Don't click on the link if you want to avoid spoilers. is a link to a video of the particular scene.

You act as if having 100+ Revans in full outfit and mask running around doesn't break lore. Allowing you to dye it makes it so that it would benefit things from a lore standpoint it in my opinion, you'd have more variety rather than a bunch of (Insert character here) clones running around. Just wanted to point this out, but like you said it's all our own opinions. OT: They probably don't want the several recolors they've made to become absolutely useless.

The problem then becomes that the shoe is now just on the other foot. Sure everyone could now PvP on an even playing field but people who enjoy both types of content are still forced to get a specific set of gear. They could just grind out a set of PvE gear but if they want to separate their time between the two then they will take a lot longer to obtain a PvE set than most others, basically crushing any chance for players than mainly play PvP but do enjoy some PvE. Besides this I love this idea. Everyone benefits, except for PvP players that want to experience PvE content. There would be no need to change the rate at which gear is acquired as PvE players would be at a disadvantage in PvP gear, they might gain it faster but it would be sub par in PvE, and thus PvP players can gain a full PvP set before a PvE player could have the same stats. Possibly mollifying the PvP crowd. I can still see many a PvP player complaining that he still can't do high end raid content while PvE players can now do PvP, regardless of if he ever had any intention of doing said PvE. (I'll leave the credibility of such a complaint up to you.)

Ah now I see, thanks for being so patient. As to a solution to said problem. Fury did suggest decreasing the gear gap. That would help in PvP but I'm not sure how well most PvE players would take that if you reduced it to the level that would be required to keep PvP competitive. Once again I'm at a bit of a loss as to what exactly to do, every solution I can think of has major flaws in it.

My apologies, I thought it had been explained but that was a poor assumption of me. The premise is that even if you make it so that PvP gear takes the same amount of time to grind out as PvE it is still easy to go afk and get enough comms to earn a piece of gear that one otherwise would have had to spend the time working for. Now theoretically what would happen would be this. A PvE player is not yet fully geared and wishes to improve his current set, he for whatever reason does not have the time to play through a full OP or FP, or is just in fact lazy and wants to take the easy way out. Therefore he que's for a PvP match with the intention of sitting on a node to earn commendations then goes afk. He checks back every now and then to make sure he is still on the node and is not doing anything to be auto-kicked from the match. In so doing he can, over an amount of time, gather enough commendations to get a piece of gear equivalent to what he wanted/needed for PvE and has neither lost anything in doing so nor done anything to earn such a piece of gear. Now this might not seem very appealing to the majority of players but from several people point of view they are earning free gear during time they would not have accomplished anything on the game anyhow. Your plan will make it so that a larger amount of people will benefit from afk farming thus increasing the potential amount of people who will feel a desire to afk farm. The reward gained is much larger than it currently is in the eyes of a PvE player and quite honestly costs him absolutely nothing. I've seen that and it seems to be more from a issue of comprehension than anything else. (At least between you and Shing) However my issue you seemed to only brush away as if it was in no way relevant. This may just be a difference of opinion but I believe that if someone were to point out an issue that while not directly caused by your idea but does impact it then you need to reply to the impact. I understand that you didn't see how you impacted this and I hope that I explained it well enough that you do now but I hope we can agree that if the issue at hand is in any way influenced for the worse by your plan then you need to respond. Even if it is with something as simple as saying that the devs should improve the Vote-kick and possibly adding on a suggestion of how they could do this. Looking back I can see how you could see this, and honestly while reading through some of the comments I felt the same frustration you did as people claimed there would be problems that you and others had already explained would not be an issue because of (Insert reason). However I do honestly think the issue between you and Shing was mostly due to miss communication, because you both did seem to be saying the same thing back and forth without thinking that your statement has been addressed. That's why I approached Shing with my suggestion to what I saw as his problem and asked if that was indeed what he has an issue with. Other people in here...yes I can agree wholeheartedly when they refuse to even read the OP and see that their complaint is invalid. Again my apologies, I hope I explained it well. If not please let me know and I will try to reword it better. There are people like that, both in this thread and I expect there will be more. However the fact of the matter is you have addressed their problem already. Heck you could quote your post in reply to them and show them how it has been. If it's then an issue beyond them not having read your post then they will feel obligated to point out how your solution doesn't solve it because of some flaw they may see. As I said above I expect some people are having trouble understanding but to be honest you speak better English than many native speakers I know. I think I'm beginning to understand, but I'm still having a bit of trouble following so forgive me if I'm wrong again. You're saying that people who would have certain pieces of PvP and mix with pieces of PvE gear would be in a better position that people who used straight PvP gear yes? If so then Fury suggested that Bioware reduce the gap which causes the inflation in PvE gear while simultaneously adjusting PvE enemies by the same amount. The effect should be that PvE content might be changed on the surface stats wise but would retain the same basic difficulty. If you then made it so that PvP gear and PvE gear are identical in terms of stats after doing this change and adjust PvP commendation requirements for gear to come into line with the same amount of time needed to gather the PvE equivalent then neither side should feel encouraged to play anything besides their content. I do see a possible issue with making gear for PvP take longer in that people with more time to play might jump ahead of other faster but that will happen regardless. Once again I might be missing something so please point it out if I am. This, a thousand times this. Level of gear should in no way equate to level of skill.

