Considering how he worded his post, he understands the point completely. His opinion just varies from your own. I actually agree with him. A 10 second shutdown after imbalance occurs simply isn't long enough. Perhaps on a very high pop server there will be someone to fill the gap but otherwise it's just not going to happen. 60 seconds allows for someone to join and will not destroy a game. I have seen plenty of recoveries when people joined after 110 seconds. Its probably a bigger issue when a person joins, see's the team is behind slightly and instantly quits. This resets the timer to 120 and yet still leaves the struggling team behind for even longer.

Being an MMO should not mean it has to follow the identical footsteps of those before it. PvP gear is an issue in alot of MMOs that have it, why not innovate? The fact that people are dumping the 50 bracket in favor of the 1-49 surely highlights some of the benefits of this system? I couldn't agree more with that statement. Statted PvP reward gear can still exist...I just don't see why it needs to affect controlled Warzone PvP.

Sounds like you need a ticket to hoth In all seriousness, removing warzone gear stats doesn't equalize everything. I like diverse classes, diverse abilities and a dynamic PvP system. I don't see why a looser should get ANYTHING for loosing to be honest, the idea of dishing out little presents to the loosers of a WZ just promotes AFKing and fails to promote competition. I don't like a stagnant PvP pool where 'time played > player ability' so new players get bored and go back to 1-49 on an alt and only those with all or mostly full PvP gear just fight the same fights with the same opponents over and over again. Those will skill and teamwork should be rewarded, just not with +stat gear. The good PvPers don't need a crutch, why give it to them?!

I don't see why it couldn't happen, given enough support. You can still get gear and rewards, just no stat advantage during warzones. All MMOs change and evolve, some more drastically than others. I sincerely hope we don't just sit on this system for a year as the level 50 queues will become progressively worse and worse. Some people are already reporting 50 bracket PvP as unplayable due to queue times. As to how accurate this is I don't know as Bloodworthy is very high pop. But if smaller servers are already noticing a problem, then it will only get worse.

Would love to get some more opinions on this. I've been noticing alot of favor for 1-49 PvP bracket on the forums as gear simply has little/no effect due to the bolster system. I really think this is a viable solution to the level 50 PvP bracket. We want to promote people to play it, not have them smacked down by someone who was lucky on the RNG or simply has a greater excess of time to play it. As one of the people who has an excess of time to play the game, I DONT want an advantage over new players. We should all fight on similar terms to keep the game interesting.

It feels like the gear discrepency of a fresh 50 to a geared PvP 50 is far too steep. I don't see why anyone should get a fixed advantage in PvP over the skill they have gained from playing it regularly. Gear progression has always been a PvE based reward system, which some MMOs pasted into their PvP. It simply doesn't provide a healthy PvP environment, those who are there longer get significant advantages over those who already have far less experience. I think 50 bracket PvP would be greatly improved by simply ignoring gear-stats completely. People can wear what they want to PvP, nolonger have to look like a collection of clones and people just hitting 50 won't be completely put off from Warzones & PvP I made a seperate thread about it if anyone is interested in providing their opinion. http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=227533&page=1 PvP progression based on +Stats just doesn't favor a healthy PvP environment.

This game hasn't exactly been out long, I'd consider most people a 'New' 50 unless they were in beta for a decent time period. I've been a 50 since early January if you care that much about it and PvPed in Alderaan regularly up to that point. This game is still being fleshed out and tweaks are to be expected. I am not asking for the speeders to be removed. Essentially what your post seems to be implying is that if defended reasonably well, the side turret shouldn't change from it's original owner and the entire fight is decided by the middle? If that was the intended design then there wouldnt be any side turrets because they would be pointless. The sides are just a touch too easy to defend in my opinion. Which is actually supported by what you're saying. So they are so utterly simple to defend that you have to be a failure to let it fall to the opponents control? I think thats a good reason to make them slightly harder to defend. Ofcourse the side ones change hands now and then. Sometimes due to lack of defending, stealthing or through intelligent offensive tactics. But it's alot rarer than center. I am suggesting that a slight change to the side speeder time would help the map become more dynamic and interesting, rather than everyone grabs a side and hammers center. The most interesting fights in my opinion are the ones where the turrets are constantly switching due to balance between the teams. Its not all about a slug-fest on center.

