It is an interesting point that you raise, but it is not nearly as pressing. If by skill balance you meran class balance, then the "mirror class" system hgas already done a great deal to balance the game in PvP. We are much closer to have elimitnated the class disparity in team PvP WZs than with the disparity vis-a-vis gear. In a 1-on-1 PvP deathmatch scenario, class balance is even more important. I doubt a healer is ever going to be the winning class in a deathmatch competition, and that is "as intended." Having a system that creates an arbirtrary gear gap is not (I hope). But the healers ought to be competetive with other healers in a team sport like the WZ's such that it is, again, a conflict of player skill, not the product of gear or unbalance in the classes.

That's not accurate. I understand from your other statements that pure skill v. skill is not your goal, but let us not misstate the case to advance agendas. People do not need to be geared exactly the same for skill to be the deciding (or at least primarily deciding) factor to PvP. First, gear can have a different appearance or other aesthetci/vanity differences, so long as they do not create a statistical advantage or disadvantage. Also, to the extent that winners and losers have equal access to gear progression. Although I would be in favor of this if there were greater support for it, I do not actually advocate entirely removing statistical advancements as part of gear progression so long as, given the same time investment, winners and losers have the same access to gear progression. To preserve skill as the deciding factor in PvP, it is critically important that both the best and worst players have the same ability to progress in gear. If the winners are given a statistical advantage over the losers who have made the same time investment, then there will be no true contest of skill. "Cookie cutter" implies identical in every respect, including aethetics and other differences that do not have an actualy impact ont he otucome of the contest. I do believe that giving one side a statistical advantage over the other removes skill as the deciding factor, yes. That is just unavoidable. However, it is not necessary for players to be identical clones to have a pure skill v. skill competition. Translated: you do not want skill to be the deciding factor. Fine, that is certainly a different perspective from mine, but it is a valid one. I did account for this in my post that you quoted, however. To the extent that you do not wish skill to be the deciding factor, our goals for PvP, and our enjoyment thereof, are simply based on entirely different and irreconcileable factors. I want skill to decide, and you are fine with gear deciding it or a combination of skill and gear. Again - different and incompatible goals. There are always variables, and there are always problems, but what is your point? I agree that no system is perfect, but that doesn't mean we stop working to improve it. So...I don't get what you are trying to accomplish by pointing out that there will always be variables. There will always be starving children in the world, but I still believe we should all donate what we can to feed as many as possible. By your logic, I should just stop. But isn't it better if we can feed even one hungry child? Progress towards an unattainable goal (if indeed it is unattainable) is not inherently worthless. We probably cannot fully eliminate these variables, but that doesn't mean we should arbitrarily introduce yet another variable by way of a "gear gap." That variable can be eliminated. Again, I cannot feed every starving child, but if I can feed one that is good, positive progress. Also, some of these variables have improved already with time. As the devs have alluded to previously, they have a team working ahrd to ensure good performance on lower-end-of-the-spectrum machines. The closer they get us to a true competition of skill, the happier I (and I presume many others) will be with PvP. I am happy for you, but there is a difference in handicapping the loser versus the winner. When the loser is handicapped moving forward, the result of subsequent competition is meaningless. If you handicap the victor, however, and the victor still wins, then this is a testatment to the victor's skill. Logically, winning with an advantage is hardly winning. Winning despite a disadvantage is possibly the greatest display of skill. I like the idea that winners could be (optionally) rewarded with a visible handicap (that they can enable/disable). Maybe it says -EXP###. Can you imagine the bragging rights: "Player <Name> -EXP### is unbeatable!" That would be a pretty sweet message to see in a WZ.... unless you are the guy who just got pwn'd by that player.

To test one's skill against other players - at least this is the reason I want to play pvp. It's not about getting rewarded with gears or buffs, but I want to: (1) Test myself against human opponents; (2) Brag about my victories; and (3) Learn from my defeats. Rewards are nice in the form of trophies, recognition, etc. However, any reward that places me at an advantage or a disadvantage over other players lessens my appreciation for PvP. I want an equal, level playing field that allows for a true test of skill. Any variable that UN-levels the playing field, whether in my favor or against me, takes away from my enjoyment of PvP because it impacts my goal: testing my SKILL against other players. To the extent some people only want PvP to be a gear/credit/reward-progression system, I understand their goals for PvP are simply irreconcileable with my own. However, I just don't understand the "logic" of players who claim to want PvP to be a skill-driven competition but then clamor for any reward that alters, even slightly, the balance of the competition. Such is an internally inconsistent position. People argue otherwise, but there is no logic to this position. Even miniscule advantages given to winners or to losers diminishes, to some degree, whether the outcome of PvP encounters are solely based upon skill.

