This isn't the only thing that's coming with the Legacy system. It just seems to be the biggest thing, on account of all the people who can't wrap their minds around the fact not everyone plays or likes things the same way as them.

Easily done. Now, since the context of this example is getting a bit lost, I'll repeat your statement: "According to Bioware's own lore in-game, the Empire forces ALL Force Sensitives (regardless of strength) to go to Korriban for training as Sith, otherwise they are executed." So, the argument is against the all-inclusive term "ALL". This is not the case, as most players who played through Hutta would know by the questline Dreams of Korriban. I was trying to avoid spoilers when I didn't name it directly and (incorrectly) assumed you would recall the details of that particular quest. Just one example of a Force sensitive that doesn't necessarily get sent to Korriban or executed. And one example is all that's necessary. If an NPC can do it, so can a PC, who is already special in this world. Another example was cited by you. It is not set in stone that the Force sensitives in Cave 52 all get executed. It depends on the player's decisions, so this is an even larger example than the mission in Hutta demonstrating that not all is black and white. Not every single Force sensitive found in the Empire is sent to Korriban or executed. If you want to argue then that the Empire tries to force all Force sensitives to train at Korriban or die, then you would be correct, according to the lore BW has created. But BW has also created lore showing that the Empire isn't always successful. Again, if NPC's can do it, so can PC's, who are more special than ugly little kids (subjective evaluation of the kid in the Hutta quest). Ah. A random guesstimation that was severely and extremely and ridiculously extreme and far-fetched. How did that elude me? Look around at all the other hyperbole. Including your guesstimation. It's much safer to read exactly what a poster types than it is to try and guess what he means, often with a high likelihood of getting it wrong. What's the flip side of that? Type exactly what you want people to read. In that case, I'm confused by your complaint. Are you complaining just to complain? That's what it looks like, now. If you protest (quite defensively, I might add; let's not make this personal, hm?) my argument against your guesstimation, then what would you rather a viewer think your point was? "Too many" Agents and BH's would be using Force abilities? That is subjective and still subject to my counter that you'd have to look at the entire population of make-believe Agents and BH's in the SWTOR universe. Let's look at what I typed. "They're not exactly all clamoring on top of this as a poor idea, either, are they?" I'm not speaking for other people with this comment. I'm making an observation that not every lore enthusiast is pointing this out as a bad idea. My observation happens to be correct. There are people in this thread who appear to be enthusiastic about SW lore and are applauding this feature. It's not a generalization because I didn't try to say that all (or even almost all) lore enthusiasts embrace this feature.

Sorry for the split quote, but you made several excellent points in need of argument. I would suggest you play an Imperial Agent or Bounty Hunter, at least to Hutta. There is an early quest there where this example is shown to be not quite so black and white as you've painted it. Universals ("all", "none", "always", "never") are bad, mmkay? They're almost never true. (See what I did there?) I would hope you meant every third "player-controlled" BH or Agent, there. Because, otherwise, I would expect you to have counted all the NPCs that are BH's or Agents. They're part of the SW population, too. And even beyond that, you would have to estimate how many BH's and Agents there are in the universe that haven't been added visibly into the world. If you're going to cry out that X percentage of the population is now unique, you'd better be including the entire population, and not just what you can see. Otherwise, I could easily say that every third SWTOR player is a whining git who can't see past his own idea of the expanded universe. But that would be unfair and unrealistic, because there are so many SWTOR players just happily playing the game without complaint. Adding to my argument above, the player-controlled Agents are special among the population of Agents. Only one out of the thousands or millions (or more! anyone know an accurate estimate how many people are in the entire SW universe? Anyone?) Imperial Agents in the SWTOR universe is played by me. That alone makes it special. How I choose to express that character's specialness then becomes my responsibility. And that leads to my biggest complaint about the biggest complaint in this thread. Blame the player, not the tools. If you're worried that Darth Jocular is now going to emote farting a flamethrower out of his dairy air, then whose fault is that? BW didn't give him that ability and say, "Lo! Once per day, you must fart epic flamey dooms!" No, that player is choosing to use a tool inappropriately. For every one of those supposed RPers I see (and, usually, subsequently ignore), I see a half dozen putting these options to excellent use. We've already seen a couple great examples in this thread. If a carpenter throws a hammer at you, blame the carpenter, not the hammer. And this is the line that prompted me to actually enter my security code. (Seriously, that has been the number one best way of keeping me from raging at jawas on these forums.) Please don't speak for all of us. I am an RP enthusiast. I support the idea of having a bigger toolkit with which to express my character. Do I need them? No, if I want my Agent to be Force sensitive, I'll emote that with or without Legacy unlocks. The Legacy unlocks just add a bit of in-game support and flavor to my story. Thus, I do not recognize this as a bad idea. I recognize that it may allow bad RPers to express their bad RP more easily, but then, they were already bad RPers, weren't they? Carpenter and hammer, man. Learn who to blame. And although I'm not a lore enthusiast, ermm... yeah. They're not exactly all clamoring on top of this as a poor idea, either, are they? Unless you only read certain posts in this thread. (Then, you're the carpenter throwing a hammer at yourself; you have only you to blame.) No, there are very intelligent and well-reasoned posts describing how this does not destroy the lore. It really doesn't seem to do much of anything to either enhance or destroy it. Stop speaking for other people.

