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.

This is just pedantic. My personal definitions of "need": Stat upgrade, appearance upgrade, companion upgrade for my primary companion, mods I can transfer to an item I'm wearing for the stat upgrade. I don't roll need to sell something, and it's not "willy-nilly" rolling need on everything just because. You aren't even trying to debate a strawman any more, you're just flinging dirt at caricatures.

Of course everyone here thinks their way is fair. The problem is that the fairness of your way is simply, and objectively, provably false. Your way is only fair within the confines which you define for everyone - specifically, primary stat/class rolling. But as soon as you introduce anyone else's potential use for an item, any other reason they may want it, your system discriminates against those people. The fairness evaporates. You only achieve fairness by disregarding any need other than the one you choose, which is in itself inherently unfair. This is why more and more I'm thinking the real problem here isn't loot rules, it's "You're playing wrong" attitudes.

We actually all agree on this. The difference of opinion is that many people see companions as an extension of their character. You say "If a human player needs it as an upgrade" as a filter to exclude companions, but I see the item as coming to me, to enhance my play, regardless of which tab of my character sheet it goes on.

I'm not sure this is really the case. I know you certainly think they aren't, because it's based on the conclusion you've already got, but I think there are important differences. Off-spec rolling is really an interesting case, and a very new one. I'm actually sympathetic to the "Off-spec doesn't count as need" because it's very close to rolling for an alt, which I've always accepted as something you shouldn't do. As a side note, if we go back to the origin of that particular rule I think it probably grew more out of a general dislike of twinking than anything about "He who's there gets it". Don't really have anything to back that up, honestly, but my opinion. Anyway - off-spec... Prior to dual-specs (and even way back, prior to re-specs) if you wanted a secondary spec, it meant having a different alt for it. Dual spec made this more convenient in a lot of ways, but it's really kinda fundamentally the same - same class and name, but completely different skills and gear needs. That feels very much like an alt to me, even if it's the same character. On the other hand, I'd have to be sympathetic to someone trying to chance their spec, especially SWTOR, because you can shift so radically. The gear needs going from, say, a Deception Assassin to a Darkness Assassin are going to be pretty different. That's a hard thing to build up if you can't roll on what you're not using, so I'd be very sympathetic to someone who was trying to gear up to switch specs.

This. Galbatorrix and his ilk have created an atmosphere of intimidation through drama, and then happily go "See? Everyone agrees with me!" I find it amusing that the guy who says he kicks people from the group considers it a data point that he's seen a lot of people kicked from the group for not agreeing with him. Yeah... Because you're the one doing it! In other news, yogurt is the most popular breakfast food, because I see someone eat yogurt for breakfast every day, but I never see anyone eating Cheerio's. Well, yeah, that someone is me... What's your point? Honestly, having him blacklist me would be a favor. It's becoming increasingly obvious that he's the sort of "You're playing wrong!" player that I've spent the last 13 years avoiding at all costs. Some people will just have different priorities in how they play any given game. Some people respect that in others. Some don't. <shrug> Whether it's loot priority or playing the wrong spec or taking the wrong skill or using the wrong rotation, some people are just drama bombs waiting to happen.

You're very, very, VERY concerned with keeping score on who gets what coming out of a mission. Why is that? Let's look at it from your point of view, and put some numbers on it to try and explain why we think your way is greedy. On-class items are very important to you. Off-class items aren't. Let's say an on-class item gets rated at 10, and an off-class item gets rated at 1. Three items drop that aren't for your class, and one drops that does. You give up all 3 off-class items (3 points) and tell everyone that only you can have the on-class item (10). You've thrown away the stuff you don't care about to make sure you maximize your own output. Giving away things that have no value to you is not generosity. Telling other people only you can have the things that have value to you, no matter what they think, is greedy.

