Yes, exactly. This is one of the most basic functions of the SP system. It's the reason why anybody can compete with the top SP players in one area with just a few months invested while at the same time the top SP player still has the advantage of versatility so that there's always more SP to profit from.

Respecs kill this concept and, if you ask me, the SP system with it because it's devolved into just a power grind. Just ask for a removal of the SP system because that's what this demand already implies.

No to respecs. Look how many Caldari logibros want one now to switch to Caldari assault suit.

-Wyrm

I agree that the skilltree, especially its infantry portion scatters a little too much a little too early on. This limits the reusability of invested SP as any investment in, say, one weapon type is completely immaterial to the use of other weapon types.

We have to remember though, that the pre uprising tree offered a variety of blanket bonuses to whole weapon classes (light, heavy) and constituted too large of an advantage for high SP chars (the old Sharp Shooter skill comes to mind) so that specialization, as an alternative for generalization, was not exactly viable as core weaponry skills were a necessary part of every combat focused role.

I like the fact that currently one can focus his fit and skills in order to get competitive performance with a comparatively limited amount of skillpoints (core skills+weapon+other mods).

A balance has to be found between those two concepts in order to make them both viable with their respective ups and downs.

What's interesting and refreshing in your point is that it identifies a potential problem without defaulting to respecs as the ideal solution. I think that the most common causes for this need (bad information regarding skills/modules, bad balance, bad progression) could and should be adressed directly to solve the underlying issues in a future proof way, rather than mask their symptoms with a respec option. One that introduces a long tail of problems on its own.

For starters I'd like to see a layer of more general weapon skills that group similar types of weapons into categories so that, in the event of a balance overkill, one can revert to another functionally similar weapon without having to reinvest the full amount of SP.

For example: Light weapons could distinguish between "assault" "av" "precision" and "specialist" (the latter leaves room for improvement) weapons that each share some of the currently seperated support skills.

To offer a level of specialization, and to maintain the balance I would like to see, I propose a "[weapon type] specialization" skill, that unlocks the prototype level of said weapon, coupled with additional support skills, while the group skills only unlock the ADV variants of their weapon group and a generic set of passive skills.

[...]that the pre uprising tree offered a variety of blanket bonuses to whole weapon classes (light, heavy) and constituted too large of an advantage for high SP chars[...]

Love how the EVEtards fight for this tooth and nail to stay out. IT should happen and there should be 1 free and 1 paid yearly.

But my decisions wont matter and this isnt hardcore enough for me boo hoo. Everyone will just spec into the FOTM and nobody will spec into anything that doesnt perform.

Thats why nobody specs into heavies or dropships or scout suits


I totally enjoy you fools keep shooting yourselves in the foot over this dumb game. I feel most bad for CCP their aim in bringing this game to console was to bring a new community into the EVE universe in the end they will be left with the same ones who play EVE, they were simply better off putting this thing on PC and saving themselves the headache.

Good job since your arrival post E3 EVEtards have systematically destroyed this game and are the direct reason for the pitiful numbers CCP has in terms of playercounts and reviews.

Round of applause and pat on the back

I very much like this proposition. A couple things:

I agree that this would greatly help coping with faulty balance passes through switching of the suit/role. As it stands though, since most roles are only (and probably will for a long time) represented with only one type of item from each race, switching gear with the least change in play style means cross training in most cases.

This could/should be alleviated though by releasing two or more variations of all basic roles per race. One could argue that the amarr LR and SCR already fit into this as they are both direct hit assault type light weapons. This way players can change their gear without necceserily changing their playstyle along with it.

Concerning blanket bonuses your perspective is quite interesting and agreeable. And while i completely agree that every single skill should have a bonus associated with it i would reply that those bonuses could easily add up towards a significant advantage against a lower SP char, all else equal. Sharp shooter was the worst offender but extra dmg, ammo, fitting, and range at the same time could allow a vet to outperform a new player with the same or even better suit by virtue of his SP alone. This is ok for a full out RPG but could be an issue in an FPS/RPG hybrid

The current tree avoids this situation as all passive bonuses (except for tank and fitting core skills) are by design highly specific and thus quite limited in significance even when added on top of each other. I would prefer to conserve this behavior with two general rules:

Skill bonuses become more significant the further up the tree and expensive they are, starting from miniscule fitting bonuses to dmg etc. at the very end.

Skill bonuses become more specific the further up the tree and expensive they are. Slight fitting bonuses can apply to all weapons of one race but things like damage bonuses should only apply to a specific weapon.

This allows players to achieve acceptable performance of a wide variety of gear with rather low investment and allows SP intensive specialization for excelling performance of a specific type of gear.

Edit: added underlined section