Inarai Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 lol each class shares a talent tree lololol Nope. The "shared" trees differ between the classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aznthecapn Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 lol each class shares a talent tree lololol One shared tree out of three doesn't mean they are the same class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sai-to Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 lol each class shares a talent tree lololol Wrong again. The "shared tree" has different effects for the different skills for the two different classes. But regardless, the other TWO trees that actually matter (the ones with roles, and not just red-headed stepchild DPS) are completely different. Also, the skills of the two classes are completely different as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivaed Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) If devs meant for ACs to be classes in this game then they could have easily called them that. They called them advanced classes for a reason. In that dev chat linked early in the thread he said that they "treated ACs as classes" not that they ARE classes. Besides that I am going to take the word of the entire collaborated SWTOR team in calling Classes Classes over the word of a single dev making comparison statements in passing in order to properly explain a game mechanic. Classes are Classes, ACs are specializations of those classes that were deemed necessary in order to make a full-fledged MMORPG. In that chat the dev pretty much compared bringing ACs out as a necessary evil in order to create the preconceived idea of an MMORPG. Each Advanced Class already has 2 AC specific roles that they can switch between. I personally don't see any harm in allowing a AC switch mechanic similar to the Spec switch mechanic we already have. I'll use BH as an example cause I play it. There is very little difference between switching from Bodyguard (Healing) Spec to Arsenal (DPS) Spec and allowing us to switch from Merc to Powertech in order for us to tank. We still change roles, and the AC's even have a shared talent tree. (Albeit with a few differing minor effects) All opening up a AC switch does is allow for greater flexibility in groups. That, in my experience playing a great number of MMOs, is never a BAD thing. It helps groups get things going faster and it lets players experience more of the game when they might not have otherwise. (Not everyone has time to level 8 toons or even 2 toons for that matter) I would think that the average player has somewhere between 2-4 alts that they really PLAY. AC repec would just allow players to experience the entire game on those alts rather than having to make so many toons to get everything the game has to offer. The mechanic of role switching is already in the game, all AC respecing would be doing is expounding upon a mechanic that is already in place in the game. If AC switching is added I would very much enjoy it and it would save me from repeating all the content I already went through on my characters just to see what the other AC is like. I don't really see a valid argument anywhere for why something like this should be left out of the game. Adding more to the game is very rarely a bad thing and it's really just more of what already exists in this case. Edited January 26, 2012 by Ivaed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aznthecapn Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) If devs meant for ACs to be classes in this game then they could have easily called them that. They called them advanced classes for a reason. In that dev chat linked early in the thread he said that they "treated ACs as classes" not that they ARE classes. Besides that I am going to take the word of the entire collaborated SWTOR team in calling Classes Classes over the word of a single dev making comparison statements in passing in order to properly explain a game mechanic. Classes are Classes, ACs are specializations of those classes that were deemed necessary in order to make a full-fledged MMORPG. In that chat the dev pretty much compared made ACs out as a necessary evil in order to create the preconceived idea of an MMORPG. You're arguing the semantics of a word. Besides, "treated as classes" MEANS they are going to treat them as classes - not let you change them! They are seperate classes in all senses but their title. I don't really see a valid argument anywhere for why something like this should be left out of the game. Adding more to the game is very rarely a bad thing and it's really just more of what already exists in this case. Then you haven't read all 38 pages of this thread or the 100+ in all the other threads that have discussed this same topic. The resounding response has been NO and offer many valid and logical reasons why. Edited January 26, 2012 by aznthecapn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backbones Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 The semantic argument is a really silly argument to be making. It just says, "Look, I can't get past the definitions I'm used to and acknowledge that this is a new game that works differently from other games." Yes, this game uses two terms: Class and Advanced Class. No, that doesn't mean that the term "Class" should function identically to its use in other games. Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivaed Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Then you haven't read all 38 pages of this thread or the 100+ in all the other threads that have discussed this same topic. The resounding response has been NO and offer many valid and logical reasons why. None Valid IMO. There is no logical argument for limiting class flexibility from a player standpoint other than bragging rights. (And possibly RPing) Now I do see reasons for limiting flexibility from a Dev standpoint. (Less flexibility = more time spent to experience the full game) But, we aren't devs and allowing a healer to respec to a tank role so that my guild can Raid more often just isn't bad. It's better for everyone. If you don't want it, don't use it, but I wouldn't mind the addition. It would be a very welcome addition for all but the most hardcore players IMO. Edited January 26, 2012 by Ivaed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backbones Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 