This game hasn't exactly been out long, I'd consider most people a 'New' 50 unless they were in beta for a decent time period. I've been a 50 since early January if you care that much about it and PvPed in Alderaan regularly up to that point. This game is still being fleshed out and tweaks are to be expected. I am not asking for the speeders to be removed. Essentially what your post seems to be implying is that if defended reasonably well, the side turret shouldn't change from it's original owner and the entire fight is decided by the middle? If that was the intended design then there wouldnt be any side turrets because they would be pointless. The sides are just a touch too easy to defend in my opinion. Which is actually supported by what you're saying. So they are so utterly simple to defend that you have to be a failure to let it fall to the opponents control? I think thats a good reason to make them slightly harder to defend. Ofcourse the side ones change hands now and then. Sometimes due to lack of defending, stealthing or through intelligent offensive tactics. But it's alot rarer than center. I am suggesting that a slight change to the side speeder time would help the map become more dynamic and interesting, rather than everyone grabs a side and hammers center. The most interesting fights in my opinion are the ones where the turrets are constantly switching due to balance between the teams. Its not all about a slug-fest on center.

I fully understand how it works and the best place to stand to get a successful cap. I have played Alderaan plenty and comprehend the situation. There are some ranged AoE abilities that don't need LoS. By adding just a second or two you stop a single person or a pair being able to defend from multiple attackers simply by getting back fast enough and using DoTs to fill the gap. I do understand it's possible to stop them, I never said it wasn't or even suggested the case. I have no trouble capping them in a majority of situations. My arguement is simply it's a touch too easy for the defender of a side turret and it stops the warzone being quite as dynamic as it could be, with too much favor to the person who caps the point first. A few extra seconds would slightly lower the advantage the defender has without removing it. I think that would lead to more dynamic games, with more turret flipping.

A stun can be broken by the recipent, I'm only speaking of a few extra seconds (Literally 2 seconds would make a world of difference) A number of classes have abilities that can be used the moment they dismount the bike to interrupt the cap. I just feel making them walk a moment before they do it (Thus providing a precious extra second or two to stun/push them)

Esentially the time it takes from leaving the speeder to getting to attacking range of the flag needs to be a touch longer. If that is acheived by either moving the landing point a bit further away or by increasing the speeder journey a few seconds, it doesnt really matter. People are getting back to the flag a touch too fast in my opinon.

I disagree, removing medals is a bad idea. Changing how you earn them however? Great idea. Alderaan should reward medals for fighting on the point, capping a point, stopping someone taking a point. Voidstar, for planting/defusing the bombs or preventing a cap/defuse Huttball, for a successful pass, for an intercepted pass, for scoring or assisting the scorer. Simply, the tasks you should get medals for should be all about completing the objectives. Having one or two for helping teammates and damage is fine, but the bulk of medals should come from playing the damn warzone how it's meant to be played. You end up with all the useful people getting rewarded. All the people who didn't assist their team getting no medals and ignored for the MVP vote at the same time.

And as a side effect, the gear makes you more powerful than others joining PvP with far less experience. You end up witha stagnant pool of PvPers and everyone stops having fun and spends more time in queues. I know it's just speculation but I just feel at this rate, we're going to push people away from wanting to PvP instead of having to for gear. I'd rather have unique gear that showed me as a longstanding & decent PvPer who plays his class well, without making me stronger. Not gear that lets me crush someone new even if they actually played better. Alternatively they could use stat-less gear that has set bonuses which alter your abilities instead of straight up improving them. (For example making Soresu stance give me more % armor bonus, but at the same time reducing my damage by a set %) Giving me more choices in how I PvP but making sure it's tied in with a disadvantage that stops me being stronger than the average player. It means there is still a point to PvP-gear, you can adapt how you want to play. But it doesn't leave you with a giant power gap. Progression doesn't have to be about the +Stats. You can progress players in many other meaningful ways without destroying the actual challenge of PvP.

