Ability, Skill respecs, 32 point/drow unlocks.

[Borror0]

Notice him suggesting the very thing I wrote?

If you only state one half of the story, you are misrepresenting his position. That is why quote mining is a fallacy.

Since you said that he wanted to give the reward, but did not mention he wanted the players to grind favor for another reward, you misrepresented is position. He is not in favor of having everything to players, he wants to correct what he sees as a design flaw.

Notice also he is not suggesting this new favor reward system be replaced with something juicy like you are trying to claim throughout this.

Quote mining!

The OP did talk about juicy rewards. Try again.

The first part of my suggestion is to make drow and 32 point builds the standard, and replace the 400/1750 favor unlock with something juicy in its place (in addition to the +2 tome for 1750).

Backward logic to think that "given" is another term for handing over?

If he was only giving, he would be "handing over".

Sadly for you, he is also requiring the players to grind for something else that you won't have to grind for.

Using and not using the feature is both unpleasant?

The unpleasant conflict is:

• Deleting a character to take advantage of the reward on that character, thereby losing all progress previously made on that character
• Not deleting the character but accepting that the character will never be as good as could be

If not obvious enough, not using the feature is picking option #2.

Therefore, your advice of "If you feel the feature is needlessly unpleasant, don't use it." does not solve the problematic.

Attach the word "fun" to an arguement, how can anyone be against it?

Realistically, no one. Well, unless the suggested change has other harmful effect on gameplay.

We are talking about a video game. Whether something is fun or not is about the only valid metric in an argument.

If I had an interest or was even discussing 28 to 32 point builds, I might humor you and demonstrate any negative side effect from it. Any more distractions you care to throw at me?

Distraction? I think you need to look at what the topic is. You can't have more on topic than this...

[eonfreon]

Distraction? I think you need to look at what the topic is. You can't have more on topic than this...

Good luck Borr.
You must be extremely bored tonight.

[QuantumFX]

Personally, I’d like to see the system changed to where the only way to get a 32 point character is to get to 1750 and respec. No 32pt builds at character creation for you. Veteran players have it too easy.

[Borror0]

You must be extremely bored tonight.

I am. Feeling too tired to play LOTRO or DDO, so I read news, watch videos and argue on forums.

[Quanefel]

If you only state one half of the story, you are misrepresenting his position. That is why quote mining is a fallacy.

Since you said that he wanted to give the reward, but did not mention he wanted the players to grind favor for another reward, you misrepresented is position. He is not in favor of having everything to players, he wants to correct what he sees as a design flaw.

Quote mining!

The OP did talk about juicy rewards. Try again.

If he was only giving, he would be "handing over".

Sadly for you, he is also requiring the players to grind for something else that you won't have to grind for.

The unpleasant conflict is:

• Deleting a character to take advantage of the reward on that character, thereby losing all progress previously made on that character
• Not deleting the character but accepting that the character will never be as good as could be

If not obvious enough, not using the feature is picking option #2.

Therefore, your advice of "If you feel the feature is needlessly unpleasant, don't use it." does not solve the problematic.

Realistically, no one. Well, unless the suggested change has other harmful effect on gameplay.

We are talking about a video game. Whether something is fun or not is about the only valid metric in an argument.

Distraction? I think you need to look at what the topic is. You can't have more on topic than this...

I am not stating half the story, I am making remarks about certain things in his whole post. Why would I be required to pull in his whole post just to remark on part of it? If I wanted to talk about others parts, I would have done so. Quote mining? No, you just see fallacy's in any persons post who is not in lock step with a certain idea.

It does not matter that him or others want a new reward in place, the fact that the current one is wanted to be given freely to everyone is what I have been talking about. Nothing you say will ever get me to overlook that part, I simply won't.

Quote mining, again? Kind of like what you just did to me just now......hmmm...

The quote of his I am going off is the one I outlined. He might have said juicy elsewhere but it is not from the part I was quoting, his Summation. He changed it to "good" and that the new rewards need to be not really necessary for new players. This does not give me the impression of wanting the NEW set of rewards to rise to the level of "juicy".

IF he is giving.....what? If players are to all given drow and 32 point builds, it is not really giving? I suggest you look up the word, give, giving and given. Instead of trying to redefine it. Hand over is no different from giving, attaching some clause to it does not change its definition, sadly.

