DUST Search - [Request] Once a week refund all spent SP and.....

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Request] Once a week refund all spent SP and.....

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 790	Posted - 2013.03.11 17:17:00 - [1] - Quote @OP This issue has already been addressed and ruled on by CCP, the simple answer is "no". Quote: From this thread -> https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=458396#post458396 " #1 Posted: 2013.01.08 17:18 \| Report \| Edited by: Iron Wolf Saber Like 10JAN2013 Strap your boots on soldiers its hot drop o' clock in Tranquility we will be moving servers on the 10th as confirmed via IRC today IRC wrote: <11:11:11>CCP Nullarbor >> 10th is a server change and character reset. <11:11:30>CCP Nullarbor >> and will very likely be the last character reset (we have no more planned.) " This is not the only place they've stated their stance, it was just the first I found via the search function. Other reasons why this isn't a good idea include (but are by no means limited to) Destroys the macro level meta game by making everything 'flavor of the month'. A natural response to this progression will be the rise of single build styles decreasing game diversity and fun, it will also boost the pervasive trend of ARs being the most common weapon on the battlefield as the value of niche weapons decreases under FotM builds. Reduces understanding of/learning about the game. Without a stable baseline to compare against players, especially those new to the game, will have only extremely subjective data at their disposal rendering the value of feedback to be much less (and thus CCPs motivation to listen to us much less). Resetting on such a fast cycle is so bad for testing purposes that even the close beta employed longer reset cycles than you're suggesting. Delays the player (aka secondary) market. This key game feature is at the heart of Dust and is a complex feature to finalize for initial release, causing the majority of the game to suddenly become highly mutable will further delay the release of this feature both reducing fun and unnecessarily prolonging the beta form of D514 Damages EVE/Dust link. EVE is a persistent universe wherein choices matter and bad choices have to be lived with. That is an established aspect of EVE (source of CCPs main cash flow) and is not up for debate. Dust is planed to be fully integrated with the EVE universe (eventually) and many of Dust important features are connected to that promise (holding territory, higher level deplorable assets, the market link outlined above, many Corp/Alliance management features, etc.). Enacting the suggestions within the OP stalls EVE/Dust integration for as long as such "rinse reset" modalities are in place as CCP will rightly be unwilling to risk their main revenue stream on behalf of a free to play beta product. Stalling the progression of Dust is detrimental to the game and in no way counter balanced by closed beta on steroids suggestions in the OP. OPs method is just a pain in the kitten for players who have actually decided on and planned a build, forcing them into cycles of mindless repetition on a weekly basis just to be able to play the game. Expends development resources on transient side projects. Currently fittings are tied to the skills in place, resets of all SP would result in fittings wipes and/or bugs creating further problems for both players and devs and adding even more time to the cycle of repetition listed in the point above. If you want to be able to try everything just keep playing the game and unlock it all, if you want to try everything without playing the game (in which case one is forced to wonder why you are playing the game or posting to it's forums) then simply created a character, turn on passive and walk away for a few years. 0.02 ISK Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 792	Posted - 2013.03.11 18:23:00 - [2] - Quote Delirium Inferno wrote: I agree with this. Why call it a beta if we cannot possibly test something without being bounded for all eternity to it? I mean, by the current method you might as call this game released as of January 10th and everything else is just an expansion to an already released game. To all those concerned about the "flavor of the week' thing, keep in mind this would only be for while in the beta stage so beta testers can actually test. The game is supposed to "release" in the Summer right? So it wouldn't be for that long. Plus the data from the beta should increase substantially with players able to test a wider array of gear. Currently we may have someone say "Type B Assault dropsuits are over powered" or "Prototype heavy suits are not worth the cost for the one extra slot" or stuff like that, but all most people are judging this off of is numbers which isn't always the best indicator. Having to ability to actually go in the battlefield with whatever is in question (if you have enough skill points for it) would give the tester a much better idea for the matter. Please see my post above yours on this page, use of the method proposed by the OP will delay the proper development cycle of the beta due to reasons outlined there.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 797	Posted - 2013.03.12 20:35:00 - [3] - Quote This post is coming in 2 parts, so here's the TL;DR version. You replied too, but failed to respond to essentially all of my points. Making a statement that something is true without context or reasoning does not equate to that thing being true nor does it equate to a refutation of reasoning and information supplied regarding a contrary thing being true. Respond to the content and details of the post, do not just supply your reaction to the general concept as the later method is in no way constructive. Point 1 - Flavor of the month (or worse week) is even more of an issue because it's beta. The macro of a team centric battle has many balance implactions and those larger patterns remain obscured when you force game interactions into weekly micro cycles. Further you provide no supporting reasoning to substantiate why a game which as been in beta for more than a year requires more testing of everything on an individual player level at this stage of development. The type of testing you seem to be describing happened and finished during the closed beta, CCP has moved away from it in ever larger strides over the last several releases clearly indicating that the feedback and testing information they need is currently more macro paradigm, team centric, and technical infastructure related than micro centrict single player focused. Point 2 - Micro cycles are not an enhancement CCP gaining data on trends within gear use and development, nor does it provide any opptunity to establish the effects of progression over time and where certain items, fits or lines rise to dominence or fall by the way side. Putting everyone (or the vast bulk of testers) in best gear with best skills which is what such a micro cycle does, is cutting out the vast bulk of the testing in favor of a skewed "pure proto vs pure proto" slug fest. And even then such data is less vaild for upper level testing as the builds and fits themselves alter so rapidly and radically and true long term comparasions are unable to be made. Also of note your response to my second bullet contains no counter argumentantion or reasoning. Nor does it directly address the reasoning I presented there. All it does is provide a counter conclusion with no supportive tissue or context. Point 3 - The player market won't come all at once. It is slated for a layered rollout, which will be further delayed by divrting development resources into a project (the OP) which in it's function hampers that rollout. The value of an item within a persistant universe is not a static quantity that occurs in a vacume. The econmic implications are a cornerstone of how D514 is slated to function so crippeling or dismissing such interactions is a poor choice indeed. The "best" fit is not always the most powerful, if you can get something 10% less potent for 70% less cost then that's the better choice the majority of the time (obviiously this example is simplfied but the principle holds, you cannot fully test the gear/fits/weapons within dust absent of market/economic considerations, as such we need to be moving towards such contexts sooner rather than later). Furthermore according to CCP resets are already done (barring something catastrophic) so now is a prime time to test such features. Even if that were not the case testing in advance of full release would be ideal, which would require a lack of resets (or at mimimum a long term lack of resets even if a final one were planned) to allow for such testing to occur.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 797	Posted - 2013.03.12 20:35:00 - [4] - Quote Point 4 - The current implementation of the EVE/Dust link that is active currently is rather minimal (in the sense of direct game interaction rather than the mechanical/coding infrastructure, as the mechanical/coding side is being developed rather robustly and in advance of the in game features). The in game features aspect being small is due to CCP (wisely) choosing to focus on the mechanical foundations first. There is no reason to assume that since things haven't been activated yet they shouldn't be activated until after beta. Your reply here also does not refute my points regarding how the OP suggestion would be detrimental to activating this link sooner rather than later. Furthermore while you continue to repeat the statement that "resets = better testing" you fail to provide explanation regarding how that is actually the case in the big picture of the game taken in context with the full value of closed beta testing. I can certainly see how resets are useful for player testing of gear to detriment player preference of fits etc. but that is not equivalent game or balance testing nor is it testing the breadth or big picture of the core game features. There is also no address in your response regarding the detrimental effects of stalling this link progression, simply a statement that 'CCP can move on to it later'. If indeed such micro style resets were of value to CCP in their assessment and acquisition of data then would it not follow that all of the resets preformed throughout closed beta would have provided them with this very sort of data and that perhaps the many months of such testing which they've already had would give them a working foundation to draw from? If in your view the entire closed beta is inadequate to have tested in this manner that how many months/years do you propose is required before testing should be allowed to move on to core aspects such as the EVE/Dust integration and the player market? Point 5 - Ignoring a fundamental game mechanic (in this case planing and long term progression of builds) and calling it "testing" is illogical. Cherry picking when you will and will not interact with the game and in what contexts then responding to those cut out interactions does not produce contextually valid beta feedback as the context