Remove the mechanics for complete IPR and burn the disks the code is on!

[Waffen]

Originally posted by Kuroshio
On the scope issue? Yes, to hell with them. Scopes still work and they made the choice to pick up a scope. Scopes are still in the game and still working.

Actually no. The only reason they used the scope in the first place was to use it with the crossbow (like the Bow Blaster for example). Now that FC changed all the viable crossbow stats, no reason to use a scope.

It might be a small amount of players in that situation but probably just about every profession has had something changed enough to make all the small amounts in each profession add up to a large number.

And even if not a large number, I think we need to look out for what is the legitimate need of the minority population gimped by rule changes. Remember after all, Adventurers were a minority populace that were a major force and reason for the first IPR due to the multi-req change.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Waffen


Actually no. The only reason they used the scope in the first place was to use it with the crossbow (like the Bow Blaster for example). Now that FC changed all the viable crossbow stats, no reason to use a scope.

It might be a small amount of players in that situation but probably just about every profession has had something changed enough to make all the small amounts in each profession add up to a large number.

And even if not a large number, I think we need to look out for what is the legitimate need of the minority population gimped by rule changes. Remember after all, Adventurers were a minority populace that were a major force and reason for the first IPR due to the multi-req change.

First let me say that an items and abilities are not rules. Items and abilities have always been subject to change in these types of games, both through nerfs and normal gameplay. So I personally find the attempted justification of reset points based on item changes to be a poor one. It's barely a step away from attempting to justify them because of new content getting added. And I'm certain I've made my stance clear on that issue (earn it, not given it). There has never been a guarantee in these games that an item or ability will always be availible or will always be effective. This situation is not new so people should not pretend it is.

As for the minority that might have legitimate needs, Funcom proved we won't be seeing another Adventurer multiwield change again when they rebalanced Atrox/Nanomage attributes. And I'd never advocate potentially unbalancing the game for the sake of the minority at the cost of the majority.



Personally I do find it fitting that a person that continually changes their skillset to keep up with the latest trend should find themselves less effective than a person that focused on a particular skillset without changing. Why should someone that never invested in Assault Rifle before be as effective with one as someone that has focused on Assault Rifle the entire time? That's why we have limited IP in the first place isn't it? So one person cannot do everything as effectively as someone that focused in a particular skillset. The person that is choosing to continually change their skillset is also choosing immediate gain over long term benefit. And that is the way it should be. I'd think it'd be perfectly fitting if 2 fixers, both at level 190, found that only one could use GA IV because of the choices they made while developing their characters. Probably wouldn't hurt the availibility of GA if it did.

Waffen, the whole issue boils down to the choices people make and having to deal with the results of those choices whether they are good or bad. Nobody forced you to pick up a crossbow and scope. You chose to do it. You received the benefits for doing it (better xp and loot). You levelled while it was there. If you also had to return to the level you were before you picked up that crossbow and scope, I'd shut up. But you won't and you know it.

[__________Curmudgeon]

Originally posted by Kuroshio
First let me say that an items and abilities are not rules. Items and abilities have always been subject to change in these types of games, both through nerfs and normal gameplay. So I personally find the attempted justification of reset points based on item changes to be a poor one.

Changes in abilities and how those abilities react with items is a change in the game mechanics. If you base IP allotment on existing game mechanics and those mechanics change, it is frustrating. If it's serious enough it's darned annoying. This is a game, it's supposed to be fun. People get frustrated and pissed off when careful planning of IP expenditure is negated in such a manner. Sure, there are no guarantees, but the game is supposed to be about fun, not frustration. Isn't it?

Originally posted by Kuroshio
And I'm certain I've made my stance clear on that issue (earn it, not given it).

And most of those debating the other viewpoint have made it clear that they completely disagree with that statement. People earn those IPs, they are not given out. If you reset skills, you remove IP from some other skill to pay for the new skill you want. Nothing is being given out for free.

Originally posted by Kuroshio
As for the minority that might have legitimate needs, Funcom proved we won't be seeing another Adventurer multiwield change again when they rebalanced Atrox/Nanomage attributes. And I'd never advocate potentially unbalancing the game for the sake of the minority at the cost of the majority.

Again, you bring up examples that have no meaning in this debate. There was no hue and cry for a Total IPR on the atrox/nanomage, because it was not necessary. Most atroxes love the fact that they suddenly got more HP, and most nanomages loved the fact that they got more nanopoints. It was something both breeds had been asking for since release. Of course no skill reset was delivered by FunCom. I don't think anyone even asked for one with those changes.

Originally posted by Kuroshio
Why should someone that never invested in Assault Rifle before be as effective with one as someone that has focused on Assault Rifle the entire time? That's why we have limited IP in the first place isn't it? So one person cannot do everything as effectively as someone that focused in a particular skillset.

I would say we have limited IP so that one character can't be good at many things at once. You can't be good at all weapons and skills at the same time. Total IPRs would not change that. You would still face decisions about what to reduce in order to raise something else. You would still not have enough IP to max everything you would like. There would still be IP expediture strategy. I don't agree that just because someone has always used an Assault Rifle, they should be better than someone else who changes to an Assault Rifle.

Shouldn't someone who is seriously enough in tune with this game to know how the game and available gear changes get some reward for adapting to the new mechanics? Isn't it more fun to have the ability to change and adapt to an evolving game than to be stuck with choices based on obsolete mechanics?

Originally posted by Kuroshio
Waffen, the whole issue boils down to the choices people make and having to deal with the results of those choices whether they are good or bad. Nobody forced you to pick up a crossbow and scope. You chose to do it. You received the benefits for doing it (better xp and loot). You levelled while it was there. If you also had to return to the level you were before you picked up that crossbow and scope, I'd shut up. But you won't and you know it.

Again Kuro, don't you think that's a little too darn hardball for a game that is supposed to be fun? Waffen outlines a viable game strategy utilizing existing gear. That strategy was then made significantly less viable by a change in the game that could not be controlled by the players. Yes, scopes are still there, but they have gone from being a good strategy to being a bad strategy due to changes in the game environment.

Your response is "tough, deal with it". Well, I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that philosophy, when it comes to entertainment. And that type of philosophy is not a good business strategy for MMORPG designers. In a long-term, ever-changing game environment, if players aren't allowed to easily adapt to changes and new content they will grow frustrated and leave. A static skill system is simply ridiculous in this type of game.

