It actually says specifically that you can do Kingpin Contracts for, and I quote, "bigger loot." It does not say that the next mission will actually give you those rewards. The next section highlights the featured rewards for participating in the event, not simply doing the missions. The way it works is that you complete the Henchmen bounties to earn low and medium yield(green and blue respectively) reputation tokens, and a [Completed Bounty Contract] per mission. Once you have collected 5 CBC's, you can turn them in to purchase a Kingpin Bounty, which rewards you with a high yield(purple) reputation token and a single CBC. At this point you can decide if you want to horde your CBC's to purchase gear from the reputation vendors, or if you want to unlock Kingpin bounties to earn rep faster and actually unlock said rewards from the reputation vendor. Personally I advise unlocking all of the Kingpin bounties across various characters on your account, one on each preferrably, and then running them to get your purple rep tokens. Once you've unlocked every Kingpin at least once, just horde your CBC's for spending on reputation rewards. The most important thing to note about the rep vendors is that you can't just go and spend your CBC's as soon as you get them. You have to have earned enough reputation with the BBA to unlock the various rewards first. And not all rewards cost CBC's, in fact, most of the armor and weapons simply have a reputation requirement and are purchased with credits. The CBC's are used for purchasing pets, dyes, decorations, and mounts once you reach certain reputation tiers with the BBA. If you have any more questions, go to dulfy's page that features the event. If anything I said was confusing, I guarantee that the answer is on her page. The web address is http://dulfy.net/2013/07/28/swtor-bounty-contact-week-event-overview/

The long-awaited nerf to Gunships!

I read your post, ********, and I clearly noted that you were concerned about your 'immersion' problem and felt forced to pick certain choices to maintain a specific look. That is self-inflicted discomfort which can be easily solved by completely disabling dark-side corruption. My post was simply pointing out the flaw in your reasoning, not addressing your request for more eye options in the cartel market

You DO realize that you can simply disable Sith corruption if you don't want to look like an evil clown after accruing a large sum of dark-side points, right?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Theres no need for a PENALTY, just award a KILL instead of an assist to either the person who the did the most damage, or the last one to hit them before they self-destruct. BOOM, problem completely solved without any sort of penalty being put into place.

Except for the fact that your response inadvertently confirms his accusations. Cute.

Just run Voss. Its the fastest planet to reset the quest on as the cantina is no more than 15 seconds from the quest giver. I did all of the achieves over the course of the first week with no problems at all, so either you have absolutely horrible luck or you're exaggerating. Probably both now that I think about it.

Nothing to see here, the OP just wanted to brag about his wins against opponents that pose no real threat on his server. Faction imbalance causes issues like this, so live with it.

The wall did not chase the enemy player and whittle them down to almost no health before that enemy, intentionally or not, chose to run into that wall. Its a kill, not an assist. A kill is a kill and should be treated as such. There are absolutely ZERO downsides to granting a kill instead of an assist in situations like this, so why are you against making the game more fun for people who like to things besides objectives? There may be no need for a penalty, but of the same token, there is absolutely no reason to not grant a kill to the either the player that did the most damage or the last player to hit the target before a self-destruct. It's a simple change that makes certain players feel better about their performance, so why not? It would have absolutely NO impact WHATSOEVER on people who self-destruct on accident because its NOT A PENALTY. Take a page from Warthunder on this, and allow people who don't always like to play objectives the opportunity to build the stats that appeal to and/or please them.

There may be absolutely no need for a penalty, but of the same token, there is absolutely no reason to not grant a kill to the either the player that did the most damage or the last player to hit the target before a self-destruct. It's a simple change that makes certain players feel better about their performance, so why not? It would have absolutely NO impact WHATSOEVER on people who self-destruct on accident because its NOT A PENALTY. Take a page from Warthunder on this, and allow people who don't always like to play objectives the opportunity to build the stats that appeal to and/or please them.

Last I checked, it still doesnt count as an assist, but I'll have to look a little further into that. I'm sure that in the case of turrets, they're counting as assists. But really man? Think about how much extra satisfaction you'd get by seeing your name flash across the screen and into the chat log as the killer of someone who just died, whether it was by self-destruction or not? Also, assists don't count the same in achievements, so I don't quite agree with the reasoning. Is that really a reason for them to NOT makes changes to the system?

The responses so far are much appreciated, and I'm glad to see at least a little bit of a discussion going on! So far, I feel like there is a lack of reasoning for not granting the kill credit though. Whether the self-destruct is intentional or not, there is no reason that a medal should not be awarded if another player had something to do with the death. Honestly, I find myself denying kills from time to time, which only serves to piss myself off because I've stooped to such a level. This deplorable behavior, whether intentional or not, is no reason to not give credit imo. The point of them having to respawn is moot since you would likely have killed them anyways, they've only potentially sped up the process in conjunction with aggravating the player chasing them regardless of intent(if it was on purpose or not). As for the solution itself, keep in mind that all it would really be doing is awarding medals to people who put time and effort into the actual combat. Sure, when you're dogfighting its highly unlikely that you're contributing to objectives, but some people enjoy doing that while the rest of their team holds down the fort. As I said before, I find myself almost constantly guarding nodes, but thats OK when my teammates are preventing the other team from getting near me by dog-fighting off the point. They're contributing just the same by keeping the enemy pre-occupied, and if one does sneak through I can run circles around the node until I get a firing solution on them, or my team comes in to pick them up. I personally feel that there should be some sort of penalty besides having to run back to the node if you purposefully run into a wall with the current state of things. Keep in mind that you get a 'death' whether you're killed by a wall, player, or a turret. Thats why I said that a system like this can alleviate the need for such a 'punishment' of sorts. Award the kill credit where credit is due, and everyone goes home happy. Except for maybe the griefers, however small their numbers may be. As for the intentional destructions for respawning, I would like to hear your thoughts for how it would be detrimental for the system, because of the above scenario, to award a kill to the last player to hit you(or the one that did the most damage to you) before you run into a wall? EDIT: And dont forget the turrets kill-stealing. That personally makes me almost as angry when I've done most or all of the work for a turret to get a last hit as the enemy dives for cover under a satellite.

So after playing for the past few days, I've noticed an increasingly frustrating trend that is quickly catching on with new and veteran players alike: Intentional self-destructions for the sole purposes of either respawning in a new ship, or denying kills to the other team. Now I'm sure some of you see no problem with either of those scenarios, and I would tend to agree on the grounds of the first one being that it is an arguably strategic choice. But as far as denials, it's incredibly frustrating when you work to get someone down to low health before they simply run into a wall to deny you medals and/or points. I find it very hard to believe that this was the way that the devs intended it to work given that there are several skills/weapons in the game that are designed to cause targets to lose control of their ships. Take Sabotage Probe for example: You force your enemy to drive in a straight line for 6 seconds. Logically, the best strategic option would be to force an enemy to run straight into a wall so as to get the easy kill, right? Well that choice goes out the door with the current state of how self-destruction doles out both punishments AND rewards(of the lack-there-of). I propose a simple solution: --Grant a kill to the last player to hit the target within the last XX number of seconds. This applies to both Self-destructions and turret kills.-- Warthunder has had this system in place since day one as it really allows players, especially those who like to do things besides objectives, to have more fun with the game. I have to note at this point that I'm not solely a dog-fighter, in fact I tend to run objectives in 90% of my games. But I still find it fun to chase down Gunships in my scout when my team already has the objectives secured. But back to topic at hand: This not only rewards people for getting better at the game, but it prevents the need for a penalty when you accidentally crash your ship, or even intentionally do so to respawn in a new one. I mean, really, how dissatisfying is it to get your kill denied by a ******* who intentionally rams their ship into a wall, or even by a turret that just happens to get the last hit on the guy you've been chasing for the last few minutes?

I support this thread. I've thought about lowering the DPI on my Naga to make up for the ultra-sensitivity, but I feel like that will make little to no difference when the issue is stemming from the lack of a dead-zone as described in this post. I know I'm not alone in wanting an option to either lower the sensitivity, or possibly invert the current pattern of 'over-sensitivity near the middle' versus 'lack of sensitivity on the edges.'

Thats the best link you'll find for the lightsaber itself. Fortunately, that particular model is still in game on the PvP vendor for REPUBLIC PLAYERS ONLY. In answer to the OP: The PvP vendor is the only place you'll be able to find that saber model anymore, as it was retired by being a part of the Tionese/Columi/'Rakata line of gear. EDIT: Upon doing a little more research, I found that out that you might be able to snag one from the Jedi Knight Classic Commendations vendor if you farm Nightmare Explosive Conflicts for the Dread Guard Main Hand Token. Unfortunately, there's no telling what the Imperial version looks like without trying to find it elsewhere on tor-fashion.com, or by going to the vendor itself. Best place these days to go searching for a particular weapon or gear model is Tor-fashion.com. Do yourself and others a favor by spreading the word. As more and more people contribute, the more comprehensive the database itself will become.

Wrong, today is not included for the U.S. If you lived in the UK, then you would have noticed the Double EXP ending at around 7am on December 2nd. But thats not where you live, so stop ************. Oh, and learn to read before you post stupid **** like this again. They did their European players a big favor by noting the end-time in both Pacific(December 1st) and Greenwich Mean Time( December 2nd). If you can't calculate time zones, then you certainly don't have the right to complain about them

I think you're right.... No one cares.

Almost every piece of legacy gear is adaptable. So as long as you understand how Adaptable gear works, you're on the right track. The only sets in-game currently that are Legacy, but not Adaptable, are the class specific sets from the legacy vendors on the capitol planets. Those are specifically bound to each individual class and are therefore locked to a certain armor type. Another thing to keep in mind is that the armorings themselves are not 'Heavy/Medium/Light,' they are simply armorings that provide different values in ARMOR RATING based on your class proficiencies. If your class can wear Heavy armor, the armoring provides the highest ARMOR RATING value available. If your class can only wear Medium armor, then the armoring provides the second highest ARMOR RATING value available.

Props man, I've always had a tough time coming up with good names for my characters. Although I've been playing since launch and therefore won't need a new Legacy name, or character names for that matter, it makes me glad to see someone being willing to help others out like this.

Go to tor-fasion.com and find the set. If there are quests to obtain the rest of the pieces, they'll be listed on that website. If you don't see a way to currently obtain them from quests, they're going to be random drops from mobs on the planet where you've been getting those armor pieces(in this case, Hoth).

As of the most recent patch, the [series 917 Support Belt] is missing its Cyber-spine when previewed. For those that don't know, it is a little section of metal pieces that are supposed to extend upwards from the back of the belt and mesh with the back of the chestpiece to create extra support for the torso. As of patch 2.4.3a, this is no longer the case.

Correct. Both the Conservator's and the Classic Conservator's boots share this model. And as another poster already said, they're the same model that was used by the Jedi Knight boots for Tionese/Columi/Rakata tiers, which of course are no longer available. @OP Check out tor-fashion.com if you haven't had a chance to yet. They've got tons of pictures now showcasing gear ranging from Cartel sets, all the way back to the tiers of gear that the game launched with. Definitely worth your time.

If you bothered to look at the Classic Comms vendor, you'd see that its the same stuff thats been there since the launch of RotHC. That stuff is there so that people can gear up alts as early as 50 if they choose to and also so that newer players can get the models that were unique to that tier. And lets not forget that there is a small population of people that are still playing at level 50 for their cap, so Classic gear is almost BiS for them, unless they run EC NiM.

The Irony is strong with this one.

Vanguard is not a ranged DPS class. There are 3 rDPS classes, so what is the point of saying "Top 3?" The only difference is in which one is getting the highest rating. Aside from that, is there a point to this thread?