You do not have to prove anything, but if you cannot back up your morals with a reasoned argument, then you cannot expect anyone else to give them any credence. I have not accused you of this. You have stated your objection to SGRAs inclusion in the game in this and earlier threads. While you have not directly called for development to be pulled, I am assuming from your moral stance, that had you heard that BW was going to develop SGRA before they actually started on it, then you might be calling for the development to not go ahead. I apologise if this assumption is wrong. I fully support your right to speak your mind. I hope you support my right to do so in turn. You can believe whatever you like and I reserve the right to think whatever I like about your opinions. If you publicly state that you believe that homosexuality is wrong, then you are actually verbally attacking homosexual people. You cannot then complain when gay people and those who support gay rights tell you exactly what they think of your opinions. This argument has been done to death. There is no obligation on anyone to tolerate Intolerance. You can believe whatever you want and you have the right to express it. You do not have the right to expect anyone to like or tolerate your beliefs, just your right to hold them.

Just wanted to say that I love this outfit. When I was lucky enough to get the top and pants in the half dozen packs I bought, it actually made me roll a new alt, just so I could use them. I don't get the sexual content and Disney problem though. Having somebody running around with a bare midriff is hardly "sexual" content. It's a little bit sexy, admittedly, but hardly rating busting. Besides, doesn't Princess Ariel spend half the movie wearing nothing but a bikini top in Disney's "The Little Mermaid"?

Except it is going to happen. I've been following the development of an upcoming MMO which IS planning on catering to the solo player. To paraphrase one of their development blogs, they are working on the basis their research which suggests that around 20% of players do endgame raiding, 20% are there mainly for the pvp and the other 60% of MMO players predominantly play solo. The reason why these 60% are casual gamers who tend to flit from game to game is that, so far, no MMO has specifically tried to cater for them. This new MMO (which I would name on another company's forum, out of courtesy) is doing two things which really appeal to me as one of the 60%. Firstly, it is saying that the 'story' of the game will be played out through solo content only. It annoys me that BW say that SWTOR is all about story, then place that story in a place that so few players are interested in going. Secondly, they are aiming for endgame to consist of a healthy mix of pvp, raids and solo questing. Specifically, they are aiming to regularly pump out new solo endgame content. Bravo, I say. This may be the first MMO to hold on to the casual solo player long term. SWTOR certainly won't hold on to me if this other MMO manages to pull off what it is promising.

Yet the minute your moral stance impacts on other people, the burden of proof shifts to you. It's simply not good enough to say "I believe this is immoral" if you expect other people to change their behaviour based solely on what YOU believe. Can you provide evidence of why it's immoral? I doubt it. Claiming that your god has decreed it simply shifts the burden of proof further. If you want me to listen to what your god says, then you'd better be able to provide proof of his existence. Good luck with that. It's called the ontological argument and the finest minds in western philosophy has failed to convincingly tackle it, despite over a thousand years of attempts. If you claim that your holy book says so, then you are begging for it to be assessed as a moral authority on anything. Is this the same book which advocates slavery and human sacrifice? There is not a single argument you could make which would make me accept the Bible as a basis for a sound morality for a modern post enlightenment society. Even if we all accept that you do have a good reason for thinking homosexuality is morally wrong, then I would ask what else you find morally wrong and if you have a problem with them being in the game. Murder? Torture? Theft? Adultery? All of these things are in the game. Why are you not asking for a toggle for all of these things? What makes touching another man so utterly abhorrent to you that you are happy to play a game in which players can murder people, but you draw the line at flirting with another man. Do you genuinely believe that touching another man's winky is more morally objectionable than mass murder? Sounds like a pretty messed up kind of morality to me. In the end, all argument against SGRAs simply come down to "I don't like it". Well, so what? I don't like doing ops, but I'm not asking for them to be removed or for a toggle so that the quests leading to them be removed so I don't have to see them. I just don't do them.

No. It's not acceptable, for the reasons explained so eloquently in the post immediately above yours.

Yeah, great. See what you did there. Now go away and think about the massive hole in your logic.

As a customer or Star Wars: The Old republic, I do not approve of forum posters who think because they don't want something, then nobody should have it ... loving the new reputation though.

Saying 'x' is evil is not the same as saying 'y' is evil. Kittens are evil. Murderers are evil. See ... it's not the same. I am not saying I necessarily agree with saying 'religion is evil' but I have heard several well thought out and rational arguments as so the negative effect of religion on society. I have never heard any rational argument about SGRA doing anyone any harm at all. I could go into more detail, but I suspect I'm already risking another 3 permanent infraction points posting this much.

The people who say stuff like this are often the kind who cannot tell the difference between a whine and constructive criticism. I would like to offer BW this piece of constructive criticism; there are players, like me, who do not and cannot play at weekends. If they had taken all those double xp days and stuck them all into one big double xp week, I would have been delighted. As it is, I'm "pfft, so what?" I know I'm probably in the minority and there will be idiots out there who see this as just a moan. I don't intend it to be. It's just a point which I would like BW to take into consideration the next time they design a special event.

You could do what I do and not play the game at weekends. Meh. Are we ever going to have double xp Mondays or any other day?

Except that it will impact everyone's gameplay if it delays the release of the expansion. I have yet to see a single argument that convinces me that an on/off toggle is necessary (with the emphasis on NECESSARY). You might WANT the option, but I WANT the expansion to be released on time.

If it were true that the majority of people who want SGRAs are male gamers playing female characters, I don't see how you jump to the conclusion that they are motivated by homophobia and not wanting to see [Flirt] options with their male companions. Is it not more likely that they are wanting to see [Flirt] options with their female companions? Either you tend to assume the worst in people, or you are attempting the old "Know who the worst bigots are? The so called liberals!" ploy. It's kind of ranks along side the "Women are more sexist than men" ploy and the "Straight white men are the most discriminated against in society" ploy for stupidity.

We know this, but there is still a budget for development and BW employs and pays the people who make armour when that same money could be used to employ different people to do something different. I'm not going to claim that they should throw everything at bug fixes. That's just ridiculous. The OP does have a point though. I don't need any more colour crystals! I'm all for cosmetic stuff, but not this cosmetic stuff. Personally I'd like to see BW throw some of its "cosmetic stuff" budget on improving idle animations (which are awful), creating a better emote system and making chat bubbles work.

It is awful that people think it is fine to do this. You claim that you are not linking homosexuality with pedophilia while mentioning them both in the same breath. The subliminal link is thus made. Shame on you. On a another note, the thing that irks me most these days is the cultivated moral outrage that some people seem to think gives them the right to censor what others can and cannot do. The poster I quote posted something I find wrong, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to do that. I think it was a terrible thing to write, I tell him that and I tell him why. That's how civilised discussion works. The thing is anyone and everyone has the right to think whatever they like, but that does not give you the right to do whatever you like. Above all, you do not have a right to not be offended. If something offends you, say so or shut up and move on, but you can't go around saying that "you can't do that because I find it offensive". So what? Unless it actually harmed you in some way, so what? Some people may find SGRAs offensive. I really don't care. Everyday I encounter things with delight me, amuse me, confuse me, bore me and sometimes offend me. So flipping what?

Sometimes it isn't somebody's intent which causes offence, but the language used to convey it. Right now the situation with romances in SWTOR is that all players are presented with heterosexual [Flirt] options and (importantly) it is always the player who initiates the [Flirt]. Now that means that if you are playing a gay character you are constantly being presented with options which you are not going to use. When SGRAs are introduced then all players will be presented with [Flirt] options they have no interest in using. Some people could find this annoying. I understand that. Does this mean we should get a turn off SGRAs option? Well no, because the game constantly presents us with options we have no interest in using. If I am playing a light side character, then I may have decided I am never going to pick a darkside option, but I don't see anyone calling for an option to turn off all darkside dialogue options. However, going back to my first point, an option to turn off something that you don't want to see (i.e. SGRAs) on the grounds that it is upsetting, or you don't want your children to see it or any other reason can justifiably be regarded as discrimination against the gay community. But, and I am simply asking the question because I really don't know the answer, would it be acceptable to implement an option where in character creation you choose the sexual orientation of your character? Rather than presenting the choice as being the ability to turn something off (because you might have a problem with it), could a choice be "is your character straight or gay?". Is this really any different from asking you to choose a gender or a race? I honestly don't know. Part of me thinks it could be fine to do that, but I do have one nagging doubt. I am not gay myself. I have been married for 10 years to my wife who happens to be a different race from me. Interracial relationships (I don't like that word, but I can't think of a better one) were very much frowned upon when I was young and are still controversial in some parts of the world. There have been occasions, though thankfully very few, when our relationship has been an issue. I can't help drawing parallels between the way people view same sex relationships and the way that relationships like mine were viewed in the past. So, while on the face of it, asking players to choose the sexual orientation of their characters seems ok, I can't help thinking how angry and offended I would be if there was a option to choose whether your character would be up for a bit of interracial [Flirt]ing. Giving people the option to control SGRAs immediately begs questions about why they would want to. If BW give people the option then it would call into question whether BW is endorsing certain viewpoints. I can totally understand why BW have said no to a switch off option. Having said that they support SGRAs, letting players turn them off would make that support seem half hearted at best. As for choosing the orientation of your character, I dunno. It should be fine, but it just feels a bit too specific. Why that one thing? Out of all the things there could be an option for, why single out that one thing? Sorry for my rambling stream of consciousness.

