ETA on Advanced Class change?

[Ratajack]

Just a couple of issues....

 

1) At no time has any one suggested that the change would be 'at will', it would have a direct cost (I suggest a CC cost and a cool down period) and an indirect cost (requipping gear and training up the new AC specific abilities).

 

2) Grind was an old mindset of MMO to prolong bum-on-seat time and give the developers time to get new content out there. I find it funny to see players that think grind should be an acceptable form for any game. If anything grind turns away far more players than it attracts. You still have 7 other classes with their unique stories and playstyles to go and grind through if you so desire.

 

1. I suggest you go back and reread this thread and others regarding the same hot topic. At least two separate people have asked to be able to change at will for free, with no limits.

 

2. "Grind" is still an important part of any MMO. The "entitled, have to have it now and for as little effort or cost as possible" mindset is relatively new, however.

[Spatology]

reason's this is a good idea: a minority of the playerbase wants a tool of this nature to change their "main" character so they dont have to start over or can retain "flair" items/titles their characters have earned.

 

reason's this is a bad idea: it allows people to completely change their character's playstyle at the eldergame level. it under values some classes that cant provide all 3 roles on demand, assumeing the tool is like field respec. it further deseminates the variety and uniqueness of the classes by expanding each classes utility for given encounters.

 

 

Until further class balance and meta discussions for the future of class variance are had, i think this is a bad idea.

 

Since people refuse to re read 300+ pages of debate, and honestly hardly ever input things of value that havent been covered already....

 

Ill be copy pasteing relevant responses from this point forward. You people keep going in circles.

[LordArtemis]

The history of this game proves without a doubt that what the original dev staff said in the past is not set in stone. The original design intent is pretty much gone IMO. To keep saying that the "devs clearly said this" is silly and pointless. Far too many changes have been made to the game that the original devs said would NEVER happen (for one reason or another) to give that kind of statement any legitimacy.....

 

Case in point...most recent statement says they believe AC will happen eventually. That lends some credence to the idea that the current staff does not view ACs the same way as the original staff.

 

Example? Visual progression. Devs very CLEARLY stated that they designed armor with visual progression in mind, this was the design intent and this would not change. They believed that players should be able to visually identify classes, and that this was a fundamental design core feature. They also believed that allowing a violation of visual progression would harm the game. They were very VERY clear on this point. It wasn't going to happen, ever.

 

Visual progression is gone.

 

I hold out hope that will decide against AC change, or if they do implement it it will be very restrictive...but that is just a personal desire. As I have said before, if this is something that the majority of the playerbase wants I will not stand in the way.

 

Just my slant.

Edited October 25, 2013 by LordArtemis

[Vhaegrant]

1. I suggest you go back and reread this thread and others regarding the same hot topic. At least two separate people have asked to be able to change at will for free, with no limits.

I'll take your word on that, are you sure they weren't being sarcastic or using hyperbole? I can't recall any posts of such ilk in this thread. Please feel free to link me to them

 

2. "Grind" is still an important part of any MMO. The "entitled, have to have it now and for as little effort or cost as possible" mindset is relatively new, however.

Grind is a poor excuse for game design. Full stop. It is probably one of the bigger causes of game abandonment... that brain numbing fatigue of knowing that the task at hand has no relevance to skill or ability just the amount of time you care to sit in front of a screen. With a pure subscription model that may be applicable after all the longer you can keep the players playing the same content the better. But if you want a larger and more important happy willing to pay for stuff player base you need to keep the content fresh and fun for the players.

There is nothing 'entitled' about wanting to have an AC swap ability to be able to explore your class to its full potential.

 

Maybe should explain why you have such a punitive mindset with regards to the choices of other players that have no impact on your experience.

[LordArtemis]

I'll take your word on that, are you sure they weren't being sarcastic or using hyperbole? I can't recall any posts of such ilk in this thread. Please feel free to link me to them

 

Option 5

Level 10 to 46 - Allow AC Change - no maximum changes, can change at will up to 46 - no reduction in level - no cooldown - once you reach level 47 AC is permanent - everything is unaffected - armor/earpieces/weapons for character and companions are removed and must be reequipped.

