DUST Search - 1.7 respec

All Channels

The Council's Chamber

1.7 respec

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Spectral Clone Dust2Dust. Top Men. 669	Posted - 2013.11.28 10:25:00 - [31] - Quote I support the OP, and I am waiting for a DEV response. KDR > ALL ME > KDR ME > ALL
KingBabar The Rainbow Effect 1443	Posted - 2013.11.28 16:41:00 - [32] - Quote Spectral Clone wrote: I support the OP, and I am waiting for a DEV response. http://s1286.photobucket.com/user/KingBabar/media/BannerKingbabarcopy.png.html
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1328	Posted - 2013.11.28 19:23:00 - [33] - Quote I've yet to see a reasonable response to why pilots should be able to skill out of vehicles if they don't like the changes, but infantry shouldn't be able to skill into vehicles if they like the changes. That is so backwards and should warrant a respec by itself. Then you also add in all the other factors, like pilots being able to skill into FOTM while the rest of the playerbase can't, pilots maybe needing SP from infantry skills due to higher vehicle SP sinks, AV (Swarm Launcher at least) specialists maybe wanting to skill out of a now fairly useless weapon and into a proper AV weapon in the forms of a Forge Gun or Railgun HAV, and I just can't believe that CCP is doing a vehicle respec only. A vehicle skill tree change isn't just affecting pilots, but the entire playerbase, so of course non-plilots would need a respec as well. Good for me it's been a long time since I threw money at CCP because with decisions like this there's not a chance I would ever throw more at them. Winner of the EU Squad Cup & the closed beta Tester's Tournament. Go Go Power Rangers!
Haerr 106	Posted - 2013.11.28 22:18:00 - [34] - Quote CPM members: is this issue still being talked about or is the current 'solution' (only vehicle SP refund) definitive?
Heavy Salvo Fatal Absolution 103	Posted - 2013.11.29 03:14:00 - [35] - Quote Ah well with the new thread posted in regards to what is being removed/compensation for said removed items and how the respec is going to work it looks as though once again the full respec has been shotdown, regardless we do still have time before the vehicle respec is implemented and I for one am all for a full respec, I have both a devoted Vehicle character and this infantry character with AV weaponry (swarms and AV nades) and to be quite frank I do see how a full respec could potentially unbalance things (tons of consistent PCers specing into FOTM and then crying en mass when its nerfed & the few who simply reinvest the points to improve their current setups crying about the huge number of FOTM players) but then again even if you dont do the respec once the FOTM is nerfed the people who put the points into it when it became available or just recently got to the point where they had proto will cry out when its nerfed although in smaller numbers. No matter what you do, they are going to get upset and people are going to leave or simply stop playing religiously, its almost impossible to be a "devoted" DUST fanboy. hmm I guess I didn't really bring up any REAL pros to balance out the cons but there really aren't any... CCP is stuck in between a rock and a hard place but for those of us twiddling our thumbs and sighing in disappointment everytime the newly released gear we speced into gets nerfed to hell, a full respec or the option to buy one would be a godsend. A salute, to all the toy soldiers left to melt in the sun by those who would only dream of conquest.
Spectral Clone Dust2Dust. Top Men. 694	Posted - 2013.11.29 08:00:00 - [36] - Quote Bendtner92, I think you have presented two very valid points in this thread regarding the fact that a full respec is necessary for the 1.7 patch: 1. SP Sink for tanks is increased. True vehicle users (that probably speced into infantry to farm ISK due to vehicles being broken) could then put that infantry SP into vehicles. 2. Vehicle users getting a 'full remap' while others do not. But I would also like to add a third, fourth and fifth one: 3. We are bleeding 'top' players from the game due to various reasons. One being that CCP refuses to listen to playerbase. Another being better games appealing to them. Maybe respecs could bring back some old vets that got screwed by previous buffs/nerfs of skills that CCP did not refund SP for. 4. All racial assault rifles will be added into the game. 5. Core mechanics are now in a good place. All players know the game was released prematurely (lol). DEVs know it. The trend now seems to be for game companies to releases of their games prematurely, so I dont blame CCP for doint it also. If we do not get a full respec in 1.7, we should at least get one in the future, at 2014/5/14 (more epic date than 2013/5/14). And a question to DEVs: Why is it so hard to be consistent with refunding SP when you change stats? Isnt the whole point that we should be able to make decisions that matter to us in this game? KDR > ALL ME > KDR ME > ALL
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 10850	Posted - 2013.11.29 10:18:00 - [37] - Quote I strongly believe the word sink should be banned from this debate as its hurting the primary argument of fairity between infantry and vehicle operators. Focus folks. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier Specialist Current Theme \\= Advanced Scrambler Rifle =// Unlocked