Ah, okay. It still might have zero resistance. I referenced the actual resistance stat in one of my posts in this thread. I just didn't screenshot it. Just going by the tooltips, I'm still fairly convinced that "Resistance" isn't any kind of dodge vs tech/force attacks. All the tooltips seem to indicate, by my interpretation, that force/tech attacks automatically hit and then perform a check vs crit/shields, then do damage. I didn't know there were any classes that could get outright resistance. Perhaps it would be a good test to take such a character to the test server and hit him with force lightning before and after putting points into that stat. I'll admit my only continuing interest in this thread is knowing how much accuracy I want on my BH for bypassing enemy resistances.

Or people are testing against different enemies that have different levels of resistance vs force/tech/both. And... I don't know the mob because my highest is still only 38, but it's possible that any "test" something has zero resistance to begin with. I think testing needs to be done with both force and tech attacks, and using a range of force-based, tech-based and neutral enemies. I also haven't tried running the PTS, so this question may be ignorant, but why aren't people running these tests on the test server? There would be no real cost to respeccing or removing mods; if you run out of creds, just copy the character over again.

Nice testing. Roundabout way of doing it, but the numbers can only be interpreted one way. Tech and Force should be the same as far as mechanics go. So, as stated in the tooltip, Accuracy reduces resistance. However, it does not reduce resistance below zero, so is of less value against enemies with no/unknown resistance.

Any results? In the interest of simplicity and using static, known numbers, I still think testing this against another player is the way to go. Check the target's resistance, make sure it's zero, then compare the damage of FL before and after an accuracy boost. If there's still no change, then that suggests reducing an enemy's resistance below zero is not possible, and then, accuracy priority for primarily tech/force users would largely depend on just how much average resistance enemies have.

Oh, awesome. So then, you guys should be stoked that Kenmuir here has done some tests showing that accuracy has increased the amount of damage done to at least one mob. How about, instead of telling him his efforts at research were worthless, he saw someone volunteering to test this effect further. Like, say, against a player character with a known amount of resistance? I think that'd be way more awesome than telling him his tests were pointless because some tooltips say the same thing as he tested (which, I'm sad to say, is not universal knowledge, as proven by the "lol omg dude ur rong" posts that followed his initial post).

Well now, you might both be correct. In another tooltip which I didn't bother screenshotting, it shows "Resistance". The character I was on when I noted this had, understandably, 0% resistance. (I believe this was while hovering over Defense, by the way.) So, it's entirely reasonable to not call this effect "Armor Penetration" and simply accept what the tech/force tooltips state: that accuracy over 100% reduces the target's resistance. If resistance of zero can be reduced to negative numbers, then you start doing more damage. It amounts to the same thing as armor penetration, really. The difference would be that armor penetration traditionally would penetrate existing armor, so you'd stop doing more damage when the enemy had no more armor to penetrate. As opposed to simply reducing his resistance further into the negatives. Calling it one thing or another doesn't really matter as much as the mechanics of it. And yes, Kenmuir's tests have shown reasonable proof that the mechanics act to increase damage in the same way as armor penetration would. Edit: As an afterthought, I think it would be valuable to test on an enemy with a known "Resistance" value. Specifically, a player. It's possible that the enemy you selected did have resistance which was being reduced, Kenmuir. If that's the case, it's also possible that you didn't reduce its resistance to zero (or below), and so could not test if resistance actually can be reduced below zero.

