I know there're bigger fish to fry right now, but I've still got two whole rooms to make fabulous and I'm already at 475/475 in my new NS Stronghold. I just don't understand why there's even a cap. 475 hooks... 350 hooks... 750 hooks... Seem like arbitrary numbers to me. It's not as if the game would break if you added another 50. And who cares if some people have crappy rigs and couldn't handle 1000 Ancient Threat decos in one room? It's not like people's personal strongholds have to be accommodating to the rest of the player base. I mean, I *was* about to blow a whole bunch of $$ on CM decos, but I guess BioWare doesn't want my money anymore

I thought the new throne room in the Odessen base was just a locus of operations... not the official seat of power of the Eternal Alliance. Obviously the new emperor/empress didn't just scrap the Eternal Throne -- which is required to control the Eternal Fleet. I'm more interested in why my now-Emperor of the most powerful force in the known galaxy is just walking around the Imperial fleet and not doing more emperor-y things... But hey.

Now when I type the name of a guild into the /who tab, guilds do not show. There isn't even an option to show which guild a certain player is in. Another "feature" of the game?

Yes -- No replies.

Really? I didn't know they implemented restrictions AFTER launch....

Yes, I've played since launch. Please read my post

So I have a question derived from a number of observations... To my knowledge, you cannot name you character anything with "Darth" or "Master" or "The" or "Emperor" in it (although "Empress" is valid for some reason). And yet, once in a while, I'll see someone on the fleet with "Darth" or "The" etc. in their name. Even capital letters in directly after a lowercase letter with no space. I know for a fact that this is not simply their title because when I PM them it includes "Darth" (for example) in chat. And no, no use of special characters. I am able to type in their names manually into /who without using special characters, and they show up. I even blew up the text to make sure I was seeing it right. No special characters. How can this be?

I believe that Vaylin is gone. When you kill Vaylin on Odessen and see the Force effect go into your character, that's Valkorion binding her spirit to his own. That's why Vaylin only appeared in your mind after Valkorion deliberately manifested her. Therefore, destroying Valkorion would also destroy Vaylin. It was subtle, and maybe you didn't notice, but Vaylin was a bit off-character in the final chapter. She was more an echo of the person we'd come to know. The "real" Vaylin would not have chosen sides. She would have lashed out at both Valkorion and the Outlander. I could be mistaken, of course. I also don't agree that Valyin was/is redeemable. I think the writers went out of their way to show us this, while still not making her an entirely unsympathetic character. So much had been taken from her that it would almost feel disingenuous were she to "reform". Unlike Arcann, Valkorion had turned Vaylin into an animal. Animals are not redeemable -- they simply are what they are.

I don't understand why so many people are having problems with Vaylin. I didn't even encounter Force Slam until my third playthough when I missed an interrupt, so I'm assuming people aren't using their interrupt and that's maybe part of it. Never gone under 70% hp -- this is on my Marauder. Veteran mode was a bit more difficult than story, obviously -- still doable on a first try basis. Not sure what the issue is.

According to swtor-spy:

You needed it for the reflect ability in order to defeat Arcann before they fixed the fight in story mode -- where it was bugged.

There's your problem. That entire sentence.

You only need one. HK-51 was the first comp I gifted to 50 for a reason.

Vaylin has a greater command of the Force than the player character in terms of physical manipulation. Hard to argue otherwise.

Dirty, dirty mind.

My DS-leaning Sith Pureblood, Imperial loyalist and traditionalist spared Tremel, and I take issue with the idea that my character was ignorant of the Sith Code. The Sith Warrior is an educated individual. He is, quote, "heir to a great Sith bloodline." Do you expect me to believe that he was never once in his life exposed to the six short lines which form the basis of Sith philosophy? Nonsense. "I don't recall learning a Sith Code, my lord." I chose to interpret this as a lie. Baras was looking for a tool, and he would find one in my Sith Warrior. Baras has no use for an Apprentice who values abstract ideals over Baras' own will and desires. Thus, feigning ignorance on this matter manipulates Baras' perception of the Warrior as a simple, uneducated brute to be used to destroy his enemies before being easily outwitted and disposed of (Baras was not looking for a successor). Baras' subsequent criticism of the Warrior's perceived ignorance is merely a psychological expression of authority rather than genuine disappointment. Tremel had warned the Warrior: "Baras is a master of deception..." "[he] will attempt to trip you up, test your nature, get to the heart of who you are." Is this too much of a stretch? Perhaps. But for me it's more believable than the idea that my Sith Pureblood did not know the Sith Code. If you read Overseer Tremel's codex, his family has handled admittance into the Sith Academy for generations. Tremel's dedication to tradition and purity is without question, and his concern that the quote "evolving Sith paradigm" is a path to weakness was shared by my Pureblood at the time (Although he now cares less about the Sith and Empire since the developments of KotFE/ET). How can Baras make a claim to standing on principle and tradition when his ultimate goal is to blasphemously impersonate the Sith Emperor's Voice? To him, everything is merely a tool to further his agenda; Sith, Imperial lives... He'd sabotage an Imperial victory over the Republic simply to prop himself up. He's a worm! Tremel is clearly better than him.