 

Option 6

Level 10 to 55 - Allow AC Change - no maximum changes, can change at will - no reduction in level - no cooldown - no level gate for permanent AC choice - everything is unaffected - armor/earpieces/weapons for character and companions are removed and must be reequipped.

 

Option 7

Level 10 to 55 - Allow AC Change - no maximum changes, can change at will - no reduction in level - no cooldown - no level gate for permanent AC choice - Must level one character to max level in an AC to unlock legacy ability to switch AC for that class - everything is unaffected - armor/earpieces/weapons for character and companions are removed and must be reequipped.

 

Option 8

Level 10 to 55 - Allow AC Change - maximum 8 changes per account, can change at will - no reduction in level - no cooldown - no level gate for permanent AC choice - everything is unaffected - armor/earpieces/weapons for character and companions are removed and must be reequipped.

 

Option 9

 

Level 10 to 55 - Allow AC Change - no maximum number of changes - must change at AC trainers on fleet - 1 Week cooldown - Option for AC change unlocked as Character Perk for 600 cartel Coins (or 1.5 million credits) - Each subsequent AC change costs 40 cartel coins (or 100,000 credits).

 

There are the five specific requests from the thread that asked for "at will" change of some type.

[Vhaegrant]

Option 5

Level 10 to 46 - Allow AC Change - no maximum changes, can change at will up to 46 - no reduction in level - no cooldown - once you reach level 47 AC is permanent - everything is unaffected - armor/earpieces/weapons for character and companions are removed and must be reequipped.

 

Option 6

Level 10 to 55 - Allow AC Change - no maximum changes, can change at will - no reduction in level - no cooldown - no level gate for permanent AC choice - everything is unaffected - armor/earpieces/weapons for character and companions are removed and must be reequipped.

 

Option 7

Level 10 to 55 - Allow AC Change - no maximum changes, can change at will - no reduction in level - no cooldown - no level gate for permanent AC choice - Must level one character to max level in an AC to unlock legacy ability to switch AC for that class - everything is unaffected - armor/earpieces/weapons for character and companions are removed and must be reequipped.

 

Option 8

Level 10 to 55 - Allow AC Change - maximum 8 changes per account, can change at will - no reduction in level - no cooldown - no level gate for permanent AC choice - everything is unaffected - armor/earpieces/weapons for character and companions are removed and must be reequipped.

 

Option 9

 

Level 10 to 55 - Allow AC Change - no maximum number of changes - must change at AC trainers on fleet - 1 Week cooldown - Option for AC change unlocked as Character Perk for 600 cartel Coins (or 1.5 million credits) - Each subsequent AC change costs 40 cartel coins (or 100,000 credits).

 

There are the five specific requests from the thread that asked for "at will" change of some type.

 

Heh, I stand corrected on that one. I honestly thought I'd read every post from the OP to this one and had never read one post asking for a free change 'at will'. I must of glazed over some of the more absurd posts.

 

And, Option 6 is indeed there... although I would say the others all carry a cost of some sort.

 

'At will' was carrying the connotation in the post I was responding to of having no cost or limit and being able to be applied anywhere and at anytime. I would strongly argue against this as it starts to open up the possibility of exploiting the facility to swap AC in much the way Field respect was being used to change spec in certain WZs. Although that exploit has been removed from the game now.

 

I guess it shows that no matter how many times you can read something you can gloss over the information that doesn't necessarily match up with your own argument.

 

Still, overall I feel placing in the ability to swap AC for a cost and with a time restriction (maybe even a location restriction as well - fleet or personal ship) restricts the desire to AC too often and removes the 'At will' component entirely.

 

It would be interesting to know the position posters are arguing from with regards to their own stable of characters and the sort of time they are able to place in the game and whether this influences their position.

[mdob]

Just charge 5 or 10 million credits for it so it is extremely rare.

[Dropadeuce]

This thread is proof new MMO'ers are ruining mmos.

[LordArtemis]

This thread is proof new MMO'ers are ruining mmos.

 

...and old MMOers are trying to destroy the industry as they resist change, as they always have done.

 

It's the same old story naturally. The guy in the middle is the one that suffers the most as a result.