Haerr 107	Posted - 2013.11.29 11:10:00 - [38] - Quote I guess being able to spec out of vehicles is good enough, at least for me.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1802	Posted - 2013.11.29 18:01:00 - [39] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I strongly believe the word sink should be banned from this debate as its hurting the primary argument of fairity between infantry and vehicle operators. Focus folks. Ban the word sink? Why? Is it because its true? I have around 18mil SP into vehicles and the turrets, i can access and use all mods and all vehicles with all the turrets i need Now i need all my 32+mil SP into vehicles to get even close to where i was and the kicker is we are losing 6 vehicles to boot and various mods and there skills It should be cheaper SP wise but its not The SP needed has gone up by a factor of 3, we have skills that just access mods and nothing else, they dont even give anything per level We have got more SINKS in 1.7 vehicle tree - fact These SINKS were not in from the start when i choose to go into vehicles, they have been added after i have gone into vehicles and not just 1 or 2months later but 6months later when i maxed out my vehicles tree to where i was competitve enough and any more SP added would have been a waste, any SP after i put into infantry because i had no need to put it into vehicles Now i find out i need to SINK more SP into the vehicle tree and i cant do it, i have infantry stuff which i needed, i wasnt going to hang onto millions of SP for a year or more and wait for CCP to add more stuff for vehicles in the middle of AR514 With this partial respec i can go proto in 3 suits, finish of 3 weapons and hit the core skills to max with SP left to spare With the 32mil i can go into all vehicles and a few turrets but still not be finished, also i am not counting the amarr and minmatar vehicles/turrets/mods/skills and all the racial pilots suits and possibly pilot mods which have yet to be added The vehicle skill tree is a SINK in 1.7, it is that much of a SINK it needs all my SP, it needs so much that when on the ground i will be running BPO fits if i get a full respec for years to come
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 10856	Posted - 2013.11.29 18:46:00 - [40] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I strongly believe the word sink should be banned from this debate as its hurting the primary argument of fairity between infantry and vehicle operators. Focus folks. Doesn't understand the idea of focus Now this thread is about redesigning the skill tree. Thank you Takahiro for enlightening our ignorance. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Electronics =// Unlocked

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1804	Posted - 2013.11.29 19:20:00 - [41] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I strongly believe the word sink should be banned from this debate as its hurting the primary argument of fairity between infantry and vehicle operators. Focus folks. Doesn't understand the idea of focus Now this thread is about redesigning the skill tree. Thank you Takahiro for enlightening our ignorance. Keep changing it to suit your needs but its a SINK Vehicle tree in 1.7 is a SINK - fact I wouldnt have mind it being a SINK if it was changed at least 6months ago so i knew how much SP i needed excatly to flesh out the vehicle tree because if i knew 6months ago that the tree would be such a SP SINK i wouldnt have gone into infantry at all or i could have gone all into infantry and had 4 diff proto suits with 4 proto weapons and all core skills by now You can delete all this text again but you cant delete the fact that the SP needed for the vehicle tree has been increased by a factor of 3 Not including missing racial vehicles/turrets/mods/skills/pilot suits/more mods/more skills I did a quick count, i can SINK into the 1.7 vehicle tree about 60mil SP roughly and thats nearly everything at level 5, including all missing things that could be 100mil of SP which is about 3 years worth at least, using boosters for every week, active and passive So how about you focus on the fact that the vehicle tree has been turned into more of a SINK with 3times the SP needed
T8R Raid BIG BAD W0LVES 44	Posted - 2013.11.30 04:49:00 - [42] - Quote Nova Knife wrote: You actually posted this while we were in a meeting, and the topic of respecs came up around the tail end of it. Most of the CPM agrees with you completely that they should do a full rspec, and I took the opportunity to plug this thread. We cited that while we dont know if CCP intends to enable respecs in the future as a feature, but we know they are considering it. If they are, then they should abaolutely offer a full respec this time, as the feature is not ready yet. Once players can do it on their own.... the fear of "we want a respec everytime something is nerfed/buffed" is no longer applicable. Using my phone ti post this, so i'll add more when i have a real keyboard in front of me I believed the CPM was in it for the game until now, the CPM looks like the 'flavor of the month' elitists... great...
