ETA on Advanced Class change?

[ekwalizer]

The last quote on the subject by a dev was by the Lead Designer, who said it had been given serious consideration and would likely happen. No time frame was given.

 

Originally Posted by Dulfy and Damion Schubert

18. Will be there any faction or Advanced Class change option available for purchase in the future?

 

We have had serious talks recently about offering an Advanced Class change option–I think that one will likely happen eventually. Species is likely as well. Doing a faction switch is considerably more difficult for us, though, due to the various quest flags set throughout the level up process, so this isn’t on the horizon anytime soon.

 

Here are a few oft overlooked details about that quote:

1.) It was made in 16 November 2012, 18 months ago. http://dulfy.net/2012/11/16/swtor-f2p-future-content-interview-with-damion-schubert/

2.) There have been 2 Digital Expansions since that statement was made.

3.) A new species and the ability to Species change have been in the game for quite some time now.

4.) It was the only quote ever made that even implied AC change was being considered. A contradiction to every other quote on the subject.

5.) They have been completely silent on the matter ever since, there has been zero Bioware input on the subject since, to include in this thread that is the oldest and most active AC respec thread still on the forum.

6.) There is yet another announced Digital Expansion coming in a few months - AC respec is not (yet) listed as part of that major game event.

7.) The Cartel Market is flourishing, AC respec would certainly be put on the CM - yet they haven't done it.

8.) Neither "likely" nor "eventually", or the combination thereof equate to "will".

9.) If they could do it easily, they would have done it by now.

 

Here is something a bit more recent:

Ten Ton Hammer

https://www.tentonhammer.com/watn/damion-schubert

Inside the BioWare offices, there’s a wall with a ton of Post-It notes, all marked, sorted, and graded in terms of viability, called The Wall of Crazy. It’s a wall of ideas that the team will work on making a reality if, and only if, they can be done right. One of those ideas is Guild Ships. Damion has been a strong proponent of bringing this and other amazing systems to fruition, but only if they can be done right. It’s that dedication to the game, the fans, and the fortitude to release something only when it’s truly epic that makes Damion such an amazing person to have the honor of working with.

 

While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it should be noted that Guild Ships were specifically detailed as being on the Wall, whereas AC Respec was not - and the writer is an SWTOR player. That could be explained away any number of ways, my point is without seeing the Wall of Crazy, we don't know what is on it and what isn't. AC Respec, probably isn't given the complete lack of input since 16 NOV 2012.

 

Do we honestly think the Staff and Devs are not aware of this thread? November will mark 2 years since that quote was made and by then, there will be a 3rd Expansion and you will still be no closer to AC Respec. I seem to recall "Dual Spec" being a priority for them, and they left that sitting at Field Respec. They can't even get a proper Dual Spec system to work and you think they can make AC Respec a reality?

Edited May 6, 2014 by ekwalizer

[ekwalizer]

No. It does not, in my mind, imply that there is anything good in it. In fact, quite the opposite. The fact that it has not yet been implemented despite countless threads clamoring for it, IMO, implies that the devs may share my opinion that it would not be good for the game.

 

That said, however, if this game ever starts to fail, the devs may see a "bad thing" as something that might bring people back.

 

While I don't disagree with your position; I actually take the Devs at their word on this subject. I believe that they had serious discussions about it and wanted to move forward. My money is on a technical issue that precludes it from happening. Likely related to whatever is keeping them from introducing a real Dual Spec feature.

 

Or, they read all the threads about it and realized that most players either do not want it or are indifferent about it, so why dedicate the resources to a very small segment of the population?

Edited May 6, 2014 by ekwalizer

[LordArtemis]

P2W is paying for something in a Cash shop that can not be earned in-game.

 

I disagree with this view. Pay to Win is when someone pays for something in a game with real world money that can not be acquired in the game by other means, or when it provides the item earlier than a player would normally be able to acquire it by in game means AND it provides an advantage over someone that can not or will not pay.

 

In other words, if I buy an emote that turns me into a twinkie, and that emote can not be had in game by other means that is not in any way shape or form "Pay to Win". Not sure what advantage I get over someone else having a twinkie emote.

[LordArtemis]

I would also add that folks need to stop using the DE quote. There are many reasons for this. I will list only three.

 

1) DE did not, to my knowledge design classes or abilities.

2) DE often speculated on things he should not have IMO, and gave his personal opinion, opinion that quite often contradicted with his last opinion on the matter.

3) DE is gone, and more recent opinions...yes, I think they are opinions as well, contradict a few of his statements.

