"Advanced Classes = Fundamentally Different Class Designs"

[Dayfax]

What to you is a hybrid?? To me a hybrid is a class that can both tank and heal.. All classes can DPS so it doesn't count.. Being able to tank or heal does not make a class a hybrid.. Being able to do both does..

 

So there are no hybrids in this game.. No class can both tank and heal..

 

Er, no. Hybrids are any class that can perform two roles. In WoW, priests and warriors are both considered hybrids.

 

The only pures in SWTOR are Gunslingers and Snipers (which might be why you see so few of them).

 

I think trying to get away from paladin/druid class design is admirable, but the current implementation isn't the way to go about it.

[CorellianWannabe]

If advanced classes were different specs, this might hold water. It doesn't. Spec changing is a standard part of the genre and has been for a long time. Class changing is not.

 

 

So because something has been done before is a reason to keep doing it?

 

So druids and paladins-just because WoW did it doesn't mean this game should.

 

Dual specs and respecs in general-WoW does it so this game should.

 

That's some logic there.

[Dayfax]

Again, if you don't like your spec then reroll-why should you be allowed to switch roles on a whim? Forcing players to reroll lengthens the amount of time they play, which is only helpful for the lifespan of the game!

 

^ Exactly.

 

Dual specs make having a spec at all completely pointless, so why are players glued to a single AC for life?

[aznthecapn]

So because something has been done before is a reason to keep doing it?

 

So druids and paladins-just because WoW did it doesn't mean this game should.

 

Dual specs and respecs in general-WoW does it so this game should.

 

That's some logic there.

 

Indeed, your logic is quite flawed.

 

Is WoW your only point of reference? Are there only two MMOs in the entire genre - WoW and SWTOR?

[aznthecapn]

Dual specs make having a spec at all completely pointless, so why are players glued to a single AC for life?

 

Dual specs do not make having a spec pointless. A spec is a series of skills and a role you can fill. If you're specced into a healing tree, your DPS skills diminish dramatically. The same holds true in reverse. Having no spec at all would mean you can DPS and heal equally well. A spec is still forcing a role on a player. There are also three talent trees for each class meaning you're still prohibited from playing one until you choose to spend the money to change one of your specs.

 

No one is "gluing" you to one AC for life. Roll an alt!

[CorellianWannabe]

Indeed, your logic is quite flawed.

 

Is WoW your only point of reference? Are there only two MMOs in the entire genre - WoW and SWTOR?

 

That matter? Yes. Should I bring up Tabula Rasa and Auto Assault and the impact they have had on the MMO landscape?

 

If the VAST majority of people are playing two MMORPGs that tells me those two matter the most.

 

So which MMOs are you referring to that I haven't? EVE? Rift? Conan? Fallen Earth? Everquest? Guild Wars? Diablo? Ultima? Star Wars Galaxies? Star Trek Online? DCU? LoTR? Should Bioware look at these giants and copy their formulae for success? I mean it's not like Bioware admitted to aping WoW or anything, right?

[Dayfax]

Dual specs do not make having a spec pointless. A spec is a series of skills and a role you can fill. If you're specced into a healing tree, your DPS skills diminish dramatically. The same holds true in reverse. Having no spec at all would mean you can DPS and heal equally well. A spec is still forcing a role on a player. There are also three talent trees for each class meaning you're still prohibited from playing one until you choose to spend the money to change one of your specs.

 

It absolutely does, because it functionally gives you access to two sets of abilities and two roles with almost no friction or downtime.

 

If you logically followed your own arguments about AC, you'd not only be dead set against any dual spec feature, you'd be against any re-spec ability at all.

 

No one is "gluing" you to one AC for life. Roll an alt!

 

A good alt is going to offer you something decidedly different, on some level, during the leveling process.

 

Rolling a commando after leveling a vanguard does not do this.

[aznthecapn]

It absolutely does, because it functionally gives you access to two sets of abilities and two roles with almost no friction or downtime.

 

But when you're playing, in action, mid combat, that role is FIXED. In your comparison, you either have a spec and the skills that go with it or you don't. In one, you can only fill one role based on the talents you've chosen. In the other, you can do anything all the time. Healer dies midfight? Start casting healing spells and be just as effective. Dual spec requires you to make that decision before the battle begins. If you make the wrong choice, consequences follow.

