Quote Originally Posted by NovaLevossida View Post
I like merit points / alternate advancement as it were in EverQuest, but in the post-WoW era, there's going to be a "best" and "correct" way to spend your points, so it's just going to kill customization anyway. "Oh, you specced for increased Contagion duration? That's a DPS loss over improved Fester, you gimp."

I'd really only support this if your merit point allocations were invisible to others.
Your damage output would also have to be invisible to others.

Here's the thing about things like this. And it's the reason WoW moved away from talent trees (something else people ask for a lot).

They aren't real choices. You aren't really making choices there. It looks like you're making choices. You seem to be selecting from a list and allocating points based on what you want. But in reality you have exactly two choices to choose between:
1: Pick the mathematically strongest build.
2: Do it wrong.

People blame min/maxers for sucking the fun out of a game, but the fact of the matter is that in group content you're playing with other people. It's disrespectful to them not to come prepared to play your best game. If you're strictly a solo player and never do any group content, then have at it, your choices are meaningless anyway.

So you're really just choosing to either intentionally gimp yourself or play the best build. It's the same problem I have with the bonus stat allocation system. It isn't a real choice. You can either put the points into your primary stat, or you can choose to do it wrong. The only remotely interesting choice comes from tanks choosing between more vit or more str. And even that can be boiled down to numbers based on gear level for what that tank "should" do to be optimal.

I'm all for meaningful choices, and I like customization. But I'm against the false choice systems that talent trees and merit points produce. They just turn into traps for newer or less-informed players to fall in to and make a mistake just because they didn't know everything.