[Ratajack]

The history of this game proves without a doubt that what the original dev staff said in the past is not set in stone. The original design intent is pretty much gone IMO. To keep saying that the "devs clearly said this" is silly and pointless. Far too many changes have been made to the game that the original devs said would NEVER happen (for one reason or another) to give that kind of statement any legitimacy.....

 

Case in point...most recent statement says they believe AC will happen eventually. That lends some credence to the idea that the current staff does not view ACs the same way as the original staff.

 

Example? Visual progression. Devs very CLEARLY stated that they designed armor with visual progression in mind, this was the design intent and this would not change. They believed that players should be able to visually identify classes, and that this was a fundamental design core feature. They also believed that allowing a violation of visual progression would harm the game. They were very VERY clear on this point. It wasn't going to happen, ever.

 

Visual progression is gone.

 

I hold out hope that will decide against AC change, or if they do implement it it will be very restrictive...but that is just a personal desire. As I have said before, if this is something that the majority of the playerbase wants I will not stand in the way.

 

Just my slant.

 

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I respectfully point out that when the devs have made a statement and have since said nothing to contradict that statement in any way, pointing that statement out is neither silly nor pointless. This is especially true if the statement is not a statement that something will "never happen". The last statement from the devs regarding AC's being different classes has not been contradicted by the devs. This was a very definitive statement, btw, and not one using terms such as "likely" or "probably".

 

 

Regarding things such as visual progression and being able to visually identify classes, they have allowed differing armor looks to be available to all classes while still retaining the ability to visually identify a class, for the most part, based on the weapon the character wields. Are there some exceptions to this visual identification by weapon? Sure, there are. A commando, for example, can elect to use a blaster rifle instead of the assault cannon with a minimal loss in effectiveness if healing and a slightly larger loss in effectiveness if DPS'ing. Juggernauts/guardians and sorcerers/sages could be mistaken for one another due to the single lightsaber.

 

The most recent statement regarding AC changing DID say that it would "likely" happen. It did not say that AC changes WOULD happen and it did not give any indication of a time frame. That stament was made over 6 months ago. Since that statement was made, there have been many content patches and even an expansion, and yet there has been NOTHING further from the devs regarding AC changing. Not one word, not even a hint of a whisper, has been uttered by them since that time about AC changing, despite the numerous threads about this hot topic, including this almost 350 page thread.

 

If one looks at the total silence on this subject along with their statements during beta and since release that they do not plan to allow AC changing, it is not unreasonable to see this as a possible "soft no". As I have said before, they lose nothing by the "soft no". The players who want to change their class are likely still paying and playing, as evidenced by the number of subscribers in this thread who want to change their class. The devs know that they will likely lose a number of subscribers if they allow class changes. How many will leave is something that is anyone's guess. If that statement was a "soft no", BW keeps both those players who want to change their class continuing to pay and play by giving them a "sense of hope" while also keeping those against class changes continuing to pay and play by not allowing class changes.

 

We have no way of knowing whether this is something the majority of player base wants. Even in this thread, we have a few who are adamantly against allowing class changes and a few who are equally in favor of allowing them. We also have some have posted a time or two on one side or the other. I would say that there is not even a clear majority in this thread. Since the forums typically represent a vocal minority of the player base, I would suspect that there is even less of a clear majority when looking at the player base as a whole.

[LordArtemis]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I respectfully point out that when the devs have made a statement and have since said nothing to contradict that statement in any way, pointing that statement out is neither silly nor pointless. This is especially true if the statement is not a statement that something will "never happen". The last statement from the devs regarding AC's being different classes has not been contradicted by the devs. This was a very definitive statement, btw, and not one using terms such as "likely" or "probably".

 

Well, it is just my opinion ratajack, which you and I know means next to nothing. Just because I am of the opinion it is silly does not make it so.

 

Because note...they may still view it that way, and I have NEVER once seen them say that ACs are not classes. That is an important distinction. Though I have never seen them directly say they are, they certainly have implied it on many occasions...fundamentally different class designs...thats pretty close to saying it's a class of it's own.

 

So, you have a point there. You could say it is LIKELY because they have never contradicted it. But in fairness they have not DIRECTLY (to my knowledge) said they were flat out classes, nor have they said they were not.

