DUST Search - Just add purchasable respecs already

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Just add purchasable respecs already

» 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 Covert Intervention 1032	Posted - 2013.05.31 00:59:00 - [1] - Quote See posts 2, 3, 4, 5, & 7. There are already cries that Dust is P2W. CCP has narrowly avoided crossing the line on this and I commend them all in all for how well they've done (tho the "better than Proto" AUR gear needs a touch of the nerf bat or needs an ISK equivalent.) but allow players to buy respecs and D514 is P2W no ifs ands or buts about it. Beyond that Dust and EVE are not "separate games" happening in isolated worlds they are both aspects of the events taking place in one domain New Eden. The link between games is rudimentary at this point sure but the roadmap calls for completely integration and that disbars the use of "your choices don't really matter you can always just undo" modes of game development. Even if Dust and EVE weren't part of a single world the idea of respecs in Dust as a common thing (payed or otherwise) is awful because of its totally devaluing effect on the secondary market. There will be no sandbox if the economics are dismissed so cavalier a fashion. The sandbox thrives on player driven effects, on choices with meaning. When changes as fundamental as what gear (and how well) every merc can run become as mutable as whim then larger things like long term tactical planning, market trend analysis (or tend setting), out of the box innovation, et al become devalued. Why plan long term when everything can be changed within minutes? Why try to understand or care about the economics when tomorrow everyone may be running max gear of a totally different type? Why innovate when everyone else can clone everything you've done after a single match? You know what else respecs do? They kill the longevity of the game. CCP stated out of the gate (or before the gate even opened if you're counting closed beta) that they were building Dust to take around 7.5 years to max all skills (assuming there weren't new skills added along the way... ) add limitless respecs and what used to require mufti-millions of SP involving years of game play to earn will now be reduced to a matter of months as everyone who's earned to the SP for a single proto build is now proto in everything since they can swap at will. Put bluntly, unlimited respecs (yes even those you have to P2W for) sell the future of the game to appease a lack of patience or dedication among some players... and frankly players who aren't interested in being here for the long haul aren't going to stick around either way so shortening the lifespan of the game to hold on to their attention for a few weeks (or possibly months) more is not only poor game development but bad business as well. 0.02 ISK Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1036	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:57:00 - [2] - Quote Chinduko wrote: Define "win". I see winning as helping my corp with the role they need, even if I don't make the top of the leaderboard. I also see see a respect as a way to try completely different specializations. That's not paying to win. That's paying to try something different. "Win" in this case is match victory, this becomes more true the as you move into FW and especially PC. "Win" also contains aspects of "preform better than would otherwise be possible" as I've yet to see any P2W situation where the player literally just inputs money and is given only a victory screen or a stat update to show victory. P2W rather is granting imbalanced advantages which lead to victory and doing so on the basis of a currency external to the game world. Additionally there are already two ways in game to try something new, either Make an Alt Earn the SP and test it out Trying something new is great, being able to try actual battlefield fits and tactics within non-simulated matches at whim without lasting consequence (aside from gaining personal advantage) is not great it's pay to win. In addition to all the drawbacks of respecs (most of those I list haven't been touched on by your reply) it's also completely unnecessary for what you're describing (assuming you're not going for P2W). CCP has stated they're looking at adding a "shooting range/simulator" to the game which would give an out of match method to 'try before you buy'. It's a better solution and it's already on the roadmap (which means it'd come out faster than a theoretical respec anyway). ~Cross ps ~ While I'm most certainly interested in hearing your own or other mercs responses to the "shooting range" aspect if you're going to continue advocating for a respec please address the other listed negative aspects presented not simply a single item from the list.