Translation: I want to be able to kill nerds (aka rp ****** [they always have to make fun of any rpers]) in a videogame because I'm to much of a ***** to be a bully irl.

I completely agree and I'm glad we can come to a point of agreement on this. Yes, we do have differing viewpoints on the subject at hand and is based on our worldviews. As I stated I feel capitalism is unequiable because of a resource, i. money. This leads me to see the inequity in in the system that has tiered mechanical advantages that are gained through another resource, ie. time. In both instances some have more of it than another and use it to lord over others. You have a different viewpoint but it doesn't make either person wrong or right. I do think we both have good hearts but we're probably educated in two very different areas. Words you have used lead me to believe that you are probably educated in some area of Liberal Arts, possibly even Philosophy. Where as my field of education is in mathematics. What I'm saying is we're going to see things differently. Also, I replied as I did because twice your wording lead me to feeling attacked. Either way, we agree to disagree and go on with our lives. Best of luck to you in your endeavours.

Ok, let's get one thing straight first. We're talking about a video game not civil rights or anything even close to that. This is the second time you have made assumptions about how I feel about things outside of a video game and they are borderline insulting if not downright so. I'm glad you have these ideas on morality and it's good to know people do but this is about a video game and not civil liberties or freeing people from tyranny or oppresion. Your heart might be in a good place but it seems like you're taking video games a little too seriously. If we were discussing ethics and morality of things that actually affect how people live their lives I would probably be approaching it with a different mindset but this is only a video game. Secondly, one of the things I have pointed out that you seem to be missing that people with a good amount of wisdom know is that when it comes to opinions there is in non-extreme cases no real right or wrong. Yes, you have some education and a vocabulary but I'm going to assume, as you have done so with me, that you are most likely in your early twenties or late teens (at the very least you have the mentality of one) and still have that "I know the answers to life's problems" mentality. Ask anyone above the age of 30 who acts like it and they will tell you that they look back on how they acted at that age and realize they didn't and don't know jack. As I said, both arguments on this subject have validity because it is backed by reasoning coming from both parties. You seem to be of the mentality of "If you disagree with me you're wrong" and have even gone so far as to tell me my line of thinking is leading the destruction of the human race and morally and intellectually bankrupt. Well let me respond, your line of "anyone who doesn't agree with me is morally/ethically wrong" is the same type of thinking that leads to fundamentalist and fanatics commiting atrocities. Here's another thing, I work in education. I work to help people to learn so they can go on and find a better way of life through having better chances because of a college education. I work with socialist groups to work towards ending the inequities created by capitalism and I'm staunch supporter LBGT rights and have stood in defense of them against oppression. You're arguing for moral integrity of competition for a video game and you're not even doing it on that game's forum; and you seriously have the gall to call me morally and intellectually bankrupt? Question to answer to yourself: How much have you done to help real people with real problems outside of a video game?

You're confusing my declaration of fact with a treatsie on my opinions and ethics. I didn't state any opinions on how I felt about these things just the facts of the world as they are. These two parts comprise one part of my argument. There is no injustice in the games that have ways to buy things IG with rl money that can be earned IG thtough IG currency when the game provides these things. Using your baseball reference there, you are referring to a team that violated the rules and thus there was an injustice. The guy who got the same item you got via different means did not violate any rules. further more you both still got the item and noone really lost. Now if the person with same item beat you in PvP and calling it an injustice is just complaining because the other person on an even playing field as far as that item piece was concerned beat you. This isn't even comparing apples and oranges, it's not even comparing apples and ribeyes, it's like comparing apples and rocks. Whether you think that should be in the game or not is irregardless of the fact it is there. Now, you think it shouldn't be there because of your opinion yet others have the opinion that the game shouldn't be slanted towards the person who plays the most. Who is right and who is wrong? Neither because both arguments have validity. In the end, though, the people deciding what to implent are the people making the games and they are going to go with what model has a proven track record and paying for things IG with RL money has a proven track record, otherwise people would just stick to subscription fees especially when competing for subscriptions with a monster like WoW.

Ok, I will conceed to you on that point. It gives an advantage of course but as my understanding you were saying that that advantage will never trump greater skill and to that I do agree to a point on. The vast majority being what? Non-yankees fans that are tired of seeing the yankees win? Ethics are a matter of perspective. In some countries racism is unethical, in some it isn't. In some periods of history racism wasn't unethical and in others it is. Ethics are creation of our own ideas of how things should be. My point is that no matter what people say, money has and most likely will play a part in sports competition. It most certainly will in other competitive areas like war, politics and commerce. People complain about sports in America but we certainly don't complain about technological superiority in war. Again any kind of paying for advantages with real money via the game is an overall part of games. If it's done through the game and included with it will be part of the game. Now, I have noticed that you feel that if someone buys with real money the same thing you got through grinding that it cheapens it for you and I am wondering how. Does the fact they bought it take away the work you did to earn it? Take for example cars or computers. Let's say you worked hard and saved your money and put together an excellent gaming rig or purchased your own car and some other guy just had his rich parents buy one for him, does that mean your accomplishment is cheapened or the one who had it given to him? In my perspective the fact you earned it via hard work and the other person got it because of it being given in fact cheapens his accomplishment. Not the other way around. In fact, I think it would then actually make your accomplishment greater than previous just by comparring it to the other so called accomplishment.

