Then those "I play what I find fun" hybrid players without the slightest concern about maximizing the output of their character (DPS, healing, or mitigation/threat) should be self-aware enough to know that they should not ask to be part of hard mode or nightmare mode group content. Outside of story modes, where almost nothing matters as a couple of superior players can carry an entire team on their backs, group content is balanced by the developers to require above average player output. A player who voluntarily ties both hands behind their back by playing their pet hybrid spec should realize that they are only qualified to run faceroll-easy content.

My favourite "breaking" of Council was in a SM/8 run. I went in with a guild of fully 186 geared nightmare progression players (they wanted Conquest points). They had one tank, one healer and six DPS in the group. Bestia, Tyrans and Raptus were all pushed back up to their thrones within a handful of seconds of them coming down. We killed Styrak and Brontes so quickly that we had to sit around and wait for the other four Dread Masters to return. We then proceeded to push Bestia and a second Dread Master to 0% before the 20 second channel was completed and only took two Dread Masters into the burn phase.

During Thursday's Advanced Class LiveStream, David Damaree provided specific PvE DPS target levels that the Developers are aiming for with the 3.0 balance pass. Below is the transcript. ____________________ (50:09) David: Lightning is also considered a “burst” Discipline; basically they deal burst damage rather than sustained damage. So their actual damage output is suppose to be lower than Madness, but right now--I think it is lower than Madness right now--but they’re still not down to our target yet. We’re constantly working on… Eric: Yeah, one of the questions that someone asked along those lines is, “is everything that they’re seeing completely set in stone or are things still changing?” David: So no; definitely not completely set in stone yet. Eric: I don’t think there is such a thing as “set in stone” when it comes to the Class balancing but... David: For instance, today we just added the slow in on Lightning Bolt today. So it’s very much—everything is still in development. [Omitted unrelated discussions] (1:36:51) Eric: Someone had asked because—there were concerns about Deception’s sustained DPS in PvE situations, because they are very—obviously Deception is known for being burst monsters. Someone just asked generally how their—PvE DPS is holding up—“sustained rotationally.” David: So—it’s pretty good considering you’re “burst.” I—I don’t know the last numbers—Rob’s tweaked it last, but—I had them down to about 4,100 in 198s, maybe around 4,150, or something. I think [Deception Assassins] are higher than that after Rob’s touches. [Deception] might be going 4,200, or something, and our target is 4,125 for the spec in 198 gear. Players pull a lot more out than that because they optimize their gear and other various things. And [Deception Assassins] will do good damage—[Deception Assassins] will be doing better damage than [they were] on Live. So if you’re worried, like, “on Live I never felt like I could raid with [my Deception Assassin],” well, I think you’ll probably feel like you can in some fights, for sure now, because [the spec is] doing pretty good as far as sustained damage is concerned. ____________________ Therefore, the following conclusions can be drawn regarding expected PvE DPS levels in 3.0: 4,125 DPS is the Developer's current target level for Deception Assassin's sustained DPS in non-optimized 198 gear. 4,125 DPS is likely close to the target level for all other "burst" specs in the game, in non-optimized 198 gear, to maintain general Class balance. The Developers intend for Madness Sorcerers to have a higher sustained DPS output than Lightning Sorcerers, the burst spec. The Developers DPS target level for "sustained" specs is higher than 4,125 DPS for players in non-optimized 198 gear. These DPS target levels are lower than what the Developers expect players to actually be able to achieve as, "players pull a lot more out than that because they optimize their gear and other various things.”

lol - now I have to know; what's the topping!? Just put it in your native language or describe it and we'll get it figured out.

Since you seem to be so gung-ho regarding 100% effective non-voluntary buyer protection, your idea needs to be expanded. You haven't protected the F2P player with only 50,000 credits who's purchasing materials for 1,000 credits and then mistakenly buys some materials for 10,000 credits. Therfore you should advocate expanding your system to include the following mandatory steps. Everytime a player clicks the Buy button a window appears with the total price and the player has to click a Confirm button. A second window then appears with a blank space where the player has to enter the exact total purchase price, from memory, to dismiss the window. A third window then appears with the total purchase price listed and the player needs to enter the total purchase price, in words, to dismiss the window. A fourth window then appears and the player needs to enter the mathematical formula that would result in a unit price that matches their purchase's unit price to dismiss the window. A fifth window then appears and the game verbally announces both the total and unit price to the player as well as a secret password phrase that the player needs to type in to dismiss the window. Once the five windows have been dismissed, the player's purchase is completed. Or we could just go with a voluntary version of Step 1, which is already in the game, and be done with it.