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1037	Posted - 2013.05.31 15:24:00 - [3] - Quote RoundEy3 wrote: As I stated in my earlier post here I am for a limited, non ISK/money based respec option. I say this because despite a few elitists, purists, diehards, stubborn gamers, whatever you want to call them, believe that dust should function the same as eve on the timeline and skill investment level. I do not agree. It shouldn't because it is a different game. It is a shooter. This is a FTP game at the core, and I'm of the opinion that bringing so much eve obsession. Forcing this kind of time sink and commitment on everyone will make them leave. Some of these people say GTFO to everyone that even suggest the idea! Even in eve (which I play) hearing other people's demands on what they consider "commitment" and "dedication" the the universe means very little to me. It is a game! I am for finding a balance of options here, a respec that is limited, has a penalty, and doesn't cost real money or isk. Seriously, the number of people who are going to commit to a 5 year training plan with no leniency in a shooter is few and far between. Seriously, who cares enough to pledge their time and long term interests to the ideals of a few misguided game nuts. If anything just allowing a respec a couple times a year would let people try new stuff, which would probably keep them playing longer. You'll have to include CCP among those "elitists" or whatever you end up calling them after all it's CCP who said they wanted the game to take at least seven and a half years to max out in (unless you're saying that timeline isn't long enough to qualify for your definition of 'functioning like EVE' in which case I'd ask how long is long enough?). Your assessment that at the core D514 is an FPS is inaccurate. Dust 514 is a genera deifying hybrid and at it's core it's New Eden. Dismissing the innovation and uniqueness present in that denigrates the game and is clearly not what CCP has been presenting in their blogs, press releases and FanFest vision statements/keynotes over the last more than a year. Leaving aside your rather pervasive ad hominem editorializing and even my above notwithstanding your contentions fall short in two regards. Firstly they do not address or analyze the aspects I've raised in my prior post and simply dismissing those aspects out of hand does not change that (yes I know you didn't quote me but my post is relevant to this issue). Secondly implying that not supporting a respec is equivalent too demanding players commit to a 5 year training plant with no leniency simply isn't an accurate representation of how the game mechanics function sans respec. Most skills are useful to one degree or another regardless of chosen build, which is one example of leniency. Another aspect is that you can only use one weapon at a time (nades somewhat notwithstanding) not only that but you're not forced to completely max out a weapon just to use it, or even to be competitive with it depending on context and player gun game (for example a militia AR does more work for me right now than a Proto MD). Once a Merc has earned a full proto fit many of those skills directly cross apply to the next thus shortening the "re-train" cycle once Proto is reached. "Leniency" =/= Removing persistent meaning from player choice. CCP should provide sufficient and timely information on what is coming and when both changes and additions. CCP should continue to focus on game wide balance of weapons and gear both inter and intra gear class (be that dropsuits, light weapons, equipment, etc). CCP should provide a robust and through new player experience to help players entering the game have a context for making informed choices. With those aspects in place the contention of "no leniency" frankly lacks a leg to stand on. Now let's be clear, all of those aspects are not currently complete/active within the game but then again I'm not objecting to the current respec either. Furthermore those aspects are needed regardless of respec and present a better solution than respecs for the concerns raised regarding player constraint. I'd be interested to hear your further thoughts on the subject and/or debate the concepts with you further, however I do hope that you will consider shelving the ad hominems in future posts as they simply act as a detraction/distraction from the actual discussion taking place. Cheers, Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1039	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:32:00 - [4] - Quote RoundEy3 wrote: @ Cross Atu In post 8 I had a quite simple balanced proposal for adding a respec feature that would allow people to occasionally change battlefield roles. My goal here is simple, balance the requests for a respec while keeping the bonus of persistent choice. Maybe you're lacking something to bring such a quantified and over complicated, beaurocratic, analysis system to figuring out something as plain as giving people the chance to play a game, not live by it. You are totally missing my point, the quest for the submission to the value of persistent meaning might not mean as much to other people as it does you. When you turn on your PS3 and play some dust does it fulfill your quest for meaning of choice??? Some people who are good at the game and have put considerable time into just want to play differently every now and then. Why is that such a camplicated idea? I'll go and give post 8 a more detailed read before I respond, that only seems fair. In the same exact vein I must remind you that you have still yet to address the majority of points I have raised in this thread thus far. My posts don't speak to your motivations nor specifically indite them so while you reiterate you motives and that's fine it still serves in no way to address any of the problematic aspects which I've raised regarding respecs. If you feel your proposed plan from post 8 addresses these raised issues please do specify how and why. I must admit I am baffled by your continued insistence on using ad hominem attacks within your posts, it honestly does a disservice to both this discussion and to your point of advocacy. I will reiterate that discontinuing their use would be of both general (to the topic) and specific (to you) value, please consider it or failing that perhaps elaborate on why you feel they are required to present your point of view? Persistent meaning within New