| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
broonfondle majikthies
P.O.N.A.G.S.
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
71
   |
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:24:00 -
[31] - Quote
They should be made to do the cha-cha like a sissy girl  |
Protocake JR
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
343
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:26:00 -
[32] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:Protocake JR wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:The only way I'd support Respecs at all would be if everyone got one and they had a 12 month cooldown (similar to Remaps in Eve). Why? Gravity and Consistency. Make your choices wisely, don't spec into the obviously OP and then cry a river when it gets nerfed. Make your choices based on what is most fun, not what is the goto OP fit for all of the athlete wannabes.
Why does everyone assume that everyone that wants a respec specced into Callogis and Flaylocks? Personally, I skilled into amarr assault and lasers/scramblers/submachine guns. Now I want to play with dropships and tanks but because I have a job, I don't have time to skill up an alt (barely cap out on my main as it is).
also:
>athletes
>wat
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
829
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:26:00 -
[33] - Quote
broonfondle majikthies wrote:They should be made to do the cha-cha like a sissy girl
ROFL
Want a respec?
Ya gotta do the truffle shuffle. |
Chunky Munkey
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
1039
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:28:00 -
[34] - Quote
Malkai Inos wrote:Chunky Munkey wrote:Malkai Inos wrote: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. Respecs are worthwhile because they offer a change to gameplay. It's fine to say that we can skill into something else from scratch, but closed beta vets will tell you just how disheartening that starts to feel after the 3rd or 4th go. Nobody is just accepting that we are inevitably going to get respecs, and the calls for respecs aren't at all based on such a belief. Players just don't want to have to nerf their performance to see what else the game has to offer. Do you not think a 6month cooldown gives choices weight? We're only 2months into the game and there are already people desperate for a respec. The gravity of your decisions is important, but we have to weigh that against the tediom that comes from following the same people around with a rep tool for the summer. You have to accept the possibility that the game you want Dust to be may well be a game with an average population of a few hundred. 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.
You cannot compare the very real possibility that this game will die, to that of London getting nuked. And I cannot continue an exchange with someone who simply asserts his conclusions rather than supporting them.
|
Malkai Inos
Opus Arcana
Covert Intervention
941
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:30:00 -
[35] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:Protocake JR wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:The only way I'd support Respecs at all would be if everyone got one and they had a 12 month cooldown (similar to Remaps in Eve). Why? Gravity and Consistency. Make your choices wisely, don't spec into the obviously OP and then cry a river when it gets nerfed. Make your choices based on what is most fun, not what is the goto OP fit for all of the athlete wannabes. The problem is that remaps in eve offer no instantaneous change whatsoever. Not a single SP is transfered in the process and attributes need to be distributed based on long term planning to provide any benefits which is the opposite of the impulsive behavior that respecs enable.
I'd be generally fine with an attribute system, similar to eve, and remaps of those for that matter. In the end though it's just another layer of complexity that every player has to know and understand in order to not hinder their progress even further so we could just not bother instead.
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
829
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:32:00 -
[36] - Quote
Protocake JR wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Protocake JR wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:The only way I'd support Respecs at all would be if everyone got one and they had a 12 month cooldown (similar to Remaps in Eve). Why? Gravity and Consistency. Make your choices wisely, don't spec into the obviously OP and then cry a river when it gets nerfed. Make your choices based on what is most fun, not what is the goto OP fit for all of the athlete wannabes. Why does everyone assume that everyone that wants a respec specced into Callogis and Flaylocks? Personally, I skilled into amarr assault and lasers/scramblers/submachine guns. Now I want to play with dropships and tanks but because I have a job, I don't have time to skill up an alt (barely cap out on my main as it is). also: >athletes >wat
Passive SP is a wonderous thing, it might take you a bit, but I'm sure you'll manage. While waiting on your skills to get up, you can run MLT/STD fits. I'm also sure that job of yours can help you get the Vehicle mod BPOs so that'll take some of the ISK sting out of using vehicles.
