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Documentation added to the in-game help library for historical reference with examples.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.
This exact thing is the reason im here on the forum today. Just logged on to tribble to have a look at the new system and the VERY FIRST THING i notice is that you have to lock in every skill before continuing.
This system does NOT WORK FOR SKILL TREES!
You need the ability to see where your points can and cant be spent, and how far they will go, before you are forced to commit to thier location. Devs have said they want it harder to make big mistakes in builds for new players, well this is the single worst thing you could do for that goal, and it will mean that nearly every single new player WILL mess up thier build. Yes it needs to happen before the system goes live or there will be even more mistakes made with skill builds than there is currently.
It really is the end of the world if it doesnt happen before launch though. At least is is for me. Im not going to sit with a calculator for an hour or 2 just to figure out my skill build, or spend hours deleting and reloading my character onto Tribble, assuming the server is even available after this goes live. No, Ill just stop playing the game until a third party site designs a skill planner.
Even then, the cynic in me will have already seen this design as a deliberate play to force more sales of respec tokens and ill wonder if I have enough respect left to bother. Yes, it needs to happen before the system goes live or devs will just look like money grabbing scum.
Devs please get this fixed and onto Tribble ASAP. I cant even test for you right now cause im not going to delete and re transfer my character 30 times before I even get to the point I can leave Spacedock.
The ability to fill in your points and build your tree before committing your points is essential and has been standard in MMOs for a long time (including this one). Changing things to a point by point basis feels really hack-kneed and backwards and ultimately, unjustifiable. I look forward to this over-site being rectified before the revamp hits Holodeck.
As for this side argument regarding the perceived need to re-spec when changing ships; that thought process is truly baffling to me. What is it that's so different in the new skill tree over the old one that people suddenly feel like they're going to have to respec constantly? I was able to switch to Escorts as an Engi Capt. before and will still be able to with the same trade-offs I had to make before. When flying one of my Escorts over a Cruiser, I just switch up my gear/traits/DOffs/active specs/BOff skills in order to add more DPS oriented utility, as required. You know, all the stuff the Load-Outs allow you to quickly change.
Is it that people want infinite respecs so that they no longer have to make any sacrifices being a Tac Captain in Sci ship? I suspect that's the reason for more than a few of the complaints. There was never enough points to max out all of the available Sci and Tac skills anyways so what is it now that's going to require all this respec'ing in order to be effective?
Bottom line - if you didn't need to respec constantly before, you sure don't need to now. Especially given that some skills have been consolidated for Pete's sake. By all means, prove me wrong, but you're going to need actual proof and examples beyond 'but lots of people are complaining'.
You are completely wrong.
Cryptic has in their very own words explicitly stated that they "want" people to experiment and leave their comfort zone.
Heck, I have wanted to leave my comfort zone and experiment, but its just to damn expensive, so I stick with what works for me and ignored all C-Store ships that do not fit my spec, no matter how much I would like to fly them.
So "if you didn't need to respec constantly before, you sure don't need to now." is nothing but pure nonsense.
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." - Q
The ability to fill in your points and build your tree before committing your points is essential and has been standard in MMOs for a long time (including this one). Changing things to a point by point basis feels really hack-kneed and backwards and ultimately, unjustifiable. I look forward to this over-site being rectified before the revamp hits Holodeck.
As for this side argument regarding the perceived need to re-spec when changing ships; that thought process is truly baffling to me. What is it that's so different in the new skill tree over the old one that people suddenly feel like they're going to have to respec constantly? I was able to switch to Escorts as an Engi Capt. before and will still be able to with the same trade-offs I had to make before. When flying one of my Escorts over a Cruiser, I just switch up my gear/traits/DOffs/active specs/BOff skills in order to add more DPS oriented utility, as required. You know, all the stuff the Load-Outs allow you to quickly change.
Is it that people want infinite respecs so that they no longer have to make any sacrifices being a Tac Captain in Sci ship? I suspect that's the reason for more than a few of the complaints. There was never enough points to max out all of the available Sci and Tac skills anyways so what is it now that's going to require all this respec'ing in order to be effective?
Bottom line - if you didn't need to respec constantly before, you sure don't need to now. Especially given that some skills have been consolidated for Pete's sake. By all means, prove me wrong, but you're going to need actual proof and examples beyond 'but lots of people are complaining'.
i gues on some parts of the world, common sense is something rare......
People dont feel SUDDENLY that they have to respec if switching to a vastly different type of ship, that was the case with the old system and will be the case with the new system, and in both systems it is a pain in the you know where having to pay for something so BASIC like respecing. Fine if you were able to switch from Escorts to Cruisers with only switching your gear/traits/doffs/active specs/boff skills and so on, if that works for you than we are happy for you, BUT dont assume that others are ok with just that, believe it or not, but i hear rumors that there are actually also people out there that like to use the FULL Potential of a Ship that they fly, unbelivable huh?
If i switch from a TAC Heavy Ship to a ENG Heavy Ship and than to a SCI Heavy Ship, a Jack of all Trades Build may be OK, BUT you know i and iam pretty sure MANY MORE would like to perform more than just OK, and its mind boggling why some people have so much trouble understanding something so simple? again, lack of common sense???
What do i need anything Part / Gravi Generator releated on a TAC Heavy Ship were the most Science stuff i use is maybe Science Team 1/2 and/or Hazard Team 1/2???? What does someone need who can DPS everything into the Ground in a few Seconds with stuff like Drain Expertise???
Some People build all their stuff around HEAVY Science shutting down and murdering everything with their Science powers and less relying on their Weapons, WHAT do they need full Points in Weapons for? Many of such Sci Heavy Build dont even have Torps, what do they need anything torp releated for???
The New Trees that reduce recharge Time of Tac/Eng and Sci, a sci will put points in the sci tree, eng in the eng tree and tac in the tac tree, putting either one or none in the others, why put more in those if you only have maybe 2-3 Powers of the other Carrers?
Those are just a few examples of why your logic is BADLY Flawed, same goes for people who think like you.
Bottom line - we needed to respec before for new ships and thats why we sure will need it with the new system. By all means i JUST Proved you wrong like you asked, funny thing is, many others allready proved you wrong before me.
So the Request that so many made is still absolutely justified and Valid:
-Respec Tokens have to GO, its just WRONG asking to pay for that, if at the same time selling us new ships all the time
and also encouraging us to try out new stuff and get out of our "Safe Zone", well dont expect me to leave my "Safe Zone" if you are charging me for that.
-1-Click-Skill Loudouts are definately needed, 1 additional loudout for Silver and 2 for Gold/LTS for example, and than sell us more from the C-Store, anyone who looses anything here? NO, any Winners? YES, who? EVERYONE!
and i dont think that i really have to mention the horrable point by point confirm system here again, since it looks like everyone agrees that it has to be changed, or else i can forsee many many frustrated and angry Players, both veterans and new Player.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event and mission rewards!!
You are completely wrong.
Cryptic has in their very own words explicitly stated that they "want" people to experiment and leave their comfort zone.
Heck, I have wanted to leave my comfort zone and experiment, but its just to damn expensive, so I stick with what works for me and ignored all C-Store ships that do not fit my spec, no matter how much I would like to fly them.
So "if you didn't need to respec constantly before, you sure don't need to now." is nothing but pure nonsense.
First, you still can't actually demonstrate an example that shows WHY you think you need to respec constantly, and have been given at least a few examples of why you actually don't. At this point, it's really either put up, or shut up. At best for you, your argument here establishes that Cryptic has not succeeded in a design goal of attempting to encourage you to think about alternate build styles. To be honest, if that's true, that's sad, but not because it shows a failure on CRYPTIC'S side.
Second, I don't understand why people keep thinking that Cryptic wanting people to experiment means "Cryptic wants people to constantly change specs". They want you to feel like there are interesting options that you might not have considered before. They want you to think about things like "do I really need more accuracy in my build, or should I go with the sci range damage skills?" such that you make more informed and better choices about how you play the game. They are NOT anticipating that you will say "Okay, let me try with one box in accuracy, and two boxes in ranged, and see what that does... alright, now let me pay $5 and try two boxes accuracy, one box in ranged..." and so on. You are supposed to be able to think about what you want to do with your ship, and how to accomplish those goals as efficiently as possible with the skill tree.
You are completely wrong.
Cryptic has in their very own words explicitly stated that they "want" people to experiment and leave their comfort zone.
Heck, I have wanted to leave my comfort zone and experiment, but its just to damn expensive, so I stick with what works for me and ignored all C-Store ships that do not fit my spec, no matter how much I would like to fly them.
So "if you didn't need to respec constantly before, you sure don't need to now." is nothing but pure nonsense.
First, you still can't actually demonstrate an example that shows WHY you think you need to respec constantly, and have been given at least a few examples of why you actually don't. At this point, it's really either put up, or shut up. At best for you, your argument here establishes that Cryptic has not succeeded in a design goal of attempting to encourage you to think about alternate build styles. To be honest, if that's true, that's sad, but not because it shows a failure on CRYPTIC'S side.
