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 [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Malkai Inos The Vanguardians Orion Empire 210	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:00:00 - [31] - Quote RoundEy3 wrote: Thank you for listening. I can understand the adherence to eve, but it's got to be obvious that if that is the only group that picks up DUST and continues to play it there aren't going to be the large scale battles happening all over planets like people want to imagine. More likely it'll become a bunch of skirmishes between a few bad ass corps with a few pubbers here and there. My intention here isn't all that bad... I can perfectly understand you want the best for the game. What i would like you to consider is that we have a resonably strong and dedicated community despite mixed reviews wich poins to the fact that there are indeed numerous people who like the current system and it's implications. Changing that system might alienate a large part of the current community and i doubt that those lost players will be supplanted by people who are perfectly happy with whatever product they enjoy now. There is a distinct possibility that sacrificing part of Dust's unique features to raise the playercount might accomlish the oppsite. The fact is, we both can't know with certainty what the effect of such a change could be. It follows that this consideration cannot be used to inform the decision as it provides no usefull knowledge to do so.
RoundEy3 Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 20	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:01:00 - [32] - Quote Malkai Inos wrote: [quote=RoundEy3]@ 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. A SP penalty accomplishes nothing as long as you remain to be able to max whatever branch you happen to desire. You quickly regain SP during play and Passively and anything beyond, say 8-9m is likely to be inconsequential for many possible builds and therefore losing it will not be perceived, or act as, a deterrent in any way.quote] Ok at least you're looking at this for what it is. The great part about the SP penalty is since it is a % obviously the less SP you have the more this would affect you. Basically a young character who switches around often will find it is difficult to advance in ability overall, but the respec would allow them to switch roles non the less. Where as a vet character with many SP will find little value to even doing it in the first place since there will be a point you will have crosstrained anyhow. Also to further balance it out we're talking a couple times a year. A YEAR By completely removing the option who is losing out? The person who is bored, unsatisfied with their current setup, wants to take on a new squad role, or the person who says "No, that was your choice" ???
TcuBe3 THE STAR BORN Dark Taboo 13	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:11:00 - [33] - Quote I'm curious if most of the people who are against respecs are either. A. EVE players who are "elitist a" and swear by a gaming culture that is almost a religion. Or B. Those who have 10+ million SP already and don't want to even the playing field. Again there were ill informed players who wasted sp on skills that they have no intentions on ever using, lets not punish the uninformed just because they are not privy to the endless pages to skill data or fully comprehend the inner workings of the massive eve universe. The skill respec would keep the game fun, playable and forgiving to new players which is absolutely needed.
Malkai Inos The Vanguardians Orion Empire 210	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:30:00 - [34] - Quote RoundEy3 wrote: Ok at least you're looking at this for what it is. The great part about the SP penalty is since it is a % obviously the less SP you have the more this would affect you. Basically a young character who switches around often will find it is difficult to advance in ability overall, but the respec would allow them to switch roles non the less. Where as a vet character with many SP will find little value to even doing it in the first place since there will be a point you will have crosstrained anyhow. Also to further balance it out we're talking a couple times a year. A YEAR By completely removing the option who is losing out? The person who is bored, unsatisfied with their current setup, wants to take on a new squad role, or the person who says "No, that was your choice" ??? Let me explain why i think that % penalties not only won't hurt low SP chars that much but why it is especially damaging for high SP ones. We asume: A 10m SP B 100m SP A can currently max out any class that requires up to 10m SP in total. After the respec that number powers to 8m. With 8m SP he can still max or almost max the majority of the available Infantry classes and even some vehicle classes. The lost 2m can be regained with a rather, but not quite dedicated playing scedule in about 2months. Once A regained this 2m in SP he is able to respec into any class or vehicle that requires up to 8m again wich means that he can reasonably expect to respec six times a year without beeing affected by the penalty as long as he does not feel the need to have a secondary class. Note that he can also instantly adapt to newly added gear and take advantage of new emerging playstyles without significant penalty. B on the other hand can spec into several classes simultaniously before the respec. After his first respec he will still be able to maximize multiple roles but his penalty is a much more significant 20m SP. B can not reasonably expect to regain that amount during the course of at least 6 months, rather a year if he is not willing to continously boost and cap out. This means that respeccing is a much more significant commitment for B wich makes him less likely to adapt to newly added gear. In fact B is in a distinct disadvantage against B if he is not willing to loose large amounts of SP wich disincentivices accumulating large amounts of SP on the first place. This leads to an environment were having more SP than needed for any particular class is rendered the inferior approach to respeccing regularily. That is what i meant when i mentioned changes that call the skillsystem in question and one reason why i object to respecs. AUR respecs are simply out of question to me because this would make the SP system a skinner box that serves only the purpose of extracting money from players that wish to compete. ISK respecs are either affordable for both casuals and corps, making the SP system obsolete (skinner box) or only affordable for corps, widening the already distinct protostomping.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1039	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:32:00 - [35] - 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
