Or allow us to trade up or sell commendations, so that the line that it would occupy isn't even there and doesn't even exist any longer. So, 2 Coruscant commnedation could be exchanged for one Taris. Btw, that's sell to a vendor. All sorts of economy issues if you let people trade commendations. Although between alts....

For you, tidmass, I'll restate a bit. For a 20% RE... Every attempt, taken as a single instance, has a 20% chance of hitting. I never said otherwise, nor did I intend to. There is no trend, there is no causal link between attempts. We're talking coin flips here. If you make multiple attempts at something that has a specific probability of occurring, such as a 20% RE, while each individual attempt has no higher chance to take place, the chance of at least one instance in the sequence of having a particular outcome (in our parlance, a successful schematic learn from the RE) are based on the formula I quoted before. In other words, the formula calculates the % chance that, for a given number of attempts, at least one will have the desired outcome. So, if you were to try 10 20% RE's, regardless of the results you got, there is an 89% chance that one of them would be successful. To determine the odds of more than one hitting, well that gets complicated. If you believe that formula does not apply, could you please explain why you think it only applies when there is a causal link, and what formula should instead be used to determine the likelihood of a single outcome on a string of attempts. I'm curious.

On the whole, I'd have to say most of the complaints voiced by the OP come down to the fact that MMOs are required to function in certain ways. I agree on some points, more or less, and think that BW/EA/Mythic oversold certain things, but I expect that sort of marketing fluff. 1. Planets are linear? I tend to agree, though I'd say the problem is that the progression as a whole is too linear, there are no real options of where to go and what to do, as far as PvE play goes. A few choices of planet for a given level range, at least on some ranges, might be nice (Go to Taris or planet Wheretheheck for lv 16-20 republic, etc.). I would hope that options will be added in the future, though I've seen no sign that will happen, so the hope is barely clinging to life. One comment though is that most games are pretty linear, unless they are true sandbox mmo's, and those tend to leave people wandering aimlessly. 2. Choices don't matter? Yes and no. I've gone through the same story (or parts of them) with the same class a couple times, intentionally, to see what would differ. The exact rewards/notes you get via mail vary according to choices you made, later conversations do actually reflect previous choices. In the case of my JK, I was very surprised how dissed he was in the finale conversation (reward ceremony) because he was tainted by the dark side. I think it safe to assume that conversation would have been different if he was lightside (or neutral?). However, certain elements of the game, e.g. the situation on Taris, cannot be apparently different to you because the multitude of other players still have to go through the game there, and it has to be the same for them as it was for you. So, in that respect, it is true that the game doesn't change, but I don't see how someone could reasonably expect it to, given the mmo framework (except for those subtle things I mentioned). 3. Pointless quests? Nature of the beast, welcome to the world of mmos. As for outleveling or being-outleveled, I found that by doing only the class missions and world story arc, I was keeping pace with the level of the planets and class mission. The only bonus missions I did were those that happened organically (if I had to go out of my way too kill an extra 20 enemies, or find the whatsits I didn't bother). One exception, when playing a stealth class and avoiding large amounts of kills, I found that I was falling behind a bit, but not massively (a level or two, by end of chap 2). 4. Lack of companion interaction? I have to agree here. Some details and particulars I could add or subtract from, but by and large, this "feature" didn't seem as rich as promised. 5. Not heroic enough? Well, yeah, I agree, sorta, with this. But then, I didn't expect my own movie, I expected an mmo. Given the mmo framework, I didn't get anything less than I expected. I will say that more use could have been made of timed missions to enhance the urgency of a situation, but there are often technical problems (many easily solved) with that. 6. Stalling? Again, it's part of mmo's. I didn't expect any more or less, though I agree that some of the tasks seem a bit trivial (the story progression could have been written a little better) at certain points.