Oh, you know what I mean..... |
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
829
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:33:00 -
[37] - Quote
Malkai Inos wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Protocake JR wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:The only way I'd support Respecs at all would be if everyone got one and they had a 12 month cooldown (similar to Remaps in Eve). Why? Gravity and Consistency. Make your choices wisely, don't spec into the obviously OP and then cry a river when it gets nerfed. Make your choices based on what is most fun, not what is the goto OP fit for all of the athlete wannabes. The problem is that remaps in eve offer no instantaneous change whatsoever. Not a single SP is transfered in the process and attributes need to be distributed based on long term planning to provide any benefits which is the opposite of the impulsive behavior that respecs enable. I'd be generally fine with an attribute system, similar to eve, and remaps of those for that matter. In the end though it's just another layer of complexity that every player has to know and understand in order to not hinder their progress even further so we could just not bother instead.
I brought up Attributes long ago, I was apparently the only one that supported them. |
Malkai Inos
Opus Arcana
Covert Intervention
941
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:42:00 -
[38] - Quote
Chunky Munkey wrote:*snip* Chunky Munkey wrote:
You cannot compare the very real possibility that this game will die, to that of London getting nuked. And I cannot continue an exchange with someone who simply asserts his conclusions rather than supporting them.
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.
|
Chunky Munkey
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
1041
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:05:00 -
[39] - Quote
Malkai Inos wrote:Chunky Munkey wrote:*snip* Chunky Munkey wrote:
You cannot compare the very real possibility that this game will die, to that of London getting nuked. And I cannot continue an exchange with someone who simply asserts his conclusions rather than supporting them.
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.
No quantification? Dust's numbers have consistently dropped since release. They merged it with Eve's numbers to hide the decline, and since then they've merged two entire game modes to hide it even more.
The release of The Last Of Us dented numbers severely, and games like Destiny have the potential to obliterate them.
If you consider numbers and actions to be "subjective perception" then I don't know how you make it through your day without doubting the floor beneath your feet.
The arguments you've proposed in this thread seem to be against respecs in general, despite this not being the subject. I already answered your concerns in my OP. |
IAmDuncanIdaho II
The Southern Legion
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:05:00 -
[40] - Quote
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? |
|
|
Chunky Munkey
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
1042
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:12:00 -
[41] - Quote
IAmDuncanIdaho II wrote: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?
I don't think this would work. Although I'm amused by a potential black market for such items in the future, it would also mean that the attempt at balance would be undermined by those with enough isk to stockpile these items.
I myself bought an enormous number of Saga-IIs and Hacked AVs when they inadvertently appeared on the market. Anybody hearing about the Flaylock nerf would have rightly spent every last isky on these weapons that have dominated PC. And the nerf would be in vain. |
IAmDuncanIdaho II
The Southern Legion
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:24:00 -
[42] - Quote
Chunky Munkey wrote:IAmDuncanIdaho II wrote: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? I don't think this would work. Although I'm amused by a potential black market for such items in the future, it would also mean that the attempt at balance would be undermined by those with enough isk to stockpile these items. I myself bought an enormous number of Saga-IIs and Hacked AVs when they inadvertently appeared on the market. Anybody hearing about the Flaylock nerf would have rightly spent every last isky on these weapons that have dominated PC. And the nerf would be in vain.
Yah I though of that, and guess I just thought, well, why shouldn't you be able to spend all your money on that. It's still a finite resource that allows you to do it. But your money is gone, invested, if you will, into something that you might grow tired of anyway. Dunno. You have a good point. |
Malkai Inos
Opus Arcana
Covert Intervention
945
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:57:00 -
[43] - Quote
Chunky Munkey wrote:
No quantification? 1)Dust's numbers have consistently dropped since release. 2)They merged it with Eve's numbers to hide the decline,3) and since then they've merged two entire game modes to hide it even more.
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.
Chunky Munkey wrote:The release of The Last Of Us dented numbers severely, and games like Destiny have the potential to obliterate them. 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.
Chunky Munkey wrote:If you consider numbers and actions to be "subjective perception" then I don't know how you make it through your day without doubting the floor beneath your feet. 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.