And obviously FunCom realizes this because they added the single skill IPRs. But for players who are in this game for years on the same character, there will be enough change and new content that 15 IPRs is not enough. They will eventually need to provide a way to adapt you characters more, or they will lose customers.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Curmudgeon


Changes in abilities and how those abilities react with items is a change in the game mechanics. If you base IP allotment on existing game mechanics and those mechanics change, it is frustrating. If it's serious enough it's darned annoying. This is a game, it's supposed to be fun. People get frustrated and pissed off when careful planning of IP expenditure is negated in such a manner. Sure, there are no guarantees, but the game is supposed to be about fun, not frustration. Isn't it?

The discussion over resetting skills isn't over basing their IP allotment on game mechanics. It's about basing their IP allotment on items in the game. Those aren't game mechanics. Adventurers with multiranged was a game mechanics change. X-3 vs Krutt is not a game mechanic.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
And most of those debating the other viewpoint have made it clear that they completely disagree with that statement. People earn those IPs, they are not given out. If you reset skills, you remove IP from some other skill to pay for the new skill you want. Nothing is being given out for free.

People have earned their ip, correct. Then they have spent that IP, using it for a purpose. That IP is gone. And you immediately start getting the benefits of spending that IP. When something new comes along, you should have to spend more IP to get it. you don't have to give back the benefits you received for that expenditure do you?

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
Again, you bring up examples that have no meaning in this debate. There was no hue and cry for a Total IPR on the atrox/nanomage, because it was not necessary. Most atroxes love the fact that they suddenly got more HP, and most nanomages loved the fact that they got more nanopoints. It was something both breeds had been asking for since release. Of course no skill reset was delivered by FunCom. I don't think anyone even asked for one with those changes.

You didn't read the whole reply did you? Waffen specifically mentioned the Adventurer multiwield rebalancing. That is one of the few justifiable reasons for reset points I've seen yet. The nearest equivalent was the Atrox/Nanomage rebalancing. The point was that it would not be necessary to have reset points if the situation reoccured where an attribute was rebalanced because the 2nd time Funcom did it, they did it seamlessly, without leaving established characters at a disadvantage.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
I would say we have limited IP so that one character can't be good at many things at once. You can't be good at all weapons and skills at the same time. Total IPRs would not change that. You would still face decisions about what to reduce in order to raise something else. You would still not have enough IP to max everything you would like. There would still be IP expediture strategy. I don't agree that just because someone has always used an Assault Rifle, they should be better than someone else who changes to an Assault Rifle.

Isn't that what an RPG is all about? That a character that has focused on a particular skillset is better than someone that is completely new to the skill? That is where individuality in these games come from: building your character. IPR and especially Complete Resets is less building and more creating a character. You only get to create a character once, in character creation.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
Shouldn't someone who is seriously enough in tune with this game to know how the game and available gear changes get some reward for adapting to the new mechanics? Isn't it more fun to have the ability to change and adapt to an evolving game than to be stuck with choices based on obsolete mechanics?

Again, you use the word "Mechanics" when you need to be using the word "Items". What you're questioning is the fundamental core of an RPG. My question would be if you didn't want to play an RPG, why did you buy a game that states very clearly it is a RPG?

Your way, the way you're allegedgly playing devil's advocate for, puts the game in a constant cycle of "everyone the same". Constant resetting of skills to change into whatever is new guarantees everyone will be the same. Everyone wielding whatever they think is "The Best" unless it's tagged with a "Profession: <XXX>". You find that appealing? Why not play Quake or UT instead?

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
Again Kuro, don't you think that's a little too darn hardball for a game that is supposed to be fun? Waffen outlines a viable game strategy utilizing existing gear. That strategy was then made significantly less viable by a change in the game that could not be controlled by the players. Yes, scopes are still there, but they have gone from being a good strategy to being a bad strategy due to changes in the game environment.

Waffen's example involved 2 different situations. Like I said, I'm not familiar with the crossbow issue but I'm quite familiar with the scope one. She invested IP in an item that increased the chances of causing a critical hit. That item remains. That item may not be as effective as it was but that goes for everyone, not just Waffen. So with the scope, Waffen still has a better chance to score a critical hit than a person that does not have one or has a lesser one.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
Your response is "tough, deal with it". Well, I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that philosophy, when it comes to entertainment. And that type of philosophy is not a good business strategy for MMORPG designers. In a long-term, ever-changing game environment, if players aren't allowed to easily adapt to changes and new content they will grow frustrated and leave. A static skill system is simply ridiculous in this type of game.

And obviously FunCom realizes this because they added the single skill IPRs. But for players who are in this game for years on the same character, there will be enough change and new content that 15 IPRs is not enough. They will eventually need to provide a way to adapt you characters more, or they will lose customers.

Yall dragged this away from the original topic and yall inserted this mess about single reset points, not me. I think they're terrible for this type of game because they guarantee that the people in the game will have no individuality, which is what this type of game is also about. But I also stated flat out at the very beginning, that so long as the points are EARNED I could deal with it. People were also suggesting good ways to implement it. What dragged this discussion into the nether regions it's now in is "No, I want them given to me".

No. A thousand times "No". I'll say no to that until Funcom says "No, never" or they start giving them away. When Funcom says never, I won't need to say anything more. If they implement it, I'll leave. I have no desire to play a bad version of Quake or Diablo. AO would be both. A bad version of Quake because everyone in the game will look almost exactly the same, using the same items with the same abilities, but without my skill being a factor. And it will be a bad version of Diablo, nothing more than a dungeon crawl, for the exact same reasons.

As for what Funcom knows, I think they also know they can't give away more reset points without making their lives infinately more difficult and without removing the last few pieces of individuality from the game. Otherwise they would have made reset points infinate and been done with it. That too can be inferred from the current situation if you want to play guessing games.

[Waffen]

Originally posted by Kuroshio

Waffen, the whole issue boils down to the choices people make and having to deal with the results of those choices whether they are good or bad. Nobody forced you to pick up a crossbow and scope. You chose to do it. You received the benefits for doing it (better xp and loot). You levelled while it was there. If you also had to return to the level you were before you picked up that crossbow and scope, I'd shut up. But you won't and you know it.

Why should I shut up? If you would actually care to read what I posted before going on a long-winded crusade against full IPR in every response, you'll see that my MA has been 100% fist. I at least am being unselfish in wishing for others to get their IP back in that situtation.

And we are talking mechanics here. Let's take a hypothetical. Say that the only viable agent weapon was the X-3 with rifle and AS for skill. FC decides to change the rifle skill req to ranged energy. Not a mechanics change even though everything based around the combat perfomance of the agent was rifle-based, and now is RE? Heh.