None Valid IMO. There is no logical argument for limiting class flexibility from a player standpoint other than bragging rights. (And possibly RPing) Then what's the logical reason for not letting me respec my Consular into a Scoundrel? I mean, at the end of the day, it's just a game and it doesn't really matter, right? Mechanical integrity is what every design choice has to come down to, and that's what the core of the anti-class-change argument comes down to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixiecup Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 No, No, and No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aznthecapn Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 None Valid IMO. There is no logical argument for limiting class flexibility from a player standpoint other than bragging rights. (And possibly RPing) Now I do see reasons for limiting flexibility from a Dev standpoint. (Less flexibility = more time spent to experience the full game) You've listed two very valid reasons so far. At some point, you have to restrict player flexibility. The poster below you said it best. Then what's the logical reason for not letting me respec my Consular into a Scoundrel? I mean, at the end of the day, it's just a game and it doesn't really matter, right? Mechanical integrity is what every design choice has to come down to, and that's what the core of the anti-class-change argument comes down to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inarai Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 None Valid IMO. There is no logical argument for limiting class flexibility from a player standpoint other than bragging rights. (And possibly RPing) It is the design standpoint, and not the player standpoint, which is relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivaed Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Then what's the logical reason for not letting me respec my Consular into a Scoundrel? I mean, at the end of the day, it's just a game and it doesn't really matter, right? Mechanical integrity is what every design choice has to come down to, and that's what the core of the anti-class-change argument comes down to. There are many reasons why swapping from one CLASS to another is a negative thing in this game. First off, you would be missing out on the entire storyline for the IA class. Second, differing "mana" mechanics make it quite a bit different when switching from Consular to Scoundrel. When you have to relearn the basic skill mechanics of the class in order to switch it becomes counter-intuitive. Swapping my Merc to Powertech pretty much only changes my Role (Just like switching from Bodyguard to Arsenal) It doesn't change anything else other than secondary stat choices. Swapping ACs doesn't destroy mechanical integrity. It just removes the grind of having to reroll in order see everything that the class has to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aznthecapn Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) When you have to relearn the basic skill mechanics of the class in order to switch it becomes counter-intuitive. Swapping my Merc to Powertech pretty much only changes my Role (Just like switching from Bodyguard to Arsenal) It doesn't change anything else other than secondary stat choices. And therein lies the rub. It would dramatically change basic skill mechanics for Inquisitors, Consulars, Imperial Agents and Smugglers. Half your classes. Should we allow you to switch as a Bounty Hunter and not them? Swapping ACs doesn't destroy mechanical integrity. It just removes the grind of having to reroll in order see everything that the class has to offer. If you don't want to experience the grind, level the AC if your choice on the opposing faction. Problem solved. Edited January 26, 2012 by aznthecapn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backbones Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) There are many reasons why swapping from one CLASS to another is a negative thing in this game. First off, you would be missing out on the entire storyline for the IA class. Substitute "I don't think the story is fun" for "I don't think levelling two characters is fun"; why are you getting in the way of my fun, forcing me to play two stories if I don't want to? Second, differing "mana" mechanics make it quite a bit different when switching from Consular to Scoundrel. So what? Shadow and Sage have drastically different 'mana' pools (100 vs 500), too, and different mana management approaches to deal with that. So should they be singled out, since their pools aren't identical, for being disallowed AC changes? When you have to relearn the basic skill mechanics of the class in order to switch it becomes counter-intuitive. Swapping my Merc to Powertech pretty much only changes my Role (Just like switching from Bodyguard to Arsenal) It doesn't change anything else other than secondary stat choices. But you have a whole host of new abilities that you've never seen before if you change from Powertech to Merc. It is entirely false to say that nothing but your role and your stat choices change. Like, this is literally a lie to say. Swapping ACs doesn't destroy mechanical integrity. It just removes the grind of having to reroll in order see everything that the class has to offer. Swapping classes doesn't destroy mechanical integrity. It just removes the grind of having to reroll in order to see everything that the game has to offer. Edited January 26, 2012 by Backbones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backbones Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 http://www.torhead.com/class/748MmfD/powertech http://www.torhead.com/class/an2lnUU/mercenary Notice the list of 70 unique abilities for each of these classes? This is why the "It's just a role change!" argument doesn't hold up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaRockStar Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Leveling from 1-50 was so boring, I am starting to hate MMOs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluelabelD Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Can someone tell me how is swaping from powertech to merc, in this fourm's mind the same as going sith warrior to bounty hunter. This is not logical, a class is a class, a advanced spec is just