I used a hybrid spec when I was leveling my Guardian and I didn't have much trouble until very late. (Last 5 levels or so) But that's because I neglected the gear on my companions and they were nolonger able to keep up. Once I sorted that out I had no issues. I stayed in Soresu stance throughout the leveling process, but only went as high as Warding Call in the defence tree. Left me with enough points to work towards Overhead Slash in Vigilance. My advice would be (whatever spec you choose) to do every quest possible (Including the group-based Heroic quests) As it will leave you a level or two above the NPCs throughout most of the game, giving you the slight edge that makes your leveling smoother. If you fall behind, maybe do a space mission or two to catch up, things get harder for you when you fall below the mob level.

I have a 50 Guardian which I usually play as a Focus build with. I like to try all the alternatives so I switched over to Vigilance (before I was well geared) and found it very lack luster. Although you are constantly laying down damage, it is so smoothed out with very little spike (if any) that it can usually be easily controlled by a healer. I just switched back to Vig since I got my Champ PvP gear (3 items from full set, rest filled with Centurion gear) and I'm having much more luck. You end up with a pretty versatile build, you can always jump back into Soresu if you need a bit of tanking or to throw up guard, then back to Shien stance to lay down some damage. It takes a bit of getting used to juggling the stances however. If your going for targets already under a little pressure they will drop fast but a well geared/played healer can run you round in circles for some time. I seem to handle myself comfortably in 1v1. You won't neccesarily hit the same 'damage dealt' as a Focus guardian. Perhaps I'm just not used to the build enough yet, but I definitely end up higher when Focus specced. Thats only to be expected however as your single-target DPSing as Vig instead of AoE spiking. You will find yourself much squishier in Shien stance, which is the biggest downside.

Well thats fair enough Erasimus, we're all speculating. Sadly the lack of any direct details prevents proper analysis. I mainly brought this up to see some varying opinions, so I'm quite satisfied with the thread sofar I do imagine PvE servers still get a high quantity of Warzone traffic, the main difference between the two is you have to consent to all your PvP, on a PVP server you don't. So people don't neccesarily pick one just to PvE, they may just want to level up in peace and PvP on their own terms. In general I think the casual player would benefit alot from what I was suggesting, while still providing plenty of fresh players for the end-game PvP pool. I just feel there are far better methods of progression than +stats on PvP gear.

I understand where your coming from Erasimus, but considering the current climate I imagine there will be a high saturation of Battlemasters in a short time? The other thing to consider if that you don't have a choice against going up against guildies or non-guildies. So if you are without one, your basically saying you will have to put up with poor PvP performance. If you find a good one that will help you thats fantastic, but alot of people either don't or can't. That shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of PvP. There is a huge difference between some form of rated/ranked (usually guild v guild) PvP experience and a casual warzone queue available for everyone. Frankly I'd be far happier if Guild vs Guild or Ranked warzones were possible, but I would also argue that they removed gear-stats in those too. Make it about the player, not the gear.

I think it would be fitting if the debuff lasted until the game you abandoned has finished. Leave a game near the end? Small penalty but you miss out on tokens. Bail at the start? 15-20mins of debuff penalty...so you may as well play and try to win.

I think my real tie-up is this bit, the specific warzones queue. The algorithm wouldn't slow things down much, but allowing people to que for one specific warzone would crush the times. I've seen people complaining about queue-times on the lower pop servers already, some unable to get many games if any in a full day play session. Surely seperating out the queues would drag it to a halt? Unless you could let people see how many are in each queue, but it would still slow the process. I'm all in favor of trying to match the skill/gear level in games however. The more even a match is, the more exciting it gets. Nothing quite like a 6-5 game of Huttball or winning Alderaan with 10-15 points left.

