Oldschool gamer here, you know, the kind that gets flamed all the time for believe graphics aren't the greatest thing in the world. Just gonna chirp in an old feeling that none of the newer generations seem to have: Quality Content > Quality Graphics I wouldn't mind SNES level graphics if the content has good story and ideas. Not defending BioWare, but really... "It doesn't look crispy clean and perfect I can't play it!" is really ignorant of the rest of world of gaming. I've noticed the lower-end graphics. ... And?

Yes, I agree that it is their intent. This is not being denied. The reason why I lawyer said statement is because stuff happens. Things get pushed back, priorities change, developers change their minds. CCP told EVE Online users "We want to add Incarna" for two and a half years. Just because the developer wants to doesn't mean it's going to happen. As I've said before, it probably will happen. But I don't count chickens before they hatch.

Read that again. "Something we WANT to add" does not say "Something we are adding".

First, allow me to apologize, as I meant to mention in the previous post that while I'm against Dual Spec, I'm not gonna cry a river if it's added. I personally think BioWare would turn out to be the stronger if they didn't, and that's all. The point WAS to make a guess at how BioWare COULD progress. I am not assuming they will. As you say, there are other ways for them to branch that would be easier - and I agree. But ya gotta admit, branching with spec's and additional trees would be unique. No arguments or disagreements here. I just think it's funny that the fact it is affected and would take time (even if only a minor amount) to have it added from those who froth at the mouth and must have the Dual Spec NAO! You seem to have misunderstood, though that may have been due to my delivery. I meant to give the impression that the Sage was kicked for being UNWILLING to heal and not because the party was full. I understand the direction you continued with, however, though it is incidental to the direction I intended. This was directed entirely at those who use the defense that "Don't use it if you don't want to". You do not seem to be a part of that crowd. While I still disagree with your statement that "It changes absolutely nothing", your direction is one I agree on - and was the focus of my entire post: It is the players that often are the cause and motivation of most things in MMO's. I merely attempted to show that given the fuel, that motivation can lead to a negative majority. I spoke nothing of balance, and I don't disagree - the proclamation generally comes from the ignorant. However, the ignorant are responsible for many stereotypes and idioms that have held firm. Dual Spec, as you said, did not create this issue. I do believe that it enables it, however. Looking over the amount of posters who have given their reasons for wanting to change specs so often... I do not find that a majority do this for guild/raid success. Most of posters have cited more selfish reasons than this. I do not believe that is the case, but I could be incorrect. I'll try to find more information. If a guild ceases to function because of the loss of one man... That was a very weak guild. If you must wait 2-3 weeks for another person to level in order to play your content, you are once again a weak guild. Once the game ages a little, there will be more than enough 50's about to support the kind of environment you desire even without Dual Spec. The first bit, we agree with entirely. It's an ignorant statement to make. The second bit, it is only a time waster if you do not enjoy it. And there a a myriad of ways to make it enjoyable. I believe some were listed in my post. If you're stuck to one character, you're missing most of the games content anyway. The removal of downtime for LFG can be fixed numerous other ways as well. Dual Spec is not the only answer to that problem. UI improvements might solve that issue entirely - if people are able to communicate better they might find people more easily. They ability to flag yourself for party AS a role would help a lot as well. There are too many options to be stuck on any given answer for this issue, and as such, I view it as something tacked on to the "I want Dual Spec" argument rather than something that actually supports it. On a complete side note, thank you for responding in a respectful way. There are too many mouth-frothers on the forums to not recognize genuine contribution.

There were some calls for people to show what detriments could come about if Dual Spec was to come about. (Yes, "if".) I have done my best to explain a few: Think of who made this game. BioWare. A company known to add story and content based on a players decisions. For example, Mass Effect. Decision to go Paragon or Renegade. This culminated in a specific quest only available to the decision to commit entirely to one side or the other. You know what this makes me think of for SW:TOR? Role-specific quests. A quest available only for those who have spent X amount of talents in a heal tree at Y level. Said quest would be tailored to the nature of that role. I personally think this would be a cool idea. What about a further split later, where you choose a specialization within your AC? They could add a choice you have to make at 40 (this assumes the level cap gets raised later) that gives you another minor tree to go up in based on which of the three trees you want to specialize in. BioWare showed that this option would be possible and popular in Dragon Age. Dual Spec would cheapen, if not entirely remove, these possibilities. Also, how would the respec function work with dual spec? (This is a rhetorical question, I don't want your answer) Would you respec just your current spec, or both? Would the cost of respec scale for each time you did the respec, or only for each time you change THAT spec slot? Easily answered, perhaps, but the question still remains. Dual Spec simply existing cheapens the cost of respeccing, in that you have half the need to respec - you can just try things on that other spec slot. Those with the mindset of "If you don't want to use it, ignore it" - have you actually thought about that statement? Are you all telling me that you don't see this situation happening in the future: Player 1: Crap, we need a healer. Player 2, change to a healing spec so we can do this Heroic. Player 2: I choose not to have a Dual Spec. Player 1: Oh. Well. Then I choose not to have a Sage in my Heroic. *Kicks Player 2.* And, let's assume for the moment that we have a leader who isn't as much of a ****: Player 1: Crap, we need a healer. Player 2, change to a healing spec so we can do this Heroic. Player 2: I choose not to have a Dual Spec. Player 1: Huh? Why? They clearly mean for you to have it, since it's part of the game. Player 2: I did not agree with it. Player 1: Yeah, well, even though I am really nice, this is still peer pressure to get you to use it. Everyone else is. No one, and I mean no one, will be able to escape the use of Dual Spec. You will be required to use it if you intend to do anything but solo, as you will be judged if you do not. Even if you remove the people element from the equation, PvP and PvE are still going to be balanced around what the players have at their fingertips. This means that later balancing changes and additional content will be made at the expectation that you use everything available - including Dual Spec. Which further means that per game design philosophy you will be at a disadvantage by ignoring the functionality of it. Even more - there is already quite a bit of assumption and stigma about certain classes being "automatically" a role. As in the above example, we are seeing Sage's being auto-assumed to be healers. This will evolve if there is Dual Spec. You will find there will be a good amount of the community will encounter this situation: "You're a Sage and you don't have a heal spec? N00b." Is that the extreme example? Yes. But it will continue until even those against being a healer will either be driven away from playing the AC entirely or have a healing spec just to avoid the crap. There is another point brought up that people do not want to have to play two of the exact same character/stories just to play two sides of the same coin. Firstly, there is no reason for you to play the exact same thing. If you want to play both a Scoundrel and a Gunslinger, you would have to play through the story as well, yes? Does the argument still hold water at this point? "But I'm not asking to change AC, Elblai, just specs!" Very true. However, you are still asking to change. Why can you not play the characters separately? Play a Sharpshooter Gunslinger who is Dark Side and an ***, while the Scoundrel is a goody-two-shoes. Not enough variation for you? Play only some side quests on one, and different ones on the other. Still not enough? Level up through PvP on one, and space missions on the other. Still not enough? Level one only in groups with guild mates and concentrate on social points. And we haven't even started on playing the same spec on the Empire instead. The options are abundant. There has also been some argument that "Your choice will still have meaning" even with Dual Spec. While I agree there is still meaning to being a tank even if you weren't 10 seconds ago, you are instead putting meaning on the role itself and not the persons option to do it. It puts emphasis on "Here's Jim. He's our Sage." rather than "Here's Jim. He's our Tank." Yet, amazingly, the game goes beyond even that to put it to specifics. "Here's Jim. He's our Shadow Tank." There is more pride to be had in being what you are, the way that you want to be it. What would happen if Dual Spec is NOT implemented? There are those who would leave. There are those who would complain. There are those would continue along anyway, even though they would have liked having it. There are those who would not care. There are those who would rejoice. Which of these groups do you think is largest? All these things being said, I know that the addition of Dual Spec is entirely likely if not a probability. But they haven't said "Yes, it is coming", they have only said "We are looking to add it after launch". You might claim that is semantics. I would claim you don't work in the legal department. Small wording differences can mean a world of change. If your first response to any of these sentiments starts with the word "I", then stop. For a moment, consider an answer in more broad terms. We're talking about an expansive community and not particular individuals. EDIT: Man these threads fly fast. Go to type one post and I'm two pages later. 9_6

Why is Imperial Trooper not in the game? The same question as to why there is not a Mandalorian. Or a Republic SIS. Or a playable Wookie. The answer? So there's stuff to put in the expansions.

