Im confused by you question. you mean for example respec a fire/fire blaster into a ice/ice blaster? If so I say you would miss basics of the sets and then all people need to do is change sets desired on a team.
Never going to happen. And that is from the mouth of the devs.
Edit: And by the way, cross posting is against forum rules. You should have just asked a mod to either move your thread here or delete it since this idea will never happen.
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=246891
TY for your posts, this is a non-issue for the Dev's I have found and will no longer post on Forums. 
Stealing Memphis_Bill's Copypasta here too!
Quote:
|
Why a full respec is not a good idea for COH. So, you've played your Apathy/Dual Wet Noodle Tank to 50 and decided you don't like him. You've come to the forums and said "Why not let me completely respec the character!" Well, people consider a "full respec" to be different things. I'm going to cover a complete and total character respec. If some of them don't apply, well, this comes up enough for this to be a copy and paste reply. There are four things that the developers and game see as defining your character: 1. Archetype 2. Origin 3. Primary powerset 4. Secondary powerset When people talk about a full respec, they're either talking about the powersets or the whole enchilada. A Respec is short for respecification - altering what your character can do. This can be through reordering the levels you took powers, reassigning slots, and/or changing power pools. You'll note that none of this touches on changing the four listed items. The reason being that if any of those change, it's not the same character. A respec is not recreation or reimagining. It's tweaking your character a bit. Now, let's go through some of these "full respecs." Primary/Secondary You're sure to hear this repeated a good bit - Just because you've played one set, doesn't mean you know how to play them all. For instance, my namesake tank is a Fire/Superstrength tank. I know how he plays. The most similar powerset to him at the time of writing is Dark Armor. It's resistance based, it has no knockback protection, it has a damage aura, a self heal that does damage - it even has a self rez as its tier9. They don't play anything alike. (I can say this, because I also have a version that's DA/SS.) Fire has no Psi protection. It has no stealth. Burn has a far different effect than Oppressive Gloom, and nothing similar to Cloak of Fear. It calls for a thoroughly different style of play. With Fire, I can leave my toggles on and go to town. With Dark Armor, I have to be selective, or the times I have to herd stragglers (for instance) won't work exceptionally well. Dark Armor also does not have anything like Consume to help out with Endurance - that's in Dark Melee. With "similar" sets being that different - try Fire vs Stone. Or Invulnerability. You now have a set at or near 50 (when most people seem to mention wanting this - "I have a 50 that...") that you don't know how to slot effectively (which means you'll be doing *at least* one more respec) and don't know how to play effectively. That's just changing *one* side of the equation. Now add in, say, going from Stone Melee to Dark Melee. Different effects, with *very* different affects on your survivability. And you won't know how to slot that, either, or how well they synergize. Similarly, a Stormie plays vastly differently from an Empath, or a Dark, or a Rad. Earth Control is nothing like Illusion. Combo-chasing with Dual Blades won't help you with Martial Arts. How do I know that this ends up being a mess? Beta testing. The devs have, on rare occasion, bumped up characters to specific levels. The most notable was when Recluse's Victory came out for testing. Everyone was made level 40 - and it was a *mess.* Sure, people made copies of their own characters, and those worked out. Then there were those (many, many of those) who said "Hey, I've never had a X/Y before, I'll make one of those!" Like I said, it was a mess. You could very easily tell who had done that versus making copies of characters they knew. Now, yes, over time you'll learn your powerset - but in the meantime, you're not going to be very effective, or very happy. Archetype Now, given what I just said about powersets, imagine a *whole different AT.* Your tank is now an Empath? Really? You know how to survive as a Blaster because you played a Scrapper? And don't even get me started on epics. If *sets* are that different, Archetype is that times ten. Impact on enhancements IOs are a big part of the game right now. Think about IO'ing out your character. You get your KB protection, sets and the like, potentially spending millions (or more) on finishing up these sets, or working on merits or whatnot. Now, you change your primary - again, we'll take a tank - from a resistance based one to a defense based one. Guess what is now useless to you. You *may* have a power to stick that resist set in, somewhere, but now you're defense based - and those resist sets dont' work for you any more. That Knockback set isn't taken any more. It's even worse when you say you want to switch AT - what is a Blaster going to do with a resist set? What is a Scrapper going to do with Sting of the Manticore or Malaise's Illusions? This isn't even touching on the fact that *you could only retain ten enhancements.