So, it ought to be free since it will save you time from shopping and other clicking. I fail to understand the need for paying because 500g isn't a substantial sum and can be readily acquired in a single assignment

I really don't see any reason against. Reaching top Attribute tier with fresh character is, of course, very balanced. And very inline with current set of demands, which are (apart from this one, and not at all product of Snakefist's Mighty Sarcasm but real posts on Steam):

- changing character Class

- removing crafting time-limit

- accessing inventory during mission (which isn't at all bad as such, but shows the point - put a limit *anywhere* and people will ask it removed)

It seems that only *reasonable* requests get ignored - such as making (stupid) Acc hard-lock  higher or removing it, don't have a chance. Probably (this *is* Snakefist's Mighty Sarcasm) because it would actually help people who play more to have better characters than others - and it wouldn't harm the endgame much it top level would be, say ,100 - there's tens of skilltrees which are helpful-but-not-a-necessity and couple that are, and exp needed rises while exp rewards are not, etc etc... Bigger stash, too - after all, Inquisitor has the whole ship, and Van Helsing had just a chest, and still managed to put inthere like 3x more items...

Except if the item isn't constantly in the shop...

Will be watching closely come release to see how the finances of players handle. Very curious to see the impact of fully implemented crafting and item changes. 

This isn't to be an ass but just as an update as it's about as relevant as it gets. 

Item

Daily leak

Skill Tree Reset mechanics

You can buy a consumable (currently for credits, but not for fate - may change to crafting mats later) for a fixed price, to reset a sub-skill tree once.

Mind Reset

Awards 1 Skill-Tree Reset point. One such point allows redistribution of all Skill points that were spent on one specific skill tree.

PS: I'm hell-bent on implementing this in the game pre-release.

PS #2: Cabal stuff is under evaluation, thanks for all the feedback guys!

It Probably can be done in a way provided enough information and warning is given to the player. I've yet to see it within a game as the gradual transition of cost has been the norm. But I concede that you are right. It could work if executed well.

It's worth considering though that the games end point is not finite. It moves every 2-3 months. With new items and weapons being added again, players should hopefully enter again into a phase of uncertainty. Give them 2-3 new weapons in a new area and in theory it's possible that players will enter into a state of exploration once again in regards to builds. Granted they will be better equipped but that won't stop them wanting to try lots of new things when presented to them. Just something to keep in mind with the discussion I think. 

"More importantly not having a cost for (x) many levels then imposing a cost seems utterly bizarre to me. Fantastic way to confuse players or even frustrate them."

Not many games use the free respec until a certain level.

I experienced it once and I found it to be a good feature as it prevents you from suffering too much of a mistake while you don't understand much of the game.

You're not stuck with your bad decision to have put your point here instead of there.

And you don't have to spend pretty much all your ressources to correct your misinformed choice.

In addition, it is not frustrating to see the respec go from free to paying AS LONG as it is stated from the start. For example, if you have the cost to respec crossed with next to it or in a tooltip an indication that it's "free until you reach the Account Level X", then it's totally fine.

And, when you have to pay for the respec, you should have a better understanding of the game and your build and should make less mistakes. And you should have more ressources to manage to pay for your respec.

Another idea that would help, is having the possibility to remove for free a point you just put until you validate your choice or start a mission.

It would be really great if there was a place to try out your weapons on your ship. But it would at least allow you to check your character attributes, equipment and stash before committing to your choice.

Best idea i've seen all day :D

Mats are collected passively as we play but also used for crafting. Tick.
Credits collected passively as we play and use fdor crafting + store. Tick

Purple "Material's" would be my preference here as they seem ideal. They are both gathered passively by playing however if players chew through too much "then" they can start breaking down purples in inventory for it. Yes it would eat into their potential fate via the store but only if they really overindulge.

Note - Would also be on the assumption it needs more materials per rank and that you can only hold one at a time. (otherwise stockpile at low level)

Lovely idea.

You can Work for your respecc in a good time frame like 5 Missions mid game or something. This will be better then only 1 mill creds or 500 fate or 50 ancient mechanisms at least in my book ^^.

Snake that third point has nothing to do with you. It was in response that you saying the discussion was getting heated which means an increase in passion or conviction. I asked if you supported someone Dep's style of argument. You were not accused ever of supporting these actions. But bringing them into a discussion here isn't heated. It's a joke.  

