ETA on Advanced Class change?

And they have said more recently something different. They changed their minds. You might have to find a way to be at peace with that fact. Pretending it's not true is not going to make it so.

No it's not. Again, this is a silly contention IMO. It is akin to someone in wow saying they want to go from a shadow priest to a holy priest. It is your advanced spec...it just so happens to have 2 distinct branches, but it is still not the class. It is class advanced spec. Your class remains the same.

The game has changed dramatically from where it once was. This is a relic of the original devs very narrow stubborn artistic view which almost sunk this game. Perhaps this needs to go as well.

Actually the thread is furthering the discussion. All YOU seem to be doing with this comment is is posting diatribe in an attempt to try and dissuade community members from fighting for this because you do not wish to see it happen.

If the recent changes to the game do not prove this predatory tactic no longer works here, than nothing will.

Well If this were to happen we would see a great reduction with PVP players crying about OP classes - because everyone would just switch to said OP class on the fly. That and It would just cause more problems in my opinion.For a game that's supposed to be based off choice and consequences, cause and effect - there sure are a lot of requests to implement Do overs.

I personally think it would kill the game. All one would need is 2 toons per account. For example.. agent could be every role short of tank and Warrior could swap from Dps or tank . That's a huge short cut to me and seems like BW would be shooting themselves in the foot if this were implemented. Isn't the point to keep people playing as long as possible?

Your doing it again. Are you incapable of presenting a point without using predatory rhetoric?

You've heard it 100 times before and you'll hear it 100 times again every time someone whines about some game feature or potential game feature which has no affect on them or their characters.

Again, so what? You write words, but the meaning behind them is "Waa, waa, people shouldn't be allowed to do this 'cause I said so!"

The forum posters only represent a tiny fraction of the playerbase. It is a very vocal and often obnoxious fraction, but that doesn't mean it's representative of all players everywhere or even most of them.

The only problem I see with this argument is that you have to ignore the fact that players can roll and level a different class right now. So they would already be the OP class at this moment and would have their alts in storage.

It makes it EASIER to switch but the problem still exists with switching or not.

Your second point however is another valid argument against...no more need for alts, people will be less invested and play less perhaps. That a good argument against IMO.

We have no evidence that they changed their minds. We have a quote that could be an indication that they changed their minds, or could be nothing more than an attempt to placate those who want class changes.

Your basic class is not your class. Look at your guild roster. Do you see any players with their class listed as bounty hunter-mercenary or bounty hunter-powertech? No. The classes are mercenary and powertech. The only characters who show a class of bounty hunter would be those who have not yet chosen an AC.

You want to say it is akin to changing from a shadow priest to a holy priest? Can a shadow priest stealth like an assassin can? Is a shadow priest ranged or more melee oriented in terms of DPS? Going from an assassin to a sorcerer would be more akin to changing from a rogue to a priest, than from a shadow priest to a holy priest.

You and others keep trotting out that kind of retort as if it's supposed to carry some weight. If all you got is to repeat the same old song, save us all the bother.

They also said there'd be more class stories. Obviously, things change.

That is evidence....but, if I was being reasonable (as I have already said in prior posts) this is not rock solid evidence, no...your absolutely right IMO. It could be lip service. And who knows when, if ever we would see it..

But you have to admit. It is a different tune, and that is significant.

I can't argue against the point that it was INTENDED to be another class by design...heck, there are two sith and two jedi classes which is just as ridiculous IMO.

The problem is that they are poorly designed IMO. and therefore are not distinctive enough to classify as different classes. The best they can be seen as is different specializations.

You really cant compare A Sorc and a Assasin to a Monk and a Warlock. You could, however compare them to a Holy priest and a Shadow priest. And that is why I have the opinion that I do.

Which does not mean yours is invalid. I just dont agree with it.

I think your splitting hairs here. They did not add enough mechanics to fundamentally change each AC enough to make them distinct. They still share far too many abilities for them to have distinction.

The classes aren't even that distinct. But at least there is enough of a difference between a warrior and a sorc to claim they are separate classes...if the ACs were truly that differentiated than I would agree with that position. As it is it is not IMO.

Again...that doesn't mean I am right...it is just how I see it.

To make things crystal clear...IMO a Marauder and a Juggernaut would have to be akin to a Sorc and a Warrior for them to be seen as real classes.