You didn't read the whole reply did you? Waffen specifically mentioned the Adventurer multiwield rebalancing. That is one of the few justifiable reasons for reset points I've seen yet. The nearest equivalent was the Atrox/Nanomage rebalancing. The point was that it would not be necessary to have reset points if the situation reoccured where an attribute was rebalanced because the 2nd time Funcom did it, they did it seamlessly, without leaving established characters at a disadvantage.

You're arguing against yourself. In previous posts you lament your imaginary idea that so many would unfairly benefit from a total IPR, even if it would benefit the few that might actually deserve it. Well, that's what happened with Adventurers who were and still continue to be a small minority in AO. To be consistent in your argument, you should be saying "tough crap" to them too. That they should have "lived with it".

And AO "a bad version of Quake and Diablo" due to a full IPR? Good thing you said that. Now people really know where you are coming from. I'll be nice and say - extreme exaggeration.

[Hajkster]

Originally posted by Kuroshio
Another full IP reset should never be considered ever again.

Why not?. Ever played a LvL200 char before? You play the same char the hole time doing the same things bla bla bla. Ever thought about it? So just because you dont like it all should do as you wan't? And dont try me with that crap start another char then. Because i like my main. But some changes i should have on him.

Just twink a char of your own now if your so jealous of others.

[Hajkster]

Originally posted by Kuroshio


Smotheredhope:
Blackwing is just attempting to bait me. He can't do it. I did ask you a question about UO earlier which you haven't answered yet.

You admired a specific skill system. That skill system also allowed for people to try out new skills but did not allow anyone to do so instantly. The developers of the same game that contained that system faced a sizeable uproar from their playerbase when incentinves were introduced that allowed people obtain skills far quicker than they did. Nobody in the past history of gaming industry allowed for instantaneous reversal of skills without penalty or cost. And current/future games, while allowing redistribution of skills, are will not make such a system instantaneous either.

Why are you so hellbent on bringing such a system here when by your own admission you admired a system that did NOT allow instant redistribution of skills, previous games rejecting the idea of such, and future game not even considering it?

I know why I'm against it. I've seen what happens when it was tried, when it failed, and the headache everyone had to go through to clean up the mess. Earned reset points, yes. Free rides leading to imbalances, loss of identity, and the escalation of game difficulty? No.

Bait you? Did you even read what he said?.. He was completely right. But you just ignore everything that isnt the same as your Uber Maximum standard. Heck, you even said Give people a chance to change prof, breed and what not if full iprs would come. I would be extremly satisfied with one full ipr as i wasnt in game when the first came. But how can this be compared change breed etc?.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Waffen


Why should I shut up? If you would actually care to read what I posted before going on a long-winded crusade against full IPR in every response, you'll see that my MA has been 100% fist. I at least am being unselfish in wishing for others to get their IP back in that situtation.

ROFL...You accuse me of not reading your posts? That's funny consider:

Originally posted by Kuroshio
If you also had to return to the level you were before you picked up that crossbow and scope, I'd shut up

And yes, I did miss the fact that you said you were 100% fist. So we're both guilty of missing things, eh?

Originally posted by Waffen
And we are talking mechanics here. Let's take a hypothetical. Say that the only viable agent weapon was the X-3 with rifle and AS for skill. FC decides to change the rifle skill req to ranged energy. Not a mechanics change even though everything based around the combat perfomance of the agent was rifle-based, and now is RE? Heh.

That's a hypothetical that wouldn't exist. For that to be true there'd have to be no other weapons except the X-3 with rifle and aimed shot, wouldn't there? And if there is anything in AO, there is a glut of weapons for every logical skillset in the game (no mixing RE with Parry, ect)

And what defines 'viable' anyways? Does the most damage? Has the most specials? Has a specual function attached to it? Can be gotten without 60 of your close friends? Viable here is a huge matter of opinon here. And matter of opinion don't translate into facts.

Originally posted by Waffen
You're arguing against yourself. In previous posts you lament your imaginary idea that so many would unfairly benefit from a total IPR, even if it would benefit the few that might actually deserve it. Well, that's what happened with Adventurers who were and still continue to be a small minority in AO. To be consistent in your argument, you should be saying "tough crap" to them too. That they should have "lived with it".

Hardly. An Adventurer created before the multirange change would have less skill for more IP than one made after the change without being unable to reset. That's the difference. The change in Mechanics would have left those Adventurers short IP. Now if they had chosen that, like people do when investing in a skill that costs more for them than for others, I'd have said "Tough luck, deal with it".

Originally posted by Waffen
And AO "a bad version of Quake and Diablo" due to a full IPR? Good thing you said that. Now people really know where you are coming from. I'll be nice and say - extreme exaggeration.

You lost me here. Could you explain?

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Hajkster


Why not?. Ever played a LvL200 char before? You play the same char the hole time doing the same things bla bla bla. Ever thought about it? So just because you dont like it all should do as you wan't? And dont try me with that crap start another char then. Because i like my main. But some changes i should have on him.

Just twink a char of your own now if your so jealous of others.

Actually I have said that the level 200 character should have a means of gain reset points. And that's all without having a level 200 character. Oops?

Originally posted by Hajkster


Bait you? Did you even read what he said?.. He was completely right. But you just ignore everything that isnt the same as your Uber Maximum standard. Heck, you even said Give people a chance to change prof, breed and what not if full iprs would come. I would be extremly satisfied with one full ipr as i wasnt in game when the first came. But how can this be compared change breed etc?.

I've read what' Blackwing has said before. What you haven't read is our own little conflict that's ranged over a number of threads. Threads where his first entry into the thread is a flame to me. Not that he's hurting my feelings any but I'm not going to waste my time feeding his flames all over the forums. And yes, he's attempting to bait me.

You weren't in the game when the full IPR came about? Then you shouldn't need one. You weren't an Adventurer that lost skill/IP because the skill cap and ip cost for one of your skills was changed. You also didn't lose IP to the bugs that were in the game before they fixed the problems. And before you say "Sure you can say that because you got to", I can easily burn a reset point for the complete reset I used on Shotgun (yes, I play a trader that dumped shotguns). I'll only have 14 more to play with if I want to. And shotgun was the only skill I dumped.

Anything else? I order my clothing special from Dupont so feel free to flame as you like.

[__________Curmudgeon]

Originally posted by Kuroshio
The discussion over resetting skills isn't over basing their IP allotment on game mechanics. It's about basing their IP allotment on items in the game. Those aren't game mechanics. Adventurers with multiranged was a game mechanics change. X-3 vs Krutt is not a game mechanic.