Malkai Inos The Vanguardians Orion Empire 210	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:38:00 - [36] - Quote TcuBe3 wrote: I'm curious if most of the people who are against respecs are either. A. EVE players who are "elitist a" and swear by a gaming culture that is almost a religion. Or B. Those who have 10+ million SP already and don't want to even the playing field. Who we are and what we think doesn't do anything to our arguments or Ad Hominem. Just stop if you want to be taken seriously. Again there were ill informed players who wasted sp on skills that they have no intentions on ever using, lets not punish the uninformed just because they are not privy to the endless pages to skill data or fully comprehend the inner workings of the massive eve universe. The skill respec would keep the game fun, playable and forgiving to new players which is absolutely needed.[/quote]The game punishes impulsive behavior by design. I wholehartedly support any efforts to improve the NPE and am frankly puzzled by the lack of content in this field while CCP acknowledged that improvements in NPE where a huge financial success in EVE but that is still no argument for abandoning the game's and company's development philosophy. There are other ways to make the live of newberries more pleasant.
TcuBe3 THE STAR BORN Dark Taboo 14	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:40:00 - [37] - Quote @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.
Chinduko KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 150	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:42:00 - [38] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: @chin You don't care, do you? Cross has gone through great lengths in posting that well-thought-out statement and yet you just dismiss it. All because you are just too impatient to train for everything for the next seven to ten years. You don't belong here if you think respecs (paid or otherwise) are important for you. Is this a joke or not? Of course I'm not waiting for 7-10 years to try everything. Dust won't last that long. Why wouldn't a person belong in Dust if they are so intrigued with the Dust gear that they'd want to try everything? That seems like a person that does belong. FYI, plenty of people have come across with excellent well thought posts on boths sides and I've read them all and am still convinced that I want respecs. I'm not afraid of players "paying to win" which I disagree will even happen. Players that are winning now will continue to win with or without respecs, regardless of your or any other person's fear. I will never tell a person they cannot respec into a new role simply because you're afraid of something you don't even know will happen. If respecs are enough to break the game, then it was already broken in the first place, in which case it won't matter.
TcuBe3 THE STAR BORN Dark Taboo 14	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:49:00 - [39] - Quote Malkai, I actually agree with you, I'm not trying to change your culture, religion or whatever Internet cult you follow. I would just like to see Greater access to in game references regarding each individual skill treed and the consequences of making a impulsive decision on DUST. My argument is that not every player is informed if the unforgiving nature of this game.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1040	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:52:00 - [40] - 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

Malkai Inos The Vanguardians Orion Empire 210	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:53:00 - [41] - Quote TcuBe3 wrote: Malkai, I actually agree with you, I'm not trying to change your culture, religion or whatever Internet cult you follow. I would just like to see Greater access to in game references regarding each individual skill treed and the consequences of making a impulsive decision on DUST. My argument is that not every player is informed if the unforgiving nature of this game. So then we are in complete agreement concerning the underlying premises and differ only in our personal opninions about what to make out of them. Sadly, this is where it gets serious. I would like to stress again that i find the currently available amount and quality of ingame information, be it informative and concise skill descriptions or thorough and accurate attribute descriptions of various items wholly inadequate. This, i believe leads to uneducated decisions regarding skills and gear and is the main reason for the issues that respecs are supposed to solve.I predict that if the NPE get's it's due improvements, there will be a far lower number of need for any kind of respec mechanic. A possible solution that i find both compatible with my vision of New Eden and of great efficacy is a short but steep increase in passive SP gain for new players. Something like a 2x multiplier for caracters below 1.5m SP wich then gradually lowers until 2m where passive sp gain reaches the normal value. This lessens the negative consequences of faulty skillchoices, provides quicker perceived improvement for new players and, most importantly, stays true to the concept of skillchoices beeing permanent. The values are of course arbitrary so there's room for discussion about how long and significant this boost ought to be.
