But everyone will start 1.2 with the gear they have, and all that gear is still simmilar stat wise in 1.2, right? so there is no disadvantage right off the bat. everyone has the same opportunity to purchase more gear. when you hit 50 you had the option to buy pvp gear, or keep your quest gear. most people bought pvp gear. now when 1.2 hits, you will again have an opportunity to buy this patch's new armor set. i would wager that the next large patch will release a new set of gear as well. at least i hope they do, to keep it fresh. or am i missing something?

if the populations where equal and people didnt trade, it would have worked pretty well.

i would disagree, i would submit that they have identified a serious problem that cant be fixed by tinkering with what ilum was, or is today. but to assume that regulating daily/weekly world pvp events to WZs hardly confirms an intent to do away with it entirely. i stand behind my current speculation, which is this is a temporary change until they rework ilum entirely. they seem committed to making pvp work, hence all of the pvp specific changes in recent patches. if they had no intentions of fixing these things, like i said, we would still have the ilum we had day 1. depends who you ask. i dont mind spending a large portion of my disposable income on having a really high end machine, so i can have both. so your proposal could be executed one of three ways i can think of, 1) scatter FPs OPs throughout the existing planets - which would result in lvl 50s crushing lowbies far more often then they would today, because there is no reason for 50s to go to lowbie planets 2) create a planet with entrances to all the FPs OPs so its communal, and fosters world pvp - which would yield simmilar results to Ilum, whereby the Imperials would spawn camp Reps and make it virtually impossible to complete content during peak hours. 3) create a seperate planet for each FP and OP but still have it communal - which would be scenario 2 on a lower scale. i understand the want for world pvp, i want it working badly as well. i agree but upset customers are upset customers, and the faction imbalances are so great on some servers that i dont think its practical. why? please explain why this has to be this way. yes, i agree 100% that this should have been the goal for planet design on lvl 25+ planets. well simply as a function of Bioware being a great game developer for years gives them far more credit then your casual observations, sorry. im not defending what bioware had at launch, but your comments are made in ignorance. you have zero idea what thought process led them to these descisions. the original ilum was good on paper, and would have worked well if people didnt have the innate tendency to go for the easy way out, which is trading objectives. they at least tried something new, instead of just replicating wintergrasp.

"and doesn't intend to." How you've come to this conclusion one can only speculate. Agreed, and it kinda sucked. Would have liked more, but leveling takes no time at all. so, considering the fact that the majority of your time will be spent at endgame, meh, its not all that big of a deal. but i agree, it would have been nice. yeah, in pve. and it think its fantastic. this is totally acceptable with working ilum. but even though ilum doesnt work right now, there's nowhere world pvp takes place anyway, so its somewhat irrelevant. its less to do with the game engine, and more to do with the fact that the game has large assets. which is good, because the game looks great. wow is SUPER low polygon, i mean super low. which is why you can run wow on a high end toaster. its easy to create low res textures, its really hard to have low and high polygon world objects. traveling to dungeons in wow was a tedious timesink. you have to understand that this is a product with the sole purpose of making money. convenience is a delicate balancing act. YOU as an individual might have had fun camping MC but there are plenty of people who hated not being able to get into their pve experience because of pvp players griefing. i think your full of **** and have little to no idea what your talking about. how you can make these wild accusations to begin with is beyond me. ill concede that pvp was likely not the focus, and thats a good business decision given the games objective. you can be pretty sure that pvp is an element they want in the game, and they want it to be enjoyable, and world pvp is one of the aspects they want to deliver. if ea and the devs didnt care about pvp at all, as you insinuate, then we would have the same ilum today we had day 1. but we dont. they have made pretty big changes pretty quickly in an attempt to fix a system they quickly recognized did not work in a release environment. not giving props where props are due just makes you look like a whiner. the most logical assumption one could make from projected patchnotes is that the wz changes counting for wpvp dailys/weeklys would be temporary, while they completely redo ilum.

Can you provide a citation to show this is the reason WoW did it, because i dont think thats the case at all. on my server imps way outbalance reps and we lose most WZs against them in the 50 bracked. 10-49 lately has been pretty even.

i have yet to see any hacks. people laggy and a bit jumpy, sure.

you need to progress further through your class quests to open up companion convos.