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 10879	Posted - 2013.11.30 09:57:00 - [43] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I strongly believe the word sink should be banned from this debate as its hurting the primary argument of fairity between infantry and vehicle operators. Focus folks. Doesn't understand the idea of focus Now this thread is about redesigning the skill tree. Thank you Takahiro for enlightening our ignorance. Keep changing it to suit your needs but its a SINK Vehicle tree in 1.7 is a SINK - fact I wouldnt have mind it being a SINK if it was changed at least 6months ago so i knew how much SP i needed excatly to flesh out the vehicle tree because if i knew 6months ago that the tree would be such a SP SINK i wouldnt have gone into infantry at all or i could have gone all into infantry and had 4 diff proto suits with 4 proto weapons and all core skills by now You can delete all this text again but you cant delete the fact that the SP needed for the vehicle tree has been increased by a factor of 3 Not including missing racial vehicles/turrets/mods/skills/pilot suits/more mods/more skills I did a quick count, i can SINK into the 1.7 vehicle tree about 60mil SP roughly and thats nearly everything at level 5, including all missing things that could be 100mil of SP which is about 3 years worth at least, using boosters for every week, active and passive So how about you focus on the fact that the vehicle tree has been turned into more of a SINK with 3times the SP needed Lets double the sink then! CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Electronics =// Unlocked
D3LTA Blitzkrieg II 0uter.Heaven Proficiency V. 52	Posted - 2013.11.30 11:28:00 - [44] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Keep changing it to suit your needs but its a SINK Vehicle tree in 1.7 is a SINK - fact I wouldnt have mind it being a SINK if it was changed at least 6months ago so i knew how much SP i needed excatly to flesh out the vehicle tree because if i knew 6months ago that the tree would be such a SP SINK i wouldnt have gone into infantry at all or i could have gone all into infantry and had 4 diff proto suits with 4 proto weapons and all core skills by now You can delete all this text again but you cant delete the fact that the SP needed for the vehicle tree has been increased by a factor of 3 Not including missing racial vehicles/turrets/mods/skills/pilot suits/more mods/more skills I did a quick count, i can SINK into the 1.7 vehicle tree about 60mil SP roughly and thats nearly everything at level 5, including all missing things that could be 100mil of SP which is about 3 years worth at least, using boosters for every week, active and passive So how about you focus on the fact that the vehicle tree has been turned into more of a SINK with 3times the SP needed Lets double the sink then! Let us forget about respeccing at all Let us continue to derail this thread by making noise that unfocuses on the subject of respecs at all. still puzzles me how u managed to become cpm O.H Tourney Team: slaying Regnums K.D one PC at a time
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1804	Posted - 2013.11.30 12:20:00 - [45] - Quote D3LTA Blitzkrieg II wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Keep changing it to suit your needs but its a SINK Vehicle tree in 1.7 is a SINK - fact I wouldnt have mind it being a SINK if it was changed at least 6months ago so i knew how much SP i needed excatly to flesh out the vehicle tree because if i knew 6months ago that the tree would be such a SP SINK i wouldnt have gone into infantry at all or i could have gone all into infantry and had 4 diff proto suits with 4 proto weapons and all core skills by now You can delete all this text again but you cant delete the fact that the SP needed for the vehicle tree has been increased by a factor of 3 Not including missing racial vehicles/turrets/mods/skills/pilot suits/more mods/more skills I did a quick count, i can SINK into the 1.7 vehicle tree about 60mil SP roughly and thats nearly everything at level 5, including all missing things that could be 100mil of SP which is about 3 years worth at least, using boosters for every week, active and passive So how about you focus on the fact that the vehicle tree has been turned into more of a SINK with 3times the SP needed Lets double the sink then! Let us forget about respeccing at all Let us continue to derail this thread by making noise that unfocuses on the subject of respecs at all. still puzzles me how u managed to become cpm Its that big of a mystery Sherlock/Columbo or Monk couldnt solve it He says to focus on respecs yet chooses to write 2 pointless replies to this thread about how we shouldnt be asking for a respec a month which frankly hasnt turned up once in this thread and he would realise that if he read the thread and the 2nd pointless post about how we should stop calling it a SINK when it is blatently a SINK If he actually posted about how we should be focusing on the respec part of it then fine and all my posts address that issue since i know alot of vehicle pilots need a full respec to go back to vehicles but trying to explain that to him is like talking to a duck while its listening to white noise and practising yoga