 

If you logically followed your own arguments about AC, you'd not only be dead set against any dual spec feature, you'd be against any re-spec ability at all.

 

That is not the logical progression. It hasn't been so in other games, it isn't here.

 

A good alt is going to offer you something decidedly different, on some level, during the leveling process.

 

Rolling a commando after leveling a vanguard does not do this.

 

Sure it does. One allows you to heal and DPS, the other tank and DPS. Those are two very decidedly different leveling experiences. Want one even more different? Sage/Shadow and Assassin/Sorcerer. The only classes that are so similar it hurts are the Knight/Warrior ACs. I'd prefer Bioware spend time making them more unique from their opposing AC than allowing people to leap frog to endgame with a brand new character.

[aznthecapn]

That matter? Yes. Should I bring up Tabula Rasa and Auto Assault and the impact they have had on the MMO landscape?

 

So which MMOs are you referring to that I haven't? EVE? Rift? Conan? Fallen Earth? Everquest? Guild Wars? Diablo? Ultima? Star Wars Galaxies? Star Trek Online? DCU? LoTR? Should Bioware look at these giants and copy their formulae for success? I mean it's not like Bioware admitted to aping WoW or anything, right?

 

Just because another MMO hasn't had the success of WoW doesn't mean it didn't have degrees of success. There are elements of every MMO you listed that are shining examples of the genre. Yes, compare SWTOR to the "juggernaut" but compare it to others as well. So far, only one on that list has had any kind of class changing system and its on its way to F2P. FF XI and FF XIV are the two that do and you didn't list. The former is a giant pile of stink and the latter is whatever comes out of a buffalo after eating the former.

 

If the VAST majority of people are playing two MMORPGs that tells me those two matter the most.

 

If that's the case, then you're making a case against AC switching because WoW is the single most successful MMO by a country mile, doesn't allow it, won't allow it and classes in that game have far more similarities than in this one (mages, warlocks and priests - I'm looking at you). WoW has far more justification (three role classes, highly similar classes) for allowing class changes and doesn't. If that's going to be your sole point of reference, you're not helping yourself.

[Costantino]

play the other advanced class on the opposite faction? That's what I do.

 

^That's what my friends and I do.

 

Another thing...how many times can this already dead and beatin' horse take?! They said No on never making it to were advance classes can change and the stories fine if you do what the person I quoted does OR when you play the 2nd AC of the Knight (lets say) just play that for game play purposes? In the future they will probably make the AC Stories more diverse to each other.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Costantino

[Hatslinger]

^That's what my friends and I do.

 

Another thing...how many times can this already dead and beatin' horse take?! They said No on never making it to were advance classes can change and the stories fine if you do what the person I quoted does OR when you play the 2nd AC of the Knight (lets say) just play that for game play purposes? In the future they will probably make the AC Stories more diverse to each other.

 

You can also play as a different alignment on the same faction. Or a different alignment on the opposite faction. Perhaps you can even mix it up a little and randomly choose your alignment choice on each individual mission, especially since BW is adding Neutral gear.

 

Honestly, I can't see how some players think that ACs are similar enough to warrant an option to change them. Take the smuggler ACs. Gunslinger and Scoundrel. One is a range class that takes advangtage of dual wielding. It's also a pure DPS class. The other is pretty much a melee range class with guns and you get a situational weapon. It has specs to heal and DPS.

 

They might share some abilities and a storyline, but they play radically different. Not only that, but to add the ability to change the AC makes a primarily GS player to go Scoundrel and completely change their role at only the cost of credits, which are arguably easy to come by. It completely trivializes the the AC system and eliminates the concept of choice and consequences following said choice. BW may add more variety to the storylines in the future, but currently, that is not the issue. The issue is allowing players that level characters that play a certain way to alter their characters into a role that they may not even know how to handle. I believe that will be a problem, considering the differences between the ACs. The differences are there, but I think some of you have problems acknowledging them.

