Rawne - Biggest hit (13511) - http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=k2goy&s=5 Rawne - DPS (2226) - http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=23s8xs8&s=5

Khem Val would be a more interesting romance option than currently available, especially if you had the option of keeping the dual-personality. My Inquisitor would jump on the bandwagon.

It took them long enough to make the change, but at least it has finally happened.

Just thought I'd point out that you can cleanse mid-cull to remove one of the ticks of damage due to the delay in the re-application of DoTs. Also, a healer cannot cleanse every GC because of the cooldown. Another point is, why wouldn't a healer cleanse when the DoTs do so much damage, cleanse is a negligible cost, cleanse is instant and cleanse heals for ~1k? As has been stated previously in this thread, lethality/DF is not a bad spec. However, the niché that is fulfilled by lethality/DF is often times overshadowed by the other two specs. It is a case of the other two being more viable in RWZs due to the fact that their tree strengths are more useful in most situations. Good players using lethality/DF in RWZs is not a case for the spec being better. They can use lethality/DF instead of the other specs for a number of reasons (e.g. familiarity, gear optimisation) that would be unrelated to the RWZ viability of lethality/DF. To re-iterate: lethality/DF works for RWZs, however most players would see an increase in performance (on average) given the same amount of time dedicated to one of the other specs.

Are you sure this is the case? You have even done the Ion Pulse/Flame Burst test and come up with different results several times. The only reason I can think of that would result in such a difference would be because the ability costs are the same. If you are correct, and the only difference between the two systems comes from the ability cost difference, is the difference in cost really large enough to make the tests we have done result with the Bounty Hunter getting such an advantage? If what Dr_Kid says is correct, then the difference would be in the ability's cost. I find it hard to believe that a difference of 0.08 ammo per Ion Pulse will create such a disparity in the results attained.

Hopefully, with the developers trying to respond more to PvP oriented issues, this problem can be resolved by a higher authority.

To tie in with what ZeroPlus has said, the weapon damage is fairly irrelevant half the time. This is because about half (or more, depending on specialisation) of the Trooper's or Bounty Hunter's attacks are Tech, which use the Tech rating on the weapons (which should be the same). Thank you for posting your support, I'm glad I was able to convince you of the severity of the situation. The title is a bit of a misdirection, it was designed more for attention (even though the post is about nerfing Mercenaries). I want to urge people that support the ammo and heat equality to post their support, to help get this issue noticed and resolved. If you still do not agree, please post and bring reasoning to back up your claim.

The people I play with can train a Commando using grav round faster than a Mercenary using tracer missile. Does that mean that the Commando's animations are worse? No, it does not. It means that the people I play with are used to killing Commandos. Thanks for your support on the heat vs ammo issue. As I have shown earlier in the thread, a Mercenary that hits with both of his weapons will out-damage a Commando that hits with the assault cannon. The accuracy debuff means that the average damage is roughly equal between the two characters. It is always good seeing more people realise how big the discrepancy between heat and ammo truly is. Hopefully we can keep the thread alive and get this issue fixed.

I fail to see how trying to balance factions for a fair and competitive PvP environment is silly.

I did a manual run-through of the situation to eliminate any white noise. I put it in spoiler tags to save space (there may be errors). The assumptions I made: 0-39 high heat regeneration, 40 - 79 medium regeneration, 80 - 100 low regeneration. 12 - 8 high regeneration, 8 - 3 medium regeneration, 3 - 0 low regeneration. As you can see, the Trooper gets 19 rotations. The Bounty Hunter gets 33. 33 > 19. I'll assume the difference in values (from the real-world tests) is due to the white noise. There is still a substantial difference though. Feel free to point out anything that is inconsistent.

So you're saying the game will die?

Those issues have no mechanical impact whatsoever. The problems you are describing can have a range of causes: 1) Bad positioning. 2) More players playing Empire, resulting in more Mercenaries than Commandos (people are more familiar with their animations). 3) The Republic having better PvPers on your server. Once again, this is a player related - not a game mechanics - issue. Also, please try and include something on-topic (heat vs ammo) if you continue to post.

Tech Override is the Commando equivalent of Power Surge. You can also use the hill too.

What happens if you make a thread about both?

Solution 1) Games with closer skill levels are generally more enjoyable. With that said, you cannot separate players based upon skill by using valor. Valor is an indication of experience, not skill. You would have to introduce a separate statistic to keep track of skill. That would create even more issues (losing rating because you only ever get 7 'bad' players on your team). The easiest solution would probably be to hide the skill value. Solution 2) Some people try to make the best of a bad situation. The issue is with people leaving warzones early. If they did not leave, there would be no back-filling required. You should put your focus on making leaving a warzone more unattractive. Solution 3) Not all groups of players are the top-tier PvP players. I would say that most groups are formed to initiate a buffer against some of the players you have been describing (along with friends just wanting to play together). A group would result in a maximum of 4, rather than 7, potentially less-optimal players. A group vs group queue would not work, simply because being in a group does not mean you will win. It is very possible to beat an enemy group with a full solo queue team. This is where Solution 1) comes in. Groups would simply need a modifier added to them, to factor in the communication advantage. Solution 4) Sorting by class is not feasible. If you sorted by AC potential, then you would still end up with your example of 4 healers vs none. If you sorted by specialisation, then people could just change their specialisation in the warzone (which would also end up with teams of no healers). You would get people queueing up as a healer to get a faster queue pop too. How to fix that exploitation? Do not allow people to re-specialise once a warzone queue has popped (people waiting for a pop, then refund points). This also then creates the problem of people forgetting to swap to the correct specialisation. My point is that many of your gripes with the system cannot be easily remedied with exploit-free solutions. Trying to fix the problem can (and probably will) create more issues than it solves.