 

I personally feel it is best to toss all statements...and I mean ALL of them about AC...what it is, what the intent was, what they plan to do, etc. out the door.

 

IMO is ALL speculation. Frankly I don't think even they know why they set them up that way, what the intent was or what they will do with it.

[ekwalizer]

I disagree with this view. Pay to Win is when someone pays for something in a game with real world money that can not be acquired in the game by other means, or when it provides the item earlier than a player would normally be able to acquire it by in game means AND it provides an advantage over someone that can not or will not pay.

 

Such as the ability to purchase Speeder 3 with CC at level 1. Stealth fixed, but it was there ... for a long time.

[LordArtemis]

Such as the ability to purchase Speeder 3 with CC at level 1. Stealth fixed, but it was there ... for a long time.

 

Yes, that and a few other things, like some of the space upgrades and the like were or are definitely Pay to Win.

[LordRichardEW]

Yes, that and a few other things, like some of the space upgrades and the like were or are definitely Pay to Win.

Well considering the space upgrades can be gotten in game with out having to spend a CC or even getting them off the gtn and have no effected on player vs player at all then its not really Pay to win.

[LordArtemis]

Well considering the space upgrades can be gotten in game with out having to spend a CC or even getting them off the gtn and have no effected on player vs player at all then its not really Pay to win.

 

Good point. I was under the impression they were CM only items. Can you get them from the market and use them much earlier than someone that gets them in game?

 

I don't know because I don't play SWTOR space. At all.

[Vhaegrant]

I disagree with this view. Pay to Win is when someone pays for something in a game with real world money that can not be acquired in the game by other means, or when it provides the item earlier than a player would normally be able to acquire it by in game means AND it provides an advantage over someone that can not or will not pay.

 

In other words, if I buy an emote that turns me into a twinkie, and that emote can not be had in game by other means that is not in any way shape or form "Pay to Win". Not sure what advantage I get over someone else having a twinkie emote.

 

And this is probably a good example of why I shouldn't post pre-coffee.

I forgot to relate the quote to items that have a Statistic on them. So when buying items such as mods or end game gear.

I'll go back and tidy that up. And, include it below for fullness...

 

P2W is paying for an item from a cash shop that has higher in-game stats than the 'Best in Slot' item earned in game.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Vhaegrant

[Vhaegrant]

Do we honestly think the Staff and Devs are not aware of this thread? November will mark 2 years since that quote was made and by then, there will be a 3rd Expansion and you will still be no closer to AC Respec.

I would imagine the Forum Community Staff are aware of this thread, they may or may not have made the devs aware of it. In general terms, if a Dev has commented directly on a subject they don't make any repeat announcements until it is ready to be rolled out. The last quote of concern was the direct instigator of this thread.

Beyond the actual scope of the question the number of forumites engaged on this topic is quite small, a handful of the same names getting on the AC swap waltzer every couple of months or so, not sure why the Devs would need to be notified of this?

As no time frame was ever given for any roll out of an AC swap feature, just that it was likely in the future, closeness is not really important.

 

I seem to recall "Dual Spec" being a priority for them, and they left that sitting at Field Respec. They can't even get a proper Dual Spec system to work and you think they can make AC Respec a reality?

Personally I find the 'Field Respecialisation' functionality far better than the limited interface of a Dual Spec. I can respecialise, swap out gear and reorganise my quickbars in about a minute. Or, do you not want to put in the effort to have as many builds as you want at your fingertips, relying instead on a toggle between two options.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Vhaegrant

[ekwalizer]

I would imagine the Forum Community Staff are aware of this thread, they may or may not have made the devs aware of it. In general terms, if a Dev has commented directly on a subject they don't make any repeat announcements until it is ready to be rolled out. The last quote of concern was the direct instigator of this thread.

Beyond the actual scope of the question the number of forumites engaged on this topic is quite small, a handful of the same names getting on the AC swap waltzer every couple of months or so, not sure why the Devs would need to be notified of this?

As no time frame was ever given for any roll out of an AC swap feature, just that it was likely in the future, closeness is not really important.

 

Personally I find the 'Field Respecialisation' functionality far better than the limited interface of a Dual Spec. I can respecialise, swap out gear and reorganise my quickbars in about a minute. Or, do you not want to put in the effort to have as many builds as you want at your fingertips, relying instead on a toggle between two options.

 

I largely agree with your second statement. I like the option of three specs, but I generally only use two. Respec'ing is quick since I do it often and I generally go from DPD/Heal/DPS so there really isn't a terrible amount of gear swapping. Alacrity isn't as good as advertised when you factor in the additional resource requirement of using abilities sooner.

