ETA on Advanced Class change?

[PeterTLJr]

It's really not that far fetched of an idea. Rift has had Multi-Class for quite some time. There is a whole set of rules in place to allow for it.

 

Rift Multiclassing

 

The basic idea is that your 2nd class must tie closely to your first class, and there are pre-reqs you need to meet and level requirements before it is even possible. Personally, I would love to unlock my PowerTech when I hit lvl 40 and use it as a backup for my Merc side. There could be plenty of rules established ahead of time to allow this type of feature to function in the game.

 

Personally, anyone who outright opposes this is either A) Afraid of change and can't handle the idea of gameplay evolution, or B) doesn't like the idea of others thinking outside the box and getting what they are asking for. If implemented correctly, this could prove to be an invaluable asset to gameplay. T

 

he ONLY reason I could see BWEA not implementing something like this would be $$. If someone has the power to double up their character class, it means they will spend less money in the CM which might have been spent for an alt. BUT, that determination should be made by BWEA and not the overly opinionated playerbase.

 

This is completely CORRECT. There is one thing I agree with people who are opposed of this and thats FOTM and P2W, but they can handle the situation to where it doesnt turn into that.

 

As far as the money part, I could see them making more money, I think a lot of people would spend more to change AC then put CM stuff on an alt of the same class.

Edited June 14, 2013 by PeterTLJr

[fwloehr]

I wish I could do a poll of the gaming backgrounds of everyone in this thread. My hypothesis is that those against AC change have been playing RPGs and/or MMORPGs for awhile and those for it are newer to the MMORPG scene. (Just my hypothesis and telling me I am wrong because of your background doesn't discredit it, you are n=1)

 

But my reason is this: those who have played RPGs and MMORPGs for a long time are used to limitations and permanent, game play determining character decisions. It is those decisions that have consequences down the road that make RPGs intriguing. Without those decisions, a game is not really an RPG.

 

Aside from picking the basic class when you create your character, the AC selection is the only permanent decision one needs to make in this game. As someone who sees RPGs as being defined by the decisions they force you to make and consequences they force you to endure, the idea of removing the one character altering permanent decision from the game is disturbing.

 

A lot of the reasons for instituting AC change are not invalid. But the people asking for it don't seem to realize they are asking for the removal of a feature that defines this genre of gaming for the sake of their own convenience.

 

Also, if I could change my sorcerer to an assassin, why could I not change it to a juggernaught? It honestly would not affect the Sith Inquisitor story at all if I were using juggernaught lightsaber abliities rather than sorcerer lightning. It would add to my character flexibility, it would be fun, and it would be convenient. But, I think even some of you for the AC change would not like that. It would not affect other people's gameplay at all if I were able to switch from a sorcerer to a juggernaught but the choice between the Sith Inquisitor and Sith Warrior is a major feature of the genre and removing it would be a subtle, but very real, detriment to the game. The same goes for the AC on a smaller scale as well.

[Superman_AZ]

I wish I could do a poll of the gaming backgrounds of everyone in this thread. My hypothesis is that those against AC change have been playing RPGs and/or MMORPGs for awhile and those for it are newer to the MMORPG scene. (Just my hypothesis and telling me I am wrong because of your background doesn't discredit it, you are n=1)

 

But my reason is this: those who have played RPGs and MMORPGs for a long time are used to limitations and permanent, game play determining character decisions. It is those decisions that have consequences down the road that make RPGs intriguing. Without those decisions, a game is not really an RPG.

 

Aside from picking the basic class when you create your character, the AC selection is the only permanent decision one needs to make in this game. As someone who sees RPGs as being defined by the decisions they force you to make and consequences they force you to endure, the idea of removing the one character altering permanent decision from the game is disturbing.

 

A lot of the reasons for instituting AC change are not invalid. But the people asking for it don't seem to realize they are asking for the removal of a feature that defines this genre of gaming for the sake of their own convenience.

 

Also, if I could change my sorcerer to an assassin, why could I not change it to a juggernaught? It honestly would not affect the Sith Inquisitor story at all if I were using juggernaught lightsaber abliities rather than sorcerer lightning. It would add to my character flexibility, it would be fun, and it would be convenient. But, I think even some of you for the AC change would not like that. It would not affect other people's gameplay at all if I were able to switch from a sorcerer to a juggernaught but the choice between the Sith Inquisitor and Sith Warrior is a major feature of the genre and removing it would be a subtle, but very real, detriment to the game. The same goes for the AC on a smaller scale as well.

As with any type of change, there should be limitations. The Training an Assassin receives is more closely connected to a sorcerer than it is to a Juggernaught. This makes a dual AC plausible. Comparing an Assassin to a PowerTech, for example, is really just anecdotal mockery since an Assassin would never receive their training from a Bounty Hunter, and vice versa.

 

We are looking at ACs which function similarly, and would have similar training and gear. Going from a light gear tank to a heavy gear tank is quite a jump, and would have a completely separate storyline altogether. Whereas a Sorcerer would likely use the same or similar gear as an assassin and would be trained by a similar team. We're not trying to bring some "Any race / Any two classes" discussion, we're merely suggesting that similar classes should be able to share one character.

[branmakmuffin]

This limitation of resetting a character who changes class back to level 10 strikes me as being very fair and a very reasonable compromise.

Of course it does, because you know far fewer people would do it with that limitation.

[Ratajack]

Of course it does, because you know far fewer people would do it with that limitation.

 

Given that placing the limitation of a class change reverts a character back to level 10 addresses almost all concerns of those wanting class changes due to loss of no longer obtainable items, loss of crew skills, credits, etc. and the concerns of those against class changes as the player would have the time needed to learn the class as they re-leveled it.

 

Can you name a reason for being against this compromise, or why those wanting a class change would not take advantage of it if it were offered in this manner that does not boil down to "I'm not doing it again", AKA the aversion to work or EFFORT (laziness)?

[fwloehr]

As with any type of change, there should be limitations. The Training an Assassin receives is more closely connected to a sorcerer than it is to a Juggernaught. This makes a dual AC plausible. Comparing an Assassin to a PowerTech, for example, is really just anecdotal mockery since an Assassin would never receive their training from a Bounty Hunter, and vice versa.

 

We are looking at ACs which function similarly, and would have similar training and gear. Going from a light gear tank to a heavy gear tank is quite a jump, and would have a completely separate storyline altogether. Whereas a Sorcerer would likely use the same or similar gear as an assassin and would be trained by a similar team. We're not trying to bring some "Any race / Any two classes" discussion, we're merely suggesting that similar classes should be able to share one character.

 

So you agree with me that the difference between say, the Inquisitor and the Warrior are sufficient to warrant a permanent choice. We agree that to do away with that difference would be a detriment to the game.

 

My argument is that the difference between ACs is sufficient to warrant a permanent choice as well and to do away with that choice would also be a detriment and the game would lose one of it's few RPG elements. And if the developers decide to acquiesce to cries for convenience, that is their call but it will cheapen this game in much the same way that going to F2P and the cartel market have.

 

"We are merely suggesting that similar classes should be able to share one character."

 

I have yet to hear an argument for AC change that really amounts to any more than "We want it" and so I am not convinced that the change would add anything of significant enough value to the game as a whole to make up for the loss of an RPG element.

[PeterTLJr]

So you agree with me that the difference between say, the Inquisitor and the Warrior are sufficient to warrant a permanent choice. We agree that to do away with that difference would be a detriment to the game.

 

My argument is that the difference between ACs is sufficient to warrant a permanent choice as well and to do away with that choice would also be a detriment and the game would lose one of it's few RPG elements. And if the developers decide to acquiesce to cries for convenience, that is their call but it will cheapen this game in much the same way that going to F2P and the cartel market have.

 

"We are merely suggesting that similar classes should be able to share one character."

 

I have yet to hear an argument for AC change that really amounts to any more than "We want it" and so I am not convinced that the change would add anything of significant enough value to the game as a whole to make up for the loss of an RPG element.

 

Explain to me the difference of a trooper wanting to respec between vanguard and commando thats so much different then a paladin going between any of his 3 specs? or in rift, a warrior going from beastmaster to champion? Of course its a different playstyle, maybe skill tree, it doesnt mean it changes the root class, and that is how you are seeing it. You say that its not different then switching from sorc to jugg, its incredibly different, sorc and assassin share the base Inquisitor spells that a jugg knows nothing about.

[Ratajack]

Explain to me the difference of a trooper wanting to respec between vanguard and commando thats so much different then a paladin going between any of his 3 specs? or in rift, a warrior going from beastmaster to champion? Of course its a different playstyle, maybe skill tree, it doesnt mean it changes the root class, and that is how you are seeing it. You say that its not different then switching from sorc to jugg, its incredibly different, sorc and assassin share the base Inquisitor spells that a jugg knows nothing about.

 

Ret pally and prot pally are both melee damage attacks. Both specs are in melee range. Holy pally heals from ranged true.

 

A vanguard uses attacks in melee damage range, whether he be DPS or tank. A vanguard is NOT a ranged character.

 

A commando is all ranged, whether he be DPS or heals.

 

Both the pally and the commando heal from range, but that is where the similarity ends. A pally's DPS and tanking are both done from melee range as are a vanguards, but a commando is always at caster range.

 

That is a substantial difference. Does that alone make them different classes? No, but the style of play are vastly more different between a vanguard and commando, than the specs of a pally.

[PeterTLJr]

Ret pally and prot pally are both melee damage attacks. Both specs are in melee range. Holy pally heals from ranged true.

 

A vanguard uses attacks in melee damage range, whether he be DPS or tank. A vanguard is NOT a ranged character.

 

A commando is all ranged, whether he be DPS or heals.

 

Both the pally and the commando heal from range, but that is where the similarity ends. A pally's DPS and tanking are both done from melee range as are a vanguards, but a commando is always at caster range.

 

That is a substantial difference. Does that alone make them different classes? No, but the style of play are vastly more different between a vanguard and commando, than the specs of a pally.

 

Thats where your wrong, all paladins share a similar set of abilities and gain new ones depending on the spec, much like a trooper, you pick vanguard, you get vanguard abilities along with trooper abilities, if you were to respec out of vanguard, you lose those abilities and gain the commando, hows that any different then a paladin doing the same thing?

[Ratajack]

Ret pally and prot pally are both melee damage attacks. Both specs are in melee range. Holy pally heals from ranged true.

 

A vanguard uses attacks in melee damage range, whether he be DPS or tank. A vanguard is NOT a ranged character.

 

A commando is all ranged, whether he be DPS or heals.

 

Both the pally and the commando heal from range, but that is where the similarity ends. A pally's DPS and tanking are both done from melee range as are a vanguards, but a commando is always at caster range.

 

That is a substantial difference. Does that alone make them different classes? No, but the style of play are vastly more different between a vanguard and commando, than the specs of a pally.

 

A sorcerer has spells that an assassin knows nothing about, and an assassin knows spells that a sorcerer knows nothing about, so if you are going to use the argument that an assassin cannot change to juggernaut because an assassin knows inquisitor spells that a juggernaut knows nothing about, then that same argument holds for the assassin and sorcerer who each know spells the other knows nothing about. So since an assassin know spells a sorcerer knows nothing about, and a sorcerer knows spells that an assassin knows nothing about, and since character cannot change to a class that knows spells his original class knows nothing about, then an assassin cannot change into a sorcerer and a sorcerer cannot change into an assassin. Hoist by your own petard, you are.

[Ratajack]

Thats where your wrong, all paladins share a similar set of abilities and gain new ones depending on the spec, much like a trooper, you pick vanguard, you get vanguard abilities along with trooper abilities, if you were to respec out of vanguard, you lose those abilities and gain the commando, hows that any different then a paladin doing the same thing?

 

How is going from being in melee range to attack regardless of spec equate to changing from melee based damage to ranged attacks?

[PeterTLJr]

A sorcerer has spells that an assassin knows nothing about, and an assassin knows spells that a sorcerer knows nothing about, so if you are going to use the argument that an assassin cannot change to juggernaut because an assassin knows inquisitor spells that a juggernaut knows nothing about, then that same argument holds for the assassin and sorcerer who each know spells the other knows nothing about. So since an assassin know spells a sorcerer knows nothing about, and a sorcerer knows spells that an assassin knows nothing about, and since character cannot change to a class that knows spells his original class knows nothing about, then an assassin cannot change into a sorcerer and a sorcerer cannot change into an assassin. Hoist by your own petard, you are.

 

Just like a holy paladin knows spells that a retribution paladin knows nothing about. So I suppose that makes them separate classes?

 

Back to name calling again? why? because you know your losing this argument?

Edited June 14, 2013 by PeterTLJr

[fwloehr]

Explain to me the difference of a trooper wanting to respec between vanguard and commando thats so much different then a paladin going between any of his 3 specs? or in rift, a warrior going from beastmaster to champion? Of course its a different playstyle, maybe skill tree, it doesnt mean it changes the root class, and that is how you are seeing it. You say that its not different then switching from sorc to jugg, its incredibly different, sorc and assassin share the base Inquisitor spells that a jugg knows nothing about.

 

A paladin going between his three specs is the same as a sorcerer going between his three specs. Changing between sorcerer and assassin is like changing between warrior and paladin, similar but still different classes.

 

The class system in SWToR was modeled after the one in WoW. The only difference is that in SWToR some classes share the same storyline so that BW did not have to make 16 stories. Blizzard could have made a similar decision if somewhere in development they decided, say, the mage and warlock shared the first 10 levels as "some generic caster class" and then permanently split at level 10. I suppose if Blizzard had done that, WoW would have been plagued by this same argument as well.

 

But, to say that switching between a paladin's three specs is like switching sorcerer and assassin is incredibly false. You are conveniently ignoring the fact that the sorcerer and assassin have three separate specs as well. If you are going to point to WoW in any argument, your argument for AC change would need to be applicable to changing a paladin to a warrior.

[PeterTLJr]

A paladin going between his three specs is the same as a sorcerer going between his three specs. Changing between sorcerer and assassin is like changing between warrior and paladin, similar but still different classes.

 

The class system in SWToR was modeled after the one in WoW. The only difference is that in SWToR some classes share the same storyline so that BW did not have to make 16 stories. Blizzard could have made a similar decision if somewhere in development they decided, say, the mage and warlock shared the first 10 levels as "some generic caster class" and then permanently split at level 10. I suppose if Blizzard had done that, WoW would have been plagued by this same argument as well.

 

But, to say that switching between a paladin's three specs is like switching sorcerer and assassin is incredibly false. You are conveniently ignoring the fact that the sorcerer and assassin have three separate specs as well. If you are going to point to WoW in any argument, your argument for AC change would need to be applicable to changing a paladin to a warrior.

 

No, its not like saying its like switching between a paladin and a warrior, they share nothing but the same MDPS and tank role. Assassin and Sorcerer share a set of abilities no other class can in the game, they are both the INQUISITOR. Everything the inquisitor is, the assassin and sorcerer is despite the play style difference.

[fwloehr]

No, its not like saying its like switching between a paladin and a warrior, they share nothing but the same MDPS and tank role. Assassin and Sorcerer share a set of abilities no other class can in the game, they are both the INQUISITOR. Everything the inquisitor is, the assassin and sorcerer is despite the play style difference.

 

The Inquisitor is the story, nothing more. The sorcerer and the assassin share the first few abilities you get in the game in order to make it convenient for BW to only write 8 stories rather than 16. The AC were intended to be as separate and distinct as the paladin and warrior or mage and warlock.

[Hizoka]

No, its not like saying its like switching between a paladin and a warrior, they share nothing but the same MDPS and tank role. Assassin and Sorcerer share a set of abilities no other class can in the game, they are both the INQUISITOR. Everything the inquisitor is, the assassin and sorcerer is despite the play style difference.

 

are you like 12??? Because it seems no matter how many time you get proven wrong you simply ignore it because you do not hear what you want... it is quite childish.

[PeterTLJr]

are you like 12??? Because it seems no matter how many time you get proven wrong you simply ignore it because you do not hear what you want... it is quite childish.

 

I put up arguments, you insult, tell me im wrong, and im the childish one? ok

[PeterTLJr]

The Inquisitor is the story, nothing more. The sorcerer and the assassin share the first few abilities you get in the game in order to make it convenient for BW to only write 8 stories rather than 16. The AC were intended to be as separate and distinct as the paladin and warrior or mage and warlock.

 

Story, Background, Same Main stat, Companions, Vendors, Starting zone, they both use the force, they both use a lightsaber, there is absolutely nothing different then what an assassin and a sorcerer does differently aside from playstyle.

[Hizoka]

Story, Background, Same Main stat, Companions, Vendors, Starting zone, they both use the force, they both use a lightsaber, there is absolutely nothing different then what an assassin and a sorcerer does differently aside from playstyle.

 

you are told time and time and time again why they are different. It is more then playstlye differences. However it does not matter how many times you are flat proven wrong you simply ignore the answer. You really are a kid who wants his way and regardless of why you are told no you ignore it and keep ranting about not getting the answer because its not what you want to hear.

 

One of the DEFINING things about each class is their weapon. Every class has a unique weapon they use. No 2 classes use the same weapon with the same stats.

[Ratajack]

Just like a holy paladin knows spells that a retribution paladin knows nothing about. So I suppose that makes them separate classes?

 

Back to name calling again? why? because you know your losing this argument?

 

 

Are you really trying to have it both ways? That if you say knowing spells another class doesn't know makes it impossible to change into that class makes it so, unless you want to change class? As in you can't change from a sorcerer to a juggernaut because the sorcerer know spells the juggernaut doesn't know anything about, but I can change from a vanguard to a commando, despite the fact that a commando can heal and a vanguard knows NOTHING about healing, just because I want to change from a vanguard to a commando.

 

That is what you have been doing. You have been saying that a player can't change between these two classes for this reason, and then when someone uses that exact same reason to justify not allowing class changes at all, even from a vanguard to a commando (which you want to do), all of a sudden, the rule that you set forth doesn't apply in that case.

[PeterTLJr]

you are told time and time and time again why they are different. It is more then playstlye differences. However it does not matter how many times you are flat proven wrong you simply ignore the answer. You really are a kid who wants his way and regardless of why you are told no you ignore it and keep ranting about not getting the answer because its not what you want to hear.

 

One of the DEFINING things about each class is their weapon. Every class has a unique weapon they use. No 2 classes use the same weapon with the same stats.

 

You need to back off, your the one that gets angry and hostile when someone doesnt agree with you, anyone who reads your forum posts knows that.

[PeterTLJr]

Are you really trying to have it both ways? That if you say knowing spells another class doesn't know makes it impossible to change into that class makes it so, unless you want to change class? As in you can't change from a sorcerer to a juggernaut because the sorcerer know spells the juggernaut doesn't know anything about, but I can change from a vanguard to a commando, despite the fact that a commando can heal and a vanguard knows NOTHING about healing, just because I want to change from a vanguard to a commando.

