And this is fine. I tend to think that SWTOR manages to make the leveling process a lot more interesting than most MMOs, but to each their own. The problem being raised here is that "rush to max level" is really the ONLY option. It's basically impossible to avoid the insane leveling rate. It would be nice to see an option for people to control it and experience the content at their own pace. A better bolster/downlevel system would also be an improvement, if less ideal. But right now the downleveling seems almost irrelevant. Going back to a planet at Max+2 really doesn't feel much different than just going as L50 or L75.

+1 to this, or SOME sort of XP control. Even with the White Acute turning off the double XP, the leveling rate is just insane. As a returning player I want to experience the story again while having an actual game to play, and it's very hard to do when running a single FP gives us 3 levels. We did the Tatooine planet quest line and gained 5 levels. A toggle to turn off XP would work. A moderately robust set of controls to scale the XP - Classic, Modern, Subscriber, Event - would be even better. There's so much fun content in this game, but driving for 10 minutes to get cutscenes with no meaningful play gets old fast.

As someone who has little fondness for the Expanded Universe a lot of the recent content, while good, doesn't feel very Star Wars-y. Zombie plagues and interdimensional monsters feel like a diversion from the core story of Empire vs. Republic. The Hutt Cartel takeover seems more appropriate for the universe. Any insight on which direction we can expect to see more of?

I've never had the problems with my Juggernaut that so many complain about, but I can at least understand the decision to improve AOE threat. But really, was avoiding CC breaks really so hard? It seems like we're quickly approaching "trained monkey" skill levels

You missed the first group for the second. We were there from Day 0, and played very successfully without a tank at all. Again, you fundamentally misunderstand the system CoH presented. There were no "roles" - there were things that needed to be done. Really only two: Damage infliction, and damage mitigation. You didn't need a tank - controllers could function just as well for damage mitigation. It's not an uncommon mistake - my best friend never could quite wrap his brain around the idea that our group could be successful without a healer. We never needed it - our crew could drop groups so fast we never took any notable damage. Like I said, it got boring. It didn't work so well for the endgame, but we weren't especially focused on that. This I actually agree with. The abilities in SWTOR tend to be very direct. Given the history of CoH though, I'm not sure you can really hold it up as "better". Were there more combos? Yes, but I'd question whether Wormhole+Fulcrum Shift+Cuisinart on every group you come across necessarily makes for a better game. The later-day farming missions from the AE showed just how little grasp of their own combo ability the devs had.

I know it's off topic, but this is a deeply wrong reading of CoH. More than any other game I've ever played, CoH did NOT require you to have each role. My family and I played very successfully in different groups, often without a tank and never with a healer. (First was Kinetic Defender/Grav Controller/Katana Scrapper, second was Ice Controller/Archery Blaster/Shield Tank). CoH tactics only really required two things - damage mitigation and damage output. Tanks may have been a classic method of damage mitigation, but Controllers or good solid Defenders could provide the same thing. Honestly, we quit the game from each group because it was too boring - we had a pattern that would just shred groups. And never with a tank.

Maybe because if the DPS/Healers can never overwhelm your threat generation, there's not even really much of a point to the entire concept of tanking/aggro? Really, what you're asking for might as well be EVE's "Whoever hits it first gets the aggro, and it never changes" AI. Trust me - it sucks. Giving DPS enough damage potential to pull aggro from you keeps them in the threat management game, and makes the game deeper for everyone. If everyone goes all out and the end result is DPS can never take your aggro, then there's no choices - you pick your rotation, and press your buttons, and that's that. Where's the thought in that? I honestly don't understand this argument that so many people are making that if the DPS can ever pull aggro from the tank it means something's wrong with one or the other (usually the tank). I'll admit that I abandoned WoW years ago, but is this really how it is for most people now? That DPS don't have to try to moderate their output at all? That whole idea just seems completely alien to me. So yes, there's very much a logical reason to require DPS'ers to have to lay off their attacks.

Erm, how does Vette not do anything to earn her place? She travels along beside you, into every combat situation you might dream up no matter how crazy, fighting with near-perfect obedience. The fact that she mouthy and doesn't grovel enough during cutscenes does not mean she's done nothing to deserve your respect. Tip: If you can list options as (a) and (b), IT'S A CHOICE. If anything, it's one of the more meaningful choices in the storyline, because it's one where they kept a real consequence. They aren't forcing you to do anything - they're providing a consequence which, honestly, makes perfect sense to me. She's a slave. If you insist on treating her like a slave, then she's not going to go out of her way to help you or ask you for extra help. IMHO, it's a light/dark personality choice, same as how you deal with Jaesa.

Master Looter? Random doesn't get much more minimized than that...

This is wrong on several levels, opinion or otherwise. Yes, opinions can indeed be wrong. First, most of the people here who've disagreed with the idea of going to Roll/Pass have done so because we believe it won't actually change anything. You won't be getting rid of the Need button - you'll be getting rid of the Greed button. I think it's a stretch to characterize any of the disagreement with that position as "fear", but I'd love to see some actual support for that if you think it's the case. Second, and more importantly, how could you not know by now that I prefer the PINK panties?? Orange TOTALLY clashes with the purple on my boots!

Yeah, we probably would. What's the point? This is really only relevant in regards to the caricature you keep presenting. The flip side is, would you? Would it be worth your time if I said "Hey, congrats, that's an awesome looking piece of gear. My mods are better but I'd love to have that look, want to run it again?"

Dude, Loendar beat you to this style of trolling by like 4 days. Try and keep up!

The response to this, which people have made over and over and you consistently ignore, is that they only work in my favor if our needs and definitions of need align. I don't believe I've seen you respond to this point, but I could easily have missed it.

Snipped a lot of that. Did you not notice the repeated references to "for its monetary value" there? You highlighted several of them, so I'm relatively sure you must have. Very few people here have been advocating rolling Need in order to sell an item. A few have, granted, but for the most part that's a caricature which has been flung at anyone who would dare do something other than "Aim goes to the Trooper!" I do like that it highlights that there is often a debate about what constitutes "need", even as it calls out monetary value from selling. That pretty much puts the lie to the "Everyone knows and it's always been my way!" arguments.

And why is that? Everything I listed is an upgrade for me. I don't roll on items I can't use, or ones that don't improve my character. That's pretty much the raw, base definition of "need" as it originated, and as most MMO-related definition sites list it. You can call it "willy-nilly" if you want, but it's an insulting term that has nothing to do with the position most people are advocating here. I fully appreciate the definition of "strawman" and that you're well beyond it.