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 10884	Posted - 2013.11.30 18:50:00 - [46] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: D3LTA Blitzkrieg II wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Keep changing it to suit your needs but its a SINK Vehicle tree in 1.7 is a SINK - fact I wouldnt have mind it being a SINK if it was changed at least 6months ago so i knew how much SP i needed excatly to flesh out the vehicle tree because if i knew 6months ago that the tree would be such a SP SINK i wouldnt have gone into infantry at all or i could have gone all into infantry and had 4 diff proto suits with 4 proto weapons and all core skills by now You can delete all this text again but you cant delete the fact that the SP needed for the vehicle tree has been increased by a factor of 3 Not including missing racial vehicles/turrets/mods/skills/pilot suits/more mods/more skills I did a quick count, i can SINK into the 1.7 vehicle tree about 60mil SP roughly and thats nearly everything at level 5, including all missing things that could be 100mil of SP which is about 3 years worth at least, using boosters for every week, active and passive So how about you focus on the fact that the vehicle tree has been turned into more of a SINK with 3times the SP needed Lets double the sink then! Let us forget about respeccing at all Let us continue to derail this thread by making noise that unfocuses on the subject of respecs at all. still puzzles me how u managed to become cpm Its that big of a mystery Sherlock/Columbo or Monk couldnt solve it He says to focus on respecs yet chooses to write 2 pointless replies to this thread about how we shouldnt be asking for a respec a month which frankly hasnt turned up once in this thread and he would realise that if he read the thread and the 2nd pointless post about how we should stop calling it a SINK when it is blatently a SINK If he actually posted about how we should be focusing on the respec part of it then fine and all my posts address that issue since i know alot of vehicle pilots need a full respec to go back to vehicles but trying to explain that to him is like talking to a duck while its listening to white noise and practising yoga Please continue to derail the conversation. Let us sink plenty of time away into the subject. Let us forego the need to address the respec any further and leave it broken as is. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Electronics =// Unlocked
Heavy Salvo Fatal Absolution 105	Posted - 2013.11.30 20:15:00 - [47] - Quote WELL insofar we have the Vehicle perspective although it seems as though you are quite upset he & the other pilots aren't looking at this from the infantry perspective and I'm assuming also disregarding the "free candy syndrome" you brought up at the beginning of this whole thing. well then let me get your opinion on this,Saber, what exactly do you think is unfair in regards to a full respec in 1.7 from an infantry perspective? A salute, to all the toy soldiers left to melt in the sun by those who would only dream of conquest.
Heavy Salvo Fatal Absolution 105	Posted - 2013.11.30 20:16:00 - [48] - Quote Heavy Salvo wrote: WELL insofar we have the Vehicle perspective although it seems as though you are quite upset he & the other pilots aren't looking at this from the infantry perspective and I'm assuming also disregarding the "free candy syndrome" you brought up at the beginning of this whole thing. well then let me get your opinion on this,Saber, what exactly do you think is unfair in regards to a full respec in 1.7 from an infantry perspective? Seeing as I'd like to know exactly what your opinion is on the matter before you just start blowing off what people have to say. (my bad didnt mean to double post ) A salute, to all the toy soldiers left to melt in the sun by those who would only dream of conquest.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 10885	Posted - 2013.11.30 21:22:00 - [49] - Quote Heavy Salvo wrote: WELL insofar we have the Vehicle perspective although it seems as though you are quite upset he & the other pilots aren't looking at this from the infantry perspective and I'm assuming also disregarding the "free candy syndrome" you brought up at the beginning of this whole thing. well then let me get your opinion on this,Saber, what exactly do you think is unfair in regards to a full respec in 1.7 from an infantry perspective? I'm on the fence which is why Takahiro is sort of hurting the entire conversation because he's pushing me away from wanting to side with the respeccers because by his logic it would be far more effective to redesign the tree which I wont also argue but its an entirely seperate issue. For Players are bored with their current fits. Some have made mistakes Players are feeling left out because they may have made the mistake of speccing into infantry when vehicles was their real calling. Against Free Candy Syndrome - the idea of a free respec at the time of anything gets nerfed, this behavior was well established back in beta and there are plenty of people who are very hard at letting go. Future Prospects - In combination with FCS this will hurt any potential to monetize the and automate the system if it ever gets developed on because it was something offered regularly for free and now has to be paid for. Buy 1 get 2 free is now buy 1 get one 1 free type of backlash. Notation See how 0 of these points have to do with the horrible tree design? CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Electronics =// Unlocked
David Spd Caldari State 111	Posted - 2013.11.30 23:22:00 - [50] - Quote In my opinion committing to "no respecs" this early is bad. The main reason is because older players like myself didn't really have a choice when it came to "assault" type races etc. True there was a full respect that I took advantage of but it becomes a problem of: what do people do that came after that respec? Maybe they like heavies but the only option they have right now is Amarr. Or what about Scouts? Nobody can play a Caldari scout right now and maybe they really wanted to? Not only this but the system is in a constant state of flux when it comes to balance. It seems to me CCP isn't really 100% decided on what they want balance to look like, and I feel it's a bit anti-consumer to always push these big changes onto us while backing us into a corner of what kind of content we want to experience