With Supercharged Celerity being added to the game as a 10 second group-wide 10% alacrity buff, that would require that everyone's internal cooldowns and Globals speed-up on the fly so that the exact same rotations are maintained, just faster, which is how the effect of alacrity has been described by the Developers. Proc timing changing on the fly is also likely a reason why the Developers adding the "proc highlight" feature to quickbars in 3.0, so that player's are aware of real-time faster procs.

The answer to your question will depend on how the Developers choose to trigger the start of the main 3.0 story line. Ship Terminal As was previously mentioned, for 2.0 Level 55 players could just walk up to their ship terminal and click on it to start 2.0. The problem some players ran into though was the fact that your ship terminal was also what lead you through your Class story line. If a Level 55 player had not finished their Class story and they saw the mission symbol over their ship terminal, some of them assumed it had something to do with their Class mission and clicked on it. The opening dialogue lines for 2.0 was full of huge Class mission spoilers, so that became a problem. The Developers could follow the same mechanic for 3.0, but I doubt they will because of the spoiler problem. Also, if they reused your ship terminal to start 3.0, any new Level 55 character would be gated from starting 3.0 until they had completed all 2.0 missions involving their ship terminal. I don't know if that's what the Developers intend. New Terminal or Seed Mission NPC The Developers could just put a brand new terminal on player's ships, or a new NPC with the 3.0 seed mission on Fleet. This would permit players to start 3.0 immediately and would separate the content from any other requirements apart from whatever is needed to have the new terminal or NPC activate (e.g. being Level 55.) This would be a bit awkward for characters that have just hit Level 55. There are many seed mission NPCs and mission terminals that change their content once the player reaches this older cap level. Having them mistakenly walk up to the wrong NPC on Fleet and start 3.0 cutscenes when they may not have even traveled to their ship yet to see that 2.0 missions are available would be awkward to work around. Sequential Seed Mission NPC The entire Forged Alliances storyline is delivered by one seed mission NPC on Fleet. Manaan cannot be triggered until the first two FPs are completed. Legacy of the Rakata only triggers once Manaan is completed. There are many mandatory sequential storylines in the game (e.g. your entire Class storyline must be completed sequentially). Travelling to Corellia before a player has completed their Hoth Class story will only result in Corellia's side missions being available. With Forged Alliances being designed as the prelude to 3.0, I would not be surprised if the Developers made it a requirement for players to complete it before "3.0 proper" can be started. Those four FPs are integral to the entire 3.0 storyline as they introduce important NPCs and provide your character's motivations. Sure players can travel to the new planets in their ships, but I would expect that they would only see side missions. Also, with the introduction of solo versions of the four Forged Alliances storylines, players will have the option to complete the prelude as a solo adventure, just like many other mandatory sequential stories in the game. Therefore, I expect that the Forged Alliances seed mission NPC will have a new mission added to its sequence, thereby requiring players to complete the prelude before the main missions on Rishi or Yavin 4 activate.

The Developers have never once even mentioned companions in any of their discussion regarding 3.0. Therefore I expect zero changes to them in any respect.

LOL - I was thinking of Council SM/16 when all you need to clear it is 1 knowledgeable tank, 1 person who can kite Raptus for a few brief moments, 1 off-tank who can get smacked by Calphayus for a couple minutes and 1 knowledgeable DPS. You mark the 1 DPS who knows what they're doing with Star and instruct everyone else to "kill what Star is killing and stand where they stand." Fight cleared.

Oh man, you've opened a can of worms. LOL I'll direct everyone to this 220 response thread on the topic of "I would rather have a better geared player in the run and needing for their alt."

Are you forgetting Maul?!