[Dayfax]

But when you're playing, in action, mid combat, that role is FIXED. In your comparison, you either have a spec and the skills that go with it or you don't. In one, you can only fill one role based on the talents you've chosen. In the other, you can do anything all the time. Healer dies midfight? Start casting healing spells and be just as effective. Dual spec requires you to make that decision before the battle begins. If you make the wrong choice, consequences follow.

 

So you're okay with someone completely changing roles, but only in a narrow context? That makes no sense.

 

If I can swap between tanking and DPS every 5 minutes, then functionally, I have access to all of the abilities. This is contrary to the entire idea of specifications at all.

 

If you've ever run a hybrid in a raiding guild, you understand what I'm talking about. Specs eventually become something of an arbitrary game mechanic, and drift away from the original intention of that design.

 

Likewise ACs. They just another layer of arbitrary mechanics, meant to hide the fact that there's really only 4 classes in the game for each faction.

 

Sure it does. One allows you to heal and DPS, the other tank and DPS. Those are two very decidedly different leveling experiences. Want one even more different? Sage/Shadow and Assassin/Sorcerer. The only classes that are so similar it hurts are the Knight/Warrior ACs. I'd prefer Bioware spend time making them more unique from their opposing AC than allowing people to leap frog to endgame with a brand new character.

 

You're talking about group roles, and group content while leveling might account for 10% of the experience.

 

The rest of the time, that vanguard and commando are grinding trash mobs planetside, and using 80% of the same exact abilities to do it.

[Costantino]

You can also play as a different alignment on the same faction. Or a different alignment on the opposite faction. Perhaps you can even mix it up a little and randomly choose your alignment choice on each individual mission, especially since BW is adding Neutral gear.

 

Honestly, I can't see how some players think that ACs are similar enough to warrant an option to change them. Take the smuggler ACs. Gunslinger and Scoundrel. One is a range class that takes advangtage of dual wielding. It's also a pure DPS class. The other is pretty much a melee range class with guns and you get a situational weapon. It has specs to heal and DPS.

 

They might share some abilities and a storyline, but they play radically different. Not only that, but to add the ability to change the AC makes a primarily GS player to go Scoundrel and completely change their role at only the cost of credits, which are arguably easy to come by. It completely trivializes the the AC system and eliminates the concept of choice and consequences following said choice. BW may add more variety to the storylines in the future, but currently, that is not the issue. The issue is allowing players that level characters that play a certain way to alter their characters into a role that they may not even know how to handle. I believe that will be a problem, considering the differences between the ACs. The differences are there, but I think some of you have problems acknowledging them.

 

/applause

[illgot]

Here is how I see it.

 

People want to have fun and try different things.

 

Leveling the same class and story and ship and companion and gear up back to 50 just to see how that other AC plays is not fun for 99.99% of the players.

 

Games are suppose to be fun and when they stop that needs to change.

 

There is little replay in TOR. The missions are all the same, you take the same path, and you get the same gear. You raid the same instances and you listen to the same stories.

 

The only replay value with TOR is trying a different class or trying the same class on the opposing faction. Problem with playing the opposing faction is that you quickly realize just how much of this game is recycled. Either way you chose most of the game play is the exact same thing you saw with your first character.

 

If you do not want an AC change, fine do not use it. But if others want to change their AC and put in the "work" of taking out the mods and putting it in different gear, let them. Why should anyone determine how another player, who pays their own subscription, plays?

 

I personally do not care about changing up my ACs. I would prefer to see an AC change as a 30 dollar charge for Bioware. Let Bioware make money on a game they created to make money.

 

"oh I'll leave if they allow AC changes!" Bull.

Edited March 4, 2012 by illgot

[MajikMyst]

So a dps-only class has no role?

 

No role that any other character can't fill.. There isn't a single character in this game that can't DPS.. It isn't like a tank or a healer, where only specific classes can perform that role..

[MajikMyst]

Er, no. Hybrids are any class that can perform two roles. In WoW, priests and warriors are both considered hybrids.

 

The only pures in SWTOR are Gunslingers and Snipers (which might be why you see so few of them).

 

I think trying to get away from paladin/druid class design is admirable, but the current implementation isn't the way to go about it.

 

Ehm.. Sentinels are DPS only.. As are their emperial counterparts..