I personally believe that changing how a whole set of items works (eg, crit scopes) is a change to game mechanics, not simply changes to items. It not only affects an entire class of items, it also affects the weapons they modified and the strategies employed by characters. I consider the change of crit scopes to be just as much a change in game mechanics as the change to Adventurers.

Originally posted by Kuroshio
People have earned their ip, correct. Then they have spent that IP, using it for a purpose. That IP is gone. And you immediately start getting the benefits of spending that IP. When something new comes along, you should have to spend more IP to get it. you don't have to give back the benefits you received for that expenditure do you?

That IP is not gone. Yes, you absolutely have to give up the benefits you received when you reset. You don't believe me? OK, use a single skill IPR point to reset your body development and place all that IP into swimming. Sure you can swim like a fiend, but is that new swimming ability free? Of course not! That is ridiculous.

To take a more realistic example, let's say you're a doc and you want to change from MA to Rifle, so you reset MA and Phys Init to raise up Rifle and Aimed Shot. Have you lost something? You bet. You've lost your MA. You keep going on about the past benefits of IP expenditure. If I spend 100 levels maxing MA, then yes, I get benefits over those 100 levels. That MA skill helps me level and helps me get loot. But if I had not spent it on MA, I could have spent it on Rifle. And guess what, I would have gotten levels and loot. You write as if there is a huge advantage gained outta nowhere during the reset. But that's just not true.

Originally posted by Kuroshio
You didn't read the whole reply did you? Waffen specifically mentioned the Adventurer multiwield rebalancing. That is one of the few justifiable reasons for reset points I've seen yet. The nearest equivalent was the Atrox/Nanomage rebalancing. The point was that it would not be necessary to have reset points if the situation reoccured where an attribute was rebalanced because the 2nd time Funcom did it, they did it seamlessly, without leaving established characters at a disadvantage.

ok, I misunderstood the following quote: "Funcom proved we won't be seeing another Adventurer multiwield change again when they rebalanced Atrox/Nanomage attributes." I thought you meant to say that because they didn't give one there, it proved they would never give another. But if you mean to say that you think all the other changes in the future will be as seamless and not cause disadvantages to characters, I think you're a major optimist.

Originally posted by Kuroshio
Isn't that what an RPG is all about? That a character that has focused on a particular skillset is better than someone that is completely new to the skill? That is where individuality in these games come from: building your character. IPR and especially Complete Resets is less building and more creating a character. You only get to create a character once, in character creation.

An RPG is about playing a role. If you rely simply on items and skills to play that role, then you will always lack individuality. Gear does not equal personality. I'll tell you this much, my characters are characters regardless of whether they wield an AR or an SMG. I consider resetting points and changing guns the same way I would changing my clothes. Sure, it may be a different style, but it's not a different character or persona.

Originally posted by Kuroshio
Again, you use the word "Mechanics" when you need to be using the word "Items". What you're questioning is the fundamental core of an RPG. My question would be if you didn't want to play an RPG, why did you buy a game that states very clearly it is a RPG?

No, I mean mechanics. I think changing an entire line of items, thereby affecting entire lines of weapons, thereby affecting entire strategies for IP expenditure and combat... qualifies as "mechanics" not "items". By your argument, I'm sure Notum Wars towers and such are simply "items", but I consider that as another change in mechanics. It has seriously changed the effectiveness of certain skills, it has introduced a whole new game-play style for PvP, it has made PvP from something that gave very little personal gain to something that directly affects all players. Pretty major changes for just "the addition of some items".

What I'm questioning has absolutely nothing to do with RPG. But it has everything to do with MMORPG. Skills are plastic and mutable in this mythos. You can go from clueless to competent and back to clueless in moments by changing implants at a terminal. A soldier putting down an Assault Rifle and picking up an SMG does not violate my worldview in the least. Even things like a doc forgetting MA and picking up a rifle can easily be explained with this world's technology.

Yes, in most classic Pen and Paper RPG systems, you can not unlearn skills and then learn others. I'll agree with you there. But then again, in those systems, the rules don't change on a monthly basis (unless your GM is wacky). I still think that in a skill-based MMORPG where the rules change, the stats on items change, new and different content is added that changes people's priorities, and the entire game evolves demands some adaptability for characters.

Originally posted by Kuroshio
Your way, the way you're allegedgly playing devil's advocate for, puts the game in a constant cycle of "everyone the same". Constant resetting of skills to change into whatever is new guarantees everyone will be the same. Everyone wielding whatever they think is "The Best" unless it's tagged with a "Profession: <XXX>". You find that appealing? Why not play Quake or UT instead?

I think that is a drastic overstatement. If every enforcer over 161st wielded a Queen Blade, they would all still be different individuals with different personalities. If you don't believe me, talk to several and ask yourself if they are cookie cutters incapable of roleplay. If every person in the game wielded the same weapon, I would still be an individual. I'm starting to wonder why you are bothering playing an RPG, if you think that your gear is your personality.

I also think you underestimate people's desire for being different. Right now people already have the ability to all use the same weapon, but they are not. Sure Total IPRs would make it easier, but I think you do a lot of people a disservice if you think everyone will instantly reset to be completely the same. There are hundreds of people in this game who do not take the most popular or most efficient path. You said you were one of them. I am one of them. That wouldn't change a bit if I had the occasional Total IPR. In fact, that would give me the ability to experiment with even more bizarre breed/profession/gear combos.

Originally posted by Kuroshio
Waffen's example involved 2 different situations. Like I said, I'm not familiar with the crossbow issue but I'm quite familiar with the scope one. She invested IP in an item that increased the chances of causing a critical hit. That item remains. That item may not be as effective as it was but that goes for everyone, not just Waffen. So with the scope, Waffen still has a better chance to score a critical hit than a person that does not have one or has a lesser one.

Again, you look at the crit scope change as if it was just a minor item change. I look at it as a change in a complete line of items, which affected complete lines of crit-reliant weapons, which affected complete character concepts and IP allotment strategies. When combined with the PvP crit nerf, this is a HUGE change in game mechanics for many characters. Calling that a simple item change, that can just be ignored, seems very short-sighted to me.

I think FunCom has been realizing that this game is an evolution. That things change, that people get bored with the same characters doing the same things, that people need to change and adapt their characters as the game evolves. I think that's why they initially added IPRs, and I think that's why they need to add the ability to get more IPRs. I actually hope they do put in a mechanism for earning single-skill IPRs. But I completely understand why people are wanting an occassional Total IPR, when things like crit nerfing and Notum Wars change how the gameis played for many people.