Well, the biggest problem with an "adaptable set-bonus" mechanic is that SWTOR is a traditional gear-grind MMO when it reaches its end-game. As with all MMOs, the central purpose is to have players spending as much time as possible in front of their screens and engaged with the game. Permitting players to spend half the time in the end-game (i.e. pick-up one of each set bonus token) if they are interested in playing two roles on one character is counter-productive to this goal. It's the same reason that the stats on certain end-game pieces of token gear are terrible (looking at you, tank alacrity). "Forcing" players to win a few of the same optimal tokens in order to min/max all their mods and enhancements, in combination with weekly operation lockouts, helps to lengthen the end-game process. Obviously the Developers should work as hard as possible to make the various grinds as entertaining and engaging as possible, but the grinds will always be there.

Yes, the OP's second paragraph exactly describes all the current small bugs and nuances of the current GTN system once a player hits "search." Having the default consistently be "unit price ascending" would save everyone a lot of additional clicks when shopping.

I agree, if the Developers truly wanted to have the maximum number of solo players getting into operations they would not allow a preexisting operation group to join the Group Finder queue (i.e. exactly like the current restriction on queueing for regular warzones.) The maximum size of a preexisting group for Group Finder would therefore be four players. I would guess that such a system would cause significant problems. For example, you have one or two players disconnect or otherwise leave your Group Finder team halfway through an operation. If preexisting operation groups were restricted from using Group Finder, I would imagine that requeuing the group via Group Finder to find replacements wouldn't be allowed. The programming for solving that problem may or may not be easy, I don't know. As to the rest of your post regarding the fact that 16-man premades are finding each other via Fleet chat and then using Group Finder, all I can say is "perfect!" It 100% matters. With 16-man groups, ten DPS and four healers are able to get into a run as soon as two tanks are located. That is six more DPS and two more healers that are able to get into a run as compared to an 8-man group. That is exactly what 16-man Group Finder is meant to incentivize with its Ultimate Commendation rewards and instant transportation perk. The very fact that someone would be looking for additional PUGs on Fleet to fill out their pre-made 16-man group is fantastic. That gives all those solo players, and as you yourself said "first timers," out there access to operation runs. 16-man Group Finder is doing precisely what it is intended to do--provide individual players with an increased level of access to group content. P.S. The word you're looking for isn't "prevent," it's "disincentive." There's a significant difference.

Updated: November 10, 2014 @ 15:30 EST

Updated: November 10, 2014 @ 15:15 EST

Tait, I think it's specifically the use of the word "cap" that is leading to so many additional player questions. A slight rewording of the patch note would clarify the design change. You have also used sub-bullet points in patch notes before (e.g. for Warzone Conquest Objectives in the notes for Patch 2.10), and I think you could use them here again. "• The following restrictions occur when the Pending Mission Reward queue contains three or more Missions: Players are no longer able to accept Shared Missions. Players can no longer queue for Group Finder when they or one of their party members has three or more Pending Mission Rewards."

I find myself generally unable to predict what will become the forum's topic de jour. Several weeks ago I thought it would be a discussion of the potential change coming to the rate at which players would earn commendations in 3.0 after Eric said in a Community Team's LiveStream (1:38:00), "I do know that there is going to be, probably, some slight changes in how fast you earn [ultimate and Elite commendations] in the expansion, but I think we'll probably talk more about that maybe in the general combat stuff next week, or we'll have more details in the future once that's more nailed down." I pointed out the quote a couple of times in related threads but I didn't receive a single response. I thought for sure that it would be an important topic for players considering the intensity of the debate around 8-man Group Finder going away and how that would impact on player's ability to earn commendations.

PvE end-game content burnout + Wildstar Almost all members have now either joined other guilds if they were still interested in SWTOR, or they simply do not log in any longer.

I believe you're referring to a specific attack from one of the three-legged droids. It is a casted attack called "Atomic Tear" from the Macro-Nanite Suppressor add. It can be interrupted to prevent all damage. There is an example of it at 1:48 in this . The droid is on the far right. It is a ranged attack that hits the player targeted and then explodes with an AoE effect.

The Developers have already provided you with three tools: A search feature that allows you to specify the maximum price you are willing to pay. The ability to sort listings by unit price from smallest to largest. The option to have to double-confirm any purchase. So, are you currently making consistent use of all three of these tools and are still making purchase mistakes? If so, you're now asking for a fourth tool to be added so that you can use all four of them to protect yourself?