Eden is not a "quest" it is the standard of game play. It is an aspect which is frankly more enjoyable to many (not commenting on ratios here) and glaringly absent from most other games. Without that aspect I wouldn't play EVE or Dust because frankly they wouldn't motivate me. I possess literally hundreds of games of various types on both the PC and PS3 when I'm in the mood for something without persistent choices and a sandbox environment I play another game outside of New Eden. It's in no way a question of saying one play style is superior to another, it's simply that persistence is core and key to New Eden (aka Dust/EVE) and lacking in most other games so why would I as a player desire fewer types of play experience? Having played this game since closed beta I can fully understand the desire to try something new or play something different, but that's already available within the game in a manner that avoids the problems respecs will cause. Even if one doesn't wish to play D514 at all until the option to open a new piece of gear is presented that is still possible in the present game state through use of passive SP. The live release of Dust isn't even 6 months old, once characters begin reaching a certain level of SP all earnings will become a doorway into diversity. With a core build in place it's not that long of a trek into trying a new weapon, piece of equipment or even dropsuit so there's literally noting stopping any player from having what you're asking for under the current mechanics, the only restriction is that they won't have it this instant. Dust is free and gives you SP for free over time, nothing in that forces yourself or any player to grind or play without diverse options, nor does it create the choice of "grind or quit". The only thing it requires is the ability to be entertained for a time (either by current builds within Dust or by activities outside of Dust be they games or offline) while practicing a bit of patience. Just as Dust is more fun with the diversity of having more light weapons than the AR on the field so too are FPS type/hybrid games more interesting having with a game like Dust that offers the unique aspect of persistent choice. Why are you so intent in your opposition to this difference/diversity? off to read and respond on post 8 Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1040	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:52:00 - [5] - Quote RoundEy3 wrote: I hate to say it but I have come to believe this feature is needed for DUST. If this were EVE I'd say absolutely not, no way, never, but this is a very different game with a very different crowd. CCP has stated many times that these are not to separate sovereign entities but both different ways to access the same persistent sandbox that is New Eden. Even their (and Sonys) advertising of Dust 514 trumpets this fact. Are they trying to appeal to another segment of the gaming population? Sure. But Dust is specifically not supposed to be like anything else that's been offered so far. Quote: I could talk a lot about the similarities and differences, but instead here's my basic suggestion on respec options. I'd be interested to see what you have to say about those similarities and differences, especially in light of the above. Quote: First: There would be a respec limit. By that I mean 2-4 times a year or something like that. How did you arrive at this ballpark and why does this, in your perception, suit the situation best? Also how does this interact with things like market concerns et al as raised in my other posts? Quote: Second: For the cost..... Simple, just make it cost like 20% of your current SP pool to respec. That way the option is there pretty frequently, there is a penalty to doing it, so one wouldn't want to do it often, and there's no real money involved! While I support the move towards not making a P2W respec (good show in coming up with a mechanism which addresses that) I'm not seeing how a % cost respec would circumvent the larger issues that respecs create within a sandbox (see the examples listed in my other post). Regardless of the % value assigned all you're doing is shortening the life span of the game. Both because of the issues cited in my other post and because this mechanic gives an extra advantage to Vets, and advantage which will only grow as the game progresses. For a new player that % loss cuts making it a mechanically painful choice to respec, for a Vet it's just a numbers game, Cost to proto one build + additional % value = Always running the most broken combo. Granted I'm certain some players would use it for other purposes but that doesn't mitigate the impact of all those who can and will (under this proposal) do just as I've described. In short it lets Vets who already possess more ISK, game experience, corp/alliance connections etc. have a new mechanic which further disadvantages the newer players. Presently a new player can skill into a full proto build and be on the same level gear wise, a savvy new player can look at the macro state of the game and select a role which capitalizes on the weaknesses of the prevailing trends, thus giving them an asset with which to counter things such as Vet map knowledge, gear knowledge, squad train time etc. It lets new players select a role of value to their Corp and develop player skills which compliment it allowing them to be a legitimate asset to their Corp even without the SP totals of a Vet. Respec removes all of that placing an even greater emphasis on raw SP totals and rendering the game on balance less friendly to new players. If the concern you're raising really is about Vets being able to play with more diverse gear in a somewhat compressed time frame, and if all the other solutions/aspects presented thus far (including things like the simulator/firing range) don't provide an adequate outlet in your view then a better solution is to add a function more akin to the EVE remap which allows faster training in a very narrow aspect with the ability to alter that specialized focus once per year. This would still allow long time players to get a bit more diversity faster without running afoul of the manifold issues respecs engender. 