(TW: Wall o' Text and I'll be talking about EverQuest quite a bit later in the Wall o' Text)
It's been said a few times by VR that you will eventually be able to obtain all masteries for your character. Of course that might change, and it may take twice as long to obtain all masteries as it does to get a character to max level. Leaving the details aside I want to focus on the assumption that we will be able to obtain all spells for our class and master all of those spells totally, given enough time.
There's a give and take with this sort of system. On the one hand, it means there's no "wrong" way to build your character (more on this later) but on the other hand it does somewhat reduce the importance of your choice as a player. Sure, the order of the masteries you choose will still have an impact, especially if it's going to be a while before you get another one, but if you choose one and it's not as good as you though it would be, then that may feel bad but likely you've still increased the power of your character. The longer term impact is low.
The majority of RPGs use a talent or skill pool system (or both) as a primary form of character progression, with gear supplementing the systems to various degrees, dependent on the game. This leads to a system where you generally have to pick a path based on the descriptions of the abilities without always fully knowing how good they'll actually be. Generally, I've seen two possibilties arise from these games. The first is where you have character builds that are just plain better. In the worst cases, such as in many Elder Scrolls games, you could accidentally build a character so terrible that it can no longer progress. Some people really enjoy that style of game. They get a lot out of building a character, scrapping that character, and building another one. Personally I don't like having to start a game all over again even though I generally enjoy talent systems with serious consequences for choosing poorly. The second possibility is a talent system without any teeth. All of the paths are more or less the same and you can't go wrong. There might be one that is 3% better than another, but you won't be able to tell without crunching some numbers.
In both cases, you build your character from the ground up. Whether they start as a totally blank slate, or whether you only choose the manner in which they fill the role, your choices are quite important in how you achieve your end goal. However, this always leads to an optimization trap. Even if you don't generally care about using the absolute best build, you will still be inclined toward better ones if the on you first chose is boring or feels subpar. Not to mention the natural curiousity of wanting to at least try new things if they sound interesting or if you see another player using them. Some games try to solve this by going the second route, where they balance builds against each other so thoroughly as to make the differences almost meaningless. This gives you a false illusion of choice. You're choosing the color of your popsicle but they're all cherry flavored. Many will still try and find the most optimum build.
I call it a trap because quite a few people fall into it psychologically. "Am I playing as best as I can? Did I make the wrong choice? This class no longer feels fun because I think I made the wrong choices. Maybe I should reroll or try a different character."
I'm not disparaging the differences here, each scenario can make for an interesting game. I'm setting the stage.
The previous game design could be called "building your character". You are given a set of blocks and you put them together to gain power, along with any gear you may find along the way.
But Pantheon is doing something different, yet familiar. Or at least they seem to be from what we've been told. I'm going to go on the basic assumption that I stated earlier: all spells and masteries can be obtained with time and effort.
This means you're not building your character so much as you are finding your character. The true power of your character is locked behind the equipment you find and the masteries you earn. Over time (a long period of time) your character will grow, but only if you search out those dungeons or quests that provide the rewards you require, or barter with other players for them.
This might sound familiar if you played... EverQuest! There were no talents, your stats didn't go up on level up (aside from health, mana and endurance,) and all characters of the same class got the same set of spells. Later they would also get Alternate Advancement points, which are quite similar to masteries. In EverQuest your equipment was the true end game. Almost all of your power was locked behind magical armaments, at least until AAs came out. This statement might feel less true for casters than melee, but I assure you that equipment still played a huge part in their capabilities. Especially as the game progressed.
There are a lot of pros and cons to this system. On the one hand, a Rogue is Rogue whether they're charming or direct. You know what you're getting when you choose that class. There won't be any surprises later down the line. Plus, there is still a lot of variance in how you can play the game as well as a skill factor. On the other hand... you lose a lot of the freedom and flavor of choosing talents. It makes having strong racial characteristics even more important. With rich differences between races, your character won't be exactly the same as every other character of the same class in the game, but they'll still be very close. The other downside of course comes from knowing you won't have truly mastered your class until you've gotten all of your masteries and all of the best equipment. Something many individuals may find impossible. Fortunately, that's not the only thing there is to do in the game and may actually prove to be a driving force for lots of players.
I'm not sure if this is better than building a talent tree or grinding up a limited number of skills. I think they all have their own merits as a system. My personal preference might be toward complex talent trees, but there is definitely a lot of joy to be had in earning a shiny new dagger, knowing that it's not just another dagger on a path littered with daggers.