Second, I don't understand why people keep thinking that Cryptic wanting people to experiment means "Cryptic wants people to constantly change specs". They want you to feel like there are interesting options that you might not have considered before. They want you to think about things like "do I really need more accuracy in my build, or should I go with the sci range damage skills?" such that you make more informed and better choices about how you play the game. They are NOT anticipating that you will say "Okay, let me try with one box in accuracy, and two boxes in ranged, and see what that does... alright, now let me pay $5 and try two boxes accuracy, one box in ranged..." and so on. You are supposed to be able to think about what you want to do with your ship, and how to accomplish those goals as efficiently as possible with the skill tree.
its so funny how only 2 People here defend that Broken and Outdated System, when EVERYONE else agrees that it should GO, gues why? cause you 2 know everything better than anyone else? i dont think so? i gues its more because you dont tinker around with stuff to much, you have your basic setup and go through everything with that, works for you? fine, but as i said to the second person who also defends that nonense, DONT assume that everyone else thinks the same, WE like to Finetune stuff, we like to use our stuff to the best possible potential.
"At this point, it's really either put up, or shut up." well said.
you know, this is very valid for people who are fine with what they have, you have nothing to complain? than you should follow your own words, but everyone else HAS something to complain, in fact its the majority vs the minority whos fine with everything, you guys are minimalistic, nothing wrong with that, have fun, BUT others are NOT, deal with it, and move on if everything is fine for you.
by the way, i gave enough examples, of whys, everyone who can read can understand IF he wants to understand.
But some people just like to defend stuff no matter what it is, just because they can.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event and mission rewards!!
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!
You are completely wrong.
Cryptic has in their very own words explicitly stated that they "want" people to experiment and leave their comfort zone.
Heck, I have wanted to leave my comfort zone and experiment, but its just to damn expensive, so I stick with what works for me and ignored all C-Store ships that do not fit my spec, no matter how much I would like to fly them.
So "if you didn't need to respec constantly before, you sure don't need to now." is nothing but pure nonsense.
First, you still can't actually demonstrate an example that shows WHY you think you need to respec constantly, and have been given at least a few examples of why you actually don't. At this point, it's really either put up, or shut up. At best for you, your argument here establishes that Cryptic has not succeeded in a design goal of attempting to encourage you to think about alternate build styles. To be honest, if that's true, that's sad, but not because it shows a failure on CRYPTIC'S side.
Second, I don't understand why people keep thinking that Cryptic wanting people to experiment means "Cryptic wants people to constantly change specs". They want you to feel like there are interesting options that you might not have considered before. They want you to think about things like "do I really need more accuracy in my build, or should I go with the sci range damage skills?" such that you make more informed and better choices about how you play the game. They are NOT anticipating that you will say "Okay, let me try with one box in accuracy, and two boxes in ranged, and see what that does... alright, now let me pay $5 and try two boxes accuracy, one box in ranged..." and so on. You are supposed to be able to think about what you want to do with your ship, and how to accomplish those goals as efficiently as possible with the skill tree.
You don't have to understand it.
Many folks don't feel the way you do and what ever their reasons are, they are just as valid as your thinking that a "middle-of-the-road" build is enough.
Your constant attempts to shrug them off as being inconsequential, is impertinent and borders on being downright rude.
<shrug>
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 gues on some parts of the world, common sense is something rare......
Given that the standard definition of "common sense" seems to be "The false beliefs I uncritically accept because it is more emotionally satisfying than using my reason", I think we can only WISH common sense was rare around here.
People dont feel SUDDENLY that they have to respec if switching to a vastly different type of ship, that was the case with the old system and will be the case with the new system, and in both systems it is a pain in the you know where having to pay for something so BASIC like respecing. Fine if you were able to switch from Escorts to Cruisers with only switching your gear/traits/doffs/active specs/boff skills and so on, if that works for you than we are happy for you, BUT dont assume that others are ok with just that, believe it or not, but i hear rumors that there are actually also people out there that like to use the FULL Potential of a Ship that they fly, unbelivable huh?
It is unbelievable, actually, given that for all that people say they want to get the full potential of their ships, so few seem willing or able to actually reason out what that means, and instead, as you did, they just assume that putting all their skill points into one area the are "maximizing potential" instead of thinking about the overall performance trade-offs they are making. I'm willing to bet that in actual practice whatever tweaking you think you'd be doing to optimize your ship between runs is actually serving to decrease your overall performance, but because the game isn't hard enough for that to matter, you "feel" like you've been more successful, so you never realize that you've gimped yourself.
Oh, and I didn't see any huge outcry over a vital need to have free respecs in the past, nor does it appear that people have historically refused to buy the new shiny ships when they come out, so again, there's no evidence that there's actually a reason for people to be upset about not getting them now.
If i switch from a TAC Heavy Ship to a ENG Heavy Ship and than to a SCI Heavy Ship, a Jack of all Trades Build may be OK, BUT you know i and iam pretty sure MANY MORE would like to perform more than just OK, and its mind boggling why some people have so much trouble understanding something so simple? again, lack of common sense???
Yes, it is "common sense" that you would need to respec for those changes, because it is "common sense" that the best spec for a cruiser is always max points into the eng skills, for a sci ship is max points into sci skills, etc. It is ACTUAL sense to realize that every ship can benefit from certain basic skills across all three trees, and that once you have those basics covered, you have plenty left to play with to customize to your preferred BOFF abilities. Let me demonstrate:
What do i need anything Part / Gravi Generator releated on a TAC Heavy Ship were the most Science stuff i use is maybe Science Team 1/2 and/or Hazard Team 1/2???? What does someone need who can DPS everything into the Ground in a few Seconds with stuff like Drain Expertise???
First, in the new system you might want those skills because they also now come with control resistance an drain resistance built in, which is nice to have, and is actually a pretty stellar example of how the new system rewards well-made generalist builds even more. Second, you might want those skills because despite the fact that you don't want to admit it, you would probably be overall more useful on STFs and more capable of finishing missions quickly if you build a LITTLE control or a LITTLE drain, at least, in your build (for example, you might be running plasmonic leech already, so maybe drain could help you get a little more out of that).
Some People build all their stuff around HEAVY Science shutting down and murdering everything with their Science powers and less relying on their Weapons, WHAT do they need full Points in Weapons for? Many of such Sci Heavy Build dont even have Torps, what do they need anything torp releated for???
Wait, wait, wait. I don't think you know what you're talking about. Sci ships DO (or should) tend to run torps more often, actually, precisely because they want to put more energy into Aux and less into weapons, so torps (which don't depend on weapon power for their damage) make more sense. Couple that with the fact that a Sci build probably has at least a few ways to strip shields and adding some torps is likely a better investment than a pure energy weapons build.
Second, to your actual question about why you would put points into weapons for a sci build:
Because putting points into weapons does more for your overall performance than putting more points into science (it's worth noting that with only 9 total points into science you've actually maxed your offensive power from science abilities, because you've maxed the drain, control, and particle trees, and you've gotten the defenses against those powers too!). Instead of continuing to pour points into the science tree because you're running a sci ship, once you get to 9 points (7, really, if you don't care about the funky new drain/control side effects), you should ask things like "Do I really need more shield capacity, shield healing, shield regen AND shield hardness? Or does it make sense to put some of those points over into weapons?" Of course, you probably should also look at the range-drop-off skills in the new sci tree as well, as those are good for basically any build.
The New Trees that reduce recharge Time of Tac/Eng and Sci, a sci will put points in the sci tree, eng in the eng tree and tac in the tac tree, putting either one or none in the others, why put more in those if you only have maybe 2-3 Powers of the other Carrers?
I wouldn't put any points into any of those skills ever, for any reason and for any build, because I run reciprocity, all hands on deck, and two damage control engineer doffs for my emergency power skills, so once I'm in combat functionally all of my powers are on their global cooldowns anyway. If you are putting points in those skills, you had better be doing it while thinking about the larger context of things like DOFFS and ship traits that make those skills redundant.
Those are just a few examples of why your logic is BADLY Flawed, same goes for people who think like you.
Bottom line - we needed to respec before for new ships and thats why we sure will need it with the new system. By all means i JUST Proved you wrong like you asked, funny thing is, many others allready proved you wrong before me.
Statement 1: "we needed to respec before for new ships" - false. People weren't doing it before, and people were still buying ships and still having fun. At best, the potentially defensible form of your argument is "some people wanted to respec for free before". which I would say is a definitely true statement, but probably not a warrant for any kind of call to action.
Statement 2: "thats why we sure will need it with the new system" - also clearly false. The new system makes it even easier to not have to respec between ships by consolidating powers and giving more generically useful options you can build just about any ship around. It clearly wasn't a big problem building general skill builds before, and it's even LESS of a problem now. Since I think I've pretty clearly shown how point for point generalist builds ALSO tend to be more effective overall, the very people who are most interested in squeezing the most performance out of their ships should NOT be trying to hyper specialize in the skill tree, as that just gimps the build too much.
