Jump to content

YakJedi

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

Everything posted by YakJedi

  1. It would be nice to be able to give a key for a personal stronghold to everyone in the guild all at once, or better yet, a key to the guild in general (so that when players leave or join a guild they automatically loose or gain access - that might be a little too much coding for such a small thing though). For those of us who don't mind sharing our strongholds with our friends, but don't really want any joe schmoe to be allowed in.
  2. Bumping this thread because I agree. It would be nice to have a deco of some kind that you can "dress up" like in the outfitter. Like a mannequin or just a repulsor stand (i.e. invisible mannequin) that the owner can interact with to display your outfits. And a similar thing for weapons.
  3. Bump since I'm still experiencing the disappearing taxi and stuck-in-combat dummy bugs. Any updates?
  4. Same issue here. Frequent server drops and then the server list is empty until I completely restart the game. I have NOT used the laucher repair tool. Launcher log: Client log: Using Norton360 for AV and firewall. I do not use steam.
  5. So, this is just a small matter, but it's been bugging me for ages. In NPC conversations, the player companions' appearance does not match what shows elsewhere. Specifically, if you have their armor dyed, that is not reflected any more - their equip goes back to the default color scheme. Additionally, in NPC conversations, they are automatically shown wearing their helmet, even if the 'hide head slot' option is enabled on that comp. When you are speaking with the comp in their companion mission dialogue, their headgear is removed, so it's obviously possible to take that into account, or to just have their headgear removed in /all/ conversations. This is especially annoying for those of us who like to coordinate our comp's gear (especailly the Trooper - a unit should all be outfitted in similar colors). Maybe this could be added to the next minor update after 3.0 is released? ;-)
  6. There are upsides and down sides to this. First the cons, which is most likely what the dev team has already decided: 1. There are already 3rd party applications that can do this, therefore this would be a low priority request which amounts to a convenience feature. 2. Implementing this would require development and coding time that could be better spent elsewhere. 2a. Any such implementation would not be as robust as existing 3rd party applications, unless even more time and effort was spent on development. 3. Such a feature would require even more bandwidth and server power, either as a dedicated server separate from the game servers themselves, or as additional load on existing servers. However,here's the pros (or rather, the arguments for): 1. Other popular mmo games have successfully implemented this feature. 2. The added convenience may attract more players to subscribe, if it becomes an sub-only or preferred-only feature (i'd go for the former). More subs=more money=feature pays for itself (eventually). Actually, that's all I have on the pro side. Basically, while a welcome addition by many players, this amounts to a convenience feature which is already covered. I doubt Bioware would be willing to spend the $ in both dev cost and equipment/infrastructure requirements. That said, I would be VERY pleased if Bioware proves me wrong on this one.
  7. True enough, although in this case 2x20% does not equate to 40%, otherwise all we'd ever have to do is RE 5 of something to get a new schematic. However, I was referring to items like armor and weapons for which a critical crafting results in an [Augmented] item, rather than 2 of the same thing.
  8. So, who thinks that reverse engineering of an augmented item you crafted (i.e. the original crafting was a critical success) should have a higher chance of reverse engineering? I'm thinking an additional 5% for a 25% chance total. Comments? Especially from the devs?
  9. I just want to put in my 2 credits worth on this topic: First of all, I think joystick support should definitely be added for the GS minigame. It is, as others have pointed out, a flighter combat sim, and that just screams flight stick/yoke. On the other hand, that's a personal choice on my part, so said support should definitely NOT replace the standard kbd/mouse ui. Again, as others have pointed out, TOR is primarily a MMO, and should be treated as such. So, imho, just add enough joystick support so that the joystick axial controls are supported, and let those users who prefer to use their joystick map the rest of the controls as they wish.
  10. I had kind of the same idea, but more general. For example, have a "group only" class of space missions where each group member takes a specific "station" on the ship, e.g. pilot, gunner, engineer (special systems control), and rear gunner. I realize this would require a significant amount of programming for a single aspect of the game, but perhaps it could be included in a Space-mission update, where the focus of the patch is adventuring with significant space flight/combat.
×
×
  • Create New...