 

As to your first, I also agree that if they say it once they generally don't mention it again until it is close to release. That said, I have been scouring the net of late and I find multiple interviews and pod casts where the same information is repeated, but the AC respec is genuinely a one-off occurrence.

 

As I've said for months, I'm not diametrically opposed to it, in theory, I just don't want it poorly implemented or to be a recurring event.

Edited May 6, 2014 by ekwalizer

[Vhaegrant]

As to your first, I also agree that if they say it once they generally don't mention it again until it is close to release. That said, I have been scouring the net of late and I find multiple interviews and pod casts where the same information is repeated, but the AC respec is genuinely a one-off occurrence.

I believe the correct term for it in PR is 'on message', you only talk about the stuff you want to talk about. Politicians are famed for this, turning nearly any question into a reason to advocate their new policy. I would imagine there is a set of controls in place before a Dev can post on the forums and this restricts them to the areas they are likely to comment on.

Not to mention those who have been commenting on this thread for awhile are invested in an answer to a degree that is no doubt far greater than the actual need for such a feature. It may be a very small blip on the Dev radar.

I think it sets a dangerous precedent for a Dev to come in and comment now, it would suggest that answers are gained from thread size rather than content. After all, the arguments on this particular treadmill haven't really changed since about page 4.

On the other hand, unless you can get yourself to one of the cantina events you can't ask a direct question to a Dev other than on the forum.

Maybe, anyone that reads this and has the chance to attend a cantina event could ask the question at the Q&A session. (Although I'm finding it a struggle to catch up with reliable and full reporting on the Q&A sessions of recent events)

 

As I've said for months, I'm not diametrically opposed to it, in theory, I just don't want it poorly implemented or to be a recurring event.

I wouldn't want it poorly implemented either. But, for me it helps to extend the roleplaying viability of a character.

Personally, I would want to see it go hand in hand with the roll out of more ACs per Class, allowing players a greater freedom of defining their character rather than the rather restrictive gamey sameness it tends to be at endgame.

 

While I enjoy the Bounty Hunter storyline, I don't see why I have to be restricted by blast pistols, it's a restriction I chafe under and it feels so artificial. Not to mention my Lightside Powertech only has the option to burn his opponents to death with a flamethrower, one of the most reviled weapons in the history of mankind.

 

The same mechanics that lay behind AC swapping could potentially be used to open up animations choice between Lightside/Darkside outcomes. Allow my Powertech the chance to use Vanguard animations instead and not only can he use a Blast Rifle (Carbine) he can use an Ion Pulse to stun opponents into submission rather than killing them (it stuns them honest, their insides aren't being crisped by micro-waves )

 

Or, you could import the ACs of other classes wholesale with a few minor animation changes to allow a greater range of weapons.

The Imperial Agent/Sniper Specialisation to allow a Boutny Hunter that takes down their targets at range ala Aurra Sing.

Or the Sith Warrior DPS specs to allow them to equip a techblade and engage in melee combat (jet pack animation for the leap and AOE blast) you know like the huge amount of troopers you encounter can do or the two Mandalorian companions you get can.

 

There are a whole load of 'Or' and 'Ifs' out there, and many of them won't be to your taste, or you'll feel it cheapens the Advanced Class you've chosen to play. But, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Vhaegrant

[Brewski]

People keep trying to make an argument that an AC change is not the same as a full class change, which I don't get. Different advanced classes can or do effect:

• What armor you can wear.
  
• What mainhand weapon you are allowed to wield.
  
• What offhand you are allowed to wield.
  
• Fully half your available skills.
  
• Two thirds of your available skill trees.
  

 

Granted there is a marginal difference in the last two when talking about switching your "base" class, but mostly it's the same in either case. Advanced Class is not a setting on your character, it's a whole different class from the moment you select it. For all intents and purposes, switching AC is the same as switching your base class in other games, and that's why I think it will never happen. (And also why it does not bother me that it won't.)

 

Personally I find the 'Field Respecialisation' functionality far better than the limited interface of a Dual Spec. I can respecialise, swap out gear and reorganise my quickbars in about a minute. Or, do you not want to put in the effort to have as many builds as you want at your fingertips, relying instead on a toggle between two options.

Same here. I would not want to remove Field Respec for a limited dual spec option either.