 

But you are missing my point.. Yes, most classes can heal or tank.. There is nothing wrong with that.. But there is nothing wrong with seperating tanking and healing classes and not having a class perform both..

 

Allowing AC speccing is not the answer and simply should never be allowed..

[MajikMyst]

^ Exactly.

 

Dual specs make having a spec at all completely pointless, so why are players glued to a single AC for life?

 

Because at some point the game has to be allowed to have rules.. I am against dual speccing as well.. I see no point where we should have a button that allows us to change our spec on the fly in the middle of an operation or flashpoint.. There are a number of arguements against dual speccing as well.. I think the current setup is fine.. We can go to a skill mentor and pay a fee to have our telents reset..

 

But games need to be allowed to have rules and players need to learn ro play within them and not have the mentality that they can just change the game to suite their own personal needs..

 

Then entire mentality of easy and convenient is what helped the decline of WOW.. Things like dual speccing and the cross server LFG.. They led to the decline in player quality which lead to the continued nerfing of raids and heroics.. My old guild, one shot 'Deathwing'.. the first week he was released.. ONE SHOT!! I don't recall anyone one shotting any of the last bosses in BC.. Not even in Kara.. No.. Dual speccing and LFG aren't the only reasons WOW is in decline.. There are most certainly other reasons.. But they are part of the reason.. Some people don't seem to realize that.. Or don't want to realize it as it means they can't have their easy and convenient button.. There are a lot of us that would prefer not to watch this game be destroyed the way WOW was.. WOW should go back to how it was during BC.. That was when WOW was arguably at it's best..

 

Easy and more convenient doesn't make things better in an MMO.. You make them to easy and there is little point to play..

Edited March 4, 2012 by MajikMyst

[chaosdefined]

Then entire mentality of easy and convenient is what helped the decline of WOW.. Things like dual speccing and the cross server LFG.. They led to the decline in player quality which lead to the continued nerfing of raids and heroics.. My old guild, one shot 'Deathwing'.. the first week he was released.. ONE SHOT!! I don't recall anyone one shotting any of the last bosses in BC.. Not even in Kara.. No..

 

Firstly I call total and utter bull on one-shotting Deathwing first time he was released. Unless it was in Raid Finder.

 

Secondly, Dual-Specs and Cross Server LFG have absolutely nothing to do with player skill or attitude.

 

You can give a man a stick, how he uses that stick though is up to him. He could use it to build a fire or he could go around hitting people with it.

 

The dev's give players a tool to help them enjoy the game, that has nothing to do with some players being bad at playing the game or having a terrible attitude towards others.

Edited March 4, 2012 by chaosdefined

[aznthecapn]

Then entire mentality of easy and convenient is what helped the decline of WOW.. Things like dual speccing and the cross server LFG.. They led to the decline in player quality which lead to the continued nerfing of raids and heroics.. My old guild, one shot 'Deathwing'.. the first week he was released.. ONE SHOT!! I don't recall anyone one shotting any of the last bosses in BC.. Not even in Kara.. No.. Dual speccing and LFG aren't the only reasons WOW is in decline..

 

A) WoW is not "in decline" It remains the most financially successful MMO thus far and is maintaining over 10 million subscribers. Going from 11 to 10 million is not declining, especially if you consider how much of that million is accounts that were banned due to gold farming and exploiting.

 

And just so we're clear, no I am no longer playing WoW.

 

B) Maybe you one shot Deathwing on Raid Finder. That's not an accomplishment. He was designed to be killed easily in the raid finder.

[MajikMyst]

A) WoW is not "in decline" It remains the most financially successful MMO thus far and is maintaining over 10 million subscribers. Going from 11 to 10 million is not declining, especially if you consider how much of that million is accounts that were banned due to gold farming and exploiting.

 

And just so we're clear, no I am no longer playing WoW.

 

B) Maybe you one shot Deathwing on Raid Finder. That's not an accomplishment. He was designed to be killed easily in the raid finder.

 

Going from 12 to 10 in just over a year is in decline.. Sorry..

 

I am no longer playing WOW either.. Go figure..

 

I do have friends from my old guild who still are and I hear their complaints in facebook about how WOW is in decline and servers are losing population..

 

There is no accurate means to measure how many subs WOW has.. Only what Blizzard admits they lose..