[Waffen]

Originally posted by Kuroshio


ROFL...You accuse me of not reading your posts? That's funny consider...

And yes, I did miss the fact that you said you were 100% fist. So we're both guilty of missing things, eh?

Except you're picking out what you want for the context you want. Your complete quote "If you also had to return to the level you were before you picked up that crossbow and scope, I'd shut up. But you won't and you know it. "

Your last sentence as written could modify either talking about the levels with crossbow and scope, or shutting up. Considering how you've replied to others, I took the latter.

I used the X-3 in the hypothetical to keep it simplistic, as it's obvious you really don't understand mechanics of the game. The crossbow change was made across the entire line. Fine, say FC changed the X-3, Caterwaul, Gripo, Tsak, Disaffiliation, Stig, etc., all to RE and AS.

Why is the scope and crossbow a mechanics change? For MA's, that combination was mainly used for PvP. Unleash the specials and rapidly close to use fists. Now that entire style of play has been thrown out the window with both the crit nerf and skillset change of the crossbows. You see, if an MA still wants to use the crossbows, they have a lower attack rating than before as they have to raise the rifle skill which they never had to raise before. That is a mechanics change.

Using your adventurer argument - MA's starting today would not invest any IP in the skillset used with crossbows due to the change, hence having more IP than the MA's who did dump their IP into that skillset.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Waffen


Except you're picking out what you want for the context you want. Your complete quote "If you also had to return to the level you were before you picked up that crossbow and scope, I'd shut up. But you won't and you know it. "

Your last sentence as written could modify either talking about the levels with crossbow and scope, or shutting up. Considering how you've replied to others, I took the latter.

You really want to debate grammar just so you don't have to say you were wrong? This is a flame: Grow up or give up. I damn sure admitted I was wrong.

Originally posted by Waffen

I used the X-3 in the hypothetical to keep it simplistic, as it's obvious you really don't understand mechanics of the game. The crossbow change was made across the entire line. Fine, say FC changed the X-3, Caterwaul, Gripo, Tsak, Disaffiliation, Stig, etc., all to RE and AS.

Why is the scope and crossbow a mechanics change? For MA's, that combination was mainly used for PvP. Unleash the specials and rapidly close to use fists. Now that entire style of play has been thrown out the window with both the crit nerf and skillset change of the crossbows. You see, if an MA still wants to use the crossbows, they have a lower attack rating than before as they have to raise the rifle skill which they never had to raise before. That is a mechanics change.

I've got a pretty good handle on the mechanics of the game, thank you. And I'm not exactly clueless on the mechanics of people neither. The point that you're attempting to dance around is your now massively gimped MA didn't want to use another weapon with that skillset except whatever specific crossbow was considered uber at the time. I won't mention the likelyhood that Funcom had been aware the crossbows were using the wrong skill. Nor the likelyhood that until it reached a critical mass of people using them it wasn't a priority for them to change

Originally posted by Waffen
Using your adventurer argument - MA's starting today would not invest any IP in the skillset used with crossbows due to the change, hence having more IP than the MA's who did dump their IP into that skillset.

You don't invest IP into wielding a specific weapon. You invest IP into a skill which allows you to wield a weapon. That's the difference. Any MA starting today that invested IP into the exact same skills that an MA who was using a crossbow had invested, would have to spend the exact same amount of IP. That was not true of the Adventurer Multirange skill. An Adventurer that started today would spend less IP to get the exact same skill amount as an Adventurer that existed befoe the change.

To make it clearer take 2 Adventuers, 1 that existed before the change and one that exists now. Both max their multirange skill for this level. The adventurer that existed before the change find he has 100 in multirange and it cost him 2000 IP. The newer adventurer finds he has 110 in multirange and it cost him 1800 IP.

What has to be fair is breed/profession being equal, all character spend the exact same amount of IP to achieve the same skill. That is a rule. Where a person invests their IP is a choice and they have to deal with their choices.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Curmudgeon


I personally believe that changing how a whole set of items works (eg, crit scopes) is a change to game mechanics, not simply changes to items. It not only affects an entire class of items, it also affects the weapons they modified and the strategies employed by characters. I consider the change of crit scopes to be just as much a change in game mechanics as the change to Adventurers.

I don't. As I posted in reply to Waffen, breed/profession being equal 2 players that invested in the skills needed to use a scope would have to spend the same IP to acheive the same skill amount. That was not true of Adventurers and multiranged. That sets that situation further apart from item balancing.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
That IP is not gone. Yes, you absolutely have to give up the benefits you received when you reset. You don't believe me? OK, use a single skill IPR point to reset your body development and place all that IP into swimming. Sure you can swim like a fiend, but is that new swimming ability free? Of course not! That is ridiculous.

To take a more realistic example, let's say you're a doc and you want to change from MA to Rifle, so you reset MA and Phys Init to raise up Rifle and Aimed Shot. Have you lost something? You bet. You've lost your MA. You keep going on about the past benefits of IP expenditure. If I spend 100 levels maxing MA, then yes, I get benefits over those 100 levels. That MA skill helps me level and helps me get loot. But if I had not spent it on MA, I could have spent it on Rifle. And guess what, I would have gotten levels and loot. You write as if there is a huge advantage gained outta nowhere during the reset. But that's just not true.

Skills carry varying importance according to the level of the character. A trader, for example, doesn't have to invest in SenseImp until they can use their first calm. At that point, they pick up another nanoskill to invest in. The skills importance is further modified by the activities you participate in. To stick with the Trader example, Calms are important but take on a vital importance when the trader starts teaming with in situations where the teams are facing mobs way above their level. Now the trader that focuses on calming will have to begin sacrificing to maintain his calming abilities. But at the same time, because he's reached a level where he's primarily teaming, weapon skills become of less importance because he's not relying as heavily on them for survival (his team makes up the difference).

That's where reset points begin to niggle me. Someone that focused throughout on nanoskills and had a more difficult time doing something than someone that focused on weaponskills now has a reward...until that person that focused on weapon skills resets their skills, investing in nanoskills becoming equally effective as them. Same goes for weapons. A Manex is not a gun for a newbie with low ranged init. But it becomes a very viable weapon at higher levels for anyone with good ranged init. So you'll see a someone wielding something like a shotgun until a certian point, where they reset and grab a Manex.