 

That said, what I would really like to see is something similar to what the original Guild Wars had, where I can save a spec definition, including the skill bar placement and key-binds, to a file like I save my UI settings. That would allow me to fast switch between specs without having to go through and reorganize my skill bar every time. That would be a QoL improvement I would fully support.

[ekwalizer]

I believe the correct term for it in PR is 'on message', you only talk about the stuff you want to talk about. Politicians are the famed for this, turning nearly any question into a reason to advocate their new policy. I would imagine there is a set of controls in place before a Dev can post on the forums and this restricts them to the areas they are likely to comment on.

Not to mention those who have been commenting on this thread for awhile are invested in an answer to a degree that is no doubt far greater than the actual need for such a feature. It may be a very small blip on the Dev radar.

I think it sets a dangerous precedent for a Dev to come in and comment now, it would suggest that answers are gained from thread size rather than content. After all, the arguments on this particular treadmill haven't really changed since about page 4.

On the other hand, unless you can get yourself to one of the cantina events you can't ask a direct question to a Dev other than on the forum.

Maybe, anyone that reads this and has the chance to attend a cantina event could ask the question at the Q&A session. (Although I'm finding it a struggle to catch up with reliable and full reporting on the Q&A sessions of recent events)

 

 

I wouldn't want it poorly implemented either. But, for me it helps to extend the roleplaying viability of a character.

Personally, I would want to see it go hand in hand with the roll out of more ACs per Class, allowing players a greater freedom of defining their character rather than the rather restrictive gamey sameness it tends to be at endgame.

 

While I enjoy the Bounty Hunter storyline, I don't see why I have to be restricted by blast pistols, it's a restriction I chafe under and it feels so artificial. Not to mention my Lightside Powertech only has the option to burn his opponents to death with a flamethrower, one of the most reviled weapons in the history of mankind.

 

The same mechanics that lay behind AC swapping could potentially be used to open up animations choice between Lightside/Darkside outcomes. Allow my Powertech the chance to use Vanguard animations instead and not only can he use a Blast Rifle (Carbine) he can use an Ion Pulse to stun opponents into submission rather than killing them (it stuns them honest, their insides aren't being crisped by micro-waves )

 

Or, you could import the ACs of other classes wholesale with a few minor animation changes to allow a greater range of weapons.

The Imperial Agent/Sniper Specialisation to allow a Boutny Hunter that takes down their targets at range ala Aurra Sing.

Or the Sith Warrior DPS specs to allow them to equip a techblade and engage in melee combat (jet pack animation for the leap and AOE blast) you know like the huge amount of troopers you encounter can do or the two Mandalorian companions you get can.

 

There are a whole load of 'Or' and 'Ifs' out there, and many of them won't be to your taste, or you'll feel it cheapens the Advanced Class you've chosen to play. But, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed.

 

We agree on quite a bit then actually. I see no reason why my Bounty Hunters shouldn't be able to use Aim based melee weapons.

[Vhaegrant]

People keep trying to make an argument that an AC change is not the same as a full class change, which I don't get.

And I have just as much trouble understanding the viewpoint that they are individual Classes in their own right and not a subset of the class you've chosen at level 1.

 

Different advanced classes can or do effect:

• What armor you can wear. Only the Jedi Knight/Sith Warrior ACs affect this, all other ACs use the Class armour
  
• What mainhand weapon you are allowed to wield.
  
• What offhand you are allowed to wield. This can vary as much between Specialisations as it does ACs
  
• Fully half your available skills. This is a point that ACs are a subset not a unique class
  
• Two thirds of your available skill trees. End Specialisation determines role and yet can be swapped nearly any time you want
  

 

Granted there is a marginal difference in the last two when talking about switching your "base" class, but mostly it's the same in either case. Advanced Class is not a setting on your character, it's a whole different class from the moment you select it. For all intents and purposes, switching AC is the same as switching your base class in other games, and that's why I think it will never happen. (And also why it does not bother me that it won't.)

And yet as you level you will tend to alternate increasing the ranks of your abilities between Class abilities and Advanced Class abilities.

 

I've never played another MMO that starts you off playing a Class, then lets you chose which subset of class to progress in with no full knowledge of how they'll play, and then block you from going to the other subset.

 

Purely playing with language, if you chose a 'Sub Class' at level 10 would the argument against this be as strong?

 

Class -> Sub Class -> Specialisation

Edited May 6, 2014 by Vhaegrant

[Marstrike]

lol this thread is still around?

 

Listen, anyone who thinks that EA / Bioware would ever intentionally shorted their main selling point for this game (and in turn their potential average subscriber life span) has got another thing coming.

