How about this: 40k AUR and you have to give up 1/3 of your lifetime SP every time you respec.

So many tears. They taste like little salty drops of hurt.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/37535744.jpg

Never going to happen. If you don't like, don't p2w.

Why is everyone against giving respecs to people who's suits were completely changed. They lowered the CPU by 40, nobody cared about losing the shield extensions because we knew different skills were going to be coming out in the future for all Logies.

Gallente Logi- 4 equipment slots with a bonus to PG/CPU on equipment

Mini Logi- 4 Equipments slots Hacks really fast

Amarr Logi- Has 3 Equipment slots but also a sidearm

Caldari Logi- 3 Equipment slots... that's it, nothing special anymore.

Those are sound propositions but they already assumed that respecs are a worthwhile feature to begin with. Why?

The primary function of the skilltree is to give your choices weight. One can play it safe and follow a more generalist approach to be secured from potential changes in the meta, be it from balance or new content, or double down on one class and get max performance at the risk getting smacked in the likely event of changes.

True, participating in PC pretty much requires you to double down in order to be competitive but this largely due to the general notion that one has to double down in the first place. If players where to accept that respecs are not going to happen, barring a catastrophic event, they would in general be more cautious with their SP, reducing the overall performance pressure (less so in PC but more so everywhere else) so that the problems respecs are supposed to fix wouldn't be there in the first place.

Most of the issues that respecs are supposed to fix are either directly caused by the notion that we should have respecs in the frist place or really have nothing to do with how the SP system operates at all.

Everyone is looking for a solution to implement respecs without breaking the skillsystem and many other core concepts of the game yet most of the threads i've seen on this subject completely bypass the question wether or not the lack of respecs has distinct advantages that will be lost forever.

So you're saying that respecs would not encourage players to use op fotm knowing they are gonna get a respec?98% of all players asking for respec are using cal logi or flaylock right?Why should you get a respec?

Respecs offer a change of gameplay. An instant one that requires no effort other than the work you do for earning that AUR. This in principle lessens the "decisions have weight" concept more or less, depending on cooldowns or other rules by allowing you to circumvent fundamental game mechanics through external factors which is already a bad thing in my book.

Yes, cooldowns preserve part of the weight. They also incidentally diminish the utility of respecs as (you already pointed this out) those in favor of respecs are already seemingly fed up with what they have after just under three months. This begs the question wether these respecs are of significant value after the first use.

Six months are demonstrably enough to nearly max out any one role. Why bother then if i'm generally better off just saving up SP and having a viable secondary role long before the cooldown runs out? We can reduce the cooldown but this amplifies the negative consequences again.

And i also have to accept the possibility that a thermonuclear war wipes out the tranquility server in london and i will never be able to play dust again. I cannot properly quantify either possibility so i see little value in basing my personal positions on such scenarios.

Both possibilities are based on mere conjecture with little more than subjective perception to support them. Neither have been quantified in any way so i fail to see what the difference is other than one of them being blunt hyperbole to get a point accross.

No one denies that not granting respecs makes some people leave the game. This does not mean however that the game is doomed because of it as there are numerous people who can accept and even prefer a "no respecs" approach. Again, without proper quantification i can not see how you discern one hypothetical event from the other.

If you can point out where i failed to support my conclusions feel free to do so and i will do my best to correct this lapse.

My gut instinct is that respecs should never be allowed. But a thought then arrives that says it's not quite fair that the stuff I got got changed, and not in a way I like.

However, I know this can happen, and maybe it's coz I'm more a casual dust player (although I play a lot), but I don't really care that much, it just means I have something to reconsider and adjust to, and potentially spend quite a while accruing enough SP to get to where I want to be.

That said, I also understand how it could be really annoying, to the point of quitting, for others. So a mad thought came to mind: what if we said that when the stats of stuff are changed / removed / added / etc., that they only affect *new* items (purchases) of those items.

For example: assume suit 'A' has 20 CPU removed from it in a rebalance of some sort. Before the rebalance, If I have 10 suits of 'A' with 100 CPU lying around, then those suits do not take on the new values. But new suits I buy do, and have only 80 CPU.

This might serve as a buffer for those who are hardest hit by changes, and also allow them to have bought up a bunch of items in bulk to tide them over, so-to-speak (if they knew what was coming).

I suspect there are some flaws to this, but it does feel like it might reflect what happens in the real world a little, where the latest model supercedes my current model, but if I prefer my current model, then I still have it (until I lose it).

Mad?

1)Numbers are going up lately and, generally, i don't know what else you'd expect in a game with a NPE and multiple other issues as atrocious as dusts.

2)That's one interpretation and weak one at it since CCP have made no efforts to hide the actual numbers in the API.

3)Again only one possible explanation and without any confirmation one that i don't feel inclined to share, based on the fact that neither modes had any matchmaking troubles with the current player count.
The release of a AAA title of that magnitude was expected to dent the numbers temporarily. They have since recovered and, based on that, i see no immediate reason to predict a different outcome for similar situations in the future especially on a completely different platform.
I think the above made clear why numbers and actions leave plenty space for "subjective perception" and tbqh reducing the current numbers to just the lack of respecs ignores all the other issues with the game, most of which are supported by a much clearer consensus.

I admit that my points are not necessarily on the subject but i think that the question "do we need respecs?" should precourse the question "how do we implement respecs". Based on this i think that my points are still relevant and your OP left me unsatified in regards to answering the "why" question in addition to the "how" question.

I swear this thread is of no use to the game. In no other game, where there is a respec, do you give up SP, the thing this game is based around, why would I pay money to go backwards in progress?