* That's 1 2/3 six-slotted powers. And you'd have nobody to blame for all that lost time and INF but yourself... Origin Origin holds a strange place in this list. I'm just going to touch on it briefly. Origin used to matter *vastly,* back in pre-beta. It determined how many powers you could learn and how skilled you could get with them. The system was scrapped, and for a long time it was mostly an RP item, as well as determining which enhancements you could use. It now has *some* impact in the game with some temp powers - the "helper" power you get at level 1 (throwing knives, taser, mutagen, etc.) as well as some of the vet powers. The main impact, though, would be if you'd equipped with DOs or SOs, with the lost INF. That said, you would be able to get some of it back. Origin's probably the least of the problems with a full respec. Though some would, of course, complain that they no longer get a damage bonus or what have you - and who knows what the devs may do with this in the future. Gameplay There are also three other things to consider. 1. The game is designed around alts. Seriously. If this were Guild Wars, for instance, with severely limited slots, I could see wanting to do a complete respec. But by default, you can make over 100 characters before feeling a pinch - and can purchase up to 24 additional slots per server, if you so choose. Don't like one set, make some others and try them out. 2. It's just not that hard to level. Seriously... it's not. With half debt inside missions, patrol XP, double XP weekends, XP smoothing, XP adjustments (typically up,) debt reduction everywhere... it just *isnt'* hard to level. And levelling "honestly" means you're learning your powersets, how they work with each other and others and hopefully how to use them best - which will only make you a stronger player. 3. The devs say "no." The devs have said no. They devs will continue to say no. The most recent "no" being the 4/2010 Q&A. So this is not just player opinion. In closing, let me just say "No. Roll an alt." |
Quote:
I love Bill's explanations but this one time I have a crtiticism. I think he should have put the Devs response at the top. There are too many people that won't bother to read the whole thing and will go off on a rant about the other stuff. |
Originally Posted by Chaos Creator
Stealing Memphis_Bill's Copypasta here too!
|
But I know they'll still go off on their rants.
Quote:
or try to come up with a completely different way to sell the idea...
|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
I love Bill's explanations but this one time I have a crtiticism. I think he should have put the Devs response at the top. There are too many people that won't bother to read the whole thing and will go off on a rant about the other stuff.
But I know they'll still go off on their rants. |
I don't support the "full respec" idea and never have (it works in some games, but this isn't one of them).
However, it's worth pointing out that "the devs said no" is a poor argument against any given suggestion, no matter how "obviously" bad it is.
Quote:
Really? That seems like a pretty good argument to me. The devs have repeatedly and emphatically said no to this idea. And it's their game. Every lead this game has had has said no to the idea. They're not going to put it in.|
Originally Posted by Shatterjack
I don't support the "full respec" idea and never have (it works in some games, but this isn't one of them).
However, it's worth pointing out that "the devs said no" is a poor argument against any given suggestion, no matter how "obviously" bad it is. |
That's kind of like saying "Just because the boss said we shouldn't drink on the job isn't a good reason not to do it."
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
I think he's going for the tank man strategy.|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
Really? That seems like a pretty good argument to me. The devs have repeatedly and emphatically said no to this idea. And it's their game. Every lead this game has had has said no to the idea. They're not going to put it in.
That's kind of like saying "Just because the boss said we shouldn't drink on the job isn't a good reason not to do it." |
You know, standing in front of a column of tanks in defiance and trying to convince them otherwise even though they've already shot down hundreds of your brethren and could easily run you over in that big tank.
Not saying there's many similarities in the circumstances otherwise mind you, just the principle.
Quote:
This line of argument was partially valid. However, it's been wrong in the past.|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
Really? That seems like a pretty good argument to me. The devs have repeatedly and emphatically said no to this idea. And it's their game. Every lead this game has had has said no to the idea. They're not going to put it in.
That's kind of like saying "Just because the boss said we shouldn't drink on the job isn't a good reason not to do it." |
"We're not going to merge the markets."
"We're merging the markets."
There was also the near-fiasco with price refactoring of base items a few issues ago when we were told flat-out that if we wanted to realize the savings we'd have to tear our bases down.
Simply because the devs say "no", even repeatedly, not to mention emphatically, is not always a valid reason to discontinue asking.
Granted, in this case, I'm against "full respecs" for many of the reasons stated above and I seriously doubt the issue will be be revisited for feasibility any time soon.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
This line of argument was partially valid. However, it's been wrong in the past.