Read gen chat on Odessen. This thread was also a response to a forum post.

To say that I played KotOR I-II would be inaccurate. I grew up with KotOR. And no, the JK story did not succeed as a continuation of KotOR in my mind.

SW for me. JK just feels very generic. Probably because it is very generic. Personally, I just found it very difficult to become emotionally invested in the JK story. I knew that whatever the next choice I would make, it would probably be LS. Not because I decided to go LS, but because every DS decision on the JK is nonsensical. There was very little potential for nuance given the way the character is written, and I felt very restricted. The JK is also the biggest Mary Sue in the entire game. It's ridiculous. Alternatively, Chapters I-III for the SW all serve to develop the character. I appreciated that. My advice to anyone starting a SW for the first time, don't go 100% DS or LS. Personally, my Warrior leans toward DS, but he's a pragmatist with a pinch of honor, not a sadist. Although he's probably leaning more true neutral after KotFE/ET. There are many ways to play the SW, but it's up to you to maintain consistency -- which requires you to actually think about the choices you're faced with in the context of your past decisions. And speaking of KotFE/ET, the relationship between the Emperor and the SW makes the story much more compelling. And that's another thing: I never really felt like the JK story was...well... about the JK. The JK always feels subordinated to the "cause". For story, I'd say if you intend to play through the story from the very beginning of the game, play SW. If you're starting off with a character token (which I don't think anyone should), go JK.

Also have this issue.

I had to walk away. I was so mad. And afterward, the letter Gault sent me brought tears. I know - pretty geeky right? but when you have got to know these companions over the last few years, the last thing I wanted to see was the, especially main love interest companions with good stories, backgrounds, etc. So your complaint is that the story made you upset, not that it was a bad story. Am I right? Vette is dead. There is no believable way to bring her back. There's a difference between good storytelling and a story that makes you feel good.

I may be one of the few Warriors who chose to sacrifice Vette. I didn't need to read gen chat or watch YT videos to know that I was choosing which character would die. I played Mass Effect I. This was Virmire all over again. Wasn't an easy decision, but I still believe saving Torian was the right choice. While I do like Vette more as a character, and while my Warrior may have been closer to her, a leader has to maintain objectivity. There is little room for sentiment in war. At the end of the day, Vette's individual expertise and charm is simply outweighed by the need for influential loyalists in the Mandalorians who are ready to die for your cause. Vette is easily replaced, and that's just the cruel reality. On some level, it's precisely because I knew that she would not take her death with dignity that I chose to sacrifice her. She's simply not the type of person (my) Alliance needs.

I already warned that there would be spoilers in the title. If you complain after reading this post, I'll just laugh at you. So there's a lot of salt currently in production over the death of Vette/Torian (Mostly Vette, let's be honest), and rightly so. These characters were near and dear to many of our hearts, especially for the SW and BH. And now, people want the BioWare writers to go dust off the old plot shield and bring them back. And I'm sure they will. This isn't the first time this has been an "issue". During beta, the player was able to kill off his or her own companions in Chapters I-III. And people complained -- presumably because they don't like choices with consequences in a BioWare game. (You've got to be kidding me.) Anyway, I'm writing this post as a writer. And I am here to explain that, when it comes to the business of story-telling, BioWare knows exactly what they're doing. You can criticize game mechanics all you want, but we're not talking about game mechanics. We're talking about story. Let me illustrate the difference: Arcann's boss fight is bugged -> You are upset -> BioWare fixes it The Item Preview tab is broken -> You are upset -> BioWare fixes it (...or at least I wish they would) Your favorite companion dies -> You are upset -> BioWare is counting on it You are supposed to be upset. A good story will force you to experience a wide breadth of human emotion. The death of Vette or Torian was the difference between "just another boss fight" and fighting Vaylin. It was meant to poke at whatever sense of invulnerability you may have had; to hammer home the idea that you have something to lose and therefore something to fight for. If someone close to you dies in real life, it doesn't matter how much you beg -- they're dead. You have to live with it. Life would be cheap were this not the case, and so would Vette's/Torian's sacrifice. It would not be compelling. It would not be good storytelling. The manner in which Vette/Torian died is not ambiguous, and does not leave room for their return in a way that does not feel forced. Yes, there is a problem here. But I believe it has more to do with our culture than with BioWare's ability to tell a story. Regardless, the former is not the subject of this post. Vette/Torian should stay dead. Sorry. On a different note, I would very much like to see the next expansion open with a funeral for either of these characters. It doesn't have to be much, but I do agree that there was not adequate closure.

They send ships no matter what you say. But yeah, here's a video for exactly what you're talking about. It's pretty funny --

The Gravestone is hideous. I love it.