Statement 3: "i JUST Proved you wrong like you asked" - completely false, none of your examples actually proved anything except that like I suspected you don't really understand how to spec a ship, and fall into the trap of "science ship means need all the science skills" without considering the overall efficiency of those choices.
Statement 4: "funny thing is, many other allready proved you wrong before me." - lie. The distinction here between "lie" and "false" is that I really feel this falsehood was deliberate. You HAVE to be aware that nobody besides you in this discussion has even attempted to move beyond the "EHMAHGERD CRYPTIC IS STEALIN MUH MUNNIEZ!!!" stage to giving actual examples, so kudos to you for the attempt, but anti-kudos to you for attempting to support your side with a transparent falsehood.
So the Request that so many made is still absolutely justified and Valid:
-Respec Tokens have to GO, its just WRONG asking to pay for that, if at the same time selling us new ships all the time
and also encouraging us to try out new stuff and get out of our "Safe Zone", well dont expect me to leave my "Safe Zone" if you are charging me for that.
-1-Click-Skill Loudouts are definately needed, 1 additional loudout for Silver and 2 for Gold/LTS for example, and than sell us more from the C-Store, anyone who looses anything here? NO, any Winners? YES, who? EVERYONE!
Wow, no, just... no. Here's what the game really, REALLY does not need: bad players having the option to click between two or more equally terrible builds, and then wondering why things are still "too hard" for them. Everyone looses in that model.
and i dont think that i really have to mention the horrable point by point confirm system here again, since it looks like everyone agrees that it has to be changed, or else i can forsee many many frustrated and angry Players, both veterans and new Player.
I think I should point out here that, in fact, I addressed this exact issue on like the top of page 2 - but the UI issue is a UI issue, and should be fixed by fixing the UI, not by undermining the value of skill tree choices.
you know iam not even going to quote you this time, since no need to "repost" all that nonense you just Posted, youre telling me that i dont know how to spec or that i dont know in generel about such stuff?? Dude....i play this game not since yesterday, i have 42 Characters, all flying their own uniqe ship, all maxed in nearly everything (rep, r&d, all level 60) all having some good stuff on them be it rep or fleet gear, and its around the same number of tacs, engs and scis, so YOU dont tell me how stuff works, you have NO IDEA of what you are talking, STFS? seriously dont make me laugh, when others TRIBBLE up, often enough iam the one who carrys the group and makes sure that we still make it and often also save the Optionals, no matter what character or ship i fly, so dont worry pal I KNOW what i do, do you?? I highly doubt that reading all the nonsense you write there.
Again if you have nothing to complain, and it looks like thats the case, than why do you even argue here? If everything is fine, than why not move on hmm? or do you enjoy it that much acting so super smart and better than everyone else? Your logic and sense is still flawed, no matter how often you repeat your nonsense, and thats why iam not going to make a super long post here now like you did, cause all your words together are not worth a single sentence, and to be honest its a waste of time answering you and the likes of you who have to defend stuff like their lives depend on it, thats also the reason why iam not going to pay attention to you anymore, not worth my nerves that are stressed by all that empty "bla bla"
have fun.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event and mission rewards!!
Many folks don't feel the way you do and what ever their reasons are, they are just as valid as your thinking that a "middle-of-the-road" build is enough.
Your constant attempts to shrug them off as being inconsequential, is impertinent and borders on being downright rude.
<shrug>
Well, since I'm an extremely smart person who is very well versed in critical thinking and argumentation, if I don't understand your position, that seems like a pretty powerful indictment of your position. Now, I know, because this is the internet and people lie you will instantly feel like me claiming to be an expert on anything is automatically a TRIBBLE-poor rhetorical trick, and I more or less agree. I mean, I know my own expertise and experiences, but certainly there's no reason for you to know those, and no reason for you to believe me if I claim them, and it's absurd for me to try to "prove" my credentials on a videogame forum.
None of that matters, though, really. What I would ask you to do is to look at your OWN experiences and education, and see if there's anything in there that gives you a reason to have any basis to believe you are more of an expert than some random shlub on the internet? The key to this is that you shouldn't be basing your decision off the fact that you disagree with me and thus you believe me to be wrong. You should instead be just trying to gauge whether or not your confidence in your position is really warranted. Have you had any formal training with logic and argumentation? Does your job require a lot of quick thinking and moment by moment critical analysis. Have you ever been specifically rewarded for your problem-solving skills? I'm not even trying to claim these things are all true for me, btw, nor is that an exhaustive list, just possible examples.
I suspect that since I know my own expertise and I find it difficult to justify my own confidence in my reasoned judgements at times, that upon fair assessment, most people should agree that they are in a similar boat. Can we agree on that? A starting position of "there's no reason to automatically assume one person is "right" just by virtue of being a comparative expert?". If so, great, because in that context, it's actually pretty clear that if you want to really advocate for a change in policy, I DO have to understand why you want it, or, really, more precisely, YOU have to be willing to explain it to me in my role as a reasonable skeptic.
So, how do you do that? With evidence, examples, and reasoning. I've shown you mine, but all I get in return is stuff on the level of "Lots of people feel this way, so there must be some validity to those feelings" and then the "and it's rude to dismiss those feelings" as an added bonus. In point of fact, from my perspective the most reasonable, most polite thing I could do is give as complete and clear analysis of the situation as I see it, and if I err too often on the side of snark and humor, it's because I try to stay entertained (and I think there's plenty of room for good humor on both sides! Agnostic's almost perfect prediction way earlier in the thread about me dropping another wall of text was pretty much dead on. I loled.), but I will admit that frankly I find the tendency to present an opinion as "valid" without being willing to actually defend it to be at best rude and at worst actively insulting.
So, there's my stance - I come in like this: "Other people have a very different perception of reality than I do. Do they have a point? Well, I don't know, because they didn't really explain WHY they feel the way they do. Okay, so, is it possible that they are just way smarter than me? No, probably not - given my own education and profession it seems unlikely that their reasoning is simply so far beyond me I can't understand it. Okay, so what's my reasoning for my feelings - do I have any? Okay, now that I know what my reasoning is, can I make a reasonable guess at what the other side is likely thinking? Okay, in comparing those two arguments, which seems better? Okay, now, how do I best express this on the interwebz?" My expectation is that anyone who actually cares to participate in a discussion should be doing something similar with their reasoning, and when it seems evident that they are not, that, to me, is what is actually rude.
@mrtshead "... a lot of words ..."
(which I actually did read)
The fact that you still go on about how your judgement and "smarts" are better than anybody else around here says it all...
Entangling your post with a lot of educated words as to how you perceive, the way the rest of us perceive you... doesn't make your case.
As with all else in life, we are judge by others, by the ways we interact with them...,
Suffice it to say... yer blowin' it.
<shrug>
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
...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....
Does the new system have a "commit all changes" button like the existing system? Or are my selections committed once I click on a single tree item?
One allows for moving skillpoints around first before committing. The second does not. Not hard at all to see which method is going to require many, many more respecs.
If you don't believe a large part of this effort was directed toward charging people more money, you're deluding yourself. Cryptic isn't going to spend the hours developing without a means of recouping the cost. It's abundantly clear they are hoping for more respec token purchases here.
This, so much this. Just making a new character on Tribble last week I had to respec 10+ times to get my build working in a way that I was somewhat content with. Having to commit to every. single. skill you spec into is just way too tedious and user-unfriendly. Yes, Cryptic is giving everybody a free respec when this goes live, but with how the skill system works now, one free respec is not enough. Being able to fuddle around with your skill points for hours before actually committing to any changes and spending a respec token on Holodeck now is very nice. How it is on Tribble at the moment? Not so much.
They need to fix this ASAP, because this has got to be one of the most blatant cash grabs I've ever seen this studio do. Knowing that they're introducing a new skill system that will take everybody time to learn, but then having the skill system function in a way that accidentally speccing into something you didn't want/need requires you to drop money on a respec token is just so inconvenient and worthless that I'm stunned Cryptic hasn't noticed how poorly it functions. That is, unless it was intentional. If that's the case, then there's a whole new Pandora's Box to deal with...
...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....
Does the new system have a "commit all changes" button like the existing system? Or are my selections committed once I click on a single tree item?
One allows for moving skillpoints around first before committing. The second does not. Not hard at all to see which method is going to require many, many more respecs.
If you don't believe a large part of this effort was directed toward charging people more money, you're deluding yourself. Cryptic isn't going to spend the hours developing without a means of recouping the cost. It's abundantly clear they are hoping for more respec token purchases here.
I already agreed with the UI feedback and that a commit all changes button would be the right way to go.
That said, I also pointed out that probably the reason it was the way it works this way now is because the current skill tree inherited the spec tree UI, and the spec tree UI works on a point by point basis. You also can fix that problem without tossing respecs out the window. Given that, it seems far more likely that this is an oversight/limitation of the current UI, and not a nefarious plot to trick people into buying more respecs. You don't really seem to have any reason or need to impugn Cryptic's motives here in order to advocate change, so why do it other than to encourage the very sort of pointless, outrage driven demagoguery that makes these boards such a [sarcasm]JOY[/sarcasm] to read?