 

The finality of saying "the devs have directly stated your AC is your class, they will never allow AC change, and they have never indicated anything to the contrary" is not really accurate IMO. Its a bit more gray than that.

 

 

Regarding things such as visual progression and being able to visually identify classes, they have allowed differing armor looks to be available to all classes while still retaining the ability to visually identify a class, for the most part, based on the weapon the character wields. Are there some exceptions to this visual identification by weapon? Sure, there are. A commando, for example, can elect to use a blaster rifle instead of the assault cannon with a minimal loss in effectiveness if healing and a slightly larger loss in effectiveness if DPS'ing. Juggernauts/guardians and sorcerers/sages could be mistaken for one another due to the single lightsaber.

 

Well, to be clear, it was a response to the idea of allowing armor to have mods again as an alternative to an appearance system. That is how they responded. They did not want Jedi to be wearing Commando gear, or visa versa, and said it would never happen. No light armor class wearing heavy armor, etc. But it has....visual progression in that respect has been "thrown out the window", so to speak.

 

The most recent statement regarding AC changing DID say that it would "likely" happen. It did not say that AC changes WOULD happen and it did not give any indication of a time frame. That stament was made over 6 months ago. Since that statement was made, there have been many content patches and even an expansion, and yet there has been NOTHING further from the devs regarding AC changing. Not one word, not even a hint of a whisper, has been uttered by them since that time about AC changing, despite the numerous threads about this hot topic, including this almost 350 page thread.

 

Correct, and to add to that, the race change was implemented as mentioned in that comment...but AC change was not. That may mean nothing....but I hope it means they decided against it.

 

And yes, to my knowledge I have not seen any yellow comment on the matter since.

 

If one looks at the total silence on this subject along with their statements during beta and since release that they do not plan to allow AC changing, it is not unreasonable to see this as a possible "soft no". As I have said before, they lose nothing by the "soft no". The players who want to change their class are likely still paying and playing, as evidenced by the number of subscribers in this thread who want to change their class. The devs know that they will likely lose a number of subscribers if they allow class changes. How many will leave is something that is anyone's guess. If that statement was a "soft no", BW keeps both those players who want to change their class continuing to pay and play by giving them a "sense of hope" while also keeping those against class changes continuing to pay and play by not allowing class changes.

 

If it's not unreasonable to see that, you have to have reason with the folks that say "they never actually called it a class", " they have said it will likely happen" and so on. Reason must be applied to both views.

 

To ask for some interpretive leeway but then close the door on that for the other side of the argument is self serving IMO. The entire argument, pro and con must be open to reasoning.

 

We have no way of knowing whether this is something the majority of player base wants. Even in this thread, we have a few who are adamantly against allowing class changes and a few who are equally in favor of allowing them. We also have some have posted a time or two on one side or the other. I would say that there is not even a clear majority in this thread. Since the forums typically represent a vocal minority of the player base, I would suspect that there is even less of a clear majority when looking at the player base as a whole.

 

I agree. I certainly have no idea. Only Bioware would be privy to those kind of metrics, if any, I would suspect.

[Ratajack]

I'll take your word on that, are you sure they weren't being sarcastic or using hyperbole? I can't recall any posts of such ilk in this thread. Please feel free to link me to them

 

I am not going to go back over 340+ pages and search through the countless other threads to look for something that you can find on your own. I will suggest you look for posts made by TridusSWTOR and PeterTLJ for starters, though.

 

 

Grind is a poor excuse for game design. Full stop. It is probably one of the bigger causes of game abandonment... that brain numbing fatigue of knowing that the task at hand has no relevance to skill or ability just the amount of time you care to sit in front of a screen. With a pure subscription model that may be applicable after all the longer you can keep the players playing the same content the better. But if you want a larger and more important happy willing to pay for stuff player base you need to keep the content fresh and fun for the players.

There is nothing 'entitled' about wanting to have an AC swap ability to be able to explore your class to its full potential.

 

What you are asking to do is explore a DIFFERENT class to it's full potential. You currently have that option in game. It does require you to actually level that different class, but you can explore any class to it's full potential. Asking to level one class but explore a different class is an "entitled" behavior, IMO.