And commenting that this new reward will not require me to grind for, that since I already have the favor I will just have it given is probably the wrong approach IF you are trying to entice me with it. Believe it or not, there are people who actually like having a goal and reaching it for a reward. The idea of it being given, is not all that appealing. Maybe you have me confused with those you are trying to champion for? So if I am going to be given this new 400 and 1750 favor reward, I will find the nearest cliff and toss it. I want to earn it, get it?

No, the unpleasant conflict boils down to...some not wanting to put any effort into reaching a goal. My advice does not solve it? Actually it does but it is not the emotional, feel good approach you would have as advice for this conflict.

Realistically no one could argue against it? And that is my point and why you use it in almost every argument. Leave no room for anyone to disagree with you and you can feel safe in your own arguments that would not be able to stand up with the word "fun" attached to it. A weaker way to argue in my opinion.

It is a video game? Yes, DDO is just a video game but we are not talking about just the game, we are also talking about the PEOPLE who play the game. I know, remove the human equation from any of the arguments and you can avoid any realistic measures of the warped expectations which is near the root cause of this "conflict". I know the old line...."But, it's just a game...." Unless people want to suggest the game plays itself, then it being "just a game" becomes null and void.

And yes, that is a distraction since I pointed out I had no interest in talking about 28 to 32 point builds. It is a different subject than what I have no desire to talk about.

[Borror0]

It does not matter that him or others want a new reward in place

It does, since the argument is making is that he wants to hand things over freely to new players.

Let's imagine two situations.

Situation #1:
Players have to spends many in-game hours grinding for an apple and an orange.
Developers add a potato and cucumber to the game, available to all without grind.

Situation #2:
Players have to spends many in-game hours grinding for an apple and an orange.
Developers make apple and orange, available to all without grind.
Developers add a potato and cucumber to the game, requiring the same grind as the two fruits did.

In both cases, all that the developers did was adding content to the game. In neither cases did they hand anything over to the new players. The only thing that change is the reward for the grind. In one situation, players get a potato and a cucumber for free but have to grind for an apple and an orange. In the other, players get an apple and an orange for free but have to grind for a potato and a cucumber.

There was no lowering the bar.

He might have said juicy elsewhere but it is not from the part I was quoting, his Summation.

There are three possible reasons for that:

1. The OP is contradicting himself for an unexplainable reason
2. The OP did not mean what you believe he did by "doesn't feel 'necessary' to a new player"
3. The OP changed his mind while writing his post but was to lazy to review his position

The most likely explanation is #2, especially since he used quotation marks which denotes an unconventional use of the word.

I'll let him clarify his position himself but the fact you are basing an argument on a contradiction is troubling.

Believe it or not, there are people who actually like having a goal and reaching it for a reward. The idea of it being given, is not all that appealing.

Then, I assume we will see the current situation if Eladrin adds new spells in a module:
Eladrin: We added 5 new spells in the game.
Quanefel: How dare you?! I wanted to grind for them!

If not, then your argument does not stand.

Leave no room for anyone to disagree with you and you can feel safe in your own arguments that would not be able to stand up with the word "fun" attached to it. A weaker way to argue in my opinion.

A few comments:
1. There is room to argue, I even said "Well, unless the suggested change has other harmful effect on gameplay [and you can point them out]".
2. Using a logically sound argument is not a weaker way to argue.
3. Being fun is about all that matters for a video game. If the game is not fun, then sales and subscriptions will go down.

Unless people want to suggest the game plays itself, then it being "just a game" becomes null and void.

Demonstrate how the proposition would lower the subscriptions.
It is a different subject than what I have no desire to talk about.[/QUOTE]
Look again. The topic is 32 point buy and 28 point buy.

Whether or not the ability to upgrade from 28 to 32 point buy has any harmful is extremely relevant to the topic.

[Drekisen]

I'm failing to see how drow should just be given without unlocking with favor. Drows are 32 point builds, and even tho it really only helps for the first few levels, they also start with 11 SR. I don't think this is something that should just be given. What would be cool is if they made an enhanced version of each class at 400 favor, including drow still. Like a +4 set bonus to ability points to halflings, dwarves....etc...and throw in a few different enhancements.

For instance, a perfect example would be like for dwarves...400 favor unlocks Duergar. Something along those lines.

I can see what ur saying that u should be awarded something new for each time u unlock 400 and 1750. That I agree with totally, not sure what it would be tho.

[Borror0]

I'm failing to see how drow should just be given without unlocking with favor.

