Never understood why this hasn't become standard in MMOs, so definitely /signed. As for scaling issues, I don't think the problems are insurmountable. Gear presents the biggest issue, since that's what stats are based on, but since gear is somewhat tiered it might be a matter of just scaling to the appropriate tier. As for ability trees, you'd just need to prune from the top. Given that it takes 5 points to go up a tier, and given that points are strictly level-based, you could just cut off the tiers that the character would not have had access to at the exemplared level. Characters who "padded" the lower tiers of their trees might still be at an advantage - but I don't know if the advantage would be unbalancing. Also, exemplared characters in CoH had an advantage (possibly greater) given the way enhancements worked, but I don't recall anything so extreme as to break the system.

I re-subbed recently because I was having fun and figured the fun was worth a few bucks (that, and I missed some of the side-perks of subbing, like having a third crafting skill and all). I decided to un-sub last night, because the inescapable rested exp is pushing me forward faster than I'd like. I'd rather splash a few bucks on CC to get the perks I want than use workarounds to keep my advancement at a comfortable pace. Silly reason? Maybe, but it gets even sillier. 100% exp for f2p would probably make me uninstall the game and not look back.

Not 100%, but in my experience they're usually as mentally healthy as anyone else (which is unfortunate, of course)... This is way off tangent, but the "bullying" I've seen is either misunderstood jibes, or more often, an exercise in dominance hierarchy against an easy mark in front of an easy audience. The latter is not something that should happen, but it doesn't happen because the perp has any more "issues" than anyone else (to wit, the ready audience who laughs along rather than stand up for the mark). I think I've only seen one case of bullying that stemmed from an underlying pathological condition. Anyway, getting far afield, but I'll point out that the word is present in the OP, and, IMO, is used inappropriately. I glean from a comment you make later that you're only "stuck" because you're having fun. You called a whole group of people no-life loners, on no other basis than that they posted "You sux" posts. You are effectively guilty of the crime you seem to attribute to them. I'm pointing out how and why they're probably not no-life loners, any more than you or I. Calling that "making excuses" is just an attempt to deflect my argument (which I'll admit could probably have been made better). I said they were legitimate? Born of good intentions? I don't think so... Just pointing out that people who are frustrated or angry lash out - sometimes with reasonable arguments, sometimes without. Doesn't make 'em no-life loners. So one-off comments are sufficient grounds for determining the state of a person's home life? You should publish that. You'll be famous! Ah, see, now here's the thing. Some of the OP's examples are suggestions, though made in a back-handed way. Yet you (and possibly the OP), dismiss those quotes, and the people who made them, as "sad and pathetic." So why bother wasting hate on "haters?" No, I'm saying that bemoaning the "hate" of others, and then heaping on your own, is hypocritical. I'm also saying that some folks tend to get oversensitized to "hate" to the point where they can no longer make the distinction between actual, spammy, opportunistic hate vs. negative posts that contain genuine feedback.

I don't think I"m making excuses for anyone. Sorry if it came across that way. Rather, I'm suggesting that you and the OP are on the edge of throwing the baby out with the bathwater by off-handedly dismissing posts that you've deemed "pathetic and sad," and I'm objecting to the nearly automatic characterization of such posters as rejects in real life when you clearly have no basis for doing so. I'm not defending them; I'm attacking you. Or rather, your off-handed demonization of people who say things you don't like, in a way you don't like. Seriously, you guys sound like picked-on kids who console themselves by saying that "bullies" are just jealous or have "other issues" at home or something.

I'd agree on the first part, but how do you know that the commenting is continuous? Is it the same people saying the same thing over and over? Or are the comments just parting shots from people who have reached their limit? It's easy to see it that way - but each of those quotes (especially the first three) could also represent someone who is following the development of the game, waiting for a reason to get back in. That's the "message" I'm referring to. And let's face it, anything anyone posts on the internet can be construed as "attention seeking" if you squint enough... The last three messages may fall under the "this game sucks" category, but certainly the first three list specific objections to the developmental direction of the game. They are feedback, and even if they're a bit vitriolic, they are still constructive in the sense of giving the developers specific reasons as to why they're not playing. AFAIC, they're more constructive than my criticism earlier in this thread, which was apparently deemed ok. So why are they being painted with the same broad brush as the "lol SWTOR sux" posts?

Probably. Won't stop me from talking, though. What is and isn't constructive criticism is tangential to my point. Then you're missing my point, I think, though we'd probably still disagree. I'm not rationalizing the behavior - in fact, I said such behavior isn't very smart. Rather, I'm objecting to your personal characterization (and thereby demonization) of people who, in my mind, have a right to be ticked off. The OP asked a specific question, namely, "What drives people to spend energy attacking something they don’t care about?" I'm giving a possible answer. Some of the people in question do care, but know that their constructive comments will fall on deaf ears - but feel the need to comment anyway. Like I said, not smart, but there it is. Whle the expression of their frustration may not be productive, that's not sufficient reason to dismiss them as lonely, no-life putzes. That's what I take issue with more than anything else. Their comments do carry a message, even if it isn't "constructive" in the usual sense of the word, and the people behind that message are likely as productive and normal as anyone who plays MMOs.