due to missing content. One could argue, yes, you could have saved your SP knowing that the game has more to offer for racial variants and whatnot, but I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect, plan for, and ultimately have the patience and tolerance to play the game with no SP invested because you want to invest in something that may or may not be in the game a year later. I know there's the big concern of "Flavor of the Month" and I think it is a real thing, but I also believe that if CCP is doing their job properly then the "FOTM Syndrome" will be less and less drastic as they get the hang of how to initially release or balance things. FOTM may do a bit of damage to the community/economy but I think the rate that people discover and address this problem will help things get fixed faster, and will ultimately be a good thing. Don't misunderstand, I don't believe frequent respecs are good but I do think that until CCP has substantial racial content and can say, "Well we're going to not focus so much on creating racial variants, and we're fairly confident in where our balance is" I think giving respecs to all players after larger patches is a good idea, and will lessen the amount of backlash from players from the initial sweeping balance change. Obviously there are going to be people that feel they're entitled to a respec no matter what the circumstance, and they will find any possible argument to try and convince you otherwise, but if people invest into "FOTM" after sweeping changes only to have it nerfed then I think this is one of the rare times where "HTFU" actually applies. Skill into what you want to play, and if it's UP beg CCP to change it, if it's OP expect a nerf. Vehicles are.. a unique circumstance and I don't blame people for speccing into infantry at all. Better to play the game in SOME capacity, right? It's taken them ages to get this far on vehicles and I would be furious if I was a vehicle pilot. I personally want to see fairly regular respecs (one every six months for as long as these types of changes are happening) but CCP needs to be blunt and VERY open about frequency and when they will and will not be happening. They should also strongly urge people to spec into what they actually want to play (not what they think will make them win) in the event that no other "free respec" happens. Another wall o' text from me. You're welcome. --> I'm a closed beta vet; I just don't post often <-- "Other people just complicate my life." ~Solid Snake

IgniteableAura Pro Hic Immortalis 372	Posted - 2013.12.01 02:10:00 - [51] - Quote Honestly you would be better off getting no respec. I reason this because......you should go by the logic "if you can use it now, you should still be able to use it after patch". I never understood why you guys want a respec when you could potentially get free SP. CCP has changed the skill tree in EVE many times, and they always end up giving away millions of free skill points to players. If you get a respec, you give away all those potential skill points. You say the grind will be longer......THAN WHY are you advocating for a respec. Lastly, respec should be monetized the same as boosters. You plug it into a skill you dont want and it lasts for however long you pay for it. Think of it as a negative skill boosters that takes the skill points out of a skill and allocates it back into your pool at the same rate you earn passive SP. I say montoize because there will always be a push and pull of FOTM and the next nerf, it mixes up game play and thats just how the game remains fresh. PHI Recruitment or PHIsh Tank in game Twitch
Heavy Salvo Fatal Absolution 110	Posted - 2013.12.01 04:23:00 - [52] - Quote IgniteableAura wrote: Honestly you would be better off getting no respec. I reason this because......you should go by the logic "if you can use it now, you should still be able to use it after patch". I never understood why you guys want a respec when you could potentially get free SP. CCP has changed the skill tree in EVE many times, and they always end up giving away millions of free skill points to players. If you get a respec, you give away all those potential skill points. You say the grind will be longer......THAN WHY are you advocating for a respec. Lastly, respec should be monetized the same as boosters. You plug it into a skill you dont want and it lasts for however long you pay for it. Think of it as a negative skill boosters that takes the skill points out of a skill and allocates it back into your pool at the same rate you earn passive SP. I say montoize because there will always be a push and pull of FOTM and the next nerf, it mixes up game play and thats just how the game remains fresh. "Potentially get free SP." I understand you're saying this goes on in EVE however speaking for a majority of the people I play with on DUST ....what is considered common place there generally has little to no bearing in DUST, not saying I don't value you're point but I have not seen it hinted at or said that in place of a respec we could be given "free sp" which could potentially be a good alternative but a few questions come to mind seeing as how EVE sp accumulation works and DUST sp accumulation works I cant really wrap my head around how getting free SP in eve works and how it could be implemented into DUST, 1. isn't SP just a value tacked onto your character (increasing values the higher the skill your training) that when added up add to the value of your character should you ever choose to sell it and also forces you to purchase higher quality clones to add another element of risk to the game, being the loss of trained skills if you do not have a high enough quality clone to retain your total SP? 2. if the latter is true then how does giving "free sp" to EVE players translate to DUST, I couldn't see giving mercs hundreds