I don't need to be focus fired, Psi. Just keep them happy.

In essence, yes. However, that is only relevant in burn phases. The main issues are: 1) Higher maximum regeneration zone. 2) Rounding not occurring. Both of these issues create the problem. Issue 2) is prevalent in long fights, 1) is prevalent in short fights. If you combine the two? A noticeable advantage to the Bounty Hunter. Since the tooltips are simplified for player use, we are lead to believe rounding does not occur. However, our tests are indicative that there is no rounding.

Hype, when does Goof Troop usually do pre-mades? We can then put that in for the best time for 'Pub PvP (or at least factor it in).

I know what you are saying. My point is that it is very hard to do a test 100 times and put it on video to prove that it has been done. It is then even harder to get enough people to watch the video of the test being done 100 times. It is unreasonable to expect 100 videos (Holmes' shortest was 113 seconds, so 11300 seconds in total). You would not watch the 100 videos, and you refuse to take our word on results we have without videos. The solution? I want a test: That can be easily reproduced. That is easy to perform. Is long enough to show the resource discrepancy. Since a burn test is not long enough to show the difference, what Holmes did is probably the next best thing. Spam Flame Burst or Ion Pulse until you run out of resources, hit your resource regain ability, spam some more (Holmes, please correct me if I am wrong). He did his test twice (that we have proof of) to convince people that there is an issue. Both times came up in favour of heat. My point is that you can easily do this test to your heart's content. If you think the test is wrong, repeat the test until you get a result that is inconsistent with ours. We will have to supply many videos to prove our point, you have to supply very few to disprove it. If you do not think what Holmes did is a valid test, suggest one so that we can prove we are correct.

Since the get-up time from knock-downs has always been there (I think), I would hazard a guess that it is "working as intended". Sorry for the less than optimal response, but you would be "balancing" things that wouldn't need "balancing" (without mentioning these things). I was merely trying to check if you had actually thought through your request. The solutions would therefore be: 1) Make people stand-up instantly and buff Operatives to compensate for the change (everyone else is nerfed, Operatives stay the same). 2) People stand-up at the same rate and everything except Operatives would get a nerf. I gather you want solution 1) (from your qualms about being able to stand-up), but it seems as if solution 2) would be easier. I say this because the stand-up time (as far as I am aware) is static, whereas each ability knocks-down for a different duration. This way we can alter the knock-downs (if necessary) on a case-by-case basis. On that note, you haven't actually given any evidence that changes to certain abilities are even required (if this isn't just a bug that I think is intended). One last thing: Fix rubberbanding.

I do not want a test that is immune to error, I just want a test with an error margin that you would find acceptable. Then we can go and do that test. The test would give results that show heat is a better resource than ammo (because it is, as previously shown). Since you would have agreed that the test would be a good and conclusive way of determining the difference, you would then not be able to argue that heat and ammo are the same. This would hopefully have a knock-on effect and convince other members of the community (and possible Bioware) that there is an issue that needs resolving. The person who you are quoting about the 66.6% difference is mistaken. They are comparing Ion Pulse ammo cost (2 / 12 = 0.1666) to Flame Burst heat cost (16 / 100 = 0.16). 0.1666 - 0.16 = 0.0066, or 0.66% difference (a decimal error on their part). EDIT: Dr_Kid replied with his calculations, so feel free to ignore mine on the matter. I'll keep them in for posterity.

I thought "Nerf Operative" threads went out of style.

My bad. Hype, I meant the majority. On a side note: You have 6pm - 3pm. Shouldn't it be 3pm - 6pm? Or, as Agape said, 6pm - 3am?

The 'Pubs play off of prime-time because they're scared of the Empire. I thought it was obvious.

As I (and others) have already said, the ability to burn through the resource pool is not the issue. This issue has more to do with longer fights. This is why the test with a filler was devised, to see a longer-term effect of the heat advantage. If you are so adamant that he is doing the test wrong, why do you not do the test yourself? Do not try to sweep this issue under the proverbial rug by doing a burn test, but put a filler in and see what happens. The test with a filler move will more accurately reflect the discrepancy between the two resources. Yes, the issues you have mentioned may be an issue (unlikely), but should not the same person have the same timing disadvantages in both tests? If you cannot be swayed in your assertion that the test is unfair, what test would you accept as viable (that is not a burn test)? You cannot say any that test that is designed to examine the long-term effects of the heat advantage is invalid because of timing issues.