a advanced spec. Edited January 26, 2012 by Arzhanin Rude comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivaed Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Saying you want them to limit class flexibility based on your opinion of what "breaks mechanical integrity" within the game is not a valid argument. I am not claiming to have a valid argument for needing a change, I am claiming that there is no valid argument against it. It is strictly a matter of opinion. Why should my opinion be less valid than anyone Else's? A change like this will help many players experience more of the game, but it won't effect anyone's game play in a negative way unless they choose to let it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aznthecapn Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Can someone tell me how is swaping from powertech to merc, in this fourm's mind the same as going sith warrior to bounty hunter. This is not logical, a class is a class, a advanced spec is just a advanced spec. A adanced spec is not a class in itself, sorry for using logic and reason here, oh and facts.... facts hurt the brain. Clearly facts do hurt the brain. Because they are called advanced classes, not advanced specs. You're still making the same semantic argument someone else did two pages ago. It doesn't matter that they are called advanced class and, in your mind, that is somehow different from a class and therefore warrants special treatment. For all intents and purposes they function like two different classes - different skills, different talent trees, different weaponry even. The "its called an advanced class, derp" argument has been dead in the water for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aznthecapn Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Saying you want them to limit class flexibility based on your opinion of what "breaks mechanical integrity" within the game is not a valid argument. I am not claiming to have a valid argument for needing a change, I am claiming that there is no valid argument against it. It is strictly a matter of opinion. Why should my opinion be less valid than anyone Else's? A change like this will help many players experience more of the game, but it won't effect anyone's game play in a negative way unless they choose to let it. So your arguments are valid and we're wrong for invalidating them, but our argument isn't valid and that's okay? It must be Hypocrisy Wednesday and I missed the memo. A change like this will cause massive balance issues, FOTM AC changing that isn't needed and ultimately harm the integrity of the class system as we know it. Some of us still prefer it that way. Until they say otherwise - so does Bioware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inarai Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Can someone tell me how is swaping from powertech to merc, in this fourm's mind the same as going sith warrior to bounty hunter. This is not logical, a class is a class, a advanced spec is just a advanced spec. A adanced spec is not a class in itself, sorry for using logic and reason here, oh and facts.... facts hurt the brain. A class is a class is a class, by any other name. In this case, that name is Advanced Class. They're without a question classes. Not a debatable notion - different base abilities altogether, different skill access, differing proficiency... They're a class-level distinction. It's not the terms, but rather the definitions of the elements that matter. AC's fit the definition of a class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluelabelD Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) A class is a class is a class, by any other name. In this case, that name is Advanced Class. They're without a question classes. Not a debatable notion - different base abilities altogether, different skill access, differing proficiency... They're a class-level distinction. It's not the terms, but rather the definitions of the elements that matter. AC's fit the definition of a class. That is werid logic you got there, one could say each class really is 6 classes in one, since each of classes in this game has two advanced class specs, each advanced class spec, has three talent tree's. Each tree has its own special abilites and talents that make it special and different( one can argue the same differance between the advanced class specs like merc and powertech) that make it 100 percent different than the other. In WoW terms, that means the class druid is really 4 classes 1 one, since you can mele dps, ranged dps, tank, and heal. Edited January 26, 2012 by Arzhanin Rude comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivaed Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 So your arguments are valid and we're wrong for invalidating them, but our argument isn't valid and that's okay? It must be Hypocrisy Wednesday and I missed the memo. A change like this will cause massive balance issues, FOTM AC changing that isn't needed and ultimately harm the integrity of the class system as we know it. Some of us still prefer it that way. Until they say otherwise - so does Bioware. You didn't invalidate anything. You are saying you think it will cause class imbalances and you think it will break mechanical integrity with no facts or real reasons to back it up. There are many successful games that allow switching similar to the idea of AC respecing. You have no real leg to stand on saying that it will break the game. It will not allow for anything that isn't already possible to do in the game. Like I said, it is a complete matter of opinion. Why not add it in? If you don't like it, then don't use it. There are still no solid factual arguments as to why a change like this would not be a nice addition for those of us that would like to respec our AC from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aznthecapn Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) It will not allow for anything that isn't already possible to do in the game. Where in the game can you change classes? Please point that out. Edited January 26, 2012 by Arzhanin Rude comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anedorivan Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 No. The advanced classes are separate classes and you should not be able to switch them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts