Untrue. Someone will always find the most optimal build. Give it time.
The system so far looks like a win for players - we get the same skills and then some. If we choose to specialize completely we get rewarded even more but must make a meaningful sacrifice in return. I plan my skill tree based on playstyle rather than ship and will usually fly a class of similar ships with a toon.
It will be a learning curve for sure bringing some newness to the game and after some testing on Tribble I feel confident once the new system goes live that I can recreate what I have now without issue.
But, for the Love of Spock's brain...PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE add the ability to test/view build options BEFORE committing them.
A thorough help system upon first use.
Documentation on the forums providing example build comparisons and system usage.
Documentation added to the in-game help library for historical reference with examples.
Not every player tests on Tribble (actually, can you even give every single player a Tribble account? wasn't there a limit at some point?)...those players will be thoroughly irritated. Justifiably since I can't recall any large scale recent changes that resulted in a monetary penalty for mistakes.
It would also be a wise investment to provide all players with one skill respec token free when the changes go live.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE add the ability to test/view build options BEFORE committing them.
But, for the Love of Spock's brain...PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE add the ability to test/view build options BEFORE committing them.
A thorough help system upon first use.
Documentation on the forums providing example build comparisons and system usage.
Documentation added to the in-game help library for historical reference with examples.
Not every player tests on Tribble (actually, can you even give every single player a Tribble account? wasn't there a limit at some point?)...those players will be thoroughly irritated. Justifiably since I can't recall any large scale recent changes that resulted in a monetary penalty for mistakes.
It would also be a wise investment to provide all players with one skill respec token free when the changes go live.
Oh, good point rekurzion! Yes to all of this - the single box commit more or less works for the spec trees because if you spend a point on the wrong skill, that's mostly just a minor annoyance since you can earn another spec point (and realistically you were probably aiming to fill the whole tree eventually anyway), but for the skill trees it's much more important to fill boxes in and look at the whole picture before committing. The issue is how possible that is with the spec trees folded into the UI as they are right now - can the system actually handle two different purchase confirmation systems in essentially the same UI? If no, then I think we need to go to a system where you plug in points and then commit all at once for both types of trees, instead of committing per box. It's not the end of the world if it doesn't happen by launch, but I think it will end up being one of the most requested QoL improvements.
"With these new options spread across all Engineering, Science and Tactical sections of the Space Skill Tree, we anticipate players feeling many compelling reasons to step outside of their usual comfort zone and perhaps even exploring new ways of progressing their captain and starship."
1. Every step outside "comfort zone" cost $5. Very comfortable.
2. It may be "surprising", but majority of players actually care how do they perform in game. We don't see many endgame players in T3 ships for a reason. Playing underperforming ship is actually "uncomfortable".
3. Making Alt for every build is not an option. People actually have strange thing called "real life" which is effectively preventing them from maxing 5 alts for each faction - They usually have one main character, and one-two extra characters they usually do not develop much (time requirements). Nobody with standard access to free time is going to make alt just to fly different class of starship...
4. There is nothing wrong in paying for stuff in FreeToPlay game, unless You actually BUY SOMETHING. Paying for skill respec in order to make your character fit different ship class is OPPOSITE of this - You are paying for EXCHANGING ability to fly one ship for ability to fly another ship. So You loose Your money AND performance in specific class - and taking it back cost extra money.
5. If I pay $30 for a ship, it is really uncomfortable to pay another $5 for ability of using it at competitive level EVERY TIME I wish pick it.
6. "Exploring new ways of progressing their captain and starship" is already expensive. New ship, new set of weaponry, consoles and equipment, upgrading stuff to MkXIV (not even mentioning rarity improvements), buying abilities for BOFFs, buying unique specialized DOFFs, buying character traits and spaceship traits - all of this have HUGE cost, both in time and money - but unlike respecs, this stuff is permanently added to my inventory. It may become useless, but I have it and I know where my money is. Paid respecs in this situation are extra tax for everyone who wish to "exploring (...)".
7. Paid respecs are extra punishment for players, who wish to experiment with different skills and builds. Failed experiment mean $10 total for returning to previous build. Many players will just abandon any experiments and will stick to their "safe" build and single ship class.
8. Players using many ships from different classes are forced to either keep away from any "exploration", sticking to weak, relatively universal build (15/15/15?), or robe a bank.
9. This system (just like previous system) is punishing new players - they have no experience to make good skill choices, and if they will keep playing this game, they will be forced to buy respec anyway. How many of them will choose abandoning game instead of paying this extra tax?
"With these new options spread across all Engineering, Science and Tactical sections of the Space Skill Tree, we anticipate players feeling many compelling reasons to step outside of their usual comfort zone and perhaps even exploring new ways of progressing their captain and starship."
1. Every step outside "comfort zone" cost $5. Very comfortable.
2. It may be "surprising", but majority of players actually care how do they perform in game. We don't see many endgame players in T3 ships for a reason. Playing underperforming ship is actually "uncomfortable".
3. Making Alt for every build is not an option. People actually have strange thing called "real life" which is effectively preventing them from maxing 5 alts for each faction - They usually have one main character, and one-two extra characters they usually do not develop much (time requirements). Nobody with standard access to free time is going to make alt just to fly different class of starship...
4. There is nothing wrong in paying for stuff in FreeToPlay game, unless You actually BUY SOMETHING. Paying for skill respec in order to make your character fit different ship class is OPPOSITE of this - You are paying for EXCHANGING ability to fly one ship for ability to fly another ship. So You loose Your money AND performance in specific class - and taking it back cost extra money.
5. If I pay $30 for a ship, it is really uncomfortable to pay another $5 for ability of using it at competitive level EVERY TIME I wish pick it.
6. "Exploring new ways of progressing their captain and starship" is already expensive. New ship, new set of weaponry, consoles and equipment, upgrading stuff to MkXIV (not even mentioning rarity improvements), buying abilities for BOFFs, buying unique specialized DOFFs, buying character traits and spaceship traits - all of this have HUGE cost, both in time and money - but unlike respecs, this stuff is permanently added to my inventory. It may become useless, but I have it and I know where my money is. Paid respecs in this situation are extra tax for everyone who wish to "exploring (...)".
7. Paid respecs are extra punishment for players, who wish to experiment with different skills and builds. Failed experiment mean $10 total for returning to previous build. Many players will just abandon any experiments and will stick to their "safe" build and single ship class.
8. Players using many ships from different classes are forced to either keep away from any "exploration", sticking to weak, relatively universal build (15/15/15?), or robe a bank.
9. This system (just like previous system) is punishing new players - they have no experience to make good skill choices, and if they will keep playing this game, they will be forced to buy respec anyway. How many of them will choose abandoning game instead of paying this extra tax?
^This. He gets it.
Not everyone rolls a dozen characters. Some only play a single character. Some like experimenting, some don't. Some google, others (with the new and old system) are punished for not googling the 'best' spec for their intended playstyle.
There are many different playstyles, and this system, new and old alike, punish players for not waiting until the 'best' specs are searchable on google and sticking with those for the duration of that character.
But, hey. Since mrtshead has grown accustomed to it, everyone else needs to as well. I'm sure he'll have more walls of texts to explain why.
1. Every step outside "comfort zone" cost $5. Very comfortable.
Stepping outside your comfort zone should not be construed as carte blanche to make character choices without consequences. The current system, by making some alternatives more compelling, ends up encouraging thoughtful exploration of those alternatives, while allowing players an option to revert back if things don't work out. That's good. A world in which people freely change specs with no consequences at all doesn't encourage the same sort of thoughful exploration, but instead encourages people to make haphazard choices and never really think about or understand what does and doesn't work for them. I put it to you that if you feel like your fun in the post revamp world will require that you are buying more than the very occasional respec, you should take that as a sign that you lack sufficient system mastery, not as a sign that you deserve free access to respecs simply because you want them.
2. It may be "surprising", but majority of players actually care how do they perform in game. We don't see many endgame players in T3 ships for a reason. Playing underperforming ship is actually "uncomfortable".
If the majority of players care so much about ingame performance, why are the majority of players are currently so bad at the game? I don't even mean in terms of comparing to the top dps channel people - I'm certainly not one of those, I run a ship that parses around 20k dps on a (very) good day. Nevertheless, the gap between my average performance (which is more than equal to the task of anything on offer in the game right now) and the average performance of the majority of PUG players I encounter is, at times, frankly disheartening. You are right, we don't often see people in tier 3 ships, yet I probably could run a tier 3 ship and as successful (if not more) than the median STO player right now. Certainly with a tier 5 (non-fleet, non-upgraded) ship, that's the case.
Given that, I question the very idea that most players even have a clue about how their performance with a ship stacks up, nor do I believe they have any idea if they are performing about average, over-performing, or under perfoming. Instead, what I think people would do is assume "if I spec every weapon buff in the tac tree, that will maximize my DPS, so that's the only way to spec for this shiny new escort without gimping myself". Note however that I already pointed out how if you (say) run weapons with at least one [Acc] mod right now, and you primarily play PvE (and I'm guessing many, many players fall into the Venn diagram overlap here), then you likely aren't getting nearly as much out of the 3 points you put into the tac tree accuracy skills as you would putting those same 3 points into the sci range fall-off skills, or possibly even the exotic particle skills.
My point is this - what you are trying to do is protect player's mistaken impression that they are performing well with their ships by allowing them to freely respec because it "feels right" to have all the tac boxes checked when you run that shiny new escort carrier, despite the fact that it is almost certainly not the optimal spec. Like my ever-elusive butter fried ice cream bacon taco, this may be what players think they want, but it's not good for them, and they should not get it.
3. Making Alt for every build is not an option. People actually have strange thing called "real life" which is effectively preventing them from maxing 5 alts for each faction - They usually have one main character, and one-two extra characters they usually do not develop much (time requirements). Nobody with standard access to free time is going to make alt just to fly different class of starship...
First, again, you don't need to make an alt build for every single ship you want to buy, that's pure nonsense. Most ships aren't different enough from each other to warrant a massive change in spec, and now that so many BOFF abilities are buffed by a relatively small number of skills (or have no skill tree component at all, like attack patterns), there's even less need to adjust skills based on a shift in the available BOFF seating. A player who moves to a cruiser from a sci ship and wants to use a doff enhanced Eject Warp Plasma probably benefits more in terms of overall performance from leaving the "Sci spec" points in control and exotic particles than that player would gain by moving some of those points into hull damage reduction skills just because he wants to try playing a "tank" now - especially since the cruiser probably has room for an armor console or two which makes the dr from skills more or less redundant.
Instead, an alt would be for times when you wanted to try something REALLY different, like maxing cloak skills and trying your hand with a cloak-ganking escort in Ker'rat PvP, just to see if it works, or maybe loading up on hangar pet buffs to see if the lifestyle of a dedicated carrier captian grabs you. Or, maybe, just to see if any of the skill tree ultimates are fun enough to make the build sacrifices needed to spec into them (spoilers: probably not). If even this seems to onerous to you, then I again raise the idea that what you are paying for with a respec is the convenience to not have to do the even that minimal work to try out what is, in effect, an entirely new character, and that seems very reasonable to me.
4. There is nothing wrong in paying for stuff in FreeToPlay game, unless You actually BUY SOMETHING. Paying for skill respec in order to make your character fit different ship class is OPPOSITE of this - You are paying for EXCHANGING ability to fly one ship for ability to fly another ship. So You loose Your money AND performance in specific class - and taking it back cost extra money.
Again, your fears about performance loss are probably unfounded, and in fact the average player is probably more likely to lose performance through their incompetent attempts to make a new spec for that one specific ship than the would have if they make one well thought out generalist spec and thought about how to adjust things like gear, traits, and ability to bend that general spec to the new ship.
Second, as I noted above, you aren't getting "nothing" for your $5. You are getting, at the very least, the convenience of not having to roll up a new character if you really want to try a radically different playstyle. Beyond that, I find your standard here silly - assuming you do, in fact, enjoy your new ship and new "awesome" spec for it (which probably means assuming you actually do know what you are doing with your spec choices, so, that's a bit of a stretch), then you are paying a small fee for the entertainment value you are getting for that new ship. Say you spend $30 for the ship and $5 for the respec, and get 40-50 hours of play time out of it before you get tired and move on to the next new shiny. That's still probably a much better deal in terms of entertainment value per dollar than seeing a movie. Even Deadpool. And Deadpool was AWESOME.
6. "Exploring new ways of progressing their captain and starship" is already expensive. New ship, new set of weaponry, consoles and equipment, upgrading stuff to MkXIV (not even mentioning rarity improvements), buying abilities for BOFFs, buying unique specialized DOFFs, buying character traits and spaceship traits - all of this have HUGE cost, both in time and money - but unlike respecs, this stuff is permanently added to my inventory. It may become useless, but I have it and I know where my money is. Paid respecs in this situation are extra tax for everyone who wish to "exploring (...)".
First, again, you don't need to respec and adjust all of this stuff every time you want a new ship, or even explore a new playstyle. Second the cost vs what you gain argument is addressed above, and since point 7 basically replicates the idea that the respec is a "tax" by calling it a punishment, I'll deal with that below.
7. Paid respecs are extra punishment for players, who wish to experiment with different skills and builds. Failed experiment mean $10 total for returning to previous build. Many players will just abandon any experiments and will stick to their "safe" build and single ship class.
So, basically, what you are saying is that paid respecs will encourage players to be more thoughtful about how they approach their character's skill sets, and only those players who have the actual capacity to either
a) at least somewhat accurately judge how a new spec might work for their prefered playstyle or
b) use an alt or a test server character to explore the option relatively risk free
will end up pushing the envelope? Do you promise that's what we'll get? Because that sounds pretty awesome to me! Again, the design intent of encouraging players to explore new playstyles does not (and should not) mean giving people free reign to do thoughtless, haphazard character builds, just because they don't want to be bothered to learn how the game actually works.
8. Players using many ships from different classes are forced to either keep away from any "exploration", sticking to weak, relatively universal build (15/15/15?), or robe a bank.
A relatively balanced spec like that (pending the specific choices) is almost certainly going to be a better overall performer than any hyper focused spec that tries (for example) to get to the tac tree ultimate power. The fact that this is pretty much obvious to me and seemingly nonsensical to you is proof positive that we need a system that encourages both of us to think carefully about how we choose our skills, because at least one of us is catastrophically wrong about how the game actually works. The problem is, since in most cases the game isn't actually hard enough to provide meaningful feedback on performance (and since I don't PvP anymore and I'm guessing you don't PvP ever, like most players) it's entirely possible that whichever of us is, in fact, wrong, will never know it, and will, in the blissful ignorance of an eloi-like, consequence free skill system, think himself a tiny digital god.
This is frankly not really a problem until the two players end up in the same instance of Borg Disconnected Advanced (or Elite), and Captain All-Tac ('cause that's the best dps, right?!) and his three friends Larry, Curly, and Shemp all end up clustered futilely around a single node, lacking the dps to clear the mobs, the tanking skill (and teamwork skills) to hold aggro on them while a teammate rescues freed borg, or the control abilities to pull the mobs away from the fight long enough to free the borg. Bonus points if they start loudly protesting that the player who is one-manning one (or two, in Advanced) of the other nodes is "not being a team player" or is a "newb" because they (the All-Tac crowd) lack even enough contextual awareness of how the game works to realize that they are the problem. If a lack of free respecs encourages players to build more carefully and more thoughtfully, then that can only serve to help make sure neither one of us ends up having to deal with something like this, and that can really only be a good thing.
9. This system (just like previous system) is punishing new players - they have no experience to make good skill choices, and if they will keep playing this game, they will be forced to buy respec anyway. How many of them will choose abandoning game instead of paying this extra tax?
And so here we get to the flipside of my argument above, right? Aren't I being an elitist jerk by advocating "punishing" players who don't want to (or "can't") invest the energy into learning the skill system to some minimal level of competence? I'll be honest - yeah, maybe I am being elitist (I'm sure I almost certainly come across as one), but understand that fundamentally it comes from a rather egalitarian impulse. I can (as you might have gleaned from my rather passive-agressive humble-brag above) pretty effectively solo a single node in Borg Disconnected Elite, and can pretty easily solo two nodes (if I have to) in Borg Disconnected Advanced. As far as I can tell, this is a relatively unusual ability amongst the general player base (in that I would estimate that less than half of all current max level players can do the same or better). The fact is, though, my build isn't really anything special - it's a generalist build, it isn't winning any dps races, and while I currently have all Mk XIV epic gear (what can I say, I got bored), I was doing the same thing back when I was still rolling Mk XIV VR rep gear and Fleet XIV UR gear (all of which was relatively cheap to aquire).
My point is that I look at my build, and frankly my own assessment of my skills, and end up thinking "Dude, you're really not anything special", which leads me to wonder why so many players are so much worse than I am. There really seems to be no excuse for it, as far as I can tell, beyond the fact that the game doesn't really require (or even reward) much real skill or effort in learning the game systems. Now we have an updated skill tree that might, in some small way, encourage people to put at least a LITTLE more effort into their build choices, and that strikes me as a good thing. I certainly don't think a better skill tree with a pay-to-respec system will be a panacea for the general malaise of sub-mediocrity that so many players seem content to wallow in, but it can't hurt, either. Thowing out the very thing that seems to be providing the impulse for people to feel "forced" to be more careful with their skill choices thus strkes me as backwards.
It's simple, do They want folks to stay and play or drive them away?
If every time a player wants to change to another of their $20 to $30 dollar ships they have already purchased and then optimize their style of play for that particular ship, -is going to cost them $5.00- what do you think the likelihood of most folks doing that continually will be?
Common sense tells us that most likely, they are not going to be willing to do that.
(especially the F2P folks)
Now, once the players catch on to the fact that they will have to spend that extra $5.00 each and every time they change ships, how many ships do you think cryptic will sell?
Again, common sense tells us not very many.
The question becomes, do They want to gain a lot of money for the first few weeks until the player-base catches on, or do They want to make a steady amount of money over the long-haul with the continuation of creating new ships to sell, that large numbers of folks will actually be willing to buy?
I'll let your common sense figure it out for you.
Perhaps They should at least consider a compromise...
Lower the price to Two Dollars/200 ZEN, something that could entice folks to actually consider doing a skill reset.
200 Zen is currently about 60,000 Dilithium on that exchange, not to high to be considered extravagant, but not so low that Cryptic would seem to loose out on the F2P folks.
It's a thought anyway.
Post edited by daveyny on
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Not everyone rolls a dozen characters. Some only play a single character.
Okay? So? Shouldn't the players who DO roll multiple characters in order to try multiple play styles and specs gain the benefits of that effort (at least one of which is the ability to try said styles without paying for a respec)?
Some like experimenting, some don't. Some google, others (with the new and old system) are punished for not googling the 'best' spec for their intended playstyle.
There are many different playstyles, and this system, new and old alike, punish players for not waiting until the 'best' specs are searchable on google and sticking with those for the duration of that character.
Where you see "punishment" for not sticking to hypothetical "optimal" builds, I see encouragement for players to work towards a minimum level of competence with the game systems so they can judge for themselves more accurately what specs actually work for them, and they find fun to play. Your position here seems to be weirdly "If you ain't first, you're last" in its seeming assumption that anything but the absolute 'best' spec is unacceptable. And I thought I was an elitist!
But, hey. Since mrtshead has grown accustomed to it, everyone else needs to as well. I'm sure he'll have more walls of texts to explain why.
Wow, nicely played - you got me! I always forget that people have very different maximum cognitive loads, and so trying to parse a multifaceted argument across several paragraphs of text simply doesn't work for everyone. I think I did better here, though?
It's simple, do They want folks to stay and play or drive them away?
If every time a player wants to change to another of their $20 to $30 dollar ships they have already purchased and then optimize their style of play for that particular ship, -is going to cost them $5.00- what do you think the likelihood of most folks dong that continually will be?
Common sense tells us that most likely, they are not going to be willing to do that.
(especially the F2P folks)
Now, once the players catch on to the fact that they will have to spend that extra $5.00 each and every time they change ships, how many ships do you think cryptic will sell?
Again, common sense tells us not very many.
The question becomes, do They want to gain a lot of money for the first few weeks until the player-base catches on, or do They want to make a steady amount of money over the long-haul with the continuation of creating new ships to sell, that large numbers of folks will actually be willing to buy?
I'll let your common sense figure it out for you.
Common sense tells me that the conception that you need to respec in order to optimize every new ship you buy is patently false (just as it is now), such that players will continue to buy ships at a brisk pace (just as they do now). A keen understanding of human nature tells me that most of the people most vocal here about how players will leave en mass if they are not given free respecs will, in fact, be here long after the season 11.5 patch, protesting all the time about how they are being gouged on all the respecs they feel they want but aren't actually buying because they realize they don't need them to play the way they want.
*edit* Sorry, less confrontationally, I think I can put it like this: I think there's a pretty legitimate school of thought which would argue that if long-term player retention is your goal, you get that not by pandering to a lowest-common-denominator sense of "I want all the shiny toys right now and always forever!", but rather by building deeper, more robust mechanisms for player engagement and agency. I think the skill tree revamp is moving in that direction. I think giving everyone endless free respecs would be a massive step backwards on that front. And I think if having faith in the power of better gameplay mechanics as a way to draw and retain players is wrong, then frankly I don't want to be right.
Folks leaving en mass was not really the point I was trying to make with my post.
(it was mostly just a clever rhyme)
If one of the objects of this change is to bring in more money, then the likelihood of this succeeding as is, in IMO, probably low at the current cost.
And this large adjustment with the skill tree is going to make people consider changing their build for each ship, whether you think it's necessary or not. (they will think so)
Will they be willing to part with $5 bucks each and every time, I think probably not.
Which IS going to effect ship sales. (why buy another $30 dollar ship when it's just going to cost them $5.00 to fix it the way they want it to be)
So, I guess it'll just come down to how the overall player-base reacts when this hits the Holodeck.
Only time will tell.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
1. Paywall will prevent players of using this system because players don't want to pay for nothing. I won't argue on this statement, it is obvious in every MMO. Players could pay for permament unlocks or for speeding up their progress, not for changing their already bought gear. Imagine World of Tanks where every tank change (including returning to older tank) force You to pay $5 or You will face 20% drop in tanks performance... People would stick to their tanks, and not "experiment", buy things from their "safe" tree only
2. Playing different ships and different builds is integral part of the game (and it is clearly confirmed by developers)- there is no reason to punish players for doing it by performance loose. If You think $5 punishment is justified in case of traits, then why not add same punishment everytime You wish to change ship gear? You wish to replace turret with beam bank - buy "ship reequip token". Or Boffs replacement - wish to kick someone from slot or change his abilities, buy "ship recrew token". All Your arguments will be valid in this situation too...
3. Do You have any idea why Genetic Refrequencers were removed? Was it good or bad decision?
4. What is the reason of skill system revamp? "With these new options spread across all Engineering, Science and Tactical sections of the Space Skill Tree, we anticipate players feeling many compelling reasons to step outside of their usual comfort zone and perhaps even exploring new ways of progressing their captain and starship." Not "Make players pay every time they wish to experiment with different class or build"
5. Nobody force you to adjust Your build to Your playstyle. You wish to use battlecruiser build for science ship to make Your decisions "meaningful" - go on. You wish to play underperforming ship, not able to use it's potential? It's ok. You wish to pay extra for every single mistake in character development, instead of spending this money on ships and stuff - no problem. But please, do not defend counter-productive mechanics everyone find broken. If You wish to limit Yourself - do it. Do not force anyone to find enjoyment in paying multiple times for things they already bought, or finding fun in facing own mistakes.
I bought the pathfinder in the last ship sale. I got it mostly cause space barbie and a nice ship for the sci toons. Anyway, when it came to punting the tank toon in it, I didn't respec my toon, I just built it the best way I could for that toon. It's only real downside was the lack of attrack fire cruiser command, so I pulled a bit less threat.
You can make most ships work for your toons. Would you seriously buy a ship to use that was miles away from ideal for you to use as your main ship? I find this whole idea that you'll have to respec when switching ships mental. It's just not going to happen and ship sales will not be affected by it at all.
I buy ships for the trait, cause it optimises a build best or cause it's pretty and I want to space barbie. Do people get them for other reasons?
It's simple, do They want folks to stay and play or drive them away?
If every time a player wants to change to another of their $20 to $30 dollar ships they have already purchased and then optimize their style of play for that particular ship, -is going to cost them $5.00- what do you think the likelihood of most folks dong that continually will be?
Common sense tells us that most likely, they are not going to be willing to do that.
(especially the F2P folks)
Now, once the players catch on to the fact that they will have to spend that extra $5.00 each and every time they change ships, how many ships do you think cryptic will sell?
Again, common sense tells us not very many.
The question becomes, do They want to gain a lot of money for the first few weeks until the player-base catches on, or do They want to make a steady amount of money over the long-haul with the continuation of creating new ships to sell, that large numbers of folks will actually be willing to buy?
I'll let your common sense figure it out for you.
Perhaps They should at least consider a compromise...
Lower the price to Two Dollars/200 ZEN, something that could entice folks to actually consider doing a skill reset.
200 Zen is currently about 60,000 Dilithium on that exchange, not to high to be considered extravagant, but not so low that Cryptic would seem to loose out on the F2P folks.
Folks leaving en mass was not really the point I was trying to make with my post.
(it was mostly just a clever rhyme)
If one of the objects of this change is to bring in more money, then the likelihood of this succeeding as is, in IMO, probably low at the current cost.
And this large adjustment with the skill tree is going to make people consider changing their build for each ship, whether you think it's necessary or not. (they will think so)
Will they be willing to part with $5 bucks each and every time, I think probably not.
Which IS going to effect ship sales. (why buy another $30 dollar ship when it's just going to cost them $5.00 to fix it the way they want it to be)
So, I guess it'll just come down to how the overall player-base reacts when this hits the Holodeck.
Only time will tell.
There needs to be something. All I hear is people saying they are going to stop buying certain ships due to being locked into a type.
This new system reminds me of how it was on launch, where you could only spec into a particular ship.
If you wanted to try something different, you had to respec...
Perhaps They should at least consider a compromise...
Lower the price to Two Dollars/200 ZEN, something that could entice folks to actually consider doing a skill reset.
200 Zen is currently about 60,000 Dilithium on that exchange, not to high to be considered extravagant, but not so low that Cryptic would seem to loose out on the F2P folks.
It's a thought anyway.
Entire concept of paying for nothing is broken. Natural things people buy in MMO are:
- permanent service unlocks, like garage spaces (and you can softly "force" players to buy it, by giving them free items)
- items&equipment (permanent things, so If I buy it, It is mine forever - unless I, for example, sell it)
- player development accelerators (all these "bonus XP" etc. allowing players to save their time)
Forcing players to pay for things they already have is TRIBBLE concept. If You are changing build to fit the ship You've already sacrificed one build to get another - there is no profit for player. If it cost $5, you are not only paying for making ship useful, you are also sacrificing your performance on another ship. It's like paying $2 for replacing turret with beam bank ("reequip token?") - summary You gain nothing, but You need to pay. Mrtshead will say it is "decision making and consequences", but I call it making paywall and reducing fun from game, effectively cutting part of content from players (paying for equipment changes will force them to stay with one set of equipment much, much longer, also limiting their other choices, like BOFF settings).
It is bad for game (tons of artificial limitations), bad for players (being forced to pay for nothing is not "comfortable") and bad for developers (since it will reduce ship sales, because a lot of ships will be unusable at optimal level without huge further expenses).
1. Paywall will prevent players of using this system because players don't want to pay for nothing. I won't argue on this statement, it is obvious in every MMO. Players could pay for permament unlocks or for speeding up their progress, not for changing their already bought gear. Imagine World of Tanks where every tank change (including returning to older tank) force You to pay $5 or You will face 20% drop in tanks performance... People would stick to their tanks, and not "experiment", buy things from their "safe" tree only
I congratulate you on at least being steadfast in your assertion that you won't participate in an argument on this point, because you frankly haven't. I answered your contention that respecs have no value at great length already. To recap: You're paying for the convenience of not having to roll up an alt to try something completely new, as well as paying a price for the entertainment value of having effectively an entirely new character after you've gotten board with your current one. Both those things have value.
FYI the nearest analog I can find to a character skills respec in World of Tanks (after a brief look at their wiki) is the idea of changing crew skills and perks, which according to the wiki you can do for "free" at a loss of 20% of their total earned xp, for the in-game credits for a 10% loss of earned xp, or for no loss of xp at all by paying 200 gold (which is their currency you buy with real world money). I feel that if you think it's an obvious and common practice in "every MMO" that players won't pay for respecs, you should maybe start by demonstrating at least one example for which it is true that respecs exist and are actually free.
2. Playing different ships and different builds is integral part of the game (and it is clearly confirmed by developers)- there is no reason to punish players for doing it by performance loose. If You think $5 punishment is justified in case of traits, then why not add same punishment everytime You wish to change ship gear? You wish to replace turret with beam bank - buy "ship reequip token". Or Boffs replacement - wish to kick someone from slot or change his abilities, buy "ship recrew token". All Your arguments will be valid in this situation too...
Wait, what? All my arguments for why you don't actually have any real need to pay for a respec to run a new ship effectively (complete with at least a few examples of exactly why I was asserting that was true, and why your perception to the contrary was probably mistaken) will apply just as much as justifications for why you should have to pay to change everything else? Really? Hmm.
Let me be crystal clear. You do not actually need to respec every time you change ships, so no, point blank my arguments don't work equally well for any of the other situations you ginned up here. I really feel I have to ask - did you actually read what I wrote, and do you feel that you actually understood it, or are you (as I think it's clear I suspect) merely angrily doubling down on your fanciful assertions without regard for my responses?
3. Do You have any idea why Genetic Refrequencers were removed? Was it good or bad decision?
At last, you said something that isn't simply a non-responsive regurgitation of your already answered positions! Huzzah!
To answer your question, I have an idea why, yes. I also have an idea why YOU think it was done. I also also think there are some very good reasons why the traits system and character skills systems aren't really analogous, and why your attempt to argue otherwise is probably not actually the path you want the game to go down, namely that if you think captain skills should actually be treated like traits are now, you are functionally saying that you want Cryptic to give you free unlimited skills respecs, but you also want them to put new skills in the game on a regular basis, primarily via lock box rewards. Is that, in fact, what you want?
Oh, and on the off chance that you do, in fact, end up thinking that putting new skill trees in lock boxes sounds awesome, I think you might want to consider if that's even a practical idea - what kind of design space do you think there is for new skills relative to the design space for new traits?
5. What is the reason of skill system revamp? "With these new options spread across all Engineering, Science and Tactical sections of the Space Skill Tree, we anticipate players feeling many compelling reasons to step outside of their usual comfort zone and perhaps even exploring new ways of progressing their captain and starship." Not "Make players pay every time they wish to experiment with different class or build"
6. Nobody force you to adjust Your build to Your playstyle. You wish to use battlecruiser build for science ship to make Your decisions "meaningful" - go on. You wish to play underperforming ship, not able to use it's potential? It's ok. You wish to pay extra for every single mistake in character development, instead of spending this money on ships and stuff - no problem. But please, do not defend counter-productive mechanics everyone find broken. If You wish to limit Yourself - do it. Do not force anyone to find enjoyment in paying multiple times for things they already bought, or finding fun in facing own mistakes.
Again, none of this is responsive to the actual discussion, because you just keep repeating your false assertion that not being able to freely respec for each ship you own will somehow result in an overall performance loss. You have not established that the central assumption of your position has any basis in reality. Indeed, I believe you cannot establish this. I get that its "obvious" to you that you are right, but I went to great (some would say self-indulgent) lengths to lay out my reasoning for why your perception on this was likely flawed. Unless you are able to articulate some specific examples of how not burning a respec for a new ship results in an over performance loss relative to a more generalized skill spec, then you don't seem to have much of an argument.
Oh, and if you actually did read my last response please note that I specifically called out cloaking and carrier focused play styles as two examples of times when a respec might be worth it, so neither of those examples actually gets you anywhere productive for your side of the argument.
PS Just as a quick reminder since it seems you might have missed these points as well: I don't think encouraging players to be more mindful of the consequences of their character build choices is actually incompatible with the goal of encouraging players to branch out and explore in thoughtful ways, and I also think a world in which players are driven to be more thoughtful in how they approach their character builds out of fear of a respec cost is better than the alternative of a world in which players continue to have absolutely no freaking idea what they are doing. Thus, insofar as you're right that respec costs encourage players to be cautious (or, as I would characterize it, thoughtful), I think that's actively a good thing.
Perhaps They should at least consider a compromise...
Lower the price to Two Dollars/200 ZEN, something that could entice folks to actually consider doing a skill reset.
200 Zen is currently about 60,000 Dilithium on that exchange, not to high to be considered extravagant, but not so low that Cryptic would seem to loose out on the F2P folks.
It's a thought anyway.
Entire concept of paying for nothing is broken. Natural things people buy in MMO are:
- permanent service unlocks, like garage spaces (and you can softly "force" players to buy it, by giving them free items)
- items&equipment (permanent things, so If I buy it, It is mine forever - unless I, for example, sell it) - player development accelerators (all these "bonus XP" etc. allowing players to save their time)
Forcing players to pay for things they already have is TRIBBLE concept. If You are changing build to fit the ship You've already sacrificed one build to get another - there is no profit for player. If it cost $5, you are not only paying for making ship useful, you are also sacrificing your performance on another ship. It's like paying $2 for replacing turret with beam bank ("reequip token?") - summary You gain nothing, but You need to pay. Mrtshead will say it is "decision making and consequences", but I call it making paywall and reducing fun from game, effectively cutting part of content from players (paying for equipment changes will force them to stay with one set of equipment much, much longer, also limiting their other choices, like BOFF settings).
It is bad for game (tons of artificial limitations), bad for players (being forced to pay for nothing is not "comfortable") and bad for developers (since it will reduce ship sales, because a lot of ships will be unusable at optimal level without huge further expenses).
LOL. Note the part I've bolded here - do you not get that functionally this is exactly what a respec IS? A respec is a way to take a character you already have at max level and change it into another, different max level character, all without the pesky business of having to roll up a new character and do things like grind levels, spec trees, and reputations. I agree with you 100% that players are naturally willing to pay for that kind of convenience.
Also, just because I think it's vitally important to kill your misinformation everywhere it pops up: You don't currently need to generally respec to switch ships, and there's no reason to feel that you have to respec generally to switch ships post the revamp, and further if you do try to respec for each ship, you are more likely to end up actually being more sub-optimal and inefficient than if you had just picked one careful generalist build in the first place.
There needs to be something. All I hear is people saying they are going to stop buying certain ships due to being locked into a type.
This new system reminds me of how it was on launch, where you could only spec into a particular ship.
If you wanted to try something different, you had to respec...
In precisely what manner does the revamped skill tree actually remind you of the old system of having to spec into a particular ship (and weapon type, if you remember correctly)? If you've actually got a detailed example, I would say you have a responsibility to share that feedback, so it can actually be evaluated. If you DON'T have a detailed example, and instead are simply buying into the nascent forums echo-chamber on this point (as evinced by your assertion that you only hear people claiming they won't buy ships anymore, despite at least two explicit examples of posters in this thread who disagree with that sentiment), then to be honest I feel like you have a responsibility to step back and actually examine if the claim you are espousing is even true.
mrtshead, not sure why I'm even bothering. You seem to have a knack for condescension without justification.
Imagine a new player coming into the game for the first time. Imagine them having no idea that a subscription for this game even exists (because you seriously have to know what you're looking for to find it). They have no idea that respec tokens exist until they reach a high enough level to figure out how bad they messed up their build. Now, are they screwed? Well, yes, yes they are.
mrtshead, says this is justified and he has adapted, so get used to it Mr. New player!
Now, imagine an old Vet returning from the game in hopes of change (You have to admit this is a big change). They come back, see they have to respec their old main character. They do, then realize that gameplay has changed or they decide that the gameplay they thought they liked has changed and now they want to respec. Are they screwed? Yes, yes they are.
Now, for once, imagine that not every single player is a dedicated veteran of the game and diehard Star Trek junkie, I know for you it may take a bit, but try anyway. If cryptic caters just to that one type of player, eventually, that's all that will be left, and realistically, that's not much.
Cryptic has made no mention so far of lowering or changing the respec cost (Frankly, I don't expect them to), and so far the only mention of anything remotely close is saying that you keep your respec tokens during the change. They have a chance to come out looking like the generous heroes here, or they could come out looking like the money grumbling tight-fisted devs. Their choice really.
If they allow free respecs, or a reduced price on them or alternative method for purchasing, they come off looking like the devs that care about their players. That they are changing their systems to compensate for a massive change that they implemented.
If they keep a 5 dollar respec fee after this change, then well, they pretty much are just validating that common opinion of them. Money, money, money. They are changing this system in order to rake in more from the 5 dollar charge for respecs because that token wasn't a hot seller in the C-Store.
As a silver member, I have bought relatively little that costs money, and have a basic philosophy that assumes that there will always be things I cannot have in the game because I do not want to spend much on them. This being a business as well as a fun game, the question regarding players like me is not how to make me think that Cryptic Devs care a lot about me but how to encourage me to make more purchases (including possibly buying a Gold membership) while keeping the game enjoyable. Here are my suggestions and rationale for each:
1. Add skill tree loadouts. Give silver players one slot per character and gold members 2, and sell all members the option of buying more for Zen. Even at a cost comparable to a brand new ship, you would still have buyers. Silver can have 2 max, Gold 3 or 4. (This could even be paired with having it cost to switch loadouts and still be a worthwhile purchase.)
2. Sell a discounted pair of respec tokens, or drop the price of single tokens (or both). This helps with the named goal of encouraging experimentation, including for those of us who will usually - but not always - wait patiently for our dilithium supply to make things affordable.
3. Give all initial characters on an account (and all new characters for a gold member) a free respec token at level 50 or 60. This will allow for new players to have a learning curve without penalty, and may also encourage the use of respec tokens: it makes them feel like part of the game and not something to be used only in exceptional circumstances.
I for one will NOT be stepping outside the comfort zone unless I've tested it on tribble first. I guess my question to the Dev's would be.....Do you really want people spending all their playtime on tribble testing builds? Or would you rather they play on holodeck? People will have 2 choices once this goes live, they will either spend a fortune respecing their toons, or spend all their time on tribble testing stuff. New players will be no less confused than they are now, and will require respecs to fix their toons at endgame. People will NOT step outside the comfort zone if they have to pay for a respec every time. They've created a system that encourages people to think outside the box and then restricted the hell out of it by penalizing people for doing so. I think they have created a decent system that will fail due to restrictions like $5 respecs. If they feel the need to charge for respecs, then fine charge a dollar or something, but they certainly shouldn't be gouging people with the new system $5 dollars is just ridiculous. I have an LTS so I have respec tokens it's not a big deal to me, but not every one does. I'd rather see those people playing on holodeck and buying stuff like ships or keys for the lottery box's.
Imagine a new player coming into the game for the first time. Imagine them having no idea that a subscription for this game even exists (because you seriously have to know what you're looking for to find it). They have no idea that respec tokens exist until they reach a high enough level to figure out how bad they messed up their build. Now, are they screwed? Well, yes, yes they are.
Are they more screwed than a new player who started anytime since the last skill revamp? I put it to you that they are not, given that the new skill trees generally have better documentation (allowing for more informed choice), have skills that offer more functionality (such as the combined science powers) and have fewer trap options overall. This is a pretty significant problem for your side, since the fact that the game has empirically not collapsed due to rampant player losses or a widespread refusal to buy new ships makes the suggestion that those events would happen in the post-revamp world questionable, at best. Thus far it remains true that nobody seems to be able to articulate why, precisely, the new skill trees are going to suddenly make it impossible to roll with the kind of generalized spec that we've gotten used to, and instead it seems that there's just this somewhat mystical appeal to "everyone knows". Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the empirical data that suggests that players are pretty okay with not buying respecs every time they buy a new ship, and I prefer my clearly exampled reasons for why that will likely not change with the new system. To sum up: The problem you are worried about isn't really uniquely a new problem with the new system, and in fact hasn't historically really been a problem at all, so the concern seems misplaced at best.
mrtshead, says this is justified and he has adapted, so get used to it Mr. New player!
Not actually what I said at all, but I understand that it's much easier to respond emotionally to the big mean ol' elitist veteran than it is to engage with the egalitarian underpinnings of my philosophy here, which basically asserts that anyone who puts in a modicum of effort can develop the base level of competence needed to make informed judgments about how to build a character to allow for effective play with a wide variety of ships/powers. A move to remove consequences from the equation would be simply removing another incentive for players to develop that competence, to the detriment of the game as a whole.
Now, imagine an old Vet returning from the game in hopes of change (You have to admit this is a big change). They come back, see they have to respec their old main character. They do, then realize that gameplay has changed or they decide that the gameplay they thought they liked has changed and now they want to respec. Are they screwed? Yes, yes they are.
Again, are they MORE "screwed" by the new system than they were by the old system? No, no they are not. In fact, if anything, they are better off, so, again, your argument fails to establish even a prima facia cause for concern. It's as if it had been raining for years, but now that the rain shows some signs of slackening a little bit, suddenly now the price of umbrellas is a problem.
Now, for once, imagine that not every single player is a dedicated veteran of the game and diehard Star Trek junkie, I know for you it may take a bit, but try anyway. If cryptic caters just to that one type of player, eventually, that's all that will be left, and realistically, that's not much.
See above - I don't consider myself either a dedicated veteran or a diehard Star Trek junkie. I consider myself a resolutely average specimen as far as gaming ability goes, so it's actually trivially easy for me to imagine that not everyone fits into that mold. The difference is that I don't presume that having a basic understanding of how the game works is something that is limited to only the hardcore players. This, coupled with my awareness that players have demonstrably coped with a worse skill system and respec system for some time without the game imploding, makes me more optimistic about the ability (if not desire) of the general player base to take these changes in stride and thrive.
Cryptic has made no mention so far of lowering or changing the respec cost (Frankly, I don't expect them to), and so far the only mention of anything remotely close is saying that you keep your respec tokens during the change. They have a chance to come out looking like the generous heroes here, or they could come out looking like the money grumbling tight-fisted devs. Their choice really.
If they allow free respecs, or a reduced price on them or alternative method for purchasing, they come off looking like the devs that care about their players. That they are changing their systems to compensate for a massive change that they implemented.
If they keep a 5 dollar respec fee after this change, then well, they pretty much are just validating that common opinion of them. Money, money, money. They are changing this system in order to rake in more from the 5 dollar charge for respecs because that token wasn't a hot seller in the C-Store.
This last line in particular is still incoherent to me - why is it so hard for anyone to articulate what it is about the new skill system that makes people suddenly feel like they just have to respec all the time? The best I've been able to come up with is that the better skill tree is more interesting to players, and thus players feel like a respec has higher perceived value for the cost, but that hardly seems to match with the accusations of punitive money-grubbing behavior that you are accusing them of. They've increased the value of their offer to the consumer, and now customers are more inclined to buy - that's just good salesmanship, not some sort of shady money trap. Again, if you can point to a specific way in which the new trees are actually forcing you to respec more often (something like: "In the past, with this general spec, I could freely swap between these three ships without feeling like I was gimped or under performing. Now, however, because of this specific change to the skills, I can no longer freely change like before because the new skills took away my ability to do 'X' which in turn broke my build for ship 'Y'."), that's one thing, but nobody I've seen thus far has been able to do anything approaching that. It just all seems to be "the new tree has a bunch of cool options, so I want access to all those options without paying anything for it, because how dare Cryptic offer to sell me a service I want for a price I might be willing to pay!
Back to the OP because there is a lot of junk discussion in between.
Yes the new system leads to the possibility of requiring more respecs because you can't preview the whole tree full like before so hopefully, the price for a respec will be lowered a bit.
That being said, the way the new tree works, it's probably way harder for there to be one of those TRIBBLE ups that force devs to issue respecs to everyone for free so it's a plus for them. Also, making it function like the specialization tree makes the skill UI more uniform.
Imagine a new player coming into the game for the first time. Imagine them having no idea that a subscription for this game even exists (because you seriously have to know what you're looking for to find it). They have no idea that respec tokens exist until they reach a high enough level to figure out how bad they messed up their build. Now, are they screwed? Well, yes, yes they are.
Are they more screwed than a new player who started anytime since the last skill revamp? I put it to you that they are not, given that the new skill trees generally have better documentation (allowing for more informed choice), have skills that offer more functionality (such as the combined science powers) and have fewer trap options overall. This is a pretty significant problem for your side, since the fact that the game has empirically not collapsed due to rampant player losses or a widespread refusal to buy new ships makes the suggestion that those events would happen in the post-revamp world questionable, at best. Thus far it remains true that nobody seems to be able to articulate why, precisely, the new skill trees are going to suddenly make it impossible to roll with the kind of generalized spec that we've gotten used to, and instead it seems that there's just this somewhat mystical appeal to "everyone knows". Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the empirical data that suggests that players are pretty okay with not buying respecs every time they buy a new ship, and I prefer my clearly exampled reasons for why that will likely not change with the new system. To sum up: The problem you are worried about isn't really uniquely a new problem with the new system, and in fact hasn't historically really been a problem at all, so the concern seems misplaced at best.
mrtshead, says this is justified and he has adapted, so get used to it Mr. New player!
Not actually what I said at all, but I understand that it's much easier to respond emotionally to the big mean ol' elitist veteran than it is to engage with the egalitarian underpinnings of my philosophy here, which basically asserts that anyone who puts in a modicum of effort can develop the base level of competence needed to make informed judgments about how to build a character to allow for effective play with a wide variety of ships/powers. A move to remove consequences from the equation would be simply removing another incentive for players to develop that competence, to the detriment of the game as a whole.
Now, imagine an old Vet returning from the game in hopes of change (You have to admit this is a big change). They come back, see they have to respec their old main character. They do, then realize that gameplay has changed or they decide that the gameplay they thought they liked has changed and now they want to respec. Are they screwed? Yes, yes they are.
Again, are they MORE "screwed" by the new system than they were by the old system? No, no they are not. In fact, if anything, they are better off, so, again, your argument fails to establish even a prima facia cause for concern. It's as if it had been raining for years, but now that the rain shows some signs of slackening a little bit, suddenly now the price of umbrellas is a problem.
Now, for once, imagine that not every single player is a dedicated veteran of the game and diehard Star Trek junkie, I know for you it may take a bit, but try anyway. If cryptic caters just to that one type of player, eventually, that's all that will be left, and realistically, that's not much.
See above - I don't consider myself either a dedicated veteran or a diehard Star Trek junkie. I consider myself a resolutely average specimen as far as gaming ability goes, so it's actually trivially easy for me to imagine that not everyone fits into that mold. The difference is that I don't presume that having a basic understanding of how the game works is something that is limited to only the hardcore players. This, coupled with my awareness that players have demonstrably coped with a worse skill system and respec system for some time without the game imploding, makes me more optimistic about the ability (if not desire) of the general player base to take these changes in stride and thrive.
Cryptic has made no mention so far of lowering or changing the respec cost (Frankly, I don't expect them to), and so far the only mention of anything remotely close is saying that you keep your respec tokens during the change. They have a chance to come out looking like the generous heroes here, or they could come out looking like the money grumbling tight-fisted devs. Their choice really.
If they allow free respecs, or a reduced price on them or alternative method for purchasing, they come off looking like the devs that care about their players. That they are changing their systems to compensate for a massive change that they implemented.
If they keep a 5 dollar respec fee after this change, then well, they pretty much are just validating that common opinion of them. Money, money, money. They are changing this system in order to rake in more from the 5 dollar charge for respecs because that token wasn't a hot seller in the C-Store.
This last line in particular is still incoherent to me - why is it so hard for anyone to articulate what it is about the new skill system that makes people suddenly feel like they just have to respec all the time? The best I've been able to come up with is that the better skill tree is more interesting to players, and thus players feel like a respec has higher perceived value for the cost, but that hardly seems to match with the accusations of punitive money-grubbing behavior that you are accusing them of. They've increased the value of their offer to the consumer, and now customers are more inclined to buy - that's just good salesmanship, not some sort of shady money trap. Again, if you can point to a specific way in which the new trees are actually forcing you to respec more often (something like: "In the past, with this general spec, I could freely swap between these three ships without feeling like I was gimped or under performing. Now, however, because of this specific change to the skills, I can no longer freely change like before because the new skills took away my ability to do 'X' which in turn broke my build for ship 'Y'."), that's one thing, but nobody I've seen thus far has been able to do anything approaching that. It just all seems to be "the new tree has a bunch of cool options, so I want access to all those options without paying anything for it, because how dare Cryptic offer to sell me a service I want for a price I might be willing to pay!
I think you are under valuing the fact that folks are already paying $60.00 or more for multiple ships and are now being asked to pay an additional $5.00 Each & Every Time they want to optimize certain play aspects for those individual ships.
Something that wasn't all that necessary with the old Skill system, but seems so with the way the new skill system is being implemented.
Obviously, there's no way at this point to give you definitive examples of how this new system will eventually work out overall, as They are still in the process of changing and fine-tuning it.
But there is enough info out there already, that has given rise to the concerns that are being voiced in this thread.
Now, multiply that times the larger player-base in general and you can see that it could result in a somewhat drastic change in the way folks make their decisions about buying the new shiny ships (as in lower volume).
You could be completely correct in your assessment of the situation, but it seems that there are enough folks that feel contrary to your idea to at the very least, place a bit of concern toward future sales and overall income from Their biggest money maker, The Ships.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I think you are under valuing the fact that folks are already paying $60.00 or more for multiple ships and are now being asked to pay an additional $5.00 Each & Every Time they want to optimize certain play aspects for those individual ships.
Something that wasn't all that necessary with the old Skill system, but seems so with the way the new skill system is being implemented.
Obviously, there's no way at this point to give you definitive examples of how this new system will eventually work out overall, as They are still in the process of changing and fine-tuning it.
But there is enough info out there already, that has given rise to the concerns that are being voiced in this thread.
Now, multiply that times the larger player-base in general and you can see that it could result in a somewhat drastic change in the way folks make their decisions about buying the new shiny ships (as in lower volume).
You could be completely correct in your assessment of the situation, but it seems that there are enough folks that feel contrary to your idea to at the very least, place a bit of concern toward future sales and overall income from Their biggest money maker, The Ships.
I agree that there's lots and lots of "concern" floating around about how people are going to be forced to respec, but that doesn't mean that those concerns are at all valid. I also don't buy that it is impossible to extrapolate even a hypothetical example of being forced to respec (if such a thing even exists), especially since I was able to come up with several specific examples to demonstrate why respecs probably aren't necessary (and in fact may be counter-productive), including analyzing what I think is the root assumption here - that to spec "right" for a ship you need to max out the corresponding department tree - and why that line of reasoning is almost certainly flawed. I just don't see why it should be true that I can do that and yet the mountains of evidently very concerned players can't even manage to articulate a single example of what exactly they are concerned about?
Further, I don't doubt that if things continue the way they are in the forums, with posters just uncritically repeating the idea that the new tree will "make" people respec more, there will be an outcry when the new system goes live, but that will have more to do with the self-fulfilling prophecy of a critical mass of posters asserting that there is going to be a player meltdown, and not really be indicative of something Cryptic actually did wrong. This is, in fact, one of the most infuriating habits of these boards - the echo-chamber effect is strong here. It takes only a very few repetitions of even the most baseless of accusations, and suddenly the discussion is no longer "Wait, is this even actually a problem?", but rather "OMG Cryptic is at it again!" and then we're off the races as posters compete to be the most creatively outraged over the non-problem they've latched onto.
If any of the posters are truly concerned about providing actual, actionable feedback on why and how, exactly, the skill revamp is going to unfairly force players to start buying more frequent respecs, by all means, please PLEASE present it. I will be your natural ally in advocating fixing those issues, because then everyone wins - you avoid being forced to buy something you don't want, but we also don't lose the sense of consequence and agency that comes with more meaningful player choices.
If, instead, you are simply concerned about avoiding another forum explosion at Cryptic over this, then simply stop uncritically buying into the idea that there is an actual problem until someone can present actual evidence of some kind of the problem actually existing. Bonus points if you can find it within yourself to push back a little when you hear someone else repeating it, and simply say "You know, I've been hearing this claim about being forced to respec under the skill revamp a lot lately, but haven't seen any real explanation about why that is. Can you explain it to me?"
Q: Will the existing pricing of Skill Respec Tokens remain unchanged?
A: To help celebrate the launch of Season 11.5 and the Skill Revamp, we will be holding a promotional sale at that time to reduce the price of Skill Respec Tokens. The exact pricing will be announced at a later date.
Which tells me that they do expect MANY people to make mistakes and have kindly offered a wonderful sale so more people can open their wallets. How nice of them. I don't plan on partaking in any complaints on the general forums, however, I know they will take place. I'm gonna get some popcorn going.
Q: Will the existing pricing of Skill Respec Tokens remain unchanged?
A: To help celebrate the launch of Season 11.5 and the Skill Revamp, we will be holding a promotional sale at that time to reduce the price of Skill Respec Tokens. The exact pricing will be announced at a later date.
Which tells me that they do expect MANY people to make mistakes and have kindly offered a wonderful sale so more people can open their wallets. How nice of them. I don't plan on partaking in any complaints on the general forums, however, I know they will take place. I'm gonna get some popcorn going.
Slap in face for everyone who like to experiment + forcing players to stay in "comfort zone" as long as possible. Good job, mrtshead is very happy now.
I agree with most People here, except the White Knights who have to defend stuff even if its BROKEN or bad for the Players.
We are encouraged to experiment around with different Skills Builds and Ships (esspecially Ships since MONEY) yet at the same time every experiment is charged with 5 Dollars??? Not sure about others but iam not very motivated to do such expensive experiments to often or at all, like many other i also stick to the one ship i have PER character, i have a good amount of characters all flying their uniqe ship, since switching to a completly different ship without Respecing is everything but efficient.
Because of this Issue, personaly my motivation to buy more ships is very low, even so that there are ships / bundles that i really would like to buy too, but if i cant freely switch through them, experiment with them, without being punished by having to pay 5dollars everytime than i gues i pass.
Rep and Species Trait Respecs were made Free, and that was GOOD, Players appreciated it, and it was definately very healthy for the Game, NOW same HAS to be made with the Respec Tokens, its an OUTDATED and BROKEN System, that has NO Place in such a Game where the Game Company wants us to buy more and more Ships, i personaly would be happy to buy ships often, one could say iam a collector and therefore buy all kinds of ships all the time as long as they are ok, BUT seeing that they want to keep that antiquated and player punishing system, i gues i should stick to what i have and for now ignore every new ship.
If you guys want us to buy your Ships than:
-GET RID of those bloody Respec Tokens like you did with the Rep and Species Trait Respec tokens.
-Introduce 1-Click-Skill Loudouts, lets say 1 Additional Loudout for Silver Players (in addition to the active one) and 2 Additional Loudouts for Gold/LTS Players, with the option to buy so and so many more Loudouts from the C-Store, if someone has 20 Ships he could buy 20 Loudouts, GOOD for him and GOOD for you cause MONEY!
WIN WIN for everyone!
Also like many before me mentioned in not just this thread, the Confirm Mechanics in the new system is HORRABLE and definately has to be changed, with the old system, we could put all our points in and at the end CONFIRM, and now we have to confirm after EVERY single point spend? And if we accidentaly spend a point somewhere wrong than its a "5 Dollars Fix Please" or what???
Last but not least the 46 / 10 points are just to tight! Give us atleast 2 more Points for Ground and Space so we have that smidgen more Flexibility, you @borticuscryptic said yourself that you will maybe consider that but that 10 Points (that someone suggested) would be too much, fine and agree iam sure everyone would be fine with just 2 more Points for ground and Space.
Iam sure that there are some points that i forgot but those are some of the really important ones that - as far as i can see - many people complain about and that therefore really should be taken seriously.
Thanks.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event and mission rewards!!
I agree with most People here, except the White Knights who have to defend stuff even if its BROKEN or bad for the Players.
We are encouraged to experiment around with different Skills Builds and Ships (esspecially Ships since MONEY) yet at the same time every experiment is charged with 5 Dollars??? Not sure about others but iam not very motivated to do such expensive experiments to often or at all, like many other i also stick to the one ship i have PER character, i have a good amount of characters all flying their uniqe ship, since switching to a completly different ship without Respecing is everything but efficient.
snip
All the stuff he said.
(I just shortened it for the reply)
Twilight, Particle Physicist that stole the ship.
Original Signup date: August 4, 2008
LTS since Pre-Order
*Edit* Oh, and agnostic, I hope you didn't think your soundbite about pre-FTP was relevant to the discussion - that would make me sad, since that skill system was an entirely different animal (remember having to spec into ship types and weapon types? *brrr*), as well as the fact that when people are paying a regular subscription fee, that can change the economics of such things. Still, I think it's worth pointing out that even in most subscription games, if respecs are offered, they are generally not free. I'm not sure what it is about this game that makes you think it's uniquely necessary that there be no meaningful character build choices such that all respecs must be free, all the time, but your pithy attempts at debate notwithstanding, I don't think you really have a valid argument there.
No, they cost in-game currency in most games. Not cash shop purchases. So basically, they're free.
Tested out the revamp, i don't lose much dps (about 2.5% i think). Will gain resistance (energy and kinetic) +/- 25%. Biggest los will be in power drain, leech console from 2.1 to 1.6 = 23.81%.
The problem is if i want to tinker and get the optimal build for all 18 toons i need lots and lots of respects...
Comments
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE add the ability to test/view build options BEFORE committing them.
Untrue. Someone will always find the most optimal build. Give it time.
The system so far looks like a win for players - we get the same skills and then some. If we choose to specialize completely we get rewarded even more but must make a meaningful sacrifice in return. I plan my skill tree based on playstyle rather than ship and will usually fly a class of similar ships with a toon.
It will be a learning curve for sure bringing some newness to the game and after some testing on Tribble I feel confident once the new system goes live that I can recreate what I have now without issue.
But, for the Love of Spock's brain...PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE add the ability to test/view build options BEFORE committing them.
A thorough help system upon first use.
Documentation on the forums providing example build comparisons and system usage.
Documentation added to the in-game help library for historical reference with examples.
Not every player tests on Tribble (actually, can you even give every single player a Tribble account? wasn't there a limit at some point?)...those players will be thoroughly irritated. Justifiably since I can't recall any large scale recent changes that resulted in a monetary penalty for mistakes.
It would also be a wise investment to provide all players with one skill respec token free when the changes go live.
Oh, good point rekurzion! Yes to all of this - the single box commit more or less works for the spec trees because if you spend a point on the wrong skill, that's mostly just a minor annoyance since you can earn another spec point (and realistically you were probably aiming to fill the whole tree eventually anyway), but for the skill trees it's much more important to fill boxes in and look at the whole picture before committing. The issue is how possible that is with the spec trees folded into the UI as they are right now - can the system actually handle two different purchase confirmation systems in essentially the same UI? If no, then I think we need to go to a system where you plug in points and then commit all at once for both types of trees, instead of committing per box. It's not the end of the world if it doesn't happen by launch, but I think it will end up being one of the most requested QoL improvements.
1. Every step outside "comfort zone" cost $5. Very comfortable.
2. It may be "surprising", but majority of players actually care how do they perform in game. We don't see many endgame players in T3 ships for a reason. Playing underperforming ship is actually "uncomfortable".
3. Making Alt for every build is not an option. People actually have strange thing called "real life" which is effectively preventing them from maxing 5 alts for each faction - They usually have one main character, and one-two extra characters they usually do not develop much (time requirements). Nobody with standard access to free time is going to make alt just to fly different class of starship...
4. There is nothing wrong in paying for stuff in FreeToPlay game, unless You actually BUY SOMETHING. Paying for skill respec in order to make your character fit different ship class is OPPOSITE of this - You are paying for EXCHANGING ability to fly one ship for ability to fly another ship. So You loose Your money AND performance in specific class - and taking it back cost extra money.
5. If I pay $30 for a ship, it is really uncomfortable to pay another $5 for ability of using it at competitive level EVERY TIME I wish pick it.
6. "Exploring new ways of progressing their captain and starship" is already expensive. New ship, new set of weaponry, consoles and equipment, upgrading stuff to MkXIV (not even mentioning rarity improvements), buying abilities for BOFFs, buying unique specialized DOFFs, buying character traits and spaceship traits - all of this have HUGE cost, both in time and money - but unlike respecs, this stuff is permanently added to my inventory. It may become useless, but I have it and I know where my money is. Paid respecs in this situation are extra tax for everyone who wish to "exploring (...)".
7. Paid respecs are extra punishment for players, who wish to experiment with different skills and builds. Failed experiment mean $10 total for returning to previous build. Many players will just abandon any experiments and will stick to their "safe" build and single ship class.
8. Players using many ships from different classes are forced to either keep away from any "exploration", sticking to weak, relatively universal build (15/15/15?), or robe a bank.
9. This system (just like previous system) is punishing new players - they have no experience to make good skill choices, and if they will keep playing this game, they will be forced to buy respec anyway. How many of them will choose abandoning game instead of paying this extra tax?
^This. He gets it.
Not everyone rolls a dozen characters. Some only play a single character. Some like experimenting, some don't. Some google, others (with the new and old system) are punished for not googling the 'best' spec for their intended playstyle.
There are many different playstyles, and this system, new and old alike, punish players for not waiting until the 'best' specs are searchable on google and sticking with those for the duration of that character.
But, hey. Since mrtshead has grown accustomed to it, everyone else needs to as well. I'm sure he'll have more walls of texts to explain why.
Stepping outside your comfort zone should not be construed as carte blanche to make character choices without consequences. The current system, by making some alternatives more compelling, ends up encouraging thoughtful exploration of those alternatives, while allowing players an option to revert back if things don't work out. That's good. A world in which people freely change specs with no consequences at all doesn't encourage the same sort of thoughful exploration, but instead encourages people to make haphazard choices and never really think about or understand what does and doesn't work for them. I put it to you that if you feel like your fun in the post revamp world will require that you are buying more than the very occasional respec, you should take that as a sign that you lack sufficient system mastery, not as a sign that you deserve free access to respecs simply because you want them.
If the majority of players care so much about ingame performance, why are the majority of players are currently so bad at the game? I don't even mean in terms of comparing to the top dps channel people - I'm certainly not one of those, I run a ship that parses around 20k dps on a (very) good day. Nevertheless, the gap between my average performance (which is more than equal to the task of anything on offer in the game right now) and the average performance of the majority of PUG players I encounter is, at times, frankly disheartening. You are right, we don't often see people in tier 3 ships, yet I probably could run a tier 3 ship and as successful (if not more) than the median STO player right now. Certainly with a tier 5 (non-fleet, non-upgraded) ship, that's the case.
Given that, I question the very idea that most players even have a clue about how their performance with a ship stacks up, nor do I believe they have any idea if they are performing about average, over-performing, or under perfoming. Instead, what I think people would do is assume "if I spec every weapon buff in the tac tree, that will maximize my DPS, so that's the only way to spec for this shiny new escort without gimping myself". Note however that I already pointed out how if you (say) run weapons with at least one [Acc] mod right now, and you primarily play PvE (and I'm guessing many, many players fall into the Venn diagram overlap here), then you likely aren't getting nearly as much out of the 3 points you put into the tac tree accuracy skills as you would putting those same 3 points into the sci range fall-off skills, or possibly even the exotic particle skills.
My point is this - what you are trying to do is protect player's mistaken impression that they are performing well with their ships by allowing them to freely respec because it "feels right" to have all the tac boxes checked when you run that shiny new escort carrier, despite the fact that it is almost certainly not the optimal spec. Like my ever-elusive butter fried ice cream bacon taco, this may be what players think they want, but it's not good for them, and they should not get it.
First, again, you don't need to make an alt build for every single ship you want to buy, that's pure nonsense. Most ships aren't different enough from each other to warrant a massive change in spec, and now that so many BOFF abilities are buffed by a relatively small number of skills (or have no skill tree component at all, like attack patterns), there's even less need to adjust skills based on a shift in the available BOFF seating. A player who moves to a cruiser from a sci ship and wants to use a doff enhanced Eject Warp Plasma probably benefits more in terms of overall performance from leaving the "Sci spec" points in control and exotic particles than that player would gain by moving some of those points into hull damage reduction skills just because he wants to try playing a "tank" now - especially since the cruiser probably has room for an armor console or two which makes the dr from skills more or less redundant.
Instead, an alt would be for times when you wanted to try something REALLY different, like maxing cloak skills and trying your hand with a cloak-ganking escort in Ker'rat PvP, just to see if it works, or maybe loading up on hangar pet buffs to see if the lifestyle of a dedicated carrier captian grabs you. Or, maybe, just to see if any of the skill tree ultimates are fun enough to make the build sacrifices needed to spec into them (spoilers: probably not). If even this seems to onerous to you, then I again raise the idea that what you are paying for with a respec is the convenience to not have to do the even that minimal work to try out what is, in effect, an entirely new character, and that seems very reasonable to me.
Again, your fears about performance loss are probably unfounded, and in fact the average player is probably more likely to lose performance through their incompetent attempts to make a new spec for that one specific ship than the would have if they make one well thought out generalist spec and thought about how to adjust things like gear, traits, and ability to bend that general spec to the new ship.
Second, as I noted above, you aren't getting "nothing" for your $5. You are getting, at the very least, the convenience of not having to roll up a new character if you really want to try a radically different playstyle. Beyond that, I find your standard here silly - assuming you do, in fact, enjoy your new ship and new "awesome" spec for it (which probably means assuming you actually do know what you are doing with your spec choices, so, that's a bit of a stretch), then you are paying a small fee for the entertainment value you are getting for that new ship. Say you spend $30 for the ship and $5 for the respec, and get 40-50 hours of play time out of it before you get tired and move on to the next new shiny. That's still probably a much better deal in terms of entertainment value per dollar than seeing a movie. Even Deadpool. And Deadpool was AWESOME.
This is not actually point 5 - it's just points 1-3 put together and repeated. Already answered above.
First, again, you don't need to respec and adjust all of this stuff every time you want a new ship, or even explore a new playstyle. Second the cost vs what you gain argument is addressed above, and since point 7 basically replicates the idea that the respec is a "tax" by calling it a punishment, I'll deal with that below.
So, basically, what you are saying is that paid respecs will encourage players to be more thoughtful about how they approach their character's skill sets, and only those players who have the actual capacity to either
a) at least somewhat accurately judge how a new spec might work for their prefered playstyle or
b) use an alt or a test server character to explore the option relatively risk free
will end up pushing the envelope? Do you promise that's what we'll get? Because that sounds pretty awesome to me! Again, the design intent of encouraging players to explore new playstyles does not (and should not) mean giving people free reign to do thoughtless, haphazard character builds, just because they don't want to be bothered to learn how the game actually works.
A relatively balanced spec like that (pending the specific choices) is almost certainly going to be a better overall performer than any hyper focused spec that tries (for example) to get to the tac tree ultimate power. The fact that this is pretty much obvious to me and seemingly nonsensical to you is proof positive that we need a system that encourages both of us to think carefully about how we choose our skills, because at least one of us is catastrophically wrong about how the game actually works. The problem is, since in most cases the game isn't actually hard enough to provide meaningful feedback on performance (and since I don't PvP anymore and I'm guessing you don't PvP ever, like most players) it's entirely possible that whichever of us is, in fact, wrong, will never know it, and will, in the blissful ignorance of an eloi-like, consequence free skill system, think himself a tiny digital god.
This is frankly not really a problem until the two players end up in the same instance of Borg Disconnected Advanced (or Elite), and Captain All-Tac ('cause that's the best dps, right?!) and his three friends Larry, Curly, and Shemp all end up clustered futilely around a single node, lacking the dps to clear the mobs, the tanking skill (and teamwork skills) to hold aggro on them while a teammate rescues freed borg, or the control abilities to pull the mobs away from the fight long enough to free the borg. Bonus points if they start loudly protesting that the player who is one-manning one (or two, in Advanced) of the other nodes is "not being a team player" or is a "newb" because they (the All-Tac crowd) lack even enough contextual awareness of how the game works to realize that they are the problem. If a lack of free respecs encourages players to build more carefully and more thoughtfully, then that can only serve to help make sure neither one of us ends up having to deal with something like this, and that can really only be a good thing.
And so here we get to the flipside of my argument above, right? Aren't I being an elitist jerk by advocating "punishing" players who don't want to (or "can't") invest the energy into learning the skill system to some minimal level of competence? I'll be honest - yeah, maybe I am being elitist (I'm sure I almost certainly come across as one), but understand that fundamentally it comes from a rather egalitarian impulse. I can (as you might have gleaned from my rather passive-agressive humble-brag above) pretty effectively solo a single node in Borg Disconnected Elite, and can pretty easily solo two nodes (if I have to) in Borg Disconnected Advanced. As far as I can tell, this is a relatively unusual ability amongst the general player base (in that I would estimate that less than half of all current max level players can do the same or better). The fact is, though, my build isn't really anything special - it's a generalist build, it isn't winning any dps races, and while I currently have all Mk XIV epic gear (what can I say, I got bored), I was doing the same thing back when I was still rolling Mk XIV VR rep gear and Fleet XIV UR gear (all of which was relatively cheap to aquire).
My point is that I look at my build, and frankly my own assessment of my skills, and end up thinking "Dude, you're really not anything special", which leads me to wonder why so many players are so much worse than I am. There really seems to be no excuse for it, as far as I can tell, beyond the fact that the game doesn't really require (or even reward) much real skill or effort in learning the game systems. Now we have an updated skill tree that might, in some small way, encourage people to put at least a LITTLE more effort into their build choices, and that strikes me as a good thing. I certainly don't think a better skill tree with a pay-to-respec system will be a panacea for the general malaise of sub-mediocrity that so many players seem content to wallow in, but it can't hurt, either. Thowing out the very thing that seems to be providing the impulse for people to feel "forced" to be more careful with their skill choices thus strkes me as backwards.