This one doesn't, lol. It makes it easier for those who are good at PvP by rewarding them with gear that further handicaps those who are already weak. I don't see why BW wants to reward the Mike Tysons of PvP with any more advantage over the Steven Urkel's of the world than they already have. Just me, but I don't want an edge over anyone I already have an easy time defeating...

I stopped short of going that far, actually, although that does actually have some logic to support it. My friend Rob used to be a lot better @ Halo 3 than me - a LOT better. The game had a handicapp system. I forget the exact details, but he'd essentially get nerfed when he took the lead. It was fun b/c I had a snowball's chance fo ebating him, but when he beat me it was: (1) undeniable bragging rights for him; and (2) hilarious even to me. Point is, he was so good that he could take a huge handicap and still win sometimes - and he enjoyed the challenge more than just steamrolling me all the time. Also, because everyone knew he was playing at a disadvantage, his superior Halo abilities were a known quantity to all involved either as players or spectators (yes he would do this even with 3+ other players involved). I am not saying we need to do this in SWTOR. I know some people would scream at the thought of having to play at a handicap. BUT, denying the clearly superior players further advantage via gear is only fair. Concerning gear I am only recommending equal acccess to winners and losers, given time invested, to accumulate it. That way, casual players know that eventually they will catch up if they persist. Gear should only be denied to those who are AFKers, who do not contribute meaningfully to objectives, etc. Just because I have put the possibility of a very visible debuff out there as a sort of badge for the super hardcores to wear when pwning us lesser nerds, do not think that I am recommending this be mandatory. It should be mandatory that they not get any kind of buff tho, that weaker players are denied. Simple logic.

Agreed there - the old system isn't the answer. It was better than the present system at incentivizing losers to keep playing, though. I wouldn't go so far as to say it made everyone feel like a winner, but I agree with you that winning doesn't mean jack when there are no losers. When everyone is special, no one is special. However, that is an extreme position to take here. I don't want everyone to be rewarded equally. I just don't want the rewards to handicap the losers by giving the leaders rewards that unnecessarily give them any advantage over weaker players. It is possible to have rewards that do affect how level the playing field is. Priority one is having a system that keeps both the winners and the losers playing. Otherwise, pretty soon you won't have anyone to pwn. That doesn't mean that there won't be losers. There will always be winners and losers, and I do not support a system that encourages mediocrity and eliminates competition. Quite the contrary: I want to see increased competition through a system that keeps everyone equally competetive in terms of stats, gear, etc. The only deciding factor in a true competition is SKILL. It must be a test of SKILL, not of who has the best gear, credits, or whatever - but who has the best SKILL. That means who is using tactics, who is using the environment, who has the best rotation, who is playing real chess in the warzones. Not who had time to grind all the necessary commendations. Simple suggestion(s): -Everyone has equal access to gear progression for legitimate participation/effort (being the first and second defender, healing, tanking, DPSing at objectives, capping,, etc) in pursuing objectives that benefits the team with diminishing returns for repeated dueling especially (and for being the 3rd and 4th and sucessive defenders - we don't need 6 peeps on 1 node in Alderaan folks). -Rewards for winners in the way of trophies, valor, exclusive unlocks for shells without buffs, and other sorts of prestige items that do not give the winner an advantage. Heck, I think it would be cool to have leaderboards that give special achievements/prestige to HC players that win with crappier gear (i.e., they go dominate in recruit armor on purpose). -Credits for all participants with a credit bonus to the victors, -Special speeder skins available only to those with a certain win/loss ratio. -Optional win/loss ratio display for nameplates. -More options for sharing bragging rights. -Literal trophies that are unique items passed around and displayed as an icon over the character's nameplate, armor, speeder, etc. -For the truly AWESOME players, a debuff (counter-intuitive but think about it - Halo had an option to do this and it was fun - the more you get ahead, the more you get handicapped, the bigger the bragging rights). Honestly, I think we are looking at rewards backwards. If Michael Jordan beats me in basketball, he doesn't get anyything. But when he beats other NBA players, he gets items named after him l;ike a line of Nike Air Jordans. Also, when he plays a guy like me, he has to play at a handicap, but that is just a testament to his awesome skill. That last bit I like: if a player wins to a certain measurable, astronomical degree, then that player gets to have stuff in game named after him (like renaming Carrick Station or something). That would be awesome.

Granted - many people lose b/c they suck. I can agree with you there. However, 2 points: (1) If they suck that badly, then you shouldn't need an edge in gear to beat them; and (2) Regardless, there are good players who lose because of the gear differential in that they have RL obligations and cannot invest the time required to get better gear, especially under this system with the crap/no rewards for losing. You say it isn't the reason people USUALLY lose, and even then "at least not entirely," meaning that even you admit gear is or at least can be a contributing factor. So, why can we not have rewards for winners that do not affect how level the field of play is? I cannot believe how many weenies we have here who are so senstive about losing any edge when you are absolutely right: many players who lose will lose, regardless. So, if they will lose regardless, then why give the winner any edge? I for one do not mind losing on a level playing field. I do mind losing when the playing field is not equal, whether that contributes in whole or in part.

In some respects I agree with you. It really depends on the specific "rewards" doled out. I think it is patently absurd to place the best players at an advantage over the worst players. Again, no one wants to see a paraplegic play 18 holes with Tiger Woods - except maybe a sadist. PvP should be a competition - not class warfare. P That said - legitimate victory and talent deserve recognition and reward! I don't think the reward should be of a character that places the better players at an additional advantage over weaker players, but a reward is called for: cooler looking gear, credit bonuses, valor spikes, unlocks for exclusive puchases that don't provide stat buffs, etc. No one should want to see Michael Jordan get a 20-point headstart in a basketball game against a blind midget, but MJ deserves a recognition for his skill and achievements. On the other hand, if all Michael ever did was win games in which he had been given an advance advantage, then there would be no need to recognize him - he didn't accomplish anything. When you shoot an unarmed man, you have not proven that you are stronger than he is. Similarly, when a player decked out in War Hero armor kills someone wearing recruit armor, he doesn't deserve anything. When someone wearing recruit armor beats someone wearing War Hero, however, that is a different story. The bottom line: only in a level playing field does skill decide the contest. Don't be too quick to clamor for an edge in PvP or you will rob yourself of any real/meaningful victory. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be handing out trophies to the winners, though.

No need to apologize - it's cool. I just hope you understand that, under the current system, at least on my server, stupid tactics are not required to get a crappry reward or no reward. It isn't, in my case, a question of stupidly attacking points solo all the time. I am a sentinel, and so I rarely try to cap all on my lonesome versus four players. I am not the best player on SEK, but I am far from the worst, and I do at least attempt to play for the team and use tactics to the best of my ability. Despite putting forth a genuine effort, I found that I largely was wasting my time last night in WZ's save for the one (1) my team actually won... So while you are right that people shouldn't be rewarded for the sorts of patently stupid behavior you describe, which does not, benefit their team, that is not really the issue here (hence my use of the term "straw man"). Skilled players making genuine and thoughtful efforts to win are getting more or less screwed.

This is the problem: it seems like the PTS isn't a good predictor of what will happen on my server, Saber of Exar Kun. Maybe this system works on hihg-pop servers, I don't know but I have seen many worlds on that server with single-digit populations. This includes high-level worlds. I can tell you that WZ's on SEK are not working. I played a few WZ's last night, and my team did win 1. However, we lost the majority. We did get some small reward, but it was small and no credits. That means, for every WZ I lose, I am lsoing money versus had I been PvEing. Surely that is not working as intended?

That's because you are right - it's not that complicated. Not every problem with this game needs to be observed and analyzed for a series of months before the problem can be identified and fixed. You outlined the options perfectly, and additional "monitoring" is not going to change them. The solution you recommend is, as you stated, the only option immediately available to effect a cure for the problem described. To those asking Gabe to come and answer instead of DE - I sure hope that Gabe is busy working on this. Besides, DE speaks for BW. Though I didn't really agree what I read in his post, I so appreciate the effort he made in communicating with us about what is going on. Holy cow throw them a bone. You can disagree without picking up pitchforks. Our BEST hope for a fix to be incoming soon is that Gabe is hard at work right now - too much so to post here.

