Oh believe me, i read it, and all 11 pages up to this point. The original complaint is real, no questions there. I even nodded in acceptance at first. It's the 11 pages that follow and the replies in them that make my brain numb. This isn't a conversation, it's erosion.

Uhh... ok.... is this another one of those "This is canon because i say so regardless of what you guys wrote" type of conversation again? Cause it sure as hell feels like one. I played KotOR 1 and 2 over 20 times combined with almost every single possible decision taken and ending seen, and you don't see me freaking out like that. You guys aren't fans of KotOR ... you are overzealous nutcases really.

I think we can BOTH agree that is an entirely unrealistic point to start from when creating arguments for this kind of debates. It's an enclosed circle and the sample pool is extremely small. It's like saying " a friend of a friend said that..."

Sounds elitist or not, it's the truth. Humans are known to always look up to that which they cannot achieve or do not have/own. I'm pretty sure the Aston Martin or the newest model of god knows what car would loose it's value both as an item as well as price if everyone could get it. Exclusivity has its place in our society, hate it or not it's here to stay.

The problem with what you're saying is two-fold. If prices drop too much, more people will afford them and even more items will appear on the GTN. This leads to supply being higher than demand even more so than is the case currently. The second issue is that it will break economy even further. With the limitation on credits you already see a lot of items being sold for close to nothing on the GTN.What happens when the market has several times more items on the market. 1. People will either sell the stuff at close to no money (we already hear about ppl vendoring some of the cartel stuff due to oversaturation). 2. People stop buying cartel stuff alltogether since it is no longer a worthy investment. Your idea only covers short-term investment which will likely be higher indeed. But then we run into an issue where even more stuff will pop on the CM instead of in-game in order to balance the revenue out in the long-run.

The way the current system is set up, your only target are the subscribers. Any F2P person that wants to invest any dime in this game will have to sooner or later invest in a subscription due to the credit cap.

That's a load of bull. Sure it's good for the players, but what you're saying isn't going to work like you think it would. A basic example on your costume price. If they would reduce the price to half, subscribers with a key attached can pretty much get one set per month for free. That's not more revenue income, that's lost revenue. And it would be even more revenue lost in the long run in cartel coins purchases. The price isn't EVER a problem when it comes to these kind of things. It's generally accepted that lowering prices more than a certain percent will yield revenue loss. Believe it or not , reducing prices only brings in a small number of people to pay. For the most part people that didn't pay previous to the reduction, won't pay after either. Look at some of the P2W games out there like some of the the 91 games (conquer/zero) or some of the Nexon games (like Atlantica) the prices are sky-high paying as much as 10$ for a lottery box that more often than not yields crap. You'll see the in-game market flooded with the good stuff despite all that. Sure I'd love prices to be lower, but unless there's a good reason and a good model that can effectively allow for revenue despite those losses, i don't see that happening. Obviously i don't see them going down that route, it's a model that doesn't completely fit in this environment, and i hope to god they don't come up with any stupid ideas to implement that here, but the truth is, in cash-shop games, and more so P2W games, a handful of players will bring in more revenue than the rest of the entire server. It's not unheard of in some of those games for people to spend anywhere from 250 to 500 euro's a month. That's 1 person paying the "sub" for 20-40 people. If you offer as little as 10% off an item, if it's a very demanding one (like boxes are atm for ex) you'd have to have at least 10 people buy one during that time to break even with the loss of that one person above. Obviously i can't bring in exact numbers of how many high spenders are in the game, but it's safe to say some of them are spending a lot. In general if the number of high payers is large enough you'd need anywhere from 2-10 (or more depending on how large the discount is) times more sales to break even.