If every time a player wants to change to another of their $20 to $30 dollar ships they have already purchased and then optimize their style of play for that particular ship, -is going to cost them $5.00- what do you think the likelihood of most folks doing that continually will be?
Common sense tells us that most likely, they are not going to be willing to do that.
(especially the F2P folks)
Now, once the players catch on to the fact that they will have to spend that extra $5.00 each and every time they change ships, how many ships do you think cryptic will sell?
Again, common sense tells us not very many.
The question becomes, do They want to gain a lot of money for the first few weeks until the player-base catches on, or do They want to make a steady amount of money over the long-haul with the continuation of creating new ships to sell, that large numbers of folks will actually be willing to buy?
I'll let your common sense figure it out for you.
Perhaps They should at least consider a compromise...
Lower the price to Two Dollars/200 ZEN, something that could entice folks to actually consider doing a skill reset.
200 Zen is currently about 60,000 Dilithium on that exchange, not to high to be considered extravagant, but not so low that Cryptic would seem to loose out on the F2P folks.
It's a thought anyway.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Debatable, at best.
Okay? So? Shouldn't the players who DO roll multiple characters in order to try multiple play styles and specs gain the benefits of that effort (at least one of which is the ability to try said styles without paying for a respec)?
Where you see "punishment" for not sticking to hypothetical "optimal" builds, I see encouragement for players to work towards a minimum level of competence with the game systems so they can judge for themselves more accurately what specs actually work for them, and they find fun to play. Your position here seems to be weirdly "If you ain't first, you're last" in its seeming assumption that anything but the absolute 'best' spec is unacceptable. And I thought I was an elitist!
Wow, nicely played - you got me! I always forget that people have very different maximum cognitive loads, and so trying to parse a multifaceted argument across several paragraphs of text simply doesn't work for everyone. I think I did better here, though?
Common sense tells me that the conception that you need to respec in order to optimize every new ship you buy is patently false (just as it is now), such that players will continue to buy ships at a brisk pace (just as they do now). A keen understanding of human nature tells me that most of the people most vocal here about how players will leave en mass if they are not given free respecs will, in fact, be here long after the season 11.5 patch, protesting all the time about how they are being gouged on all the respecs they feel they want but aren't actually buying because they realize they don't need them to play the way they want.
*edit* Sorry, less confrontationally, I think I can put it like this: I think there's a pretty legitimate school of thought which would argue that if long-term player retention is your goal, you get that not by pandering to a lowest-common-denominator sense of "I want all the shiny toys right now and always forever!", but rather by building deeper, more robust mechanisms for player engagement and agency. I think the skill tree revamp is moving in that direction. I think giving everyone endless free respecs would be a massive step backwards on that front. And I think if having faith in the power of better gameplay mechanics as a way to draw and retain players is wrong, then frankly I don't want to be right.
(it was mostly just a clever rhyme)
If one of the objects of this change is to bring in more money, then the likelihood of this succeeding as is, in IMO, probably low at the current cost.
And this large adjustment with the skill tree is going to make people consider changing their build for each ship, whether you think it's necessary or not. (they will think so)
Will they be willing to part with $5 bucks each and every time, I think probably not.
Which IS going to effect ship sales. (why buy another $30 dollar ship when it's just going to cost them $5.00 to fix it the way they want it to be)
So, I guess it'll just come down to how the overall player-base reacts when this hits the Holodeck.
Only time will tell.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
1. Paywall will prevent players of using this system because players don't want to pay for nothing. I won't argue on this statement, it is obvious in every MMO. Players could pay for permament unlocks or for speeding up their progress, not for changing their already bought gear. Imagine World of Tanks where every tank change (including returning to older tank) force You to pay $5 or You will face 20% drop in tanks performance... People would stick to their tanks, and not "experiment", buy things from their "safe" tree only
2. Playing different ships and different builds is integral part of the game (and it is clearly confirmed by developers)- there is no reason to punish players for doing it by performance loose. If You think $5 punishment is justified in case of traits, then why not add same punishment everytime You wish to change ship gear? You wish to replace turret with beam bank - buy "ship reequip token". Or Boffs replacement - wish to kick someone from slot or change his abilities, buy "ship recrew token". All Your arguments will be valid in this situation too...
3. Do You have any idea why Genetic Refrequencers were removed? Was it good or bad decision?
4. What is the reason of skill system revamp? "With these new options spread across all Engineering, Science and Tactical sections of the Space Skill Tree, we anticipate players feeling many compelling reasons to step outside of their usual comfort zone and perhaps even exploring new ways of progressing their captain and starship." Not "Make players pay every time they wish to experiment with different class or build"
5. Nobody force you to adjust Your build to Your playstyle. You wish to use battlecruiser build for science ship to make Your decisions "meaningful" - go on. You wish to play underperforming ship, not able to use it's potential? It's ok. You wish to pay extra for every single mistake in character development, instead of spending this money on ships and stuff - no problem. But please, do not defend counter-productive mechanics everyone find broken. If You wish to limit Yourself - do it. Do not force anyone to find enjoyment in paying multiple times for things they already bought, or finding fun in facing own mistakes.
You can make most ships work for your toons. Would you seriously buy a ship to use that was miles away from ideal for you to use as your main ship? I find this whole idea that you'll have to respec when switching ships mental. It's just not going to happen and ship sales will not be affected by it at all.
I buy ships for the trait, cause it optimises a build best or cause it's pretty and I want to space barbie. Do people get them for other reasons?
There needs to be something. All I hear is people saying they are going to stop buying certain ships due to being locked into a type.
This new system reminds me of how it was on launch, where you could only spec into a particular ship.
If you wanted to try something different, you had to respec...
Entire concept of paying for nothing is broken. Natural things people buy in MMO are:
- permanent service unlocks, like garage spaces (and you can softly "force" players to buy it, by giving them free items)
- items&equipment (permanent things, so If I buy it, It is mine forever - unless I, for example, sell it)
- player development accelerators (all these "bonus XP" etc. allowing players to save their time)
Forcing players to pay for things they already have is TRIBBLE concept. If You are changing build to fit the ship You've already sacrificed one build to get another - there is no profit for player. If it cost $5, you are not only paying for making ship useful, you are also sacrificing your performance on another ship. It's like paying $2 for replacing turret with beam bank ("reequip token?") - summary You gain nothing, but You need to pay. Mrtshead will say it is "decision making and consequences", but I call it making paywall and reducing fun from game, effectively cutting part of content from players (paying for equipment changes will force them to stay with one set of equipment much, much longer, also limiting their other choices, like BOFF settings).
It is bad for game (tons of artificial limitations), bad for players (being forced to pay for nothing is not "comfortable") and bad for developers (since it will reduce ship sales, because a lot of ships will be unusable at optimal level without huge further expenses).
I congratulate you on at least being steadfast in your assertion that you won't participate in an argument on this point, because you frankly haven't. I answered your contention that respecs have no value at great length already. To recap: You're paying for the convenience of not having to roll up an alt to try something completely new, as well as paying a price for the entertainment value of having effectively an entirely new character after you've gotten board with your current one. Both those things have value.
FYI the nearest analog I can find to a character skills respec in World of Tanks (after a brief look at their wiki) is the idea of changing crew skills and perks, which according to the wiki you can do for "free" at a loss of 20% of their total earned xp, for the in-game credits for a 10% loss of earned xp, or for no loss of xp at all by paying 200 gold (which is their currency you buy with real world money). I feel that if you think it's an obvious and common practice in "every MMO" that players won't pay for respecs, you should maybe start by demonstrating at least one example for which it is true that respecs exist and are actually free.
Wait, what? All my arguments for why you don't actually have any real need to pay for a respec to run a new ship effectively (complete with at least a few examples of exactly why I was asserting that was true, and why your perception to the contrary was probably mistaken) will apply just as much as justifications for why you should have to pay to change everything else? Really? Hmm.
Let me be crystal clear. You do not actually need to respec every time you change ships, so no, point blank my arguments don't work equally well for any of the other situations you ginned up here. I really feel I have to ask - did you actually read what I wrote, and do you feel that you actually understood it, or are you (as I think it's clear I suspect) merely angrily doubling down on your fanciful assertions without regard for my responses?
At last, you said something that isn't simply a non-responsive regurgitation of your already answered positions! Huzzah!
To answer your question, I have an idea why, yes. I also have an idea why YOU think it was done. I also also think there are some very good reasons why the traits system and character skills systems aren't really analogous, and why your attempt to argue otherwise is probably not actually the path you want the game to go down, namely that if you think captain skills should actually be treated like traits are now, you are functionally saying that you want Cryptic to give you free unlimited skills respecs, but you also want them to put new skills in the game on a regular basis, primarily via lock box rewards. Is that, in fact, what you want?
Oh, and on the off chance that you do, in fact, end up thinking that putting new skill trees in lock boxes sounds awesome, I think you might want to consider if that's even a practical idea - what kind of design space do you think there is for new skills relative to the design space for new traits?
Again, none of this is responsive to the actual discussion, because you just keep repeating your false assertion that not being able to freely respec for each ship you own will somehow result in an overall performance loss. You have not established that the central assumption of your position has any basis in reality. Indeed, I believe you cannot establish this. I get that its "obvious" to you that you are right, but I went to great (some would say self-indulgent) lengths to lay out my reasoning for why your perception on this was likely flawed. Unless you are able to articulate some specific examples of how not burning a respec for a new ship results in an over performance loss relative to a more generalized skill spec, then you don't seem to have much of an argument.
Oh, and if you actually did read my last response please note that I specifically called out cloaking and carrier focused play styles as two examples of times when a respec might be worth it, so neither of those examples actually gets you anywhere productive for your side of the argument.
PS Just as a quick reminder since it seems you might have missed these points as well: I don't think encouraging players to be more mindful of the consequences of their character build choices is actually incompatible with the goal of encouraging players to branch out and explore in thoughtful ways, and I also think a world in which players are driven to be more thoughtful in how they approach their character builds out of fear of a respec cost is better than the alternative of a world in which players continue to have absolutely no freaking idea what they are doing. Thus, insofar as you're right that respec costs encourage players to be cautious (or, as I would characterize it, thoughtful), I think that's actively a good thing.
LOL. Note the part I've bolded here - do you not get that functionally this is exactly what a respec IS? A respec is a way to take a character you already have at max level and change it into another, different max level character, all without the pesky business of having to roll up a new character and do things like grind levels, spec trees, and reputations. I agree with you 100% that players are naturally willing to pay for that kind of convenience.
Also, just because I think it's vitally important to kill your misinformation everywhere it pops up: You don't currently need to generally respec to switch ships, and there's no reason to feel that you have to respec generally to switch ships post the revamp, and further if you do try to respec for each ship, you are more likely to end up actually being more sub-optimal and inefficient than if you had just picked one careful generalist build in the first place.
In precisely what manner does the revamped skill tree actually remind you of the old system of having to spec into a particular ship (and weapon type, if you remember correctly)? If you've actually got a detailed example, I would say you have a responsibility to share that feedback, so it can actually be evaluated. If you DON'T have a detailed example, and instead are simply buying into the nascent forums echo-chamber on this point (as evinced by your assertion that you only hear people claiming they won't buy ships anymore, despite at least two explicit examples of posters in this thread who disagree with that sentiment), then to be honest I feel like you have a responsibility to step back and actually examine if the claim you are espousing is even true.
Imagine a new player coming into the game for the first time. Imagine them having no idea that a subscription for this game even exists (because you seriously have to know what you're looking for to find it). They have no idea that respec tokens exist until they reach a high enough level to figure out how bad they messed up their build. Now, are they screwed? Well, yes, yes they are.
mrtshead, says this is justified and he has adapted, so get used to it Mr. New player!
