I will post the same feedback I posted on the PTS forums pre 1.3 which have since been wiped. In answer to the OP: I have not seen the changes to several key issues surrounding PVP that I brought up in my feedback which would make me change my decision to not participate in rwzs. And now the PTS has since been taken down completely. PTS 1.3 Feedback The following are only my own opinions. Communication I believe that you need to open up some sort of dialogue with the PVP community. The lack of communication of the RWZ testing events has yielded almost zero useful feedback. You have the technology already of displaying patch notes and/or maintenance updates on the game client start. Announce the testing events this way as well instead of through a forum post. Some people do not use the forums. On that note, some people do not use facebook or twitter either. Social media is not the most efficient method of reaching your playerbase. Posting information on-screen at the client login is. Surveys or polls at client login as well may yield more useful feedback than the forums as it would reach far more players. Open up dialogue with competent PVP players and guilds in regards to game mechanics. Some of your playerbase spends many more hours playing your game than you do. It is a waste to not tap into this resource and their experience. Metrics Stop saying metrics in your public PR interviews. Stop relying on metrics to make design decisions for your developers. Larry Mellon does not know everything despite what you may have been told. Metrics is a useful tool but it must be tempered with experience and feedback. It should not be the driving force in your design. In fact, you should all purchase air horns and use them every time somebody brings up “metrics” in your team meetings. After several weeks of this air horn use, your entire team should develop a subconscious aversion to that terrible term. They may also become deaf by this time but I believe the sacrifice will be worth it. The silence may rekindle their creativity in their game design approach and stop their reliance on that “term that shall not be named”. The fact that such and such particular class is under/over achieving some predetermined number on a spreadsheet and/or graph means nothing to most of your players. Games are created for entertainment. The driving force in your design should be the word “fun”. Say it with me…. fun. It’s a good word don’t be afraid of it. You can’t measure fun with metrics. Instead try asking yourselves: “Is this class/role fun to play?” Balance While were on this topic, let’s bring up balance as well. Trying to balance classes is futile. The only way to have true balance is to have one single class. You do not have that. You have different classes that do different things. There’s nothing wrong with that. Some classes will be better suited to doing certain things than other classes will. This notion is understood. So I believe your time may be better used in ensuring that all class roles are engaging and fun to play in their own way. Stop looking to the forums for class balance feedback. Most of the plebs on the forums post random nonsense that only pertains to them. If you want relevant feedback, seek out contact with competent and established PVP guilds and players. It would also behoove you to implement different skill mechanics for both PVE and PVP. This would be a large undertaking but in this way you can make changes to one aspect of gameplay without interfering with the other. PTS Transfers As with 1.2, there is a serious lack of participation in RWZ events on the PTS. You have the transfer technology already from the mergers/server consolidations. Use it for the PTS as well. Is there no way to designate the PTS as a destination server and allow a few select PVP servers to become origin servers? And instead of a transfer mechanic, it should only create a copy of the character to the PTS without removing it from the origin server. Make an announcement on the client login page so players/guilds actually see it. And fix augments being lost on transfer. Relevant feedback requires actual testing under optimal conditions as they would exist on live. (EDIT: this was not fixed even though it was reported multiple times and caused augment slots to revert to mk-1 which then had to be patched post-update) Ranked Announcement I read Gabe’s announcement on 1.3 RWZs. It seems like you’re already committed to implementing them with 1.3 when it goes live. Here is the link to Gabe’s Blog: (which has since been edited) http://www.swtor.com/blog/team-ranke...ame-update-1.3 Do you really believe they are ready for live even in preseason form? I don’t. I don’t believe they will be viable without cross-server queues even with the recent population consolidation. I don’t believe the player pools are large enough to promote healthy competition. I also believe there are simply far too many bugs remaining for you to be able to provide a consistent and fair field of play. And without that consistency, the ratings will be meaningless. Games will instead be decided by chance. I believe this will eventually lead to several new threads appearing on the general forums when players run across these issues on live and it begins to affect their ratings. Fix these first: -respawning dead in respawn area -players not showing up in ops frames -players showing up as disconnected in ops frames -op leaders not able to queue groups -respawn shield timer skipping opening -players being stuck in midair -net code latency (players not where they appear to be on screen) -combat delays -camera view (poor movement, environment collisions, etc.) -GCDs going off without firing off skills when keyed -resolve breaks not triggering when active/available and keyed -disconnects and/or CTDs -dozen+ more Ranked matches would be nice but I would happily exchange them for the items below: 1. The ability to queue as a group of 2-8 in ranked and unranked. 2. The group above carrying over and not being disbanded after every match. 3. Not having to ask everyone in the group above to drop queue so we could re-queue after every match. 4. The leader of the group above remaining the ops group leader while in and after the match. 5. Everyone in the group above showing up in the ops frames. 6. An easily visible targeting reticule that I do not have to lower graphic settings to see. 7. A better targeting system. 8. A proactive instead of reactive resolve system. 9. More maps. (different huttball arenas?) 10. OWPVP with valor/comm incentives. Proactive Resolve System What does this mean? I would like more control over my own CC immunity rather than relying on outside events to fill my resolve bar. I would prefer to fill my resolve bar immediately when I use my CC break thus granting me immunity when I choose it. Not when outside factors dictate it. More player control is always good. Crowd Control All debuffs that impede normal player movement should be subject to diminishing returns. This includes snares and/or other momentary skills/animations that remove character mobility from the hands of the player. Loss of character control in PVP, no matter what form that loss may take, can be frustrating. What is the difference between being chain-stunned twice in a row and suffering a coordinated chain-leap/charge by 3-4 different players? None. Both lock the player down for the same amount of time. Net Coding There is a serious discrepancy in what a player perceives on their screen and what is actually happening around them. The server/client synchronization needs significant improvement. There are many times when you may knockback or push an opposing player away from an objective only to see them being pushed towards it 2 seconds later. This is not acceptable. Random teleports around arenas are also a common occurrence in matches. Respawn Area Shield Timer Why does this shield even exist? There are numerous times when the timer for the shield simply misses and/or skips an opening and strands multiple players behind it. You can see it quite regularly with notices of the “Deserter Warning” text popping up on your screen and occasionally leading to you being kicked out of a warzone match completely. Why are you telling me to please exit the respawn area when it is your very own shield mechanic that is preventing me from doing just that? Why not simply add the timer on death and simply not allow you to select the respawn button until it expires? This is the same mechanic you use in-game for PVE area respawns. At least I know that when I key to respawn I will immediately be able to run out of the respawn area. You could then remove the shield mechanic completely. 1.3 Going Live On June 26 I believe there are many items of higher priority than ranked warzones. It would be far more beneficial to spend time addressing these items first as they affect far more people and far more aspects of the game. For example, people’s augments going missing upon transfer to PTS for 1.3 testing. Has this been fixed yet? Will I log in on June 26 and still see all my augments in their augment slots? I definitely will not be the first person to log in on June 26 to test it out, that’s for sure. There are more points I could touch on but I think this is long enough already. TLDR Insufficient testing and no open two-way constructive dialogue with your playerbase leads to... ?

With the gear changes in 1.2, the set bonus remained tied on the base items themselves while "new" gear crafted post 1.2 had the bonus tied to the armoring slots. I believe the same thing happened with 1.3. All augment slots on pre 1.3 gear were converted to MK-1 only regardless of augment/item level. Only "new" gear crafted post 1.3 will have item appropriate augment slots. If you had the augments in the slots already, you would be better served to leave them as is. The augment slot issues here were all reported by several different players on the PTS.

Meaningful open world pvp and a new game engine that doesn't turn it into a powerpoint slideshow.

The reply above is correct. The CS rep either lied to you or is grossly misinformed. It was not requested by the community. It was changed by BW as a bandaid to the terrible coding of their queue system. There were so few people queueing up for ranked warzones on the PTS that their queue system kept bugging out and launching matches of 8vs1, 2vs1, 1vs1 and they would all end early and no ratings would be recorded. This meant that they could not collect any viable feedback or data at all on ranked warzones. So they changed it to force players to complete uneven matches in order for the rating system to begin rating players. The community on the PTS actually warned them about the change and more than a dozen+ other bugs with warzones and the queue system in general. They actually listened to the latter and pulled ranked warzones from the 1.2 patch.

Cross-server wont help a server population, crafting, community, or economy. They would only be a bandaid. Mergers are a much better solution but until then players on low pop servers need another method aside from queue pops to progress: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=459599

Certain low pop servers are having a very difficult time with PVP gear progression. Players must acquire ranked warzone comms at a 3:1 ratio to barter for WH gear. The only way to currently obtain comms is to participate in warzones. The decreasing populations however have significantly affected warzone queue pops. Some servers only get one queue pop every couple of hours. Some servers only see one queue pop every couple of days. This can become quite frustrating for players who wish to acquire gear as there is no other option available aside from the single warzone daily and weekly. This was already mentioned in the PTS feedback and how viable a method it would be for low pop servers but it was never taken seriously. Now we have thread after thread of QQ about this issue. While we wait for server mergers and/or transfers, I suggest you reinstate the Illum Nascar PvB (Player vs Box) hunting daily and weekly. Granted it is a terrible substitute for OWPvP. But it would at least allow players on low pop servers another method of acquiring their gear that is not completely dependent on non-existent queue pops.

It was supposed to be 25 rwz comms and 99 wz comms for the daily and 50 rwz comms and 99 wz comms for the weekly. But since ranked warzones never made it to live for you to farm rwz comms from, they bumped up the rewards for the daily and weekly until they are implemented. Be happy it is what it is.

This pretty much answers the question. Ranked warzones are not ready for release to live. A rated pvp system would require BW to provide a fair, balanced, and bug-free environment on a consistent basis. The PTS showed that they were not able to provide this at the time. They are still working on it. Both warzones and the warzone queue still suffer from more than a dozen bugs. Without the above, you cannot guarantee a proper rating system. It would instead come down to which team did not get bugged during the match. And the forums would be filled with QQ about it.

The Elder Scrolls Online MMO began development in 2007. They are not using a magical new Hero Engine. They are doing the same thing BW has done with it; take the engine and modify it to their needs. Only they wont be putting in $300 million worth of development money behind it. How will it be different again? Discussion here: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/349935/page/1 And here: http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1371641-hero-engine-discussion-merged-similar-topics/ You have firsthand experience with this engine yourself in front of you. It's easy to see what happens when you have more than 20+ people on screen. This engine cannot handle the "massively multiplayer" in MMO.

The Elder Scrolls MMO is using the Hero Engine. The same wonderful engine that TOR uses. Expect the same PVP there.

Reported multiple times on the PTS already along with 20+ other warzone and queue bugs.

This is incorrect. The current implementation of rated warzones on the PTS did not work like this. They simply split the warzone brackets as follows: 1. Level 10-49 warzones 2. Level 50 unranked warzones 3. Level 50 ranked warzones The problem is on the PTS the inclusion of a seperate level 50 bracket cut the player pool essentially in half. Now you had half of the playerbase at 50 queueing up for unranked and half queueing up for ranked. This increased queue times significantly. So Bioware changed the queue coding. If there are not enough people queueing up for ranked warzones, the queue will pull in any group or solo queue players from the unranked pool to fill them. So essentially, you will still be playing against and with the same pugs/premades from both the ranked and unranked queues as before. If this had gone live, you would have players complaining on the forums that when they queue for unranked warzones they should not be put into the same pool as premades queueing for ranked. The issue is that the queue times were so long, it was not viable to include ranked warzones on low pop servers. The players there would be getting 1 queue pop every 24 hours and the forums would be filled with complaints. So they pulled them. I don't see them being implemented without cross server queues. The other issue is that there are still dozens of bugs in warzones that have not been addressed yet. And without fixing the majority of those bugs, they cannot provide a consistent and fair playing field in ranked warzones. Losing a ranked warzone because of a bug that spawns you dead in the respawn area for example would flood the forums with even more complaints. This is also why we do not have the ability currently to group with 8 players. It is likely hard coded into ranked warzones. So when they pulled ranked warzones out, they also pulled the ability to queue up with 8 other players with them. If no changes have been made to the current implementation of ranked warzone queueing since the PTS, it is better if everyone queue up for ranked warzones. Because you might as well earn ranked commendations if you're going to be pulled into the ranked warzone queue whether you're solo/grouped as unranked anyways.

A deserter penalty will not make people stay in a warzone. Gamers will always choose the easiest path. -always- People drop because they believe it's easier to leave a losing warzone and potentially join a more favourable one rather than remain for the full match and hope to make a comeback. If you add a lockout timer of 10-15 mins to every person who leaves a warzone, you will not change this belief that some players have. They will still continue to leave. But now when they are forced to sit through a 10-15 min lockout timer as well, you will make queueing up for warzones even less desirable for them. They will be faced with the following options: 1. Stay in a losing warzone and lose 15 mins of their time plus the 10-15 mins they spent in queue in the first place. 2. Leave a losing warzone and waste the 10-15 mins they spent queueing up for the warzone they left, plus waste another 10-15 mins waiting for the lockout timer to expire, plus spend another 10-15 mins waiting on a new warzone queue to pop. 3. Stop queueing completely and find something more desirable to spend their time on. Being gamers, they will choose option 3 because it's the easiest. Low pop server queues will be killed completely. And those slow queue pops you're getting now will become even slower. If you want people to remain in a losing warzone, you have to give them an incentive to stay. Something that is of the same value to them as their time and effort.

Thank you for the explanation. However you're being idealistic and very shortsighted. Gamers will always choose the path of least resistance. -> always <- Even if you drop the medal requirement to 0, people will still leave a losing warzone. They will leave because it's much easier to re-queue for a new match which they can potentially win than to play out a losing match for less rewards and lose 15 minutes of their time. Feel free to add a deserter debuff as well, it wont help. This will just kill PVP pug queues completely. People wont sit and wait out the 10-15 min deserter queue lockout to finish; they'll just choose to stop queueing altogether and spend their time doing something more rewarding. Penalties don't encourage participation, they encourage attrition. If you want to encourage participation, you need to add more incentives not penalties. There's even an old adage about flies, honey, and vinegar. You should look it up.

Ran something similar pre 1.2; good numbers. Respecced to something similar post 1.2 although you've gone further up the lightning tree than I have. I stopped at corruption tier 5 and dropped the top tier aoe heal. Numbers still the same as pre 1.2 now that I've played with it some. What I would really like is a better peel. Overload is only good for high catwalks in huttball. In any other location, you'll just be forced leaped, jet charged, grappled, or pulled back into range almost immediately. Maybe BW will be nice and move electric bindings from lightning to corruption in exchange for fadeout. The added root would be a nice cast window of 2-5 secs after a peel in warzones.