I also think that a fair assessment of the language being used by many on the "forced to respec" front (having to respec for new ships, specifically) means that your complaint here isn't really the "reasoning" that most have been using to justify their opinion, although I won't be surprised to see many more of the usual suspects chiming in here now that you've escalated the accusations of bad behavior towards Cryptic, so, I mean, I guess congratulations on degrading the discourse here even further.
*Edit* Oh, and for the record, I agree with you that Cryptic is doing this overhaul because they think it will help them make money, but I think your assumption that their goal is to recoup costs specifically through respec sales betrays a fairly myopic view of things. Making the skill tree better and more engaging makes the game overall stronger, which in turn makes player retention more likely and drives overall sales of EVERYTHING up. Now, of course, there's the counter that outrage over not getting free respecs will drive players away, but that's why I'm so adamant on this issue. The new system seems objectively better in terms of allowing players to build strong, effective builds for a variety of playstyles without needing to respec, so people who hate paying for respecs should, as far as I can tell, be happy with the changes. I'm not naive enough to believe that forum outrage needs to have any basis in reality to boil over, though, so I'll keep on challenging it directly. I will also confess that deep down I cyncially suspect that posters like you know how easy it is to stir up a 'controversy', and that you would rather just try to affect change by appeal to mob rule, instead of reason. But again, it seems unnecessary to impugn your motives in order to challenge your arguments, so I'll try not to do that.
...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....
Does the new system have a "commit all changes" button like the existing system? Or are my selections committed once I click on a single tree item?
One allows for moving skillpoints around first before committing. The second does not. Not hard at all to see which method is going to require many, many more respects.
If you don't believe a large part of this effort was directed toward charging people more money, you're deluding yourself. Cryptic isn't going to spend the hours developing without a means of recouping the cost. It's abundantly clear they are hoping for more respec token purchases here.
I already agreed with the UI feedback and that a commit all changes button would be the right way to go.
That said, I also pointed out that probably the reason it was the way it works this way now is because the current skill tree inherited the spec tree UI, and the spec tree UI works on a point by point basis. You also can fix that problem without tossing respects out the window. Given that, it seems far more likely that this is an oversight/limitation of the current UI, and not a nefarious plot to trick people into buying more respects. You don't really seem to have any reason or need to impugn Cryptic's motives here in order to advocate change, so why do it other than to encourage the very sort of pointless, outrage driven demagoguery that makes these boards such a [sarcasm]JOY[/sarcasm] to read?
I also think that a fair assessment of the language being used by many on the "forced to respec" front (having to respec for new ships, specifically) means that your complaint here isn't really the "reasoning" that most have been using to justify their opinion, although I won't be surprised to see many more of the usual suspects chiming in here now that you've escalated the accusations of bad behavior towards Cryptic, so, I mean, I guess congratulations on degrading the discourse here even further.
Heh...
They have already posted that They are planning to have a SALE on Respect Tokens the day this new skill systems hits the Holodeck...
And you see nothing nefarious about that...
Perhaps those rose colored glasses of yours need a bit of adjusting.
Anyway, it's obvious your unwilling to at the very least, acknowledge that other's have a right to be concerned.
So any more discussion in this matter with you is moot.
Have a lovely day.... tootles....
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
reading some peoples endless stream of blaaaa really hurts my head, i gues i need a painkiller...some people like acting smart, cause some people think they are smart, much smarter than anyone else, so such people throw walls of "smart words" all around them feeling soo educated and well....smart >_> of course iam not pointing at "specific" people here right know, since iam sure everyone including them, know who those "super smart bla talkers" are.......cause you know:
"We're stupid you're smart, we are wrong you are right"...wait.....gues what..NOPE youre not.
Slamming a Chinese Wall of Smart Words doesnt change the fact, that at its core it all nothing but bla, your personal bla, that such people think is right, cause they say so
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event and mission rewards!!
I disagree entirely that this is an oversight. While I will agree it may not be nefarious, it certainly is intentional. Again, the goal is to make money and recoup the costs put into it. Clearly they want to sell as many respec tokens as possible.
I've no doubt a "commit changes" feature could have been added. It's not that they are incapable of doing it, it's whatever sells more. I'm not saying that makes Cryptic evil. They are a business after all.
Again, this view is myopic. At a minimum, Cryptic can expect that the new better skill tree will help encourage new ship sales and sales of character slots just as much (if not more) than it will encourage respec sales, so the conspiracy to sell respec angle doesn't make much sense. In point of fact, I suspect that respec sales have never been a meaningful part of the financial calculation at Cryptic, and I think that insofar as they are announcing a sale on respec points on the first day of the 11.5 release, that's them anticipating temporary increased demand as players make stupid mistakes in their rush to re-skill, and wanting to make those stupid mistakes a little less painful. That doesn't seem to be the mark of bad intentions to me (moreover, I think the whole concept many seem to have of how it's wrong for Cryptic to try to make money off selling players things players want is odd, to say the least).
To be honest, Cryptic could offer totally free respecs and I don't think it would impact their bottom line in the least. I just think it would be a bad design decision, because I think the game needs more incentives for players to actually think about what they are doing and be able to connect outcomes (like improved performance) to player choices (like making smart decisions with their character specs). What free respecs (or god-forbid skill loadouts) would do is encourage things like putting all your points into the science tree when you run a science ship, because that's "optimal" - meanwhile my generalist "escort" build in that same sci ship would have equal survivability (because the game is so easy that with minimal points into survival skills players should almost never die except to the crazy one-shot things that will kill you even if you FULLY spec into all the tanking skills *looking at you, 450k Neutronic Torp spread III crits in Korfez*), equal or greater science power utility (because I would spec control, drain and particle in almost any build now, unless I was sure I was never going to run something that does exotic damage, in which case I would drop particle), and greater overall offensive power because by avoiding overspeccing into the science tree's shield tanking skills I bought room to get better weapons skills and power levels.
The science player might feel optimal because he/she has all the science skills, or whatever, but that understanding is based on a superficial understanding of the skill tree. Without there being some level of significant consequence to those skill tree choices, there's really no incentive for the science player to get any better at the game (he or she will likely still be beating all the normal and most advanced content in the game), and that, in turn, actually creates huge problems for the devs and content design team, because suddenly they are in a situation where they have to design content for a game where a significant portion of the playerbase doesn't have any clue what they are doing (see the posts about how the new Na'kuhl and Krenim enemies in Time and Tide were "too hard" for an eg there), yet is still engaging and challenging enough to keep the players who are most invested in the game (and thus, by conventional wisdom, most likely to spend money on it). We've seen this problem again and again in the forums, such as when a new STF comes out, and players get upset because the rewards they really want (like the elite rep tokens) are "gated" behind the advanced/elite difficulty levels, but Johnny All-Sci is convinced that's unfair since advanced and elite are "too hard" - he "knows" that's true because he has an "optimized" science build, and he still fails miserably at those missions.
I believe that far from being an attempt to sell more respec tokens, the new skill revamp is/was an attempt to reduce the number of bad builds out there (for example, the ultimates are, I think, not really a way to encourage people to specialize in one tree, but rather a backdoor attempt to give them some compensation for the performance loss they took in making that otherwise very sub-optimal decision), as well as an attempt to encourage players to look more carefully at how they were building their characters (this would be the build "exploration" that Borticus was talking about, for the record). This, in turn, was a subtle but powerful attempt to improve the overall quality of the game, and thus encourage people to want to roll up another alt, or try out a new ship, etc. None of that works, though, if players don't actually have an incentive to learn how skills work and and what trade-offs make sense for them. If respecs are free, it will make players feel like there ARE no trade-offs - they can go full tac for an escort, full sci for a sci ship, etc., and think they're being very clever and optimal for each of those builds.
Now, to the larger audience of "You use too many words and I'm offended that you think you're smarter than me that's rude" - I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that you collectively don't seem worth my time to respond to. Yes, from my perspective that is a very rude thing to say to you all (maybe it's rude from your perspective too, I dunno - seems like using careful reasoning and precise language got your goat before, so maybe this more direct approach will be refreshing for you), but I frankly don't care since it seems like you view anything I do/say as rude, and at this point it's pretty clear that you can't/won't do me the courtesy of actually responding to what I say instead of what you percieve my tone to be.
Thus, we're done, except to say this: I'm not saying I'm right because I'm smarter than you - I'm saying the evidence seems to indicate that the way I'm building my argument is better than the way you are building your arguments, thus I'm more likely to be right, and that further this evidence based approach to truth-seeking is a better way of conducting discussions. Enjoy your mindless outrage, and know that since I'm sure you lack the awareness to be ashamed of how bad your arguments actually are, I've gone ahead and felt embarassed for you. You're welcome.
Should the Dev's trip across this, i offer a suggestion. Have a cool down between free respects. Day or Week would not be bad. This way players feel less trapped by the pay wall and can change every so often. Keep the respec tokens. These could be used between free respect cool downs. This would keep players from changing there skill tree every mission/instance, but still permit people to change to a new ship or try a new skill set. I would still like to see a commit button after making all choices.
The ability to fill in your points and build your tree before committing your points is essential and has been standard in MMOs for a long time (including this one). Changing things to a point by point basis feels really hack-kneed and backwards and ultimately, unjustifiable. (snip)
I completely agree. The new system relies on the idea that the community will try something, then document it, and after a time provide guidance on what you should ultimately do for _______ build.
Most players will randomly build it out; some will realize the benefits of respec and then pay to do it multiple times. Pretty stupid when you consider how bad the existing system was, and that the new system doesn't improve on the actual build mechanism. I get that the there are inherent benefits ot the new system, but you think at least you give people an opportunity to massage their builds before they commit. Not everyone will have access/time/willingness to go to tribble to try out builds.
Should the Dev's trip across this, i offer a suggestion. Have a cool down between free respects. Day or Week would not be bad. This way players feel less trapped by the pay wall and can change every so often. Keep the respec tokens. These could be used between free respect cool downs. This would keep players from changing there skill tree every mission/instance, but still permit people to change to a new ship or try a new skill set. I would still like to see a commit button after making all choices.
how many more compromises we need? Species and Rep Trait Respec Tokens were ditched and it was GOOD, same has to happen with the Respec ones, no but but no maybe no whatever, its just wrong PERIOD.
Sure people could respec before every mission, so what? we now also can change our Rep and Species Traits before every Mission, as often as we want on the fly so what??
And to the "Wall of Text Dude" just had a short look at that new Wall and its the same Bla Bla as before, acting smart and repeating the same stuff, its still a big NOPE, even if bort shows his support for it.
You can say whatever you want, but as long as we have to pay for respecs, most people will stay in their safe zones and will not try any experiments, and part of those people will also stick to their ships and ignore every new ship, one can say otherwise as much as he want, will not change anything.
And finding negative aspects of Skill Loudouts when there are none is just......so ridicilous that it hurts, Elite White Knights at its best.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event and mission rewards!!
we have to spend every point until your skilltree is full ? why cant we first allocate our skills and THEN purchase them ? makes no sense, actually u cant undo previous selected skills....
Should the Dev's trip across this, i offer a suggestion. Have a cool down between free respects. Day or Week would not be bad. This way players feel less trapped by the pay wall and can change every so often. Keep the respec tokens. These could be used between free respect cool downs. This would keep players from changing there skill tree every mission/instance, but still permit people to change to a new ship or try a new skill set. I would still like to see a commit button after making all choices.
how many more compromises we need? Species and Rep Trait Respec Tokens were ditched and it was GOOD, same has to happen with the Respec ones, no but but no maybe no whatever, its just wrong PERIOD.
Sure people could respec before every mission, so what? we now also can change our Rep and Species Traits before every Mission, as often as we want on the fly so what??
And to the "Wall of Text Dude" just had a short look at that new Wall and its the same Bla Bla as before, acting smart and repeating the same stuff, its still a big NOPE, even if bort shows his support for it.
You can say whatever you want, but as long as we have to pay for respecs, most people will stay in their safe zones and will not try any experiments, and part of those people will also stick to their ships and ignore every new ship, one can say otherwise as much as he want, will not change anything.
Has it ever really be a problem that Crpytic couldn't sell ships? Do you really think the new system would change anything about that?
I think not.
The first skill revamp moved the only real skill barrier to ship changes - in the originally released skill system, there were actually skills by ship type!
If people stay in their safe zone, they can do that. And free respecs will not really remove it, because experimenting a lot is still inherently unsafe - you could make things worse, and unable to return to your previous spec. Free but mandatory respecs after a skill change is usually something that scares inexperienced players. They just had something that seemed to work well enough, and now they have to that again.
To be honest, the whole talk from Cryptic's side about respec sounded to me as if at least some there wanted to make it free or a lot cheaper, and they'll probably move towards some compromise.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
we have to spend every point until your skilltree is full ? why cant we first allocate our skills and THEN purchase them ? makes no sense, actually u cant undo previous selected skills....
Not being able to undo skill picks is about the only thing I don't like about the new system, at least as far as I've tested it out so far. Really need to have an undo function and a commit button, even if you work out the "best" build and plan out your skills beforehand misclicks happen. Yes, we can always transfer characters to Tribble and test away but that's hardly ideal for all sorts of reasons.
As to the general conversation above, I don't really get the "must respec every time I change ship" stuff either. Except for now having an option to fully commit to one path to get the Ultimates and pay for it in flexibility it's no different than making a general or focused skillset for a character currently. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
From what I've tested already, even my roughly replicated generalist builds are performing better than before anyway now that a lot of the redundant stuff's been trimmed out of the skill picks.
Should the Dev's trip across this, i offer a suggestion. Have a cool down between free respects. Day or Week would not be bad. This way players feel less trapped by the pay wall and can change every so often. Keep the respec tokens. These could be used between free respect cool downs. This would keep players from changing there skill tree every mission/instance, but still permit people to change to a new ship or try a new skill set. I would still like to see a commit button after making all choices.
how many more compromises we need? Species and Rep Trait Respec Tokens were ditched and it was GOOD, same has to happen with the Respec ones, no but but no maybe no whatever, its just wrong PERIOD.
Sure people could respec before every mission, so what? we now also can change our Rep and Species Traits before every Mission, as often as we want on the fly so what??
And to the "Wall of Text Dude" just had a short look at that new Wall and its the same Bla Bla as before, acting smart and repeating the same stuff, its still a big NOPE, even if bort shows his support for it.
You can say whatever you want, but as long as we have to pay for respecs, most people will stay in their safe zones and will not try any experiments, and part of those people will also stick to their ships and ignore every new ship, one can say otherwise as much as he want, will not change anything.
Has it ever really be a problem that Crpytic couldn't sell ships? Do you really think the new system would change anything about that?
I think not.
The first skill revamp moved the only real skill barrier to ship changes - in the originally released skill system, there were actually skills by ship type!
If people stay in their safe zone, they can do that. And free respecs will not really remove it, because experimenting a lot is still inherently unsafe - you could make things worse, and unable to return to your previous spec. Free but mandatory respecs after a skill change is usually something that scares inexperienced players. They just had something that seemed to work well enough, and now they have to that again.
To be honest, the whole talk from Cryptic's side about respec sounded to me as if at least some there wanted to make it free or a lot cheaper, and they'll probably move towards some compromise.
Ofc the Majority of Players will still buy ships, since there are too many who buy everything blindly anyway, but never than the less there are also many People who dont buy new Ships anymore, at least not that easy, i alone know a few dozens in the Game who refuse, and the Respec thing is just one of several Reasons.
So will the new System suddenly cause ships not to be sold? definately not, but sales could be way better.
If people stay in their safe zone, they can do that. And free respecs will not really remove it"
if i know that i can respec my char as often as i want than i will happily leave my safe zone try all kinds of Build and freely "experiment" around, and being unable to return to previous spec when things get worse? ever heard of Skillplans? Worst Case Scenario Screenshooting your actuall Build? Sorry but thats just an excuse, and not valid.
lets hope that if youre right, and that "some" over there wanted to make it free, will be succesfull with that, cause that would be another BIG STEP in the right direction.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event and mission rewards!!
I never understood the need to TRIBBLE, whine and argue against something that does not affect them in the slightest.
If you don't feel you need to be able to respec more freely then good for you, but don't be a jerk and try to ruin things for the rest of us.
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." - Q
I never understood the need to TRIBBLE, whine and argue against something that does not affect them in the slightest.
If you don't feel you need to be able to respec more freely then good for you, but don't be a jerk and try to ruin things for the rest of us.
welcome to the club, never understood that twisted mentality myself " I DONT NEED IT SO YOU ALSO DONT NEED IT BLA!"
Whenever people come up with good ideas, the White Knights will show up and start their crusade against everyone who dares to not agree with them or cryptic, EVEN if that change would benefit everyone INCLUDING them, but only someone with a twisted mind can understand another one with a twisted mind...sadly.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event and mission rewards!!
Comments
This exact thing is the reason im here on the forum today. Just logged on to tribble to have a look at the new system and the VERY FIRST THING i notice is that you have to lock in every skill before continuing.
This system does NOT WORK FOR SKILL TREES!
You need the ability to see where your points can and cant be spent, and how far they will go, before you are forced to commit to thier location. Devs have said they want it harder to make big mistakes in builds for new players, well this is the single worst thing you could do for that goal, and it will mean that nearly every single new player WILL mess up thier build. Yes it needs to happen before the system goes live or there will be even more mistakes made with skill builds than there is currently.
It really is the end of the world if it doesnt happen before launch though. At least is is for me. Im not going to sit with a calculator for an hour or 2 just to figure out my skill build, or spend hours deleting and reloading my character onto Tribble, assuming the server is even available after this goes live. No, Ill just stop playing the game until a third party site designs a skill planner.