 

The fact is that if you want both AC's from a particular class you have to do the "double" time, the more time you take, the more money they make. Why do you think you have 12 character slots and not 8?

[Vhaegrant]

lol this thread is still around?

Yep, it sure is

 

Listen, anyone who thinks that EA / Bioware would ever intentionally shorted their main selling point for this game (and in turn their potential average subscriber life span) has got another thing coming.

Their main selling point was story and fun. I have about as much fun at end game as I do while levelling. Certainly on my main character I've accumulated far more time at max level and end game content than I did while levelling. I hit max level after about 5 days and now have approx. 20 days (it's been awhile since I checked) on time \played .

To me this suggests Bioware would benefit as much from offering end game variation and flexibility to players that focus on an individual character.

 

The fact is that if you want both AC's from a particular class you have to do the "double" time, the more time you take, the more money they make. Why do you think you have 12 character slots and not 8?

Since the game went to the three tier Hybrid model this statement is false. A free-to-play player has two character slots and can go through the game from 1 to 50 on a Powertech and Mercenary (or any other combination of ACs, you may detect my Bounty Hunter bias in this thread ) and not contribute a single cent to the well being of SWTOR.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Vhaegrant

[Brewski]

And I have just as much trouble understanding the viewpoint that they are individual Classes in their own right and not a subset of the class you've chosen at level 1.

 

...

 

Class -> Sub Class -> Specialisation

Being a computer programmer myself (though admittedly not a game developer), I can't help but think of this terms of how these types of systems are set up. These are not simple option toggles like your cosmetic appearance.

 

Selecting your advanced class is as key a moment in your character creations as selecting your base class and gender. From the moment that are selected they everything that happens to your character downstream. Not only do they affect the base options I listed, but they also affect the way the system records your changes, as well as what choices the player makes. That makes rolling back those changes difficult and error prone.

 

For example, at every other level or so you are presented with the option to purchase a new skill for you advanced class. These are completely different than the other ACs option, and you do not need to actually purchase them. Most people do, of course, but it's an option. When converting AC1 to AC2, how do you handle this?

• Do you refund the cost of every element trained and not train the new AC?
  
• Do you assume they have trained everything in their class and therefore train the all skills in the new AC?
  
• Do you try to map the skills 1 to 1? (They don't map directly.)
  

 

Then you have the question of what to do with a players gear. What do you do with equipment they can no longer wield or wear, or no longer want to keep because better options exist in their new class?

• Do you leave it all as is, and make the player responsible for buying new gear? (Oh the forum rage that would create.)
  
• Do you try to convert equipment? (Bugs bugs bugs)
  
• Do you refund the cost of the item somehow? (complexity here as well)
  

 

In the end, when I look at it I see so much complexity and potential forum rage over bugs created by this process, I think it's not worth the effort, and would in fact negatively impact that game because there's little chance if any it could be implemented cleanly.

 

Ultimately, if you disagree with me on that key point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. However I would put forward the suggestion that if it was as simple to implement as you suggest, it would have been done at the same time as the appearance designer was put in. They implemented species change then too, which was in the same original quote, but not gender change due to the large and complex effect this has on your character. They left out AC change for a reason, and I believe that to be, at least in part, the complexity I listed above.

[Vhaegrant]

Being a computer programmer myself (though admittedly not a game developer), I can't help but think of this terms of how these types of systems are set up. These are not simple option toggles like your cosmetic appearance.

I've dabbled in C++ and have a basic idea of object orientated programming. Nothing I've stumbled through in the past predicts the code to be built up in such a way as to be insurmountable.

 

Selecting your advanced class is as key a moment in your character creations as selecting your base class and gender. From the moment that are selected they everything that happens to your character downstream. Not only do they affect the base options I listed, but they also affect the way the system records your changes, as well as what choices the player makes.

I find it hard to believe that the AC choice is as detrimental to storage as you suggest. After all you can play to max level without ever selecting an Advanced Class, or buying many of the abilities.

I would have thought each ability has a unique reference, the biggest issue is how the abilities are flagged for active or inactive status.

 

That makes rolling back those changes difficult and error prone.

I'm not suggesting a roll back or a refund. I'm suggesting it work as an active switch between two states.

 

For example, at every other level or so you are presented with the option to purchase a new skill for you advanced class. These are completely different than the other ACs option, and you do not need to actually purchase them. Most people do, of course, but it's an option. When converting AC1 to AC2, how do you handle this?

• Do you refund the cost of every element trained and not train the new AC?
  
