I've skipped some of the blander world quests (you know the ones I'm talking about) when it's apparent there's no "meat" to it aside from a disguised fetch/bounty quest. I've also skipped quests that I've already done. However, I generally enjoy the dialogue and will sometimes re-watch a cutscene if it's enjoyable enough or I'm in the right mood.

That would be why I see the rage as misplaced. While there are legitimate gripes people have, putting it in this thread in the vain hope that developers will respond NOW because it was a thread started by a yellow poster seems silly to me. Sure, be disappointed with the lack of a response to certain things. But to attack so vigorously something that has nothing to do with the thread doesn't really help.

I mean it's not really that big of a deal. It's some silly vanity thing they added. A lot of the rage in this thread seems misplaced.

As is the case with many things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It's not perfect but it's not a complete failure either. While there are bugs, they are not impossible to fix and most of them do not really interfere with basic play. I mean, I like this game (even with a level 50 character!) but I want them to fix these problems, and it seems like the only way they get to them in a timely manner is if there is a lot of attention drawn to the problems. As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. No need to hate on people who bring up these problems. It's probably less than helpful when people act internet-aggressive over the issues, but the same could be said about people who complain about those complaining.

Red herring. Yes, he didn't go about it the best way. However, every single thread that involves a criticism with the game gets immediately swarmed by people either saying it isn't a problem for them, or that they aren't experiencing it, or that Bioware purposely designed it that way, or that the OP must be bad at video games, and so on and so forth. While he might have been able to present his statement in a better way, that doesn't diminish the fact that his post has merit and then people came in to tell him why he's wrong because god forbid that Bioware didn't do something 100% right. I like this game, but this sort of attitude that seems to define so many posters is just irritating.

This is a pretty big screw up, in spite of your dismissive reply. It's not the sort of thing you sit on for a few weeks and then fix. You may not like that people are responding to this, but it's apparently important that they do come out in droves - people were apparently aware of this on the test server, so it would seem that unless many people do make a stink nothing changes. It doesn't make it a terrible game, it doesn't make the people posting about it "haters." If people really like this game, they should welcome any criticism it receives with thoughts of how to fix it. Being dismissive is part of the problem here.

So let me get this straight. Bioware has problems with their PvP at this point. Your solution is to scrap the entirety of PvP. Either you're not being serious or you're one of the last people I'd like to see in charge of anything.

If you think that constitutes "work" then I question the difficulty of your job. It's really not that hard.

"Instantly matched" always leads to a problem. EDIT: Actually, I'd be fine with this for everything but level 50 content. I just always think about this in that context.

And if Bioware pushed it out and more bugs arose from it the narrative here would be "GG Bioware maybe you should take some time to make sure your game works!??!?!?"

I hope they come up with this stuff soon. The UI is a chore to deal with. Someone will quote me or someone like me and say that makes them/me bad. I won't go back to WoW if I quit this game, I'll probably go back to Skyrim.

Fighting people in a central location -> more medals -> my name is higher on the list -> I'm winning Am I doing it right?

That would make taking the ball absolutely terrible

I like Huttball more than the other warzones, but I dislike having to play it the vast majority of the time. Even though I think Alderaan is the weakest warzone they came out with, I'm happier to get it nowadays because it's something different.

Best advice in the thread, too bad I didn't take it

I really don't know how to tackle this, so I'll just post what first comes to mind. Nonsense.

Hierarchy exists in group settings more often than not and is often a guarantor of stability not a threat to it. Saying it's a group and there are therefore no leaders is so beyond the pale silly and I don't know what else to say.

They aren't playing against the design of the game. The game is designed so that you can skip cutscenes specifically because they realized the dialogue in BT is only a treat the first few times, after which it becomes predictable and stale. They knew this was coming and created systems that allowed for people to avoid it. I mean, this seems to be the sort of thing that really bothers you severely. If you really cared that much asking a group leader each time if you could watch the dialogue would not be trouble. However, either you believe in most cases you would be told no, or this is all a red herring and you don't want people to be removed for causing the group to hit enrage/dying in fire/whatever. Could leaders also state this to increase communication? Of course. But it isn't necessary, all it takes is a line of text asking a simple Yes/No question.

This has nothing to do with me. I don't care if someone absolutely insists on watching the dialogue. I have yet to kick anyone from a group, period, for any reason. I just think that it's disgusting that people like you are trying to keep others from playing how they prefer/force them to play with people they'd rather not. You'd think if this was a conflict each "side" could choose to play with people who they agree with, but no. It's your way or the highway.

It's not their job to make sure you know what you're getting into. Maybe instead of expecting others to post this you should ask the group leader if it's OK before offering to join the group.

So, the person on the other end of the keyboard only matters if they choose to play the same way you do. When they do not there need to be game systems in place that force them to play the way you want. I'm not the one going on the game forums with a problem. I think the current system is fine. It's other people asking for the game to force others to play the way they prefer. But see, you've got this image in your head of the "right" way to play and everyone else should play that way. If someone wants to ignore the cutscene and another person wants to watch it again there's a conflict. The conflict is settled by the group leader. If you want to watch the cutscene, make sure the group leader is fine with it or make your own group.

Of course it is. Who would argue with that? No, my experience in this game and others is that it's more common that a person gets removed for their attitude or performance and is replaced with a guild mate. The group finishes without a problem and the person who was kicked is pissed. The instances of people just being unmitigated jerks are so incredibly rare, cases where there are different sides of the story are much, much more common.

Death penalties in this game are fine.

And if someone wants to make a group where they kick people for not skipping the dialogue because they've done this multiple times then damn it that's their prerogative. Don't you understand? That's right, there are other people on the end of the keyboard and they don't exist solely to ferry you through content. Their wishes are of equal value to yours, and in the case where they have formed the group their wishes are of greater value. If everyone disagrees with the group leader then surprise, you can go make a new group consisting of the three people who used to be in the other group. Your last line is useless and adds nothing.

This is the fix if the person was actually being a jerk, though I suspect in many cases that isn't true.