0.02 ISK Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1041	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:12:00 - [6] - Quote TcuBe3 wrote: @cross So are you for or against a respec option? Also curious how much sp you are rolling with since you have been around since closed beta. I'm against the mechanics of repeated/unlimited respecs (even with a "cooldown"). It's a bad fix to what is (in the case of many who desire them) a fairly legitimate motivation. There are various things in play here and there's no way a single post (not matter how wall of text it became) could touch on all of them. Here's one example however, CCP has a 10 year plan for Dust and fully intends to continue ongoing development beyond that. This has been stated plainly and repeatedly, they are invested for the long term. Most gamers are not accustomed to this development method nor do they really believe it's possible/will happen, the post by Chinduko serves as one example of this. In response to a disbelief in the fundamental intent of the developers a, unsurprising, reaction takes place. That being the drive to alter all aspects of the game who's value or balance is predicated upon that long term roadmap. If Dust were your standard off the shelf, minimum support cycle AAA title then I'd be resoundingly in support of a New Game+ and/or respec option because in that micro cycle environment it makes sense. But that is a short term single player centric method of viewing the game and D514 is neither meant to be single player focused nor short term. [Side note: I'm not opposed to either short term or single player games, but that's not what Dust is] To treat Dust as if it's a short term "one and then done" type game (assuming it gains any traction with the Devs) only results in making it more and more that type of game. Not only does that put it in more direct competition with many established franchises (a bad business choice) but it also directly contradicts all current and prior promotion, promise, and advertising from CCP or Sony regarding Dust (which would be a poor PR, business, and development choice). There were plenty of who didn't believe EVE would use this type of development method and with how uncommon it is that's not surprising. It's also not surprising that many think the same thing of Dust for the same sort of reasons. I personally like the diversity of a differing game/development type and as such don't want Dust to become more like the short term titles which already exist. If I want those I'll play them outside of Dust (indeed I do play many of them) when I want something which does things differently I'll play Dust (which I've done quite a bit of for many months now even with full character wipes... which brings me to your next question ). Counting only the actual SP on my character now (i.e. ignoring all the SP that was lost over closed beta due to the standard wipe after each build) I'm rolling with 14 mill SP, or as I like to call it "enough to proto fit an assault build but not a support logi. Cheers, Cross EDIT: Post number 41 from Malkai Inos is spot on.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1041	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:35:00 - [7] - Quote Chinduko wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Chinduko wrote: Define "win". I see winning as helping my corp with the role they need, even if I don't make the top of the leaderboard. I also see see a respect as a way to try completely different specializations. That's not paying to win. That's paying to try something different. "Win" in this case is match victory, this becomes more true the as you move into FW and especially PC. "Win" also contains aspects of "preform better than would otherwise be possible" as I've yet to see any P2W situation where the player literally just inputs money and is given only a victory screen or a stat update to show victory. P2W rather is granting imbalanced advantages which lead to victory and doing so on the basis of a currency external to the game world. Additionally there are already two ways in game to try something new, either Make an Alt Earn the SP and test it out Trying something new is great, being able to try actual battlefield fits and tactics within non-simulated matches at whim without lasting consequence (aside from gaining personal advantage) is not great it's pay to win. from the list. I disagree with your notion of "pay to win" because players will respec for different reasons. I will respec to try new things which is not "pay to win" it's pay to have fun by trying different things. As for "perform better than would otherwise be possible" if an option is in the game such as a nice weapon or suit, then it is already beyond being impossible, therefore, respec or not, anyone can use it. You're idea of winning is winning PC and FW mainly. I'm assuming you're referring to weapons such as the TAC AR giving an advantage over other weapons in to help the winning. More so, for most players to use the TAC, they wouldn't have had to respec as