 

Maybe should explain why you have such a punitive mindset with regards to the choices of other players that have no impact on your experience.

 

As I have stated before, any ONE individual who changes their class may never affect my personal gaming experience. Allowing class changes, however, will likely affect the gaming experience of every player in this game, some for the better and some for the worse. Just to name two examples, we have explained that although there already exist those players who are "bad" at playing their chosen class or who do not respect "social convention" regarding loot rules, allowing class changes will likely increase the numbers of players who would fall into either of those categories. More players will have no concept of how to play their "new" class and the whole "loot rules" fiasco is opened up to the players who will then have the excuse of "I might change AC" to try to justify not adhering to "social convention". Can those players be kicked and/or ignored? Yes, but why should the players against class change be put in the position of having to kick and/or ignore them?

[Ratajack]

Heh, I stand corrected on that one. I honestly thought I'd read every post from the OP to this one and had never read one post asking for a free change 'at will'. I must of glazed over some of the more absurd posts.

 

And, Option 6 is indeed there... although I would say the others all carry a cost of some sort.

 

'At will' was carrying the connotation in the post I was responding to of having no cost or limit and being able to be applied anywhere and at anytime. I would strongly argue against this as it starts to open up the possibility of exploiting the facility to swap AC in much the way Field respect was being used to change spec in certain WZs. Although that exploit has been removed from the game now.

 

I guess it shows that no matter how many times you can read something you can gloss over the information that doesn't necessarily match up with your own argument.

 

Still, overall I feel placing in the ability to swap AC for a cost and with a time restriction (maybe even a location restriction as well - fleet or personal ship) restricts the desire to AC too often and removes the 'At will' component entirely.

 

It would be interesting to know the position posters are arguing from with regards to their own stable of characters and the sort of time they are able to place in the game and whether this influences their position.

 

I can only speak from personal experience. I have many characters, some of which are max level. Wile I have one main server with 12 characters currently, I have many others spread across several servers. None of them are "abandoned". I play all of them, although most of my limited time is spent on my main server. I have at least one of each "base" class, although I do not have one of each AC.

 

Due to real life, I do not get much time to play. My time is extremely limited. If I am lucky I get maybe four hours to play Monday through Friday, most weeks not even that much. On the rare weekends I do not have to work, I might get to play for a few hours each on Saturday or Sunday, if I am lucky. I do not see this limited time as a justification to allow class changes, though, since there are no time constraints for reaching max level. I am not one of the "have to have it now" crowd. I know that my characters are not going to be deleted if they are not max level in a week or two. I have been playing since early release and I still have characters that have not reached max level. Foe me, it is the journey and not the destination that is important. If I want to play one of the classes I do not yet have, I will create one and level it, however long that takes.

[Ratajack]

Well, it is just my opinion ratajack, which you and I know means next to nothing. Just because I am of the opinion it is silly does not make it so.

 

Because note...they may still view it that way, and I have NEVER once seen them say that ACs are not classes. That is an important distinction. Though I have never seen them directly say they are, they certainly have implied it on many occasions...fundamentally different class designs...thats pretty close to saying it's a class of it's own.

 

So, you have a point there. You could say it is LIKELY because they have never contradicted it. But in fairness they have not DIRECTLY (to my knowledge) said they were flat out classes, nor have they said they were not.

 

The finality of saying "the devs have directly stated your AC is your class, they will never allow AC change, and they have never indicated anything to the contrary" is not really accurate IMO. Its a bit more gray than that.

 

To be fair, I have not said that the devs directly said that they will never allow class changes. I have said that the devs have stated that AC's are fundamentally different class designs and that they see them as different classes, which is pretty direct, IMO, and that they have not contradicted this statement. I have also repeatedly acknowledged the statement that AC changes will "likely happen".

 

 

 

Well, to be clear, it was a response to the idea of allowing armor to have mods again as an alternative to an appearance system. That is how they responded. They did not want Jedi to be wearing Commando gear, or visa versa, and said it would never happen. No light armor class wearing heavy armor, etc. But it has....visual progression in that respect has been "thrown out the window", so to speak.