 

http://kotaku.com/5827577/world-of-warcraft-still-losing-players

 

That article is almost a year old.. It is safe to say that the decline continued after June of last year when they had 11.1 million subs.. Assuming the loss of about 300k per 3 month period or quarter continued.. We are also about 3 mos away from being June 30 again.. One could say that WOW has lost an additional 900k since June 30.. Putting them well within the 10 million susbscription range.. I quit in Sept. of last year.. 12 members of my old guild quit between Oct. and release.. I am sure we are not alone..

 

Even if the decline has slowed somewhat, which is hard to see that it has.. WOW is and has been in decline..

 

Yes, it still has a lot of poeple and still a cash cow for Blizzard.. But that doesn't mean that it haan't reached it's peak and is now rolling down hill into history.. It is 8 years old.. It has had a wonderful run.. It still however is in it's decline..

 

WOW is even making offeres that it never would have before.. A years subscription of WOW and you get Diablo III for free?? Beta invites have been sent out like mad to people with canceled subscriptions.. 3 people from my old guild who have quit, have all been invited to test Diablo III, including myself.. That of course could just mean that we are really lucky as well.. Or unlucky, depending on your point of view..

 

I have also gotten at least 2 offers since Sept. to play for free for 5 days.. Neither of which I have accepted..

 

Let's also understand that Blizzard isn't going to make regular reports on the number of subs it is losing.. Doing so can result in further loss if everyone sees the game as a sinking ship.. Which, in many ways is it.. So the ability to get accurate and current numbers is going to be difficult.. But people should listen to the word in Trade chat.. Talk to guild managers and how many attempts to merge with other guilds have they done to keep their numbers up.. Before I left in Sept. We merged with 4 smaller guilds for that very reason.. Guilds don't merge because there is a thriving population and tons of recruits to be had.. Do they?? After I left, I am told that 2 more merges have taken place.. All before release of this game..

 

But please make no mistake.. WOW is in decline.. It is no where near it's peak of 12 million.. It is also losing players and not getting many new ones.. At least not without special offers and gimicks..

 

It was a 10 man run, no LFG tool was used.. Sorry..

Edited March 4, 2012 by MajikMyst

[MajikMyst]

Firstly I call total and utter bull on one-shotting Deathwing first time he was released. Unless it was in Raid Finder..

 

What are you talking about.. Many of the top end guilds are one shotting him on 25 man heroic.. We one shot him on 10 man and no raid finder was used..

 

It isn't even just us that did it.. Many guilds are one shotting him.. Without a raid finder.. Must guilds don't like using the LFG because you usually get crap players.. Which is why they made it easier for pug groups that use the raid finder eh?? And when you are looking to clear top end content.. You want only the best in the best gear.. Wrecked, the top guild on our server has one shot him everytime they have faced him.. No raid finder.. A number of my old guildies have been running alts with Wrecked so they don't have to use the raid finder.. We are not the only guild that sometimes runs with Wrecked.. A number of guilds have soft merged and run together to avoid using the raid finder and the watered down content.. (Two guilds that are still seperate guilds, but schedule raids and events together to me is a soft merge..)

 

Why do you think I don't want an LFG system?? Do we really want to deal with watered down content?? Or is that the only way some people can clear the content??

 

So you can all it whatever you want.. You can also believe what you want..

Edited March 4, 2012 by MajikMyst

[aznthecapn]

Going from 12 to 10 in just over a year is in decline

 

It is "a decline". It does not mean the game is "in decline". The two phrases have different meaning.

 

I do have friends from my old guild who still are and I hear their complaints in facebook about how WOW is in decline and servers are losing population..

 

I think this forum and the internet in general is plenty of evidence that all gamers ever do is complain. That is not concrete evidence of decline.

 

There is no accurate means to measure how many subs WOW has.. Only what Blizzard admits they lose..

 

I'd say quarterly earnings reports are damn accurate.

 

Yes, it still has a lot of poeple and still a cash cow for Blizzard.. But that doesn't mean that it haan't reached it's peak and is now rolling down hill into history.. It is 8 years old.. It has had a wonderful run.. It still however is in it's decline..

 

You're still mistaking "in decline" with "a decline".