they would have likely already have SP in ARs to use it already. But OP weapons or suits of any kind are not the players' fault. That was CCP's fault, and I don't want to have to pay the price of no respecs because CCP is incompetent in balancing weapons. If anything is OP, it's CCP's fault for doing so. Furthermore, long time beta players already know what the most powerful loadouts are so it's not likely they'd have to respec since they're already winning. If any presumptions about P2W were actually correct, it would more likely be to help those players not using the loadouts the long time players already know work. If anything, it would be "Pay to compete" but that's presumptuous as well. While I understand what you're saying with your dissension to my definition I believe you are overlooking all of the players who very much will use it exactly that way. And while yes I agree that an overpowered piece of gear, or gear combo is broken regardless of respec it's impact on the game is inextricably tied to the pervasiveness of its ubiquitousness of it's use. You personally, or even the players who would employ said mechanics in the manner you present, not necessarily contributing to that problem does not prevent or remove the problem from the game. As far as performing better than possible is concerned your reasoning is flawed because if you could already use all that gear with the all the passive buffs under current game conditions then you wouldn't care if respecs were in the game or not, it's because of the options/advantages that Mercs are limited/restricted from using that respecs are even being brought up in the first place, if there was no limit there would be no conversation. Irrespective of all of that P2W (while an issue) is not the only or the central tenet of why respecs are a bad mechanic and while I"m sure we could continue to debate the definition of P2W at a certain point doing so without addressing the whole spectrum of flaws with respecs becomes an off-topic distraction rather than a continuation of the discussion. I would be interested to hear your responses to all the other aspects that have been listed as flaws to a respec system, personal definitions of P2W notwithstanding. Cheers, Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1043	Posted - 2013.05.31 20:07:00 - [8] - Quote @Chinduko Your post #49 begins with, and seems largely predicated upon the presumption that all declarations and promises from CCP regarding meaningful continuing development are irrelevant. Playing through closed beta to present I can attest that there is no single build or thing which has always been the apex. Right now yes the TAR is over reaching it's role and most Mercs who've been around a bit know that. Associating that with the respec discussion however is assuming that this situation will never change and experience with both Dust and EVE tells me that is a false presumption. The rest of the contention you're presenting seems to boil down to "since aspects of the game are imbalanced respecs are required". Adding a new mechanic which causes manifold problems of it's own is not the proper solution to an imbalance within the game, fixing the TAR (in this case) however is. In fact fixes to these balance issues will be more or less required regardless of respec, as I already pointed out it's not a question of whether or not something is broken alone but also how pervasive the use of that combo/mechanic/weapon etc is and respec absolutely opens the door to an increased saturation of players using broken mechanics. That's not good for the game no matter which way you slice it. In closing I'll reiterate that you have not directly addressed most of the factors I bring up in my post #19 nor the additional aspect I pointed out regarding the "shooting range/simulator" addition. You further make no comment nor accounting for a change in the information available to new players regarding the game which I and several others in this thread have bluntly stated needs to be improved regardless of the respec conversation. I'd be especially keen to know how you propose to counter the destruction of game longevity that your suggestion precipitates, except that you've already made clear you don't believe the game will last and seemingly don't care for it too (if I'm in error here please do present your plan for maintaining the 10 year road map that CCP has currently established). And while we're on the subject of time since you're claiming current mechanics require "unreasonable" amounts of time to try everything in game please provide a ballpark as to what you consider the absolute maximum time that could be "reasonably" required to try out everything in the game (keeping in mind that such a figure is directly tied to the overall shelf life of the game). ~Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1044	Posted - 2013.06.01 02:24:00 - [9] - Quote @Chinduko I reiterate my invitation to you, respond to the points raised in my post #19, I'll further make this prospect easier in that you've already focused a great deal of time on the semi-sidebar of defining P2W. You need not address any aspect of the P2W question in your response to post #19. We can certainly continue that other conversation if you wish but prior to that I will await your response (with possible reminders thrown in every so often if it seems you are continuing to post in this thread/on this issue without heading my invitation). For the sake of clarity feel free to either label or quote directly the specific points/aspect you are addressing with each response so as to make sure none of them are