Have ever played Super Smash Bros. Brawl?

If you did, then maybe you have experienced the situation where your favorite character has to be unlocked. When/if that happens, what generally occur is a race to unlocking the character you want to play. While you do enjoy playing the game, you enjoy doing so less than if you had took your time.

It can be argued that unlocking the character is an incentive to play more, but that is untrue.

Many functions could have been coded to make those areas attractive rather than requiring the player to unlock characters. In SSBB, it could be new stages, more options over multiplayer fights, additional fluff, etc. In DDO, those could be character improvement to that specific character.

It does not need to be a new character/ or a new class/race, nor is it really a good idea.

[Quanefel]

It does, since the argument is making is that he wants to hand things over freely to new players.

Let's imagine two situations.

Situation #1:
Players have to spends many in-game hours grinding for an apple and an orange.
Developers add a potato and cucumber to the game, available to all without grind.

Situation #2:
Players have to spends many in-game hours grinding for an apple and an orange.
Developers make apple and orange, available to all without grind.
Developers add a potato and cucumber to the game, requiring the same grind as the two fruits did.

In both cases, all that the developers did was adding content to the game. In neither cases did they hand anything over to the new players. The only thing that change is the reward for the grind. In one situation, players get a potato and a cucumber for free but have to grind for an apple and an orange. In the other, players get an apple and an orange for free but have to grind for a potato and a cucumber.

There was no lowering the bar.

There are three possible reasons for that:

1. The OP is contradicting himself for an unexplainable reason
2. The OP did not mean what you believe he did by "doesn't feel 'necessary' to a new player"
3. The OP changed his mind while writing his post but was to lazy to review his position

The most likely explanation is #2, especially since he used quotation marks which denotes an unconventional use of the word.

I'll let him clarify his position himself but the fact you are basing an argument on a contradiction is troubling.

Then, I assume we will see the current situation if Eladrin adds new spells in a module:
Eladrin: We added 5 new spells in the game.
Quanefel: How dare you?! I wanted to grind for them!

If not, then your argument does not stand.

A few comments:
1. There is room to argue, I even said "Well, unless the suggested change has other harmful effect on gameplay [and you can point them out]".
2. Using a logically sound argument is not a weaker way to argue.
3. Being fun is about all that matters for a video game. If the game is not fun, then sales and subscriptions will go down.

Demonstrate how the proposition would lower the subscriptions.
It is a different subject than what I have no desire to talk about.
Look again. The topic is 32 point buy and 28 point buy.

Whether or not the ability to upgrade from 28 to 32 point buy has any harmful is extremely relevant to the topic.

I am not making it look like anything, it is what it is. I am just pointing out that fact. You want to dance around the issue, I do not.

In neither case new players are not being handed over anything and that the only thing that changes is the reward for the grind? Incorrect. "Available to all" is just a clever way to avoid saying given or handed over.

If it is true that the only thing being changed is the new reward, how and where is the current reward going to be handled? For your comment about the only thing changing to be remotely true, then the current rewards would be replaced and removed completly for a new set of rewards. No, the current reward is wanted to be placed elsewhere, given freely to all. AND then a new reward put in place. Only after giving out the original awards to all.

Unless of course what this is really about is that you do not like the word "given" or "handed over", as some condesending terms? I am getting that feeling from so many attempts to avoid using the very word the OP used in his own writing. Terms I keep pointing out but you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge. Maybe you want me to pretend the OP never used the word?

5 new spells? Cool, I will grind out chests for the scrolls like we have been doing for a long while. You might have wanted to pick a better analogy there.

The OP wrote what he wrote, don't try to reinterprete it.

No, there is no room for arguement. Even your words of ""Well, unless the suggested change has other harmful effect on gameplay [and you can point them out]". Is you, attaching conditions to any arguement to not only steer it the way you want but to close off any arguement unless it fits in a narrow, pre-determined condition. Egocentric comes to mind for a person to think THEY and they alone get to set the rules and conditions with which to argue against their position.

"Fun" is still a weaker way to argue because you even said it yourself, that is hard for anyone to argue against "fun". Hence why it is a word you will toss in when you want to steer the arguement.

There is a big difference between something being fun and for some wanting to change things so its fun for THEM, mindless anything else. You want to use the word as a trump card and I am calling you on it.

The topic of this thread is not just about 28 to 32 points, it involves other ideas as well. Reread the OP, please.

[Quanefel]

How about this idea instead.

Remove 32 point builds and drow from ever being gained or available from here on out. No reward for 400 favor nor a +2 tome or 32 point builds for 1750 either. New players will never feel slighted for not having those rewards if they do not exist. Problem solved.

Also might want to remove the extra character slot we get at 400 and 1750 favor too while we are at it. If those are still there.

[branmakmuffin]

In summation, I believe the drow, and 32 point builds should be given to everyone, including new people, without needing to do a favor unlock

How much of your opinion is based on the notion that 28-point builds are "gimped?"

[William_the_Bat]

I think the 1750 grind is one of the worst things in the game. I hate the grind so much that I have never done it at all.

Frankly, I have seen people start the grind then quit the game before finishing it.

I have two accounts full of 28 point build characters. Only one character is capped. Obviously, I love rerolling. Trying new builds is where most of my fun comes from. But I am often frustrated when a build I would like to try is "gimped" without a 32 point build. I have a lot of multiclasses with very low Con because the build would not work at all without a specific amount of str, dex, int, whatever. If I had 32 point builds, most of these builds would have 4 more points of Con, making them a lot more survivable, and thus a lot more useful.

But the price for 32 pointers is you either grind favor on a character that is far enough over the level of the quests that it's uninteresting, or you set up a questing agenda for your character to run specific quests on specific difficulties only, which begs the question of who is unlocking the quests for you and how are you getting groups that are willing to run the exact quests you want?

In a nutshell, I believe the grind to unlock 32 pointers is bad for the game. And while it might be "unfair" to give them to all accounts, the benefit to the bottom line of player retention would be well worth it.

[Borror0]

Incorrect. "Available to all" is just a clever way to avoid saying given or handed over.

Correct denotation but incorrect connotation.

In the past, when you used "giving" , there was an obvious negative connotation. However, for the point you are trying to make here, it requires you to remove that negative connotation. Otherwise, the point you are making is inexistent as giving does not have an inherently negative signification.

5 new spells? Cool, I will grind out chests for the scrolls like we have been doing for a long while. You might have wanted to pick a better analogy there.

The simple fact that you picked the one class that can inscribe spells, out of the six classes that can cast spells, to respond to my argument speaks volume about the respect you have toward those with opposing ideas.

Respond to the argument from the perspective of a bard, cleric, paladin, ranger or sorcerer.

The OP wrote what he wrote, don't try to reinterprete it.

Since there is contradiction, interpretation is unavoidable until he clarifies his position.

How you conclude that your version is the correct one eludes me, but I will never know the answer since you didn't attempt to refute my argument.

No, there is no room for arguement. Even your words of ""Well, unless the suggested change has other harmful effect on gameplay [and you can point them out]". Is you, attaching conditions to any arguement to not only steer it the way you want but to close off any arguement unless it fits in a narrow, pre-determined condition.

Fun is about the only metric on which we can base our decision on a video game.

Refute that.

Egocentric comes to mind for a person to think THEY and they alone get to set the rules and conditions with which to argue against their position.

Since human mental process only involve one individual, such a thing is unavoidable.

If human brains start working in brain to process information, then your statement would make sense. Currently, it does not.

The topic of this thread is not just about 28 to 32 points, it involves other ideas as well. Reread the OP, please.

Wrong. It is very relevant to the discussion.

OnyxBMX: Players should be able to upgrade their 28 point buy into 32 point buy.
Quanefel: No! Never! That's not a good idea.
Borror0: Why is that?
Quanefel: You're going off topic.

That is how absurd your position is.

How much of your opinion is based on the notion that 28-point builds are "gimped?"

It depends on how you define gimps, I would say.

If you define gimp as less good than personally desired by some, I would say all his argument is based on that notion. If you define gimp as so bad that it is barely playable (if at all), then the response probably he that 0% of his argument is based on that notion.

[Caratacus_of_Archen]

I still enjoy to play my 28 point Paladin(14)Fighter(2) (Rainard on Ghallandra), And would never delete/reroll. I have had the fortune of being around since the birthday cake (1st anniversary) which I used for a strength boost, 18 to 19, this alone is equivalent to 3 points...making Rainard in essence a 31 point build. Granted If ever I got a +1-3 STR tome it would nullify that +1 inherent bonus, Over-riding or improving it, But I have rather used tome for Cha, Wis, and Con at present.