Unanswered? So "I wouldn't miss it and don't really care about it" wasn't answer enough? Do I see a major functional difference between Need/Greed/Pass and Roll/Pass? Not especially, but I do have a personal restriction relating to Greed. I do think that the utility gained from vendoring bound items is so tiny that it's essentially taking the item and destroying it. So, that's my definition of Greed - selling it. Which, incidentally, matches up to both the original definition and the one I can find on most archives and sites. So I believe there is usefulness in that distinction, even if I wouldn't throw someone out of the group for breaking that distinction. Which is the part that so many of you can't seem to wrap your brains around - there's a difference between what I would do, and what I'd find acceptable for others to do. For all the "You just want to need on everything!" that gets flung about, many of us have said we don't intend to do that. I do believe in the original, old-school definition of Need: I'm going to use it. If I'm not going to use it, I'm going to sell it, and I roll Greed. Pretty much always, honestly, because who couldn't use more credits? So would I cry if things went to only Roll/Pass? Not especially. But I do think there is benefit in that unique class of "Sell it for credits". And yes, someone could potentially say "I need this to sell for credits" at which point I'd probably offer them creds to stop rolling, and everyone would come away happy. I've said that repeatedly. I don't fear the coming union of cats and dogs the way some seem to. The concept of Need Before Greed (the original version, not this twisted abomination people here are defending) evolved long before there were buttons to pick one or the other and the item dropped into your inventory. Somehow, MMO communities survived. I believe they'll somehow manage to again, even if custom items means someone might decide to roll Need for their appearance. In the end, I respect what other players believe they need for their game. Honestly, for all the "It's just the young'uns who are all self-centered and don't get it!" thrown at us, for me it's quite the opposite. I've played most MMOs, and I've dealt with most every playstyle, from hardcore RP to uberexplorer to three-times-a-week raider. Mine isn't more important than any of them. I'm still baffled that saying "You should respect your fellow groupmates enough not to tell them how they should play" is translated by some to "You don't think about your group, you selfish bastard." Edit: And just to be clear, for us, the Greed option is a time-saver more than anything. Nobody in my guild would throw a fit over someone wanting something for appearance, or a companion. "Greed" pretty much means that it's just going to get vendored. The greed roll distributes that quick and easily, which is something we wouldn't have with just Roll/Pass. Oh, nobody wants it, everyone passed, now someone has to grab it or we all have to do a secondary roll or track a round robin or something. So I see a benefit in how I, personally, use the Greed option which saves us time and effort. But it's not really about deciding who gets what in any sort of scorekeeping sort of way.

Nothing, honestly. My only issue with dropping the NBG for simple Roll/Pass is that I don't think it would fix anything. Most of the terminology in this discussion uses "roll" and "roll need" interchangeably. The entire debate here is about people trying to control who gets what. The name of the roll that does that is irrelevant. You can believe if you want that people like Galbatorrix would accept anyone choosing Roll without questioning why because it doesn't say "Need". I'm far more skeptical about it. Out of curiosity, what have I said that makes you think I'd actually miss it? <sigh> This is really getting old. I DO think about people in the group. All of us do. I think about them more than Galbatorrix does. He'll let you roll need if it's your armor type and main stats. I'll let you roll for the stats, or if you need if you like the look, or want one of the mods, or have been struggling with your tank companion as a Sniper and want to upgrade her chestpiece. I TRUST YOU. I trust you to make that decision for your character, without worrying about keeping score or who's getting out with more or whether you're going to waste those awesome stats because you thought it LOOKED GOOD or how much time you're going to spend solo'ing and whether or not that's going to result in the optimal advancement for all four of us over the next 9.2 hours of play until we hit the next Flashpoint. And I'm certainly not going to tell you that you're sending the game into a death spiral of failure where no tank will ever be able to complete a Flashpoint because your greedy butt thought that jacket was purdy! I'm really, truly sorry that you find that concept so insulting, but the caricature of anyone who disagrees with you on this has got to stop. None of us have advocated rolling need on everything no matter what (although you wouldn't know that, for as often as it gets flung about), none of us have said anything but that we consider every person's need to be equal, without judging what that need is. On the other side, a number of people have admitted that it's intended to weight the outcome to their playstyle alone - generally stats-based progression - regardless of what anyone else might want. But WE'RE the ones who aren't thinking of anyone else in the group? Truly? Sorry, but no. If that's your version of being considerate to your group, you can keep it.

Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing about your scenario.

So, wait... Let me make sure I understand you. We're looking for an edge... because we're taking advantage of our different views of what qualifies as need... while we're here arguing that you should broaden your view of need? I think my head just exploded. If any of us were arguing that we should be allowed to keep our more expansive view of need while you had to stick to your class-only roll, then you might have a point. But we haven't. I've done by best to convince everyone through the last 300 pages that SWTOR is a new game, with broader possibilities that everyone should grow to understand. I've crafted example after example to try and help people realize the greater possibilities, and I've said more than once that I fully expect that people will grow into a more expansive view of need as they come to embrace and understand the broader potential for use of so many items in this game. How any of that jives with me trying to get an edge by rolling on more things than you is beyond me - apparently I just can't keep up with my own evil genius.