Interestingly enough, I would have expected someone who can't play regularly to be on this side of the fence, but I respect your opinion. But I will say, gearing from 50 when you know your letting your team down, simply by having worse gear than the rest, is not the greatest feeling. Thankfully when I started, there wern't many Battlemasters, but that is changing rapidly. If I wanted to play an FPS, I'd play one, and I often do if the urge arises. Its besides my point. I'm not saying thats what I want, they dont have a 'world' attached to them and their game-type is totally different. Its a bunch of maps and a lobby. In essence they could tie in a fully functional world, with a balanced PvP option in which you can increase the prestige of your character you lovingly leveled, then go PvE with the same toon, followed by some space battles, crafting etc.... Your wrapping multiple game types into one MMO-shaped box, containing something everyone can enjoy. Right now? It's not about PvP or PvE its all about GEAR and that imo is the fundamental issue. People are hooked on gear and it's damaging games. I work 9 to 5 but spend most of the downtime playing games, but I always find that there are people who simply have more free time than me. So there will naturally always be people higher geared or who got there first. I don't have an issue with that alone, but when you parcel up a huge gear advantage with greater experience it ends up completely overwhelming for the newer player. I like a challange personally, i would rather go up against someone with more gear than me and try to improve (given the choice of more of less). But this isn't the case for alot of people and you don't want them pushed out of the game because of it. Sometimes you have to think outside of your direct preference of the familiar and imagine how the system would work as a whole. Not about what is lost, but how much better the PvP system would be without the gear advantages. If you enjoy PvE gear progression thats just fine, it would still be there. Infact due to the streamlined PvP system they would probably have more time to add new warzones and PvE content. If the game is designed to favor the geared then how does fresh blood join in? By getting pummeled for weeks until they get enough gear together to be mildly viable. It's already a problem at the moment, imagine how it will be when your main playerbase is covered in Battlemaster gear? It wont matter when they are fighting eachother, they may as well all be in their boxers as the gear cancels out, but anyone who hasn't acheived thus-far gets crushed and either stops PvPing or playing whatso-ever

The thing is, you can reward people without making them stronger. Alot of people like to flaunt or show off. Its actually pretty natural for people to want to do, there are many ways to allow for it without making one player dramatically stronger. They add to the variety of player characters and stop everyone looking like clones while at the same time rewarding people for playing the part of the game they enjoy. (instead of making it compulsory to compete) It's nice to see people on both sides of the fence about this really, but I just don't see how a PvP gear progression can work without severely beating down the new players you are trying to get to join and enjoy the game. Many games have suffered and failed because the newer players get utterly demolished by those who have been playing months, yet it's completely unneccesary.

Not everyone on the forums is flaming/QQing. Discussions are what improve the game for the better. I popped my opinions in your thread, in short I'd be mostly concerned about the queues. But surely going through the hassle of matching people gear-for-gear is much the same as simply not having it? In an ideal situation your system matches up people with identical gear & skill....so the gear may as well not have an affect.

If this could be implemented without affecting the queue length then it's a pretty common sence system that I fully agree with. I feel the main problem with it is that although some servers have plenty of population, allowing for this system to work correctly, alot of servers don't have the sheer population (or enough people at max level perhaps) to make these queues move quickly. By making each Warzone a seperate queue, your effectively splitting up the Warzone population into 3rds. As I see it, you would either need a cross-server queue system to keep the queues moving, or to remove the 50 bracket so enough people are queuing. The first of these damages the communities and the second option can easily wind you back to 11-49s vs geared 50s if enough people aren't queuing. Even a single Battlemaster-geared 50 can throw an entire game of lower levels. If that issue could be sensibly resolved then a comparison/balancing system in the queue would make alot of sence. It would definitely lead to a better solution than we currently have.

Well thats it really isn't it? Once you know the mob you can beat it repeatedly, so an extra 'hook' is needed to keep people re-playing the content. Otherwise you wouldn't play it more than once or twice. In PvP the more people you have in your pool of potential players (simply due to the variability of players) the more the games will natually differ. So that extra power increase via gear isn't needed aslong as there is some other form of recognition. People like to acheive something, sure. I just don't think it should neccesarily give them flat out advantages over the competition. Visual alterations, customizations and ranks/leagues are all ways of keeping people interested and pointing out the better players without sticking them in blatantly superior gear.

I am only speaking of Warzones. In my opinion an instanced battle-zone with set team numbers is far more interesting and enjoyable when balanced. Open PvP is a far more flexible thing, if it's system was actually fixed to be enjoyable it could easily be the place for geared PvP combat, with Warzones becoming the more competative side of things. Surely that makes better use of both sides of PvP and caters to both types of player?