missed. I shall continue to await your response. Cheers, Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1078	Posted - 2013.06.04 06:36:00 - [10] - Quote Stephen Rao wrote: I support a once-per-PSN respec, and it should only be available when you graduate the Newb Academy. Once a player realizes that they shouldn't have put all that SP in Corp skills ect, I feel that they should get the opportunity to change their SP choices. It will be a one-time offer, and it will allow for mistakes to be adjusted after a player gets used to the SP tree, the game mechanics, and has a feel for what they want to spec into. It will not allow the players to choose when it will be used as I envision that upon graduating they will be presented with the option, that will be valid until they play their first non-academy game. Anything other than this is would be bad for the game. As anyone reading this thread knows I am against respecs and have quite a host of reasons for being so. Having said that I want to say that I could still support the above proposal as it avoids the lions share of problems created by unlimited respecs and it prevents "caching" of respecs on high SP characters (which could lead to many of the previously mentioned problems on another scale). Combining the above proposal of a single respec per PSN idea offered on a "yes/no" basis after graduation from the Academy with an adaptation of the EVE style 'remap' (which allows players to gain discounted training costs in a specilized area at the cost of higher SP requirements within others) on a once yearly cool down (that is one year between uses, specific dates of "new years" having no effect on the timer) would provide players with options for dealing with the concerns raised in this thread presented as motives for a respec (excluding those motives such as a lack of patience and/or believe that the game will succeed, neither of which should be catered to by development). Thanks Stephen for putting forward this idea so succinctly. Cross

Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1176	Posted - 2013.06.18 05:16:00 - [11] - Quote To those still supporting the OP and general respecs please read and respond to in detail my posts #19 & #92. There's a lot of ground to cover and the issues presented within those two posts (as well as other posts not by me) really do require an address before any such idea should be considered for adoption into the game. Cheers, Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1176	Posted - 2013.06.18 05:41:00 - [12] - Quote hackerzilla wrote: Mike Poole wrote: Even if just temporarily it's desperately needed in a game as incomplete and imbalanced as this. Slap a price tag on it, hell make it cost aurum if you want to be a ** about it. Even toss on a time limit so someone can only do it once a week or month or something so it isn't abused. Even at this "release" stage of the game there are too many missing pieces of critical equipment and items that may be nerfed into oblivion one day or buffed out of it. Forcing your players to either gimp themselves waiting for an addition/update that may never come or punishing those that invest just to find that next week they've wasted everything is just a ** move. There's enough grinding in this game as it is, people shouldn't be needing to grind even more to make up for trying to enjoy the game before a new addition takes a crap on all they've done so far. Someone wants to try playing as a logi or a heavy? Well they're going to have to invest a load of sp into it just to get to a point where they are actually built like one just to find out that they're horrible at it and now get to either quit the game in rage or play a game they hate until they can dump more sp into the next specialty just to toss the dice again. Quit dicking around and playing with these partial respecs already and just add a self respecing system. Honestly, people are replying to this post saying it's "dishonorable" or "not new eden". Bullshit. If DUST 514 is going to compete with other games, it needs replayablity. Since people keep demanding new items added to the game, why not have a different solution to hold off the needy customers... respecs. So many games have them, and I know people say: "New Eden isn't for COD noobs" or something along the lines that Dust isn't easy. Yeah even with respecs your going to have people it proto suits and another 20 mil SP holding them up. Honestly thats never going to change. Maybe adding a feature to the game that will make people want to play after reaching their weekly cap, is a good thing to the game as a whole, and maybe it will hurt the "vets" a little because "noobs" will have a standing chance. Honestly people grow up and stop complaining about a damn game mechanic ... Please see my posts #19 & #92 and respond to them in detail. There are reasons why the mechanic is a bad fix for the concerns raised, if you have a solution to those problems then by all mean respond in detail to those posts with your solution. Failing that the problems still stand. 0.02 ISK Cross
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1211	Posted - 2013.06.26 16:58:00 - [13] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: To those still supporting the OP and general respecs please read and respond to in detail my posts #19 & #92. There's a lot of ground to cover and the issues presented within those two posts (as well as other posts not by me) really do require an address before any such idea should be considered for adoption into the game. Cheers, Cross ^Still this.

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.