Commanding Legacy and mirror classes

[Cawyden]

If there are any limitations I doubt they would just implement it without telling Keith - this would be serious wrong - and they would (or better should) not communicate coding changes that they cannot do.

 

But I have to agree with other posters - I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to implement. I think the "technical limitations" phrase is quite too often used as a false excuse to make it seem like they had no choice - the truth is likely quite different - from communication issues to taking too much resources.. but this would sound less competent then blaming the developers.

[Quraswren]

Sigh, if it's withheld on purpose then yes, but the whole point revolves around whether or not it was withheld on purpuse (intentionally) or not.

 

So what you say changes nothing. There is no conclusive evidence they intended to deceive people.

 

Then we are not going to agree. I fully believe it was withheld on purpose. Was the reason the patch notes were delayed in the first place.

 

bioware knew they screwed up days before the notes but after the road map. Someone there knew they screwed up and screwed up big time.

 

This was a very intentional withholding of information and thus a lie. Hell, that bogus excuse they put out screams they were caught in a lie given that garbage technical difficulty excuse. You can look in the achievements and see they are indeed tracking 8 adv. classes to which it should have been tied to at a minimum (or even all classes like they said).

 

Since this isn't the first time something similar has happened, there is no way this was just an oops our bad.

 

This was very intentional.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Quraswren

[MidnightsMadness]

"This perk is virtually useless for people who don't like to level up dozens of characters through GC and pretend the endless grind for more and more GC ranks on characters you will never actively play is fun."

 

This. I only enjoy playing sorc/sage. I was excited to proclaim (and astounded my friends) I even -had- 70s of other classes. Take them to 300 GC? NEVER.

 

Luckily I play to be with friends. Sad thing is watching them disappearing to other games.

[JattaGin]

I will only ask one question:

 

How many percent of the Swtor-players worldwide will be able to get this hyped 100% buff anytime soon? 0,01%?

[hillerbees]

No offense Eric but this is ******** and I demand that you change this immediately. You lied to us. So that is why you did not upload the patch notes, because you knew you would get negative backlash on this lackluster change!

 

All the toys out of the pram yet?

 

I think its a great idea to get people away from just playing one class over and over. You never know you might enjoy it!

[Eloi_BG]

Lmao y'all are making a big deal out of nothing really. 75% bonus isn't that big a deal (cause everybody complaining has at least 25%). I don't know why people are so angry. 75% bonus (over all the other buffs we already have) isn't that much of a buff and certainly isn't a game changer.

 

Also if you only play the same class, what do you even care about buffed CXP under 300...

Edited October 11, 2017 by Eloi_BG

[ThomasStarWars]

This is horrible.

[Toraak]

When a roadmap is talking about future projects that are either not in development, or in the early stages of development then it is expected that they are stated in general terms. However, in this case the roadmap was talking about something that was in the late stages of development and was already set in stone, so in this case specific information should have been conveyed.

 

The only question in my mind is did they omit certain information intentionally, or was it an oversight, and I believe that they did it intentionally, and that is why I won't give them a break for what they did. I also think that even if it was an oversight, that their history is laden too with many examples where what they delivered was not what they led us to believe we would get, and even if that is due to their incompetence, I don't like it when they mislead us like that.

 

I'm sorry, but NOTHING is set in stone, until the patch goes live. Yes it should have been in the patch notes (which came out at the same time as the patch went live) but the roadmap WAS 100% supposed to be in general terms.

 

We'll all adapt, It's not like leveling alts in GC is actually hard if you try to spend any time doing it.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Toraak

[Transcendent]

How am I misquoting you?

 

Are you really asking that question? I mean really? Here you go, just so it's nice and CLEAR FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND;

 

Here's the part you quoted out of my post;

 

So now I've gathered my thoughts, I'm going to reply to your post properly and calmly. There is no confusion Eric, we were specifically informed the perk would work based on how many characters had reached CR300. That's an important distinction to be making here as the time it takes to level one character to 70, and then to gain CR300 is considerable when you factor in the CXP rates that still are not where the players feel they should be.

 

I read technical limitations as developer incompetence. I don't mean that in a horrible way, however when we have multiple achievements that can track class progress, although that is a likely a separate system to legacy perks, I see this as a limitation on developer time being available to implement a legacy perk properly.

 

Agreed? Good. Now let me explain this post to you, as you clearly don't get it. I'll add spoiler tags to save other players scroll wheels.

 

 

Hey folks,

 

I verified with the team and the current implementation is intended, but I am seeing some confusion around the perk so let me explain how it works.

 

So now I've gathered my thoughts, I'm going to reply to your post properly and calmly. There is no confusion Eric, we were specifically informed the perk would work based on how many characters had reached CR300. That's an important distinction to be making here as the time it takes to level one character to 70, and then to gain CR300 is considerable when you factor in the CXP rates that still are not where the players feel they should be.

 

We all totally understand that miscommunication happens, yet somehow this very important distinction was missed. That's disappointing from a customer perspective when we've seen commitments from you guys that you would communicate better than you had been. This is nowhere near the level of communication that is expected from you, do you honestly think this is good enough? Are you really achieving that level of communication that you committed to?

 

 

That's the first part of the quote, specifically addressing one part of Eric's post. Now add the second part you've quoted;

 

 

The requirements for the perk were born out of some technical limitations which prevented us from giving you a bonus for any character which hit 300 (such as multiple Sith Warriors).

 

I read technical limitations as developer incompetence. I don't mean that in a horrible way, however when we have multiple achievements that can track class progress, although that is a likely a separate system to legacy perks, I see this as a limitation on developer time being available to implement a legacy perk properly.

 

The question is, even though this is likely a separate system we have legacy perks available for each class based on companion affections, could that not have been adapted in some manner to allow multiple classes (including mirrors). Is it simply a case that the developer resources are not in place to be able to code a system correctly into the base game? Either way, it looks like developer resources are heavily restricted, I have to ask why this is the case?

 

 

That's the second part which addresses something completely different.

 

If you're going to quote someone, and tie it into a specific quote from Eric, you could at least have the courtesy to represent the quote accurately for the part that it pertains to. Get it now? No don't bother answering that, I doubt you do.

[CaptRogue]

Lmao y'all are making a big deal out of nothing really. 75% bonus isn't that big a deal (cause everybody complaining has at least 25%). I don't know why people are so angry. 75% bonus (over all the other buffs we already have) isn't that much of a buff and certainly isn't a game changer.

 

Also if you only play the same class, what do you even care about buffed CXP under 300...

 

^ +100 points! Exactly!

So many are acting like it's the end of the world, when it's sheer nonsense. They just must be that bored with the game & forums to have to find something to complain about.

 

As for the White Knight comment, haha all the white knights quit the game a long time ago. It's just a few of us don't see it as quite the big deal, nor the issue as some on here are making it.

It's just a perk usable for toons under 300 rank, and if you don't play alts, different classes, it doesn't affect you. This is just a plus for those of us who play multiple classes.

[olagatonjedi]

Phase 3 to remove nitpickers from the game - COMPLETE

 

On to phase 4.

[Aderes]

Hey folks,

 

• Any Knight or Warrior to 300 adds +25%
  
• Any Consular or Inquisitor to 300 adds +25%
  
• Any Smuggler or Agent to 300 adds +25%
  
• Any Trooper or Bounty Hunter to 300 adds +25%

 

-eric

 

This *still* does not answer the question of whether this perk is actually an addenum to the original perk, or is it it's own thing? Because, if it's it is actually it's own perk, then the Rank 300 Class that originally achieved and bought the 1st 25% perk should count toward the new perk.

 

If not, then this 'new perk' is NOT a new perk at all, but a modification of the original perk.

[Mdgshorty]

Hey folks,

 

I verified with the team and the current implementation is intended, but I am seeing some confusion around the perk so let me explain how it works. Every time you hit Command Rank 300 on one of the mirrored base Classes (more on that in a sec) you get a 25% bonus to the base value for CXP gains. Since there are four sets of mirrors, you can gain four stacks of this buff, up to a total of 100%. It looks like this:

• Any Knight or Warrior to 300 adds +25%
  
• Any Consular or Inquisitor to 300 adds +25%
  
• Any Smuggler or Agent to 300 adds +25%
  
• Any Trooper or Bounty Hunter to 300 adds +25%

 

Separately, I know there are questions about how we communicated (or didn’t) around this perk and so let me explain what happened. When Keith put information on the perk in the roadmap, it was meant to be fairly general, but we realize if we had been more specific we could have saved some of this frustration. The requirements for the perk were born out of some technical limitations which prevented us from giving you a bonus for any character which hit 300 (such as multiple Sith Warriors). As I was gathering the notes for 5.5, I didn’t realize that limitation had been put in place and it wasn’t caught during internal review. None of this is meant as an excuse, you should have had this information before today and it should have been in the notes. I apologize for that not being communicated, that’s on me.

 

The above information has been added into the patch notes for clarity, we hope that you still get to enjoy the benefits of increased CXP as you rank up in Galactic Command.

 

Thanks!

 

-eric

 

Eric, I really think this is BS. This should not have implemented like this in the first place. It should not matter what 4 characters you get to 300 as long as its 4 characters.

[ThrakhathSpawn]

No. It's fine. If you get your emotions off your shoulders & step back to look at it, it fits with all SWTOR's legacy that has been in place since Legacy was added to game.

You've never gotten bonuses for having double classes of the same thing, or mirror, with one exception Legendary status for all 8 classes to 55 (or 65).

 

It makes perfectly good sense.

 

 

Well... actually they stopped making separate class stories.

 

"Become the outlander"

 

"Become the eternal commander"

 

There really isn't a difference between the classes anymore, its just weapon animations.

 

It is perfectly reasonable when they say per character, to expect per character. Especially when it feels like our classes were removed in 4.0 and beyond.

[Quraswren]

Eric, I really think this is BS. This should not have implemented like this in the first place. It should not matter what 4 characters you get to 300 as long as its 4 characters.