That's what I mean by IP being gone and you can't take back the benefits. A person took an easier route because of reset points to reach the same point as someone that did not and ends up equally effective. And the arguement that they could do it too isn't valid. This particular method plays into the hands of alts and twinks because they have the resources that others do not.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
ok, I misunderstood the following quote: "Funcom proved we won't be seeing another Adventurer multiwield change again when they rebalanced Atrox/Nanomage attributes." I thought you meant to say that because they didn't give one there, it proved they would never give another. But if you mean to say that you think all the other changes in the future will be as seamless and not cause disadvantages to characters, I think you're a major optimist.

That's because you view changes to item as mechanics and I do not. But we won't have a situation where 2 character of equal breed/profession spending spending differing amounts of IP on the same skill to achieve the same skill amount.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
An RPG is about playing a role. If you rely simply on items and skills to play that role, then you will always lack individuality. Gear does not equal personality. I'll tell you this much, my characters are characters regardless of whether they wield an AR or an SMG. I consider resetting points and changing guns the same way I would changing my clothes. Sure, it may be a different style, but it's not a different character or persona.

If the game responded more to the Role portion, I'd agree. But it cannot because there are too many roles being played and not enough people to respond to them. The same thing is true of single player crpgs. There is 1 person playing the role (you) but nobody to respond to it at all. So what makes 2 characters different in the same game? The sum of the skills and abilities on the characters they create. If you hand 2 people each a copy of Morrowing, I'll guarantee you when they complete the game neither's character will resemble the other.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
No, I mean mechanics. I think changing an entire line of items, thereby affecting entire lines of weapons, thereby affecting entire strategies for IP expenditure and combat... qualifies as "mechanics" not "items". By your argument, I'm sure Notum Wars towers and such are simply "items", but I consider that as another change in mechanics. It has seriously changed the effectiveness of certain skills, it has introduced a whole new game-play style for PvP, it has made PvP from something that gave very little personal gain to something that directly affects all players. Pretty major changes for just "the addition of some items".

The Notum Wars is a special circumstance. It did change the mechanics of the game. It did so by adding new items that affect the mechanics of the game through bonuses. So no argument from me on that. Notum Wars did change the mechanics of the game.

But I do see the Notum Wars rewarding those that did choose to invest in certain skillsets and those people deserve a chance to enjoy that reward while the rest of us catch up. Those PvP gurus out there deserve to be the PvP gurus they are while we earn the right ourselves to do the same. Not reset some skills, copying their skillset, and negate that part of their advantage. The people that invested in the skills necessary to make the tower items deserve the same. As do those that already have the skills necessary to place the items. It's like the Fixers and the Fixer Grid. Those people that were already Fixer and already had the skills needed to access the fixer grid got to enjoy their access to the Fixer Grid while everyone else had to catch up.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
What I'm questioning has absolutely nothing to do with RPG. But it has everything to do with MMORPG. Skills are plastic and mutable in this mythos. You can go from clueless to competent and back to clueless in moments by changing implants at a terminal. A soldier putting down an Assault Rifle and picking up an SMG does not violate my worldview in the least. Even things like a doc forgetting MA and picking up a rifle can easily be explained with this world's technology.

Yes, in most classic Pen and Paper RPG systems, you can not unlearn skills and then learn others. I'll agree with you there. But then again, in those systems, the rules don't change on a monthly basis (unless your GM is wacky). I still think that in a skill-based MMORPG where the rules change, the stats on items change, new and different content is added that changes people's priorities, and the entire game evolves demands some adaptability for characters.

It demands some adaptability for characters. I've said deep down I'm opposed to it completely (call me a Purist RPG Player) but can accept it if people earn that adaptability. What's being argued here isn't that at all. What's being argued here is the fact people want it for free. IP reset points are completely wrong for that because they cause an instant transition to the new skill. A Complete Reset Point is extremely wrong for that because they cause an instant transition to a completely different character. So long as the transition is instantaneous, there has to be a price of some sort to prevent more damage being done to the game than benefit done to the playerbase as a whole.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
I think that is a drastic overstatement. If every enforcer over 161st wielded a Queen Blade, they would all still be different individuals with different personalities. If you don't believe me, talk to several and ask yourself if they are cookie cutters incapable of roleplay. If every person in the game wielded the same weapon, I would still be an individual. I'm starting to wonder why you are bothering playing an RPG, if you think that your gear is your personality.

Do you honestly enjoy running through Omni Entertainment and seeing someone that looks almost exactly like you except for the minor differences of breed/face/size? Everyone wearing the same armor or wielding the same weapon? If you have "names above characters" turned off, that you can lose sight of a friend in a crowd? That's not caused by a lack of items in the game that are viable. That's caused by it being too easy to switch to whatever item is perceived to be the best. That's the loss of identity I'm talking about. And its not very appealing to someone that just got to the game either.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
I also think you underestimate people's desire for being different. Right now people already have the ability to all use the same weapon, but they are not. Sure Total IPRs would make it easier, but I think you do a lot of people a disservice if you think everyone will instantly reset to be completely the same. There are hundreds of people in this game who do not take the most popular or most efficient path. You said you were one of them. I am one of them. That wouldn't change a bit if I had the occasional Total IPR. In fact, that would give me the ability to experiment with even more bizarre breed/profession/gear combos.

Knowing that I'm a strange person I automatically exclude anything that I do from estimates . I will purposely go out of my way to be different. But I'm not a "follower". I don't want to be a "leader". Most people in these games, however, will be a follower if they
[list=1][*]Think that by using xxx weapon with yyy armor they will gain +10 xp/s more than if they did something else[*]Have an easy means to change to xxx weapon and yyy armor[/list=1]

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
Again, you look at the crit scope change as if it was just a minor item change. I look at it as a change in a complete line of items, which affected complete lines of crit-reliant weapons, which affected complete character concepts and IP allotment strategies. When combined with the PvP crit nerf, this is a HUGE change in game mechanics for many characters. Calling that a simple item change, that can just be ignored, seems very short-sighted to me.

Everyone using a crit scope score a critical hit less often equally. And they still score a critical hit more than people that don't use a criti scope at all. That's why I find it to be an item change. It did not single anyone out.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
I think FunCom has been realizing that this game is an evolution. That things change, that people get bored with the same characters doing the same things, that people need to change and adapt their characters as the game evolves. I think that's why they initially added IPRs, and I think that's why they need to add the ability to get more IPRs. I actually hope they do put in a mechanism for earning single-skill IPRs. But I completely understand why people are wanting an occassional Total IPR, when things like crit nerfing and Notum Wars change how the gameis played for many people.