First, don't fool yourself, TOR is a loot treadmill game. Raising the level cap means extended gear grind and obsolescence for prior efforts. Some reasoning below. Second, when it comes to communication, there are a few things to be aware of. If you look at the communication patterns, it is more EA/Mythic setting the communication (or lack of) tone and information (or lack of) sharing. As I posted a long time ago, good communication means active dialogue between the devs (or their well informed proxies) and the community. It is not a one shot thing, it is an on-going effort that needs to be committed to. There are mmo success stories of this sort of communication, EA/Mythic are NOT among them. Is TOR a loot treadmill game? Did it include, at inception, a non-linear advancement system (ala AA from EQ or RR from DAoC)? No. Are there listed tiers of gear, and do those tiers show distinct improvements (as opposed to marginal) over earlier tiers/ranks? Yes and yes. Are you excluded from content because you are improperly geared? Yes. (I admit that this is mostly a problem generated by the community itself, not by specific code in the game, but the game does point people rather clearly in that direction.) (Note: the legacy improvements are not so much about improving the performance of your character(s), but about adding flash and improving the speed of leveling, thus launching you to the gear treadmill faster) I too have some clear opinions on what leveling methods would be viable instead of gear, but that is a subject for another thread.

Random number generators are inherently unfair, unless they have some sort of streak-breaker to insure people don't get reamed by chance. I too have noticed what seems to be a problem in the overall success rate. I do hope it is being looked into by Mythic/BW/EA, since they have the numbers that are likely to be statistically significant. However, to give folks some idea that I have a small clue about the actual math behind this... Yes, if something has a 20% chance of happening, theoretically it will happen one in five times, but it certainly isn't guaranteed to do so. Note, however, that the chance of something happening at least once, which is kinda all we care about in this case, when we consider the multiple tries as a set, is 1- the percent represented as a decimal (80% is 0.8) to the power of the number of tries, times 100 to bring it back to a %. Thus .8^1 is .8, thus .2, thus 20%. Two tries gets us .8^2, .64, 36%. Three tries is 49%. And so on. By the time you've made ten tries to RE something with a supposed 20% chance to occur, you are looking at an 89% chance of getting a single successful shot. Still not a guarantee, which you will never get, and the chance of any individual attempt working is still the low 20%, but the odds start to be in your favor, sort of. Methods from the book "Randomness" by Deborah Bennett, the closest probability reference I had handy. For most of the RE'ing people are likely to be doing, the sample size is most likely too small to be statistically significant. That being said, I have noticed that my own numbers of late seem to be more in the neighborhood of 10-15 attempts as the usual. I do get the seemingly rare early success, and the occasional many-lots attempt "success". A few patches back, my typical numbers were more like 4-7 attempts, with the semi-regular success on the first or second try, and semi-regular runs of 10 or more, it seemed to be averaging out, but was reasonably consistent in my limited experience. Again, I hope the current numbers are looked at to be certain that no additional factor is being added or subtracted to the equation (like, perhaps, the addition of the legacy crafting perk, and how it may have skewed an otherwise simple equation?)

As I said above, and Rhaphael confirmed (ty), the bonus is for each companion type, not each and every companion. The five types are: mdps, rdps, support, mtank, rtank. You can certainly unlock each companion, even two support companions like Doc and Mako, but you won't earn the same bonus twice. So, even if you unlock both Qyzen and Skadge, you only get one accuracy bonus for the melee tank. Sigh, if only the display showed where you were getting each bonus from and/or listed all the specific bonuses you'd earned this wouldn't even be a question. Or, would be less of one, as people were pointed to that info.

Extra character slots would be great.

Well, the game is an mmo, so some of the permanent effects and so forth people are asking for just aren't feasible. You may have sold some guy off to the empire, or saved the world, or become some massive dark lord, but all the other folks around you, including the same class guy next to you might not have... yet. Best you can hope for is that the class story missions might have some indication of what you've done thus far, and in fact, some of them do. Would I like to see more of that? Yes, and I can only hope I will. That said, some things are potentially doable. For example, being attacked at random , based on what you've done is certainly doable. However the thing to remember is that it as to be equivalent for every class and every story/choice, and that becomes far less reasonable. Having played through much of the stories at this point, I can say that not every class story or choice would lend itself to that. It's kind of an all or none sort of thing, and that is, again, one of the evils of the mmo world. I am, however, very disappointed in the fp/ops big boss methodology, something I could swear the devs said would not happen. I find that mechanic non-challenging and dull. Enrage timers? Please, I thought we weren't supposed to see any of that either, and yet we do. There are so many other ways to make ops and fps challenging that they chose not to do. (multiple simultaneous objectives requiring teams or parts of teams to work independently; randomized bosses chosen from a possible pool, with assorted tactics, more varied tactics on the part of mobs, etc.)

If the perk you are looking for is the improvement from the mdps companion type, did you already get it with another class/companion? My understanding is that it can only be earned once for each companion type, not each companion.

Well done. In my experience, people are constantly overrating the benefit of the skill trees in SWTOR. The actual benefits in raw damage and efficiency are not that large, though there are some very good synergies to be had for some AC's. Don't get me wrong, the skill tree purchases are nice to have, but by no means do they make or break the capabilities of a character. Personally, even without the skill trees, I would miss the specialized abilities you get for the AC's (like heals).

Interesting point, on the items. That does give the merc an edge over the trooper. Since no generator I am aware of is moddable, the double moddable guns work better for customization. Sigh. And they clearly tried to make the factions balanced, but obviously failed to consider all the parameters. Perhaps they will fix this at some point, and we will see moddable shields/foci/generators? As far as abilities go, as posted above, they are exactly the same, excepting the animations.

Because then each player wouldn't get their individual experience in developing their character story their way, each step of the way, it would be shared at best. Though I personally don't think there would be that much of a problem with it, that is against BioWare's vision of how the class stories should go.

I recently posted in thread entitled "I'm not a healer". The basic gist of the thread was that the group finder was currently shoving people into roles for which they weren't spec'd. A commando/merc, for example, being put into the healing role even though they are spec'd for dps (and tried to select only that role in the selector). I agree that this is a problem, and hope that it is fixed and/or people make sure they are using it properly. However, I went on to suggest in my post that people not limit themselves by only doing exactly what their build implies and nothing else, even if it would save the team from a wipe. I am NOT suggesting that somebody spec'd for dps bill themselves as a healer (or vice versa) and join groups on that basis. I AM suggesting that if your team needs you to lay down a heal or two, or put out a little cc, and you can, you do so. (Or do a little damage, if you are a healer, and nobody needs healing at that moment) Is there something intensely wrong with that? Yes, this thinking is more valid for leveling fps and heroics than for HM's, but even in the more difficult content it still makes sense to me. Hypothetical Scenario: I am a mostly dps spec'd commando, (a few points in other lines, e.g. for crit improvement). I am in a dps role on my team. We get into a major fight, something goes wrong, and our healer (say it is a sage) is dropping. Do I a) keep on shooting cuz that's all I can do, or... b) backup heal the sage to keep him, and thus the group, alive? I personally will pick option b). Every time. The trade off of a couple attacks on my part to keep the main healer up seems like a no-brainer to me. As a dps commando, my non-spec'd heals are still vastly better than no heals at all. (If the sage is a lost cause, then yes, I keep shooting.) Yet a couple folks in that other thread suggested this was suicidal/stupid idea. Who is crazy here? A few numbers for the inclined... A commando/merc fully spec'd for healing only gets an 8% (13% when supercharge is up) improvement to their baseline heals. The special heals you can buy are a moderate cd free insta (which is pretty sweet), a minor aoe, an add-on hot for one of the baseline heals, and a charged reactive. Strictly by the numbers, none of these heals are game breakers, though they are handy. Some moderate threat reduction and good pushback resistance, minor defensive stuff, a little cost efficiency improvement, and the 15% improved crit numbers (surge), can also improve the overall effectiveness, but don't directly improve the healing numbers (not including the crits). So, a completely non-heal-spec'd commando/merc can still use the baseline heals (commando = med probe and adv med probe) at least 88%, and much of the time 92.5%, as effectively as a full spec'd healer. It seems I attach more significance to play skill (?) and knowing what abilities are most useful to my team at any given moment than I do to spec. Again though, I do recognize value in the spec. The cumulative benefit of full spec for any purpose is always noticeable, and not to be dismissed. I have seen smugglers/agents refuse to use the slice droid (cc) ability, because they were "dps" and that was not a damage ability. ALL smug/IA have the ability, why not use it if you can and the group needs it? I have seen classes with the baseline ability to heal fail to do so to save themselves or the team, even when all it needed was one or two casts. When I play a character, even if I am spec'd one way, I am still willing to use my non-spec'd abilities if it means the difference between success and failure.