 

My point was that they found a way to retain the visual identification while at the same time allowing more flexibility in appearance. In that instance there were able to satisfy both sides of that particular issue, those desiring more flexibility in appearance and those wishing to be able to visually identify a player's class, for the most part. It will be much harder to satisfy both sides of this hot topic, though.

 

Correct, and to add to that, the race change was implemented as mentioned in that comment...but AC change was not. That may mean nothing....but I hope it means they decided against it.

 

And yes, to my knowledge I have not seen any yellow comment on the matter since.

 

I hope this means they have decided against it as well, but time will tell. As one poster points out, the devs can change anything at any time, including their minds.

 

 

If it's not unreasonable to see that, you have to have reason with the folks that say "they never actually called it a class", " they have said it will likely happen" and so on. Reason must be applied to both views.

 

To ask for some interpretive leeway but then close the door on that for the other side of the argument is self serving IMO. The entire argument, pro and con must be open to reasoning.

 

Point taken. I do, however, think that the statements regarding AC's being different classes are much more definitive and less open to "interpretation" than the statement that AC changes will "likely" happen, especially when those statements regarding AC's being different classes have not been contradicted and there has been nothing further regarding AC changing.

 

 

I agree. I certainly have no idea. Only Bioware would be privy to those kind of metrics, if any, I would suspect.

 

This is true, although posters on both sides of this issue would have us believe that their side is the majority.

[Vhaegrant]

I am not going to go back over 340+ pages and search through the countless other threads to look for something that you can find on your own. I will suggest you look for posts made by TridusSWTOR and PeterTLJ for starters, though.

Yeah, no worries on this one. A little hyperbole crept into my own response. One of the dangers of skim reading some aspects and babysitting I suspect

 

What you are asking to do is explore a DIFFERENT class to it's full potential. You currently have that option in game. It does require you to actually level that different class, but you can explore any class to it's full potential. Asking to level one class but explore a different class is an "entitled" behavior, IMO.

I'm not asking to level one class but explore a different class. I'm saying it would be nice to be able to explore both Advanced Class options of the same class without having to relevel.

 

 

As I have stated before, any ONE individual who changes their class may never affect my personal gaming experience. Allowing class changes, however, will likely affect the gaming experience of every player in this game, some for the better and some for the worse. Just to name two examples, we have explained that although there already exist those players who are "bad" at playing their chosen class or who do not respect "social convention" regarding loot rules, allowing class changes will likely increase the numbers of players who would fall into either of those categories. More players will have no concept of how to play their "new" class and the whole "loot rules" fiasco is opened up to the players who will then have the excuse of "I might change AC" to try to justify not adhering to "social convention". Can those players be kicked and/or ignored? Yes, but why should the players against class change be put in the position of having to kick and/or ignore them?

I have a funny suspicion that those in favour of these two points tend to play outside of a guild. These are only issues that effect those that regularly play in PUG groups.

Easy fixes for these situations are: join a guild, put good players on your friends list, put bad players on your ignore list, talk to people before the start to confirm looting priority, kick bad players from the group, be understanding that this may be someone's first MMO and they may not know the given conventions and take the time to encourage them to be better players.

But these looting issues are already rife in the game and have plenty of threads regarding them. I doubt it would be a significant impact. And, controversial I know, I don't disagree with folk that Need on everything whether the character they are currently on can use it or not. After all their time is just as important as anyone else's and with legacy gear you can transfer mods across to alts that could be using it.I find this acceptable behaviour in a PUG, but not in a Guild environment.

[Tsillah]

We all know the ETA is when pigs fly. So get yourself a degree in genetics and start experimenting.

[Strixs]

whether it happens or not why worry about.

 

If it happens it does, if it doesn't it doesn't.

 

If it does and bioware makes profit by charging you money so they can make further content and pay their employees and do more things for the game so be it.

 

If it does not and you have to either buy more things over time or pay your sub for longer because you choose to lvl up said character and play more of the game which ends up supporting the game still, then so be it.

[AlexDougherty]

My word, is this thread still going, I got bored of it about the page 40 mark.

[LordArtemis]

Nothing new on the suggestion, pro or con fronts so I will wait a few more pages before I repost the list.

[branmakmuffin]

Nothing new on the suggestion, pro or con fronts so I will wait a few more pages before I repost the list.

