So how does that differ from me spending 150 hours to get the right gear, reroll it, upgrade it, etc. to be able to play that spec?
edit: from a tinkering standpoint, that does sound fun (the legacy items, etc.)
Heâs conflating the two.
The respec issue comes into play BECAUSE of how theyâve implemented classes in the game. The full repertoire of skills available to a class is a representation of the abilities a Nephilim who is a Druid/Necromancer/etc. would use to fight the demons of hell. Thatâs the why of it. Itâs thematic, it fits the lore. Even within the same class between the games their skills are different. Some are named the same, but they are functionally different. Thematically different, no. Because of lore.
1 Like
You must not value your time, then.
2 Likes
The 150 hours is in addition to your hardcore item find. Well not exactly in addition to since you will find some items along the way.
I value the long term health of the game. Being able to log on and feel a bit of an exciting struggle. To get the dopamine rush from an optimal drop for my build. What I donât want it some dog crap easy game that I complete in 20 hours and get bored then drop the game. AKA D3
So itâs just an extra time-sink which gains what?
Appeasing people who donât want me to respec even though they cannot tell the difference between a respec vs character change ?
The reason someone creates a new character shouldnât be to circumvent a game design. It should be because they want to experience the game over again from the beginning.
The struggle is finding out how to have fun grinding the gear you want to complete your build in the end game. If I had to play through the whole campaign for every build I wanted to try I would not continue to play the game. THAT is bad for the long term health of the game.
1 Like
It isnât circumventing game design. The developers specifically stated that the respec cost was to prevent constant respecs and you should make a new character instead.
I thought we already discussed that they went back on that since they later said that it wouldnât be prohibitively expensive âŚ
1 Like
Probably to the surprise of nobody, I care about that.
In general, Blizzard should make sure that there is 100% content parity between season and non-season. And ensuring that both are balanced should certainly be part of that too.
Maybe he is. I obviously cant know what happens inside his head 
But not all RPGs are about roleplaying a specific person in a story either. âRoleplayingâ characters fulfilling different roles in combat is a very essential part of the genre. Hence a focus on builds/specs in such games. Since, while those are not equal to roles, they are expressions of roles.
In many CRPGs these builds, and ensuring you have a balanced group with characters filling the different roles needed, is way more important than whatever the characters and their story is about.
And, to relate it to Diablo, that kind of RPG is also the type Diablo is closer related to. Even if you are only playing a single character.
That is why imo it is important that Blizzard makes sure it is not more efficient to have multiple characters to jump between.
Eh, it definitely could also be to try different builds out. Both of those seem fairly equal.
Given Blizzardâs estimates for time to level up a new character and our limited character slots, this doesnât seem like the best idea for trying different builds out.
Seems like a very good way to try out new builds. Just not a good way to try out many builds in a short time. But those are also quite different.
10 character slots so only try 10 builds? 
Disagree.
I think a game has charm when their âeternalâ mode isnât balanced and retains the unbalanced items though legacy systems. It is build enabling and creates more diversity. Diversity is good.
It is dog shi that we only get 10 slots. I personally think that is the thing that should be inducing rage.
1 Like
Maybe. With free respecs, no reason for me to need more as 5 classes and 2 modes ⌠so 10 slots covers it all.
2 Likes
Well, presumably 10 slots per season if D3 is anything to go by.
For non-season, it sucks, but it is also quite clear Blizzard dont care about non-season In any case, Blizzard definitely should add way more character slots. Try 50+
As for lvling, also worth remembering, the estimate to lvl that Blizzard game is for the first character. Next characters will presumably be MUCH faster. I hope they are not, but they will be.
So youâd increase their database costs per account potentially 5-fold âŚ
2 Likes
A save state for an NES game level of data doesnât cost them anything. They just take a bunch of flags (yes with transmog it is a lot) but then you compress that flag. It isnât much data. I have done this personally. Maybe their engineers arenât up to par, but they can do it for nearly no space.
Not really since some thing are per account rather than per character.
In any case, database size is hardly a noteworthy factor for Blizzard. You can still only be logged in on one character at a time, so the strain on servers wont change.