It's got nothing to do with good vs evil for me. I'm playing the side with the cool accents and swanky uniforms.

Personally, I'd like to see more "normal" companions, not weirder ones. "Normal" as in typical members of that faction and preferably human. I don't play certain classes because their companions are just too strange. Blizz is the single biggest reason I don't play a Bounty Hunter. I don't know why some people are determined to turn this game into a freak show. I love the fact that the humour in this game is the kind of humour that adds to, not detracts from the setting. Things like the smuggler making wisecracks are lovely to see and make me enjoy the game more. What I can't stand is the kind of humour that is aimed at parodying the setting. I have left MMOs in the past because it all got too silly and juvenile. When it comes down to it, I want to play a Star Wars game, not a Star Wars parody. Everytime I see BW adding party jawas and jawagrams I come one step closer to quitting.

I've honestly given up. For me this game is now in "I'm only playing this until X comes out" mode. The lack of chat bubbles in just one thing in a list of reasons why I wouldn't recommend this game to RP players.

I'm also tired of the CE argument and I'm actually a CE owner. Yes, we paid for an exclusive armour but (and I am also tired of pointing this out to people) the armour in the CE store is not the only Imperial Trooper armour in the game. No, I'm not talking about colour variations - there is actually a different model. Go to Corellia. Look at the Imperial troopers on that planet (other places too, but that's the one which springs to mind). The armour they wear is different. It has a totally different helmet. Give us that one on the Cartel Market!

Alienware are the brand that some people think its cool to hate, but they are good machines. The drawback of them though is that they are expensive. You pay extra for the looks.

I've been itching to reply to this all day, but sadly wasn't able to at work. I think you actually misunderstood what I was saying, or read my words out of context, because I actually agree with everything you say (except the "fanboi" part. First time I've been accused of being a fanboi of a game I think has huge room for improvement and I have criticised a lot on its forums). I agree that the rapidly declining subs was a massive embarrassment for BW. I also agree that a big part of this was due to problems with the game, lack of basic features at launch and lack of endgame at launch. However, I also think that a case can be made that a contributing factor was that BW launched a subscription based game at a time when the PC gaming world is moving away from subs to f2p. I am in no way saying this a defense of BW or SWTOR. It is actually a criticism. BW should have had the forsight to see the way the tide was turning. I can remember before the launch, people saying that they thought that this would be the last MMO of this type we would ever see, because the f2p model was becoming the norm. BW made huge mistake launching as sub only and I firmly believe that they should have launched with the payment model they have now. In my original post, which you sought to criticise, I was merely trying to say that the fact that the game has now gone free to play should not be seen as a sign that the game is about to die. Like you, I think that f2p has saved SWTOR and was the best thing BW and EA could do. However, I don't see it as the last ditch attempt of a failing MMO to try to survive. Rather, I see it as a company realising that they made a massive mistake, totally misjudged the current market for MMOs and finally doing something to rectify their mistake.

I think you're behind the times. There has been a shift in gaming culture in the last few years. Gaming is more mainstream and more casual than ever before and free to play is the new normal. SWTOR is not the only MMO which went free to play last year and there are several new MMOs in development which are planning to launch as free to play (and others with have officially not yet decided on their payment model). If fact, how many MMOs actually still require a subscription? Not many. So while it's true that going f2p used to be seen as an admission of defeat, that's no longer the case. Unless you're an MMO with insanely high player numbers (like WoW) or one with very cheap development costs (like Eve), then f2p is the most financially successful payment model these days.

The Imperial trooper gear in the CE vendor is just one model/ skin. There are others in the game, such as the gear worn by Imperial Troopers on Corellia. They could release that on the Cartel Shop while still keeping the CE version exclusive.

Who is being penalised? The weekly cap means that a player with many alts cannot gain many times more rep per week than the player with just one character. They are not penalising single character players, but rather they are limiting the advantage of having several characters. Limiting it, but not totally removing it.

1. Chat bubbles with a "talking" animation which is triggered when you /say something. These animations already exist because we see them in cut scenes. 2. Idle animations. Again these exist. I see npc's standing in various postures, pacing up and down, leaning on walls. I want to do that. 3. Chat bubbles. Seriously BW. Every other MMO I have played has had them. I consider them a standard feature. Sort it out.