The comment that you are attempting to have a debate doesn't imply failure. It's means putting effort into something difficult. The past tense are because I don't consider forums are live-chat hence i'd refer to a post in the past tense. Either way there isn't implication that the conversation has ended. However the points being made are now just being repeated.

Back to on topic

My "assumption" on why  players will have limited money come release day is based consistent experience. Resource systems are there for the purpose of limiting available choice. Martyr hasn't balanced it. It's missing numerous cost based features currently though which were listed. However t seems a perfectly safe assumption they will given it's the norm of the genre and indeed any genre is that players are given currencies to spend - but more things to spend on than they can immediately afford.

Now. I didn't ignore free respect to a point. Even at level 20 it doesn't then stop Fate being directly correlated with Rank experience. More importantly not having a cost for (x) many levels then imposing a cost seems utterly bizarre to me. Fantastic way to confuse players or even frustrate them. First respec yes of course. But for the reasons already mentioned I see players wanting dozens of respects before they reach level 20. Irrelevant's comment on having it tied to your rank carries less risk because players are made aware the concept of cost at early level however it becomes more impeding as you level.

Finally what rational claims have I dismissed that the game will function differently at launch? I've been repeatedly met with the absolute statement that spending fate during the levelling process will have no amount of impact the amount of available rank experience. I've yet to be told why that is the case however.

As I stated that my assumptions are based on the current core mechanism of the levelling experience that Fate = Rank experience and lost fate therefore means lost rank experience. Yes the two things might no longer be correlated at launch but no one has said that during this conversation. You instead said that the statement is false.

Little extra

Last point yet to be mentioned. We know DLC is also purchasable via Fate. Which will then mean in the players have another reason not to waste it. In the eyes of many Fate = Potential $ savings. Yet another reason this would go down like a bull in a china shop. 

@AIRSICK HYDRA‍ 

Mighty Snakefist speaks civil, in 99% of cases. Your bitterness is wrongfully addressed, and if The Snakefist wasn't such cool-headed he might get offended 

- "At least your attempt" - is everything decided (mene, mene, tekel, upharsin?) and He attempts in vain to return things to the start?

- "My attempts to make chat more civil" - this is not offensive, but what about The Snakefist chat? Was it offensive and uncivil?

- "child porn and human-trafficking" - The Snakefist has nothing to do with that, so please stop insinuating that He supports it

Back on the topic - your firm standpoint seems to be XP growth mush go on, His is not. Agree to disagree, but Snakefist doesn't think that (XP needing to represent straight advancement line). Fate can be spent in various ways, and some are clearly are not XP-related, so...

Perfect balancing - oh, dear... Was any aRPG balanced perfectly at the release? No, it took years, and some basic systems were changed radically in process. Economy included. Premise that, somewhat rushed, Martyr will be an exception is no basis for taking standpoint that it will, and this was seen in each and every aRPG so far - even D3, which you seem to be fond of. It took 3+ years with radical changes, replacing base mechanics and initial features and The Expansion to reach today's form - He'll keep this short and skip pointing to all the reversed decisions which happened. 

Anyhow, DLC is announced to fill the gaps and add content in some months, so Devs themselves don't consider release version, even with inevitable patching to be final words - you're here almost as long as The Snakefist is and must've noticed bunch of things changing, radically.

The way you dismiss rational claim that some of the systems will be changed radically to what you seem is right is wishful thinking - take example of payed for respec, which virtually never existed in Alpha before is one. That will change, but you presume it will going the way you expect and exactly like it. 

Player going broke with gold usage - well, it didn't happen till now and you have absolutely no base to think that it will in a month. Fact is, economy is hard to balance and historically has been changed many times - even in Alpha. The very thing that you assume that untested (in Alpha) changes will make it happen perfect or close to perfect is... unrealistic.

Besides, leveling was announced to be changed, and you and The Snakefist know in which way have no clue how much and in which direction.

From what we know, we make suggestions and have discussion (civil, He supposes), in order to explain different viewpoints to Devs, in order to make the changes reasonable and more balanced and Devs should have valuable input from playerbase in this matter, and it provides that even in (unwanted) direction and manner it is going, even if we have nothing but presumptions what respec will take - but Snakefist thinks most likely candidates are Fate and Gold (but some others may apply - Ancient Mechanisms, then what salvaging of Relics provide and some others).