You actually haven't asked that question yet, you have simply made assumptions. I am saying exactly the opposite, i am saying its extremely likely there are multiple things causing the wins not to register, hence the reason its been "fixed" once, with another fix in the pipe. But your saying the first player leaving is not the cause, and present your individual observations as evidence. Well it IS a cause, and the devs have identified it and have a planned fix on the PTR. This in no way precludes other issues from causing similar problems, and i don't think anyone here has to yet to argue that.

well said, never the **** again.

nope, I'm just an IT professional that has a reasonable frame of reference is all.

i wont argue that it wont suffer because there are more polished alternatives, and i hope it didnt come off that way. but the fact remains that a game client serving a million subscribers is going to have bugs that aren't found in testing, or lack resources/budgetary means to be fixed before launch. this is a fact of software publishing, you can accept it and endure or you can cancel and wait until the issues are resolved. this game is not in a shocking state. there have been virtually no game breaking bugs, no unscheduled outages, but rather a handfull of large annoyances.

no one is arguing against this point. all i am saying is that the first person in a wz leaving is a contributing factor to the win not being counted, as confirmed by the patch notes. this does not mean its the only contributing factor, and due to your observations it would be logical to deduct that there is something unique about a 6-1 win that circumvents whatever bug is encountered when the first wz player leaves mid game in all other win scenarios (6-0, 6-2, etc). make sense?

if there are enough imps to play imp vs imp that means there are enough imps to play 2 concurrent wzs with reps. reps never play huttball against reps, because there are always imps to queue with. hence, faster queues. imps have to wait until there are enough imps to play hutball against, reps dont have that problem.

HAHAHAHAHA. Anarachy Online still had server crashes and unplayable lag 2 months in. you kids have no idea what kind of MMO gem has been presented to you on a silver platter. The state of this game on release day was VASTLY better then ANY mmo that preceded it. your irrational expectations are irrational.

republic wins way more 10-49 and 50 wz's on my server, and there are way more imps. republic 50 wzs also pop way faster, because of the population imbalance. plus they get to play all 3 wzs equally, while us imps play hutball against other imps 75% of the time. just fyi.

So you are saying its impossible that there could be multiple issues contributing to the WZ wins not being recorded correctly? There is no chance that the first bug fix did fix a bug, but they have now found a completely separate bug that has similar effects on gameplay?

so you're saying that because a 6-1 victory always counts as a win, there is zero possibility that if the first person to join a wz then quits, it could effects the way a win is recorded? i just want to make sure we are on the same page.

its a reasonable design decision. i might not like it, but i totally understand why they did it. 90% of dark side warriors would have killed him, and then 50% of those people would have submitted a ticket when they where in a 3 man group and wanted to use a healer companion and cant.

because with the win/loss being recorded hinged on the first player to join the wz remaining for the duration, then you wouldn't necessarily be aware they left if they where on the other team.

I dont need to provide counter evidence to the cause, as i am not deluded enough to presume to know the cause. All i have said is you dont know enough about how the game works to presume to know the exact cause, and then told you why. You have yet to refute any of my technical points.

So now that i have shot your worthless claims full of holes, you are going to comment on some other aspect of my post. /gladyouaredonerunningyourmouthoff

Well lets assume for a second they did the server architecture well. Its a farm of dell/hp blades in a cluster. all "servers" by region exist virtually within a cluster in that region. when the game launched every game server used the same % of total resources available within the cluster. 3 days into early access they found that servers A, B, and C had drastically higher populations then servers X, Y, and Z, so they allocated more cluster resources from xyz to abc and increased the population cap of abc, while reducing that on xyz. 1 month into release we find that xyz are still low, and have excess resources that could be better used by abc, so even though no required to keep the servers from queuing, unused resources from xyz are allocated to abc for efficiency. make sense?

You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever to prove incorrect. You have provided an observation and stated that it proves a point. It doesn't. "That is most likely not the case as this happens in premades all the time from what I understand." Firstly, "most likely" isn't a deceleration of fact to begin with. So your own wording insinuates your own lack of conviction. "Highly doubt a lot of those guys leave, and they tend to enter as soon as it's up so they are more often than not the first players to enter." A fair amount of premade groups will confirm everyone got the queue before entering, which instantly negates your argument. But for the sake of discussion lets assume that at least someone in the group clicks enter as soon as it pops. This in and of itself means nothing. We have no idea if the game records the first player based on the queue pop order, the queue acceptance click action, the wz load start action, the wz load complete action, or a myriad of other possible actions that take place in code in between. So again, your anecdotal observations are virtually worthless for making a complete assessment of the bug. Not to mention you are presuming to contradict the precise explanation from a guys who actually make the game. And what the hell would they know, right? You play the game, while all they have is complete unfettered access to the source code. I guess one mistake in a previous bug fix gives you carte blanche to run your mouth and explain why the devs are wrong. A reasonable observation would be "It sounds like there might be multiple bugs that can cause a wz victory not to count. i hope they fix this cause in this patch, and that's the last one."

if you wait until a friendly has run through the tunnel between sections before you release from your corpse - it will put you in the next spawn area.

your anecdotal observations preclude the possibility that population caps on servers that where previously "full" and "high" have been increased, changing the fullness status to "standard" because the % full is lower, not because the actual population is lower.