Again your argument is full of assumptions and fallacies. First your ability to make money shouldn't have any bearing on the ability to succeed at the game yet in the first 10 or so pages you stated that gear gives no advantage over skill because you can beat full WH geared opponents in only recruit gear based on skill alone. Therefor this can lead to the argument that buying mechanical advantages (ie. gear, buffs, etc.) can not replace skill, by axiomatic principles of logic, which is in turn perfected by practice over time (is. the true definition of kung fu). Thus the player who has more time to play and less time making money can in most cases win. Next, I didn't try to argue that point, I did argue that point. My wording and argument were clear and in probably well understood by anyone with a good grasp of the English language. You could possibly say that I tried to convince you and did not succeed but there was no trying in the argument. I succeeded in arguing, not in convincing. Which really doesn't matter because from what I have seen so far you will use whatever argument you can to avoid ceeding that your arguments could possibly be wrong. Kind of like how you switched tactics to the musical instrument argument giving advantage from the previous argument that the instrument (mechanical advantages) does not give an advantage. Lastly, on to the argument that everyone says that buying advantages to gain victory in competition is wrong. Take a look at the winning streak of the NY Yankees. The Yankees had more money and therefor had the ability to sign better players due to being able to offer higher paying contracts. Look at the Olympics, countries train their teams with the best equipment, trainers, dieticians, kinesioligists, physicians, etc. that they can afford to buy. Do you think the United States says, "No, we can't have you train with the best stuff because you'll be competing against poorer countries that can't even get close to the training advantages we can give you"? No, money has been involved in competition for a very long time. Probably as far back as Medieval jousting. As someone else stated, the time thing can equate to money and it's simple and true. It can be proven mathematically in many ways. For example a pay check is calculated(before deductions) by this formula: Money = Wage(Time), which is a just a version of y=kx, in which k is a contsant proportionality. Set k equal to 1 and you have y=1x or y=x or Money = Time. Therefore, logically one can say that this creates equity as opposed to the inequity in videogames that think it should only be based on the amount of time because time and money are equal to one another. Person A has more time but less money and Person B has more money but less time and you think that Person B should be punished because of some percieved ethics on how you think it should be?

You know why noone takes these posts serious because they are just full of whining like the OP's original post. Are Mara/Sent's unbalanced compared to other classes? Yes but it has nothing to do with stuns or damage and everything to do with defensive cooldowns. The one that nerfs the crap out of your damage is bad enough. I have consistently had abilities that regurally do 4 digits worth of damage reduced to a single digit because of it. Yes, from what I understand it drains a large portion of the health bar but that can still just be healed up by a healer. The one that really bothers me is the invisiblity defense. I know it's only 4 seconds and doesn't break combat. The IA/Smuggler verion of the "oh **** button" is 3 seconds worth of protection from melee and ranged attacks, force and tech still do damage. Also, it doesn't portect from stuns, CCs, roots, snares, mezzes and pulls. The Mara/Sent invisibility is undeniably unbalanced because it can be popped and then used to grab a health pick up and be free from worry about getting rooted or yanked back by a PT/Vanguard or Shad/Sin just before grabbing that much needed health pick up. This same ability also gets used as an offensive ability to sneak up on objectives in WZs so it's undoubtibly unbalanced.

These analogies have nothing to do with the subject at hand. These are examples of violating rules, fraud and out and out theft. None of these apply to GW2's or any other games paying to get the same stuff that any other player can get get via IG methods. Why? Because that is the system the developrs put in place ergo it doesn't violate the integrity of the system because it's part of the system. If they weren't and people found some way to pay people to hack the servers to give these rewards to people then that would be a violation of the integrity of the system.

The idea that being able to buy these things with real life money destroys the integrity of them game is a logical fallacy. It's been stated that it's not unethical but destroys the integrity of the system and that is contradictory because the definition of integrity is adherence to ethical and moral standards. But to go on, the assumption that the person who bought it with money didn't "work" for it is wrong. They did work for it, it's called a job and that's what you do at them, work. Most of the time this work is a hell of a lot less fun than grinding on a video game you like to play. Believe it or not there are all ranges of ages that play this game and most of them above the age of 25 have bills, responsibilties and possibly children. This means they have to have a job and can't be like my 20 year old former guild mate who sat at home and PvPed for 14 hours a day to min-max his WH gear to have 1200+ power. Some people don't have this kind of time, some do. Paying for it with money made from the time spent working and thus not playing actually evens the playing field more than leaving it, as in most cases of competive online games in the past, slanted towards the people with the most time to play. In my opinion, the whining about the fact people can have the same advantage by paying rl money for it is just the whining of a child complaining about supposed inequities based on only seeing things from their narrow perspective.