"We're not going to merge the markets." "We're merging the markets." There was also the near-fiasco with price refactoring of base items a few issues ago when we were told flat-out that if we wanted to realize the savings we'd have to tear our bases down. Simply because the devs say "no", even repeatedly, not to mention emphatically, is not always a valid reason to discontinue asking. Granted, in this case, I'm against "full respecs" for many of the reasons stated above and I seriously doubt the issue will be be revisited for feasibility any time soon. |
When did the devs ever say no to merging the markets? As I recall they always said that they'd like to do it but they needed to wait until they resolved some ingame economy issues.
The only thing they ever said "no" to that they later changed their minds about was making Fitness inherent.
Quote:
And what happened to change their reasoning on merging the markets? Just saying "The devs changed their mind" is not giving anything close to the full picture. |
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
This line of argument was partially valid. However, it's been wrong in the past.
"We're not going to merge the markets." "We're merging the markets." There was also the near-fiasco with price refactoring of base items a few issues ago when we were told flat-out that if we wanted to realize the savings we'd have to tear our bases down. Simply because the devs say "no", even repeatedly, not to mention emphatically, is not always a valid reason to discontinue asking. Granted, in this case, I'm against "full respecs" for many of the reasons stated above and I seriously doubt the issue will be be revisited for feasibility any time soon. |
The problem was, quite simply, Praetoria. We were going to have a *third* market and third "INF," Information. Now, yes, we have that now - but we have it simply as a label while a Praetorian for the exact same thing, not something that would be put "in escrow" or however they were describing it.
Now, what would happen with separate markets - especially with side switching - if you put some of your salvage and recipes up in Praetoria, hit 20, moved to Villainside (losing your INF and market items - they're still there, but not obtainable,) did the same, and at (say) 30, moved to Heroside? You'd have multiple items locked away that you just couldn't get to.
In that instance, the previous "result of merging markets" that they didn't like found itself outweighed by the absolute mess that having three separate markets and currencies (and "gun runners") would create.
There's no such issue here with full respecs. The devs have said no, and there's nothing game- or mechanics- wise to force them to change their mind.
Quote:
With both Forbin and Bill hitting this point, I actually feel a little guilty hitting it too. |
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
This line of argument was partially valid. However, it's been wrong in the past.
"We're not going to merge the markets." "We're merging the markets." |
One of the reasons the developers were against merging the markets was due to a technical hurdle: i.e. the hard-coded and tightly coupled segments of code that originally backed the faction specific item holding. Merging the databases for the markets on top of modifying the game engine code was going to be a monumental time consuming task.
There are a couple of salient points to keep in mind here:
- There wasn't going to be a loyalist and resistance faction to Praetoria. There was only going to be one faction in Praetoria, with access to all the missions.
- Going Rogue was supposed to Beta in January 2010 and launch in early spring.
The original solution, if I understand it correctly, was that characters created in Praetoria would simply have their existing salvage and enhancements gifted into the Hero or Villain databases. Since there was only going to be one Praetorian faction, the code additions shouldn't have been too bad.
Now, I'm grateful that NCSoft decided it was worth it to hold off on Going Rogue's retail release and pay for the work needed to build a new database without the limitations of the old one. I'm grateful that NCSoft decided that letting Paragon Studios fix what was likely an inherently broken system was more important than getting a product on the market as quickly as possible.
Quote:
| There was also the near-fiasco with price refactoring of base items a few issues ago when we were told flat-out that if we wanted to realize the savings we'd have to tear our bases down. |
Quote:
| Simply because the devs say "no", even repeatedly, not to mention emphatically, is not always a valid reason to discontinue asking. |
Quote:
| Granted, in this case, I'm against "full respecs" for many of the reasons stated above and I seriously doubt the issue will be be revisited for feasibility any time soon. |
- developers said no because they do not want to do it.
- developers said no because of a technical limitation they don't have the resources to address
Now, as I understand the situation, one of the cited reasons given for the new inherent fitness was the number of players taking the fitness pool to begin with. Does anybody remember if we got a firm percentage of just how much of the player population had Pool Power Fitness chosen?
Okay let me try to distill what I was trying to say down to it's simplest form. Since people are taking rock-hammers to the examples and missing the basic point.
1: Simply because the devs say "no" (however often or emphatically is NOT a reason not to ask.
2: This being said, I agree with the devs (and everyone who's replied to me) that in this case, NOT allowing "total respecs" is a Good Thing<TM>. For many of the other reasons put forth in this thread (and in many others).