While I respect the right of people to spec as they wish, I think it is a bit of a shame that people consider their characters in such a black & white way. I can appreciate that this is a bug, and people are being put into roles they do not want. Hopefully this will get fixed soon. But still... Stretch your abilities a little. As someone else mentioned, even if you have spec'd your character entirely a different way, you still have the default abilities available to your advanced class. All vanguards, regardless of spec, have the ion cell to let them tank. All sorcerers have a few heals. And so on. If my team needs my dps biased mercenary to heal, I heal. If my dps biased shadow suddenly has to tank, I taunt, switch to combat technique, and tank. If playing my character outside my spec will allow my team to succeed, you better believe I'll do it. I use all of my character's abilities as needed for best results. Or try to. Maybe it will be enough, maybe not, but I'll go down swinging. Too many people seem to have the attitude that if they aren't built for a particular role, they simply cannot do it, rather than being less apt at it. And they will not do it, which I find baffling. I've been in groups that have wiped, literally, from lack of a heal or two. As in one or two casts of a heal on some of the fights would have prevented a wipe. (final champ of Trouble in Deed [heroic 4], boss mob had less than 1K hp left, 3/4 players dead, commando wouldn't even heal himself) {triple champ fight (2 dogs, 1 mando) in mando raid fp, 2/4 players down, myself (gunslinger) and a commando still up, only mando champ still up, champ w/ 3K hp left, I'm kiting as best as possible (not very on that mob), commando didn't heal himself or me, the commando was officially in a dps role, but our healer (sage) had already gone down (and the com never threw a heal on our dying main healer that I noticed)} And, fyi, I play healer/tank capable ac's regularly, and regardless of spec have some of my action bars set up to use the abilities if I need to.

World missions are story lines related specifically to your faction acting for the world. The bonus series are typically extensions to that story line, which you cannot, afaik, do unless you've completed the main world quest series. Now, what would be nifty is a few improvements in that area. Differentiate class, world, and side missions by showing them in a different color on the maps (quest markers) and in the quest offerings over npc's heads. Overlapping non-same-type quest markers could be slightly offset either statically (always appearing on a very slightly different spot on the map) or dynamically (when you mouseover the markers they split). Journal/Codex entries for quests of different types would appear in different subheadings (i.e., in your journal the Tatooine quests would have two sub-headings, one for world related and one for side). This sort of thing would be especially helpful on planets, like Alderaan, where the world quest line is somewhat disjointed. Necessary? Of course not, ease of use/play features never are, but they make the game more pleasant. Hopefully not too tough to implement as well.

Thus far I've only been using it with some alts I've been leveling, not with my 50's. So, with that preface in mind.... Short version: It is poorly implemented. I do not like it, and I'm being nice. Long Version: For planet grouping (heroics), it is essentially useless. Joining a planet queue didn't seem to offer any differentiation between grouping for specific heroics or general questing (or even planetary PVP where available). At times, when I tried to queue for planetary stuff (for Coruscant in one case), it a) didn't let me choose which heroics I was looking for, and b) then didn't let me queue at all, even though I was on the planet and in the right level range. For flashpoints, some of the uses seem a little arcane. How you flag your group as doing a specific fp, other than by having the mission, isn't clear (or isn't possible). What happens when you are in the right level range for and have the missions for multiple flashpoints (but perhaps not all group members, or potentials have all the flashpoints? could that lack of matching missions account for some of the seeming excessive queue times? Either it has a default group composition (1 tank, 1 heal/combo), 2 dps?), or there wasn't any apparent way to set what you were looking for (as a group leader). In one case, I had the Hammer fp mission, yet it would not let me join the queue (picked up the mission from the droid on Coruscant, within listed level range (17 at that time), but could not join the queue. I do give props for the option to instantly transport to the flashpoint from wherever you might be when you accept the group. I frown that it puts you back on the fleet upon completion, rather than returning you from whence you came. Another factor that is unclear is when the queue actually starts putting people together. Is it simply enough people (of the right composition?) being on the list, or does someone have to actually start the group manually? I think the former, but my experience thus far has not led me to a concrete conclusion. Does someone actually need to manually enter the fp instance to trigger things? As it is presently implemented, honestly, I'd rather not use it. I probably will, but I will grumble and hope improvements and/or explanations are planned. As a side note, the fps REALLY need a med station at the start of each fp map, as in inside the instance (and possibly periodically throughout), so you don't have to load back into the fleet if/when you die without somebody to rez you. (And droid, where working, is on long cd)