• Do you assume they have trained everything in their class and therefore train the all skills in the new AC?
  
• Do you try to map the skills 1 to 1? (They don't map directly.)
  

I think you're overthinking the complexity of conversion.

I'd flag the option you haven't included...

No refund in abilities trained, new abilities are at base rank and need to be purchased to rank desired.

 

This requires the abilities unique to both ACs are tracked with regards to whether they are active and what rank they are at.

 

Thinking on how the Class Trainers work, it's obvious they query the characters Advanced Class and ability ranks every time you open one up, otherwise how would they know which Advanced Class tab to display, or, which ability Rank to display if you haven't purchased them as you go along.

 

Then you have the question of what to do with a players gear. What do you do with equipment they can no longer wield or wear, or no longer want to keep because better options exist in their new class?

• Do you leave it all as is, and make the player responsible for buying new gear? (Oh the forum rage that would create.)
  
• Do you try to convert equipment? (Bugs bugs bugs)
  
• Do you refund the cost of the item somehow? (complexity here as well)
  

This question is no different than a player choosing to change their Specialisation from DPS <-> Tank or DPS <-> Heal (in some cases even a DPS to DPS change may require a change if the secondary stats vary by much)

In the only case of an armour conflict (Juggernaut/Guardian <-> Marauder/Sentinal) strip out and place in inventory any incompatible items.

 

In the end, when I look at it I see so much complexity and potential forum rage over bugs created by this process, I think it's not worth the effort, and would in fact negatively impact that game because there's little chance if any it could be implemented cleanly.

The process comes with a disclaimer. Not least of which that a player has chosen to make that switch, it's not happened randomly.

Place a nice clear warning... Choosing to change Advanced Class will require you to purchase abilities and possibly alter gear.

 

Ultimately, if you disagree with me on that key point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. However I would put forward the suggestion that if it was as simple to implement as you suggest, it would have been done at the same time as the appearance designer was put in. They implemented species change then too, which was in the same original quote, but not gender change due to the large and complex effect this has on your character. They left out AC change for a reason, and I believe that to be, at least in part, the complexity I listed above.

Then we'll have to disagree.

 

The placement of a proposed feature in a comment has no bearing on its potential roll out date.

I think the chances are they haven't implemented an AC Swap as yet as it is down their list of priorities and programmers have been developing features more avidly requested such as PVP off rails space combat and player housing.

When species change was implemented it was rolled out with the release of the Cathar species, coincidence? or good marketing to maximise its uptake?

I would have thought the idea of AC swap irrespective of difficulty to code would relate more immediately to the future release of additional ACs. A feature that was hinted at during a Cantina event as 'Likely, but not in the near future.'

Edited May 6, 2014 by Vhaegrant

[Anzel]

Still no reply from devs at all on this one? Not even a, "We are aware of this issue and we are looking at it". Or just a simple, "Yes this is in the future" or "No this isn't something we would consider". Anything? Thousands of posts from the community and no response? Come on guys...

[Brewski]

Then we'll have to disagree.

 

Yes, yes we will.

 

Ultimately which one of is right, if either, can't be discerned until we get a dev comment. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing one just to put an end to this debate, or at least the portion on where it stands on the wall of crazy.

 

Until such a time, though, I plan to recuse myself form further discussion. No point in going over the same ground more than 8 times, I say.

[ZooMzy]

The only method I believe should be possible is switching between your current class' ACs. IE, a Marauder can become a Jug as a means to possibly change from a DPS to run something like a tank, but there is no reason a Marauder should have the ability to reroll as a Powertech or a Sorcerer.

 

This way, you actually free people into being able to experience the three different roles in the game without forcing them to reroll a toon, except for Agents that lack a tank spec in their ACs. And at the same time, prevent ludicrous scenarios occurring, such as Marauders rerolling as Snipers because of the meta being ranged DPS and Sniper capabilities.

[Vhaegrant]

No point in going over the same ground more than 8 times, I say.

I've said that to myself sooooooo many times

[ZahirS]

Still no reply from devs at all on this one? Not even a, "We are aware of this issue and we are looking at it". Or just a simple, "Yes this is in the future" or "No this isn't something we would consider". Anything? Thousands of posts from the community and no response? Come on guys...

 

Bioware, check this post.

 

Any chance a dev can drop here and tell us whats up its the year 2014.

Edited May 6, 2014 by ZahirS

[LordArtemis]

I think someone just needs to inquire at one of the cantina tours. Edited May 6, 2014 by LordArtemis