of thousands or millions of SP to mercs a good thing, only worsening the gap between newer players and vets. (raising the bar for vets in pc making it more difficult for newer players to reach the total SP they need for a corp to feel comfortable putting them into a pc) 3.I agree there will and always has been a certain magnetism to FOTM whether in the endgame aspect (PC) or simply wanting to PUB stomp more efficiently and giving respecs to people with 10s of millions of SP only to allow us to better allocate it and enhance our already favorite builds is unfair to those people with just the minimum SP required to get the gear they need to compete who even after a respec must either pull away from the endgame scene to put points into what they consider fun and grind away for months until they have it perfected enough to compete with the latest FOTM or put everything they have into the newest FOTM and deal with the hate that goes hand in hand with it. 3(Addendum). and tbh I wanted to make a point of how a respec would benefit people who invested SP into the new content simply to have something new to use but this falls under the "For" section IWS brought up earlier that being "players who are bored with their current fits." but it seems to me a better idea would be to add another group to that section, those being the competitive scene (endgame,pc, whatever.) vehicle users who (may not have happened to some but I had first hand experience with this) were urged by their corpmates and CEOs/directors to invest points into an infantry suit in order to cut costs in PC and add more versatility to their repertoire, although personally I had my own tanker and decided that in order for me to fully grasp how to build and run the vehicles provided to us I would have to forego the competitive scene in order to keep from outside influences persuading me to invest SP in places other than my Vehicle tree to benefit the corporation as a whole. Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I'm on the fence which is why Takahiro is sort of hurting the entire conversation because he's pushing me away from wanting to side with the respeccers because by his logic it would be far more effective to redesign the tree which I wont also argue but its an entirely seperate issue. For Players are bored with their current fits. Some have made mistakes Players are feeling left out because they may have made the mistake of speccing into infantry when vehicles was their real calling. Against Free Candy Syndrome - the idea of a free respec at the time of anything gets nerfed, this behavior was well established back in beta and there are plenty of people who are very hard at letting go. Future Prospects - In combination with FCS this will hurt any potential to monetize the and automate the system if it ever gets developed on because it was something offered regularly for free and now has to be paid for. Buy 1 get 2 free is now buy 1 get one 1 free type of backlash. Notation See how 0 of these points have to do with the horrible tree design? First off I'd like to apologize for being so rude in my last post and thank you for still posting regardless of that. After reading through this thread a few times and considering what I already know and how I feel about the respecs I see where the full respec does butt heads with the potential sales of full respecs for AUR and how giving them out was and still is a problem both in how well the respecs are handled ( the incident with people going hundreds of million negative with the last respec) and how once they are given out players expect it to happen again and again and where eventually having it available for sale could result in a negative response from the community (assuming full respecs are--- A salute, to all the toy soldiers left to melt in the sun by those who would only dream of conquest.
Heavy Salvo Fatal Absolution 110	Posted - 2013.12.01 04:39:00 - [53] - Quote jeez this is turning into an essay! (given out on a regular basis before it is given a cash value) so going back to Aura's input in regards to how EVE handles changes to the skill tree is there anyway to use a different method to A.Familiarize the player-base with new content BEFORE they "waste" SP ex.The distribution of the black eagle suits and its BPO weaponry,while it may or may not be considered new content it was a great way to introduce players to a new dropsuit/playstyle concept with no risk to them. B.Find a way to console players already upset at their previous investments getting nerfed only to have their most recent investments also nerfed (FOTM QQers). ex.The SP events, something around this idea at the time of the update or possibly the day of and a few days after in which SP gain is increased dramatically in order to allow access to new content earlier AND inevitably lead to bugs being identified and resolved quicker and feedback on new content coming in earlier and in larger numbers. honestly I think the best way to go about this is to find a new method of cushioning the blow so to speak of nerfs/new content, seeing as continuing on the path of respecs not only hurts the player-base but the developers future plans for the respecs. I understand this is not only going off-topic for my replies but for this thread entirely BUT I do feel it is a step in the right direction albeit one CCP seems to have already made and we(the players) refuse to realize. A salute, to all the toy soldiers left to melt in the sun by those who would only dream of conquest.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1333	Posted - 2013.12.01 08:05:00 - [54] - Quote I still can't believe this is how CCP chooses to treat their players. Thanks for trying to talk sense into CCP, but I see it's a lost cause. Winner of the EU Squad Cup & the closed beta Tester's Tournament. Go Go Power Rangers!