Mighty Snakefist may discard everything you said the same way as you did - you base that much of the existing mechanisms will change and reach near-perfection at release, while there is absolutely no reason to consider it a fact - but He won't because lack of proof.

Why not provide some ideas on respec, the concrete ones - as what is acceptable Fate for respec (500 is just a presumption, and have no basis in fact) and state your opinion how much Gold it would be appropriate, minding the Account and player with lots of inherent resources as well as players with none.

You also conveniently skip the proposition of free-respec for first time players up to certain level, which would solve many things and take what you'd like to oppose. Perhaps you could take it in consideration and base the currency for respec with that in mind?

At least an attempt to debate things further...

My attempt to make the chat more civil has everything to do with it becoming uncivil. Nothing to do with heat. Unless you are telling me that you support the use of bringing child porn and human trafficking as a means to try and discredit someone? Thought not. People talking shit, especially like that should be called out on it. It's not contributing to the discussion.

Now back to topic. How is providing an extra fate sink not going to have an impact on rank? It's a very simple ratio beautifully convenient for explanation. Roughly 1 fate per 1 rank point. Spending X many fate therefore costs an equal amount of experience and progress lost. Spending a consumable unrelated to levelling simply makes sense as it's the standard of 95% of RPG/MMO/ARPG games.

As for the counterpoints. Every single one of them is made is on the assumption that the final product will also have an unbalanced and unregulated gold quantity just like the current. Which I simply don't believe. Perhaps we can at least agree that we are discussing two separate scenarios.

On one hand you wish to discuss what would be the most appropriate should there be no changes to the base economy. Whereas my argument is made on the basis that it will be balanced and function gold /credit currency as any other arpg's economy does. In which case, it becomes the standard choice for any game.

I'd also worth stating that there is a clear reason fate is the most sought after thing in early game. That's absolutely correct and we agress. This is 100% because it's used for a) levelling and b) gearing (But both simultaneously which is key) We therefore agree on the importance of it therefore.

As to what the cost would be should a player run out of money. Not be able to craft, modify or upgrade gear to suit their needs and rely on world drops instead, purchase packages of gear, purchase points via unique events. Purchase items from the shop. Basically the same as other titles. Again, provided the economy is balanced. 

You defeated yourself there without input from me. Bring child porn into a discussion as a means to sway people away from someone's point. Without even comprehension of what that person has said. Followed by intentional misquoting of them. I've seen this done 100 times before. You have failed to engage in debate and resorted to trying to discredit the other party.  

Mighty Snakefist has extraordinary much experience in aRPGs and bases his arguments on that.

None of that experience favours gold as respec currency. Grim Dawn has it, but it's terrifyingly high. Claim, and it's just a claim - nothing more - that some fate given will stall the players in his advancement is (in His opinion) wrong. Inherently.

If we take it true, we have loss of 1-2 levels. If we take Hydras claim about potentially +30% damage, then we have 1-2 levels vs. +30% damage and it's still a fair trade. Dispute this, with arguments.

On gold-scenario, whatever the cost may be - there's both +30% AND 1-2 levels. Since gold is worth nothing, that's favouring respec, for a reason unknown. Trade nothing for something. 

What is true is that whole thing is probably decided already - but if it isn't than straight, plain facts can still shift the game in the right direction. We had bad decisions before. We had people spoken about them. We have a better game now, thanks to that.

Claim that gold is going to be most sought-after currency on release is currently baseless - nothing for, nothing against. However, Fate is rather sure to keep it's current value. Wishful thinking that things will turn in some special direction is no base for rational explanation why gold is better than fate - all Snakefist can see is desperate wish not to give anything of proven value, but rather anything that may, and may not become of value after release.

Clap as much as you want - I speak what I believe it's true. We passed this at least once already, with quotes and everything, showing CLEARLY how you twist your own words and mine. 

As for gold argument, it's everything but sound. Luckily, this is not Inquisitor - Hydra, or else it would be the easiest game in existence.

As usually, you write something like that reply, declaring yourself a winner both morally and in discussion and retreat. Everything seen before...

+5 

But this is not how we do things here. In the grim dark future there is only bickering! Even when people agree we argue over specifics. Sometimes when we agree on specifics we make up stuff the other person hasn't said to avoid agreeing. All smells a bit like chaos to me but it's actually one of the things I like about this place. No shortage of people that are passionate about what they want.  

As you say, all the points have been made, some repeated. Let's "wait and see" what the staff have gone for.