 

WOW is even making offeres that it never would have before.. A years subscription of WOW and you get Diablo III for free??

 

They knew SWTOR was releasing as well as Guild Wars 2. They plan to release Diablo 3 in that span as well. There are many players who would stop their subscription (even temporarily), not because it sucks but because they plan to play something else for a while before MoP releases. Its happened following the release of every "final raid" since TBC. People defeat Kil'jaeden, Arthas and Deathwing and they stop subscribing until the next expansion. Its only makes good business sense to offer them a carrot to keep the money flowing. Not evidence of a decline.

 

Beta invites have been sent out like mad to people with canceled subscriptions.. 3 people from my old guild who have quit, have all been invited to test Diablo III, including myself.. That of course could just mean that we are really lucky as well.. Or unlucky, depending on your point of view..

 

Beta invites were sent out to TONS of people. I had one before I quit. So had five other guildmates.

 

I have also gotten at least 2 offers since Sept. to play for free for 5 days.. Neither of which I have accepted..

 

I had three offers in three months on my secondary account. Hell, I haven't been able to play SWTOR for two weeks due to work and I just an email asking me to come back yesterday! I didn't even cancel.

 

Let's also underetand that Blizzard isn't going to make regular reports on the number of subs it is losing.. Doing so can result in further loss if everyone sees the game as a sinking ship.. Which, in many ways is it..

 

Quarterly earnings reports are both regular and include the numbers of subs lost. Wrong on both counts.

 

But please make no mistake.. WOW is in decline.. It is no where near it's peak of 12 million.. It is also losing players and not getting many new ones.. At least not without special offers and gimicks..

 

Over 10 million is awfully close to 12 million. If someone offered me 12 million then changed their mind and said 10, I'm not going to get angry and want the 12. I'm taking the 10. Its a net loss of about 16% 3 months after the release of the final raid of the expansion. Its to be expected. Not the sign of a decline.

 

It was a 10 man run, no LFG tool was used.. Sorry..

 

I still don't believew you. Sorry..

Edited March 4, 2012 by aznthecapn

[aznthecapn]

What are you talking about.. Many of the top end guilds are one shotting him on 25 man heroic.. We one shot him on 10 man and no raid finder was used..

 

One shotting him a week after the kill? Maybe. Even likely. One shotting him the first time you faced him? No.

[MajikMyst]

I'd say quarterly earnings reports are damn accurate.

 

So where is the quarterly earnings report between then and now?? There are about 3 missing.. Where are the subscription numbers??

 

That is my point..

 

The number of subscriptions of WOW is in decline.. That is fact.. You can spin however you want, but the fact remains.. WOW is in decline.. Since it is a subscription based game..

 

Mists of Panderia has not been warmly recieved by anyone.. The Youtube trailer alone got poor marks from views.. The first time for any trailer for a WOW expansion..

 

The office trailer is almost tied for 50% likes and dislikes..

 

Cataclsym was at 47k likes and only 3k dislikes.. That is what?? 98% like and only 2% dislike??

 

 

 

 

Burning Crusade

 

The evidence is all around you.. You just have to choose to look at it..

[ZORG]

Personally, I believe AC's are classes in their own and you should not be able to swap them.

 

However, I can see both sides of this and I can understand that a) it's impossible to know if you'll enjoy playing an AC until you've actually tried and b) having to re-roll and play the exact same story all over again would feel extremely tedious to some.

 

IMO, I would suggest a compromise which would allow you to switch AC's two times, but no more.

 

Why two? The first swap would be for you to try out the other AC if you are not sure about the one you originally selected. The second swap would enable you to go back to the original one, in case after having tried out the second AC you do feel the first one was the better one after all.

 

It's impossible to know whether you like an AC before you've tried it, and you can't make a fair decision between the two until you've tried them both, right?

 

So, two (2) swaps should be enough as it will enable you to make a fair comparison between the AC's and allow you to pick whichever one you liked best. More than that is really not needed IMO.

 

SE

 

I can agree with you. I would however add one thing to it. If you level a sage to level 20 and decide you want to try a shadow you get bumped back to level 10 all cash crafting skills and gear would also reset to what you had at level 10. You need the experiance from level 10 to know for sure.