Nice joke :) Reaper tree's

[Chai]

You don't think they spill that, do you?!

That wont prevent me from calling it out each time we get nonspecific "reasons."

I pretty much know the an$wer anyhow. Build re$pec is $old, not provided free of charge. If people want to u$e it often, the plat $ink create$ a $ituation where at $ome point they might pay RL money to do $o.

Im basically giving them the benefit of the doubt and asking them to cite a reason other than "because this is a commodity we charge for" - because if there is some legit roadblock to making this happen it needs to be discussed and worked around. A few games seem to be the last bastion holding out on making this QoL change for their players, and two of those games are owned by the same company.

[Severlin]

This is a bug that will be fixed in the next (full) build. It should be capping at 2 million plat, and it should also slowly be reducing over time if you wait long enough.

Sev~

[jakeelala]

We will soon be correcting an issue where, if you reset your Reaper trees a lot, you can find yourself into a negative number. That said, we set a high plat price on Reaper resets for several reasons, including community outcry for a plat sink in addition to a gameplay reason where we don't want people constantly switching their trees on a per-encounter or per-dungeon basis.

Well, nice try, but you massively over shot the mark. This really should be reduced by a factor of at least 5. I dont have plat capped and only play one character and between this and enhancements I'm constantly running out of plat.

Would be nice if it wasn't so punitive.

[Morroiel]

The Dev's straight up don't understand healthy game design. Consider the case of a DC caster character leveling with 34 reaper points (we'll naively consider the case of him focusing on the dc casting tree in the early levels to avoid switching for optimization):

Levels 1-3, you can't allocate any points, so you'll have 34 reaper points banked.
Levels 4-8, you can only allocate points to the first row and cores. You can only spend 10 points in the DC casting tree, so either you spend your remaining 24 points in off trees or leave some of them floating.
Level 9, you can allocate points into the second cores but still only the first row. You can only spend 11 points in the DC casting tree, if you didn't leave 1 point floating for 5 levels then you have to respec.
Level 10-14, you can allocate points into the second rows. You can only spend 17 points in the DC casting tree, leaving 17 points free and requiring a respec if you didn't leave 6 points floating for a level (if you respecced at 9) or that you've left 7 points floating since level 4.
Level 15-16, you can allocate points into the third cores but still not the third rows. You can only spend 18 points in the DC casting tree, if you didn't leave points floating, a respec.
Level 17-20, you can allocate points into the third row and third cores, you can only spend 24 points in the DC casting tree, requiring a respec if you didn't leave points floating.
Level 21-24, you can allocate points into the fourth row and fourth cores, you can now spend your total 34 points in the tree BUT they'll be poorly spent for endgame. And of course this requires at least one respec since level 1 unless you left all excess points floating.
Level 25-26, you can allocate points into the fifth core but still not the fifth row, you likely wouldn't respec here as the cores are ****.
Level 27-29, you can allocate points into the fifth row but not the sixth core. You'd likely want to respec either dumping spell pen for spell power or dumping spell power for DCs/spell pen.
Level 30, you can finally allocate points wherever you want. You'd probably not need to reallocate anything again the last core is pretty useless in the trees.

In total you can expect AT LEAST 5 respecs per 1-30 life. The bulk of this comes from running 1-20. If you are doing back to back TRs (which SSG/turbine/Devs have emphasized repeatedly over the years is the sole purpose of the game through their game design) then you are likely shelling out tens of millions of plat to become racial completionist on just reaper tree respecs.

This type of mechanic is something that'd you expect to find in a mobile game that punishes player psychology. In fact, I'd argue that these types of systems and design principles have become commonplace over the last 2-3 years, with a massive influx right around the time that SSG split from turbine.

The fact that you have a whole host of players with RADICALLY different playstyles / opinions saying the same thing: should be telling you something.

But like all things, you refuse to listen and will keep your head in the sand.

[Mofus]

Hate to admit it, but this is just another example of ssg being out of touch with their player base.

[slarden]

It should be capping at 2 million plat

new urban dictionary definition for tone deaf

[PermaBanned]

This is a bug that will be fixed in the next (full) build. It should be capping at 2 million plat, and it should also slowly be reducing over time if you wait long enough.

Sev~

Don't suppose all y'all would be kind enough to elaborate on a couple things:

1) How many resets should it take to reach the 2 mil cap, and what are the break points or progressions?

2) How slowly should it be reducing, and over how much time?

[mikarddo]

In total you can expect AT LEAST 5 respecs per 1-30 life. The bulk of this comes from running 1-20. If you are doing back to back TRs (which SSG/turbine/Devs have emphasized repeatedly over the years is the sole purpose of the game through their game design) then you are likely shelling out tens of millions of plat to become racial completionist on just reaper tree respecs.

The solution is in your own post. Just dont spend the points until the proper level! Anyone that has 34+ reaper points should be able to plan than much ahead after seeing the cost to respec.

If you respec 5 times (or even once) per life thats entirely a choice you make to be even more OP from the reaper trees during the lower levels - not something you are forced to do.

I only have 22 reaper points sofar and while running back to back 1-20 I dont respec at all. This forces me to make actual decisions rather than allow me to have the cake and eat it too which is good game design.

[TrinityTurtle]

It's hard to imagine this plat sink not being scaled around dupers as many things in the game are.

The issue is due to the level lockout it's not unusual to change your point spend whenever you reach a level where something is unlocked.

I have never duped, and i want a plat sink for the multiple toons I have stuffed with plat just...sitting there. I want something to use my plat on. That being said, my preference is useful consumables, like expensive healing potions that are percentage based to your total hp instead of what we have now for example, but I was told by turbine devs (at the time it was turbine) they didn't want to infringe on cleric/fs roles. Like any groups were sitting around waiting for healers anymore. I understand the concern, but the days of groups sitting around on the lfg panel waiting for a cleric have been over for years. Even reaper hasn't brought that back.

[Morroiel]

The solution is in your own post. Just dont spend the points until the proper level! Anyone that has 34+ reaper points should be able to plan than much ahead after seeing the cost to respec.

If you respec 5 times (or even once) per life thats entirely a choice you make to be even more OP from the reaper trees during the lower levels - not something you are forced to do.

I only have 22 reaper points sofar and while running back to back 1-20 I dont respec at all. This forces me to make actual decisions rather than allow me to have the cake and eat it too which is good game design.

Forcing players to either hold milestones they've earned in order to avoid being penalized, is NOT good game design. This is punishing players for playing in an optimal manner.

I'm all for removing reaper trees, enhancements, etc. but your argument essentially boils down to the old "if you want challenge, play naked with no enhancements and suboptimal builds" line thrown to endgame players for many years leading up to reaper.

If the intent of the design is to punish players in this way, better design would be to eliminate the need to punish the players at all. This can be done by many different means with varying implications:

1) Eliminate the reaper enhancements and trees entirely - this is of course not a valid option, it has been too long and this would cause a mass exodus from the game.

2) Make it so that the reaper enhancement points you have unlocked are level gated themselves - the extreme of which is that you only get your points at level 30.

3) Make it so that the reaper enhancement points are level gated but the actual enhancements aren't (still keep the RAP requirements).

4) Make it so that reaper enhancement points don't reset at all (like past lives). Additionally either keep the mls in place or get rid of them.

5) Make it so that reaper enhancement points offer a free reset when you reach these levels. (no banking)

6) Make it so that the plat cost to reset reaper enhancement points is proportional to character level - with a degree of non linearity in cost vs level.

etc. etc.

The fact remains the devs have shown they don't care about player issues - especially ones like this. They'll continue on as they have been. DDO will survive just with a handful less players each and every day.

[mikarddo]

Forcing players to either hold milestones they've earned in order to avoid being penalized, is NOT good game design. This is punishing players for playing in an optimal manner.

I'm all for removing reaper trees, enhancements, etc. but your argument essentially boils down to the old "if you want challenge, play naked with no enhancements and suboptimal builds" line thrown to endgame players for many years leading up to reaper.

Giving players a choice with pros and cons is good design. Here you can either wait and not have to pay or you can have more power in the lower levels but then you need to pay or be less optimal at later levels. Sure, it would be easier if you could respec cheaply but that would not involve any choices. Depending on your plat situation and other factors either choice may be optimal.

You dont like the choices, I get that, and want to be able to respec at will cheaply - but thats wanting a single, clearly best part rather than a choice - and thats rarely if ever a good design.

[Morroiel]

Giving players a choice with pros and cons is good design. Here you can either wait and not have to pay or you can have more power in the lower levels but then you need to pay or be less optimal at later levels. Sure, it would be easier if you could respec cheaply but that would not involve any choices. Depending on your plat situation and other factors either choice may be optimal.

You dont like the choices, I get that, and want to be able to respec at will cheaply - but thats wanting a single, clearly best part rather than a choice - and thats rarely if ever a good design.

By your design logic, tomes should go away with each past life. Holding them for your ultimately final life. Old school.

Additionally you are saying that they went from good design on that to bad design.

[mikarddo]

By your design logic, tomes should go away with each past life. Holding them for your ultimately final life. Old school.

Additionally you are saying that they went from good design on that to bad design.

Apples and oranges. Nothing is lost wrt. reaper points in either scenario while tomes were infact lost in the old design. Besides, in the reaper point scenario we are taking days while tomes and final life would be a matter of months or years for most people. A fair comparison would be if tomes of +x were generic and you had to decide which stat to apply to. In that case I would definitely say that a good design would make the choice permanent rather than possible to change each life where as your stance would translate to this being punishing and that players should be able to change the stat their tome was applied to (cheaply).

I could just as well clain that your design would indicate that having level limits on being able to spend points is also "punishing players" as those with 80+ points cannot use them all at level 4 (and much less at level 1). Its really no different and only a matter of perspective.

Anyway, it seems we just have to agree to disagree on this which is fine by me.

Finally, we do seem to agree that the power given from reaper trees is too much.

[mgoldb2]

Giving players a choice with pros and cons is good design. Here you can either wait and not have to pay or you can have more power in the lower levels but then you need to pay or be less optimal at later levels. Sure, it would be easier if you could respec cheaply but that would not involve any choices. Depending on your plat situation and other factors either choice may be optimal.

You dont like the choices, I get that, and want to be able to respec at will cheaply - but thats wanting a single, clearly best part rather than a choice - and thats rarely if ever a good design.

I agree forcing people to make build choises a good things. Having to pick only one top tier in the enhancements tree for example. limited feats etc. I also fine with there being a large power gap between someone that a completionist vs no pl. in this case might take years for casual but at least it a possable.

What I think is bad design is tieing choises to consunables. in one case you have a group that there no choise since they have soo much plat and get it so quickly they dont care about cost. Then there everyone else who after years might get to the point they have tons of reaper point but never to the point they can afford millions of plat every life. That bad design in my eyes.

[SirValentine]

...gameplay reason where we don't want people constantly switching their trees on a per-encounter or per-dungeon basis.

Don't see how that's relevant to having to spend multiple hundreds of thousands of plat to buy newly-unlocked Tier 3 enhancements at level 17 when you haven't switched anything at all since level 10, possibly weeks in time and certainly many dozens of quests prior. I really don't care how steeply the cost goes up for people switching on a per-dungeon basis, but the prices are outrageous for when that is not a factor at all.

[mikarddo]

Don't see how that's relevant to having to spend multiple hundreds of thousands of plat to buy newly-unlocked Tier 3 enhancements at level 17 when you haven't switched anything at all since level 10, possibly weeks in time and certainly many dozens of quests prior. I really don't care how steeply the cost goes up for people switching on a per-dungeon basis, but the prices are outrageous for when that is not a factor at all.

I agree that it should be affordable to reset every few weeks. I dont mind though if its not affordable to reset every few days (or hours for the really fast) over and over even though I could use that myself when running fast lives.

Maybe something like 50k -> 250k -> 500k -> 1m -> 2m which delays one level once a week.

[Lonnbeimnech]

The solution is to get 156 reaper points so you don't have to respec anything.

[Morroiel]

Apples and oranges. Nothing is lost wrt. reaper points in either scenario while tomes were infact lost in the old design. Besides, in the reaper point scenario we are taking days while tomes and final life would be a matter of months or years for most people. A fair comparison would be if tomes of +x were generic and you had to decide which stat to apply to. In that case I would definitely say that a good design would make the choice permanent rather than possible to change each life where as your stance would translate to this being punishing and that players should be able to change the stat their tome was applied to (cheaply).

I could just as well clain that your design would indicate that having level limits on being able to spend points is also "punishing players" as those with 80+ points cannot use them all at level 4 (and much less at level 1). Its really no different and only a matter of perspective.

Anyway, it seems we just have to agree to disagree on this which is fine by me.

Finally, we do seem to agree that the power given from reaper trees is too much.

Its not just perspective. Look up the difference between negative reinforcement and positive punishment. Its a matter of psychology, which dramatically impacts how players feel about game design -> healthy vs unhealthy game design.

[PermaBanned]

I wonder if the Devs secretly enjoy watching a thread w/ questions & commentary directed towards them devolve into "calling out" folks for various this & that's or quibbling over what is/isn't good game design. Must be a lot easier to evade something when the something your evading provides the smoke screen for your escape

[Chai]

Apples and oranges. Nothing is lost wrt. reaper points in either scenario while tomes were infact lost in the old design. Besides, in the reaper point scenario we are taking days while tomes and final life would be a matter of months or years for most people. A fair comparison would be if tomes of +x were generic and you had to decide which stat to apply to. In that case I would definitely say that a good design would make the choice permanent rather than possible to change each life where as your stance would translate to this being punishing and that players should be able to change the stat their tome was applied to (cheaply).

I could just as well clain that your design would indicate that having level limits on being able to spend points is also "punishing players" as those with 80+ points cannot use them all at level 4 (and much less at level 1). Its really no different and only a matter of perspective.

Anyway, it seems we just have to agree to disagree on this which is fine by me.

Finally, we do seem to agree that the power given from reaper trees is too much.

Reward systems are not designed in game systems to be ignored. Telling people to hold their reaper points and not use them is akin to telling people to run content on naked characters if they want challenge. DDO is one of the last bastion of hold outs in the MMO and general gaming community which clings to this archaic notion that the ability to redo ones character somehow equates to abusing the system. Furthermore they do allow it, if you pay for it, so the game balance reasoning doesnt really fly with the excuse they are using, once the true motive behind it is understood and acknowledged. The vast majority of the community (99.9 repeating percentage) have long since allowed players to switch up their builds either at will, or made it far easier to do even for those games where limitations do exist.

Its kind of ironic really, that the game where its easiest to mess up a character build to the point where its gimped beyond viability is the same game where some in its community still support very limited build respec options, but only limited for those who dont pay RL money for continually using it, thus refuting any non sequitur false equivalency those in the community have assigned to build respec and system balance or the abuse thereof. Here they allow the "abuse" - they just charge you for it. Any claim that this limitation is enforcing a trade off, is made under the assumption that theres no way around the limitation, which simply isnt the case, as pointed out above.