 

That is what you have been doing. You have been saying that a player can't change between these two classes for this reason, and then when someone uses that exact same reason to justify not allowing class changes at all, even from a vanguard to a commando (which you want to do), all of a sudden, the rule that you set forth doesn't apply in that case.

 

No, what im saying is, a vanguard and a commando is the trooper, retribution holy and protection is still the paladin. Each *SPEC* gains its root class abilities then some when they pick what they want too be. The core abilities is what makes the class, the specs or AC or whatever you want to call them are the extended class and should be the part where you can change because it doesnt affect the main class.

[Hizoka]

You need to back off, your the one that gets angry and hostile when someone doesnt agree with you, anyone who reads your forum posts knows that.

 

man you have been told by more then a dozen different people why the assassin is the not the same as a sorcerer. You just ignore it and act as if the post was never made.

 

You are the ONLY one arguing that all classes are the same even the devs have said the complete opposite. What will it take for you to understand that assassins are nothing like sorcerers.

 

You have never leveled both ACs of a story, and your posts prove it. You are simply an entitles kid who feels just because he leveled something once he should have everything leveled now.

 

Asking for a Vanguard to turn into a commando is NO different then asking for that vanguard to go to a sorcerer.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Hizoka

[Ratajack]

No, what im saying is, a vanguard and a commando is the trooper, retribution holy and protection is still the paladin. Each *SPEC* gains its root class abilities then some when they pick what they want too be. The core abilities is what makes the class, the specs or AC or whatever you want to call them are the extended class and should be the part where you can change because it doesnt affect the main class.

 

Does every pally share the same three talent trees? YES. Are those talent trees determined when the player chooses his class? YES.

 

Does every TROOPER share the same three talent trees? NO. Does every vanguard share the same three talent trees? YES. Does every commando share the same three talent trees? YES.

 

Are the vanguard's talent trees set at the moment the vanguard chooses his CLASS of vanguard? YES. Are the commando's talent trees set the moment the commando chooses his CLASS of commando? YES.

 

 

Are the vanguard's talent trees available prior to choosing his CLASS of vanguard? NO. Are the commando's talent trees available prior to choosing his CLASS of commando? NO.

 

Before you go and start to argue that a pally who chooses not to allocate any talent points is still a pally, that pally has access to his three talent trees, whether or not he chooses to allocate his talent points. A TROOPER does not have access to any talent trees, because that character has not yet chosen a CLASS. A pally can level all the way to max level without allocating any talent points if he chooses, but that pally can still allocate those talent points at any time he chooses. A TROOPER cannot do that. A TROOPER can level to max level without allocating any talent points, but can never allocate even a single talent point until he chooses a CLASS.

[PeterTLJr]

Does every pally share the same three talent trees? YES. Are those talent trees determined when the player chooses his class? YES.

 

Does every TROOPER share the same three talent trees? NO. Does every vanguard share the same three talent trees? YES. Does every commando share the same three talent trees? YES.

 

Are the vanguard's talent trees set at the moment the vanguard chooses his CLASS of vanguard? YES. Are the commando's talent trees set the moment the commando chooses his CLASS of commando? YES.

 

 

Are the vanguard's talent trees available prior to choosing his CLASS of vanguard? NO. Are the commando's talent trees available prior to choosing his CLASS of commando? NO.

 

Before you go and start to argue that a pally who chooses not to allocate any talent points is still a pally, that pally has access to his three talent trees, whether or not he chooses to allocate his talent points. A TROOPER does not have access to any talent trees, because that character has not yet chosen a CLASS. A pally can level all the way to max level without allocating any talent points if he chooses, but that pally can still allocate those talent points at any time he chooses. A TROOPER cannot do that. A TROOPER can level to max level without allocating any talent points, but can never allocate even a single talent point until he chooses a CLASS.

 

You cant put points in anything without picking retribution holy or paladin as a paladin. Same with trooper, you cant access any skill tree without selecting what you want to be.

Edited June 14, 2013 by PeterTLJr