ETA on Advanced Class change?

[LordArtemis]

More than one change is multiple times. You cannot argue simple math.

 

Was that poster asking to be able to change unlimited times? No.

 

I understand his intent, but my point is we have people arguing to allow them to change class because "I made a mistake", "this class is too weak", "I refuse to level another character" or whatever reason they deem sufficient. We have some of those people asking for restrictions, while trying to leave themselves wiggle room, even in their own proposed restrictions.

 

If they cannot even refrain from trying to leave themselves wiggle room in their own proposed restrictions, why should I believe that those same people will not be back here 3 months after BW allows class changes (IF they allow class changes) asking for more opportunities to change class because their new class got nerfed, the other class got buffed, their guild now needs a tank and not a healer, or whatever new reason they have for wanting to change class again? After all, they allowed it once, why not a second time?

 

Well, if it's a matter of trust in your case I think you can't. It is possible it will happen, as it is happening now, as it has happened in the past...happened with quickbars. First it was a complaint that two bars was too little for preferred players (If I remember correctly)....then it was that the 5th and 6th bars should be unlockable.

 

If I am right it was eventually changed to that. But I would note that the complaints about the bars has dropped to almost nothing since the last change.

 

I think when the majority reaches a point where they are satisfied the rhetoric drops off considerably.

[LordArtemis]

Never.

 

Class changing was a massive problem in SWG. I don't want to see it destroy another MMO.

 

I don't think it was a huge problem, nor do I think it is what killed the game. I think it was a great feature, I think most folks that liked the game felt that way and I think the CU/NGE is what killed the game, not the class changing.

 

There WAS a big uproar over hologrinding...I'll give you that.

[branmakmuffin]

I understand your point. Just as an aside, I wasn't directing my point at you specifically, just keeping it fair in general.

Oh, I'll own up to my own contribution to the sarcasm and snidery.

[Khevar]

More than one change is multiple times. You cannot argue simple math.

 

Was that poster asking to be able to change unlimited times? No.

 

I understand his intent, but my point is we have people arguing to allow them to change class because "I made a mistake", "this class is too weak", "I refuse to level another character" or whatever reason they deem sufficient.

 

...

It's a bit silly that you understood his intent, but decided to focus on semantics and nitpick.

 

I've debated with you on different subjects in the past, and I know you can present a higher level of discourse than that.

[Ratajack]

It's a bit silly that you understood his intent, but decided to focus on semantics and nitpick.

 

I've debated with you on different subjects in the past, and I know you can present a higher level of discourse than that.

 

Yes, I chose to address the semantics, but in an effort to emphasize the point I made in the subsequent post:

 

More than one change is multiple times. You cannot argue simple math.

 

Was that poster asking to be able to change unlimited times? No.

 

I understand his intent, but my point is we have people arguing to allow them to change class because "I made a mistake", "this class is too weak", "I refuse to level another character" or whatever reason they deem sufficient. We have some of those people asking for restrictions, while trying to leave themselves wiggle room, even in their own proposed restrictions.

 

If they cannot even refrain from trying to leave themselves wiggle room in their own proposed restrictions, why should I believe that those same people will not be back here 3 months after BW allows class changes (IF they allow class changes) asking for more opportunities to change class because their new class got nerfed, the other class got buffed, their guild now needs a tank and not a healer, or whatever new reason they have for wanting to change class again? After all, they allowed it once, why not a second time?

 

If the people who propose restrictions want to leave wiggle room in the very restrictions they propose, then how serious can they really be about those restrictions?

[Khevar]

....

 

If the people who propose restrictions want to leave wiggle room in the very restrictions they propose, then how serious can they really be about those restrictions?

I think this is a rather black and white view. There are more sides to this argument than:

 

1. AC respec should never under any circumstances be allowed.

2. AC respec should be allowed any time the player wants it.

 

It seems as though you are saying that any deviation from #1 means it will end up at #2. Is that correct?

[LordArtemis]

If the people who propose restrictions want to leave wiggle room in the very restrictions they propose, then how serious can they really be about those restrictions?

 

I can only speak for myself. I leave wiggle room because I want to find a proposal that most will agree on, then see if I can throw in my support. I have no hidden agenda nor would I intend, if I do support the idea, to come back and ask for further changes.

[Ratajack]

I think this is a rather black and white view. There are more sides to this argument than:

 

1. AC respec should never under any circumstances be allowed.

2. AC respec should be allowed any time the player wants it.

 

It seems as though you are saying that any deviation from #1 means it will end up at #2. Is that correct?

 

No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if someone proposes certain restrictions for something that they want, yet attempts to leave themselves an "out", they aren't really serious about those restrictions.

 

If I propose a 55 MPH speed limit, but want to be able to go 65 if I feel like doing 65, how serious am I about a 55 MPH speed limit?

[Ratajack]

I can only speak for myself. I leave wiggle room because I want to find a proposal that most will agree on, then see if I can throw in my support. I have no hidden agenda nor would I intend, if I do support the idea, to come back and ask for further changes.

 

The difference is that no suggestion I have seen from you has contradicted its own restrictions.

[Spatology]

Some of my favorite contentions made from what I consider the hardcore players crowd. Yet those changes came to be. And the game is better for it IMO. It is just plain silly, as it was then, to contend that reroll is the only option that makes sense. It is a cop out that I believe folks use when they simply do not like an idea.

 

If the past is any indicator, at least with the staff in place at present it seems it is a contention that is usually ignored.

 

How are we to know ANY of those quotes are real. You smell of propaganda.

[MajikMyst]

And yet they can dps and heal?

 

But not tank..

 

No class can do all three roles.. That is the issue..

Edited June 4, 2013 by MajikMyst

[Ratajack]

How are we to know ANY of those quotes are real. You smell of propaganda.

 

I have seen nothing in any of LordArtemis' posts that would indicate he is anything other than what he claims to be, someone who wishes to have an open and honest discussion. I've not seen him post anything untrue, although he and I may differ on our interpretations of some quotes. I do not believe that he is dismissing, ignoring or refusing to present one side of the debate in order to make his position look stronger. He has been equally receptive to arguments from both sides of this issue.

[MajikMyst]

I am FOR AC changes, but it has to have "some" restrictions.... .

 

The only restrictions that was agreeable to the majority in the beta was this..

 

You would be allowed to change your AC twice and only twice..

 

Once at or before lvl 20.. If you passed level 20 and didn't use your AC swap, then your character was forever the class you originally chose..

 

Then again at or before lvl 30.. This was just to allow people to return to the original class they chose, but it did give people 10 level as the new class to see how they liked it..

 

If you were level 31 or higher, there would be no changing your AC.. You couldn't change it back to the original AC or attempt to change it for a first time..

 

The above rules had a majority vote in the beta..

 

The other restriction is that people would have to understand that this would be a permanent thing.. There would be no discussions about adding more options to change your AC.. Which is why we don't have AC swapping now.. Nobody knows what permanent means..

 

Purchasing AC swapping in the Cartel Market could be viewed as Pay to win and would then be a very bad idea.. Bioware has repeatedly said they are against Pay to win situations..

 

Part of the reason that I feel there is no reason for AC swapping, is that I honestly don't believe we would be having this discussion of our AC was chosen at level 0 or character creation.. The fact that we are allowed a small preview and then choose our AC at level 10, people somehow get the idea that our class is less than permanent.. I fail to see that logic..

Edited June 4, 2013 by MajikMyst

[LordArtemis]

The difference is that no suggestion I have seen from you has contradicted its own restrictions.

 

Fair enough.

 

How are we to know ANY of those quotes are real. You smell of propaganda.

 

Actually I smell of 20 year old scotch and shame.......

 

I have seen nothing in any of LordArtemis' posts that would indicate he is anything other than what he claims to be, someone who wishes to have an open and honest discussion. I've not seen him post anything untrue, although he and I may differ on our interpretations of some quotes. I do not believe that he is dismissing, ignoring or refusing to present one side of the debate in order to make his position look stronger. He has been equally receptive to arguments from both sides of this issue.

 

Thank you. I was actually calling into question the sense of posting reasons like.....

 

You argue because you don't like it.

There isn't a single good reason not to allow AC respec.

 

or....

 

If you don't like it reroll

Only lazy players want this.