Thanks buddy. And I also agree with you re server transfers. Then again, what sane person doesn't? Anyone? Who here is AGAINST them? I am by all rights a BW fanboy. I play most of their games, but these sorts of "duh" moments are killing me. DE's post implies that further investigation is needed. I appreciate the "look before you leap" philosophy, but this is a bit excessive. Also, I hate boilerplate responses, platitudes, and being patronized. Don't mistake me, either, all the devs seems like nice, wello-meaning guys. I certainly don't want to get personal or antagonistic, but sooo much fail here and yet we are monitoring still. I feel like they're getting personal and antagonistic (or at least demeaning) with us (the player community) sometimes in saying they will monitor a situation soooo many of us have reported. Fix: don't monitor. Monitor before you release. Some matters do not require further investigation. Seriously, play a republic toon in WZ's during prime time on my server - Saber of Exar Kun. Investigation over. Also, wouldn't the proper time for this watching and observing be BEFORE the patch goes live? I wish they had pushed 1.2 back and tested it more. Did no one in the PTS mention this?

I am not in the OP's position. However, if I were, then I too would be extremely pissed. I am posting this to voice my support. In many respects, SWTOR is one of the coolest games ever imagined, but the problem is that for all that imagination this fantastic game regularly falls apart over the most common sense problems. At some point, we need the devs to get their heads out of the clouds where they have been dreaming up (admittedly) wonderful ideas for new content, and we need them to come back to reality and work the kinks out of the content that we already have. Problems like this plague the game, and I for one am irritated every time I hear talk of new ideas and new content when the existing content lacks the polish I have come to expect from other BW games. Don't mistake me - I love BW. Their games are never less than inspired. They are master storytellers with a knack for creating that immersive, cinematic experience. The voiceacting in this game is great. But compare SWTOR to a car: if your car has amazing bells and whistles but the ciritcal systems keep failing (transmission, engine, brakes, etc.), then how enjoyable are the bells and whistles? SWTOR is a great game that has enough imagination to last us for a while if the devs decide to really focus on eliminating bug and annoyances like the one OP described here. With the last patch, I can finally abandon grey quests that I no longer wanted to complete. Why did that widely reported bugtake sooooo many months to resolve? Because BW was focused on giving me a family tree that, while cool, would have been far more enjoyable if I wasn't so pissed off about not being able to abandon quests. Getting a founder's title is cool. Getting a founder's title on the day of the ilum debacle's climax rubbed me the wrong way. When the problems with the initial 1.2 release were prevalent, they announced a Darth Maglus collectible contest that would have been far more enjoyable if I wasn't having to deal with everything else going on at that time. So I like my legacy/family tree. I would appreciate it more if I hadn't had to wait for that stupid tree to be able to abandon quests. I would appreciate it a LOT more if the tree worked. Why am I limited on the number of rivals that I can have? It doesn't make sense. Bugs have to be fixed first before new content. Even when they don't directly affect me, they afect my friends and fellow gamers, which in turn affects my ability to find groups. Please, please, please - refocus and retool. Make the game work first, and we will be far more grateful as a community for new content and contests.