Even then, the cynic in me will have already seen this design as a deliberate play to force more sales of respec tokens and ill wonder if I have enough respect left to bother. Yes, it needs to happen before the system goes live or devs will just look like money grabbing scum.
Devs please get this fixed and onto Tribble ASAP. I cant even test for you right now cause im not going to delete and re transfer my character 30 times before I even get to the point I can leave Spacedock.
As for this side argument regarding the perceived need to re-spec when changing ships; that thought process is truly baffling to me. What is it that's so different in the new skill tree over the old one that people suddenly feel like they're going to have to respec constantly? I was able to switch to Escorts as an Engi Capt. before and will still be able to with the same trade-offs I had to make before. When flying one of my Escorts over a Cruiser, I just switch up my gear/traits/DOffs/active specs/BOff skills in order to add more DPS oriented utility, as required. You know, all the stuff the Load-Outs allow you to quickly change.
Is it that people want infinite respecs so that they no longer have to make any sacrifices being a Tac Captain in Sci ship? I suspect that's the reason for more than a few of the complaints. There was never enough points to max out all of the available Sci and Tac skills anyways so what is it now that's going to require all this respec'ing in order to be effective?
Bottom line - if you didn't need to respec constantly before, you sure don't need to now. Especially given that some skills have been consolidated for Pete's sake. By all means, prove me wrong, but you're going to need actual proof and examples beyond 'but lots of people are complaining'.
Cryptic has in their very own words explicitly stated that they "want" people to experiment and leave their comfort zone.
Heck, I have wanted to leave my comfort zone and experiment, but its just to damn expensive, so I stick with what works for me and ignored all C-Store ships that do not fit my spec, no matter how much I would like to fly them.
So "if you didn't need to respec constantly before, you sure don't need to now." is nothing but pure nonsense.
i gues on some parts of the world, common sense is something rare......
People dont feel SUDDENLY that they have to respec if switching to a vastly different type of ship, that was the case with the old system and will be the case with the new system, and in both systems it is a pain in the you know where having to pay for something so BASIC like respecing. Fine if you were able to switch from Escorts to Cruisers with only switching your gear/traits/doffs/active specs/boff skills and so on, if that works for you than we are happy for you, BUT dont assume that others are ok with just that, believe it or not, but i hear rumors that there are actually also people out there that like to use the FULL Potential of a Ship that they fly, unbelivable huh?
If i switch from a TAC Heavy Ship to a ENG Heavy Ship and than to a SCI Heavy Ship, a Jack of all Trades Build may be OK, BUT you know i and iam pretty sure MANY MORE would like to perform more than just OK, and its mind boggling why some people have so much trouble understanding something so simple? again, lack of common sense???
What do i need anything Part / Gravi Generator releated on a TAC Heavy Ship were the most Science stuff i use is maybe Science Team 1/2 and/or Hazard Team 1/2???? What does someone need who can DPS everything into the Ground in a few Seconds with stuff like Drain Expertise???
Some People build all their stuff around HEAVY Science shutting down and murdering everything with their Science powers and less relying on their Weapons, WHAT do they need full Points in Weapons for? Many of such Sci Heavy Build dont even have Torps, what do they need anything torp releated for???
The New Trees that reduce recharge Time of Tac/Eng and Sci, a sci will put points in the sci tree, eng in the eng tree and tac in the tac tree, putting either one or none in the others, why put more in those if you only have maybe 2-3 Powers of the other Carrers?
Those are just a few examples of why your logic is BADLY Flawed, same goes for people who think like you.
Bottom line - we needed to respec before for new ships and thats why we sure will need it with the new system. By all means i JUST Proved you wrong like you asked, funny thing is, many others allready proved you wrong before me.
So the Request that so many made is still absolutely justified and Valid:
-Respec Tokens have to GO, its just WRONG asking to pay for that, if at the same time selling us new ships all the time
and also encouraging us to try out new stuff and get out of our "Safe Zone", well dont expect me to leave my "Safe Zone" if you are charging me for that.
-1-Click-Skill Loudouts are definately needed, 1 additional loudout for Silver and 2 for Gold/LTS for example, and than sell us more from the C-Store, anyone who looses anything here? NO, any Winners? YES, who? EVERYONE!
and i dont think that i really have to mention the horrable point by point confirm system here again, since it looks like everyone agrees that it has to be changed, or else i can forsee many many frustrated and angry Players, both veterans and new Player.
First, you still can't actually demonstrate an example that shows WHY you think you need to respec constantly, and have been given at least a few examples of why you actually don't. At this point, it's really either put up, or shut up. At best for you, your argument here establishes that Cryptic has not succeeded in a design goal of attempting to encourage you to think about alternate build styles. To be honest, if that's true, that's sad, but not because it shows a failure on CRYPTIC'S side.
Second, I don't understand why people keep thinking that Cryptic wanting people to experiment means "Cryptic wants people to constantly change specs". They want you to feel like there are interesting options that you might not have considered before. They want you to think about things like "do I really need more accuracy in my build, or should I go with the sci range damage skills?" such that you make more informed and better choices about how you play the game. They are NOT anticipating that you will say "Okay, let me try with one box in accuracy, and two boxes in ranged, and see what that does... alright, now let me pay $5 and try two boxes accuracy, one box in ranged..." and so on. You are supposed to be able to think about what you want to do with your ship, and how to accomplish those goals as efficiently as possible with the skill tree.
its so funny how only 2 People here defend that Broken and Outdated System, when EVERYONE else agrees that it should GO, gues why? cause you 2 know everything better than anyone else? i dont think so? i gues its more because you dont tinker around with stuff to much, you have your basic setup and go through everything with that, works for you? fine, but as i said to the second person who also defends that nonense, DONT assume that everyone else thinks the same, WE like to Finetune stuff, we like to use our stuff to the best possible potential.
"At this point, it's really either put up, or shut up." well said.
you know, this is very valid for people who are fine with what they have, you have nothing to complain? than you should follow your own words, but everyone else HAS something to complain, in fact its the majority vs the minority whos fine with everything, you guys are minimalistic, nothing wrong with that, have fun, BUT others are NOT, deal with it, and move on if everything is fine for you.
by the way, i gave enough examples, of whys, everyone who can read can understand IF he wants to understand.
But some people just like to defend stuff no matter what it is, just because they can.
You don't have to understand it.
Many folks don't feel the way you do and what ever their reasons are, they are just as valid as your thinking that a "middle-of-the-road" build is enough.
Your constant attempts to shrug them off as being inconsequential, is impertinent and borders on being downright rude.
<shrug>
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
It is unbelievable, actually, given that for all that people say they want to get the full potential of their ships, so few seem willing or able to actually reason out what that means, and instead, as you did, they just assume that putting all their skill points into one area the are "maximizing potential" instead of thinking about the overall performance trade-offs they are making. I'm willing to bet that in actual practice whatever tweaking you think you'd be doing to optimize your ship between runs is actually serving to decrease your overall performance, but because the game isn't hard enough for that to matter, you "feel" like you've been more successful, so you never realize that you've gimped yourself.
Oh, and I didn't see any huge outcry over a vital need to have free respecs in the past, nor does it appear that people have historically refused to buy the new shiny ships when they come out, so again, there's no evidence that there's actually a reason for people to be upset about not getting them now.
Yes, it is "common sense" that you would need to respec for those changes, because it is "common sense" that the best spec for a cruiser is always max points into the eng skills, for a sci ship is max points into sci skills, etc. It is ACTUAL sense to realize that every ship can benefit from certain basic skills across all three trees, and that once you have those basics covered, you have plenty left to play with to customize to your preferred BOFF abilities. Let me demonstrate:
First, in the new system you might want those skills because they also now come with control resistance an drain resistance built in, which is nice to have, and is actually a pretty stellar example of how the new system rewards well-made generalist builds even more. Second, you might want those skills because despite the fact that you don't want to admit it, you would probably be overall more useful on STFs and more capable of finishing missions quickly if you build a LITTLE control or a LITTLE drain, at least, in your build (for example, you might be running plasmonic leech already, so maybe drain could help you get a little more out of that).
Wait, wait, wait. I don't think you know what you're talking about. Sci ships DO (or should) tend to run torps more often, actually, precisely because they want to put more energy into Aux and less into weapons, so torps (which don't depend on weapon power for their damage) make more sense. Couple that with the fact that a Sci build probably has at least a few ways to strip shields and adding some torps is likely a better investment than a pure energy weapons build.
Second, to your actual question about why you would put points into weapons for a sci build:
Because putting points into weapons does more for your overall performance than putting more points into science (it's worth noting that with only 9 total points into science you've actually maxed your offensive power from science abilities, because you've maxed the drain, control, and particle trees, and you've gotten the defenses against those powers too!). Instead of continuing to pour points into the science tree because you're running a sci ship, once you get to 9 points (7, really, if you don't care about the funky new drain/control side effects), you should ask things like "Do I really need more shield capacity, shield healing, shield regen AND shield hardness? Or does it make sense to put some of those points over into weapons?" Of course, you probably should also look at the range-drop-off skills in the new sci tree as well, as those are good for basically any build.
