The buff really affects PvE more than PvP, but ill bite. Certainly, snipers are now going to be even more burst, but lets face it, they are really, REALLY easy to kill, not as much as the stationary Mercs, but MM PvP has always had the issue of only two tools to stay away from melee (cover pulse, blind grenade) and defense CDs like Evasion or Shield Probe. Snipers do not have a huge health pool, or stealth, they are flat damage. Lethality specced Snipers won't get off their ambush unless the enemy meets them on an open plain, and I can't say much for engineering, haven't really tried it... Point is, you are making this buff out a lot larger than it needs to be, if you let the sniper get a good few shots on your without LoS, or closing the gap, you lose the fight. In fact, why not just interrupt the Ambush? it is either a 1.5 or 2.5 cast pending on the MM luck... Just my take.

This guy pretty much summed up everything about my Pyro PT experience.... Well done. Also we do fit in with Normal PvP for having at least a few counter-classes that were already mentioned. I think the nerf to multiple 'god-lucky' railshots in a row was just right, we are good.

But I am lovable! And mostly Evil! ....somehow that does not help my case, I always end up getting hated by someone when I state my opinions on BH companions, if you want my full list of favorites, in order: Mako, Skadge, Torian, Gault, Blizz, EVERYTHING ELSE, the Ship Droid.

Man, so many haters... Skadge brings backbone, and is a tough guy, the kind of guy you bring when soloing! Blizz is overrated.

So after going through some of the responses, I like how much support I got from many people, and I also appreciate the constructive feedback concerning potential benefits to the new system. And then there were others who simply wish to do nothing more than remind me that I am making a complaint, which is completely fair. To the latter two catagories, I inquire this: - Was it better pre-1.2 for the warzone grind to be fixated on a very high amount of commedations, but the disparity between winning and losing was not so great provided you gained a good amount of medals, and in theory, must have performed better? - Or post-1.2, where the supposed gear differences (in reality are much higher than 5%remind considering stat gains) are to level the play field, and force you to win, or otherwise earn next to nothing? The warzone/PvP is headed into a cut-throat direction I fear.

Your experience might be a touch different than what I have experienced thus far, while saving up the warzone comms does help when going straight into BM, it doesn't help the fact that you still have to lose far more than you win to get as geared as your opponents are when they thrashed you. All of us are still going to play as hard as we can, it just sucks that we have to stick through a HUGE grind before getting to a point where you start coming out positive. But by then....it may be too late.

Granted, the Recruit PvP gear, good idea, use credits to start yourself off and when you play enough warzones, get better battlemaster-warhero. Only, here is the thing: More often than not, Recruit-geared PvPers (Sadly, gear does have a part in PvP) will lose out against their battlemaster opponents, and what do they show for it? Low or NO rewards for time invested when new PvPers lose. Let me clarify the logic here, you give new PvPers a set of gear they can spend with credits on, ONLY to make them lose game after game to veteran players, and FURTHER the disparity for weeks to come? Wasn't the point of 1.2 changes to PROMOTE Fresh 50 PvP, not gimp it? There are threads upon threads querying the Warzone Rewards for winning versus losing, this is a very serious matter that probably made several PvPers quit already, and others frustrated. Better consolation rewards for the losers please Bioware.

As someone put it, bioware merging/eliminating servers is a big yellow light for everyone to say: look! Swtor is falling behind and probably will die! For now folks, give this game TIME, changes to mmos have never come suddenly or immediately, i still think this game has a healthy population if anything else, soon the top three servers will expand to the top four, and grow from there. If i had to put a time limit for when anyone can make a real guess on this games lifespan, let it last a year first, then we all should have some facts on the projected future of this game.

Hmm, I was wondering when this kind of thread would appear in PvP Discussion... Time Efficiency vs. Never Giving Up There is actually no right answer, people are going to play one way or the other, or perhaps some other way. The former side wants either success or efficiently losing, speeding up losses to increase gains, and more games to be played. With the given that this may be sort of cowardly and against the whole 'PvP for fun' thinking, there is a considerable number of people who hate playing a game where they are getting stomped at, and extending the stomping is not only a waste of time for them but does not help their opinion of players who keep the game going on. The latter side will play to win, regardless of the circumstances. They will only think of how to carry their side to a victory, not particularly caring for medals but will only consider two things, the way to win objectively, and pursuing it. The score could be 50-300 with an enemy three-cap in Civil War, and they will try to solo the third point that isn't being touched by allies to pray that they can cap it, and at the same time, the other 2 points are being capped by their teammates, giving their side a chance. Everyone plays between these two extremes, myself included. People who fall outside the extremes play for different reasons (dance-contests on enemy huttball goalline, or whatever- I HAVE NOT DONE SUCH A THING >.>). Where am I going with this? Well, I am just laying out the foundation, frankly in PuGs there is no way to get consensus to go one way or another. It is kinda of moot then to go with the OP's opinion, he can ask, but he probably shouldn't expect those who want to go all 'DINE IN HELL' in a game to follow-through. My Opinion? I would rather play for REVENGE, a darker sort of fun for myself. I can concede that the 0-5 Huttball game, or the enemy 2-cap 120-300 Civil War will more than likely be a loss, but be damned if I don't find a healer or that one DPS of my choosing to go all vengeful on. I will be a Bounty Hunter, and HUNT. I WILL go all out, since the game will end in a minute or real soon anyways. ...That is just me, you guys can do whatever you want.