"soon" ... :tm:

Those of you with a stance on this issue have made your points fairly. I propose to let the matter rest.

Sincerly,

Vlricus von Kronstadt

Well done for lowering the tone and bringing child porn and human trafficking into the conversation. All in the same conversation as calling me demagogic. Well done.

Slow clap

You respond to objective discussion about game mechanics using that. Really that's where this conversation should end. But as i'm here i'll correct you in that I did not state it should be free. I said the cost should be comparable cost to other games.

As you failed to provide justification as to why during the levelling process players should sacrifice something that contributes towards game progress over a standard currency system i'm going to assume you are out of ideas. Unless you want to refer again to credits not being balanced currently. Yet there's ample reason why credits will be required more within the final build and the fact we have spare credits now indicates the system isn't balanced or finished.

In summary you want it to have a cost like other games, yet you are requesting players sacrifice potential XP in order to respec rather than potential upgrades. How does that make sense.

I may not know perfect English, but I'm reasonably old and know several other languages - some much better than English. So, I wouldn't use non-English word without knowing what it means, just for show.

Demagogue = "a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power" from Merriam-Webster.

I used it because it describes your forum MO (and I know exactly what that means, too) perfectly - when in situation in which you're confronted with too strong arguments and opinion is generally against you (you were even downvoted and that's not my doing), you almost immediately state something like "it's not for me, it's for the new players and greater good". Also probably for fighting child-porn and human-trafficking. All the GOOD causes. 

It happened repeatedly in the past and I've noticed that.

Charging respect next to nothing is food for all the people who doesn't have Inquisitor yet - essentially whole mankind. Does it need to be in making the game overly easy - for 

Which OTHER aRPG game, except D3, you know that gives free respec? NONE. 

- D2, 3 times per character, only at start of new difficulty, only added in the last patch

- TL2, last 3 levels can be respeced, at some cost (nothing important, but mind the limit 'last 3')

- GD, extreme respec cost, and per skillpoint, not per character

- PoE, a tedious task for a single player, usually scrolls are bought from someone... at asking price (might be something very valuable - I've played it for few hundreds of hours)

And back to D3, why is the respec free? Because it's NOT BALANCED AT ALL. Take a moment and look:

http://diablo.somepage.com/popular/demon-hunter

First 3 skills, obviously OP, used by 70%-90%+ players. Last 3, less than 1%.

Did Blizzard ever bothered to buff a bit that last 3 skills? NO. 

And that's about why only D3 has free-respec, because skills are not balanced and unlucky player who choses one of <1% skills would be doomed. That's the famous 'experimentation' in D3 - take 6 out of top10... 

@IRRELEWAHNT‍ 

It's true that we don't know the crafting costs - it may be the gold-sink, VH had Enchant/Disenchant and Gamble. 

Then again, if I have 200 acc points for a secondary character, what I will experiment with - I'll have all major survival (HP, Movement) and combat (AoE) and utility (one that's about Innoculators and the Adrenaline one - can't remember right now) - and that's about ~70 points. I still have 130! For Astartes, Flame (if I plan to use it), Execution... Actually, with 200 I have enough to make a character who doesn't even need respec, whatever weapon I chose. And I'll be insanely rich with the chars that made Acc-200. 1,000,000 will be a pocket money - though, truth to be said, it won't allow me respect on per-map basis.

But only few of us are speaking about many thousands or million - my opinion is that million would destroy new players, and still not mean much for endgame.

Throughout The Story, player gets Fate periodically - don't know if that will remain so, but lets assume that it will. Finishing 2-3 parts gives 500 fate, so early game and beginners (may sound paradoxical, but it's true) are far closer to 500 fate than 50,000g.... and less likely to craft anything expensive, because it will be obsolete very soon... and I don't agree with Hydra who claims 30% loss - GOOD rolls on weapons and signums can give +5% bonus, 2 green signums can easily provide 15-20% of increase by having dual useful enchantment (+5% Ranged and +5% AoE on each, they are synergy), and a good roll on weapon (-cooldown or +damage with skill) can bring +30% bonus quite easily and they are cheap (in gold) - roll 20 green signums for 20,000g for 20 signums basically does it.

And there are 2 possible scenarious:

1) new player, first char who can make a crucial mistake like investing in Single Target or Innoculators (basically endgame skill-trees) may make their life harder - though I believe not crucial, but let's say that I'm not 'evil elitist' who wants many disappointed players. In that contest, I find Mighty Snakefist "Wise and Generous" suggestion of FREE respect for new players until a certain level WISE. 