And as I said, I think Funcom realizes that reset points have to be controlled. The evidence to suggest that is there to support that inference as much as it is to support yours (more so I think). Funcom could have easily made reset points infinite, made them increase 1 with every level, automatically give one with every patch or a host of other easy solutions. Far easier than letting threads like this take up forum space and force someone like Cz to read them. But they didn't do any of that. The wags out there will say it's because they don't listen or care. But everyone knows that's jsut bitterness talking. Because while our enjoyment is at stake, it's their lives and their future plans that are at stake for them.

All in all, pretty good arguements, Curmudgeon. I don't agree with them for the reasons I stated. But they're far better than most the ones people have been throwing out (thinly veiled or blatant flame attempts)

[__________Curmudgeon]

Originally posted by Kuroshio
You don't invest IP into wielding a specific weapon. You invest IP into a skill which allows you to wield a weapon. That's the difference. Any MA starting today that invested IP into the exact same skills that an MA who was using a crossbow had invested, would have to spend the exact same amount of IP.

Yes, you do invest IP into wielding a specific weapon (or one of a very few weapons). Do you raise Rifle and then not use a Rifle? And if you use a Rifle, are you gonna specifically pick one that is bad, or use one of the two or three that are good? And if those Rifles are changed so that they provide significantly less output than you had planned on, won't that annoy and frustrate you? Is there any benefit for having a high weapon skill other than using a weapon?

Investing IP into skills, for the sake of skill itself, means absolutely nothing. What's important is the results from using/having those skills. An MA today that invested in the same skills to use crossbows would end up with a considerably less effective character. So guess what, an MA today would likely not choose that path. An MA that had already spent a lot of IP to use crossbows, would suddenly have significantly less return for their IP investment... just like the Adventurer with multirange.

When you're planning your character, you expect to get a certain return on your IP investment. When item/rule changes come along that significantly reduce your return for those IP, it is annoying and frustrating.

[__________Curmudgeon]

Originally posted by Kuroshio
All in all, pretty good arguements, Curmudgeon. I don't agree with them for the reasons I stated. But they're far better than most the ones people have been throwing out (thinly veiled or blatant flame attempts).

Aye, and right back at you. I like a good debate, as you can tell. And while I disagree with your take on a lot of things, it's nice to have a good debate, without things getting personal. I think this is the first one I've had in an MMORPG.

I can see some of your points, and we are probably closer to agreeeing than our posts would indicate.

My ideal situation would be for characters to earn the 15 IPR's on the way up, and then have the ability to earn more, over time, if they really wanted them. The reason for that being to adapt to changes in the game as it evolves, and to avoid stagnation/boredom at high level by providing the ability to change your playing style.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Curmudgeon


Yes, you do invest IP into wielding a specific weapon (or one of a very few weapons). Do you raise Rifle and then not use a Rifle? And if you use a Rifle, are you gonna specifically pick one that is bad, or use one of the two or three that are good? And if those Rifles are changed so that they provide significantly less output than you had planned on, won't that annoy and frustrate you? Is there any benefit for having a high weapon skill other than using a weapon?

No I don't spend IP to invest in a specific weapon. And if you do so you need to realize you do so at your own risk. Because the very nature of this type of game assures that weapon will not be what you planned for it to be the entire time.

If you invest IP into SMG/Burst to wield a Manex Catastrophe because you think it's the best weapon in the game, you need to acknowledge it will NOT always be so. Even if Funcom never touches the Manex, it will not be so because new weapons will be added that are better. And because you chose to invest in SMG/Burst only to wield the Manex, you have only yourself to blame when its no longer what you thought.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
Investing IP into skills, for the sake of skill itself, means absolutely nothing. What's important is the results from using/having those skills. An MA today that invested in the same skills to use crossbows would end up with a considerably less effective character. So guess what, an MA today would likely not choose that path. An MA that had already spent a lot of IP to use crossbows, would suddenly have significantly less return for their IP investment... just like the Adventurer with multirange.

A person's choice of whether or not to invest in a skill is different than someone paying less than another person that invested in the same skill to achieve the same skill amount.

Originally posted by Curmudgeon
When you're planning your character, you expect to get a certain return on your IP investment. When item/rule changes come along that significantly reduce your return for those IP, it is annoying and frustrating.

Investing in a skill for the sake of the skill itself should mean everything if you want any satisfaction in these games. You said it yourself that this game must evolve and change. Why would you invest in a skill, for the sake of a single item utilizing that skill, knowing that the game will evolve and likely negate the reasons for investing in it? It seems to me a person that does this is setting themselves up for disappointment. And they chose that themselves

Originally posted by Curmudgeon


Aye, and right back at you. I like a good debate, as you can tell. And while I disagree with your take on a lot of things, it's nice to have a good debate, without things getting personal. I think this is the first one I've had in an MMORPG.

I can see some of your points, and we are probably closer to agreeeing than our posts would indicate.

My ideal situation would be for characters to earn the 15 IPR's on the way up, and then have the ability to earn more, over time, if they really wanted them. The reason for that being to adapt to changes in the game as it evolves, and to avoid stagnation/boredom at high level by providing the ability to change your playing style.

I said at the beginning of the thread I could deal with people earning more reset points. People were suggesting ways to earn more reset points at the beginning of the thread. Somewhere along the line the thread got hijacked by someone wanting free reset points. I'd look around the point when the troll commander and somone's whose hopes had been smothered entered the thread

[Waffen]

Originally posted by Kuroshio

You really want to debate grammar just so you don't have to say you were wrong? This is a flame: Grow up or give up. I damn sure admitted I was wrong.

Grow up or give up? Get bent. You gave a half-assed "apology" by picking and choosing what quote you wanted to use, out of context and you included me in it. I was 100% correct in my reply to that post.

I've got a pretty good handle on the mechanics of the game, thank you. And I'm not exactly clueless on the mechanics of people neither. The point that you're attempting to dance around is your now massively gimped MA didn't want to use another weapon with that skillset except whatever specific crossbow was considered uber at the time. I won't mention the likelyhood that Funcom had been aware the crossbows were using the wrong skill. Nor the likelyhood that until it reached a critical mass of people using them it wasn't a priority for them to change

I'm not dancing around a thing. My MA is not gimped in any way except for PvP. It's also quite obvious you have no clue on the MA profession, so maybe you should just quit talking about them while you're behind. You should also quit talking about crossbows, as there is NO other weapon with that skillset.

You don't invest IP into wielding a specific weapon. You invest IP into a skill which allows you to wield a weapon. That's the difference. Any MA starting today that invested IP into the exact same skills that an MA who was using a crossbow had invested, would have to spend the exact same amount of IP. That was not true of the Adventurer Multirange skill. An Adventurer that started today would spend less IP to get the exact same skill amount as an Adventurer that existed befoe the change.