TcuBe3 THE STAR BORN Dark Taboo 14	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:59:00 - [42] - Quote Malkai Inos wrote: TcuBe3 wrote: Malkai, I actually agree with you, I'm not trying to change your culture, religion or whatever Internet cult you follow. I would just like to see Greater access to in game references regarding each individual skill treed and the consequences of making a impulsive decision on DUST. My argument is that not every player is informed if the unforgiving nature of this game. So then we are in complete agreement concerning the underlying premises and differ only in our personal opninions about what to make out of them. Sadly, this is where it gets serious. My bottom line. Ultimately, I think there should be greater in game information to the EVE universe and the skill tree. I think a 1 time respec per PSN ID should be available on a strictly case by case basis.
Daedric Lothar Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 602	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:02:00 - [43] - Quote Lol, make it part of the Elite pack. $99.00 for 1 respec. There. Respec all you want.
RoundEy3 Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 20	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:07:00 - [44] - Quote Daedric Lothar wrote: Lol, make it part of the Elite pack. $99.00 for 1 respec. There. Respec all you want. Maybe this whole time 514 has been a projected # in CCP inner circles as to how much the average fanatic will pay over 5 years
Chinduko KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 150	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:08:00 - [45] - Quote 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.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1041	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:12:00 - [46] - 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.
TcuBe3 THE STAR BORN Dark Taboo 14	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:21:00 - [47] - Quote Malkai Inos wrote: TcuBe3 wrote: Malkai, I actually agree with you, I'm not trying to change your culture, religion or whatever Internet cult you follow. I would just like to see Greater access to in game references regarding each individual skill treed and the consequences of making a impulsive decision on DUST. My argument is that not every player is informed if the unforgiving nature of this game. So then we are in complete agreement concerning the underlying premises and differ only in our personal opninions about what to make out of them. Sadly, this is where it gets serious. I would like to stress again that i find the currently available amount and quality of ingame information, be it informative and concise skill descriptions or thorough and accurate attribute descriptions of various items wholly inadequate. This, i believe leads to uneducated decisions regarding skills and gear and is the main reason for the issues that respecs are supposed to solve.I predict that if the NPE get's it's due improvements, there will be a far lower need for any kind of respec mechanic. A possible solution that i find both compatible with my vision of New Eden and of great efficacy is a short but steep increase in passive SP gain for new players. Something like a 2x multiplier for caracters below 1.5m SP wich then gradually lowers until 2m where passive sp gain reaches the normal value. This lessens the negative consequences of faulty skillchoices, provides quicker perceived improvement for new players and, most importantly, stays true to the concept of skillchoices beeing permanent. The values are of course arbitrary so there's room for discussion about how long and significant this boost ought to be. I think you should also then look at the weekly player sp cap thread as your input would be greatly appreciated. In order for this game to truly succeed I believe that resources need to be available to newer players. Those resources obvioulsy in the form of an award system to keep up a motivation of playing for newer and experienced players and also a significant level of resources to inform users on skill tree decisions and their consequences. Thank you for clarifying.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1041	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:35:00 - [48] - 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
Chinduko KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 150	Posted - 2013.05.31 18:03:00 - [49] - Quote
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 2489	Posted - 2013.05.31 19:29:00 - [50] - Quote Chinduko wrote: Is this a joke or not? Of course I'm not waiting for 7-10 years to try everything. Dust won't last that long. I stopped reading your post right here. You definitely don't belong here. I suggest you leave Dust.

Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1043	Posted - 2013.05.31 20:07:00 - [51] - 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
low genius The Sound Of Freedom Renegade Alliance 104	Posted - 2013.05.31 21:59:00 - [52] - Quote TcuBe3 wrote: Ok ok, not to be ignorant here but where are the resources for me that actually explain what I'm spending my sp on? I feel that until ccp does a really good job of explaining all the details of my sp purchases than respecs are needed. Not every player is gonna go read pages and pages of wiki data to research one sp purchase. I don't feel there is enough IN GAME information explaining the details of dust skills and equipment to yield no sp respecs. read.
Chinduko KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 151	Posted - 2013.05.31 22:05:00 - [53] - Quote The AR has been and is the most powerful weapon, and especially after the Uprising with weapon nerfs to weapons that were actually able to compete with the AR such as the laser, mass driver, and HMG. Most people will notice that the AR is and was the most commonly used Weapon, now more than ever since it's competition was nerfed. The medium suits with high shields or overly high dmg mods which are also well known were the powerhouse of earlier builds but more so in Uprising due to the increased high and low power slots. This is no secret to the experienced Dust players. The medium suits have more than enough high and low power slots for this. This is no secret. This is your winning build. If you haven't noticed that, then pay closer attention to PC and informed or skilled players. New and uninformed players are not likely to know this information and that make them more likely to waste SP in underpowered loadouts which will decrease their satisfaction with Dust. If you're afraid of "pay to win" then with non aurum or ISK respecs, there speculation about respecs causing "pay to win" are ended. Now everyone has the same opportunity to use anything they please which is fine with me. I see no problems that a respec creates for the game when everyone is allowed to use them. The problems you speculate a respec will cause, I disagree that they are problems. They are speculation. If the low playerbase that Dust has is not evidence enough for showing it likely will not make it 10 years, you are blind. Attrition will set in and players will gradually lose interest. This happens to every FPS on the market, except Dust already has the player base of a game past its prime. There is only one factor I am concerned with and it is the only factor that may actually play out. It is "pay to win" This effects every player but it is still only speculation that it will actually occur. But, take away the charge and no more "pay to win" I would have wanted to charge aurum simply to keep CCP with enough money to keep updating the game. Now we are all in the same position. You can either respec or not. It's your choice and noone else's. If imbalanced weapons are not an issue because they will be fixed then I'm sure you won't mind others having respecs to play different roles since those imbalances will be balanced. The game will always be saturated with the suit sand weapons that are OP, you cannot stop that with or without a respec. This is why the "flavor of the month" or "pay to win" concepts are of no concern to me. The way for CCP to even hope to build the player base by bringing in new players it to remove the proto pub stomping and find a way to balance the game for new and experienced players. New players are not likely to play if they cannot compete. I further would expect that many experienced players would also enjoy non proto pub stomping games. CCP will not likely solve this as it undermines their entire SP system. The game is innovative but seems designed to fail. Unfortunately, I believe all we'll have left in two to three years are merely a handful of large corporations and non corporate players. It may end up like MAG but with a shorter life. MAG started out with perhaps 20 to 30 thousand players and is now down to mere hundreds. I don't know that Dust ever reached much above 10 thousand players and it was just released.
Chinduko KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 152	Posted - 2013.05.31 22:10:00 - [54] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Chinduko wrote: Is this a joke or not? Of course I'm not waiting for 7-10 years to try everything. Dust won't last that long. I stopped reading your post right here. You definitely don't belong here. I suggest you leave Dust. Eventually those remaining in Dust will leave. Whether you read my post or not is of no effect to that. If you think a game with an average of 6000 players and a max so far around only 10,000 players at release will last a decade, damn, you are extremely optimistic.
Green Living PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 334	Posted - 2013.05.31 22:12:00 - [55] - Quote If they are going to continue to change items and their effectiveness, then yes allow purchasable respecs.
