Why not just answer the man?

Except that you can't craft mods with set bonuses. Those are only available through raid drops. Wait, so we won't be able to transfer Rakata armoring to cosmetic clothing? If that's the case, then Bioware hasn't fixed the issue of everyone looking the same.

Yup, it's like a commission, or a finders fee. Results = Profit = Compensation.

Lawyered. I wish you the best in your continuing education.

This is a fair and accurate statement as well. However, attacking the OP by calling him "entitled" because he doesn't value his time, and this program, the same as everyone else is shortsighted and uninformed. Everyone values different things differently. As I said in another post, if you believe that having a friend playing along side you is compensation enough for your time and participation, that's fine. It doesn't, however, mean that your expectations are automatically superimposed over others'. The OP simply states that he understands the worth he is providing and wants some incentive other than "I get to have my friends play with me." To him, that's not a fair trade of resources. And that's fine. I happen to agree with him. Ultimately, these marketing ploys are so effective because they intentionally cultivate this idea that your compensation is simply getting your friends to play. They word their proposal in such a way as to get you to come to this conclusion, because they specifically do not want to pay you for doing as they ask. That's what's known as a negotiation technique. What the OP is doing is also considered negotiation, more specifically a "counter-offer." Of course, this isn't an effective medium for this kind of transaction, but that's notwithstanding. If you agree with Bioware and you value your time in accordance with their estimation, then go ahead, play along. That doesn't mean that everyone will, however, or that they should. That's what philosophers call "egotism." Bioware has stipulated their expectations, and the OP has stipulated his. Neither is inherently right, because value is subjective.

Your statements here are accurate. Bioware is deliberately not incentivizing participation because it's sales are still steady. It hasn't gotten to the point that Bioware needs to resort to "give-aways." I would guess that they're comfortable enough with their sales trends and their current subscriptions that they are ok with the diminished return that a disincentivised program will generate. If their return is not as high as expected, rest assured that they'll add incentives. If, of course, they're smart. That being said, this fact does not refute the economical logic behind the OP. As to my personal participation: I won't be sending out emails on behalf of Bioware. I've already generated my fair share of interest via word-of-mouth. My friends and relatives know that I'm playing SWTOR, and they are either playing it with me or they are not. I'm not about to beg on behalf of Bioware's interest. If a friend or relative asks me about the game, I'll give them my opinion and inform them that Bioware has trial program available, which I will gladly supply upon request. If you want to send out the emails, that's great. That's your prerogative. Just be mindful of what your actions are worth and what your role is in this marketing scheme. If you're still ok with it, great. That, too, is your prerogative. People value different things differently.

My issue isn't with someone who wants to generously provide their time to Bioware based on their own feelings on the matter. If you feel like giving your time away for free, go ahead. My issue is with people who denounce the OP as self-entitled, when he clearly understands the principles of fair trade, marketing, and basic economics. That's who I'm lambasting. If you fall into that category, I'm sorry, but people will be making money off of you for a looong time. People need to realize that this is a marketing ploy that is taught in universities all over America (and internationally, I assume). It's called getting your customers to work for you. In that respect, you should also realize that you are entitled to fair compensation, just as you would be for any other service asked of you. Whether you wish to donate or forgo that compensation is entirely your choice. Just do it with a clear understanding of what is actually happening. Quid pro quo.

Employment is a two way street, though. That's what I was trying to illustrate. When you gain employement, you enter into an agreement that you will perform certain actions and in return you'll get paid. If you don't, obviously the company has the right to replace you with someone more willing or capable. What Bioware is trying to do is get you to perform an action without giving you the benefit of compensation. Providing them a service in this capacity is still effectively working for them, as they are the end beneficiary of your time. If you get your friend to sub, who gets the money? Buddy, if I own a restaurant and I give out free steaks for a night, it's not because I'm generous. It's because I'm trying to generate sales. A more street-centric example would be this: drug dealer gives friend crack for free for a week on the hope that the friend will become hooked. The drug dealer isn't being generous. The drug dealer has profit in mind.

Yes, he did. I noticed that, too. Doesn't mean he's not right, though.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL Sucker!

Obligated to work? What obligates me? We don't live in Soviet Russia. We work based on the promise of payment. Plain and simple. Same philosophy applies here. Do you know what a freelancer is? Or a subcontractor? Or a consultant? Or a PR firm? Do you have any business acumen whatsoever?

You're right on, Egnar, and you clearly have an understanding of how PR and marketing works. Reading all of the posts that contradict you make me a happy business man. Nothing says, "Sucker!" like providing a service for free, especially when the end result ends up benefiting someone else monetarily. These are the reasons the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I invite you to point out anywhere in my previous points where I suggest that the OP wishes to be "the best." I don't know what you think you're arguing with, but it's obviously not my posts. I'm neither attacking nor defending the OP's statement. I simply illustrated the logical train of thought belonging to your opponent, Draeb. You're the one conjuring up straw men. You've put words in my mouth (or in my posts, rather), and you've attacked them instead of the logic presented. That's known as a straw man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man You're not refuting my posts; you're superimposing another person's opinion over my statements and attacking that position as if it belongs to me. Please re-read my posts and highlight where I state that the OP wishes to be "the best" or "king of the universe." That's a fallacious conclusion at which you've arrived. My assessment is that the OP wishes to be as equally effective in this new bracket as his previous bracket, based on the evidence provided in his statement and using deductive reasoning--as illustrated before. To retort with saying I believe he wants to the "the best" is a straw man argument. By stating that A = B and C= B, it is not a "straw man" to intelligently surmise that A = C based on the presented evidence. That's a logical conclusion. How about this. Let's go through a logic exercise using our posts and the OP: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As a side note, I suggest you realize that the word "surmise" in this context is a literary method of connecting dots, or statements, made by any given individual. Or, as we like to call it in the English circles, the application of reading comprehension, or the ability to intuit what is not expressly declared but is nonetheless valid. I guess since you have such an issue with semantics and reading comprehension, I'll replace the word "surmise" with "intuit." Let's begin: Would you then agree that the OP might not be upset if he did not feel useless? Will you agree that the OP is expressing displeasure by the tone of the post? Will you then agree that the OP is expressing that the displeasure presented is a result of experiences specifically mentioned above within the lvl 50 bracket? Note, I am not detailing why, within the lvl 50 bracket, he is displeased, as that is specifically noted in the posts above (paragraph 1) and below (paragraph 2). Will you agree that the OP enjoyed the previous bracket? Would you agree that the OP's ability to get "consistently... top dps" on his team contributed to that enjoyment? Would you also agree that that the OP now (lvl 50 bracket) feels ineffective, whereas before (lvl 1-49 bracket) he felt effective, having enjoyed the bracket and "consistently got top dps" on his team? Would you also agree that it is the conditions present in Paragraph 1 that prevent him from "consistently [getting] top dps" on his team? If you agree to those things, then you inherently agree to the idea that the OP did not experience the situations presented in paragraph 1 while in the lvl 1-49 bracket. If he had, we can intuit, based on the presented evidence, that he would have been previously upset, as he would have felt ineffective based on conditions present in paragraph 1. More specifically, paragraph 1 can be intuited to present to us, the readers, a depiction of contrast between the two brackets. If that's true, then it is logically improbable for us to assume that the OP experienced congruent experiences in the two brackets, since the conditions specifically mentioned in the lvl 50 bracket have caused him to feel ineffective. In other words, if the the previous bracket were plagued with the conditions presented in paragraph 1 then the OP would have already felt ineffective and would not have enjoyed the lvl 1-49 bracket, since it is their presence in the lvl 50 bracket that is causing the the OP to feel ineffective now, as depicted by the OP quote. Therefore, we can intuit that the OP's feeling of being "ineffective" is based on the conditions presented in paragraph 1. Specifically, we can intuit that the conditions present in paragraph 1 are preventing the OP from enjoying the lvl 50 bracket and "consistently [getting] top dps" on his team. From that, we can intuit that if we eliminated the contrast, namely the conditions presented in paragraph 1, the OP would no longer feel ineffective and would presumably "consistently [get] top dps" on his team. Therefore, we can intuit that if conditions remained constant, then the OP would not be upset, since the contrast conditions presented in paragraph 1 are causing the displeasure--which you would have already agreed with, above. In this scenario, the OP would remain just as effective in the lvl 50 brackets as he was in the lvl 1-49 bracket, and he would not be upset, since he would enjoy the new lvl 50 bracket and "consistently [get] top dps" on his team. Now, to illustrate my earlier post: Can you see the congruity between this post and the logic exercise we just went through? If the OP is currently upset because of a contrast in experiences, and if we can logically conclude that the OP would not be upset if conditions remained the same, then we can intuit expectations--namely, that the OP expected conditions to remain constant and to maintain a feeling of effectiveness, most likely demonstrated through "consistently [getting] top dps" on his team. The mere fact that he is upset suggests this. To boil it down, it is plain to see that the OP does not enjoy the experiences depicted in paragraph 1, and he enjoys being top dps on his team (or at the least feeling effective, which we can only assume based on supplied direct evidence (the OP's quote) is demonstrated through getting top dps on his team). It is also plain to see that the OP feels as though the situations depicted in paragraph 1 prevent him from achieving top dps on his team, and therefore leads him to feel ineffective. Whether there are other situations that may contribute to his feeling of effectiveness is something I cannot comment on, as that would be pure speculation. What I do know is that the OP no longer gets top DPS on his team because of conditions that were apparently not present in the lvl 49 bracket. As a result, the OP does not enjoy lvl 50 PvP. I am not saying that the OP needs to be "the best" in order to enjoy PvP. I'm saying he wants an equivalent experience between lvl 1-49 PvP and lvl 50 PvP, so that his enjoyment of PvP as a whole would remain constant. That's all I've said, and that's plain to see.

I think you're being disingenuous and/or deliberately misunderstanding the logic behind what was posted in an attempt to entrench yourself on your side of the argument. I also question your understanding of a "straw man argument," as it is not applicable to my previous post. I clearly depicted the correlation between the OP's verbiage and the other poster's interpretation. The OP states that he was great at PvP in the 1-49 bracket. The OP states that he now feels useless in the lvl 50 bracket. The OP states that he is upset as a result. Based on that information, it can be intelligently surmised that the OP would not be discontent if his effectiveness in PvP matches remained constant. Therefore, it can also be intelligently surmised that the OP had expectations that he would remain effective, as without said expectations, he would not be upset. If you honestly struggle to grasp these elementary connections, then you are woefully bereft of either education, wit, and/or analytic capacity. If you actually do grasp the logic, which I believe is more likely, then you are simply a troll (playing devil's advocate to the point of absurdity). Either way, there's no point in trying to further this discussion. Best of luck to you.

He got it from here: Reading comprehension would suggest that the OP is comparing his/her current PvP experience to his/her previous experience with the lower bracket. The OP has noticed a difference and is clearly dissatisfied. Therefore, it can be construed that something within the perceived incongruity has caused the dissatisfaction, which in turn suggests that the expectations the OP had upon entering the new lvl 50 bracket are unfulfilled. Logically, you can sum this up by saying, "The OP expected to be similarly effective in the new bracket as he/she was in the old bracket. This not being the case, the OP is upset." This logical conclusion can further percolate into other expressions that say basically the same things, such as, "This guy went in thinking it's going to be the same, not in the terms of DPS, but in terms of high level play. He showed no respect to what it would mean to not be geared for the occasion."

If the situations described by many in this thread are true, then I'm ecstatic. Simply get a premade going and you should be good to go. If even 2 or 3 people start to AFK on the other side, then we should have an easy win. To the OP, I suggest you get a premade together and capitalize. But, if you're on my server, I'd prefer if you don't. I'd rather just roll your afking team and get my bags that much faster. Also, who cares about Valor? It's going away. Commendations are where it's at. Commendations get you the fat loot.

Credits, pls.

It really does get easier with time. You just got to start running on the gear treadmill, and soon enough you'll be as fast as most on the server. It took me about 2 weeks, which I would say is average. I'm not even BM yet, but I've got two full sets of Champ Gear. It sucks for a while, because you don't have the gear. But, as you start to get that gear, the suck gradually turns into fun.

So, the arguments here sound like this: Starving Man (as represented by casuals and/or Republic players): Bioware, help me! My malnourishment is creating an ever increasing disadvantage compared to the fat hardcore and or Imperials that roam Ilum. I can't get my food, and because of this, I cannot put up much of a fight! Bioware: Fear not, Starving Man. I promise you that in the coming patch we will significantly alleviate your hunger and provide a streamlined method by which you will receive all the food you need. In doing so, the playing field will be leveled. Starving Man: Hooray for Bioware! Hooray! Patch 1.1.5 deploys, bringing with it promises of food to everyone. Bioware: Behold, I have brought the Starving Men of our world a box of crackers! Feast on these crackers, Starving Men, and be replenished. Caveat: only 3 crackers per person... we need to ration these babies. Starving Man (dismayed): CRACKERS?! We're STARVING! How is a box of crackers supposed to nourish us enough to fight them?!? (Starving Man points to the crowd of hardcore/imperials sitting outside the entrance to their base) Hardcore/Imperial (laughing in shirts stained with roasted chicken and mashed potatoes): Why are you crying, sissy Starving Man? Bioware brought you crackers, where before you had none. You should be more grateful. LOLOLOL. Mmmm, more chicken for me! I guess the argument is true... the starving men didn't have any crackers before, and they're a bit less hungry because of it. But it still doesn't change the fact that they'll continue starving.

/Applause

DISAGREE! Remove the alignment restricted colors. We don't need to know the alignment of other players--if they want it known, there are ways of doing that. As it is, they can simply wield an orange or yellow saber. This is a fallacious argument. Stop using the lore as a crutch. There are plenty of characters in Star Wars lore that have used color crystals that do not fit your preconceived notions of cannon. This is also a fallacious argument. A player should be free to forge their own story, make their own decisions, and define their characters as they see fit. Color restrictions are an illogical and unnecessary limitation on our ability as players to engender personal characterizations.

And to show that these are the new pinnacle, they could add that word to the mix--maybe shorten it for brevity. Maybe something like Pina Colata.

Really? No amens on this? Everyone is happy with this incredibly broken system?

I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one upset about this. I honestly don't know what Bioware is smoking, but it's obviously a substance that lowers IQ.

Loot drops from Hardmode bosses should not be specific to a class (ie Jedi Knight/Sith Warrior). Instead, the drop should be a generic coin/gem/commendation that any class can win and turn in for a specific type of loot. This is Dungeon Loot Distribution 101. The current system, predictably, awards loot drops for classes that are not present. Heck, what happened to the Loot Bag we kept hearing about before launch? Even that would be preferable to this crap. The current system involves two layers of randomness: the first and most important layer is the RNG that will determine if a piece relevant to your class will drop, followed by the RNG roll to compete against any other toons from an identical base class. It rarely fails that I'll run a Flashpoint with an Assassin tank, a Sorcerer DPS, a Mercenary DPS, and a Sorcerer Healer only to have a Sith Warrior or Imp Agent item drop. My companions are gearing up faster than I am, because I win greed rolls on these useless pieces. This system that you've developed, Bioware, is very discouraging. It takes upwards of an hour to complete any given Flashpoint, and in the end you wind up without any reward. And what's our alternative? A single columi commendation and some (useless) Tionese crystal drops? Seriously? When Columi gear costs 67 commendations per piece? That's pretty bogus.