ETA on Advanced Class change?

This isn't about Class change, it's about AC change. Different animal even if you don't think so.

I'm putting AC change in the same boat as the SSSP and Hood Toggles...something they have talked about doing but haven't said a word about since.

The response quote was not a quote made before launch. It was a quote made 8 months ago.


There was the original response, verbatum as much as possible. It was a response showing the most recent quote. The most recent quote, which Majik is more than aware of I suspect clearly shows that they HAVE indeed considered AC change since launch.

So there it is.

This is an accurate contention IMO.

One can contend that the Devs still view ACs as fundamentally different class designs. Why? Because they have said nothing to contradict that....including indicating they were considering AC change.

They can consider AC change without changing their stance that ACs are fundamentally different class designs.

In fact, I think that whether or not they view it as a class is not relevant....only because they have indicated they are considering AC change, or at least was at one time 8 months ago.

That right there seems to infer that they do not subscribe to the absolute view that classes can never change.

So really, if one sees it that way the argument about how THEY see AC is pretty silly. I think it's clear how they see them, and I also think it's clear they are not absolute on the permanent choice...or at least not recently.

And that is based on actual statements....not supposition or wishful feelings.

I HOPE that their lack of communication on this topic over the last 8 months demonstrates a decision to let AC change sit on the back burner for now. Of course there are many reasons why it could be delayed....

...I hope it is because they decided against it.

They actually have talked about both of these.

Hood toggle is definitely on the back burner. From their June livestream event (click this)

And the SSSP was mentioned at their latest meet and greet thing, supposedly it's in playable alpha form, if I remember right.

So, there seems to be some agreement, then, that A/C change is on the "back burner." One dev seems to be comparing it to hood toggle. he said (paraphrased) 'it would be cool if we had designed it that way from the beginning, but since we did not changing it is a lot of work' So we've got something that is by no means universally desired, with some active opposition, being not only on the back burner, but a lot of work to implement.

In your collective experience, then, have you ever seen something go from the back burner to implementation? Given the pressure for front burner stuff, how do you see something like this back burner issue ever being placed on the front burner? So put yourself in the place of a developer who makes these decisions. Here are the facts as you know them.

1. Some people want A/C class change. Very true.

2. The workaround is to level an alt from 1-10 and choose the other class. For anyone the least bit experienced, this is a trivial task.

3. This is not a universal desire and it has active opposition. Most people don't care, but those who oppose it are just as loud as the people who loudly want it.

4. It's hard to do (i.e.: it's possible, but it will take significant resources, including resources away from other projects.)

5. There are a lot of front burner issues people think are important.

Under these circumstances would YOU put resources into making this change? Would YOU put it on the "front burner?"

If someone like Dulfy interviews a single developer, even a senior developer, and he says, "I think we may see X in the future." do you think this locks the company into a moral obligation to provide X?

Great post and sorry I snipped it. I wanted to comment on this part.... Considering Stephen Reid said this:

So no, it doesn't lock the company into anything.

Since the devs are on record as saying that the AC's are fundamentally different class designs, and are different classes, the would make them the same animal even if you don't think so. It may not be as difficult to code as changing from a juggernaut to a mercenary, but it IS still a class change according to the devs.

You would be incorrect. Here is the quote in the original response post (the one responding to majik's post) to which I originally responded:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Erickson
We had alot of internal debate whether to release the advanced classes, and people need to understand they are "works in progress".

Obviously, the ideal is that people don't ever need to respec their Advanced Class. There are additional measures we are putting in place to improve the communication about that choice to the player before it happens. Ideally, we would also allow you to 'test drive' the AC , but that's fairly expensive and unlikely to happen. It's more likely that we stick with a short period (a few levels) during which you can change your AC class for a credit cost before it locks in.

We haven't made up our mind yet about the availability of an Advanced Class respec. We are evaluating all options (no Advanced Class respec, fixed cost respec, respec cost increasing with level, etc.).
A lot of thought currently goes into the consequences of Advanced Class respec - if we allow it, it will require players to relearn their entire approach to combat (which they learned over many many hours before) and replace the majority of their equipment, so it's not a thing we would want the player to do lightly, or just out of curiosity.


That statement was made BEFORE release.

Now here is the most recent statement, the one made after release:


Quote:
Dulfy: Will be there any faction or Advanced Class change option available for purchase in the future?

Damion Schubert: 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.

Notice they are not the same.

Notice again that nowhere in that most recent statement is there anything that contradicts the devs earlier and consistent statements that the different AC's are different classes. Notice also the italicized and bolded part. I think that if they allow class changes it may be in a manner of allowing a few levels during which a change is possible for a credit cost (or CC's) before the current AC becomes truly permanent.

The question with this implementation is would those few levels be from 10-15, or would those few levels "reset" after a class change. Allowing levels 10-15 to change class for a credit (or CC) cost would give players a chance to get a feel for the general play style and combat mechanics and decide if they prefer a melee style or a ranged style.

Having those "few levels" reset after a class change would open up class changes to possible abuse and exploitation. As an example, a player wants to be able to heal and tank, so he rolls a sorcerer. He gets to level 14 and buys a class change to assassin, resetting the "few levels". He then buys another class change before level 18, again resetting the class change timer. This could continue all the way to max level at which point the "few levels" would never be acquired and so he is free to buy class changes any time he desires.

DPS to Tank or Tank to DPS... you chang all of your gear and weapons when you make this change WITHIN YOUR AC... did you even think before you posted this?

I posted the post in question verbatim. It clearly lists the second quote from your post.

I'm not sure why you are telling me this. I pointed out that Majik indicated that no dev has stated since launch that AC change was a possibilty. Clearly a dev did exactly that.

And that's that. That was the only point that was made. Why are you providing to me all the extra info, and why are you stating I am incorrect? Incorrect about the FACT that a dev stated 8 months ago exactly what it says in that quote you posted?

How am I incorrect about that? Maybe I'm missing something here?

The statement that "They have never considered AC swapping since the launch of this game" IS FALSE. It is false because a dev has done exactly that. The quote is well known, has been provided in this thread many times, so at this point anyone that makes that contention that has obviously been posting in this thread for some time is either not being observant or is trying to be dishonest to serve their own agenda.

I am particularly tired of the dishonesty, especially from folks that "claim" they are anti AC change when they seem to do everything they can to remove legitimacy from the Anti-change folks by misbehaving in the thread.

I think there are plenty of valid reasons not to allow AC change, I don't think we have to be misleading or dishonest to convince others.