Ah, I’m saying that this choice which leads to the same end result would be the same should it be given with a cap, only in a more illusive way that isn’t apparent from the get-go. Simply, Crowfall isn’t disguising a calculation with a definitive answer as a choice. Thus, it eliminates an absolute wrong way of building one’s character, instead emphasizing on a) the journey to the end state and the sum of the end results as a non-mathematical equation, AKA non-vertical progression.
I stated that the “meta”, a mathematically better build, is culled to some extent by this system. And it is in such a way that it destroys the option of choosing a objectively worse path to go down, as the end result to these skill trees, given time, will be the same. The choices then fall to which skill trees one wishes to add which, so long as they each fill a niche of some equal importance within the player’s own style, won’t create a so-called “meta”. Perhaps there will be a best combat build, such as a Werewolf Ninja Crusader [randomly generated~], but that would be a single faucet of the game. There could then be various play styles with their own tactic to win the campaign or reach their own goal, be it by wilderness survival as a Chef Duelist with Falconry or a Blacksmith Scouter Champion.
If ArtCraft are going down the route I believe them to, I see meaningful choices which make true differences instead of pseudo choices which have some mathematical certainty.
To give an example which is more relevant to this state of the game, the choices which have meaning would be, let’s say, between choosing between the Knight and a Champion. One is tanking centric, the other is DPS centric. Different roles, different styles, which will effect how the player plays. The pseudo choices would be between 15% crit chance and 5% flat damage. With enough calculation, one can find the clearly correct choice between the two. However, if the end result will have you gaining, eventually, both the crit chance and the flat damage, it removes the possibility of choosing the mathematically incorrect answer.
it isn’t the tree creating the diversity. The design of this tree which denies a “meta” way of building one’s skill tree. And, without a doubt, a meta is the definition of “right choice”, AKA “non-diversity”. The tree is thus linear in a certain sense, but in turn highlights the more important true choices one makes instead of burdening us with the need to find the “right” answer.
Was this explanation confusing? If so, I’ll try again.