 

 

I just don't like this kind of dismissive post. There are good points and concerns on both sides and I think if this is to move forward we should be willing to listen to the opposite side and discuss it.

Edited June 5, 2013 by LordArtemis

[Xeperi]

Yeah, I concealed the fact that I think TOR is not a game by calling it a game.

 

 

Then PvE must not inherently be a game. But wait, it is a game. It's just not an inherently competitive one. Perhaps you need to look up the word "inherent." And don't look up "inherit" by mistake. Perhaps you need to look up "game" while you're at it.

 

 

I think you just wrote something cogent. Call the Pope! Call The National Enquirer! Two-headed crocodile-apple crossbreed, your oddity has been eclipsed!

 

 

Winding you up and watching you whirl around like a monkey on crack is way legit, dude.

 

Nah, I very clearly made the case that in order for something to be a game it must have some element of competition.

 

You are ignoring that point and trolling me instead.

[spectreclees]

If they allow AC changes I'll most likely quit. It ruins the whole point of picking one in the first place. You choose your path, you stick with it. You don't decide to become a healer randomly. That's not how it works.

 

WoW had tri-spec classes but they also used all of their abilities from each spec. Paladins for example as a retribution (Dps Paladin) you could still cast a small heal once in awhile to keep yourself alive you also had a defensive cooldown (Tank) and you had your taunts (though they did nothing.)

 

This game doesn't allow that. You don't pick up heal abilities from your sage tree as you level your shadow. You are essentially changing your entire class and learning new abilities.

[branmakmuffin]

Nah, I very clearly made the case that in order for something to be a game it must have some element of competition.

Take the time, look up the word "game." Then come back here and show us your back-pedaling skills. Or don't. Your choice.

 

Erroneously accusing someone else of trolling is itself trolling.

[Xeperi]

Take the time, look up the word "game." Then come back here and show us your back-pedaling skills. Or don't. Your choice.

 

Erroneously accusing someone else of trolling is itself trolling.

 

This is why way at the beginning of this I said we could argue the origins, history, and evolution of "Game/gaming" or we could just agree that there must be some element of competition in order for something to be considered a "game". You responded by ignoring that point (which really is trolling) and berating me. You still ignore the point.

 

You refuse to acknowledge the key point here which is why I really hesitate to put much more energy into this. But anyways here goes:

 

http://www.definitions.net/definition/game

 

game

/gām/NounA form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.

 

 

AdjectiveEager and willing to do something new or challenging: "they were game for anything".

(of a person's leg) Permanently injured; lame.

 

 

Play games of chance for money: "the gaming tables of Monte Carlo".

 

 

Synonymsnoun. play - match - sport

adjective. brave - plucky - courageous - gallant - ready - manful

 

Synonyms also provide a great indication of the meaning of a word:

 

Main Entry: game  [geym]

Part of Speech: adjective

Definition: brave, willing

Synonyms: bold, courageous, dauntless, desirous, disposed, dogged, eager, fearless, gallant, hardy, heroic, inclined, interested, intrepid, nervy, persevering, persistent, plucky, prepared, ready, resolute, spirited, spunky, unafraid, unflinching, up for, valiant, valorous

Antonyms: afraid, cautious, cowardly, disinclined, fearful, unprepared, unready, unwilling

 

Main Entry: game

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: entertainment

Synonyms: adventure, amusement, athletics, business, distraction, diversion, enterprise, festivity, frolic, fun, jest, joke, lark, line, merriment, merrymaking, occupation, pastime, plan, play, proceeding, pursuit, recreation, romp, scheme, sport, sports, undertaking

 

Main Entry: game

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: individual sporting event

Synonyms: competition, contest, match, meeting, round, tournament

 

Explore game in the Visual Thesaurus »

Main Entry: game

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: undomesticated animals chased for food

Synonyms: chase, fish, fowl, kill, meat, prey, quarry, ravin, victim, wild animals

 

Main Entry: game

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: plot, trick

Synonyms: butt, derision, design, device, hoax, joke, object of ridicule, plan, ploy, practical joke, prank, scheme, stratagem, strategy, tactic

 