Maybe not, but some get hot under the collar real quick even at reasonable criticisms. It only helps to fuel the fire... I think when you and I look at the quotes the OP posted, we see different things. Granted, context is everything, and it's tricky to interpret those posts without it. At face value, though, I get the sense that a few of them (possibly all of 'em) were made by people who may once have been enthusiastic about the game, gave it a fair shot, and walked away disappointed. I don't find it pathetic to vent disappointment and frustration - it may not be smart, but, AFAIC, it's human nature. As for the lack of constructive criticism, well, what's the point if you're convinced it won't do any good? You see no-life whiners desperately seeking validation - I see people (like myself) who wanted to like the game to stay with it long-term, but couldn't, and are ticked off. There's another dimension that I've been hesitant to bring in, but this is as good a time as any. SWTOR, by its very existence, is blocking the production of any other legitimate Star Wars themed MMO. This is all we're gonna get. Naturally I don't expect SWTOR to just go away, nor do I begrudge the people who enjoy it. However, those of us who really want a Star Wars MMO, but who just aren't getting the SW vibe from this game - well, we're screwed. In a sense, a part of that "hate" that you're seeing is the frustration of consumers under a monopoly. Most of the "haters" won't realize it, nevermind say it, but that's part of the underlying psychology. They (we?) don't like what's being offered, but they know there will never be an alternative - the choice is to shut up like good little drones, or lash out when given the chance. Again, I don't see it as "pathetic" (except in terms of the overall situation), but human nature. It's the mutterings of those who have been let down, and who are convinced things won't get any better.

Where do you draw the line, though? For instance, I've warned people off of this game, usually on the basis that if they're looking for an alternative to WoW style gameplay, this ain't it. Is that criticism, or bashing? Sure, the "this game sux" posts are pretty cut and dry, but the general tolerance level IMO isn't very high. Does it also go for the, ahem, devotees of the game who think Bioware can do no wrong, and who jump all over anything that in the least way smacks of criticism of the game? I dunno about you, but I find those people rather pathetic and sad - and somewhat blindsighted to the possibilities of this game (and others). However, I'd hesitate to characterize them as "forever aloners" trying desperately to find meaning in their lives through slavish support.

Who said I didn't find it entertaining? It's a fine little break from other games - I like the graphics and all - but it doesn't take long before I get bored again, or get annoyed by what I feel are unnecessary design choices. You didn't stop there, though, did you? You went on to cast aspersions on their out-of-game lives, casting them as cartoonish rejects from mainstream humanity. That's what I find ironic - the baseless characterization of people who, in your view, make baseless characterizations about the game.

Not sure why, but this struck me as very ironic. It's one thing to bemoan the flood of haters, and it's one thing to say SWTOR deserves better - but it's another thing altogether to paint all "haters" with a broad, dismissive, and deliberately insulting brush. In doing so, you're basically engaging in exactly what you criticize. I decided some time ago that SWTOR just isn't my game (though I pop my head in from time to time when I want to play with neon glowsticks). I've ragged on the game more than once, here and elsewhere. Is it "pathetic" to do so? Eh, maybe - but it stems from 1) disappointment in the game's design and direction, and 2) the realization that, at this point, it's just not gonna change. Believe me, I'd love to tell you why I "hate" SWTOR, but for some reason I don't think it'll be well received...

The people who would agree with you are probably not the people causing issues...

If they're that dedicated, chances are they've already found new exploits. Seriously, how can you exploit a system that, say, gives everyone an equal and independent means of acquiring loot, in such a way that isn't being exploited? Hint: Saying "they'll find a way" is a cop-out. Which is why we've have these threads on a regular basis, in this and other games, for over ten years, right? You can't fix people. But, sometimes, you can fix mechanics. Not sure why you're implicitly defending the current system when it clearly rewards jerky behavior and when alternatives are clearly available.

In my experience, most jerks are lazy and opportunistic. The jerks who roll "need" on everything aren't necessarily going to try to find a replacement outlet for their jerkiness if they can no longer roll "need" on stuff.

Right, because that's worked like a charm over the past decade or so... Nope, the only games in which I don't see this issue are those games in which the need / greed system is absent - or where the game's population is so small and tightly knit that social censure actually means something (but that's bad for business). Are there more misguided nice guys than jerks out there? Sure. Are most people amenable to explanations and such? Probably. But that just suggests to me that the jerks are jerks by choice, because they can be - because the game design not only allows it but rewards them for it. And those are the people who generate complaints like the OP's. So, again, let's just remove the issue from the equation. Replace "need / greed" with something that doesn't reward greed. Will there still be jerks out there? Certainly, but you'd be surprised at how much jerkiness disappears when A) it's constrained, and B) it's no longer motivated by self-interest.