Chunky Munkey wrote:The arguments you've proposed in this thread seem to be against respecs in general, despite this not being the subject. I already answered your concerns in my OP. 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.
|
Major Lee High
Battle Response Organizations
67
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 18:13:00 -
[44] - Quote
Poplo Furuya wrote:A wild alternative appears: Passive Redistribution.
You can either accrue passive SP at a rate of 24k SP a day or have the SP siphoned out of a specific skill at a speed of 240k SP a day.
Can't do both at once.
In essence redistributing 600k SP from a skill would take 2 and a half days. In that time you lose out on 60k passive SP but can put those 540k SP 'gained' into other skills with far greater expedience.
"Your choices matter" still holds true. It takes time to respec from your choices. You lose passive SP in the meantime. If you want to switch things up this enables you to do so far quicker.
|
Chunky Munkey
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
1047
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 22:20:00 -
[45] - Quote
Malkai Inos wrote:Chunky Munkey wrote:
No quantification? 1)Dust's numbers have consistently dropped since release. 2)They merged it with Eve's numbers to hide the decline,3) and since then they've merged two entire game modes to hide it even more.
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. Chunky Munkey wrote:The release of The Last Of Us dented numbers severely, and games like Destiny have the potential to obliterate them. 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. Chunky Munkey wrote:If you consider numbers and actions to be "subjective perception" then I don't know how you make it through your day without doubting the floor beneath your feet. 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. Chunky Munkey wrote:The arguments you've proposed in this thread seem to be against respecs in general, despite this not being the subject. I already answered your concerns in my OP. 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.
They've made no attept to hide numbers? Are you serious?
Your last section includes a logical fallacy called "begging the question".
The rest is such a steaming pile of non-sequiturs that there really isn't any use continuing this. |
Malkai Inos
Opus Arcana
Covert Intervention
954
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 00:25:00 -
[46] - Quote
Chunky Munkey wrote:
They've made no attept to hide numbers? Are you serious?
I never claimed they didn't. I challenged the claim that they did. I take it you know the difference.
I'd like to repeat that accurate data on player numbers is still readily available through the API.
Chunky Munkey wrote:Your last section includes a logical fallacy called "begging the question". Let me rephrase then. For the answer to the question of how to implement a respec feature to inform a course of action, it requires the question wether or not a respec feature is needed at all (basically a cost/benefit assessment) to return a positive conclusion beforehand. That's the point i was trying to make and the reason why i deem my posts relevant to the subject as long as your OP tries to be more than a purely hypothetical "what if" scenario.
Chunky Munkey wrote:
The rest is such a steaming pile of non-sequiturs that there really isn't any use continuing this.
This, just as the above is an argument from fallacy and not at all helpful to advance the discourse. I assume this was intended and disengage from this particular exchange.
|
copy left
SyNergy Gaming
EoN.
258
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 00:29:00 -
[47] - Quote
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? |
Chunky Munkey
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
1047
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 01:06:00 -
[48] - Quote
copy left wrote: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?
There was only one mention of giving up SP. How does that mean the thread is worthless? It is intended to discuss the legitimate arguments surrounding respecs, not just the FOTM whines.
If you don't think they're needed, explain why, beyond just comparing it to another game. |
Jason Pearson
Seraphim Auxiliaries
2316
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 01:08:00 -
[49] - Quote
But you're bad, you can't approve anything..
^_^ <3 xoxo |
Phantom Vaxer
The Generals
EoN.
70
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 01:55:00 -
[50] - Quote
The partial respec aspect, I posted about that earlier. Thats a legitimate reason to allow optional respecs since atm Heavies still only have the option to spec into Amarr with the others coming and Scouts are limited to 2.
But also I see another reason to allow partial respecs. That if the skill or equipment get complete overhauls. Example: CCP said that the current skill bonuses on Logi suits are only placeholders until the real equipment bonuses are put in. So the skill system and bonuses in that field (Logi suits) is overhauled. That they were drastically changed instead of just being balanced. Cal-Logis and Flaylocks weren't overhauled they were balanced |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |