ETA on Advanced Class change?

I would imagine the Forum Community Staff are aware of this thread, they may or may not have made the devs aware of it. In general terms, if a Dev has commented directly on a subject they don't make any repeat announcements until it is ready to be rolled out. The last quote of concern was the direct instigator of this thread.
Beyond the actual scope of the question the number of forumites engaged on this topic is quite small, a handful of the same names getting on the AC swap waltzer every couple of months or so, not sure why the Devs would need to be notified of this?
As no time frame was ever given for any roll out of an AC swap feature, just that it was likely in the future, closeness is not really important.

Personally I find the 'Field Respecialisation' functionality far better than the limited interface of a Dual Spec. I can respecialise, swap out gear and reorganise my quickbars in about a minute. Or, do you not want to put in the effort to have as many builds as you want at your fingertips, relying instead on a toggle between two options.

As to your first, I also agree that if they say it once they generally don't mention it again until it is close to release. That said, I have been scouring the net of late and I find multiple interviews and pod casts where the same information is repeated, but the AC respec is genuinely a one-off occurrence.

As I've said for months, I'm not diametrically opposed to it, in theory, I just don't want it poorly implemented or to be a recurring event.

Personally I find the 'Field Respecialisation' functionality far better than the limited interface of a Dual Spec. I can respecialise, swap out gear and reorganise my quickbars in about a minute. Or, do you not want to put in the effort to have as many builds as you want at your fingertips, relying instead on a toggle between two options.

I believe the correct term for it in PR is 'on message', you only talk about the stuff you want to talk about. Politicians are the famed for this, turning nearly any question into a reason to advocate their new policy. I would imagine there is a set of controls in place before a Dev can post on the forums and this restricts them to the areas they are likely to comment on.
Not to mention those who have been commenting on this thread for awhile are invested in an answer to a degree that is no doubt far greater than the actual need for such a feature. It may be a very small blip on the Dev radar.
I think it sets a dangerous precedent for a Dev to come in and comment now, it would suggest that answers are gained from thread size rather than content. After all, the arguments on this particular treadmill haven't really changed since about page 4.
On the other hand, unless you can get yourself to one of the cantina events you can't ask a direct question to a Dev other than on the forum.
Maybe, anyone that reads this and has the chance to attend a cantina event could ask the question at the Q&A session. (Although I'm finding it a struggle to catch up with reliable and full reporting on the Q&A sessions of recent events)


I wouldn't want it poorly implemented either. But, for me it helps to extend the roleplaying viability of a character.
Personally, I would want to see it go hand in hand with the roll out of more ACs per Class, allowing players a greater freedom of defining their character rather than the rather restrictive gamey sameness it tends to be at endgame.

While I enjoy the Bounty Hunter storyline, I don't see why I have to be restricted by blast pistols, it's a restriction I chafe under and it feels so artificial. Not to mention my Lightside Powertech only has the option to burn his opponents to death with a flamethrower, one of the most reviled weapons in the history of mankind.

The same mechanics that lay behind AC swapping could potentially be used to open up animations choice between Lightside/Darkside outcomes. Allow my Powertech the chance to use Vanguard animations instead and not only can he use a Blast Rifle (Carbine) he can use an Ion Pulse to stun opponents into submission rather than killing them (it stuns them honest, their insides aren't being crisped by micro-waves )

Or, you could import the ACs of other classes wholesale with a few minor animation changes to allow a greater range of weapons.
The Imperial Agent/Sniper Specialisation to allow a Boutny Hunter that takes down their targets at range ala Aurra Sing.
Or the Sith Warrior DPS specs to allow them to equip a techblade and engage in melee combat (jet pack animation for the leap and AOE blast) you know like the huge amount of troopers you encounter can do or the two Mandalorian companions you get can.

There are a whole load of 'Or' and 'Ifs' out there, and many of them won't be to your taste, or you'll feel it cheapens the Advanced Class you've chosen to play. But, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed.

People keep trying to make an argument that an AC change is not the same as a full class change, which I don't get.

Different advanced classes can or do effect:

• What armor you can wear. Only the Jedi Knight/Sith Warrior ACs affect this, all other ACs use the Class armour
• What mainhand weapon you are allowed to wield.
• What offhand you are allowed to wield. This can vary as much between Specialisations as it does ACs
• Fully half your available skills. This is a point that ACs are a subset not a unique class
• Two thirds of your available skill trees. End Specialisation determines role and yet can be swapped nearly any time you want

Granted there is a marginal difference in the last two when talking about switching your "base" class, but mostly it's the same in either case. Advanced Class is not a setting on your character, it's a whole different class from the moment you select it. For all intents and purposes, switching AC is the same as switching your base class in other games, and that's why I think it will never happen. (And also why it does not bother me that it won't.)

lol this thread is still around?

Listen, anyone who thinks that EA / Bioware would ever intentionally shorted their main selling point for this game (and in turn their potential average subscriber life span) has got another thing coming.

The fact is that if you want both AC's from a particular class you have to do the "double" time, the more time you take, the more money they make. Why do you think you have 12 character slots and not 8?

And I have just as much trouble understanding the viewpoint that they are individual Classes in their own right and not a subset of the class you've chosen at level 1.

...

Class -> Sub Class -> Specialisation

Being a computer programmer myself (though admittedly not a game developer), I can't help but think of this terms of how these types of systems are set up. These are not simple option toggles like your cosmetic appearance.

Selecting your advanced class is as key a moment in your character creations as selecting your base class and gender. From the moment that are selected they everything that happens to your character downstream. Not only do they affect the base options I listed, but they also affect the way the system records your changes, as well as what choices the player makes.

That makes rolling back those changes difficult and error prone.

For example, at every other level or so you are presented with the option to purchase a new skill for you advanced class. These are completely different than the other ACs option, and you do not need to actually purchase them. Most people do, of course, but it's an option. When converting AC1 to AC2, how do you handle this?

• Do you refund the cost of every element trained and not train the new AC?
• Do you assume they have trained everything in their class and therefore train the all skills in the new AC?
• Do you try to map the skills 1 to 1? (They don't map directly.)

Then you have the question of what to do with a players gear. What do you do with equipment they can no longer wield or wear, or no longer want to keep because better options exist in their new class?

• Do you leave it all as is, and make the player responsible for buying new gear? (Oh the forum rage that would create.)
• Do you try to convert equipment? (Bugs bugs bugs)
• Do you refund the cost of the item somehow? (complexity here as well)

In the end, when I look at it I see so much complexity and potential forum rage over bugs created by this process, I think it's not worth the effort, and would in fact negatively impact that game because there's little chance if any it could be implemented cleanly.

Ultimately, if you disagree with me on that key point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. However I would put forward the suggestion that if it was as simple to implement as you suggest, it would have been done at the same time as the appearance designer was put in. They implemented species change then too, which was in the same original quote, but not gender change due to the large and complex effect this has on your character. They left out AC change for a reason, and I believe that to be, at least in part, the complexity I listed above.