An MA created today would NEVER invest into the skills required to use a crossbow with a scope, and if they did would have to spend more points than an MA who originally equipped it before the change. Not bothering with crossbows, they therefore would have more usable IP available without having to give up precious IPR points.

What if all your favorite shotguns had AR and HW added to them, and made 67/33 weapons? Probably wouldn't use shotguns anymore would you? You wouldn't want that IP back or the IPR point back? Doubtful.

To make it clearer take 2 Adventuers, 1 that existed before the change and one that exists now. Both max their multirange skill for this level. The adventurer that existed before the change find he has 100 in multirange and it cost him 2000 IP. The newer adventurer finds he has 110 in multirange and it cost him 1800 IP.

What has to be fair is breed/profession being equal, all character spend the exact same amount of IP to achieve the same skill. That is a rule. Where a person invests their IP is a choice and they have to deal with their choices.

So a full IPR was necessary for ONE skill with an adventurer? Why not just use 1 IPR point? After all, it was their choice, as you so like to point out, to use two pistols. They knew the cost before they spent the IP. They could have used melee weapons instead couldn't they?

You talk about fairness. If FC decides to drastically change a weapons line resulting in people using their IPR points to get the IP back, they should get those IPR points back. A player starting today would eventually have more IPR points than the person forced to use their's due to an FC change. Easiest way to do that is with a full IPR, which is why FC took that route in the first place.

[__________Curmudgeon]

Originally posted by Kuroshio
I said at the beginning of the thread I could deal with people earning more reset points. People were suggesting ways to earn more reset points at the beginning of the thread. Somewhere along the line the thread got hijacked by someone wanting free reset points. I'd look around the point when the troll commander and somone's whose hopes had been smothered entered the thread

Yeah, the part where we radically diverge is that until they have a decent way for people to earn more IPR, I think an occassional Total IPR is a good thing. One right about now, to respond to Notum Wars and the last several months of changes, and then another one about a month after Shadowlands is released, for instance. I think it would make a lot of people happy and I don't think it would hurt the game at all. Oh well. I'm gonna stop trying to change your mind on that point, cause I want to go level my nanomage enforcer.

Fear the 17' tall nanomage!
/cackle madly

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Waffen


Grow up or give up? Get bent. You gave a half-assed "apology" by picking and choosing what quote you wanted to use, out of context and you included me in it. I was 100% correct in my reply to that post.

So you really do want to debate grammar? The "If" in the original statement was the qualifier, setting the conditions for the action that would take place. The "I'd" was the identifier of the person that would take the action, myself. The "shut up" was the action the person identified would take. The "But you won't" was identifying the expect response to the original conditional.

As you can see by my response, I'm more than capable of making it absolutely clear when I feel like telling someone off. You were 100% wrong in your reply to that post.

Originally posted by Waffen
I'm not dancing around a thing. My MA is not gimped in any way except for PvP. It's also quite obvious you have no clue on the MA profession, so maybe you should just quit talking about them while you're behind. You should also quit talking about crossbows, as there is NO other weapon with that skillset.

What skills exactly, pre-change, were required by these crossbows? I vaguely remember so it'd be nice to have a refresher. What I do remember is as you said, MA chose them mostly for initial PvP damage while using other options for PvM. Anyone that gimps themselves by choice for PvP, especially back then has very little sympathy from me.

Originally posted by Waffen
An MA created today would NEVER invest into the skills required to use a crossbow with a scope, and if they did would have to spend more points than an MA who originally equipped it before the change. Not bothering with crossbows, they therefore would have more usable IP available without having to give up precious IPR points.

What if all your favorite shotguns had AR and HW added to them, and made 67/33 weapons? Probably wouldn't use shotguns anymore would you? You wouldn't want that IP back or the IPR point back? Doubtful.

Erm, no. If my favorite shotgun got suddenly switched to AR/HW I'd continue to use shotguns or whatever weapon that remained which did the best damage and utilized that skillset. I'd not pretend that Funcom erased every shotgun that utilized that skill.

Originally posted by Waffen
So a full IPR was necessary for ONE skill with an adventurer? Why not just use 1 IPR point? After all, it was their choice, as you so like to point out, to use two pistols. They knew the cost before they spent the IP. They could have used melee weapons instead couldn't they?

Fixate if you want on just the Adventurer multiranged issue. I've said more than once the Complete Reset was done because of that AND the IP people lost to bugs, like the visual bugs in the gui and changed skills not saving while the ip used was saved.

Originally posted by Waffen
You talk about fairness. If FC decides to drastically change a weapons line resulting in people using their IPR points to get the IP back, they should get those IPR points back. A player starting today would eventually have more IPR points than the person forced to use there's due to an FC change. Easiest way to do that is with a full IPR, which is why FC took that route in the first place.

Funcom took the route they did because of the impossibility to track who lost how much IP to bugs. Adventurers could have been handled with a single reset point. Enforcers as well (they had a complete nanoline changed from one nanoskill to another I believe). But it was impossible to determine who had lost IP to visual bugs in the skills interface. Who had lost IP to timewarps that somehow erased the skill changes but retained the IP expenditure. Do you honestly think they'd have opened up this whole can of worms (actually a nest of vipers) to fix 2 professions' IP expenditure in a single skill? On top of the warning from people in the game at the time they mentioned the possibility that by opening this particular nest of vipers, they would constantly be facing demands for another complete reset without reason?

Why do you think Gaute emphasized the complete reset was 1 Time Only? Because he enjoys twistings people's panties?

[Waffen]

Originally posted by Kuroshio


So you really do want to debate grammar? The "If" in the original statement was the qualifier, setting the conditions for the action that would take place. The "I'd" was the identifier of the person that would take the action, myself. The "shut up" was the action the person identified would take. The "But you won't" was identifying the expect response to the original conditional.

As you can see by my response, I'm more than capable of making it absolutely clear when I feel like telling someone off. You were 100% wrong in your reply to that post.

You were writing colloquially in which things are implied. Try writing it more technically if you want it to be taken 100% literal.

Why do you think Gaute emphasized the complete reset was 1 Time Only? Because he enjoys twistings people's panties?

Gaute and the rest of FC have more than just emphasized, but promised quite a lot of things. Way back they swore up and down that we would NEVER have an IPR. They swore up and down that there would NEVER be über loot, über unique mobs or any of the other EQ-type spawn/camp nonsense.