Those players are unlikely to craft tier3 and tier4 items, both to their cost and the large investments in Forge and blueprints.

2) 2nd or 3rd character - not likely to make the same mistake and yet very rich - The Story with a new char gives ~2000 fate and (never to forget) likely SEVERAL acc-points from the whole account benefits, in my opinion much more worth than 500 fate (which has steady income over finished missions AND weekly glory). THAT player can sacrifice 500 fate, feel some kind of punishment but not too much. If tier4 Forge exists, some of those rich and powerful chars payed for it already, as well as purple plans, as well as crafting materials. 

Does high-tier chars should be allow respec, too? YES. And it's quite affordable for them. 1,000,000g is too (though I'm against gold as the respec currency).

Would that kind of investment destroy chances of advancement for end-game chars. HARDLY.

In this thread I think it's nobodys wish to make the game unplayable or over-punishment to new players - opposite is true, we all (players and NeoCore) benefit of having more and more new players. We disagree at the resource, but nobody wants new players hurt... I'd say it's a common goal to make the game enjoyable for everyone, just disagree on currency used....

Not going to go into why I find their version of NG+ suitable given the levelling and difficulty system. We beat that horse to death in another thread. Let's leave it that we disagree.

Regarding low level Respec. It's entirely possible to spend 10-15 points and gain 30%+ in terms of damage output. Perhaps more if you spend wisely. Yet with the change of a weapon, this can potentially go down to 0% if that weapon doesn't share the same traits. That is the justification. To players, 30% damage to try something new means a tough choice now has to be made.  

This won't happen in all situations granted. But it will happen fairly often. Yes there are options such as the ranged tree which might cover a wider variety of choice. But i'd question the advantage in encouraging all players do go for "generic" options when levelling vs getting a small taste of something specialised. That's my preference at least. People should be learning and experimenting during this period.

As it stands I honestly think when a player with a Bolter rifle finds a new weapon that they should be excited to try it out. But if there is a significant damage reduction without respec, which is entirely possible - then a player has a pretty big dilemma and choice to make. Not bother trying the new item and keep the most valuable resource in the game (fate) or set themselves back.

As for fate being the only "punishing" currency. Currently yes. In the Alpha build. But that in my view is only a byproduct of credits not being balanced yet. Credits will be required for loot packs as well as for crafting (which plans to be a major component of the game) within this situation the choice the player is met with is comparable in punishment to any other game. either upgrade and optimise your build. Or make something shiny. Yet without the consequences.

Also yes, this is all speculation. It's clearly decided. But some of us like waffles. 

If you say the respecc costs 1.000.000 you mess up the early stages. If you want fate for respeccs you just ahve another fate drain what will hurt even more ^^. Fate is the most valued currency ingame because you can not only do tarot with it but you can pay DLC's with it too.

I think a per point credit cost that is reasonable is the best way to deal with everything. We might end up with a lot of credit costs when you think about all the crafting that is not implemented yet. If you can start to reroll gear or if you buy the boxes from the cabal perk regulary you realy need to look for your credits. If you have climbing skill costs on a credit basis this will be something you have to look after.

Yes, Mighty Snakefist agrees - the matter is likely decided. The whole Discussion - or "Discussion" comes from the the fact we're one, 30-days long month from the release. Still the matter is only likely decided - perhaps the resource quantity needed for respec (or, rather, reset which imply whole skill-tree, possibly attributes which are now as the skill were - free to move) is still under debate, because it's easy to change...

@AIRSICK HYDRA‍ 

As a matter of fact, Mighty Snakefist, in His Endless Wisdom and Generosity, sees no problem for Players with 1 character on account and that character under lvl30, to respec FREE of charge...

However, those are likely to have similar amount of Acc-points (which again, in His Mighty Opinion, should be removed completely and Inq-level having the role of both, again). Experimentation with 15 points is weak. Incidentally, this is the level where Power Hammer is unlocked... So, in your opinion, new player immediately stops whatever he was leveling, and invest all in Hammer-build (which, for Power Hammer, Mighty Snakefist can't even imagine, but say that it wasn't a good example and there is one)?