itself is incomplete. Furthermore the OPs comments regarding planning are in no way relevant to my fifth point as what I was pointing out above wasn't that "you should of planned better" but rather that the OPs proposal places a new burden upon players who have planned essentially making the OPs suggestion "you shouldn't have planned at all" if we are to keep the same style of rhetoric. The simple (and unaddressed) point of bullet 5 is that the suggestion of the OP creates mindless and useless repetition for many players in game, thus diminishing their ability to test anything (be mechanically forcing them to spend less time doing so as they must instead waste their time on repetitious reallocation of points back to where they already were prior to the forced reset). Point 6 - The first line of this point addresses the expenditure of development resources on a transient side project. This opening point is left completely unaddressed. To add an option for some of the players to function under a different skill mechanic than others, to say noting of doing the same for fittings et al would once again consume development resources all on behalf of a concept that has yet to hold water. Even were that not the case your contention that resetting all fittings, skills, and personal stock of items every week "wouldn't take very long" is frankly both baffling and approaching the ludicrous. But rather than belabor that point I'll simply call upon you to provide openly your estimation of the actual time it would require to complete these tasks (bearing in mind that the deeper into the game we get the longer it will take as SP/fittings/asset totals grow) so that testers can compare your time assessment with their own experience and see if they find it to be both relevant and valid. Of course beta testing is not all "pretty work" as many here who've undergone quite a few resets already can attest, but just because testing isn't only about playing doesn't mean that something which is problematic and burdensome automatically equates to a requirement of (or even benefit too) the testing in progress. 0.02 ISK Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 809	Posted - 2013.03.13 18:10:00 - [5] - Quote RINON114 wrote: Django Quik wrote: Also, completely ignores all the extremely good points raised in the 'lengthy speech'. Which was entirely tl;dr for someone with a life to live right now, maybe I'll give it a look when I have nothing better to do. You could also address the points I raised but are instead trying to be funny. The main point I am raising is to try and find something workable in this idea, because skill respecs are something that the more casual players want and also what we should be entitled to. Like it or not, casual players will be the main source of income and publicity for this game. And please correct me if I'm wrong but there actually is a respec in EVE, just not for skill points. You can respec your attributes (twice a year?) to get training times faster in certain areas. This could easily be applied to Dust and give all players a chance to respec in some form of time constraint that would be considerably shorter for the beta. Edit: Not everybody was able to get into the closed beta, and the current build doesn't accurately reflect much of what happened therein. Please stop saying "you had your chance in the closed beta" - thanks. The drawback to your general response here is that your prior post and contention, the points you are asking to be addressed, have already been addressed in this thread, twice by myself alone (to say nothing of several other times by others in this thread as well). If you don't wish to actually read the many detailed reasons why the general topic isn't a very valid avenue to follow at this stage of the beta that is of course your prerogative, but if you have 'too much of a life' to be able to read what amounts to not quite two pages upon what grounds do you draw for your assertions that the practices of the current development cycle should be altered? Upon what do you base the assumption that your points have not been addressed? If you're unable or unwilling to spend the time to read regarding a concepts shortfalls how can you continue to contend that the concept is valid? Further my first post, prior to the 'lengthy speech' was more condensed and a much quicker read yet even that remains unaddressed by your responses. "Like it or not" the casual player is rarely if ever the focus of beta testing, such a focus usual comes after/as part of a full release as trying to limit what can be done/how it can be done within testing to a casual threshold often precludes the testing itself (outside of stress tests and the like which simply do not require any special exemptions from baseline game mechanics). Quote: Edit: Not everybody was able to get into the closed beta, and the current build doesn't accurately reflect much of what happened therein. Please stop saying "you had your chance in the closed beta" - thanks. The point I and others are raising was never "you had your chance" the point is aspect of testing has been concluded. Further your edit here shows a focus on the player/"fun factor" aspect which is, let us be blunt, not the core purpose of a beta test. Ideally should a beta be fun? Sure. Ideally would all movies be shot in only one take? Sure. In a perfect world things all come together at once with no rough edges or lead time required. We however do not actually live in a perfect world and testing an unfinished product is not always the ideal of fun (especially for those without much time to invest in such an activity). Simply put Dust open beta does not equal an extended Dust tutorial. While I certainly hope that people are enjoying themselves (and spend time in the Training Grounds trying to help make that a reality) testing is for CCP to derive the status of their current build and move that toward a finished product, not to cater to the play style of any given sub-group of players regardless of said sub-groups size. 0.02 ISK Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 809	Posted - 2013.03.13 18:27:00 - [6] - Quote Soozu wrote: I too could write a wordy two part response outlining each and every point I was trying to make and call it won, but I instead believe that most people get the general idea and concept. That respecing has its advantages and is not a game breaker. Could you directly respond to the content of said post? Or the much shorter prior post? Could you elaborate on why the specific points raised on both those posts regarding the problems with SP resets of this type at this stage of beta are in your view inaccurate? Could you present the specific details of your plan which would circumvent the concerns raised by many in this thread? Because after all 'I too could simply keep reiterating a conclusion without bothering to try and support it or address the substance of opposing viewpoints and call it won.' The testers in this thread objecting to the concept raised are not trolling, and aren't attempting to spoil or fun or enact some personal grudge we are raising specific reasoned objections regarding the validity of the concept presented and having those concerns and their reasons dismissed without any detailed nor direct response made to them. For those in this thread who don't have the time/interest to provide detailed feedback and reasoning for your positions I direct you to this LINK The link is a direct example of the feedback type/detail that CCP desires. (Note I am not making the claim that it's the "only" type of feedback they desire, but time and again the Devs have made it known that the more detailed the feedback the more actionable and useful it is for them. So let's try to bear some consideration for that in mind while discussing suggestions posted within the feedback forum). - Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 821	Posted - 2013.03.14 02:37:00 - [7] - Quote RINON114 wrote: Edit: As for the link provided by Cross, thanks. Although they are doing a great job of "real" testing, not all of us have the knowledge or know how to work that kind of stuff out. I personally am an artist, not a mathematician so my feedback is obviously going to be qualitative. This doesn't mean this kind of feedback is worth any less to CCP. For the record it was not my intent to imply that mathematics/quantitative feedback was the only valid kind, nor that qualitative feedback holds no place in the sphere of beta testing. I offer my sincere apologies if I have given that impression. Further as you mention in your post one of the best ways to aid testers/players in understanding how balanced things can be is to allow them to try out those things for themselves. While in my assessment respecs are not the correct way to go about this within D514 I do agree with and support the general concept stated. It is my perception that a full array of militia variations (as they require no SP investment to employ) combined with a 'shooting range' (something easy to code that would let players get a feel for the effectiveness of various weapons on armor vs shields at an array of ranges) would open things up to providing players this same type of benefit without running afoul of the problems invoked by the respec method. On a closing note while I analyze points rather intently and am dogged in calling for details it is not my intent to be discourteous in my postings. I now however that sometimes I fail at conveying this and offer my apologies on this count if such has been the case here. Cheers, Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 822	Posted - 2013.03.14 03:40:00 - [8] - Quote RINON114 wrote: It's not your problem, just sometimes I have a hard time with so many words on my phone's screen but I thank you for clarifying nonetheless. It also seems we have found some common ground as I think militia variations of everything is definitely the best way to go in favour of understanding different playstyles, with the only problem being the huge difference between militia and proto gear, but I can settle on this point. With that said I still think that a simple bi-yearly respec of some skills could very much find a place in the final version of Dust, just as there is a similar respec option in EVE. To further this point only slightly, perhaps the skill you respec could be locked out for a lengthy period of time, meaning that your choices could have even bigger consequences. Thanks again Cross for clarifying your points, much appreciated. I'm glad we've reached a point of more common ground, and thank you for taking the time to participate in the discussion that led to it. Regarding an EVE style "respec". The option in EVE is remap that when used goes on a 12 month cooldown timer. In essence you can remap once per year. The effects of this remap are not to alter any of the skills or SP you have currently invested but rather to provided a faster rate of gain within a selected specialized area at the cost of taking a slower rate of gain throughout the other areas available. The system would need some mechanic refitting to mesh