@MaxIdaho - No, your ability to purchase creds with real currency wouldn't make you instantly better, you're right. But that isn't the issue, the issue at hand is that all the suppossed obstacles in your way are self-imposed, and inflated to such a grandiose scale that you make it seem as though it's nigh impossible to keep up with skill purchases as you level. Currency gain is exactly where it needs to be for progression; i.e. as you level, you gain enough creds to get every skill you can - including speeders and their associated skills. At end game, the ability to make creds essentially boils down to how much time you want to allocate to cred making. As stated, even a simple half hour nets you 100K. If your playtime is so limited that a half hour per week is sacred, then perhaps you need to adjust your expectations vis-a-vis gear/currency gain. That brings us to the crux of the matter, you are in full control over what you accomplish in-game whether it's cred gain, gearing, levelling, etc. The main point of any MMO, or even RPG for that matter, is that as you play you increase your toons skills, gear, cash - not that as a consequence of my subscription I gain X amount of exp per day while logged out, or that I can easily hop over to a cred farmer and pick up a few hundred thousand creds. You get what you put in, in other words. Don't expect a forum full of sympathizers when we all have the reality of real life to work around. And while there may be those players that you look down upon for their circumstance of having mroe playtime than you, realize most of us fit our game into our real lives, not the other way around. Budget your time, put in the effort with the limited time you have, and focus on the goals most pertinent to you. But don't sit here and act petulant because those of us who do the above don't agree with your need to have things given to them simply for having an account in good standing.

It does not require 6 hours of grind to farm some creds. Hell, just do 30 minutes (Ilum and BH, no Heroics) and you'll have a cool 100K. Your contention that there is a huge hurdle against those with limited playtime to acquire creds is simply false. Your contention that those who choose not to guild or group up require an outside source of creds is baffling. First, guilds do not require you to coordinate your playtime each week - save for (obviously) scheduled Ops runs. There are myriad guilds that are levelling/social/helpful guilds that merely require you to login and have fun. Insofar as someone who lacks the social wherewithal to interact enough to type out "LFG dailies," well, not to sound harsh, but perhaps in-game currency is not the greatest problem for someone quite so insular. Also, and I'm not sure how your post went off on this tangent, but the idea of continuous exp growth while logged out is just about the worst idea I've heard - and I've been on these forums since well before launch. Play should be rewarded, not merely having an account. I am not saying those with limited time are less deserving, instead that you must determine what your time is worth and what rewards you desire are worth that time. Simple. Depending on my schedule, I have varying times each week to play. I determine what I want accomplished that week, and plan accordingly. Farm BH comms high on my list? Then I focus on GFHMs, EC runs, etc. Creds a tad low? I'll run dailies till my funds are at a level I need. Regardless, as my time is valuable, I budget it accordingly.

Just to reiterate the prevailing response to the OP, tanking in this game is fine - no - it's at a really nice sweet spot that feels gratifying and fun while not being faceroll. Stuns, KBs, interrupts - those things should never be player-only. To remove those from mobs would be tantamount to removing a huge portion of fun from tanking, not to mention strategy. Yes, it is strategic for mobs to have and use those powers, just as it is strategic for us to counter them. Our job is to control the battlefield. If the mobs merely stood in place and accepted the occasional Smash, Sweeping Strike, and Taunts to maintain control then the role of tank would be watered down to the point of meh. The fact that I have to know who does what, who must be interrupted, who must be pushed/pulled where, how best to shape the battlefield to the advantage of my group - that is the essence of tanking. That is what makes tanking fun, and what most players who tank enjoy. To be sure, tanking is not a job for everyone. It is not a role I would ever force upon a guildie or random stranger because we need a role filled. It is a job that requires that you not just know what you're doing, but enjoy it - otherwise, you'll be shoving that role onto someone else and hitting up the Skill Mentor in no time. If the frustration of the role is lessening your enjoyment of the game - respec. Not everyone enjoys every role.

And this is why in Beta and the pre-launch forums we were asking for either 1) unique Legacy names and non-unique Character names, or 2) a system similar to Cryptic's which has Character@Handle. Unfortunately, some of the same people using the tired line of, "If your name is taken it's not unique, so get over it," would post as to the lack of need for that system. Seems not so silly now, eh? Either way, it not only would have allieviated the mess we have now, but further functionality could have been implemented such as Legacy/Handle-wide Ignores, Legacy/Handle-wide Friends, chat @Legacy/Handle regardless of which toon is logged in, etc. And, BTW, I pre-ordered and made darn sure to be one of the first (8th toon on Korriban on my original server) to login to my designated server when I could so I could get a couple names (one of which is rather basic, the other is one I've used in MMOs for well over a decade) for my toons. Unsuprisingly, I lost the common name in the first round of transfers to a level 1 placeholder. Now that /played seems to be a factor, someone else gets to benefit from the change in criteria and get my name from said placeholder. All in all, it's not hard to see why so many people are upset.

Simple. They announced it's on the PTS. Go to the PTS forum. Click the thread containing patch notes for 1.4. Understand those notes are for a test build and subject to change. Be happy with your newfound knowledge.

Except you fail to see the point being made repeatedly throughout the thread. As it stands unique legacy names - and yes, thay are unique, since even changing a character to an ASCII one to "fit" your name in still has the uniqueness of said ASCII character - enable you as a player to establish a reputation across your server and to keep tabs on the reputations of others. As a former denizen of Space Slug, I can tell you that there were a few people who became known for their poor behavior and subsequently earned a less than stellar reputation server-wide. Yes, they could try to be sly and hide their legacy name, but all you had to do was ask to see the legacy before you sent a ginvite and your bank was safe from the aforementioned character. This is not hard to see, and framing the argument as you do as one of pure vanity is skirting the issue. It has less to do with vanity, and more to do with the ramifications of changing a system that up till now allowed for a great method by which to establish, build upon, and monitor the reputation of toons.

Except that it isn't nearly as simple as you make it out to be. This isn't you, or anyone else for that matter, on the consumer side of things reading some posts and having a few minutes to peck out a response. While we all have the luxury of having one game, and one community team (which is quite different than a dev team) to communicate to, the community team has myriad voices all begging to be noticed, let alone responded to. I realize that the feedback in question was confined to the space of a couple of threads. That said, to expect the dev team to take time away from their duties to confer with the community team concerning every suggestion proffered and give a response such as the three-tiered one you suggest would be incredibly time-consuming and wasteful from a business perspective. Doubly so concerning the nature of the industry and how things may develop that can cause one team's priorities to shift drastically. Case in point: the devs responded to some suggestions prior to launch. One of these was the question of Guild ships and their possibility of being introduced in-game. The devs responded that 1) they liked the idea and had been talking about it themselves prior to the community suggestion, 2) it was not a priority and as such they currently had no resources alloted to it since 3) it had been relegated to the "wall of crazy" and thus was merely something they may get to at some point. The suggestion was floated, and all three of your questions concerning suggestions were answered. The payout for the dev team? Threads to this day that bemoan the "broken promise" of guild ships and other, similarly discussed but never promised suggestions. Simple truth is "imminent," "soon," and "not any time soon" are sometimes the best a dev team can muster even internally. They can relay that to the playerbase, but vagueness such as that is invariably going to get eviscerated just as easily as more detailed answers. Either way the dev team receives the exact same vitriol. In light of this, asking them to devote more time to a more detailed account of each suggestion and the Dev reaction to it is time wasted.

Damn bro, you start off with speculation, take a turn at assumptions, and end up in a back alley full of what-the-hell... You're right though, no clear communication - except for the continued reassurance that F2P will not be P2W. But you can always disregard that communication you ask for since you can't trust them... Fanciful stories, paranoia... Maybe lay off the THC, eh, Darth?

Unnecessarily vague? No. Case in point. During development, it was said that this would be a game where choices mattered. The weight of choice was something that the devs seemed genuinely proud of. Then Beta happened and scores of testers were horrified that they killed a potential companion or quest giver. The story changing weight of choice was dropped. Flash to now, where you still have scores of people complaining because they "were lied to" and had to endure the "slap in the face" of a duplicitous development team. Or perhaps the "phantom promises" that are bandided about as further proof of developer "lies." Still, I see threads where people demand the release date of guild capitol ships - a feature that was never promised. A feature that the devs themselves said they thought about releasing, thought it was fun, but relegated it to the "wall of crazy." Despite this, it is still quite the common example of suppossed lies. Speaking to us plainly and frankly merely fueled the rampant over-exaggeration that is the lifeblood of internet forums. Judging by the forum traffic since launch, I understand the vagueness. Communication may very well have gone from frequent and specific to limited and vague, but that is a by-product of the reaction it has received. TL;DR: If you feel they are talking to the forums like children, it's probably because that's how the forums act.