But, I am not a hardcore player of DDO, but I am a good player. Grinding is not my thing, haven't even bothered with GS items yet as I am saving the shroud Exp (On my 16s) for when the cap raises and it will actually be applied to my level ( now there is possibly a legitimate rant: make it possible to 'turn of exp' like several other MMOs have implemented so that capped players can turn exp back on and gain exp from the upper end quests - a nod towards lack of new content implied here). Meanwhile I enjoy playing on new characters, and 'not grinding' them through the content while awaiting the Mod 9.

Also,
somewhere it has been implied that the game is 'dying' because of the last couple Mods. I have not seen anything of the sort, I came back to DDO after a year off because it was in dire need of fixes then (prior to Mod7) and have been enjoying it quite well thank you. IMet a lot of return players in the PuGs I have joined who say bassically the same thing.

Summarily,
If you need a 32 point build to feel/play well in DDO, you are going about all wrong and should find some other watered down MMO.

If you are casual in DDO, then the 32 build is not a big issue, but it is a nice reward at the end of long journey...one I recommend staying the course on your first or second character before continuing on another (so as to benefit fromt he reward), I myself have 2 characters that are 28 pt builds and I seem to have no issues in any groups with them. On th other hand, if you are a hardcore player, then you will zerg your way through the elite content to 1750 favor in no time and the issue is again moot.

What really should be on the table here is an update in favor rewards, not a restructiring, just additions to what is already there and is already working.

Thanks for reading

[Quanefel]

Correct denotation but incorrect connotation.

In the past, when you used "giving" , there was an obvious negative connotation. However, for the point you are trying to make here, it requires you to remove that negative connotation. Otherwise, the point you are making is inexistent as giving does not have an inherently negative signification.

The simple fact that you picked the one class that can inscribe spells, out of the six classes that can cast spells, to respond to my argument speaks volume about the respect you have toward those with opposing ideas.

Respond to the argument from the perspective of a bard, cleric, paladin, ranger or sorcerer.

Since there is contradiction, interpretation is unavoidable until he clarifies his position.

How you conclude that your version is the correct one eludes me, but I will never know the answer since you didn't attempt to refute my argument.

Fun is about the only metric on which we can base our decision on a video game.

Refute that.

Since human mental process only involve one individual, such a thing is unavoidable.

If human brains start working in brain to process information, then your statement would make sense. Currently, it does not.

Wrong. It is very relevant to the discussion.

OnyxBMX: Players should be able to upgrade their 28 point buy into 32 point buy.
Quanefel: No! Never! That's not a good idea.
Borror0: Why is that?
Quanefel: You're going off topic.

That is how absurd your position is.

It depends on how you define gimps, I would say.

If you define gimp as less good than personally desired by some, I would say all his argument is based on that notion. If you define gimp as so bad that it is barely playable (if at all), then the response probably he that 0% of his argument is based on that notion.

Ah see, the word itself has no negative connotation to it. It is the perception of the person reading it is where the issue really lies. I for one have no desire to remove any negative connotation from a word or try to convince others to not look at something negative that might actually be negative. In an Utopian society that might work, in the real world it does not.

No, the simple fact is I picked a class I actually played. All but a sorceror from your revised listed can not be included since they automatically get any spell added to the game. I do not play a sorceror, therefore it does not apply to me. Instead, you want me to respond to the question to fit another narrow and predetermined path for me to answer. My response speaks volumes about my disrespect towards others with opposing ideas? Are you serious? No, I did not respond the way you thought I would, so you are upset I did not play along nicely.

How I concluded on "MY" version of what he wrote? No, sorry. He wrote what he wrote nor do I have to refute anything from you to somehow prove he did not write it.

Fun is the only metric to base our discussion on a video game? Well, one we are not just talking about a video game but also the people who play it. Another, there are more than one metric to have a discussion of a video game in general. Fun does not come from a video game, fun comes from us playing the game. Without the people playing it then fun would not even be part of it. Refuted.

Wrong, it is not relevant to the topic I am discussing. It is a topic you keep trying to push on me and I have said numerous times I have no interest in that part of the OP. I could care less about 28- to 32 point builds. You just will not back off it.

No! Never! That is not a good idea! Off topic. <----It would help if I actually was talking about that subject, I have not.

That is why your position looks absurd. So please, just .....let.... it.... go.

[Drekisen]

Have ever played Super Smash Bros. Brawl?