However, fastforward to the last fact we know, and to player that isn't the first... He inherited a decent (or huge) amount of everything - equipment, cash, materials, fate - but also acc-levels, perks and attributes. He is by no means poor. He is by no means weak, because of acc-points and attributes he got for free. He may have millions of cash in shared stash.

He may have a large quantity of fate, too - all his character share it.

There's no meaningful price for this player to pay, but Fate - it concerns all his chars, but they're high level, can afford it. 

In all the cases I can't see why 500 fate is such a difficulty to completely stop the progress of player with more than one character.

In all the cases, I can't see why anything but fate would be a price which is felt by whole account, because of sharing everything.

But I can see you trying to make the game much, much easier than it is and than it should be... Again... So, Snakefist feels compelled to counter your arguments.

Now I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure the Founding is meant as a tool too help the game improve as much as possible. That does not neccesarily mean players get to hardgrind every build in the skilltrees with every class. Since the Game will feature respec, in yet unknown ways, I fail to see the problem if this is in regard to the current patch.

If, on the other hand, this relates to how one thinks/hopes the respec will be in the full release I think prudent add that there is another "currency" which might be applied; morality.

The reason for pointing this out and I quote from Release and Post-Release Content

"[...Morality system

• This will be tied to assignments and story events (in the campaign), where you will be prompted to make a choice that will push you towards "Puritan" or "Radical"
• Based on the two extremes, you will unlock
  • separate skill tree branches,
  • unique artefacts,
  • and a perk each. ...]

It further states from same source, quote:

[... 

Class builds

• Supported with unique items, passive skills and perks. 
• [...]
• [...]
• The system is built upon three pillars (passive skills, perks, unique item enchants), so it’s not only dominated by one trait, there’s a nice space for experimentation.
• [...]
• All classes will receive a bunch of new perks.
• Some of the passive skills will be changed. [...]" - quote end.

After reading this I came to the conclusion that it might not be as straight forward with respec as was previous believed. As a sidenote, since I am good at guessing and casully glancing at the files stored on my own computer I guess, for no reason that:

• very likely to be a 4-tier consumable that lets you respec X
• since it is consumable is cost something (fate/time/cash/grind/luck)

But since there now seems to be more focus on perks as a more active part of your build, could this maybe play a part in respecing? Since they do mention Puritan and Radical get each there own perk, so they are mutually exclusive, could there be other such forks which on later could respec? So respecing in regards to morality would be to actually change from Puritan to Radical, which Eisenhorn would fully support.

Not saying gonna comment on the whole "cost-of-respec"-thing further since its futile with further information. But do keep going cos it makes for good reading.

Sincerly,

Vlricus von Kronstadt

Curious use of the word demagogic. Considering you ignore many game systems.

Let's start with  the build system for each weapon. Each weapon suits different skill trees. There are very few trees that apply equally to all weapons. less than 25% of them. Most player choices and especially choices regarding damage will be orientated towards a particular type of weapon. This is fact.

Next point. There is therefore ample reason to want to change build therefore during the early levels because Rank 1-20  is the period in the game where you unlock a new weapon with almost every rank. It's the period of the game where players will likely change weapons the most. Not the least. Trying new weapons, going back if they don't like them. Reverting to original choices or wanting to explore new things.

Here is the big question..

Should a player be deciding between

a) going on a tarrot mission to get a powerful loot "and" valuable rank experience which constitutes as game progress / character experience.
b) Respeccing so they can optimise for a new weapon they just found, Which they may or may not like. Most of us don't want to try a new weapon with skill points that don't apply to it. It feels wrong. You aren't even giving the new weapon a fair chance to see if it's better. Then what if you don't like it? You sacrifice more fate to change back again.  More rank experience lost making you further behind where you would have been.

Honestly I can't think of anything less suited for this game's levelling system than the above. Fate is an integral part of progress within the game. Hording it and spending it wisely is one of the most important aspects of having a smooth levelling system. What you describe works fine for end game, it doesn't work fine for anything else.  The only possible way I could see fate working is if the cost were so small within the early levels of 1-2 that it was barely noticed.

In my view the reality is that players in Martyr during the early game should be encouraged to try new things. Not being met with a choice between progression vs optimisation. Optimisation has and always will be at a cost of loosing access to alternative means of optimisation which is why gold is used. Typically games like this allow you to spend a tranditional currency which you can do multiple things with. So you have a choice to either spend gold for a respec or to level Blacksmithing . Credits achieve a similar choice system whether you like it or not. Fate achieves something entirely different as it's a progress mechanism, not just a currency. Which you seem to want to discard.

