Frankly, if anything, the introduction of gear checks in the LFG Tool will only inspire these people to whine about how it's useless because it's set too low, when the reality is that they need overgeared players to faceroll content because the idea of risking (gasp!) wiping is too much for them to bear.

Yes, of course, I want to be carried through content, that's why I'm talking about doing Molten Core with a bunch of just-dinged level 60s, wiping right, left and centre, yet still having a fun time, and talking about having the chance of doing challenging content, even if it just ends up with a wipefest. That was sarcasm, by the way. I really thought what I was driving at came through loud and clear in the very post you quoted, but obviously heavy implication isn't enough for some people. If someone does not want me there, because they do not want to risk the merest possibility of a wipe and they think my gear level gives that chance, they may feel free to boot me or drop group. Doing this solves what you seem to think are serious problems, which, in fact, are simply not for this very reason.

You do have a choice. I've not used the LFG tool yet, so I don't know if there's some kind of votekick mechanic. If there is, you can use that. If there isn't, you can drop group yourself.

So the wants of 'some people', which, by the sounds of it, includes you, should be forced on everyone? If I join a group, and the group, as a whole, thinks I'm undergeared and kicks me, that's one thing. If a feature is implemented that means I can't even join in the first place, even though some, like me, like the challenge and adversity of trying more difficult content that, by design, is considered above my gear level, even if that risks (gasp!) wiping a few times, that's quite another.

Or, you know, realise that SWTOR is a frigging GAME. So, if you go in with gear that means you wipe a few times, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't actually matter. At all. Hell, some of the most fun and memorable times I had in WoW is when me and a bunch of just dinged 60 (this was vanilla) players trying out Molten Core. Not knowing a damn thing about the instance, plus being in greens/blues, meant we were getting our arses kicked every which way possible. But we found it fun, mostly because of the hilarity of it, and, when we went back with better gear, some of what we learned whilst getting our arses kicked actually turned out to be useful.

I seem to remember saying this before, but, in my opinion, the problem with SWTOR space combat isn't that it's 'bad', per se - it's actually a nice, fun little minigame. The problem is, it shouldn't be just a nice, fun little minigame. Space, and space combat, are some of the most pivotal and epic parts of Star Wars canon, so to reduce that to simply a little minigame doesn't do it justice. Speaking personally, I only bother with it if I'm killing time waiting on companions coming back from missions.

Hmm. If they were to include 'Luke Skywalker's speeder', this would throw lore out the window in a manner that has not been done thus far, as that wouldn't exist for about another 3500 years in the timeline of the universe. However, this is EA we're talking about here, so I could well see them chasing money by shoehorning that in as extra content you have to pay for, lore be damned.

Fair enough Except that it can have something to do with what's reported as 'subscription numbers', in much the same way that (assuming that EA isn't just blatantly lying) trials failing to convert to subscriptions can cause reports of 'falling subscriptions', even though those trials aren't, technically speaking, 'subscriptions'. So he was correct to mention it as one of the variables that could have an impact and you have to be smart about when talking to the press. The problem is that you seem to be, at the very least, strongly implying, if not saying outright, that Mr. Lusinchi is being less than honest and/or employing spin in this interview. My reading of it is that he simply isn't. He's being perfectly straight-up and honest in saying that there's many variables about subscriber numbers and how, exactly you measure them. You, yourself, even list some of those variables, as I'll point out below. Here's the variables I was talking about above. If you're running an MMOG, do you base your subscription numbers as 'subscriptions that have been active in the last thirty days', or do you use 'subscriptions that have been active in the last two weeks' or do you use 'subscriptions that have been active in the last two months'? Do you use something else entirely? Whichever you choose, it is going to affect the figure you get. EDIT:And I should also point out that some people could consider an 'active' as simply 'there is paid-for time left on that account'. Others would consider 'active' as 'someone has logged in within the time period in question'. But we're running into these variables again. Suppose someone has an account with playtime left on it, but has decided not to play any more. Is that an 'active subscription'? Some would say 'yes', some would say 'no' - and any reported figure for subscription numbers would change according to whether people like this were included or not. Plus, of course, you're forgetting about people on trials and such-like - you are perfectly able to play the game with them, but it is debatable whether these should be counted as 'active subscriptions'. Oh, and, just to be clear, I'm using 'subscription numbers' as a fairly general term to mean 'whatever criteria is being used to report the current number of players in the game'. No, I'm not taking this as hostile at all, and I hope you're not taking my comments as hostile, but it just seems to me that, generally speaking, in this thread, Mr. Lusinchi is being variously accused of employing 'spin', lying or simply being stupid for making what seems to be an accurate and honest statement, and I am honestly baffled as to why.