I wouldn't put any points into any of those skills ever, for any reason and for any build, because I run reciprocity, all hands on deck, and two damage control engineer doffs for my emergency power skills, so once I'm in combat functionally all of my powers are on their global cooldowns anyway. If you are putting points in those skills, you had better be doing it while thinking about the larger context of things like DOFFS and ship traits that make those skills redundant.
Statement 1: "we needed to respec before for new ships" - false. People weren't doing it before, and people were still buying ships and still having fun. At best, the potentially defensible form of your argument is "some people wanted to respec for free before". which I would say is a definitely true statement, but probably not a warrant for any kind of call to action.
Statement 2: "thats why we sure will need it with the new system" - also clearly false. The new system makes it even easier to not have to respec between ships by consolidating powers and giving more generically useful options you can build just about any ship around. It clearly wasn't a big problem building general skill builds before, and it's even LESS of a problem now. Since I think I've pretty clearly shown how point for point generalist builds ALSO tend to be more effective overall, the very people who are most interested in squeezing the most performance out of their ships should NOT be trying to hyper specialize in the skill tree, as that just gimps the build too much.
Statement 3: "i JUST Proved you wrong like you asked" - completely false, none of your examples actually proved anything except that like I suspected you don't really understand how to spec a ship, and fall into the trap of "science ship means need all the science skills" without considering the overall efficiency of those choices.
Statement 4: "funny thing is, many other allready proved you wrong before me." - lie. The distinction here between "lie" and "false" is that I really feel this falsehood was deliberate. You HAVE to be aware that nobody besides you in this discussion has even attempted to move beyond the "EHMAHGERD CRYPTIC IS STEALIN MUH MUNNIEZ!!!" stage to giving actual examples, so kudos to you for the attempt, but anti-kudos to you for attempting to support your side with a transparent falsehood.
Wow, no, just... no. Here's what the game really, REALLY does not need: bad players having the option to click between two or more equally terrible builds, and then wondering why things are still "too hard" for them. Everyone looses in that model.
I think I should point out here that, in fact, I addressed this exact issue on like the top of page 2 - but the UI issue is a UI issue, and should be fixed by fixing the UI, not by undermining the value of skill tree choices.
Again if you have nothing to complain, and it looks like thats the case, than why do you even argue here? If everything is fine, than why not move on hmm? or do you enjoy it that much acting so super smart and better than everyone else? Your logic and sense is still flawed, no matter how often you repeat your nonsense, and thats why iam not going to make a super long post here now like you did, cause all your words together are not worth a single sentence, and to be honest its a waste of time answering you and the likes of you who have to defend stuff like their lives depend on it, thats also the reason why iam not going to pay attention to you anymore, not worth my nerves that are stressed by all that empty "bla bla"
have fun.
Well, since I'm an extremely smart person who is very well versed in critical thinking and argumentation, if I don't understand your position, that seems like a pretty powerful indictment of your position. Now, I know, because this is the internet and people lie you will instantly feel like me claiming to be an expert on anything is automatically a TRIBBLE-poor rhetorical trick, and I more or less agree. I mean, I know my own expertise and experiences, but certainly there's no reason for you to know those, and no reason for you to believe me if I claim them, and it's absurd for me to try to "prove" my credentials on a videogame forum.
None of that matters, though, really. What I would ask you to do is to look at your OWN experiences and education, and see if there's anything in there that gives you a reason to have any basis to believe you are more of an expert than some random shlub on the internet? The key to this is that you shouldn't be basing your decision off the fact that you disagree with me and thus you believe me to be wrong. You should instead be just trying to gauge whether or not your confidence in your position is really warranted. Have you had any formal training with logic and argumentation? Does your job require a lot of quick thinking and moment by moment critical analysis. Have you ever been specifically rewarded for your problem-solving skills? I'm not even trying to claim these things are all true for me, btw, nor is that an exhaustive list, just possible examples.
I suspect that since I know my own expertise and I find it difficult to justify my own confidence in my reasoned judgements at times, that upon fair assessment, most people should agree that they are in a similar boat. Can we agree on that? A starting position of "there's no reason to automatically assume one person is "right" just by virtue of being a comparative expert?". If so, great, because in that context, it's actually pretty clear that if you want to really advocate for a change in policy, I DO have to understand why you want it, or, really, more precisely, YOU have to be willing to explain it to me in my role as a reasonable skeptic.
So, how do you do that? With evidence, examples, and reasoning. I've shown you mine, but all I get in return is stuff on the level of "Lots of people feel this way, so there must be some validity to those feelings" and then the "and it's rude to dismiss those feelings" as an added bonus. In point of fact, from my perspective the most reasonable, most polite thing I could do is give as complete and clear analysis of the situation as I see it, and if I err too often on the side of snark and humor, it's because I try to stay entertained (and I think there's plenty of room for good humor on both sides! Agnostic's almost perfect prediction way earlier in the thread about me dropping another wall of text was pretty much dead on. I loled.), but I will admit that frankly I find the tendency to present an opinion as "valid" without being willing to actually defend it to be at best rude and at worst actively insulting.
So, there's my stance - I come in like this: "Other people have a very different perception of reality than I do. Do they have a point? Well, I don't know, because they didn't really explain WHY they feel the way they do. Okay, so, is it possible that they are just way smarter than me? No, probably not - given my own education and profession it seems unlikely that their reasoning is simply so far beyond me I can't understand it. Okay, so what's my reasoning for my feelings - do I have any? Okay, now that I know what my reasoning is, can I make a reasonable guess at what the other side is likely thinking? Okay, in comparing those two arguments, which seems better? Okay, now, how do I best express this on the interwebz?" My expectation is that anyone who actually cares to participate in a discussion should be doing something similar with their reasoning, and when it seems evident that they are not, that, to me, is what is actually rude.
"... a lot of words ..."
(which I actually did read)
The fact that you still go on about how your judgement and "smarts" are better than anybody else around here says it all...
Entangling your post with a lot of educated words as to how you perceive, the way the rest of us perceive you... doesn't make your case.
As with all else in life, we are judge by others, by the ways we interact with them...,
Suffice it to say... yer blowin' it.
<shrug>
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
They need to fix this ASAP, because this has got to be one of the most blatant cash grabs I've ever seen this studio do. Knowing that they're introducing a new skill system that will take everybody time to learn, but then having the skill system function in a way that accidentally speccing into something you didn't want/need requires you to drop money on a respec token is just so inconvenient and worthless that I'm stunned Cryptic hasn't noticed how poorly it functions. That is, unless it was intentional. If that's the case, then there's a whole new Pandora's Box to deal with...
I already agreed with the UI feedback and that a commit all changes button would be the right way to go.
That said, I also pointed out that probably the reason it was the way it works this way now is because the current skill tree inherited the spec tree UI, and the spec tree UI works on a point by point basis. You also can fix that problem without tossing respecs out the window. Given that, it seems far more likely that this is an oversight/limitation of the current UI, and not a nefarious plot to trick people into buying more respecs. You don't really seem to have any reason or need to impugn Cryptic's motives here in order to advocate change, so why do it other than to encourage the very sort of pointless, outrage driven demagoguery that makes these boards such a [sarcasm]JOY[/sarcasm] to read?
I also think that a fair assessment of the language being used by many on the "forced to respec" front (having to respec for new ships, specifically) means that your complaint here isn't really the "reasoning" that most have been using to justify their opinion, although I won't be surprised to see many more of the usual suspects chiming in here now that you've escalated the accusations of bad behavior towards Cryptic, so, I mean, I guess congratulations on degrading the discourse here even further.
*Edit* Oh, and for the record, I agree with you that Cryptic is doing this overhaul because they think it will help them make money, but I think your assumption that their goal is to recoup costs specifically through respec sales betrays a fairly myopic view of things. Making the skill tree better and more engaging makes the game overall stronger, which in turn makes player retention more likely and drives overall sales of EVERYTHING up. Now, of course, there's the counter that outrage over not getting free respecs will drive players away, but that's why I'm so adamant on this issue. The new system seems objectively better in terms of allowing players to build strong, effective builds for a variety of playstyles without needing to respec, so people who hate paying for respecs should, as far as I can tell, be happy with the changes. I'm not naive enough to believe that forum outrage needs to have any basis in reality to boil over, though, so I'll keep on challenging it directly. I will also confess that deep down I cyncially suspect that posters like you know how easy it is to stir up a 'controversy', and that you would rather just try to affect change by appeal to mob rule, instead of reason. But again, it seems unnecessary to impugn your motives in order to challenge your arguments, so I'll try not to do that.
Heh...
They have already posted that They are planning to have a SALE on Respect Tokens the day this new skill systems hits the Holodeck...
And you see nothing nefarious about that...