As for low levels? Make it proportionate to rank. Simple. 

So this is the player we're talking about... It is possible that he regrets some choices made, but he is fully capable to deal with it by investing *some* of his fate in correcting the mistake. It will cost him 4-5 tarots, but hey! He can do tarots and respec AFTER if he needs gear that badly, price is the same. 

We're effectively ruling out beginners - who BTW have MUCH less gold than fate, because it is GOLD which accumulates during prolonged gameplay, because lack of adequate gold-sink.

So, even if you're trying to disguise 'the gold proposition' to something helping new player, it is just the opposite - allows end-game players help which they questionably need (or deserve) and punishing new players.

While I accept that experienced player may have regrets and afterthoughts too, they DO have a mean and resource to pay for it, and they SHOULD. 

What are you suggesting is 'painless punishment' - if, for example, I had to pay with gold, even if it's something like 300,000g - I can currently afford some 20 respecs (and won't feel a thing). Why I would need 20 respecs? Beats me, totally...

If I pay fate, I can currently do only 4 (initial 500 fate example) - but again it's not a catastrophic event - sure, I'll pay more attention to missions I play, etc. Far from end of the world, but reminder to think better next time. 

I DO have a problem with 'constant respec' - now I'm expert with a flame and DoT, suddenly becoming Melee/AoE - looks stupid, doesn't it? But this is a game, so it goes...

What I meant to say is that (proposed) gold-punishment of 1000g is nothing, and even hardened one (50,000 - 300,000, but nobody even mentions that) is hurting starting players - far harder to come to initial money which you need for blueprints and stuff, than lategame money that you need for NOTHING, desipte your ridiculous shop-claim (endgame 50,000 for purple plans is nothing; current crafting I can do with keeping gold increasing).

Here's where I disagree.

Say someone within Martyr decides to respec a few times because they can't kill a boss. It's too hard for them. Let's say they lost the equivalent of 3x Tarot missions due to these respects or 1-2 inquisitor ranks.

By spending fate on a respec you now "have" to play additional missions to get back to the same inquisitor rank aka the same position within the games progress system. This is because Fate is not just a currency. Fate correlates with Rank experience. Fate is therefore part of the core experience and progress mechanic of the game. Currently within the game wasted fate via crafting vs selling items for eg is immensely punishing to the total game experience. To the point people have to then play 20-30 additional missions of "catch up" to get to a comfortable rank for the campaign. This would be another means to lead to the same issue.

Take the following.

Two people in Co-Op with "fate"  respec
Player a) Respec several times --2 potential inquistor ranks as a result as gear punishment. The rest of the campaign experience is now harder as a result providing the players input the same number of total game hours. This isn't a system where a player uses something they naturally accumulate as they play. It's something that will set back progress within game as a result of choice.

Player b) No respec +1-2 extra ranks. Future campaign is easier as a result providing the players input the same number of total game hours.

This is my issue with the proposal. It punishes progress by forcing players to invest additional time to compensate for their choice and bring them to a comparable point in the game. Credits however would force a player to choose between either
a) Respec
b) Crafting
c) Shop

Which is far more in line with what other games offer. It makes the immediate game harder should they make poor choices but it doesn't mean they "have" to grind additional content to reach the point of progress they should have been at.


The best way I can summarise is that Fate doesn't function like gold does within other games. It directly correlates with how far you have gotten in the game. By forcing players to part with it, you are denying them better gear upgrades but also forcing additional grind to compensate to the same position of game progress. Is it really ideal to have a system that directly rewards game progress when they never respec? No.   

On the other side, He definitely sees no logic in disconnecting fate from respec. They are the two sides of one coin - in theory, player who wants to respec few points might also EARN them, by using fater or otherwise - and not to mention player who want a total respec - 500 fate price is a bargain for, say, acc-60 character. More, even - Snakefist finds point/"some fate" fair, too. 

Also, 'changing weapon' - what is the exact connection in paying faith with changing weapons? Mighty Snakefist is, and always was publicly disapproved decision that itemization progress lasts 20-Inq levels - that decision is both weird and doesn't support both 'changing weapons' and 'experimentation' - with everything there is available in the first 20 Inq-lvls, players have a general idea what the weapon are like. There are no surprises later, nothing worth 'experimentation' will emerge - just more of the same, perhaps with more / different affixes.