I personally haven't seen an issue with the Light Side or Dark Side options. I can see the points of some THEORETICAL scenarios that have been presented in this thread, but in the end they are just theoretical and I feel the game stories when I went through them did not present themselves that way. On the idea of light side options having potentially dark side actions, well, I'd say just look at the movies. Qui-Gon alone proved it was well within Light Side to lie, cheat, steal, and gamble. Intent, in my experience, has been the driving force behind LS/DS. Killing a wounded man out of mercy to help him avoid a painful death? Light Side. (Not saying you couldn't save him, just saying that with that reasoning it could be viewed as Light Side.) Killing the very same wounded man just because you like to kill things for fun? Dark Side. (Not saying that you couldn't torture him first, just saying that with that reasoning it could be viewed as Dark Side.) Short version: I've always felt that the movies showed that INTENT is the cause of LS/DS. That being said, the Ord Mantell medicine decision still could be argued both ways. I agree there.

This is the only part of your views I disagree with. The rest is your opinion and I have no business judging. Story is part of a game. It is a less important part for others (Like Doom, or Lemmings), some only have a minor amount even though it is still present (Like WoW, or Call of Duty), while still others have it integrated within their very design (Final Fantasy, or Mass Effect). The last group is a group of games where story matters, why you are doing what you are doing changes the context of what you're doing, and making choices changes the game outcome. In this group, you cannot have gameplay without story. SWTOR is definitely part of that group. I understand that such a heavy amount of story may not be your style. I'm not judging that. How you want to play is up to you. I was only poking at the idea that story and a game are two separate things.

Not, LGBT myself - but I support the LGBT (singularly, together, in any arrangement thereof) part of our wonderful community. I say more power to ya, and to the rest of us as we all work towards acceptance.

1 /char

I understand just fine. I wasn't trying to imitate Dual Spec, was trying to propose an alternative. It's not meant to do what Dual Spec does. It's meant to be a middle ground between the people that want and those that do not. ... Now I do wonder who is misunderstanding... I'm pretty sure this is exactly what Dual Spec facilitates... This isn't the DUal Spec I keep hearing people clammer for - but I like it! I think this is a great idea! I wasn't trying to talk of respec costs... Didn't touch that... Don't want to touch that. Not a part of my consideration because it's a separate suggestion. That's a design philosophy difference. If I understand you correctly, your philosophy says that you would rather find a group, and then fill whatever role is missing. Cool. What is currently supported is being a role, and then finding a group that needs that role. Just as cool. Only difference is the method. End result should be the same: You, in a group as a role you enjoy.

I admit that my idea doesn't address one or two reason why people want dual speccing - namely the "Oh crap our healer just dropped" reason, which I find most legitimate. But, it appears at least to me that the majority of people who are pushing for the Dual Spec seem to be of two schools: The "Let's test stuff" crowd and the "I want to do stuff in multiple places" crowd. My idea caters mostly to the later, since the former have largely said that lowered respec costs would be good enough. It adds flexibility. That's what we're all going for isn't it?

"We want to add" is not a "We are adding this now". Semantics, maybe, but crap happens. It wasn't a promise. I'm not pointing that out in a anti-dual-spec "No you aren't getting it" sort of way, just a "Don't be overzealous" way. *Shrug*

Apologies. It was an idea that I introduced in another thread (and since I've seen others poke at it here and there - whether I was first or they thought it up on their own, I don't know) that a character would have a PvP, Heroic, and PvE spec. Just like in a Dual Spec setup, whenever you get a new talent point, you'd place it where you want to in each build... But the actual spec wouldn't "Activate" until you walked into the corresponding area. So, for example, when you walk into a heroic area, your heroic spec would click into gear, complete with hotkey swapping and such that WoW was known for. Queue into PvP? Swaps out when you get there. Then, when you head into a PvE area it swaps back. It is ambitious, and a lot more complicated than a Dual Spec system - I understand that. But, I believe it to be better. Whatever works, right?

I can't think of a logical reason why an Instance-Based Spec Swap, where your spec changes when you enter a Heroic, PvP, or Flashpoint, or whatever (which technically could allow for more than 2 specs) won't be considered as a possible option to Dual Speccing. 'Course, that's just me, playing irony over the last few posts...

While likely inevitable, no such promise was actually made.

There is an interview where one of the other designers say, to quote "Dual Spec is something we are looking to put in after launch". That's the one most people point to when they say "Dual Spec is coming". On the flip side, I'd like to point out the interview only says "Looking to put in". Not "We are putting in". The 'dual spec is coming!' crowd is a little premature, IMO.