I understand that you think that "giving up" is the worst possible route to rewards, but it really isn't. You can say that is true, but I have played some WZ's post 1.2 that I wish I had given up on - even when you try hard and lose, you don't get enough to be worth the time. I like to play PvP even when I lose, but I do not like to play PvP at all when I am at a disadvantage to the opposition. I admit I am not good enough to play with a handicap. Sue me. I prefer to stick it out in WZ matches, but this is a game, and it is one I am paying to play. If I am not enjoying the game, if it is one-sided (for whatever reason), and if I am risking zero reward for playing through to completion (including zero credits), then I will either quit and re-queue or quit and PvE for a while. That should be my right: freedom to choose what I play in the game and when and with who. I make no apologies for this. No one should be penalzed for quiting when they are not enjoying a game they are paying to play. The answer/solution is not to disincentivize quitting but to incentivize staying. I don't need to win to enjoy myself. Losing can be fun too when there is not a huge dispartiy building between the winners and the losers. The knowledge that the winners are going to be outpacing me in gear progression just ruins it for me. PvP should be about skill and the fun of fighting other players first - not about gear progression. Gear can be a fun reward for participation, but when only the winners are able to gear up with any degree of speed, the losers are ensured that they will continue to lose. Worse still, the competition ceases to be about skill and gear becomes the focus. Gear progression is great, but it should not be the reward for winning. It should be something all players get as they play. The reward for winning should be obvious to anyone: winning is its own reward - bragging rights, etc. Valor SHOULD be a way of charting your status of a winner (the ilum debacle a while back has left me skeptical that valor means anything, really). Beating other players is fun, but conversely I don't enjoy winning over others simply b/c I have better gear (not that this is often an issue for me in the 50 bracket). If I win, then I want to win b/c I am better - not because I am better geared - but because I performed better. I don't mind losing to someone, on the flip side, who performed better than I did. I do mind losing to someone primarily bc his gear was sweeter. This is all quite obvious to me. I should think that, if you really are watching the game and forums this closely, then you would see this too. People who take the position that gear should be awarded only to the winners are clearly defending their advantage - they do not trust their skill alone to maintain their status as "winners." You can side with them if you like, but it isn't the perspective of a true competitor to seek the "upper hand" in this fashion. Fixing this should be a relatively simple matter, assuming you agreed with the foregoing. As there has been no fix, I presume that you disagree with what I have written above. For the life of me, I cannot understand why. I am sure others will flame me to explain it. That does sound like a good idea. To some degree, I like that rewards are based on team efforts rather than constant dueling (at least until we get a good deathmatch WZ - something many people want). However, some players may make a legitimate effort but come up short for whatever reason. I don't think it is wise, generally speaking, to make life harder for the players with the least amount of skill, which is what happens when you penalize (by failing to reward) players who make a legitimate effort to cap points and get trophies but fail to do so due to lack of skill. The bottom line: no competition should be about giving the best players and advantage over the worst players. There is a reason that, in sports, the best players play at a handicap (not the worst). We want good, fun competition don't we? Why should we focus on making the best players better? Why would they want that?

The "founder" title was a better distraction from the Ilum debacle than this Malgus contest is from the 1.2 debacle. At least the title was free and everyone got it (for whatever that is worth). So this time the attempt at distraction/placation excludes players outside the US and requires them to pay shipping and/or taxes to claim it? Brilliant. Lol.

I know - I liked the idea. Mini-games don't have to be "epic" to be fun. Pazaak was relatively simple. I think the one cool thing they could do with ship droids would be to do a mini-game or have them be like Pazaak Dealers on the ship or something. As for shutting them up - I actually like that they are so overwhelmingly annpying that I am looking for the off switch. Makes me feel like Han Solo in Ep. 5 when Leia shuts C3PO up and Han is all like, "Thank you!"

Fix faction/population imbalance so that we can have quick access to republic versus sith PvP. Republics fighting Republics especially feels silly. We're not sith, you why are we in-fighting again? I like things to make sense in the context of the SW universe, including PvP.

This I absolutely agree with. To the extent that certain content has only one difficulty setting, that difficulty setting should not be designed to exclude casual players or even the less talented players making a genuine, good faith effort. With content where difficulty can be adjusted, however, I do not mind it being so challenging that only talented/geared players can overcome it. I still don't think casual = lack of talent (I don't believe anyone here is saying that, though), and I don't like the idea of any content being designed such that casual players are excluded unless there is absolutely no way around that outcome. However, if the difficulty cannot be adjusted on a given world boss or any content, then that boss/content should not locked into a difficulty level that excludes some talented players but not others. That would be the obvious solution, I agree. I agree, if there is to be only one difficulty available for any boss/content, then it should still be challenging along the parameters you outlined. If that is not challenging enough for some, then the solution I'd recommend is a higher difficulty setting. I still think excluding casual-but-talented-players by design should be a last resort when there is no other way to increase the challenge. If that is the case, then I wouldn't want to deny anyone additional challenge.

And, to be fair, the same is true for me only some of the time. I have been able to attend several guild-sponsored raids. Many of my guildies are far less time-restricted than I, and they do a great job of being supportive of the more casual players in the guild like me. So, never doing high level content is not the boat that I am in. Although doing a nightmare is not presently possible for me, I do want to know that when I progress that far, and when I have paid my dues to gear up, that I won't be excluded simply because I am limited to which 3-4 hour period of time is available and cannot find a group, hence my past reliance on PUGs. You may be right. While I am not prepared to presume that this is impossible, as you do, I am prepared to accept the possibility that it might be impossible to ratchet up the difficulty in a way that does not negatively impact casual players who have the skills, gear, and ability to genuinely contribute to high-level raids (presuming they can get grouped for it). As you say, it may be impossible. On the other hand, again, BW has already done things with this game that I had long since written off as being "impossible." One example: story. In every other MMO I have played, the story felt bland an unimmersive. SWTOR has actually engaged me with its story. Had you asked me if that was possible before launch, I'd have probanly said, "I hope they can do it, but it's really impossible." /Shrug. I would tend to agree that it is a "good value" under the circumstances you have outlined. However, I am not threatening to unsub - just suggesting increased challenge without completely removing accessability to PUGS and casual but talented players may not be an impossible goal to shoot for here. Maybe I am wrong/overyl optimistic. That does seem to be the consensus, lol. Just quoted this part because it was really funny.