Encharrion L.O.T.I.S. RISE of LEGION 107	Posted - 2013.05.31 23:19:00 - [56] - Quote Firstly, I do not believe that respecs are in any way necessary or even good for this game. I believe that adding respecs would infact harm this game for the reasons specified above by Cross Atu and others. However, I am open to the possibility that there may be a way to implement respecs in a way that is in fact beneficial to the game. A post by RoundEy3 on the first page brought up an interesting idea for respecs that unfortunately suffered from some of the same problems and introduced some of its own. However, I noticed that with specific numbers for SP cost as well as additional often suggested limitations on respecs, some interesting math appears. The limitations would consist of: 1. Any SP from unspecced skills would be cut in half. That is, if a skill is unspecced, the amount of SP unallocated to spend on other things is equal to the amount of SP lost. This is important, as you will see later. 2. Respecs would be limited to a certain amount of SP, such that the spendable amount would be fairly limited in scope. You would select skills to unspec, and SP from those skills would be unallocated according to limitation 1. You would only be able to unspec SP up to the SP limit, and no higher. 3. Limitation 2 is meaningless if the respec can be repeated instantly, as you could simply respec over and over until you had respecced ALL your SP. If limitation 2 is to be of any use at all, there must be a time limit on how often you can respec. The precise time period is not entirely important, but I believe once every 3 months is probably too often, and once a year is possibly a little long, so lets just use that range for this arrangement (although one time only is a possible arrangement as well). So why is cutting reallocated SP in half important? Let's say it takes 5 days to make approximately 1.5 million SP (I haven't played in a while so I am pulling this number out of my ass, I apologize if its particularly inaccurate). Our respec option allows the unallocation of 3 million SP. Half this SP is lost, and half can be allocated to other skills. Half of 3 million is 1.5 million, so it will take 5 days to make back the losses incurred by the respec. However, the amount of SP reallocated is also 1.5 million SP, so in the same 5 days in which we make back our losses, had we not respecced, we would have gained the skills we just respecced into, and not sacrificed other skills for it. This respec arrangement is kind of like sacrificing SP to frontload your skill training (although this analogy pretty much fails since you can spend the SP that you gain making up for the respec loss on new skills). It would have its uses, but other than those uses it would generally be better to earn the SP rather than respec it into place. You still have to live with the consequences of poor SP allocation, since should you respec bad skill choices, you still lose out on a full half of the SP you spent on those skills in the first place. I'm pretty sure this system avoids the "Flavor of the Month" problem as well. Sure, they could sacrifice some other skills they feel they don't really need to get the current OP weapon. Then when the FotM changes, they respec out of the old weapon and into the new one. Except they have to sacrifice MORE than just the previous FotM weapon, they have to sacrifice some of the SP they earned in the intervening time. This subset of players will know the game well enough to not make stupid mistakes with their skills, so any skills they sacrifice will have to be retrained. This makes any respec extremely inefficient; given the numbers above, if they sacrificed the previous FotM and another skill for 3 mil SP to skill a new weapon with 1.5 mil SP, and then proceeded to spend half of the next five days retraining the skill they sacrificed (because if they didn't want the skill they wouldn't have trained it in the first place) then they have basically gotten almost nowhere at all. They were already halfway through the time required to earn the skills for the new weapon without sacrificing the previous one. In fact, if a player wanted to capitalize on the next FotM, the most efficient thing to do would be to simply collect SP before hand and pool it until the next OP thing comes around to skill it up all at once; this is something that anyone can already do right now.(not to mention the fact that the respec is time limited, and that time period is potentially longer than FotM phases) It would also benefit more casual players, for whom 1.5 mil SP might not take 5 days, but two weeks. This allows them to get new skills or weapons earlier in a costly frontloaded kind of way. Just to be clear here: I'm not saying this will work. I just think that it has enough potential to be examined more closely. Also if you took the time to read this wall of text, I really appreciate it and I apologize for how lengthy it got. Thank you!
Buster Friently Rosen Association 627	Posted - 2013.06.01 00:22:00 - [57] - Quote To the OP I say no.
Mike Poole Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 92	Posted - 2013.06.01 00:30:00 - [58] - Quote Green Living wrote: If they are going to continue to change items and their effectiveness, then yes allow purchasable respecs. That would be the rational thing to do. Instead they're just going to continue radically tweaking things every other week and it's our fault for not being mind readers. Just wait for the rest of the heavy/light armors to come out and anyone that didn't intentionally gimp themselves by only using basic suits and invested in the available skills gets to eat their loss because there are no more respecs.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 2492	Posted - 2013.06.01 00:35:00 - [59] - Quote Chinduko wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Chinduko wrote: Is this a joke or not? Of course I'm not waiting for 7-10 years to try everything. Dust won't last that long. I stopped reading your post right here. You definitely don't belong here. I suggest you leave Dust. Eventually those remaining in Dust will leave. Whether you read my post or not is of no effect to that. If you think a game with an average of 6000 players and a max so far around only 10,000 players at release will last a decade, damn, you are extremely optimistic. Yeah, I'm extremely optimistic especially after Eve Online first started with only 10,000 players back in 2003. You're talking to a hardened Eve Online player here.
Schalac 17 Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 201	Posted - 2013.06.01 00:44:00 - [60] - Quote We are supposed to be these immortal clones that are programmed to kill for the highest bidder. So why would they not sell blank clones that allow us to remake ourselves as a better killer, for a price of course. Because DUST is only about ISK. I say yes to AUR based respecs.



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.