Main Entry: action

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: something done

Synonyms: activity, agility, alacrity, alertness, animation, bag*, ballgame, big idea, bit*, business, bustle, commotion, dash, deal, energy, enterprise, flurry, force, functioning, game, going, happening, haste, hoopla*, hopper, in the works, industry, life, liveliness, motion, movement, occupation, operation, plan, power, process, proposition, racket, reaction, response, rush, scene, spirit, stir, stunt, trip, turmoil, vigor, vim, vitality, vivacity

Antonyms: cessation, idleness, inaction, inactivity, inertia, repose, rest, stoppage

 

* = informal/non-formal usage

 

 

Main Entry: activity

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: special interest or pursuit

Synonyms: act, avocation, bag*, ballgame, bit*, deed, endeavor, enterprise, entertainment, game, hobby, job, labor, occupation, pastime, project, racket, scene*, scheme, stunt, task, trip, undertaking, venture, work, zoo

Antonyms: hate

 

* = informal/non-formal usage

Main Entry: bet

Part of Speech: verb

Definition: gamble

Synonyms: ante, buy in on, chance, dice, game, hazard, lay down, lay odds, play against, play for, play the ponies, pledge, pony up, put, put money on, risk, set, speculate, tempt fortune, toss up, trust, venture, wager

 

Main Entry: bird

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: flying animal

Synonyms: feathered creature, fowl, game

 

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition

Copyright © 2013 by the Philip Lief Group.

Cite This Source

 

 

More important than "dictionary dot com" definition of a word is its etymology.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=game

 

game (adj.2)

"brave, spirited," 1725, especially in game-**** "bird for fighting," from game (n.). Middle English had gamesome (adj.) "joyful, playful, sportive."

game (n.)

Old English gamen "game, joy, fun, amusement," common Germanic (cf. Old Frisian game "joy, glee," Old Norse gaman, Old Saxon, Old High German gaman "sport, merriment," Danish gamen, Swedish gamman "merriment"), regarded as identical with Gothic gaman "participation, communion," from Proto-Germanic *ga- collective prefix + *mann "person," giving a sense of "people together."

 

Meaning "contest played according to rules" is first attested c.1300. Sense of "wild animals caught for sport" is late 13c.; hence fair game (1825), also gamey. Game plan is 1941, from U.S. football; game show first attested 1961.

game (adj.1)

"lame," 1787, from north Midlands dialect, of unknown origin, perhaps a variant of gammy (tramps' slang) "bad," or from Old North French gambe "leg" (see gambol (n.)).

game (v.)

Old English gamenian "to play, jest, joke;" see game (n.). Modern usages probably represent recent formations from the noun. Related: Gamed; gaming.

 

So we can see there are both competition and non-competition related uses of the word.

 

Here is a synopsis of the history of games, and though it is wiki (and so not 'academmic') the article its self is a good overview with solid citations.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_games

 

Here is a longer and more academic version of the same:

 

http://www.gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca/About%20Games/origins.htm

 

In popular vernacular the word "game" its self so strongly implies "competition" that it is a word used to describe the level of competitiveness in a fighter. The human fighter, dog, **** (or whatever) is said to "have game" or "be a game dog" if it refuses to give up or quit- if it has an extremely high level of competitiveness.

 

It is not only reasonable to include COMPETITION as a necessary part of "game", but it is unreasonable to disallow the inclusion of COMPETITION in any debate about a game unless that game is exclusively defined and designed to be non-competitive.

 

I do not expect you to actually read any of these many references which BACK MY POINT, nor do I expect you to counter them with references of your own to back your own point that by definition "game" is exclusive of competition.

 

I do not expect that from you, but for the sake of my own argument, and to my own standards of making SUBSTANTIATED POINTS, I wanted to at least CITE some of my own sources.

 

Very few,if any, people are ever going to agree that the word "game" is entirely exclusive of "competition" or that in order for something to be a "game" it must have zero competition.

 

The problem with "game dogs" though is that they keep wanting to fight despite getting torn apart. They will fight till they die. I am making the more reasonable argument here Bran, give up, your dog is out of this fight. It is tore up and bleeding out and it still wants to fight, but put the poor thing out of its misery already and get it a good vet. The irony- your own level of competitiveness keeps you behind a losing argument.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Xeperi

[LordArtemis]

It seems that arguing over the definition of words tends to bring the discussion to a halt.

