Thread: Request: Ability to re-assign class levels after 1.20

Originally Posted by Spider-Dan

I'm really surprised at the amount of vitriol this suggestion has generated.

Most people don't like it when someone complains about a "problem" that is generally considered to not be a big deal. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, so to speak.

Originally Posted by Spider-Dan

What is the downside of allowing players to reassign levels when major class roles are completely reworked?

Implementing this feature takes away time and resources away from tackling other, more important issues. The "benefit" that a minority of players would gain from this feature is miniscule compared to the effort it would take.

Originally Posted by Spider-Dan

Whom does this hurt?

This hurts the timetable for implementing actual reforms that make the game better.

Originally Posted by Spider-Dan

You're acting like I'm asking for a perpetually available reassignment ability.

I think that most, if not all the responders in this thread know that you only wanted a one-time deal. We understand what you are saying. Don't try to dismiss our arguments because you think that we don't understand what you are asking for.

Originally Posted by Spider-Dan

If they radically changed crafting so that WVR and LTW no longer made any finished gear (which was all made by ARM), I would be saying the same thing.

That's because changing WVR and LTW like that makes no logical sense and is not in line with the future aims and goals of the class system.

Changing THM and CNJ in the ways they have laid out DOES make logical sense and IS in line with the future aims and goals of the class system.

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

snip

Agree with all of your points.

I do think you should add that bending to a request like this sends a dangerous message - that being: "If you don't like the changes that we are making, we will compensate you!".

The dev team should not be held to allocate resources to giving special treatment to people who aren't happy with their changes. MMOs are games that are constantly evolving, and players are going to love and hate every change that comes with that. The Devs do not have to answer for said changes, and they certainly do not have to compensate the players for them. I feel like SE has been so generous with responding to player feedback, and implementing ideas as a result of said feedback into the game that the players here feel that they're entitled to service from the developers that no company would ever even consider. The reason no company would seriously consider such a request is that if they bend to one request like this, they will receive a flood of requests from people who feel like they've been cheated by any little thing from every update. It's a slippery slope that I would rather the devs not go down.

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

I think that most, if not all the responders in this thread know that you only wanted a one-time deal. We understand what you are saying. Don't try to dismiss our arguments because you think that we don't understand what you are asking for.

Then why are people complaining about "potential for abuse"? That doesn't make sense in the context of a one-time event.

That's because changing WVR and LTW like that makes no logical sense and is not in line with the future aims and goals of the class system.

Changing THM and CNJ in the ways they have laid out DOES make logical sense and IS in line with the future aims and goals of the class system.

That's a completely arbitrary statement. Such a change would increase class uniqueness (a stated goal) and makes logical sense (Armorer makes all types of armor).

But to speak to my point: if such an "illogical" change were implemented, would players then be justified in asking for level reassignment?

Originally Posted by Tsuga

I do think you should add that bending to a request like this sends a dangerous message - that being: "If you don't like the changes that we are making, we will compensate you!".

It amazes me that you consider this a problem to be avoided.

If they compensate players every time they completely change the roles of classes in the game, I think that would be a good thing.

Originally Posted by Spider-Dan

Then why are people complaining about "potential for abuse"? That doesn't make sense in the context of a one-time event.

A one-time even can still be abused. There are a lot of unforeseen consequences to anything that involves something as basic as a mass reallocation of player levels, even if it seems simple and inconsequential to you.

Originally Posted by Spider-Dan

That's a completely arbitrary statement. Such a change would increase class uniqueness (a stated goal) and makes logical sense (Armorer makes all types of armor).

It's not arbitrary.

Their stated goals is to increase the class uniqueness of the battle classes, not the crafting classes.

It does not make any logical sense at all. Weavers make gear made out of cloth that they weave and sew. Leatherworkers make gear out of leather that they tan and cure. Armorers make gear out of metal that they smelt and refine.

Originally Posted by Spider-Dan

But to speak to my point: if such an "illogical" change were implemented, would players then be justified in asking for level reassignment?

First of all, they wouldn't do anything that stupid, nor do they plan to. Second of all, given the hypothetical case that they did do something as drastic as merging TAN and WVR into ARM, then some sort or reallocation would be necessary.

However, the THM changes as laid out so far are neither illogical, nor are they unfair. They follow the plan that was laid out months in advance. Therefore, you (in my opinion) are not justified in asking for a level reassignment since it would also be a big waste of time for very little benefit that would "fix" a non-existent problem.

You can get 50 in one or two days without trying hard. Stop whining.

Originally Posted by Rentahamster

Their stated goals is to increase the class uniqueness of the battle classes, not the crafting classes.

Do you have a quote to support this assertion?