If you did, then maybe you have experienced the situation where your favorite character has to be unlocked. When/if that happens, what generally occur is a race to unlocking the character you want to play. While you do enjoy playing the game, you enjoy doing so less than if you had took your time.

It can be argued that unlocking the character is an incentive to play more, but that is untrue.

Many functions could have been coded to make those areas attractive rather than requiring the player to unlock characters. In SSBB, it could be new stages, more options over multiplayer fights, additional fluff, etc. In DDO, those could be character improvement to that specific character.

It does not need to be a new character/ or a new class/race, nor is it really a good idea.

I understand u don't like the class/race suggestion I made, but unlocking favor takes time. I mean U HAVE TO do new quests and higher difficulty settings to get it. U cannot simply grind WW, STK, TR & Delera's multiple times to get drow, because u have to have the favor. The xp doesn't come into play.

In the case of DDO u are basically forced into doing multiple quests to unlock ur favor rewards. I think this clearly makes a person play more than somone who is just simply trying to level as quick as possible.

I never played SSBB, I don't know how to make any analogies to that game.

Honestly I personally don't mind the favor system now, I just wish there was an additional reward for going past like 2500 or something. I guess the real reward there is u can unlock a lot of quests for ur lowbies without having to go thru it on all the settings.

[phinius]

The question are:

• How many players really reroll their 28 point buy characters?
• How much tiem does it really add to their subscription duration?
• How many players does such a stupid design cost us?

1) None and I have several.
2) None. I continue to play for other reasons.
3) I have recently talked to four new players that have accompanied other players returning to the game. Once they realized they had to grind out 1750 favor just the play the character they want to play, they quit. This also prevented the returning player from staying as well.

[Kistilan]

The grand irony of this post is, I actually had that exact same solution in my original post.

I apologize in advance -- I saw the word "respec" and "ignore Int as an option" and skipped through your initial OP after that. Call me evasive -- I don't believe in respec and avoid the topic like the plague.

I just wanted to give the storyline aspect and minutia a fleshed-out interpretation based on later posts I read. I in no way meant to stomp on your thread and claim it for the USA. Although, if you're Canadian, I'll gladly take this one for Team USA.

[Borror0]

I for one have no desire to remove any negative connotation from a word or try to convince others to not look at something negative that might actually be negative.

The verb "to give" can have a positive, neutral or negative connotation.

Being "available to all", is not a negative thing. If you truly believe that adding something that is available to all is not a good thing, you need to build a reasoning and present it. Otherwise, your argument is unsupported and is invalid.

All but a sorceror from your revised listed can not be included since they automatically get any spell added to the game.

Twice wrong.

1. Bards gain spells the same way as sorcerers.
2. The fact that it would act differently from how it currently behaves is the whole point. Spells are currently available to all from the moment they are added. The game developers hands them in to players without requiring them to grind for it. Therefore, unless you complain about them giving those away, your position is inconsistent.

you are upset I did not play along nicely.

Upset is not the word, annoyed would be more accurate. I would explain why but I am forbidden to.

I'll reword it into a question just for you:
The developers do not require us to grind for every feature they add, but I do not see you complain about them handing things over to us. Why is that?

He wrote what he wrote

True. He wrote juicy and therefore I am right.

Without the people playing it then fun would not even be part of it. Refuted.

Nope. How exactly did you make the leap from fun to people?

I could care less about 28- to 32 point builds.

If I read this right, you have no problem with allowing 28 point buy to respec into 32 point buy if they reach 1750 favor?

/end thread

[Vorn]

I think a good solution to this would be a specialized quest in which 28 pters unlock at 2,000 favor. Upon quest completion an NPC grants 28 pt builds (and only 28 pt builds) an additional +4 to be distributed in a semi-quasi character creation screen.

This isn't a reroll or a respec -- it's a resolution to allow those who can reach endgame with a 28 pt build the exact same opportunity an end-game 32 pt build can reach. The quest in no way should be easy, but the reward for 28 pters is obvious. The quest can also contain favor and experience, thus enticing all users to participate (and help) 28 pters that want to keep their original character.

How to compensate for enhancements/feats etc? I would recommend the computer strip the character of all feats enchantments & enhancements during the 4 pt allocation -- this would allow true recognition of the characters attribute totals and follow-on to his or her racial bonus.

Holy Cow!! I finally found some common ground with Kist!!! It must be a sign of the apocalypse!!!