Thought out post yes, intelligent quite Subjective as hell? check check and triple check. While i respect your opinion on the matter, and posting long topics is generally something i like reading, most of the things you say are just too subjective and do not take into account things like resources/resource management/profit/time investment vs return/etc. it's really a wasted effort. We all want a perfect game but it just isn't going to happen. What you could do is understand how some of the things i mentioned above impact development of a title, and what changes could go through to actually HIT Live. As long as money and profit dictate the life expectancy of a title, there will not be game that can make the majority of its player-base happy (by majority in this case i mean something like 90%, since 100% is impossible at any time) Please continue and bring forth ideas and suggestions; you never really know what may become reality. Just don't think that because you have an idea that might be accepted by your peer it automatically means you are able to design a game of this magnitude. P.S. Before anyone starts jumping the gun on me, no i do not think Bioware did a marvelous job on this game either. There are plenty of things that could have been, can be and should be done better. The game is neither great nor bad at this point, and honestly, mediocrity in the MMO market can sometimes be more harmful to a game than being outright terrible.

Never underestimate the idiocy of the human being. As smart as humans can be, they can be just as stupid, if not worse. There's 2 things to always watch out for: - people filled with ignorance. - people living with the illusion of knowledge. As long as these 2 types of people exist, anything is possible.

Quality Assurance Lead Tester. I kinda test games and stuff. I chose to play a Sith Juggernaut as my first char which is kind of weird since my first character in all previous games was always a mage/sorcerer-type caster followed by a healer. There's really only one thing that managed to trump my addiction for the caster class, and that's my addiction to blue quirky/agitated/talking back twi'leks. Yes... Vette made me do it.

Actually even wow did it, if we're going to point fingers and all that. Even to date there are a ton of servers with a total population of less than 2000 characters (yes characters, not players). It's simply not as pronounced because there are the FCM's and the PST's implemented, which are coming here as well. But then again patience is a virtue long dead. What i find truly funny though is the comment you quoted. (since i'm too lazy right now to quote 2 ppl) People complain about how Bioware did this insane mistake of opening server (which i won't deny ofc, it was a mistake) because they listened to the players. But when it's time to point the finger at the players, they brush it off and call them incompetent for listening to the players. Yet they continue to grasp for attention and "teach" them how to do their jobs right,etc. How much more room is there in this forum for hypocrisy i wonder.

If it was at 50 id' say it was both a dick move and a bad move in terms of item selection. But since this is about low level and gearing/leveling up, it really doesn't matter. Unless you're a tank specifically it doesn't matter if you wear medium or heavy. I had,when i dinged 50, 2 or 3 pieces of medium armor on my jugg and it barely made any difference. At 50 it's going to matter when you start going for heroics etc, but even then it only REALLY matters if your jugg friend is a tank. The "nice/fair" thing to do obviously would be him passing on the item for you, but it's not completely wrong if he takes it either.

For me its annoying when i want to log in from the workplace. Since the browsers at work are "safe" and all passwords and usernames are reset every day, i always end up just reading since i can't post anything. Obviously by the time i get home i forget about the topics and the replies i wanted to send out. And since it's relatively easy to misplace or break the little guy, I'd rather know it safe at home in front of the monitor. It's not a major issue, but it's still annoying.

You're comparing apples with oranges. Making a group for specific content with specific goal in mine, like achievements/mount runs/etc. is not the same as running a normal dungeon for rewards. This game doesn't reward achievements/mounts (at least currently) the same way wow does. You'll be able to choose between looking for a group or running the LFG. And since most people will rather hit a button than socialize, people will be forced into LFG regardless. You said you played wow, it should be pretty obvious to you by now. The funniest lines you said are: There is ALWAYS a choice not to use it. Nobody is making you and if you feel you have no choice, well that's your own fault and nobody else. It's entirely down to you. You have the choice. You have the option. Don't try to pass the blame or make up excuses. Don't want it? Don't use it. It is that simple. You want one system with seemingly one option to turn into a system that is...you guessed it, one sided. Oh but the new system is DEFINITELY less one-sided than it is now, since you like that option more and all.... /facepalm