Sadly, in my humble opinion rather than balance PvP, Arena sparks continuous balancing, nerfing, buffing that frankly Ranked Warzone does not have to deal with. I should be more clear. Arena as someone mentioned before puts every single class balance under a lens, in the cases of 3v3s or 5v5s in WoW, this game may (if it happened) have 4v4s. When you put any class down under detail, you do see discrepancies, but attempting to alter those discrepancies alters other classes as well. YOU GET A NEVER ENDING CYCLE OF BALANCE IN ARENA! Rated Warzones won't have that difficulty, you get different sized fights going on, and multiple warzones favor different classes, thus fulfilling the need to want one of each class (save the underpowered ones, which Bioware CAN FIX EASILY IN A WARZONE BASED BALANCE). When you look at PvP from a whole, you realize that it is fairly balanced on the warzone level, when you bring Arena along to balance things out...you go into the specific, and that could be hell.

I do agree sorc/sage classes have a bit of an edge, but rather than shutting down their utility, aren't they a touch too tough to kill anyways when they are hoofing it with the huttball? Between their shields, knockbacks, etc... maybe its the "well I can run AND ignore your damage!" Shouldn't be both imo...

Hey man, I got a main there as well... We just decided that whenever server transfers come out, to shift them over to a high pop server thats always under a standard load. Not gonna lie, when the off-world planets on this server have more online on them at anytime, than anytime on imperial fleet on Thana Vesh....well.... You get it. On a side note, Leveling a Sniper is a new experience.

Oh of course, I suppose I shouldn't have said diminish at the end there, realistically randomness is truly well, random. Statistically however, there are different chances, meaning the same occurance of a drop over and over again is the same for each event, but totaling up the events and the chances...well they get slimmer and slimmer. This goes back to flipping a coin (NOT THE BEST RANDOM EXAMPLE), its always 50% chance for each event, say you do this 10 times, 100 times, 1000 times, 1 million times tests...each test should hopefully grant a different result, the likelihood of say, 5 of 10 million coin flip results being EXACTLY the same is astronomical...THAT is what I was attempting to get at when I said diminishing. Actually there was a guy who posted the theories behind the randomness a few posts below your quote, so that about sums it up. But in the end, my main point where people say 'RNG is random' is well, false, it is ALMOST random, but not there yet, nor will it ever be 100% (unless we make some god-like system).

Suppose there is a little misinformation here... I can ascertain that everyone here knows what the concept of Randomness is. Well, I hate to break it to you, but RNG across many games only attempts to emulate Randomness, meaning mimic it. Sadly, the computations to produce a random number from a machine, are well...flawed. It may seem random to the majority of players, but there is a decent number of us, myself included, that get gimped on loot week after week. Again, I would like to repeat, there is no SOLID RNG system anywhere, based on completely randomness, the chances of having say, Gharj drop IA Rakata offhands 5 times in a row, versus once every 4 weeks, or maybe 2 times then take a break, then back again, SHOULD be equal to one another in a completely RANDOM environment, and multiple occurances of a drop diminish in chances for every occurance... But I am noticing patterns, I shouldn't be noticing patterns, patterns mean flawed RNG. So, I am doing a theory, perhaps it is based upon what is the Ops Leader Class? We shall see.

You are deviating from what he is talking about, this encounter is clearly overtuned for normal difficulty compared to the hard-mode version of the encounter. There are some encounters where DPS requirements are set high to match the fight, this is NOT one of them, the mechanics on normal mode differ from hard-mode, ergo should be tuned differently. However it seems Bioware saw fit to make an arbitrary estimate on what the boss's normal mode health should at and were off by a significant margin. To put it in words you might find more fitting, G4-BC's normal mode health is bugged to a higher health pool than intended, and as such should be fixed as soon as possible. Just like the lightning balls in nightmare Soa difficulty that was recently patched for what some people consider an 'nerf to the encounter' but in reality, was pure 'luck' to have the balls managed correctly. This is NOT an assumption, this fight is no-go in normal.