Whatever else I might agree/disagree with you on Draxxen, this I agree with 100%. Despite my concerns for accessibility to casual but dedicated players (with unavoidable RL obligations), I love this game and am really excited about 1.2. In some sense, being a casual player and, by necessity, progressing at a slower pace, has kept me from running out of content and things to do, so I do not intend to come off as a QQer. Despite some frustrations with bugs/glitches in game recently and the resulting customer service (or lack thereof), I think the Devs rock and am a huge fan of BW games, generally, but especially TOR specifically. The guild summit, the PTS notes and posts, and the devtracker comments have left me generally feeling very optimistic about 1.2 and the game as a whole. So I hope that you are right about this and that more folks will come back to my server after 1.2 hits. There was a time that finding a competent PUG was relatively easy on my server, I can remember finding some quality players in gen chat for group content and having a lot fo success, but that's not been the case for some time now. Whether PUGS can do a nightmare mode or not is irrelevant if there are not enough players on my server at the same time to form a PUG for the attempt. Still, this isa great game - don't mistake my posts as dissatisfaction, etc.

Maybe - and maybe not. I am not certain what is within the realm of possibility and/or practicality for the devs. Based upon the limited information to which I have access, it seems that they have done a lot with this game that folks would have previously thought impossible in an MMO (e.g., the voice acting). SWTOR has attracted a lot of players that would not ordinarily have signed on to play an MMO, and this is in part because BW has added that 4th dimension of story to the MMO genre in a way that I, frankly, had given up on seeing in an MMO long ago. That example may seem off-topic, but compared to what BW has already accomplished in this game, making a nightmare mode more challenging without reducing the accessibility of it to casual (time-limited not lazy) players would seem an easy task by comparison. So, while I understand what you are saying, I think you lack sufficient information to be so completely certain that it is impossible for BW to satisfy hardcore players at the nightmare level without alienating casual players who are willing to work hard with the time they have to commit. You could be right, but then you could be wrong too. Until someone from BW admits this alleged impossibility, I will err on the side of assuming that it is not impossible to increase the difficulty/challenge for all players (atisfying the hardcore gamers) without rendering it inaccessible to casual gamers. I agree with the spirit of what you are saying here: I never wanted it to be easy or anything other than extremely challenging. My goal is not to see nightmare mode become easy mode. My only concern is that the difficulty/challenge be ratcheted up in a way that does not render it impossible for casual (not lazy or unskilled) players to make a legitimate attempt with some chance at victory. Sure - I agree, victory should not be attainable every time, and I know that not all PUGs are created equal. If you have a noob in your PUG who mouse clicks through every fight, then you should lose. But I have also been in some PUGs that were immediately cohesive with good strategy and tactics. So, when you ask for this to be something impossible for any PUG to complete, that concerns me. I do want nightmares to live up to the name, however, so don't misunderstand what I am saying. Which is, generally speaking, unfortunate. Some players will not have progressed to the point necessary to make the attempt, and that is one thing. But for those casual gamers geared up and sufficiently talented to contribute, I just don't like the inference you are making that they should be excluded by design. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Agreed - it should be harder, more challenging, and an epic-feeling victory afterward. I don't think nightmare mode should be = to hard mode or normal, etc. No one would argue that, I hope. You are entitled to your opinion, and I don't entirely disagree with it really. My only concern was the implication that you wanted the devs to increase the difficutly in a way intentioned/designed to exclude PUGs. There is more than one method for increasing the difficulty/challenge of any encounter in the game. Some are, presumably, more likely to preclude PUGs than others. Keep in mind that not all casual gamers are casual by choice, and some of them would be a very good addition to any raid but have to rely on PUGs mroe than hardcore gamers online 24/7. Presuming they are geared up and competent to make the attempt, I just don't feel they should be intentionally excluded by design. That isn't to say I want it to be so easy that anyone and everyone can make the attempt. People read "casual" and think "crappy" sometimes, but that is not always the case.