New Flash: Only idiots care. Seriously, this thread makes me lol how much people work and argue to defend either game. Did you invent either game? Do you own stock in the game? It's doubtful. Then why defend either one so vehemently? It's not like it gets you anything or your defending something other than something you play (or will play). Play one, play the other or play both. It's not like it really matters if your arguments convince anyone because the majority have made up their mind already.

Project is instant, it's just that the numbers on the screen is timed with the animation. What is abing applied to you is instant when struck by it. I have had to explain this to a guildmate of mine who was wondering why he was still getting hit by Project after he Force cloaked. It's because Project was casted before the Force Cloak was cast but the animation wasn't finished. Bioware has explained this before.

You know what I call Operatives/Scoundrels out of stealth on my Sniper? Dead.

Unlike the proverbial cat Snow is always east and Grass is always west, there is nothing arbitrary about it. Again, you're arguing to be argumentative. Still, I don't expect you to stop arguing because admiting I know what I am talking about takes true strength of character and is actually much harder than just continuing to argue. Still, I have to ask, if you can't know it because you can't see it through walls then do you need to have a compass by your computer when you play? On the same note do you have to look out of a window or open the door to know in which direction the street is outside of your domicile?

Responded in the thread devoted to this argument.

Moving this to this thread from the idiots in WZs thread: Reply to my post: No, I'm not and this is why: One side has snow and one side has grass thus the descriptors make sense. There are no pink antelopes on either side. Maybe corrosives but that can be either side. Where as I agree that people should know cardinal directions but to say that "pink corrosive antelope" is as logical a descriptor as snow or grass is just argumentive for the sake of being argumentive. It's not a logical or even well thought out argument. It's just plain stupid. It's like someone getting mad because I typed six apples instead of 6 apples and calling me stupid for spelling it out with letters instead of using numerals. Then a bunch of people start arguing over which shoud be used and I reply with both sides are idiots for not understanding both ways. Then somebody responds with "you're an idiot if you don't know that § apples is 6 apples" like it was a valid point. It's not a valid point, it's someone with little reasoning just yelling out something to sound important. Here's your cookie for trying, though.

East/West or Snow/Grass, if you're calling anyone an idiot for not using your preferred naming of choice then you are the true idiot for not being able to make the distinction no matter which is called. It's really quite simple and I can work with either one. As anybody else with a more than a few brain cells firing can do. Please stop showing your ignorance/stupidity by arguing it.

Once in Civil War I went following a guy east at the beginning of the match. He runs up to the node and starts capping and I'm still not to the platform so I can intercept anyone coming in to stop him. I see one incoming so I leg shot and start going into my rotation to burn him down with Cull. Sure enough I have her down to like 30% health in no time and this idiot stops capping to run over and assist me. As this happens a scoundrel had stealthed up and starts capping the node. I try running up to shoot him but he's got me LOSed and by the time I can get in sight of him he's already capped. The match just went downhill from there. Though in the honorary mentions, we have the Freshie Merc in PvE greens and oranges with sheild and absorbtion ratings.

Really!? I've been on Ebon Hawk since the game opened and I almost always hear it called East or West. Do you happen to remember their names because I know almost all the non-transfered in PvPers. At least in the 50s bracket.

What classes are you all playing that has a 60 second CC breaker. Every class I have seen has a 120 second CC breaker with a skill to lower that to 90 seconds in a tree somewhere.

You wouldn't happen to be on The Ebon Hawk? If we even get down by 100 on Civil War Imp side people are like "Why bother, we can't win anyways.." Why bother!? Maybe if you actually try to improve you won't be so full of suck.

I'm always hearing on the Ebon Hawke server that if Pubs and Imps get into a brawl in the Promenade or the Cantina there that RPly the Hutts will withdraw support from the Empire. I have yet to see anything storywise that supports this. Maybe I am missing something, though. Thoughts?

If you don't stand hear the flag then some stealther just runs up and caps it. Any decent PvPer in SWTOR knows this. All your posting is "give me an easy button for winning". P.S. Any quickbar slot can be keybound in preferences.

I completed Act 3 yesterday and then today I got a companion gift from one of my companions. I then went to give it to another companion and it netted 0 affection. I then went to try his favorite type, Technology and again 0 affection but with the dialogue for something he liked. Does completing Act 3 mean no more affection gains from companions?

Yeah, it's kinda like going to college, getting a degree and then not getting a job in that field until years later. Welcome to reality.

Engineering is really more geared towards PvE and it's great for leveling. It's not all that great in PvP. It does have a great ability at the top tier for holding points but MM has much better burst damage. Lethality is good for PvP as it allows for more mobility. I use it and I find it's great for eating up tanks since it uses so much Internal damage. People also like the 0/20/21 build, typically referred to as Lethal Engineering.