My account is active but my subscription is canceled so as not to auto-renew. Evidently, this means that I won't be getting a free month either. Just makes my decision NOT to press the renew button that much easier.

Well, that's unfortunate, since I have basically no control over whether additional BM tokens drop for me or not before Thursday (gear generally takes 2-3 tokens). I guess I could grind 4000 warzone commendations. Not a very good solution. If I hang on to 1k comms, do those go away too? Can I convert 1000 merc to 330 warzone afterwards?

What happens to the currencies we currently have accumulated? I currently have Battlemaster tokens, Champion tokens, Centurion tokens, Mercenary commendations, and Warzone commendations. Do they get converted at some ratio, or do they just go away (or sit and waste space on my currency screen)? I also have a couple Champion bags from weeklies sitting in my inventory that I've been too lazy to open - what will happen to them?

PvPvE but for the love of god think DOTA and not DAOC. Make the NPCs constitute a meaningful part of the game objective, then subtly increase or decrease their numbers or spawn times to favor the underpopulated side. DO NOT make brainless uberguard NPCs who warp around mechanically one-shotting players or forcing people to bring PvE tank gear/specs to PvP. Example: Walker groups deploy from opposing bases and roll across the map. Opposing NPC squads annihilate each other in the center of the map until players intervene. If player population becomes imbalanced, NPC squads on the low-pop side will spawn an extra walker. In addition to slugging it out with enemy walkers, walkers will attack players with large-area, low-damage blasts that break neither stealth nor CC. This low-grade damage serves as a subtle HP-reducing mechanic for the overpopulated side, which scales with the additional walkers. The higher-population side could choose to attack the walkers rather than players in order to stop the additional damage; if they do so, then the walkers effectively serve as an HP buffer rather than a debuff to enemy HP, which still accomplishes the goal. Creating multiple "lanes" of walkers allows the zone to scale the number of active encounter zones to match overall high vs. low population at different times of the day. When small numbers of players are present, only one "lane" of opposing walkers will spawn. When numbers are high, addition walker "lanes" activate, allowing more players to participate, while naturally encouraging them to spread out. Walker vs. base mechanics should encourage players to tend all active lanes rather than concentrating into one. Killing walkers, killing enemy players, or being in the vicinity of a walker group that destroys an enemy base should grant PvP currency.

You know what, on second thought, just let me duel in the stupid fleet.

FIX BUGS AND INTERFACE. Sorc root-after-knockback is not removed by Lucky Dodge. People warp all over the place while stunned. Tab-targeting has some kind of fetish for picking targets 50 yards away, outside my peripheral vision. No visual indication who just taunted me. If that's too obvious, then honestly, I think the best thing that could happen to PvP is multi-spec. I have gear and hotkeys to perform both roles my class is capable of, but the game won't let me adapt my role to work with the random group makeup I get. And if THAT'S too obvious, then I'd like to never see the game move toward keep sieges. Nothing makes for a more boring, asinine PvP experience than two giant zergs lagging each other out, plinking at each other from behind a wall for hours, or tab-target instagibbing people.

Many of the individual gameplay and class balance changes in the 1.2 PTS notes are confusing when taken piecemeal, but the list format for patch notes lends itself to being read that way. What were the high-level problems (e.g. burst, pacing, CC duration) that you were trying to address, and what were the high-level goals of the class changes? Examples would be welcome!

With so much riding on 1.2, it makes good sense for them to make clear the value they are trying to bring to the game through these class changes. Right now, they're too cryptic to accomplish that. It just looks like a nerf/buff lottery, when not viewed in light of the overall framework of the changes. Unfortunately, since all we see is a bullet list of individual changes, it's very difficult to see the forest for the trees. I know that I'm much more willing to accept something when I understand the need and reasoning behind it, compared to just being told that X is how it's going to be.

Would it be possible for the designers and community team to make some sort of short statement or video to explain the intent behind the class and balance changes coming in Patcg 1.2? We've heard bits and pieces of reasons in some of the Q&As, but a lot of specific changes honestly left me scratching my head. The League of Legends Patch Preview videos are a good example of gameplay and balance change explanations that are deep enough to communicate intent, without being confusing. Any chance we could get something similar?

How many players will we need to field a ranked warzone team? Will we have to get 8 specific individuals together every time we want to play on the team? This is difficult to begin with (even raiding guilds don't take the exact same 8/16 players every time), but could be especially difficult for players on low-population servers.

Has there been any information from BioWare about the number of dedicated players you'll need to field a ranked WZ team? Will we have to get 8 specific individuals together every time we want to play on the team? Give how hard it was to get even 5 people together once a week in WoW, I can't see 8 happening very easily at all.

It seems odd that actually considering what one will receive in return for payment is considered entitlement by so many. Are people suggesting that it would be better to simply insert money without thinking?

The question both is and isn't about the industry. MMOs can be a good value of fun/$/time. F2Ps can potentially be an even better value. In both cases, it's the game itself that determines both the entertainment value and the cost structure. Essentially, 50 cents a day could be a good deal with TOR, but a great deal with one of its competitors... it all comes down to what you get with TOR vs. those others, which of course gets back to the original question of what exactly people will get for 50 cents each day of this upcoming month.