I appreciate that perspective, but I don't agree with it - obviously for subjective reasons. I do agree with you that the nightmare mode should be quite challenging - don't mistake me being a "casual" gamer for being a "lazy" gamer. I want it to be accessible - not easy. To me, that means make it more challenging in a way that does not exclude casual gamers. I want to be able to progress and do nightmare modes just like any hardcore player, and I am fine with the fact that this will inevitably take longer for me to get to this point as a casual player (by the way, I am not a casual player by choice but by RL necessity). There are ways for nightmares to be very challenging without excluding casual (not read "sucky") gamers. Just because I cannot always do group content with my guild, does not mean that I don't want to experience it. Making group content inaccessible to PUGs really alienates those of us who have to sometimes rely on them due to RL constraints. Of course, sometimes it is very hard to find a PUG for anything on my server (Saber of Exar Kun), which seems to have a low population. So, until server merges or group-finding ability corrects this, as a casual gamer I am sort of screwed anyway when I miss a guild-sponsored event. I know some servers are fine, and I am not one of those who says the game is dead because of this, but a lot of my feedback on accessibility to casual gamers comes from a low-populations erver perspective. I have played prime time on some of the higher level worlds that had only like 8 people on them. So, take that for what it is worth.

I think it is more tacky than fashionable for folks to make accusations about nerfs or anything that later prove false. However, I do also find that sometimes I experience bugs or glitches in the game that other players may or may not experience. Subjectively, it sometimes seems like a nerf has occured from the limited, subjective experience of one player. Objectively, that may not be the case. In such cases, however, it is difficult to find a forum to ask the question politely. Of all the service tickets I have submitted concerning issues in this game, I have never received a live chat session or telephone call from support, and the emails/in-game messages are almost always of a boilerplate, routine nature that provide no greater insight. The option remaining is to come here and post. I try to be polite about it most of the time, although sometimes in the past I admit frustration has gotten the better of me in the forums. I am sorry for that. However, I have never been successful in having a productive conversation or dialogue with anyone from BW/EA about multiple bugs, glitches, and other issues affecting my game play experience. The guild summit and Georg's explanatory posts in the devtracker have kept me playing and subbed due to the wealth of information provided about future fixes. That doesn't completely ameliorate my frustration with several issues I have subjectively experienced in this game to which I have no means of communicating my questions directly with anyone who has the answers. I try to shy away from crying nerf, and often patches have fixed them I admit. However, in the moment, it can be quite frustrating for what that is worth.

whoops double post.

I do agree - the devs were not being rude by voicing their approval of this well-written post. However, I am concerned at any implication that the devs may assign higher value to feedback that is well-written versus the poorly written, sometimes vague, and often rude feedback they get in these forums. Understandably, it is hard to take away anything constructive from those posters who essentially are communicating "BW - you suck." I wouldn't be eager to respond to that either. However, the complainers sometimes have valid points muddled in with their insults and gripes. Legitimate complaints and concerns about the game in these forums are often presented in an immature and emotional fashion, but that does not meant the frustration expressed is illegitimate. Some people are just better at communicating/writing than others. So, while I also applaud the OP and his guild for making intelligent feedback, I hope that there will be some counter-perspectives posted here that get equal attention. Unfortunately, it is probably too much to hope that any counter-perspectives wll be as well-written as the first. I am not able to play on the PTS, as I wanted to stay with my guild. However, I am eagerly reading feedback here on 1.2. From my limited perspective, the review of this operation, while constructive, does not represent my interests. I am a casual player with a lot of real life obligations that limit my ability to grind gear and play for hours on end as I would like. Despite this, I love operations and group content. I want to be able to enjoy operations adn flashpoints as much as the hardcore players do, but I just don't have the time to invest. This review makes me concerned. The feedback was all to the tune of: "make it more challenging for PUGs so that only pre-mades can enjoy this content." I don't want easy, necessarily, but I do want a challenge that is accessible to me and to other casual players who cannot always be there at guild events and rely on PUGs for group content. TL;DR 1. Well-written, constructive feedback is great, is not necessarily representive of all players. 2. As a casual player with RL obligations, I don't feel the feedback represented my interests, and I want PUGs to be a viable option for group content. 3. As a casual player, I want the game's group content to be more accessible to me generally, and this feedback, while well-written, concerns me. Thanks.