"Fine art in silver" in D2 was that weapons had 3 tiers, last two rarely found in shop (crafting was limited to runecrafting, a story for itself) - translated, even endgame chars in final stages of leveling might find something (not yet available at current plvl and) prone to experimentation. Now, playing 60 (20-80, perhaps 80th is a limit?) additional levels with all what is to be revealed early? Snakefist might as well decide what he want to be in the first 20 levels and just continue build... Or, when (on Snakefist Mighty Disapproval) whole 80 skill-points are transfered, player chose his game-plan almost immediately - and that REMAINS the same, respec or no.

Does (potential) transfer of 80 skill-points make game "rewarding and fun and increases experimentation"? Snakefist thinks NO!

Does fate-cost of major character restructuring makes game "bland"? Snakefist says fate is the reasonable solution, since process of thinking 'what do I need the least, and could sacrifice without regret? oh, yes, gold (of course), perhaps crafting material, perhaps Glory (really?! Snakefist can't remember where He read this, but it's BRILLIANT!) leads to essentially free-respec. Regular missions are played because of FATE, and not because of gold, or crafting materials. As of now, Fate is most needed resource and therefore most suitable for making payment more-less substantial. Anything else proving hard enough to find and potentially lacking for player can play the same role (let's forget D3 in its endless total stupidity, PoE has respec, but it's a tedious process for lone player, and basically more advanced players pay someone with those Scrolls of Regret, giving something valuable - item or whatever, but definitely not the least needed stuff they have).

Not entirely sure why I got a downvote for simply quoting what the official statement was on this? Salt detected.

To contribute to the discussion through i'm in agreement with those who think fate should be kept a billion miles away from respec as a function. My reasoning is that fate is something to help you progress in the game via the accumulation of gear and rank points.

Having player make a choice between progress vs changing weapon I don't see as a sensible choice. Making the choice between something convenient but not imperatively important like credits makes more sense to me. It's inconvenient to have no credits but you can still progress unimpeeded. You can also make the choice, to buy items or to buy a respec. To me that seems a logical choice.

Who knows though. Whatever it is it'll already have been decided :D

It is very interesting how OP's  initial idea, which I found reasonabe - 500 fate for respec (I presume complete - perhaps also having 'light' version of 50 fate / skill, in case only 3-4 misplaced points need to be moved elsewhere), degrades as much as 1000 CREDITS, WITHOUT EXPONENTIAL GROWTH? By using currently the least needed and most easily obtained and hard to spend resource? Why not FREE, then? In fact, allow respec during the mission or so...

What I find strikingly wrong is definition of 'nowadays' - you guys are WAY to old to know what and how milennials think - judging by 100% of what I have at home, 'they desire game that tottally hard for real players, with much of a challenge'

As  for wasting time, I thank the once-in-the-lifetime poster input, feeling that it just wasted mine... Devs are busy, making the game which will exclude minimal players possible (by mechanism of PL) and provide meaningful content to ones which will play The Story only, and solo- and coop meaningful and long (if desired) endgame - and vision where respec is normal before each mission or better yet during, are waste of time to answer.

They DO read the post, often acknowledge them without reply, but having 1000c vs 0 discussion is surely something that will be left unanswered...

Gaming is and should always be about reward, rewarding, fun.

Punishing mechanism are always a poor noway end.

1000 creds per skill points reset seem to be a fair trade.

Even Blizzard removed the dumb exponential cost for perk reset in WOW ... Yes, WAR40K is not 'wow'. But punishing mechanism are and will always be stupid, and very negatively perceived as a trick  from the devs, to artificially expands game's lifetime.

I love to try things.

That's my main pleasure : try the more combinations i can.

Actually, post patch, i'm stuck with an unplayble character.

Why ? I allocated points to try some weird / unusual / unexpected combo, and to test how tooltips  were accurate, or not.

Thank you for wasting my time / efforts / input, dear devs !

"This change makes the game even more shallow."

^This! These kind of changes are not fun, this is not entertaining. At this way they are putting there players in a grind loop and this is showing a lack of understanding of there (potential) users AND they are narrowing down the available content furthermore.

It was always a bug that you could repsec 100% of the time for free. They just left it in as it was convenient.

There will however be a consumable used to reset skill trees. We have no idea how it works or what it costs :)

Rly... bring it back. This made me quit the game... -.-