First off, assumption on people's backgrounds is not a strong starting point for your argument. Your complaint about poorly organized guilds, while founded, does not help the community either.You could have started your own guild but instead chose to be passive on the issue instead of trying to help it. You say you've been searching for a proper community oriented guild for over 20 years? Well honestly, that's one of the fattest lies i've heard yet. Most guilds in older mmo's had great guilds with a strong sense of unity and fairness. The mmo community has only grown worse in the last 5-6 years. (again for most MMOs) I'm not saying there weren't many bad guilds back then, but if you weren't able to find a guild to your liking in those times, then your expectations from people are too high, and am very much inclined to mash you in with the 1% you've just been talking about. Your next paragraph pretty much confirms what i said earlier. You have high expectations of people but are not inclined to do anything about it beyond pointing the finger. I already said i agree with a LFG tool being implemented, no need to explain it all over again. The cross-server functionality however is a bad design decision. There's several points for that which have been brought up before as such there's no need to mention everything all over again. I could write a bloody essay several pages long on why that is bad, and that is not limited to the design itself but the players as well. Your P.S is what actually caught my attention and is the main reason i wanted to answer to your post. I'm not going to list a whole resume on my past and current jobs, suffice to say I've worked with people, more importantly customers, for a good 10 years now, both in the gaming industry as well as other departments, and one thing i can say for sure, is that most often than not, the customer is an idiot. I say idiot but that doesn't really fit the bill right. What any company with a shred of brain does is take ideas/input/feedback for their product and mold that product into something fitting for the customer in general without changing the product itself. Customers will almost always try to get more out of a deal than they originally bargained for, and will result to petty threats and imaginary arguments to prove their point without any bit of insight on the matter. This sadly holds true for most complainers on the forums here as well. They have no clue on the matter, they believe they know things without properly researching them, often throwing half-assed arguments and proof around with no actual value. Generally as a company, you want to listen to the feedback and weigh it in, if its valuable, without compromising it. In this case, when the developers offer a solution to a problem, people ask for more, generally things that fit their individual needs, regardless of the outcome and consequences. The cross server tool is, in most cases, a bad thing to do. The actual uses for cross server tools are limited and should stay limited. When companies start listening to their customers too much is when things turn uglier and uglier. This brings me back to my initial post about customers being stupid. They are, and if you give them something, they want more. If you give them what they want, they start abusing it and eventually complain again for something else. In the case of the cross-server LFG, as mentioned before, it means a complete destruction of any possibility at a server community. One of the reasons you can't find a fitting guild is because people lack a connection. When a server is "isolated" it creates order, it's an illusion for the most part,it's forced, but it's there. People have to behave and adhere by the rules created by each server. This forces the community of each server to keep its population in check. With a LFG tool, people become even more anonymous. They do not have to behave and their actions go unpunished. Which in turn forces people that would normally, of their own free will, behave, or contribute to the community resort to petty behavior as well in order to keep an even playing field. It's a vicious cycle that start with that single flip of a switch. Don't get me wrong, it's still going to happen,even without this tool, but it's going to happen far less. Each server is like a town/city. If there's a thief in your city, and that thief is also a resident, chances are he's going to be recognized and caught relatively fast, as well as suffer the consequences of his actions. It is also less likely to happen due to the high risk. If that thief happens to be from a completely different country, and he's just passing by your city for a short while, there's a higher chance for a theft to occur, and a higher chance for him to go uncaught and unpunished. (taking into account how the system in the MMO works) On the other hand, it offers the possibility of meeting new people from different servers. Sure that's a good thing, and sometimes, or even often, it works out well. But then you stumble over the situation where you might meet someone you get along with, but after that one night out, you won't see him ever again. There are obviously many other scenarios, but in the bigger picture of things, I've not yet been able to find enough arguments(or be given enough) to tilt the scale in favor of cross-server instead of server only. Bottom line is that, most often people will ask for things that are fun for them, individually, but not for the people around them, and cross server functionality is that kind of function. It brings chaos in an environment where already there is little order or unity, with many people that are constantly trying to disrupt that order. People have to understand that "fun" doesn't always translate to "right". This is where the difference between people that are ignorant and people that are aware is shown. In an mmo, you want to create things that are fun and fair for everyone, not just certain individuals. More so when this tool is put in place to facilitate grouping easier. I am perfectly aware that the world is not pink and fluffy, and it probably will never be, but that won't stop me from trying, in whatever way i can and is within my capabilities,instead of dismissing it and jumping on the bandwagon to Self-centeredsville.