I'll simplify it for you

 

For: Flexibility and fun (and no one else's business)

 

Con: Just don't like it and unknown tech/development issues.

 

Done.

[Ratajack]

I'll simplify it for you

 

For: Flexibility and fun (and no one else's business)

 

Con: Just don't like it and unknown tech/development issues.

 

Done.

 

Allow me to simplify it even further.

 

For: laziness

 

Con: some things should be earned.

 

Admittedly, those are the extremist reasons. There are many much more subtle reasons within those extremes.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Ratajack

[ekwalizer]

Couldn't I argue that many people may not have realized the restriction of choosing the AC they did? Isn't that just as valid? There would be no point to limit this to level 15 DOH, at 15, reroll...you're 30min into that toon...big deal. It's at 55 where the game goes from single player, to a multiplayer game where the different roles are truly noticed (and needed).

 

As was pointed out about a thousand times way back in July/August - the system tells you FOUR times before you select your AC that it is a permanent and irrevocable decision. So no, that argument is not valid. Nor is any other argument for AC change. Your AC *is* your class. You are not a Trooper Commando, you are a Commando. You are not a Bounty Hunter Power Tech, you are a Powertech.

 

Knight, Consular, Smuggler, Trooper, Bounty Hunter, Warrior, Agent, Inquisitor are STORIES. They are NOT classes.

[MajikMyst]

As was pointed out about a thousand times way back in July/August - the system tells you FOUR times before you select your AC that it is a permanent and irrevocable decision. So no, that argument is not valid. Nor is any other argument for AC change. Your AC *is* your class. You are not a Trooper Commando, you are a Commando. You are not a Bounty Hunter Power Tech, you are a Powertech.

 

Knight, Consular, Smuggler, Trooper, Bounty Hunter, Warrior, Agent, Inquisitor are STORIES. They are NOT classes.

 

^^

This!!

 

/thread

[Illyean]

Allow me to simplify it even further.

 

For: laziness

 

Con: some things should be earned.

 

Admittedly, those are the extremist reasons. There are many much more subtle reasons within those extremes.

 

the simple version is actually

 

PRO : someone wants it

CON : someone else doesn't

 

it's all personal opinion, anyone thinking its right or wrong is just silly at this point.

[Ratajack]

I'm not asking to level one class but explore a different class. I'm saying it would be nice to be able to explore both Advanced Class options of the same class without having to relevel.

 

Since AC's are different classes in the eyes of the devs, asking to level one AC and explore the other as well without leveling that other AC is asking to level one class and explore a different class.

 

I have a funny suspicion that those in favour of these two points tend to play outside of a guild. These are only issues that effect those that regularly play in PUG groups.

Easy fixes for these situations are: join a guild, put good players on your friends list, put bad players on your ignore list, talk to people before the start to confirm looting priority, kick bad players from the group, be understanding that this may be someone's first MMO and they may not know the given conventions and take the time to encourage them to be better players.

But these looting issues are already rife in the game and have plenty of threads regarding them. I doubt it would be a significant impact. And, controversial I know, I don't disagree with folk that Need on everything whether the character they are currently on can use it or not. After all their time is just as important as anyone else's and with legacy gear you can transfer mods across to alts that could be using it.I find this acceptable behaviour in a PUG, but not in a Guild environment.

 

Many people, myself included, are in guilds and yet still pug on at least a semi-regular basis.

 

We all know that "bad behavior" already exists in this game. The point I was making is allowing class changes will increase the number of "bad players". If there are X number of "bad players" and Y number of players choose to change class, with 50% of those players being "bad", we have increased X by up to 50% of Y.

 

We all know there are ways for those against class changes to "avoid" these "bad players", but why should those

players against class changes be inconvenienced just so that the players who are averse to the effort of leveling that other class can avoid consequences to which they agreed regarding a decision THEY made.

 

Like you, I do not begrudge anyone the chance to roll need for loot from a boss they helped kill. As you said, their time is worth something also. I do not choose to roll need on those items that are not a direct upgrade for my character, but I will not deny any other party members that option, and I will invite them to roll need against me for an item that would upgrade my character.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Ratajack