I honestly think both have their advantages and strengths.
I have found games with complex class skill trees that you can respec very interesting and satisfying, but I have also found some of them, as you point out, to have choice that isn't 'real' because very little outside 'the meta' was good to play and you could 'gimp' yourself easily.
The problems for me with MMORPGs has rarely been with the skill systems, but the lack of challenge, no group focus, no social aspect, a lack of meaningfulness and immersion.
I wonder, though, how much skill tree systems have something to do with those aspects? Either cause, effect or a bit of both.
I think VR has said in the past that part of the reason for not having skill trees or even specialising sub-classes is to deliver better class/role identity and interdependency. When a class is more of a known quantity to a developer they can surely better design how they synergise and so balance for challenge/difficulty even with a group of up to six. If, via specialisations or skill trees, developers are effectively dealing with many times more classes, they will have a much harder (impossible?) time designing synergy and interdependency and balancing group challenge.
disposalist said:I honestly think both have their advantages and strengths.
I have found games with complex class skill trees that you can respec very interesting and satisfying, but I have also found some of them, as you point out, to have choice that isn't 'real' because very little outside 'the meta' was good to play and you could 'gimp' yourself easily.
The problems for me with MMORPGs has rarely been with the skill systems, but the lack of challenge, no group focus, no social aspect, a lack of meaningfulness and immersion.
I wonder, though, how much skill tree systems have something to do with those aspects? Either cause, effect or a bit of both.
I think VR has said in the past that part of the reason for not having skill trees or even specialising sub-classes is to deliver better class/role identity and interdependency. When a class is more of a known quantity to a developer they can surely better design how they synergise and so balance for challenge/difficulty even with a group of up to six. If, via specialisations or skill trees, developers are effectively dealing with many times more classes, they will have a much harder (impossible?) time designing synergy and interdependency and balancing group challenge.
These are some good points I should have touched on. I think they were in the back of my mind while writing the above, especially the class interplay.
When you have a ton of choice for all of your players, that feels good, but balancing that against every other player each making unique choices? Difficult at best. Impossible at worst.
I've always been more of a fan of clear cut roles for each class anyway. Choice is good, but it's better to have solid, in-depth gameplay.
Jobeson said: Building your PC = mastery reset to FotM builds. Pantheon will have it. This discussion might as well be about instances. I get your desire of the known quantity from classes, but the majority will be a boring cookie cutter, they will be an expected quantity to build content around. I personally like the idea of no do overs. I want to synergize with my primary group. I want the focus to be on the journey. If I end up tanking as a pally with a druid as a friend I group with most days then we find cool combos to unlock and work together better. Turning a small threat attack into a massive one or turning a knock down into a full stun. The power that will come from easily swapping to the meta build for raids will win out in the end. The clones are coming.
I actually also hope there are no respecs in Pantheon. I don't think they will be necessary.
I'm curious, though. Why do you think a game that won't really have builds (excepting LAS loadouts) will still have "Flavor of the Month" type situations?
Jobeson said: Masteries will clearly determine your likely LAS loadouts. The damage, synergy, cost reduction, threat increases or reductions are the exact reasons you would expect people to run different LAS setups. Their investments and preferences make the sub optimal ability still worth it in more scenarios since it is fully mastered. A reset button allows people to minmax all 200 mastery points devoting to a single FotM LAS set with one or two floating abilities to swap for different situations.
If you have 'all' mastery points, you can't assign them in a different way - all skills will be mastered.
Either way, pre-maxing mastery, I'm not really sure I see mastery as so powerful that it would determine LAS choices quite so clearly. If I'm going into combat against a monster that has a strong AoE poison effect then I'm going to put a poison cure ability in the LAS. If, due to my mastery choices, it takes less mana and effects the whole party, that's great, but I'm still taking it if it's unmastered.
I suppose there may be some general abilities that sneak into your LAS a bit more often because mastery has made them more effective, but I think LAS is more likely going to be to do with *situational* effectiveness than with optimising general power. In the above example, maybe I would take a mastered direct damage ability over my unmastered cure poison, but that is a tactical decision rather than an clear meta choice.
Just had a look at the videos and it seems the first couple of mastery pips are mostly to do with resource cost and effectiveness and the last, costing 9 points, tends to make a large functional difference like extending to the whole party or debuffing the target as well.
Some people will choose to increase the power of their commonly used spells. Some will prioritise increases to damage spells, some healing, some utility. Some will prefer to deep dive mastery quickly in particular abilities they see as role defining, even if it means diverting mastery priority from general power for a while. Some will mix and match. Etc. I think it would depend more on prefered playstyle than any obvious power meta. If it's well designed, that is.
But even if it is generally 'better' (more efficient minmaxing) to assign mastery points in a particular way, it won't really change the class' role or define some kind of specialisation, it will simply mean most people 'master' their class in the same way/order/sequence. As long as role and interdendency areb't fundamentally shifted by mastery and skill at the game is still important, then *shrug* does it matter?
Also, I don't remember it being said there would be regular or easy mastery 'reset'? I think LAS is intended to be the way to set your 'build' and is free to change any time (out of combat).
As for resets, I would expect mastery 'reset' to be very infrequently available if at all. Maybe they will allow a reset every 10 levels, so folks who feel they've gone 'the wrong way' (whatever that means to them) due to early on not knowing how their character will progress, won't feel so bad, but more likely, since the intention is you can always continue earning mastery in various ways, there will be no reset and if you wish you'd assigned mastery somewhere else, you just have to go earn more points. You just keep mastering your skills until they are all mastered and then, of course, a 'respec' and those earlier worries about 'mis-assigning' mastery is meaningless.
No mastery points are ever really 'wasted' and it isn't a matter of respec-ing since mastery doesn't give you a different specialisation, it just enhances your class abilities and your, thus, your class' role, so I can't see reassigning of mastery being much of a thing.
I disagree with the idea that respec is what leads to FOTM builds. There will always be a certain amount of players following build guides and this primarily for two reasons:
The two things which can increase FOTM builds are if respeccing is very easy and frequent or if it's very hard and infrequent. No respecs allowed will increase FOTM builds because most players lack an expert level understanding of all aspects of the class and thus, lacking a way to fix errors, will be more likely to play it safe. Find the healthy middle ground and we will have a greater diversity of builds.
Counterfleche said:I disagree with the idea that respec is what leads to FOTM builds. There will always be a certain amount of players following build guides and this primarily for two reasons:
- 1. Some want the "best" and will always build FOTM.
- 2. Some find the whole process too complex and are unable to grasp exactly how all variables will impact their build.
- 3. Some find the in-game information available too vauge and thus don't feel they can make decisions off it, leading them to look for build recommendations.
The two things which can increase FOTM builds are if respeccing is very easy and frequent or if it's very hard and infrequent. No respecs allowed will increase FOTM builds because most players lack an expert level understanding of all aspects of the class and thus, lacking a way to fix errors, will be more likely to play it safe. Find the healthy middle ground and we will have a greater diversity of builds.
I agree with your points but I'm still not even certain to what extent "builds" will exist within Pantheon. I guess it will depend on exactly how long it takes to earn a single mastery point. If you only get 1 or 2 a month (and need as many as 9 for a single mastery ability,) then you might be tempted to jump on to a wiki somewhere to make sure you're spending them "correctly". However, so long as you can earn all masteries, that scenario would still be less of a "build" and more of a "path". They may feel similar at first, but as time progresses all paths will converge, whereas builds will always stay separate.
With that in mind, I am again in favor of there not being a respect option for mastery points (I'm normally the first to say we should have respecs in some form so this is unusual for me.) A Player who is prone to feeling like they've chosen the "wrong" path will always reach that conclusion at some point. If they are forced to stay on that path, they may realize there isn't a "wrong" one.
disposalist said:Either way, pre-maxing mastery, I'm not really sure I see mastery as so powerful that it would determine LAS choices quite so clearly.
How many hundreds of hours do you expect it to take to get every mastery? How common will it be to have every mastery? Acting like everyone will easily just have every mastery turns the system into a joke if true. If they are easy to get then they don't matter.
disposalist said:If I'm going into combat against a monster that has a strong AoE poison effect then I'm going to put a poison cure ability in the LAS. If, due to my mastery choices, it takes less mana and effects the whole party, that's great, but I'm still taking it if it's unmastered.
And how many different single target direct heals will you put on your LAS bar at the same time? How many different group heals will you put on the same LAS? How many different regens will you put on the bar? Just like everyone else the LAS will have you make choices. Not every ability is going to be a niche option.
disposalist said:I suppose there may be some general abilities that sneak into your LAS a bit more often because mastery has made them more effective, but I think LAS is more likely going to be to do with *situational* effectiveness than with optimising general power. In the above example, maybe I would take a mastered direct damage ability over my unmastered cure poison, but that is a tactical decision rather than an clear meta choice.
meta is literally tactics. Building up the most common successful stratagy off the emergent gameplay trends.
disposalist said:Just had a look at the videos and it seems the first couple of mastery pips are mostly to do with resource cost and effectiveness and the last, costing 9 points, tends to make a large functional difference like extending to the whole party or debuffing the target as well.
This is a game where resource management and timing are key. You are not just button mashing but saving resources for optimal moves during the ideal window. Increasing efficiency of abilities greatly increases your flat dps from simply kicking more and it increases your synergy chances by being able to kick the prone target more.
disposalist said:Some people will choose to increase the power of their commonly used spells. Some will prioritise increases to damage spells, some healing, some utility. Some will prefer to deep dive mastery quickly in particular abilities they see as role defining, even if it means diverting mastery priority from general power for a while. Some will mix and match. Etc. I think it would depend more on prefered playstyle than any obvious power meta. If it's well designed, that is.
Yes, just like most games everyone is fairly different as they level up, especially with a reset button at the end of the road to minmax into some generic proven build. Changing your masteries from great sword to sword and board to better survive raid tanking will be common place.
disposalist said:But even if it is generally 'better' (more efficient minmaxing) to assign mastery points in a particular way, it won't really change the class' role or define some kind of specialisation, it will simply mean most people 'master' their class in the same way/order/sequence. As long as role and interdendency areb't fundamentally shifted by mastery and skill at the game is still important, then *shrug* does it matter?
You are in a thread about building your PC or finding your PC where we are discussing exactly that. Building a copy of a PC vs growing your own PC. As for does it matter? Not really. Its all personal preference and talking in circles on game forums. It makes the game world more boring and gives players a few less reasons to talk to eachother. I also think respecs SHOULD make the devs ramp up difficulty that much more overall since almost everyone will be that much stronger at an earlier point in their character.
disposalist said:No mastery points are ever really 'wasted' and it isn't a matter of respec-ing since mastery doesn't give you a different specialisation, it just enhances your class abilities and your, thus, your class' role, so I can't see reassigning of mastery being much of a thing.
You can say most talent trees in most games only "enhance your class abilities" that doesn't change their importance. Other than unlocking NEW abilities through talent trees pretty much any stat bonus or ability change can be described that way.
Byproducts said:I guess it will depend on exactly how long it takes to earn a single mastery point. If you only get 1 or 2 a month (and need as many as 9 for a single mastery ability,) then you might be tempted to jump on to a wiki somewhere to make sure you're spending them "correctly". However, so long as you can earn all masteries, that scenario would still be less of a "build" and more of a "path". They may feel similar at first, but as time progresses all paths will converge, whereas builds will always stay separate.
With that in mind, I am again in favor of there not being a respect option for mastery points (I'm normally the first to say we should have respecs in some form so this is unusual for me.) A Player who is prone to feeling like they've chosen the "wrong" path will always reach that conclusion at some point. If they are forced to stay on that path, they may realize there isn't a "wrong" one.
I clearly agree fully with the path being an acceptable system. If mastery points rain down like candy to max everyone shortly after hitting max level none of it will matter. If on the other hand only 20% of active max level characters have 50% or more of their masteries a year in then the game becomes very different based on the path people had. A reset button facilitates bland cookie cutter characters.
I've rarely enjoyed limited point systems that lead players of a class down different paths as builds/specializations to service some measure of the player feeling slightly "unique" at the expense of the game itself. It almost always just dilutes/breaks down a class identity and I want to enjoy the whole of the class fantasy. I want to work toward being a master wizard - not a fire wizard or ice wizard or arcane wizard. More importantly is the effect it tends to have on grouping which I find to be a negative.
For grouping I'd rather it be "Group looking for enchanter!" not "Group looking for enchanter, enhancement spec only!"
Pantheon's system seems perfect. Slowly master all aspects of your class, no split identities.
Sort of similar, in EQ I noticed most wizards were blacksmiths. Made no sense. And most Mages were Tailors. Every druid I met had a very high baking skill at an alarmingly young age. Casters tended to get better at 2HB because they were the better weapons with overall stats/resists at lower levels and worth the exchange to lose the off-hand. caster specialization seemed to follow an extablished path but it did cause a stir when one mage specialized in divination, when we were all on conjuration, then realized all the top-end guilders did evocation.