There's a value proposition in every transaction. I don't know why you'd assume that the demand is to get the world for $15, but it would be pretty dumb for people NOT to consider what they're getting for their money, don't you think?

This technically IS the one-month sub date (included month Dec 21-Jan 21 then 30 paid days), but I agree it's not as important as the end of the 30-day trial period was. SWTOR timecards are 60-day, so timecard payers will have to make their decision on Mar 22. So will this just be a slow month of nothing, then?

It's resub time for people on the monthly plan. What should they expect to see for their $15 in the 30 days between Feb 21 and Mar 22? Keep in mind that 1.1.3 is scheduled for release on Feb 14, and a 1.1.4 is announced, so 1.2 certainly won't be hitting before the end of the month.

I doubt any of the relevant developers are unaware of the situation. They simply aren't able to fix it in the timeframe people care about. It's quite clear from the Q&A that their intent is for 1.2 to be a major overhaul of many game systems, including PvP and associated rewards. It's inefficient for them to try to keep making incremental fixes on something they plan to throw out completely in a month. However, they also can't say anything to that effect out loud or it'll look even worse. Basically, they're not blind, but they aren't going to fix this. They're concentrating on March in hope that people will put up with it till then, or come back if they leave.

Why do you guys talk like "team deathmatch" as synonymous with "competitive PvP"? I'd much rather see objective-based PvP with specific tournament versions of the maps tuned for competitive play. For instance, longer respawn times or shorter plant times on Voidstar, or tweaked Resolve building/decay rates when in competitive mode. Take out the stupid air spouts in Huttball or something, you get the idea.

Thanks for taking the time to answer 15 questions instead of the promised 10. It sounds like you're saying 1.2 is the thing to watch for, and I'm sure all the teams inside BioWare are working toward that. I do hope that the teams will also continue to make significant improvements before 1.2, however, as that's still more than a full subscription period away, and goodness knows there's work to be done. Edit: I obviously posted in the wrong thread, so I should phrase that in the form of a question: What improvements can we expect to see BEFORE 1.2?

Go into the UI options and set it so you can see your own nameplate. This will allow you to see your own resolve bar (it's the one under your HP bar above your character's head). As soon as you see it turn white, use your CC breaker and go to town. If your CC breaker is down, try to stand on top of your own sensor scan so he can't get an easy stealth opener. Failing that, move around a lot so you're annoying to stealth behind (stealth is slightly slower than running). Just having a lot of HP and armor is generally also a good defense against scoundrel/operatives because their damage is so front-loaded. If you survive and start to get healing, they're unlikely to be able to finish the job.

I have a pretty straightforward plan for this Q&A. If they insult my intelligence by picking BS questions or giving BS answers, I unsubscribe.

To flesh out the "carrot" rather than "stick" version of this system, it might look something like this. Heroism: +10% to commendation and valor gains. +5% chance of Battlemaster or Champion token when opening bags. Stacks up to 10 times. One stack is removed each time a player leaves a warzone prior to completion. This effect persists through defeat. Duration: 48 hours. One stack of Heroism is earned each time a player wins a Warzone. This version has the benefit of appearing as a positive incentive rather than a punishment, but is far weaker as a deterrent, because leavers can still get what they want - wins, bags, commendations - without penalty. This version also has the downside of accelerating gear inflation unless base rewards are reduced. It could also stack awkwardly with the Ilum buff.

It's unfortunate if someone frequently disconnects through no fault of their own, but the effect on the game is still the same as if they had left. In order to preserve the quality of the experience for the 15 other people, the disincentive for a habitual DCer to queue should remain. The AFKer argument is actually quite real. While there are definitely people who bot afk every game regardless of how well their team is doing (and efforts should continue to stop them), there is a specific population who is interested solely in win credit, and will take any action necessary to maximize wins/time. Right now, they leave the game as soon as the other team shows any sign of gaining the upper hand (grab the huttball first, get to the middle node first, their team doesn't plant in the first 60 seconds). This is bad for the game and the other 15 players, but logical for the individual, whose only incentive is to maximize wins/time. You are right that the Cowardice debuff wouldn't prevent them from afking in those situations to try and force a faster loss. It would, however, change the outcome structure of their decision. Instead of "fight for long win" vs. "leave and look for quicker win", it presents them with the choice of "afk for long loss" or "fight for long win". Given that they are going to be spending a long time there anyway, at least some portion of them would rather take the shot at the win than concede the long loss of time. Leaving at that point wouldn't favor them at all, because they'd be forced to win anyway to dig themselves out of leaver debt before getting their bag rewards. Your point about losing streaks after a disconnect is valid, though a single -10% penalty isn't terrible, and the absolute worst case is having to wait 2 days, assuming you don't leave or disconnect again during that time.

People traditionally just afk and hope to cause their team to lose quickly in those situations. Macro keyboard or pecking-bird-on-wasd tend to make afk detection unreliable. It would be far better to incentivize them to contribute to winning if possible.

Opening bags also means nothing? I guess if you've reached that point, then the game has literally no incentives to use anyway, except hard lockouts.