Now, imagine an old Vet returning from the game in hopes of change (You have to admit this is a big change). They come back, see they have to respec their old main character. They do, then realize that gameplay has changed or they decide that the gameplay they thought they liked has changed and now they want to respec. Are they screwed? Yes, yes they are.
Now, for once, imagine that not every single player is a dedicated veteran of the game and diehard Star Trek junkie, I know for you it may take a bit, but try anyway. If cryptic caters just to that one type of player, eventually, that's all that will be left, and realistically, that's not much.
Cryptic has made no mention so far of lowering or changing the respec cost (Frankly, I don't expect them to), and so far the only mention of anything remotely close is saying that you keep your respec tokens during the change. They have a chance to come out looking like the generous heroes here, or they could come out looking like the money grumbling tight-fisted devs. Their choice really.
If they allow free respecs, or a reduced price on them or alternative method for purchasing, they come off looking like the devs that care about their players. That they are changing their systems to compensate for a massive change that they implemented.
If they keep a 5 dollar respec fee after this change, then well, they pretty much are just validating that common opinion of them. Money, money, money. They are changing this system in order to rake in more from the 5 dollar charge for respecs because that token wasn't a hot seller in the C-Store.
1. Add skill tree loadouts. Give silver players one slot per character and gold members 2, and sell all members the option of buying more for Zen. Even at a cost comparable to a brand new ship, you would still have buyers. Silver can have 2 max, Gold 3 or 4. (This could even be paired with having it cost to switch loadouts and still be a worthwhile purchase.)
2. Sell a discounted pair of respec tokens, or drop the price of single tokens (or both). This helps with the named goal of encouraging experimentation, including for those of us who will usually - but not always - wait patiently for our dilithium supply to make things affordable.
3. Give all initial characters on an account (and all new characters for a gold member) a free respec token at level 50 or 60. This will allow for new players to have a learning curve without penalty, and may also encourage the use of respec tokens: it makes them feel like part of the game and not something to be used only in exceptional circumstances.
Are they more screwed than a new player who started anytime since the last skill revamp? I put it to you that they are not, given that the new skill trees generally have better documentation (allowing for more informed choice), have skills that offer more functionality (such as the combined science powers) and have fewer trap options overall. This is a pretty significant problem for your side, since the fact that the game has empirically not collapsed due to rampant player losses or a widespread refusal to buy new ships makes the suggestion that those events would happen in the post-revamp world questionable, at best. Thus far it remains true that nobody seems to be able to articulate why, precisely, the new skill trees are going to suddenly make it impossible to roll with the kind of generalized spec that we've gotten used to, and instead it seems that there's just this somewhat mystical appeal to "everyone knows". Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the empirical data that suggests that players are pretty okay with not buying respecs every time they buy a new ship, and I prefer my clearly exampled reasons for why that will likely not change with the new system. To sum up: The problem you are worried about isn't really uniquely a new problem with the new system, and in fact hasn't historically really been a problem at all, so the concern seems misplaced at best.
Not actually what I said at all, but I understand that it's much easier to respond emotionally to the big mean ol' elitist veteran than it is to engage with the egalitarian underpinnings of my philosophy here, which basically asserts that anyone who puts in a modicum of effort can develop the base level of competence needed to make informed judgments about how to build a character to allow for effective play with a wide variety of ships/powers. A move to remove consequences from the equation would be simply removing another incentive for players to develop that competence, to the detriment of the game as a whole.
Again, are they MORE "screwed" by the new system than they were by the old system? No, no they are not. In fact, if anything, they are better off, so, again, your argument fails to establish even a prima facia cause for concern. It's as if it had been raining for years, but now that the rain shows some signs of slackening a little bit, suddenly now the price of umbrellas is a problem.
See above - I don't consider myself either a dedicated veteran or a diehard Star Trek junkie. I consider myself a resolutely average specimen as far as gaming ability goes, so it's actually trivially easy for me to imagine that not everyone fits into that mold. The difference is that I don't presume that having a basic understanding of how the game works is something that is limited to only the hardcore players. This, coupled with my awareness that players have demonstrably coped with a worse skill system and respec system for some time without the game imploding, makes me more optimistic about the ability (if not desire) of the general player base to take these changes in stride and thrive.
This last line in particular is still incoherent to me - why is it so hard for anyone to articulate what it is about the new skill system that makes people suddenly feel like they just have to respec all the time? The best I've been able to come up with is that the better skill tree is more interesting to players, and thus players feel like a respec has higher perceived value for the cost, but that hardly seems to match with the accusations of punitive money-grubbing behavior that you are accusing them of. They've increased the value of their offer to the consumer, and now customers are more inclined to buy - that's just good salesmanship, not some sort of shady money trap. Again, if you can point to a specific way in which the new trees are actually forcing you to respec more often (something like: "In the past, with this general spec, I could freely swap between these three ships without feeling like I was gimped or under performing. Now, however, because of this specific change to the skills, I can no longer freely change like before because the new skills took away my ability to do 'X' which in turn broke my build for ship 'Y'."), that's one thing, but nobody I've seen thus far has been able to do anything approaching that. It just all seems to be "the new tree has a bunch of cool options, so I want access to all those options without paying anything for it, because how dare Cryptic offer to sell me a service I want for a price I might be willing to pay!
Yes the new system leads to the possibility of requiring more respecs because you can't preview the whole tree full like before so hopefully, the price for a respec will be lowered a bit.
That being said, the way the new tree works, it's probably way harder for there to be one of those TRIBBLE ups that force devs to issue respecs to everyone for free so it's a plus for them. Also, making it function like the specialization tree makes the skill UI more uniform.
I think you are under valuing the fact that folks are already paying $60.00 or more for multiple ships and are now being asked to pay an additional $5.00 Each & Every Time they want to optimize certain play aspects for those individual ships.
Something that wasn't all that necessary with the old Skill system, but seems so with the way the new skill system is being implemented.
Obviously, there's no way at this point to give you definitive examples of how this new system will eventually work out overall, as They are still in the process of changing and fine-tuning it.
But there is enough info out there already, that has given rise to the concerns that are being voiced in this thread.
Now, multiply that times the larger player-base in general and you can see that it could result in a somewhat drastic change in the way folks make their decisions about buying the new shiny ships (as in lower volume).
You could be completely correct in your assessment of the situation, but it seems that there are enough folks that feel contrary to your idea to at the very least, place a bit of concern toward future sales and overall income from Their biggest money maker, The Ships.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I agree that there's lots and lots of "concern" floating around about how people are going to be forced to respec, but that doesn't mean that those concerns are at all valid. I also don't buy that it is impossible to extrapolate even a hypothetical example of being forced to respec (if such a thing even exists), especially since I was able to come up with several specific examples to demonstrate why respecs probably aren't necessary (and in fact may be counter-productive), including analyzing what I think is the root assumption here - that to spec "right" for a ship you need to max out the corresponding department tree - and why that line of reasoning is almost certainly flawed. I just don't see why it should be true that I can do that and yet the mountains of evidently very concerned players can't even manage to articulate a single example of what exactly they are concerned about?
Further, I don't doubt that if things continue the way they are in the forums, with posters just uncritically repeating the idea that the new tree will "make" people respec more, there will be an outcry when the new system goes live, but that will have more to do with the self-fulfilling prophecy of a critical mass of posters asserting that there is going to be a player meltdown, and not really be indicative of something Cryptic actually did wrong. This is, in fact, one of the most infuriating habits of these boards - the echo-chamber effect is strong here. It takes only a very few repetitions of even the most baseless of accusations, and suddenly the discussion is no longer "Wait, is this even actually a problem?", but rather "OMG Cryptic is at it again!" and then we're off the races as posters compete to be the most creatively outraged over the non-problem they've latched onto.
If any of the posters are truly concerned about providing actual, actionable feedback on why and how, exactly, the skill revamp is going to unfairly force players to start buying more frequent respecs, by all means, please PLEASE present it. I will be your natural ally in advocating fixing those issues, because then everyone wins - you avoid being forced to buy something you don't want, but we also don't lose the sense of consequence and agency that comes with more meaningful player choices.
If, instead, you are simply concerned about avoiding another forum explosion at Cryptic over this, then simply stop uncritically buying into the idea that there is an actual problem until someone can present actual evidence of some kind of the problem actually existing. Bonus points if you can find it within yourself to push back a little when you hear someone else repeating it, and simply say "You know, I've been hearing this claim about being forced to respec under the skill revamp a lot lately, but haven't seen any real explanation about why that is. Can you explain it to me?"
Q: Will the existing pricing of Skill Respec Tokens remain unchanged?
A: To help celebrate the launch of Season 11.5 and the Skill Revamp, we will be holding a promotional sale at that time to reduce the price of Skill Respec Tokens. The exact pricing will be announced at a later date.
Which tells me that they do expect MANY people to make mistakes and have kindly offered a wonderful sale so more people can open their wallets. How nice of them. I don't plan on partaking in any complaints on the general forums, however, I know they will take place. I'm gonna get some popcorn going.
Slap in face for everyone who like to experiment + forcing players to stay in "comfort zone" as long as possible. Good job, mrtshead is very happy now.
We are encouraged to experiment around with different Skills Builds and Ships (esspecially Ships since MONEY) yet at the same time every experiment is charged with 5 Dollars??? Not sure about others but iam not very motivated to do such expensive experiments to often or at all, like many other i also stick to the one ship i have PER character, i have a good amount of characters all flying their uniqe ship, since switching to a completly different ship without Respecing is everything but efficient.
Because of this Issue, personaly my motivation to buy more ships is very low, even so that there are ships / bundles that i really would like to buy too, but if i cant freely switch through them, experiment with them, without being punished by having to pay 5dollars everytime than i gues i pass.
Rep and Species Trait Respecs were made Free, and that was GOOD, Players appreciated it, and it was definately very healthy for the Game, NOW same HAS to be made with the Respec Tokens, its an OUTDATED and BROKEN System, that has NO Place in such a Game where the Game Company wants us to buy more and more Ships, i personaly would be happy to buy ships often, one could say iam a collector and therefore buy all kinds of ships all the time as long as they are ok, BUT seeing that they want to keep that antiquated and player punishing system, i gues i should stick to what i have and for now ignore every new ship.
If you guys want us to buy your Ships than:
-GET RID of those bloody Respec Tokens like you did with the Rep and Species Trait Respec tokens.
-Introduce 1-Click-Skill Loudouts, lets say 1 Additional Loudout for Silver Players (in addition to the active one) and 2 Additional Loudouts for Gold/LTS Players, with the option to buy so and so many more Loudouts from the C-Store, if someone has 20 Ships he could buy 20 Loudouts, GOOD for him and GOOD for you cause MONEY!
WIN WIN for everyone!
Also like many before me mentioned in not just this thread, the Confirm Mechanics in the new system is HORRABLE and definately has to be changed, with the old system, we could put all our points in and at the end CONFIRM, and now we have to confirm after EVERY single point spend? And if we accidentaly spend a point somewhere wrong than its a "5 Dollars Fix Please" or what???
Last but not least the 46 / 10 points are just to tight! Give us atleast 2 more Points for Ground and Space so we have that smidgen more Flexibility, you @borticuscryptic said yourself that you will maybe consider that but that 10 Points (that someone suggested) would be too much, fine and agree iam sure everyone would be fine with just 2 more Points for ground and Space.
Iam sure that there are some points that i forgot but those are some of the really important ones that - as far as i can see - many people complain about and that therefore really should be taken seriously.
Thanks.
All the stuff he said.
(I just shortened it for the reply)
Twilight, Particle Physicist that stole the ship.
Original Signup date: August 4, 2008
LTS since Pre-Order
The problem is if i want to tinker and get the optimal build for all 18 toons i need lots and lots of respects...