The best answer to you question, OP, is that there is no "one best DPS class for PvE." It is the player's skill that matters. I am in a nightmare progression guild and also run with members of other nightmare progression guilds on The Shadowlands. I have seen gigantic PvE boss-fight numbers from every advanced class. Sorcerers Powertechs Operatives Assassins Mercenaries Juggernauts Marauders Snipers The only thing in common was that these advanced classes were being run by some of the best players in the game. 90% of the DPS number that gets put up on the board is because the player is in the best spec for the fight at hand and is beyond excellent at playing that spec. The remaining 10% of the DPS number comes from the DPS ceiling of the advanced class that they're playing. Perhaps Advanced Class A puts up slightly lower top-end numbers than Advanced Class B, however, if you are capable of playing your chosen advanced class as well as the nightmare level players I have run with, you will be so far beyond what you think is possible that it won't matter what advanced class you have selected at all. Play the advanced class that interests you most and that you will enjoy--then play it to perfection.

I just wanted to add in a few cautionary words before people start to try to interpret the quarterly report’s wording at indicating a financial amount. First, my background; I am a Certified Professional Accountant (CPA) in both Canada and New York State. I have worked for years as the auditor of the financial statements of many U.S. public companies, including those in the Fortune 50. I am intimately familiar with the exact process that goes on behind the scenes as the auditors to ensure that every piece of information, both numerical and descriptive, that is included in an SEC filing such as EA’s quarterly financial statements (Form 10-Q) is not materially misstated (yes, that is actually different than “accurate” but that is a technically accounting point that does not need discussion here.) Here is one paragraph from the quarterly report where SWTOR is specified which I will use as an example. “Net Revenue For the three months ended September 30, 2014, net revenue was $990 million and increased $295 million, or 42 percent, as compared to the three months ended September 30, 2013. This increase was driven by a $476 million increase in revenue primarily from the FIFA and Battlefield franchises, and Titanfall. This increase was partially offset by a $181 million decrease in revenue primarily from the SimCity, Crysis and Dead Space franchises, and Star Wars: The Old Republic.” The key points to note are the following: These quarterly financial statements are unaudited. While that means that the statements did not undergo specific audit procedures, it does not mean that they are somehow automatically unreliable. EA’s auditors have at least performed a review of the information contained within the 10-Q. The statements simply weren’t subjected to the level of detailed procedures that constitute an audit. This is really just a technical accounting point, but I feel that it has to be stated. The $181 million offset to net revenue is a total decrease which four games contributed to, including SWTOR. The decrease in net revenue of SWTOR had to be, in laymen’s terms, “large enough to deserve to be included in the list of four games contributing to the offset to net revenue.” “Large enough” completely depends on what EA’s Management determined to be significant and EA’s auditor agreed is “material” to the readers of these quarterly financial statements. There is no way for us, as outsiders to that process, to specifically determine what this threshold “large enough” number is. Educated guesses can be made based on how audits and reviews of public companies of this size are performed, but they are still just guesses. The decrease in net revenue of SWTOR is not, in laymen’s terms, “small enough as to be so insignificant that a reader of these statements wouldn’t care if it wasn't mentioned at all.” SWTOR is listed last in the non-alphabetized list of four games. This is a very strong indicator that of the four games that contributed to the $181 million offset to net revenue, SWTOR was the smallest contributor to that amount. So, what are we left with? Not much in terms of a specific number for SWTOR, but we can draw the following conclusion. The decrease in SWTOR’s net revenue for the three months ended September 30, 2014 is large enough that it would matter to a reader of these financial statements if it was not mentioned at all as being a contributing factor to the offset to net revenue, $181 million of which resulting from four games where SWTOR was likely the smallest contributor. Apologies for the dry accounting discussion. Here’s a link to a thread filled with more emotional fireworks for your reading pleasure.

That is an excellent point. Interestingly, entire segments of the real life (i.e. involving actual money) legal system are structured around the concept of "caveat emptor," or "let the buyer beware," the prime example being contract law involving the sale of real property (e.g. real estate). Now there's a segment of transactions involving actual millions of dollars, and the legal system is built around the concept that the onus is on the buyer.

"We must always consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill—the eyes of all people are upon us." - John F. Kennedy, 1961, quoting John Winthrop quoting the Bible. Whoops, politics and religion in one post? That is so against ToS.