I'm on board with the "No Dual Spec" boat - but only as an idea. I don't like the way WoW does it. That's my only problem. If you can find another way to do it, I'm more than open. I personally like the idea of it being a reward earned in the game. Maybe with the Legacy system. Or, perhaps, whenever you enter/exit a Heroic or PvP zone, the game auto-loads your Heroic or PvP spec. This particular option I think would be the best way to go. Otherwise, drop the prices a little on respec (like max out at 30K and has a falloff timer) and call it a day.

I mention these things because I find that they have similarly contributed to the mindset I was describing, not that they are comparable themselves. You've got me dead to rights, there. And I agree with almost (only one point I don't) everything you've put forth. Most MMO developers do go the way of dropping the RP in favor of the G. Bioware seemed to support a different approach. Something new, unfamiliar perhaps. I personally like that. I support it because I don't think the G-Gamer catering MMO's are actually catering to the majority, I think the majority have catered to the only kind of MMO's that have been widely available. Personal opinion. Again, I'm favor of change here. I'd simply like to see a concession that Duel Spec isn't the ONLY answer. There are other ways to combat this stagnation of customization and flexibility.

I just don't understand why the solution "must" be Dual Spec. Would there be no other system or idea that would appease the sadistic charge? I'm one of those crazies that truly and honestly agree: we need more flexibility. I just don't want the way WoW does it in TOR, because I do see detriment down the road due to TOR's different style from WoW. On a side note - I haven't heard much of either side giving respect to the views of the other. Respecting the people, yes, but not the opinion. Which would be the reason for my inclusion of the term 'sadistic' before. So many are foaming at the mouth over this. The "You can just ignore it, it's only an option" rebuttal is only true for the short term. Should a Dual Spec be introduced it will be hailed and praised at first as a godsend. There will be detractors, true, and short term the negatives will be minimal. Those of us who don't like it and want our choices to matter can - as has been suggested - simply ignore it. But then, like WoW, it becomes part of the metagame. It becomes expected. Later, necessary. Now, I understand the immediate response to this: "But it's not necessary in WoW, it's not forced in WoW!" And that is true. But WoW isn't as focused on your character, either. It's focused on what you can do. Can you do X damage? No? Then get out. Do you have X gearscore? No? Then you can't play with us. TOR focuses a lot more on what you ARE. Has to be, or there cannot be as deep a story as they have. PvP and such will always be about 'doing X damage' and gaining an edge over the competition, that's the point - I understand that. Let's just not have the entire game be about that. It is, in my opinion, what ruined the community over at that other game and made it an unfun place to be. That's why I give the "We'd like our choice to matter" argument some credit. tl;dr - I just vomited opinion on the forums.

First off, let me clarify my stance in as short a way as possible: 1: I am against Dual-Spec as WoW has it. 2: I am NOT against Dual-Spec as an idea. 3: I am for lower cost respec. 4: I am vehemently against changing AC's. What follows is purely opinion. My stance against Dual-Spec for TOR really comes from the drive of Bioware to be story-based. It makes no sense in any story or roleplay to be really good as a defender and sucky as a healer to suddenly be really good at healing and a sucky defender. I also wonder: There are only three roles... Why must you be two of them? I understand if you enjoy playing multiple roles, I myself enjoy being both a Tank and a Healer. And, true, sometimes DPS is just where I want to be. But for a game that makes having multiple characters so darn easy... Why must Dual-Spec be the answer? It is just as easy to say "Hold on, let me hop on my healer for that!" as it is to say "Hold on, let me change my spec for that!". As for the PvE vs. PvP spec's not being compatible... I cannot argue. This is about the only argument for Dual-Spec that actually gets points in my book. I've tried leveling in PvE with a PvP build. That hurt. However, I don't think switching Spec's the way WoW does it would harm more than help. I think what would help here is a separate Spec that only activates when you go into PvP/Flashpoints/Whatever it can be set for. If you put points in the same place, cool. If not... Look, your PvP spec activates when you want to play PvP. This seems like a viable middle ground to me. I don't have much more to add about the lower respec costs. I simply agree - dropping them a bit would be nice. I don't think they need to be dropped that much. 25k as a max seems fine with me, since at level 30 I can make that much very easy. The following is what I believe to be a fact. I don't believe that the cries for Dual Spec are triggered by the actual lack of Dual Spec. I believe they are simply triggered by a lack of flexibility in the game, and Dual Spec is the only thing that addressed that lack in other well-known places. It's not that Dual Spec is the only answer, it's just the most well known one. I think that another answer can be found, it just would be a new one.