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1807	Posted - 2013.12.01 12:28:00 - [55] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Heavy Salvo wrote: WELL insofar we have the Vehicle perspective although it seems as though you are quite upset he & the other pilots aren't looking at this from the infantry perspective and I'm assuming also disregarding the "free candy syndrome" you brought up at the beginning of this whole thing. well then let me get your opinion on this,Saber, what exactly do you think is unfair in regards to a full respec in 1.7 from an infantry perspective? I'm on the fence which is why Takahiro is sort of hurting the entire conversation because he's pushing me away from wanting to side with the respeccers because by his logic it would be far more effective to redesign the tree which I wont also argue but its an entirely seperate issue. BS Dont pin your indecisiveness on me because you are ***** useless I havnt even mentioned about redesigning the tree, CCP has already done that if you paid attention which you obv *** havnt The vehicle tree has been completely redesigned if you didnt notice and because of that its more of an SP sink which means my 18mil into vehicles now will not go as far as in 1.7 so hence a full respec is needed Anyone else who is skilled into even 1 part of the vehicle tree for just say a ADS might aswell give up not and go into full infantry like a few are doing because its more of an SP sink Why the do i even bother, CPM blames anyone but themselves for being ***** useless
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 241	Posted - 2013.12.01 17:38:00 - [56] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I just want to avoid the free candy addiction syndrome for the time being. Maybe when all the suits come out a free respec then. Id be pretty upset if we have a respec a month. We need one for christmas! Just a free, change of pace. Most people are bored and upset with the current progress. Offering one, until they can get more content out, won't hurt matters! I agree, they shouldn't be handed out like candy. But, in a game like this, respecs will do more good than harm at this point. And it's nearing the end of the year. People are bored, and tired of grinding out SP (most of us I think are). Content is a ways down the road, and a lot of people understand this. 6 months so far, and no new content. Many have made mistakes, and could be more effective if they were allowed to redo some SP. Which in turn equals fewer people complaining about Pub Stomp. ( not to mention the playerbase a respec has the potential to bring back, which will help with the awful matchmaking.) FotM, who cares. This is CCP's problem, for allowing the imbalances to run rampant. People should really quit blaming the players. They did the homework, and went with the strongest choice. To me, the strongest setup, is the smartest setup. Why the hell are you going to play with gimped toys? I feel no love for Fotm haters, their jealousy is becoming ridiculous. I understand, that we do have more weapons coming out with 1.7. But what I find unbalanced, is the fact that you won't be offering anyone a limited respec to go into one of the new rifles, over the AR that I'm so tired of seeing on the field. Why? That would ** me the hell off! All these weapons, that should have been here at the start of the game, now need to be ground out. Ugh. Just so very tired of this beta **. And hardly any progress to boot. You have a wonderful idea, and have poorly executed that idea. So many promises; trailers, blogs, the hype. Not a one of them have been realized. Hell, you completely started over with tanks, because there was too much "noise". Now 3 months later, half the games life, you are releasing the reworked tanks. And they still aren't even finished! Jesus, am I the only one that thinks we took a step backwards?? How many more months fixing the imbalances with just vehicles?? The future, looks bleak. And No, I don't want anymore promises. Results would be nice. Nuff Said
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 241	Posted - 2013.12.01 18:06:00 - [57] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Heavy Salvo wrote: WELL insofar we have the Vehicle perspective although it seems as though you are quite upset he & the other pilots aren't looking at this from the infantry perspective and I'm assuming also disregarding the "free candy syndrome" you brought up at the beginning of this whole thing. well then let me get your opinion on this,Saber, what exactly do you think is unfair in regards to a full respec in 1.7 from an infantry perspective? I'm on the fence which is why Takahiro is sort of hurting the entire conversation because he's pushing me away from wanting to side with the respeccers because by his logic it would be far more effective to redesign the tree which I wont also argue but its an entirely seperate issue. BS Dont pin your indecisiveness on me because you are ***** useless I havnt even mentioned about redesigning the tree, CCP has already done that if you paid attention which you obv *** havnt The vehicle tree has been completely redesigned if you didnt notice and because of that its more of an SP sink which means my 18mil into vehicles now will not go as far as in 1.7 so hence a full respec is needed Anyone else who is skilled into even 1 part of the vehicle tree for just say a ADS might aswell give up not and go into full infantry like a few are doing because its more of an SP sink Why the do i even bother, CPM blames anyone but themselves for being *** useless You make a valid, solid point. They did not inform us that they were making an even bigger SP sink. So now I will be half as effective with a tank as before. Or I can drop those tank points and go full on infantry, and be effective. But what I can't do is drop the infantry (which was a secondary path I took after getting my tanks to where I wanted them) and go full on tank. It's a good point you make Takahiro. I've just read the rest of your posts and I'm right there with you. Vehicle users are getting the short end of the stick, and AV classes, and other infantry are getting beat with that stick. This particular CPM Iron Wolf Saber, has been known to be illogical when something comes up that he can't full grasp. He has berated the community he is supposed to serve with oh wow, you are stupid, that