 

Especially so since you don't even get to be a base class anymore. You have to choose your adv. class right from the start at character creation. There are no base classes anymore. Pretty silly to base that buff off something people have to remember having and not actually being there anymore. Hell, any new'ish player will have no clue what we're talking about.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Quraswren

[casirabit]

^ +100 points! Exactly!

So many are acting like it's the end of the world, when it's sheer nonsense. They just must be that bored with the game & forums to have to find something to complain about.

 

As for the White Knight comment, haha all the white knights quit the game a long time ago. It's just a few of us don't see it as quite the big deal, nor the issue as some on here are making it.

It's just a perk usable for toons under 300 rank, and if you don't play alts, different classes, it doesn't affect you. This is just a plus for those of us who play multiple classes.

 

I don't have a problem with the perk. I have a problem the way it was handled and stated. Maybe it is my education and the way I deal with things. If it was supposed to be the way they implemented then state the facts correctly and not the way they did it. While many may not have a problem but I for one would rather the facts be done correctly instead of the way they did it.

[Sareeph]

Are you really asking that question? I mean really? Here you go, just so it's nice and CLEAR FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND;

 

If you're going to quote someone, and tie it into a specific quote from Eric, you could at least have the courtesy to represent the quote accurately for the part that it pertains to. Get it now? No don't bother answering that, I doubt you do.

 

Fine, you can not understand the import of your own words and yet you rail when someone quotes them.

 

I read technical limitations as developer incompetence. I don't mean that in a horrible way, however when we have multiple achievements that can track class progress, although that is a likely a separate system to legacy perks, I see this as a limitation on developer time being available to implement a legacy perk properly.

 

There is no other way to interpret those words other than that YOU "read technical limitations as nothing more than developer incompetence". You even tried to qualify that statement as not being intended In a "horrible way" but, you further posted as YOU seeing this as a limitation of the developers implementing a perk properly. That also supports your previous statement of incompetence. All I was trying to do was point out that Eric stated that the restriction was purposefully instituted, ie not through incompetence, but that he was unaware of it.

 

If you don't like people taking your words at face value and not what you thought you implied, then proof read your work before posting.

[Aderes]

All I was trying to do was point out that Eric stated that the restriction was purposefully instituted...

 

well... to be fair...

The requirements for the perk were born out of some technical limitations which prevented us from giving you a bonus for any character which hit 300 (such as multiple Sith Warriors). As I was gathering the notes for 5.5, I didn’t realize that limitation had been put in place and it wasn’t caught during internal review.

 

IE: There are technical limitations in the game itself they can't be bothered to sort out, so the 'perk' (which actually is just a modification to the existing perk) can function as previously worded.

He then says that limitation (singluar) "had been put into place" but that contradicts the limitations (plural) were pre-existing which caused the requirements to be implemented as such.

 

/pointofview

Edited October 11, 2017 by Aderes
clarification

[TUXs]

It is perfectly reasonable when they say per character, to expect per character. Especially when it feels like our classes were removed in 4.0 and beyond.

It's particularly reasonable since it came from Keith. It's not like we expected it based off datamined info, this came straight from the horses mouth.

[Transcendent]

Fine, you can not understand the import of your own words and yet you rail when someone quotes them.

 

Get it now? No don't bother answering that, I doubt you do.

 

Enough said. You can cheery pick the words out of context as much as you like, purely to further your own agenda. I'm however done with you.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Transcendent

[menofhorror]

Lol, except Eric admitted that it was his fault and not Keiths.

[Tahana]

Lol, except Eric admitted that it was his fault and not Keiths.

 

So Eric writes Keith's blog posts?

 

Legacy Perk – For each character that reaches Command Rank 300, we will automatically add an additional 25% bonus CXP to your entire Legacy up to a maximum of 100%. You do need to purchase the initial 25% perk, but the additional 75% will be free. And, YES, this Perk is retroactive, so you will immediately benefit once we deliver United Forces Foundation.

 

This is right from the road map.. Who do you believe?

[Exly]

No that's not a lie. A lie requires intent. The information given was not complete and therefore didn't tell the whole story. It was therefore false information. But again a lie per definition requires that it was intended to mislead people and of that there is no evidence. That's your personal feeling and I can understand why you would feel that way but I think they just didn't pay attention to what they were doing yet again.

 

So incorrect, incomplete, false? Yes.

A lie? Possible, but not proven and I personally am not convinced.

 

According to -eric, "When Keith put information on the perk in the roadmap, it was meant to be fairly general". So he said what he intended to say. The problem is that he left out important details that he already knew about and according to -eric "we realize if we had been more specific we could have saved some of this frustration".

 

So, the intended to say what they said according to -eric, and they realize that if they had been more specific they would have save us some of our frustration.

 

Now I am not quick to call things like this a lie, but they have admitted here that they did omit information by intent, and because I believe that they did that to make the perk seem better that they knew it was, I can understand why some people might think that they were lied to.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Exly

[Exly]

It's particularly reasonable since it came from Keith. It's not like we expected it based off datamined info, this came straight from the horses mouth.

 

I'll think that we would have received better information if it had come from data mined sources.

[TUXs]

I'll think that we would have received better information if it had come from data mined sources.

True...at least they'd have told us the truth.