I just don't want people falling into the trap of "Thus Sayeth The Lord" and "Once said, it's immutable" with the addendum (spoken or implied) of "so shut up about it". The devs are human. They can opt to change their minds at a later date.
And responding to arguments from this POV is the worst form of sloppy "thinking". Because there's no actual "thought" going into it at that point for the response.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
Okay let me try to distill what I was trying to say down to it's simplest form. Since people are taking rock-hammers to the examples and missing the basic point.
*snip* And responding to arguments from this POV is the worst form of sloppy "thinking". Because there's no actual "thought" going into it at that point for the response. |
aww... but it's my favorite tool.
Don't mistake me, I get what you are saying about not relying on just just because the developers said no...
However, I think there is ample evidence for the argument that a majority of players who make suggestions that are inherently bad don't really care about game design or game logic. In many cases the logical trains of thought are completely ignored or discarded, mentally thrown into the wind. In many cases the players simply don't understand the base mechanics, themes, or designs of any segment of the game they wish to change. In several cases players simply don't like the design, and although the design works, wants to change it to suit their whims.
Using the specific case in point here, the archtype / power / ultimate respec. The topic gets dredged up on a fairly regular basis. Granted, some attempts to pass the idea off are more creative than others, such as wrapping the idea in a "perma-death" pill...
In many of these cases, the only reasoning the suggesting player will accept is that the developers themselves said no. Even then, as evidenced by this thread in particular and it's original poster, that reasoning is also rejected.
The questions really comes down to:
- How do you handle someone who doesn't like the answers they are given?
- How do you handle someone who rejects the answers they are given?
- What can you do when there is a demonstrative difference between whatever the requester wants and what is good for the game itself?
- What can you do when there is no method, procedure, or way to reconcile what the suggester wants with the game itself?
Quote:
How about, the devs said no and use the search feature. Would that be acceptable? |
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
Okay let me try to distill what I was trying to say down to it's simplest form. Since people are taking rock-hammers to the examples and missing the basic point.
1: Simply because the devs say "no" (however often or emphatically is NOT a reason not to ask. 2: This being said, I agree with the devs (and everyone who's replied to me) that in this case, NOT allowing "total respecs" is a Good Thing<TM>. For many of the other reasons put forth in this thread (and in many others). I just don't want people falling into the trap of "Thus Sayeth The Lord" and "Once said, it's immutable" with the addendum (spoken or implied) of "so shut up about it". The devs are human. They can opt to change their minds at a later date. And responding to arguments from this POV is the worst form of sloppy "thinking". Because there's no actual "thought" going into it at that point for the response. |
Quote:
Does /jranger mean anything to ya? |
Originally Posted by Sharker_Quint
How about, the devs said no and use the search feature. Would that be acceptable?
|
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
No, because what Sharker posted was not a one word response. He provided information the devs themselves gave us on this very topic and referred people to a useful forum tool. |
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
Does /jranger mean anything to ya?
|
Quote:
The devs only rarely ever flat out say "no" to something, and my only . . . uhm . . . gripe? is when people point to things where the devs have said "We can't do it now (for whatever reason) but we'd like to do it someday." and claim that is an example of the devs saying "no" and then they changed their minds. |
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
I just don't want people falling into the trap of "Thus Sayeth The Lord" and "Once said, it's immutable" with the addendum (spoken or implied) of "so shut up about it". The devs are human. They can opt to change their minds at a later date.
And responding to arguments from this POV is the worst form of sloppy "thinking". Because there's no actual "thought" going into it at that point for the response. |
They didn't change their minds. They were always open to those ideas but couldn't implement immediately. (Market merger, Power Customisation, Global emails, Sideswitching, alternate power animations)
If you want an example of something the devs have actually said "no" to and later changed their minds on then use Fitness becoming inherent as the example.
Alright, I know theres alot of CoX supporters in here and most can't stand me because of my critical thinking of the many things I can't stand about this game. But, I do really like this MMO and wish it all the best...I just wish certain things would happen to bring back some of my friends from the past and present. One is my title itself, a full respec is many times better then making 50-50's and or deleting a toon because of room! I have always gotten the..."That will NEVER happen people" to the, "I wish that too!" So, there are other things, but for now...I was told to post on the forums from other GM's. Anyways, whether you like the idea or hate it, I figured I would ask for it in a nice way and say..."Please!"
Posted on Discussion side too!