Impressive. No decent player has believed this since the end of Vanilla WoW. To be fair, it used to be this way. Those that healed generally *couldn't* fill other spots, thought they still tried, to everyone's detriment. With time, it became the norm that even healers could legitimately fill a variety of roles. People generally say this because *they* don't want to heal, but by God you should, because you can.

"Wrong" is such a subjective term. Like "grit" and "man up".

How joke posts get a half dozen serious replies I'll never know.

Please take this in the spirit it is intended: a little insight from someone coming up on 200 warzones played. 1. Outnumbering shouldn't happen for more than a minute or two in a warzone. Are you certain of this? 2. Read up on how resolve and the resolve bar work in the game. It will help you learn when to use that CC break and when to save it. Most people don't bother to learn when to CC break. 3. Sith Inquisitor: Use your interrupts and stuns and they're not that bad at all. 4. Have not had any lag problems, but I realize from the volume of posts that many seem to. 5. If you're a good PvP tank who can peel and kill for his healer/burst dps, you will go far. If your healer is good as well, a healer/tank combo can easily turn an entire match. 6. Even with expertise gear I highly doubt this, unless your opponents are naked.

Maybe if you keep this up long enough, the devs will remember what they said, since they've clearly forgotten. -FACEPALM-

Spare me, buddy.

Those classes do peak very late, in their 40s. That said, my guildie plays both and has far more trouble as a Guardian than a Sentinel. I concede that it may be just him, but he does damned well on the Sentinel. I'd like a cite for the devs saying a marauder should do more damage than an assassin. Why *in the world* should a standard melee dps with moderate survivability do more damage than a positionally reliant melee class with limited closers that gets burned down in moments the second its targeted?

This is honestly the most well-balanced launch pvp I've ever seen, and I've played about 15 mmos total. A few small tweaks: Operative/Scoundrel *may* need a slight toning down. I'm still not certain of this though. Sorcerer/Sage needs a slight toning down, they have far too deep a PvP toolbox considering the damage they can put out. Jedi Guardian and Juggernaut definitely need a bit of love, and perhaps switching around of their ability progression. Devs have stated these classes are first on the block for a buff. That said, the balance is so good at the moment that I could probably be happy if it never got any better. Lord knows I've seen worse. Edited like all my posts because I sometimes forget advanced class names.

At level 10, any class can do any warzone. Please note that on heavily population imbalanced servers you may be playing a lot of hutt-ball. Please also note that most classes don't get all their bread and butter pvp abilities until 14, 16, or in a few cases 20. So you may have some growing pains. Finally, note that if you've never PvPed before, you are going to get stomped at first. Try to learn from it and persevere.

This is completely false. I am a software developer myself, and I am not restricted from saying anything on a public space, assuming I either make use of anonymity or disassociate my company from my opinions.

Your points are generally well thought out and supported, or at least arguable. Except for the assertion that "the players have spoken on the forums." If that supposition held water WoW would've died years ago. Your assertion that you're an analyst is interesting but frankly irrelevant. Arguments should be judged on their own merits, not their source. That said, I've followed the gaming industry myself for almost twenty years, and in that time I've learned one thing. Industry analysts are no better at predicting success than anyone else.

Welcome to the idea of the social contract. Do you not tip in restaurants because you don't agree with it? Do you make jokes at funerals? Doing either of these things are your right, but everyone else isn't wrong for calling you out for bad behavior.

Encore! I approve.

Why can so few people appreciate WoW for what it is, while simultaneously appreciating TOR for what it's trying to be?

I understand that this is a lot of people's first MMO, so I do try to set the rules ahead of time in the groups I form. I will say though, this is the first MMO where I've ever felt the need to do that.

*high-five*

Sir, I'm agreeing with your point. But I'm saying that IF you set up a group where everyone needs on everything, your chances of getting any piece of loot you can use become vanishingly small. If a drop is normally 10% you will get it within seven tries at least half the time. If everyone is needing, divide that 10% by four, since there are now four people needing on it the 10% it drops. Now you will get it within the first twenty-eight tries or so, half the time. Would you rather run the instance seven times or twenty-eight times to get this piece of gear?

They actually did this in Demon's Souls and Dark Souls on the PS3. It was a fascinating grab bag. Some players would put up a great fight. Others would use every dirty trick in the book to win. Some would just let you kill them, and bow before they died. Sometimes it felt a little unfair, but it was certainly never boring.

It's true, if you follow this view, the best course is to find a group of players that think similarly. If the group agrees, any rule you come up with is fine. However, I'm betting you'll get tired of practically never getting any gear you need whatsoever in such a group. In a group where everyone needs on everything, the chances of actually getting gear you can use become astronomically small, to the point of having to run an instance 20 times or more to get one piece of gear you need (depending on drop rates.) A useful thought exercise is usually to take a theoretical scenario to extremes. In a group where everyone needs on everything, gear progression becomes practically impossible. In a group where you need on what you need, gear progression becomes quick and bearable. Which system is likely superior? This is why I run my own groups, to filter out players who let greed overcome their better instincts.

Bounty hunters who do this are pretty bad...

Perhaps I should be clear. You're speaking of an "undeserved sense of entitlement." But you're only hurting yourself and everyone else in the group by holding this view. My previous posts explain why. Let me guess: in the prisoner dilemma, you rat the other guy out, right?

I don't think the word "entitlement" means what you think it means. Entitlement is thinking you deserve a shot at everything. Needing only on items you actually use is an excellent example of teamwork and fair play.

I feel I should mention, before I started doing heroics in WoW I was totally on board the "I'll need for everything because even gold helps me" bandwagon. The system of always giving, say, a sword to the warrior irked me. I helped complete the instance, so I felt I should get a reward. The entire thing smacked of entitlement, and I understand that position. It took all of one heroic instance to realize why I was wrong. While it seems like entitlement from the outside, I quickly came to realize that like most social contracts, the practice of only needing on things you could use evolved because it was the most advantageous practice for everyone involved. It's like the prisoner dilemma in game theory. If everyone cooperates and abides by the system, everyone benefits more than they would if they didn't follow it. It's similar to the evolution of "Prize Law" in ancient naval history. Looking at it from the outside, it seems horribly corrupt and unfair. But Privateers, captains, and nations all followed it, because it was beneficial to investors, insurers, nations, captains, privateers, and even pirates. It was even beneficial to captains whose ships were taken *by* privateers and pirates.

In my opinion, yes it is wrong. I can state as fact that this is considered bad behavior by the majority of players, which is a separate issue as to whether it's wrong. I will put this as simply as concisely as I can. Raiding and grouping contains an element of give-and-take. You put in your skills and time, and you get out a reward. The loot you get from a flashpoint is your reward for contributing your abilities and skills. Your companion did not help to complete the flashpoint, therefore your companion should not share in the spoils of the flashpoint over another player who did help complete it, and by doing so helped everyone get the rewards of the flashpoint, whatever those might be. Secondly, people generally run instances multiple times to get gear. If everyone only needs on what they actually use, and lets the rest go, mathematically everyone will get all the gear they need and be out of the instance in the quickest amount of time. I've actually written a little program to test this. Once you start adding in people needing on things they don't need, assuming everyone keeps doing the instance to get x amount of gear, the total amount of runs everyone needs begins to rise sharply. Only needing on things you need is part of a "social contract" that, when followed, results in speedy gear gain for everyone, even if on a particular run you may get nothing. This is what people don't understand who argue that "you can benefit from the money" or similar. By not adhering to this simple social propriety, you hurt not only everyone else but yourself as well. It has nothing to do with entitlement. The first time you start having to do raids over and over to get an item so that you can do even higher level raids, you realize its in everyone's best interest to cooperate so you have to repeat the same content as few times as possible. Sometimes this means you let other people have items even though you could need on them, and hopefully in the future the will reciprocate. Keep in mind, companions do fine with quested or crafted or pvp or commendation gear, even when it's not the best. When you need on something you yourself don't use for flashpoints, you may have just consigned the trooper across from you to running the instance another 5 times to get that hat he wanted. Is your computer-controlled companion really more important than him? In any case it's always best to ask your group if you're not sure what's okay, and if you run a group to set the rules ahead of time. In WoW my rules were simple: I master-loot everything and you can't roll need on things you can't use. Works beautifully. So far in TOR I have said the same thing and never had a problem with any player: "Need on items you yourself can use. Need for a companion without asking and you're kicked." but in nicer words.

This is also true. Once you start PvPing, your PvE ability increases dramatically. As a Vanguard, I can snare-kite a Champion mob several levels above me and never be in danger, without a companion (melee mobs only).