with Dust but I see no reason the fundamental concept would not also be viable within D514. (As a side note regarding some of my prior points, if this method were slated to work within the live release the having it now during beta would trigger none of the potential problems I've mentioned in this thread). Since rate of SP gain works differently within Dust perhaps the reworked version would discount the cost of skills within a specific sub-group allowing for more specialization while raising the cost on all skills outside of the selected group. A note worth keeping in mind, when I mention "specialization" it is more of a "weapons, armor, or equipment" question than a "Logi, Assault, or HAV" question. My idea likely needs further refinement but would that adaptation be moving in the direction you're looking for? Cheers, Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 833	Posted - 2013.03.22 04:04:00 - [9] - Quote Respecs (the removal of already spent SP which is then placed back into the unallocated SP pool) aren't the proper solution, they're somewhat analogous to taking painkillers for a back or shoulder injury. You alleviate some of the symptoms at the front end while making the overall problems worse in the long run. For much of my analysis on that front see my earlier posts, this one will be focused on solutions which are less 'symptomatic' in nature. The New Player Experience While D514 is still in beta one key aspect of the game which needs testing (and polish) is the new player experience. The first impression, accessibility of the game and the implications of it's many choices. Price adjusting, skill respecs, and many frustrated threads calling "nerf X" or "buff Y" are the children of Dusts steep learning curve. If a player entering the game were greeted by the information needed to make informed decisions than there is no longer any need for those decisions to ever be 'rolled back' because the implications of choice then fall fully upon the user. This information needs to come in forms more interactive and engaging than our current wall of text popups. What gamer who's just downloaded a game the size of dust, and is excited to play it, takes the time to read and absorb so many walls of text? Experience says not very many, combine that with the diverse learning modality people possess and the new player experience is calling out for more videos, more voiced explanations and more PvE style hands on training scenarios, to fully balance out the VARK offerings of Dust. Simply put lets make the game more accessible from the outset, first exposure to Dust should ideally give a player the following sensation easy to learn, difficult to master. My ideas (and those that I've read) are far from the final word when it comes to how we reach that goal but I think it's a mark worth aiming for, and continuing to work on (and what better time to start than the beta?) Some more detailed ideas are presented here https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=64043&find=unread In addition to that, more directly related to skills I'd like to raise the concept of skill spikes and skill clusters. Now we don't know what these are or whether CCP has already conceptually defined their intended purpose. So my ideas following are theoretical, but lets try to focus on concepts rather than specific terminology. Skill Clusters - EVE has a "remap" usable once every 12 months for free. This remap allows a player to focus the development of skill growth through specialization, gaining a bonus to gains within a specialty while taking penalties to growth in other areas. Introduce "skill clusters" in Dust to provide the same effect, as an example: A player picks up an Armor skill cluster from the market, plugs in that augmentation and now receives a discount on skills related to improving their ability to use and fit armor for the duration of the mod (other skills would during this time cost more to upgrade thus encouraging players to plan ahead while still allowing enhance flexibility for any player wishing to train into a new battlefield role). Skill Spikes - The "try before you buy" augmentation. AUR gear already reduces the character skills required to run a given piece of gear but doesn't grant the full effect as the value of supporting skills remains absent. Skill spikes would be the other side of this coin offering (temporarily and for a price) a single level increase in a given skill. This will not only allow players the chance to test out new fits and ideas (even after the live launch) but prevents abuse by limiting use to a timed single slot augmentation. When combined with a full range of militia gear and stronger/more diverse full spectrum new player experience Dust can 'have it's cake and eat it too' keeping all choices lasting and their implications persistent while at the same time not shortchanging players who are either new to the game or trying something new with their Dust gaming. [Note: Even if skill spikes and clusters are slated to be something else I would encourage CCP to consider the ideas above as possible game additions. Their possible value for helping new players and keeping the game fresh for vets shouldn't be undersold] Rather than continue this tug of war over when/how/how much to "reinvent the wheel" with regards to Dust and skill point (re)allocation lets build on trends and features already within game in ways that accomplish a resolution for the same concerns that raised this topic in the first place. Cheers, Cross

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.