Perhaps those rose colored glasses of yours need a bit of adjusting.
Anyway, it's obvious your unwilling to at the very least, acknowledge that other's have a right to be concerned.
So any more discussion in this matter with you is moot.
Have a lovely day.... tootles....
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
"We're stupid you're smart, we are wrong you are right"...wait.....gues what..NOPE youre not.
Slamming a Chinese Wall of Smart Words doesnt change the fact, that at its core it all nothing but bla, your personal bla, that such people think is right, cause they say so
Again, this view is myopic. At a minimum, Cryptic can expect that the new better skill tree will help encourage new ship sales and sales of character slots just as much (if not more) than it will encourage respec sales, so the conspiracy to sell respec angle doesn't make much sense. In point of fact, I suspect that respec sales have never been a meaningful part of the financial calculation at Cryptic, and I think that insofar as they are announcing a sale on respec points on the first day of the 11.5 release, that's them anticipating temporary increased demand as players make stupid mistakes in their rush to re-skill, and wanting to make those stupid mistakes a little less painful. That doesn't seem to be the mark of bad intentions to me (moreover, I think the whole concept many seem to have of how it's wrong for Cryptic to try to make money off selling players things players want is odd, to say the least).
To be honest, Cryptic could offer totally free respecs and I don't think it would impact their bottom line in the least. I just think it would be a bad design decision, because I think the game needs more incentives for players to actually think about what they are doing and be able to connect outcomes (like improved performance) to player choices (like making smart decisions with their character specs). What free respecs (or god-forbid skill loadouts) would do is encourage things like putting all your points into the science tree when you run a science ship, because that's "optimal" - meanwhile my generalist "escort" build in that same sci ship would have equal survivability (because the game is so easy that with minimal points into survival skills players should almost never die except to the crazy one-shot things that will kill you even if you FULLY spec into all the tanking skills *looking at you, 450k Neutronic Torp spread III crits in Korfez*), equal or greater science power utility (because I would spec control, drain and particle in almost any build now, unless I was sure I was never going to run something that does exotic damage, in which case I would drop particle), and greater overall offensive power because by avoiding overspeccing into the science tree's shield tanking skills I bought room to get better weapons skills and power levels.
The science player might feel optimal because he/she has all the science skills, or whatever, but that understanding is based on a superficial understanding of the skill tree. Without there being some level of significant consequence to those skill tree choices, there's really no incentive for the science player to get any better at the game (he or she will likely still be beating all the normal and most advanced content in the game), and that, in turn, actually creates huge problems for the devs and content design team, because suddenly they are in a situation where they have to design content for a game where a significant portion of the playerbase doesn't have any clue what they are doing (see the posts about how the new Na'kuhl and Krenim enemies in Time and Tide were "too hard" for an eg there), yet is still engaging and challenging enough to keep the players who are most invested in the game (and thus, by conventional wisdom, most likely to spend money on it). We've seen this problem again and again in the forums, such as when a new STF comes out, and players get upset because the rewards they really want (like the elite rep tokens) are "gated" behind the advanced/elite difficulty levels, but Johnny All-Sci is convinced that's unfair since advanced and elite are "too hard" - he "knows" that's true because he has an "optimized" science build, and he still fails miserably at those missions.
I believe that far from being an attempt to sell more respec tokens, the new skill revamp is/was an attempt to reduce the number of bad builds out there (for example, the ultimates are, I think, not really a way to encourage people to specialize in one tree, but rather a backdoor attempt to give them some compensation for the performance loss they took in making that otherwise very sub-optimal decision), as well as an attempt to encourage players to look more carefully at how they were building their characters (this would be the build "exploration" that Borticus was talking about, for the record). This, in turn, was a subtle but powerful attempt to improve the overall quality of the game, and thus encourage people to want to roll up another alt, or try out a new ship, etc. None of that works, though, if players don't actually have an incentive to learn how skills work and and what trade-offs make sense for them. If respecs are free, it will make players feel like there ARE no trade-offs - they can go full tac for an escort, full sci for a sci ship, etc., and think they're being very clever and optimal for each of those builds.
Now, to the larger audience of "You use too many words and I'm offended that you think you're smarter than me that's rude" - I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that you collectively don't seem worth my time to respond to. Yes, from my perspective that is a very rude thing to say to you all (maybe it's rude from your perspective too, I dunno - seems like using careful reasoning and precise language got your goat before, so maybe this more direct approach will be refreshing for you), but I frankly don't care since it seems like you view anything I do/say as rude, and at this point it's pretty clear that you can't/won't do me the courtesy of actually responding to what I say instead of what you percieve my tone to be.
Thus, we're done, except to say this: I'm not saying I'm right because I'm smarter than you - I'm saying the evidence seems to indicate that the way I'm building my argument is better than the way you are building your arguments, thus I'm more likely to be right, and that further this evidence based approach to truth-seeking is a better way of conducting discussions. Enjoy your mindless outrage, and know that since I'm sure you lack the awareness to be ashamed of how bad your arguments actually are, I've gone ahead and felt embarassed for you. You're welcome.
Aww, man... this was almost a Hall of Fame forum post, until you let it get personal in the last two paragraphs. =(
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
I completely agree. The new system relies on the idea that the community will try something, then document it, and after a time provide guidance on what you should ultimately do for _______ build.
Most players will randomly build it out; some will realize the benefits of respec and then pay to do it multiple times. Pretty stupid when you consider how bad the existing system was, and that the new system doesn't improve on the actual build mechanism. I get that the there are inherent benefits ot the new system, but you think at least you give people an opportunity to massage their builds before they commit. Not everyone will have access/time/willingness to go to tribble to try out builds.
how many more compromises we need? Species and Rep Trait Respec Tokens were ditched and it was GOOD, same has to happen with the Respec ones, no but but no maybe no whatever, its just wrong PERIOD.
Sure people could respec before every mission, so what? we now also can change our Rep and Species Traits before every Mission, as often as we want on the fly so what??
And to the "Wall of Text Dude" just had a short look at that new Wall and its the same Bla Bla as before, acting smart and repeating the same stuff, its still a big NOPE, even if bort shows his support for it.
You can say whatever you want, but as long as we have to pay for respecs, most people will stay in their safe zones and will not try any experiments, and part of those people will also stick to their ships and ignore every new ship, one can say otherwise as much as he want, will not change anything.
And finding negative aspects of Skill Loudouts when there are none is just......so ridicilous that it hurts, Elite White Knights at its best.
Has it ever really be a problem that Crpytic couldn't sell ships? Do you really think the new system would change anything about that?
I think not.
The first skill revamp moved the only real skill barrier to ship changes - in the originally released skill system, there were actually skills by ship type!
If people stay in their safe zone, they can do that. And free respecs will not really remove it, because experimenting a lot is still inherently unsafe - you could make things worse, and unable to return to your previous spec. Free but mandatory respecs after a skill change is usually something that scares inexperienced players. They just had something that seemed to work well enough, and now they have to that again.
To be honest, the whole talk from Cryptic's side about respec sounded to me as if at least some there wanted to make it free or a lot cheaper, and they'll probably move towards some compromise.
Not being able to undo skill picks is about the only thing I don't like about the new system, at least as far as I've tested it out so far. Really need to have an undo function and a commit button, even if you work out the "best" build and plan out your skills beforehand misclicks happen. Yes, we can always transfer characters to Tribble and test away but that's hardly ideal for all sorts of reasons.
As to the general conversation above, I don't really get the "must respec every time I change ship" stuff either. Except for now having an option to fully commit to one path to get the Ultimates and pay for it in flexibility it's no different than making a general or focused skillset for a character currently. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
From what I've tested already, even my roughly replicated generalist builds are performing better than before anyway now that a lot of the redundant stuff's been trimmed out of the skill picks.
Ofc the Majority of Players will still buy ships, since there are too many who buy everything blindly anyway, but never than the less there are also many People who dont buy new Ships anymore, at least not that easy, i alone know a few dozens in the Game who refuse, and the Respec thing is just one of several Reasons.
So will the new System suddenly cause ships not to be sold? definately not, but sales could be way better.
i have to completly disagree with
if i know that i can respec my char as often as i want than i will happily leave my safe zone try all kinds of Build and freely "experiment" around, and being unable to return to previous spec when things get worse? ever heard of Skillplans? Worst Case Scenario Screenshooting your actuall Build? Sorry but thats just an excuse, and not valid.
lets hope that if youre right, and that "some" over there wanted to make it free, will be succesfull with that, cause that would be another BIG STEP in the right direction.
If you don't feel you need to be able to respec more freely then good for you, but don't be a jerk and try to ruin things for the rest of us.
welcome to the club, never understood that twisted mentality myself " I DONT NEED IT SO YOU ALSO DONT NEED IT BLA!"
Whenever people come up with good ideas, the White Knights will show up and start their crusade against everyone who dares to not agree with them or cryptic, EVEN if that change would benefit everyone INCLUDING them, but only someone with a twisted mind can understand another one with a twisted mind...sadly.