Again, send him a PM. You have the tools, get the knowledge first-hand. And I'm not the only one claiming it, many others have told you the same thing. Those same diehards that have followed the game during development are largely still subbed right now (I recognize a great deal of the posters from back then), and they are still part of the active Forum community. It makes complete business sense to listen to the fans who have stuck it out from development through today when installing a new species rather than fans who may have a couple months under their belts. For the record, I am one of those people that has been here since the development phase but my choice did not make it - oh well, majority rules. Also, while Cathar may not be the species you or I want the most, do not insult those who did clamor for it by assuming that anyone with an interest in them is a creepy furry. Inferences could be made about your choice of species, but we'll all assume it's because you dig that species, nothing more.

One. Good thing you understand this is all your opinion, as basic facts indicate it is wrong. Yes, opinions can be wrong. Two. Cite CelCawdro's poll all you want, but you miss the basic point that as Cathar were already added at that point it is a moot poll in relation to determining the community's desire for Cathar. Why vote for an option that is already included? You fail to grasp this simple concept. Three. To my knowledge, it was CelCawdro that did the polls prior to launch and the Forum wipe - you know the polls that indicated Cathar as a community favorite. Send him a PM, find out for yourself.

Guild capitol ships were never a promised inclusion. The most that was spoken of them was that it was something they talked about, that they thought would be fun to include, but did not. They indicated it may be something they add down the line, but it was essentially added to the "Wall of Crazy." Not saying you believe that it was a promise, BTW. Just wanting to make sure the general community understands that as this is an oft cited "broken promise" by negative posters.

The Cathar were the top species in every species poll taken prior to launch. You want a link? Since the Forums were wiped at launch, you'd be hard pressed to find one. But ask anyone who was here and they will tell you Cathar was always number one. Is it my choice? No. But it's what the community wants and clearly, according to the dev posts in the poll you so often site, BW is listening to the community when it comes to new species. The only disconnect here is your own disconnect to the facts. The caveat to that is the restrictions that BW, and I'm sure LucasArts, has in place for playable species. These restrictions were known prior to launch and have not been altered. Call the romance argument bunk all you want, but it is one of the basic tenants of selecting any new species, as is speaking basic. They have often indicated that they may relax these restrictions in the future, but for now that's what we have. So continue to rail against the inclusion of a species you don't dig. Just be aware that you are in the minority and no amount of whining will change that.

I think we have found the major source of your complaints. Your expectations and desires have merged with your recollections of what the devs "promised" you. Never was it said that guild v guild capitol ship battles were in. They said it was something they had discussed, would have liked to include, and may do so in the future. A promise, or even a confirmation of intent, it was not. Space expansions is rather nebulous. If you mean more missions, yes, those are incoming. If you mean the holy grail of the space gamers; i.e. a re-working of the system to include 3 axis control and free flight, no, it was never even intimated that that was incoming. Again, your desires have now merged with your recollections and thus have created a storm in which nothing is ever going to measure up. I won't tell you to find a game that you prefer, but may I suggest that you take whatever game you play with a grain of salt. Accept it for the fun it gives, realize it - and no game - will ever be perfect, and use it as intended - to have fun and pass some time.

No, you are suffering from entitlement. It is a feeling of entitlement that makes you believe that things you had access to during your subcription phase should be available during a free-to-play phase. Free-to-play accounts have restrictions, subcription accounts do not. Those are the two options. Nowhere on the chart deliniating the perks available to each is there a column for Free-to-play Accounts That Were Once Subcription Accounts. Entitlement is exactly what is causing you to wail and beat your chest despite the basic facts presented. You feel you are entitled to access to things that a subbed player would have. The two-tiered account structure flies in the face of your expectations, yet you still fell entitled to the perks of subscription accounts. This insistence that you have a right to things for no real reason other than "because I should" is the definition of entitled.