can't work and I won't listen to you anymore rhetoric. Clearly, this fella has yet to reach adulthood. A small child could see the logic in what you were saying. This isn't the first time Iron Wolf Saber has acted the part of a total douche, and it won't be the last time. I for one am sick and tired of this CPM and his trolling. It's clear, that he can't grasp the whole of what people are trying to illustrate. Instead he says, "oh great, now Sink is ruining this conversation", and because you used that word, you must be talking about redoing the skill tree. Tha . Are you really that stupid. You are the one actually taking our ideas (that you can't begin to grasp) to CCP?? It's time you step the hell down buddy. You hurt most conversations you go into. Not the people but you Iron. Then you start threads ridiculing the people who have serious issues because you failed to grasp what was being said. And here you are doing it again. Well buddy, no help from me this time. I was pissed the first time, and held my cool. Now ** it, you clearly are not worth the time. Nuff Said
Heavy Salvo Fatal Absolution 111	Posted - 2013.12.01 18:13:00 - [58] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Heavy Salvo wrote: WELL insofar we have the Vehicle perspective although it seems as though you are quite upset he & the other pilots aren't looking at this from the infantry perspective and I'm assuming also disregarding the "free candy syndrome" you brought up at the beginning of this whole thing. well then let me get your opinion on this,Saber, what exactly do you think is unfair in regards to a full respec in 1.7 from an infantry perspective? I'm on the fence which is why Takahiro is sort of hurting the entire conversation because he's pushing me away from wanting to side with the respeccers because by his logic it would be far more effective to redesign the tree which I wont also argue but its an entirely seperate issue. BS Dont pin your indecisiveness on me because you are ***** useless I havnt even mentioned about redesigning the tree, CCP has already done that if you paid attention which you obv *** havnt The vehicle tree has been completely redesigned if you didnt notice and because of that its more of an SP sink which means my 18mil into vehicles now will not go as far as in 1.7 so hence a full respec is needed Anyone else who is skilled into even 1 part of the vehicle tree for just say a ADS might aswell give up not and go into full infantry like a few are doing because its more of an SP sink Why the do i even bother, CPM blames anyone but themselves for being *** useless You make a valid, solid point. They did not inform us that they were making an even bigger SP sink. So now I will be half as effective with a tank as before. Or I can drop those tank points and go full on infantry, and be effective. But what I can't do is drop the infantry (which was a secondary path I took after getting my tanks to where I wanted them) and go full on tank. It's a good point you make Takahiro. I've just read the rest of your posts and I'm right there with you. Vehicle users are getting the short end of the stick, and AV classes, and other infantry are getting beat with that stick. This particular CPM Iron Wolf Saber, has been known to be illogical when something comes up that he can't full grasp. He has berated the community he is supposed to serve with oh wow, you are stupid, that can't work and I won't listen to you anymore rhetoric. Clearly, this fella has yet to reach adulthood. A small child could see the logic in what you were saying. This isn't the first time Iron Wolf Saber has acted the part of a total douche, and it won't be the last time. I for one am sick and tired of this CPM and his trolling. It's clear, that he can't grasp the whole of what people are trying to illustrate. Instead he says, "oh great, now Sink is ruining this conversation", and because you used that word, you must be talking about redoing the skill tree. Tha . Are you really that stupid. You are the one actually taking our ideas (that you can't begin to grasp) to CCP?? It's time you step the hell down buddy. You hurt most conversations you go into. Not the people but you Iron. Then you start threads ridiculing the people who have serious issues because you failed to grasp what was being said. And here you are doing it again. Well buddy, no help from me this time. I was pissed the first time, and held my cool. Now ** it, you clearly are not worth the time. Validating the fact that the soon to be implemented vehicle skill trees increased SP values are ridiculous, Yes hes blowing off what their saying, but hes trying to discuss JUST the respec whereas as hes already mentioned and you should be aware of the vehicle skill trees issues cant simply be fixed with a full respec and would require a full redesign of the vehicle skill tree WHICH IS WHY he is refusing to discuss it any further, while your opinions and points are valid could we please just focus on the SP reset and/or ideas for a different method? A salute, to all the toy soldiers left to melt in the sun by those who would only dream of conquest.
Dalmont Legrand Nemesis Ad Astra RUST415 91	Posted - 2013.12.01 18:14:00 - [59] - Quote SORRY FOR CAPS CANDY OF RESPEC WILL PERSIST UNTIL OUR WEAPONS WON'T SUFFER MAJOR CHANGES. In eve we don't suffer these changes as game is balanced so many times it is mostly stable. EVEN THE GAME IS RELEASED WE STILL SUFFER CHANGES. Of something nothing is everything.
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 8176	Posted - 2013.12.01 18:18:00 - [60] - Quote Nova Knife wrote: You actually posted this while we were in a meeting, and the topic of respecs came up around the tail end of it. Most of the CPM agrees with you completely that they should do a full rspec, and I took the opportunity to plug this thread. We cited that while we dont know if CCP intends to enable respecs in the future as a feature, but we know they are considering it. If they are, then they should abaolutely offer a full respec this time, as the feature is not ready yet. Once players can do it on their own.... the fear of "we want a respec everytime something is nerfed/buffed" is no longer applicable. Using my phone ti post this, so i'll add more when i have a real keyboard in front of me This could use its own thread Read / Vid / Stream



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.