 

So, right now it looks like the two suggestions are....

 

Low level AC change allowed shortly after making your first AC choice so you can correct a mistake in that choice.

 

Top level AC change with limited uses after your story completes with a cooldown.

 

I am leaning toward supporting the first one.

[Windova]

My opinion:

 

AC changes would be fine, it doesn't bother me that much. This game is simple to convert to a different class and easy to adjust to. Out of all MMOs I have played this one has to be the easiest when it comes to learning a class.

 

HOWEVER

 

We have double XP weekends. This should be a time where someone who wants that other AC go ahead and level it. It's really not that hard to level a toon up quickly with the double XP.

 

Now my argument would be one or the other. We can't have both too many people will rage quit. I would personally prefer the double XP weekends every other month instead of an AC change. But if your going to implement AC changes than lose the double xp weekends. No sense in keeping them both when double xp is for those who can go level up there opposite AC over a weekend.

[branmakmuffin]

My opinion:

 

AC changes would be fine, it doesn't bother me that much. This game is simple to convert to a different class and easy to adjust to. Out of all MMOs I have played this one has to be the easiest when it comes to learning a class.

 

HOWEVER

 

We have double XP weekends. This should be a time where someone who wants that other AC go ahead and level it. It's really not that hard to level a toon up quickly with the double XP.

 

Now my argument would be one or the other. We can't have both too many people will rage quit.

How many people who /ragequit do you think stay quit? I imagine hardly any.

[Windova]

How many people who /ragequit do you think stay quit? I imagine hardly any.

 

You're right, they just claim that they will

[Xeperi]

It seems that arguing over the definition of words tends to bring the discussion to a halt.

 

So, right now it looks like the two suggestions are....

 

Low level AC change allowed shortly after making your first AC choice so you can correct a mistake in that choice.

 

Top level AC change with limited uses after your story completes with a cooldown.

 

I am leaning toward supporting the first one.

 

I don't disagree with this at all. My side argument there was against the point that competition, as a rule, must be disallowed from conversation about ac changes in swtor.

[Xeperi]

How many people who /ragequit do you think stay quit? I imagine hardly any.

 

The thing with /ragequitting is that, yes, most rage quitters eventually come back. Then they do it again, and come back at an even later time. Eventually they do not come back at all. It is a process.

[Jeweledleah]

If they allow AC changes I'll most likely quit. It ruins the whole point of picking one in the first place. You choose your path, you stick with it. You don't decide to become a healer randomly. That's not how it works.

 

WoW had tri-spec classes but they also used all of their abilities from each spec. Paladins for example as a retribution (Dps Paladin) you could still cast a small heal once in awhile to keep yourself alive you also had a defensive cooldown (Tank) and you had your taunts (though they did nothing.)

 

This game doesn't allow that. You don't pick up heal abilities from your sage tree as you level your shadow. You are essentially changing your entire class and learning new abilities.

 

now but even as a sage, you have couple of melee saber strikes. as a shadow, you still use knockback and lightning (that rock throwing ability, that I cannot remember the name of) you use the same dots sages do.

 

so you just with your own argument, shown that abilities ARE in fact shared between ac's. and if that was the argument against it, you defeated it all on your own.

 

also - you don't use all of your abilities across 3 specs in wow, you never had. its even more apparent now, when abilities are given to you when you chose a spec, and you don't really get to chose, you actually have fewer shared abilities in WoW then you used to because they quite literally removed them from use by other specs.

 

edited to add.

 

for me personally at least its not a matter of not wanting to reroll (or being too lazy >_> ). I quite happily level multiple alts with multiple AC's. current count of active alts is 12 with 2 more that I may or may not play. for me its a matter of investing into a character, or having a character that was rolled during the time when certain items were available that are not available anymore, and losing all of that, some of those things being irreplaceable, quite literally. with no recourse.

 

so honestly at this point I'd be happier if they would allow me to transfer legacy perks/ unique items to my rerolled character, more so than being able to change AC. (I already rerolled after all). but this might not work for everyone.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Jeweledleah