@Jobeson You make good points and I wasn't disagreeing with your desire for *not* having Flavour of the Month respec-ing, just disagreeing that the mastery system makes that inevitable and that respecs *will* be a thing.
I'm going to answer each of your replies, but I'm not trying to pick at your opinion, it's just an interesting discussion. I think in forums, without hearing tone and seeing a face, a point-by-point response can seem analytical and critical, but I don't mean it that way.
Imagine we're at a bar and I'm buying you a drink!
Jobeson said:disposalist said:
Either way, pre-maxing mastery, I'm not really sure I see mastery as so powerful that it would determine LAS choices quite so clearly.
How many hundreds of hours do you expect it to take to get every mastery? How common will it be to have every mastery? Acting like everyone will easily just have every mastery turns the system into a joke if true. If they are easy to get then they don't matter.
I agree, but I don't think it will be easy or common at all. You were talking about "A reset button allows people to minmax all 200 mastery points" so a responded to that is all.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:
If I'm going into combat against a monster that has a strong AoE poison effect then I'm going to put a poison cure ability in the LAS. If, due to my mastery choices, it takes less mana and effects the whole party, that's great, but I'm still taking it if it's unmastered.
And how many different single target direct heals will you put on your LAS bar at the same time? How many different group heals will you put on the same LAS? How many different regens will you put on the bar? Just like everyone else the LAS will have you make choices. Not every ability is going to be a niche option.
Yeah, the Cure Poison for a posionous creature is very specific, not every decision will be that niche, but I doubt there will be multiple similar abilities either. VR seem to be taking a lot of care over making abilities unique. I don't think there's much reason to believe adding mastery to one 'heal' ability will make others redundant or *overly* effect your LAS choices.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:
I suppose there may be some general abilities that sneak into your LAS a bit more often because mastery has made them more effective, but I think LAS is more likely going to be to do with *situational* effectiveness than with optimising general power. In the above example, maybe I would take a mastered direct damage ability over my unmastered cure poison, but that is a tactical decision rather than an clear meta choice.
meta is literally tactics. Building up the most common successful stratagy off the emergent gameplay trends.
Maybe it's semantic, but I believe a 'tactic' is a carefully planned action to achieve a specific outcome. It also pre-supposes a personal, at-the-moment, situational choice.
To follow a meta is almost the opposite. You are following someone else's public, well-known idea of a commonly successful strategy.
Either way, using FotM builds, or rather feeling you need to or you are gimping yourself, is not a very satisfying way of designing your character or achieving success and should probably be avoided. I think we agree on that?
Jobeson said:disposalist said:
Just had a look at the videos and it seems the first couple of mastery pips are mostly to do with resource cost and effectiveness and the last, costing 9 points, tends to make a large functional difference like extending to the whole party or debuffing the target as well.
This is a game where resource management and timing are key. You are not just button mashing but saving resources for optimal moves during the ideal window. Increasing efficiency of abilities greatly increases your flat dps from simply kicking more and it increases your synergy chances by being able to kick the prone target more.
Efficiency is key, but I would say no more key than having the right abilities. That's what LAS is about. In my example, you could have the most efficient abilities and still fail if you didn't have Cure Poison - even an unmastered Cure Poison. I'm pretty sure VR wouldn't want to undermine their own LAS system, but it's a valid concern for sure.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:
Some people will choose to increase the power of their commonly used spells. Some will prioritise increases to damage spells, some healing, some utility. Some will prefer to deep dive mastery quickly in particular abilities they see as role defining, even if it means diverting mastery priority from general power for a while. Some will mix and match. Etc. I think it would depend more on prefered playstyle than any obvious power meta. If it's well designed, that is.
Yes, just like most games everyone is fairly different as they level up, especially with a reset button at the end of the road to minmax into some generic proven build. Changing your masteries from great sword to sword and board to better survive raid tanking will be common place.
Are you suggesting there definitely will be a reset button? If so, how do you know that?
Or are you suggesting there *should be* one so people feel free to not be careful with their mastery allocation?
Or are you worried that will happen and you don't want that?
The impression I have is that mastery choices will be rarely if ever changeable and, anyway, won't be so pivotal that players will not be capable of performing their class role or so pivotal that to not pick a certain mastery path will be gimping them in their class role.
I would very much hope that a warrior would not *need* to have mastered his shield abilities to survive as a raid tank. It might well be 'the meta' and some guilds might be elitist enough to insist on it, but that kind of guild will be elitist over gear and consumables and require their idea of perfection in everything. Mastery would not the be problem, they would.
