Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

ETA on Advanced Class change?

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > General Discussion
ETA on Advanced Class change?

Quraswren's Avatar


Quraswren
06.04.2013 , 08:25 AM | #521
Quote: Originally Posted by Spatology View Post
I'm playing the devils advocate here, but, there's no reason to gate the number of times you can change. Or even restrict it from field respec. The only complication i can think of is raids of Sages stealthing through operations to bosses and respecing once they get ready to stage them.

Regardless, This would Devalue and unbalance the game for 2 classes since Knights cant heal, and Smugglers cant tank.
There plenty of reason to not allow an unlimited AC swap on the fly. I doubt anyone except the "I want to be OP " crowd would want that.

An AC swap with limitations allows the gamers that played a class, put in effort into the class and collected gear, tiles or whatever to still hold onto that while breathing a bit of new life into the toon.

The restrictions are there to prevent those classes that can from taking advantage of every role vs classes that have limited class roles through AC's.

The way I envision it is something like this:
  • A fairly high monetary cost (Around the cost of 1800 coins or 3/4 months of subscriber coins given how you subscribe)
  • A lengthy time limit on AC swapping (Once per 3 months - similar to cost)
  • A limit cap on AC swapping (you can AC swap a toon twice only) The reason for that is if you go to the other AC and it's worse for the gamer, they can at least get back to an AC they like, even if it's just a little)

Those restrictions stops gamers from milking every AC in the game on the fly (which I think most dislike). It allows those that really do hate their chosen AC to stop using it and change for another AC - gaining more mileage out of the game and not losing everything they collected or gained.

There really has to be limits on the AC swap but I think SWTOR is setup like no other MMO with it's classes and AC's. Something like this would really set SWTOR apart from other MMO's that are not designed as SWTOR is.

I really do expect to see this option in the future. It was in beta so we know it's there. It just needs to be fine tuned and released.

Spatology's Avatar


Spatology
06.04.2013 , 08:31 AM | #522
Quote: Originally Posted by Quraswren View Post
There plenty of reason to not allow an unlimited AC swap on the fly. I doubt anyone except the "I want to be OP " crowd would want that.

An AC swap with limitations allows the gamers that played a class, put in effort into the class and collected gear, tiles or whatever to still hold onto that while breathing a bit of new life into the toon.

The restrictions are there to prevent those classes that can from taking advantage of every role vs classes that have limited class roles through AC's.

The way I envision it is something like this:
  • A fairly high monetary cost (Around the cost of 1800 coins or 3/4 months of subscriber coins given how you subscribe)
  • A lengthy time limit on AC swapping (Once per 3 months - similar to cost)
  • A limit cap on AC swapping (you can AC swap a toon twice only) The reason for that is if you go to the other AC and it's worse for the gamer, they can at least get back to an AC they like, even if it's just a little)

Those restrictions stops gamers from milking every AC in the game on the fly (which I think most dislike). It allows those that really do hate their chosen AC to stop using it and change for another AC - gaining more mileage out of the game and not losing everything they collected or gained.

There really has to be limits on the AC swap but I think SWTOR is setup like no other MMO with it's classes and AC's. Something like this would really set SWTOR apart from other MMO's that are not designed as SWTOR is.

I really do expect to see this option in the future. It was in beta so we know it's there. It just needs to be fine tuned and released.
you kept saying it over and over, "limited AC swap"....something about milking all the AC's.....for alt set gear or something?

However, you never gave any reasons why it would be detrimental to the game. I offered a reason it would possibly be abused. Can you think of any other besides loot whoreing which occurs anyway?

branmakmuffin's Avatar


branmakmuffin
06.04.2013 , 09:12 AM | #523
Quote: Originally Posted by Khevar View Post
The position is if there were an easy-AC-respec, Consulars, Troopers, Bounty Hunters and Inquisitors would all be able to switch between Heals, Damage and Tanks.
What kind of nonsense scenarios are people spinning in their fevered imaginations? DPS-spec Assassin one Op, then heal-spec Sorcerer the next then tank-spec Assassin for the next? It it happens, AC change is going to cost 100s of CCs. If that's how someone wants to spend 100s of CCs, who are you (or anyone else) to tell them they shouldn't?

Quote:
Yet Jedi Knights and Sith Warriors would only be able to switch between Damage and Tanks. And Smugglers / Agents would only be able to switch between Heals and Damage. Potentially devaluing those classes as they wouldn't be as flexible as the others.
So what, even assuming it were true?

Quraswren's Avatar


Quraswren
06.04.2013 , 09:16 AM | #524
Quote: Originally Posted by Spatology View Post
you kept saying it over and over, "limited AC swap"....something about milking all the AC's.....for alt set gear or something?

However, you never gave any reasons why it would be detrimental to the game. I offered a reason it would possibly be abused. Can you think of any other besides loot whoreing which occurs anyway?
Whoever it was saying the game is based on players not having every AC is correct. No AC in this game can do that and thats a good thing.

An unlimited, on the fly AC swap would be too much. The classes that can hit every role would be the catch all, limiting all other classes especially if they could tank, heal and DPS (both ranged and melee) as well as the other classes with limited role access.

It just doesn't work out well logistically for this game allowing AC swapping anytime given how it;'s designed and setup thru classes and AC's

However, an AC swap with limiting factors prevents the need to balance a tri-spec class, as well as keep the loot whoring to the levels that we current deal with. Making little change in that area.

Plus, limitations on an AC swap helps smooth out the rough edges some gamers have by allowing even the option of an AC swap. Some may never like it, but putting a limitation on it keeps things in check.

branmakmuffin's Avatar


branmakmuffin
06.04.2013 , 09:21 AM | #525
Quote: Originally Posted by Xeperi View Post
lol nice bit of trolling. Your argument then is premised on tor not being a game. Fail. You should have given up two posts ago.
Yeah, I concealed the fact that I think TOR is not a game by calling it a game.

Quote:
There was no implication. My point is straightforward and coherent: you apparently want to remove competition from the game, making it not a game.
Then PvE must not inherently be a game. But wait, it is a game. It's just not an inherently competitive one. Perhaps you need to look up the word "inherent." And don't look up "inherit" by mistake. Perhaps you need to look up "game" while you're at it.

Quote:
Having tor simply disappear would also make it not a game. Would we be adversely affected by making tor "not a game"? No. We just would not have this game to play.
I think you just wrote something cogent. Call the Pope! Call The National Enquirer! Two-headed crocodile-apple crossbreed, your oddity has been eclipsed!

Quote:
The only nonsensical part of my thinking is arguing with you, because you cannot create a legitimate argument against a nonsensical idea.
Winding you up and watching you whirl around like a monkey on crack is way legit, dude.

Spatology's Avatar


Spatology
06.04.2013 , 09:48 AM | #526
Quote: Originally Posted by Quraswren View Post
Whoever it was saying the game is based on players not having every AC is correct. No AC in this game can do that and thats a good thing.

An unlimited, on the fly AC swap would be too much. The classes that can hit every role would be the catch all, limiting all other classes especially if they could tank, heal and DPS (both ranged and melee) as well as the other classes with limited role access.

It just doesn't work out well logistically for this game allowing AC swapping anytime given how it;'s designed and setup thru classes and AC's

However, an AC swap with limiting factors prevents the need to balance a tri-spec class, as well as keep the loot whoring to the levels that we current deal with. Making little change in that area.

Plus, limitations on an AC swap helps smooth out the rough edges some gamers have by allowing even the option of an AC swap. Some may never like it, but putting a limitation on it keeps things in check.
Don't see the point, if you already have a lot invested in a character and have achieved things you want to carryover, you have clearly achieved some measure of success in your current AC. ( ie. why fix things that arent broken) If the character you want to switch is pre lvl 40, re roll.

It's resources being pushed in a direction that has little benefit IMO.

branmakmuffin's Avatar


branmakmuffin
06.04.2013 , 10:01 AM | #527
Quote: Originally Posted by Spatology View Post
It's resources being pushed in a direction that has little benefit IMO.
This is the one legitimate argument against any addition or change to an MMO. If you don't like it (whatever it is), it's not wort the development effort. If you like it, it is.

Themanthatisi's Avatar


Themanthatisi
06.04.2013 , 10:17 AM | #528
Quote: Originally Posted by Ratajack View Post
You cannot even remain consistent in your own defense. Which is it you want-a one time deal, or multiple times? You cannot have both.
Where did I say, multiple times? Please provide this quote.... My posts, want the AC change to assist people whit a past mistake... I generally follow this course. I may alter some ideas, due to ones I see from others, that are better.... However, you will not, find a post where I state, it should be multiple time. Now, if BW wants to take in lots of money, which they will, I will NOT be at all surprised, they do allow it to be multiple times at a price each time. Ill still survive.... It will NOT affect my game play.

Show me that quote please....
<ENTROPY REBORN>
on Jedi Covenant - The guild for casual adults.
check us out at http://entropyx.enjin.com/
feel free to contact me in game - Themanthatisi.

LordArtemis's Avatar


LordArtemis
06.04.2013 , 11:08 AM | #529
Quote: Originally Posted by Spatology View Post
Don't see the point, if you already have a lot invested in a character and have achieved things you want to carryover, you have clearly achieved some measure of success in your current AC. ( ie. why fix things that arent broken) If the character you want to switch is pre lvl 40, re roll.

It's resources being pushed in a direction that has little benefit IMO.
To be fair this is just an opinion.

First, I feel the "reroll" option has little validity as an argument. The whole point of this option would be so that there would not be a need for reroll...so proposing the very thing folks are trying to avoid is silly at best IMO.

Second, the contention toward wasted resources, or the resource/benefit ratio is speculative at best. There is no way any of us can know what effect this would have on the game, no more than the dozens of threads that predicted that almost every change since F2P was a bad move for the game.....some of those predictions by the very same posters in this thread, using the very same arguments.

YOU may feel it is a waste of resources, but that does not mean the majority will feel that way.

branmakmuffin's Avatar


branmakmuffin
06.04.2013 , 11:39 AM | #530
Quote: Originally Posted by LordArtemis View Post
[Spatology] may feel it is a waste of resources, but that does not mean the majority will feel that way.
That's exactly the point. It's his opinion (as you noted in the part of your post I snipped). Implementing it would take some development resources. He obviously feels the benefits (if any) gained would not be worth that effort. I happen to think they would be. Which is why this argument boils down to nothing more than "I like it" versus "I don't like it." BWEA will make the call based on economics, not notions of "fairness" or "laziness" or how well forum denizens formed their arguments and counter-arguments.