
This must mean that I post on /tv/ (I don't)
This must mean that I like kikes because they run hollywood (I don't)
This also means you can absolve your input from being pointless and retarded by utilizing a red herring (you can't)

He picked chess because chess is thought of as an intellectual game, and he wanted to appear smart.

It's that simple.

>>3789602 (OP)
I think every game should let you respec at least once, like how New Vegas lets you respec when you leave Goodsprings. Doesn't have to be a button in the menu you can press mid-combat like half the people in this thread are insinuating. But sometimes a playstyle is undersuppported, sometimes an ability doesn't do what it says (or what you thought it said), sometimes you don't like a game's swordplay/gunplay/magic system, etc.

Doesn't even have to be a full respec. If you don't want warriors turning into mages to clear an area that mages find easier then switching back, sure, fair enough. But at least let my warrior reallocate his skill points or stats.

>>3792465
>I think every game should let you respec at least once, like how New Vegas lets you respec when you leave Goodsprings.

This is a good idea so long as the early "tutorial" area accurately represents what the rest of the game will be like. I would even go so far as to allow players to respec as much as they want so long as they don't leave the tutorial area, so you can experiment to see what you like.

>>3792130
>Classless systems are superior

They're not. Any perceived freedom is fake anyway, because people will gravitate towards making a "mage", "warrior", "rogue", etc. in those games anyway, except they'd be worse designed and balanced than if those classes were created, while also being more bland.

>>3789670
It's the opposite. If you don't need to respec, then nothing you pick actually matters. The game is so easy that you can win with literally anything.

>>3792155
You can't have valuable insight and discussion when every attempt at proper analysis will inevitably be met with "no actually you're retarded and should kill yourself" rather than a proper response, and even those who TRY to reason it out inevitably result to ad hominem bullshit and insults in lieu of arguments sooner or later. This entire SITE is pointless nowadays.

>>3789602 (OP)
yeah

>>3789602 (OP)
It's a necessary evil due to the fact that almost all RPGs have godawful progression design.

>>3789602 (OP)
No, it removes replay value. It's only useful in grindfests you don't want to replay, like MMOs.

>>3789602 (OP)
No.

>>3790303
Looks like WotL where the job level requirements were increased to unlock each job with a new job introduced that require dozens of hours of grinding to unlock. I don't know why you think grinding is good. It never was.

I'm fine with respeccing as long as there's actually bad options. Like there's no point to a respec if you'll just do a bit less damage, but if you can just completely fuck up your build then you should be able to undo your mistake after realizing you made it.

>>3789765
>people like to talk smack on modern game design but that IS modern design, I never needed a fucking guide to find a cool unique sword or just not fuck up my stats because of some arbitrary check back in the day
Back in the day the DM wasn't above punishing you for not reading your player's guide and not actually knowing how your class works.

>>3789824
>Or learn to adapt
>wait shit, what do you mean all demons are immune to lightning and poison damage and the entire second half of the game is demons? That's what I built my strongest party members towards

>>3799442
The solution isn't allowing respecs, the solution is better encounter design and not enabling build traps

>>3799437
Maybe a shit one, who'd let that happen in the first place. You moderate your group and either bring new players up to speed or don't permit them to maintain standards. Dealing with a retard is a waste of everyone's time. Being weird about it and turning it into 'punishment' just doubles down on the waste. Just fucking talk to them. It's a bit different if the game is explicitly players vs GM like some of those old dungeon delving adventures but honestly, then the other players would likely talk to the problem player and get them to shape up or play a brainlet class, since then they're just hindering everyone else.
But it's a moot point because the discussion is specifically about videogames and obtuse mechanics, and if the developer puts a trap and then punishes the player in some way for falling for it, that too is a waste of time. And not an enjoyable one, unlike what games are generally intended for.

>>3789602 (OP)
Yes.
Anons acting like they're designing the holy bible of rpgs. The rpg will not be perfect and I will not replay tens of hours because I want to mix up my character.

>>3799442
>A wand that converts all damage of a spell into irresistible non elemental damage? no thanks let me respec (and then use that wand anyway)

>>3799574
>Anons acting like they're designing the holy bible of rpgs
Kek. You can tell it comes from people who never made anything, only criticized, thus the idealistic ignorance

>>3789602 (OP)
>cheap
no

i think it ultimately boils down to how long a player is supposed to play the character ,if its for hundreds of hrs like a mmo or rpg like skyrim,witcher etc i want respecs . i am not restarting witcher to change my build . if its an arpg like d2 or poe where u r supposed to try out new builds and char customization is part of the whole meta game and i can basically be done with a char is dozens of hrs i think respecs shouldnt be free/easy.(i am primarily an arpg player with thousands of hrs and am used to no/difficult respecs)

an example is the borderlands games where once u have all diff vault hunters at max lvl u technically dnt ever need to play another char ever and just keep respeccing . is this a good thing ? or bad ?

>>3792465
but the thing with these tutorial respecs r that these r not what we mean when we say respec . at this pt in the game u have played like half an hr so its not a big deal restarting. respec is generally implied to be mid late game when u realize u fucced up and need to change ur build . like u play for 30 hrs and why the fuck is a powerfist unarmed and not melee wtf blizzard fix ur game type shit.
but tbf no respecs along with general burnout after playing 100+ hrs of fallout/skyrims is one of the reasons the game gets a playthru every other yr from me

>>3790307
>people on this board has no idea what balancing even means.
Hate to break it to ya, champ, but you are definitely included in that. I would be so embarrassed to be an "industry professional" right now I wouldn't ever lead with that shit here. Talk about a laughing stock.

>>3800705
>necro thread with a reply to a post from last month

wow /vrpg/ fucking sucks lmao