Either way, it wouldn't be a good reason to have a reset button and, thus, encourage FotM 'builds' picked pre-raid or otherwise.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:
But even if it is generally 'better' (more efficient minmaxing) to assign mastery points in a particular way, it won't really change the class' role or define some kind of specialisation, it will simply mean most people 'master' their class in the same way/order/sequence. As long as role and interdendency areb't fundamentally shifted by mastery and skill at the game is still important, then *shrug* does it matter?
You are in a thread about building your PC or finding your PC where we are discussing exactly that. Building a copy of a PC vs growing your own PC. As for does it matter? Not really. Its all personal preference and talking in circles on game forums. It makes the game world more boring and gives players a few less reasons to talk to eachother. I also think respecs SHOULD make the devs ramp up difficulty that much more overall since almost everyone will be that much stronger at an earlier point in their character.
When I say "does it matter?" I mean "does it matter too much?" I suppose. Yes, this is a discussion forum and this thread is about making your own PC or following a meta and my answer is: I don't believe it will matter too much which you do, not that I don't believe this is worth talking about.
The reason being I don't believe mastery will change your character so much that different mastery paths will constitute significantly different 'builds' and won't significantly change your role within a group or raid.
Mastery is horizontal progression, not vertical, and not horizontally divergent enough to alter your class role.
At least this is what I have understood from what devs have said about it. I could be wrong of course, but I'm not worried about it going the opposite way because they certainly haven't talked about it like a 'spec' or a 'meta' or 'build' in fact I think they've spoken against those ideas, but again, I could be misremembering.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:
No mastery points are ever really 'wasted' and it isn't a matter of respec-ing since mastery doesn't give you a different specialisation, it just enhances your class abilities and your, thus, your class' role, so I can't see reassigning of mastery being much of a thing.
You can say most talent trees in most games only "enhance your class abilities" that doesn't change their importance. Other than unlocking NEW abilities through talent trees pretty much any stat bonus or ability change can be described that way.
Many talent trees I'm aware of - like WoW or Rift - can fundamentally change the character's role in the game.
If you don't think of talent trees in that way, then no wonder we are having some apparent disagreement hehe.
One example you gave above was a warrior spec-ing two-hander or sword-and-board. That's DPS or Tank no? Totally different roles by respec-ing?
I agree, that some games do allow that degree of 'build', but I really don't think mastery will constitute anything like that degree of role change.
Jobeson said:Byproducts said:
I guess it will depend on exactly how long it takes to earn a single mastery point. If you only get 1 or 2 a month (and need as many as 9 for a single mastery ability,) then you might be tempted to jump on to a wiki somewhere to make sure you're spending them "correctly". However, so long as you can earn all masteries, that scenario would still be less of a "build" and more of a "path". They may feel similar at first, but as time progresses all paths will converge, whereas builds will always stay separate.
With that in mind, I am again in favor of there not being a respect option for mastery points (I'm normally the first to say we should have respecs in some form so this is unusual for me.) A Player who is prone to feeling like they've chosen the "wrong" path will always reach that conclusion at some point. If they are forced to stay on that path, they may realize there isn't a "wrong" one.
I clearly agree fully with the path being an acceptable system. If mastery points rain down like candy to max everyone shortly after hitting max level none of it will matter. If on the other hand only 20% of active max level characters have 50% or more of their masteries a year in then the game becomes very different based on the path people had. A reset button facilitates bland cookie cutter characters.
When you say "the game becomes very different based on the path people had" what do you mean?
Are you assuming that if mastery points are rarely awarded and unchangeable that there must be a reset facility which will lead to 'badness'?
The difference in opinion seems to be that I think one's Mastery path won't be so pivotal such that players will feel they *need* regular resets and, so, there won't be FotM builds and the 'badness' you are concerned about.
It's possible, after quite some time, that players will begin to discuss the Mastery paths they took and that 'metas' will begin to evolve, but again, unless you assume that Mastery is so pivotal that those paths define different class roles, it's not really a problem is it?
If someone decides that a certain mastery path makes a Warrior better in the tank role, as long as people *not* following that path can still perform the tank role, that's not a problem is it?
To reiterate @Jobeson, I think we largely agree on the points of concern, but I don't see evidence from VR to suggest it *will* go the way of FotM meta builds. What I understand from what they've said leads me to believe they wish it to *not* work that way.