As I've said before, it would be great if everyone would just get along, but that often just doesn't happen. Ok, sure, there's a social aspect - but it's not something that anyone's going to fix, certainly not by example, and especially not with a game mechanic that outright rewards selfish behavior. If you're PUGging, and you want to ensure fairness, the only thing you can do, paradoxically, is tell everyone to need on everything. That's not being a selfish jerk, that's recognizing the game design for what it is. If you want to promote rules of fairness, that's fine - but don't expect them to be followed, and expect to lose out if you follow them yourself. If you're teaming with friends and guildies, people you have reason to trust, naturally that's a different situation - but that's not the sort of situation the OP (and others) are complaining about. Personally, I'd rather see need / greed scrapped and replaced with something more inherently fair and equitable so that the issue just isn't an issue at all. The fewer potential sources of contention you have, the more positive the gaming experience for everyone.

The need / greed system is inherently unfair. The only way to ensure fairness is to give everyone equal chance, which means everyone needing on everything. Or, of course, dropping need / greed for something more equitable. This is not a social issue. This is a mechanics issue.

The system does not work the way you think it should. That does not mean that it is not working as intended by the people who put it in place. Otherwise, I generally agree - even a "want / pass" system would be better from the players' point of view. Even then, though, people would complain about people who roll "want" on stuff they can't actually use...

It's still more than he would have had if he hadn't rolled "need." A penny here and a penny there have a way of adding up. He's got something to win, and nothing substantial to lose, if he rolls "need." Even getting kicked or /ignored doesn't matter, so long as there are people who have not yet kicked or /ignored him yet... which is pretty much as long as the game attracts new players. Yes, the world can be a wonderful place if we're all nice to each other. But that doesn't happen, does it? This thread (and all the others like it) should be evidence of that... See, the thing is, I think the system does work as intended. I believe the need / greed system persists because it effectively makes players grind for longer than they would have otherwise. That means more concurrent users, longer play times for current content, and overall more subs. Think about it. An item pops up for a roll. You* can see it, you want it, but you don't get it because someone else wins it, fairly or not. You may be disappointed this time, but now you know the item is out there and is, at least in theory, attainable. You may even get a sense of how frequently it will pop up. And here's the trick: You may imagine that the item's frequency of appearance is basically your likelihood of getting it - but that likelihood is made much, much smaller by the fact that any Joe Schmoe can roll "need" on it. You may chalk up your lost rolls to bad luck or to some jerk you'll probably never see again. So you hop back on the merry-go-round thinking that this time you stand a better chance of getting the brass ring, even though you almost certainly don't. This is exactly what the developers want (or should want, economically). You're grinding away, attributing your "misses" to bad luck or bad players instead of the system itself, all the while paying your sub and maybe buying stuff from the market. It may be cynical of me to believe that the developers realize this, and design to it - but, really, it's just a case of "follow the money." It's easy to see that if everyone just played "nice," we'd all get what we want a little faster, so we make up our own in-game courtesy and etiquette and try to live by it. Ironically, however, the need / greed system punishes the people (and only those people) who live by such social rules. * "You" as in anyone - not you specifically.

...or it's the older players who realize how the game actually works, and how little the "common morality" actually means. Actually, there are quite a few, but they involve replacing the old "need / greed" format with something that doesn't pit players against each other. E.g., independent and private rolls on loot tables; awarding each teammate a random amount of crafting mats or "loot tokens" or what have you; etc. I understand why game designers like the need / greed system (and hence why it probably won't be replaced), but it's beyond me why players have become so invested in it that they'd rather make "play nice" rules than question its existence.

The game's mechanics not only allow, but encourage, selfish behavior. Any system of courtesy or etiquette that tries to counter this fact is only so much wet tissue paper.

That's a pretty big difference, don't you think?

No rules were disregarded. Just an unenforceable etiquette that is at odds with the game mechanics.

Oops, yep, you're absolutely right. My bad. For some reason I keep reading those things upside-down. The queue bug, however, used to get me often enough to be annoying.

No it didn't. I gave up on groups in part because there was no shortage of, say, sentinels wearing smuggler gear, rolling "Need" on consular gear, and ignoring adds on the sages and scoundrels (not to pick on sentinels - I've seen similar with other classes, but, well, hey, sentinels are easy to pick on). And that was well before F2P.

That just means he put a point in Corruption. He may have been more specc'ed for DPS than for heals. Does anyone know if this bug has been fixed yet? If not, this may be what happened to the OP.