In essence, I suspect you are correct. BW/EA/Myth are certainly going to be spending a lot of effort clearing bugs and balancing abilities. I suspect that, hopefully, Mythic learned from their Warhammer fiasco that not fixing bugs is a bad idea. On the ability delay thing.... I really have no idea what people are talking about. Yes, there is a global cooldown (gcd), as many other games have had. Yes, combined with latency/lag, that might make people feel like they aren't getting instant response. But I personally have not felt like I can't use my abilities in a timely fashion. I respect the gcd, and think it is there for good reason (many of which have been referenced by folks above). If people are talking about something beyond the gcd, then I can't speak to that. If the complaints are based on the gcd (+ lag/latency), then while I would expect BW/EA/Myth to work to resolve the lag/latency issues, I sincerely doubt the gcd will be removed (maybe reduced). They might change responsiveness by allowing better queuing of abilities. (btw, I've read a number of the 'ability delay' threads and find the evidence to be slim. Devs should have the metrics to say whether this is a problem or not, see below) Which brings me to my final point. Communication. Based on what I've seen in other games, positive and negative, a dev team (or their reps) communicating to their player base is key to having a satisfied community (note: not happy, necessarily, but just satisfied). Good communication (bi-directional) shows respect. Sadly, certain statements from BW/EA/Myth reps have already suggested this mutual respect does not currently exist, which is a bad sign. Good communication means that the community will know the plan. What problems will be addressed and when, what the schedule is for adding new features or making changes. Note: simply knowing what is on the next patch is NOT good communication. I'm talking about knowing what things will be showing up for months to come. Sharing this sort of info with the community. Corollary: Schedule changes happen. Some folks will complain, but if delays occur, my experience in other communities is that the majority are very tolerant of that delay... to a point. As long as the communication is there, which brings me to.... Good communication includes the reasons why, or more importantly, why not for various changes (or desired changes). Some things are obvious. Obvious bugs need no further explanation for when they are fixed (but sometimes need an explanation for why it is so far out on the schedule). For example, if the supposed ability delay is to stay in, the dev team needs to explain what the rationale is for leaving it in. Then, our part ("the community") can either argue rationally and logically, lobbying against that rationale, or we can be easily ignored. As a corollary, having blind changes, things that aren't publicized in patch notes (or the suggested schedule) is a bad idea. The community will notice things have changed, and if the devs get caught having not stated it would happen, there is a loss of credibility. Note: many changes can be summed up without detail, e.g. graphical and clipping issues were addressed, more will come, etc. I will point out that even without an organized and cogent community, there is major benefit to the devs for communicating well.

Any system which automatically generates positive credits is an open door for gold sellers. Gold sellers are bad for the game economy. Therefore, if slicing hasn't already been tuned to be a net zero credit mission, then it needs to be soon. The in world collection should also net no more than any of the other gathering missions, but that is slightly less crucial to nerf immediately.

I will toss this into the void, not that it will do any good at all... Damage meters have their plus and minus sides. Most of the plusses are game-mechanic aids. Most of the minuses are social in nature. Both sides have valid points, though neither seems willing to recognize that. True: It is quite possible to play well without a damage (or heal, or threat) meter. However, if used properly, it is easier to improve your play with one. Once upon a time, it was actually unheard of for people to group (and guild) with folks for more difficult content with whom they had not already grouped for 'easier' stuff. By the time you were doing the hard content, each and every person on the harder effort had been tested, approved, and/or vetted on numerous occasions. There was never a question or worry of anyone not doing their job, those who didn't measure up had long since been weeded out. I will suggest that when you do smaller group content, a single group dungeon (flashpoint) for example, it is VERY easy to figure out who is screwing up, and then that person either learns, or never gets into the guild. I will refrain from commenting on what is and is not difficult content (or a difficult game). These days, most guilds recruiting policy seem to be either an unsolicited and spur-of-the-moment guild invite, or a quick tell asking if somebody would be interested. Some, admittedly, do make screening their invitees a higher priority, but most do not. And yes, I've raided in multiple games, mostly WoW and DAoC.

You seemed to imply you could still summon her off the ship, yes? And since you don't really need her on the ship except to have companion conversations, which can usually, if not always, also take place in the cantinas, what's the problem? To be sure, it is a bug, which you have hopefully reported, but I fail to see a problem.

Well, that was a hefty read for a forum post, but I have to say that I agree with most of the particulars. Game economy is a VERY complicated issue, and yes, it rarely gets the developer attention it deserves. One premise, a game with a healthy economy is, by nature, a healthier game that will have more longevity and provide a more satisfied and happy player base. (Crafters get a market and can run their 'business', non-crafters can get useful items at a reasonable price, everybody wins) I very much enjoyed your tribal vs agrarian/industrial analogy, very accurate, I felt, on several levels. A few points (clarified?) Any game where crafted materials cannot be sold at more than the cost of the materials, is an obviously non-working economy (i.e., I need 10 metal units, at a cost of $100, to create a piece of armor, which I can sell for $50 = broken!). Usually, the nature of crafting in most games is such that one player, working alone, cannot provide themselves with enough raw materials to conduct all the crafting needed. There are too many demands on the time of the player. Solutions I've seen to this are: macro'd/automated resource collection (SWG style), npc merchant materials (DAoC style). Care must be taken on this. Resource collection as a profession itself, so to speak, is a valuable part of an economy, but as you said, there is a large chance for exploitation here. One area that I disagree, at least slightly, was the idea that a consignment merchant (CM) would help control the currency merchants. A small element of their business is clearly setting price controls by having certain employees monitor and make purchases through the Auction House (AH)/CM. It is just as easy for them to control the prices (or at least heavily influence) whether the market be an AH or a CM. The real solution, as you suggested (in part?), lies elsewhere. One area you seemed to skip over was the robustness of the crafted items, in the sense of filling all slots for a character, with a controlled way of generating desired stats. This does not mean using a limited number of preset recipes to provide variety in stat distribution. I firmly believe the crafter themself must be able to decide how much a given stat will be on a given item. For example, that out out of a possible 10 points of stats, the crafter of an item determines that 8 points will be one stat, 2 points of another (and so on). Some limitations, of course, can be applied, varying by item quality (no more than x stats, minimum/maximum values for any given stat, etc.). As a corollary to this, the idea of stat limitations (and thus diversification) can actually be a game economy enhancer, at least for most games. By this I refer to diminishing returns or hard caps for stacking any single stat (str/end/whatever). A second corollary to the robust crafting system is to make it simple enough that the run-of-the-mill player will understand and know, with minimal effort, what a crafter can offer. That knowledge and understanding allows the community to actually seek out the services of crafters. The solution, as you mentioned, is multi-part; some ideas (or bullet points) on the matter... Price/supply controls -No AH/CM price could be above a certain limit (some multiple of the base assigned game value for the item?). -Bring in fixed price resources needed for crafting (much as EVE does with tradeables). -Higher level resources (blue/purple quality) should be available in very limited quantity, except via player sales. Robust and crafter controlled (not random) crafting system. -Crafters able to supply for all slots, with some control over the stats on the gear (or consumable) -Stat caps and/or diversification. -Known crafter capabilities

The tool is not the problem. Sure, the /who list is limited in several ways (e.g. no way to do multi-filtered searches, i.e. a search for players of a particular level range AND in a particular place). Yes, the flashpoints are located in a very inorganic place (having them on the "fleets" removes them from the normal play areas and thus the majority of the pve players). But, the social panel <cough> does have the lfg comment function. You can invite (or /whisper) directly from the panel. When I am looking for a group for a particular heroic or flash the social who tab is the first place I look. I'm not sure how long I will do that, since result by that method are non-existent. Anyhow. The problem is not the existing tools. The problem is that people don't seem willing or able (lack of knowledge?) to use the perfectly useful existing tools. I certainly can't justify asking Bioware to put a bunch of time into developing nmore lfg type tools if people already don't use the handy existing ones. How hard is it to use the existing tools? Not very. It is very easy. Much easier, in fact, than filtering through ridiculous amounts of /general chat spam (already?!) to find teammates. Sad. That being said, I thing a predesignated lfg chat channel (/4?) would be helpful, and remove some of the spam from general. Assuming, of course, that people actually used it, that being the main likely problem (based on a few other games I've seen where there was a mostly unused /lfg).