Seriously, people? Are you trying so hard to be smart that you stubbornly refuse to check the references you're citing? Please be sure you are correct when using the words "clearly" and "explicitly". I didn't feel like wasting ten minutes trying to get a screenshot of the loading tip for people who think they know something, but can't be bothered to confirm, but I did get some screens of the tooltips you reference. They do not say what you think they say. [Ranged Accuracy] :: [Tech Accuracy] I further took a moment to understand the damage types. There are four damage types: kinetic, energy, elemental and internal. The damage type any specific attack uses is listed in the tooltip for that attack, except where an attack defers to "weapon" damage. Then, the damage type used for that attack is defined by your weapon. The tooltip for your weapon shows what kind of damage it does. All damaging attacks that I've seen are classified as ranged, tech, melee or force. I don't care enough about your understanding of this if you can't be bothered to even look at your tooltips before quoting them, so I am not going to go check my melee/force character to see if it mirrors the ranged/tech. But I'm confident it does. Damage and hit calculations thereby depend on how the ability you're using is classified. Ranged/melee attacks must make a hit roll using ranged/melee accuracy, as confirmed by the above screenshot. Tech/force attacks have an accuracy of 100%; while not explicitly stated, there is a strong implication that these attacks cannot miss (further testing would likely involve an accuracy debuff, such as PT's Oil Slick). The damage calculation then uses your tech/force accuracy to determine how much the target is affected. Screenshots for BH main and BH Powertech abilities is included for your convenience. [bH Abilities] :: [bH Powertech Abilities] Now, with that settled, I think Kenmuir is onto something. A sample size of 30 is okay -- it's not great, but it's sufficient for low level testing and forming a theory. Given how deliberate the difference between ranged/melee and tech/force calculations are handled (per the tooltips; I have no insight into the actual code), I certainly hope the devs intended for bonus accuracy to work as armor penetration in this way. If nothing else, this thread and the other one have brought the accuracy stat into a much better position in my stat preference. I was sorta just shrugging it off before because I knew most of my attacks were tech, so couldn't miss, but if a little bit of accuracy provides that much more damage, then that's that much more threat I'm building. I think I can fit it in with shield, defense and absorption rating.

Aww! Cat on lap its adorable!

Hm. That is helpful, thanks. If that's the way it goes, I shouldn't see too much problem rolling on a more distant server. I'm back at work for a few hours now, so I'll see how both are when I get back home after a few more waves.

I would post this in a technical forum, but there is none. This is definitely not a General discussion issue, as General is full of ugliness, whereas the Star Wars Community has seemed pretty awesome and helpful once away from that ugliness. So, I'm facing difficulty with server selection. One of the guilds I am interested in is on an east coast server, but here I am, enjoying the weather on the west coast. I made a character on both the east coast and an alternate west coast server just to see if there was a noticeable difference in latency and... I'm not sure. The servers are still fresh and not everyone has gotten in yet, but I'd like to not stutter myself later on. I'm getting 20 - 25 on the west coast server and 90 - 115 on the east coast. Latency is something I've never really looked at, because I've been playing games with a lower population. It just didn't affect me as much. Can anyone offer some insight on the issue of latency? Project, based on your past MMO experience? Is that 100ms server lag going to become painful later on? (For reference, I do plan on running a tank.)

Working and writing!

I conquered this issue during beta, but probably not the way you'd like it conquered. I bind those buttons to the modifiers 'ctrl' and 'shift'. If it still works how it did in beta, you'll have to go into your setpoint settings - in the very bottom tab that looks like a gear, I think. Advanced settings for program-specific settings. Assign those two buttons to whatever key or key combination you prefer. Worked like a charm in beta, so it should work now. I will (hopefully) be able to confirm that tomorrow afternoon. Setting application-specific bindings in the setpoint software actually seems more reasonable to me, considering I have those buttons normally bound to forward and back, which is probably already some obscure key combination (like alt + right arrow) universal to all internet browsers.