The problem I stated is in the game right now and will in no way be directly caused by your suggestion. However your suggestion will increase the problem. While many PvP players may grumble about afk farming many of them see it as unavoidable and in it's current state manageable. However your solution will cause people to have a greater incentive to afk farm and that is where it can be used as a form of argument against you. People will complain about anything, and from a companies standpoint they want to cause the least amount of complaining possible while still implementing fixes/changes. Thus you can not entertain the attitude that you will respond to and refute complaints as to problems or issues your plan causes by, while brushing off arguments that your plan might cause a current problem to worsen. If someone pointed out a possible problem that might arise with your plan you would explain how that is not so by pointing out how you had provided for that occurrence. If someone points out how your plan will cause an existing problem to worsen you should once again point out what provisions you have made to combat this, or modify your current plan to eliminate/reduce the impact your plan has on this problem. Failing that you can provide a plausible solution to the current problem so that it is no longer a factor in the equation at all. Otherwise there are people who will continue to point out things such as an increase in afk farmer's as a valid problem with your solution. By addressing their concerns you not only silence any further complaints about this problem but you gain a voice that may well begin agreeing with your plan. People in here generally want the same thing, a better more competitive and fair PvP environment while not hindering people who wish to engage in both types of content. You have a fair proposal but when someone sees a problem with it, that doesn't mean they are against your goal. Rather they are pointing out a flaw they see that were it removed then they would be fine with your solution. Work together to form a solution, and that goes to everyone. As fury stated, however working together several people can share their point of view and work towards bettering the solution to a problem. I actually thought Fury's explanation of reducing the gear gap in PvE gear combined with adjusting mob stats and bringing PvP gear on par stats wise with PvE gear covered this fairly well. What problem do you see with that to keep it from working? If I read this correctly, your complaint is that people can grind out the equivalent top end PvP gear solo in raids. From this point of view if you call PvE gearing up soloable then you can easily call PvP gear soloable as well. Solo que to gain normal comms. Pug in groups for rated for rated comms, or convert regular comms into rated comms. I may be misunderstanding what you're saying here so please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm having trouble seeing what problems you're seeing and taking a bit of a shot in the dark with this explanation.

The main problem with this being that in some games there are players that are actually participating, but that participation comes in the form of sitting on a node and guarding it. If no enemy is to attack that node for whatever reason then their stats will be inseparable from someone who took the time to simply walk over, stand on the node and then afk. If they die they might be kicked due to staying in the spawn point but even that could potentially be worked around by checking your monitor every couple of minutes. This would also lead to encourage TDM behaviors in games such as huttball. Not everyone can interact with the ball, thus objective play can not be the defining factor for comm distribution. Basing it off of damage/heals/protection would encourage a TDM mindset. Match length would not deter an afk farmer as they would still receive the same amount. I doubt a win bonus, unless it was made to be a very large amount, would impact the ideology of an afk farmer. Unless you want to penalize the loosing side by a fairly sizable degree in terms of comms I don't see a good way of making this work. Even then, certain players may try to play and begin to believe they simply can not win, even when they try so why bother when they can get XX amount of comms for free with a loss. I'm completely in agreement with you in the need to eliminate expertise, and I agree that making it harder to get the comms would help, but there has to be a real solution to this potential problems like this before you try and implement a change. You can't go into this expecting that players will not do something, because if it is even remotely possible then someone, somewhere will exploit the system. Bringing the gear on par with each other will add to the players that already do this. Again, I'm not saying this means that removing expertise should not happen. Rather we need to iron out the consequences of removing expertise. Personally I'd rather see a way to cause afk farming to result in no commendation award for the player, but once again everything I can think of had it's own flaws and such an approach may very well not be possible.

This honestly makes me laugh a little. How can the Imp players be surprised that they're going to lose the war? It's not like later on in the timeline hasn't been explored yet. They might need to expand more upon how exactly it's coming to pass, but the OP is disappointed that they're losing? Or was that intended to come across as the former part of my last sentence?

I'm honestly quite curious. Do you mean as in they don't understand that they have a taunt? Or do you mean it as in using their taunt in a specific fashion so that it would in someway help with their lack of burst. If it is the first I fail to see how this would impact their viability. A guardian DPS could output better damage while providing the same taunts, better overall utility, and more survivability.

I would agree, however my trooper seems to be immune to knockback while under the effects of Hold The Line.