Sorry, my reading of it is that, as part of a longer interview, he got asked a question about the reported drop in subscriber numbers (which EA put down to trial users failing to subscribe, not actually a drop in subscribers, so that alone would seem to suggest that what's considered 'subscriber numbers' is actually not as straightforward as you seem to think), and he briefly talked about how there's many different variables involved in what's considered 'subscriber numbers', and that how 'you should be smart about which one you use when you talk to the press', before saying that he's 'not the best person to talk about subscriber numbers' and that 'even if I knew them I couldn’t talk to you about them because it would be impacting on stock price and all that stuff. And I don’t actually get raw numbers every day anyway' before moving on to make the point that he does get other data that is more interesting to him in his professional capacity. So, frankly, it seems that I'm actually seeing what's going on clearer because I'm taking the time to get the complete picture, not merely focusing on what that article says, or that one small quote, as you seem to be doing.

So, which do you use? All this guy is saying is the figure will change according to that, and similar decisions. Which it does.

Iron_Lord, you're missing the point. You've given valid arguments as to how each of those should or should not be counted. Others could have valid arguments for deciding differently. The figures change according to what criteria you use. Therefore, you have to decide what criteria you tell the computer to use before you run the program that spits out the figure.

Why are people finding this statement weird or funny? It's quite accurate. For example, someone buys the retail box, installs it, very quickly finds it's simply not for them, and goes off to play something else - but they still have 30 days of free time ticking away that they're not using. Should that person be counted? Someone invites a friend to the 7 day trial. Should the friend be counted? What about if the friend has decided to subscribe, but is still on the trial? Someone buys a retail box, but never installs it. Should they be counted? Someone is paying using game cards. Their subscription runs out because they forgot to get another one, so there is a few days where their account is frozen, even though they fully intend to continue playing. Should they be counted? All of those things, and numerous others, can affect what your 'active account' number is, which is basically what the guy from Bioware was saying. Yes, people have given examples of valid criteria to use, but nobody has shown how this guy is wrong.

Whilst I agree that Bioware have made mistakes that have left quite a number of servers pretty dead, posts like this do nothing. I recently rerolled on Tomb of Freedon Nadd. In case you're unaware, this is the most heavily populated European server. If I wanted to, by logging on at particular times, I could take screenshots that show only a handful of people in fleet. I could even compile screenshots that show the same happening at what appear to be peak times. However, this fails to change the fact that Freedon Nadd usually has 150 people or more in fleet at peak times (at least, on the imp side, don't know about rep side), and I've seen it break 300 on more than one occasion. Instead of posting a single screenshot entirely out of context, which does nothing except show you know how to take screenshots, do things like post what makes you think server populations are dropping and/or what you think is causing it. What would be even better if you posted ideas as to how Bioware could fix the problem.

I can actually see both sides of this. On the one hand, I think that Bioware, due to never having done an MMO before, allowed the initial rush of players to fool them into opening more servers than is needed. Now that the initial rush is well and truly over, this has meant that many servers are half-empty, even though the playerbase, in total, is still pretty respectable. What they need to do is admit that this was an error, and then do something about it by getting rid of some of the now unneeded servers through server merges and closures. However, on the other hand, the problem Bioware face is that some folk see any sign of server merges or closures as a sign that an MMO is dying, so, if they did actually do this, they might be hit with a flurry of headlines in the gaming press/blogs/whatever about 'the early death of SW:TOR'.

Actually, even the precision jumping isn't what annoys me about them - it's that, sometimes, what appears to be a jump you should be able to make isn't, making even this more about luck than skill. For example, I tried to get one on Nar Shadaa on my Bounty Hunter. Firstly, I ran into what seems to be a collision box set too big on the rope supporting a canvas awning I needed to go across, which partially blocked what appeared to be an empty space I should have been able to jump through. When I managed to jump in just the right spot to get past this invisible obstacle, I ran into a second problem where my character, instead of jumping on a railing, actually fell past it, and got trapped between the railing and the pipe next to it, unable to move, and using /stuck placed me back before the entire long sequence of jumps you need to go through to get to the datacron. After I successfully passed the first problem three times out of about 50 tries in total, only to run into the second problem on all three occasions, I gave up.