I want to unlock a Jedi slot and it should be super rare, so only I have one on the whole entire server! Y'all are giving me SWG flashbacks.

Brace yourself... http://i.imgur.com/xiGOCnH.jpg

We all know this. Whichever dev designed 192 and 198 gear setups clearly was more interested in leaving work at 4PM than he was doing his damned job. I have no problem with having to get the highest (and second highest tier) gear pieces by going to multiple sources, but when pieces of higher tier gear are actually downgrades is a sign someone went off the rails. That said, they could have fixed it in any one of several patches now, and still haven't. So pray 3.2 brings new gear and simply hasn't been announced; but I doubt it. But let's be honest with each other... the graphics designers for 192 and 198 gear were right behind that lazy bastard and left at 4:03PM.

Valid point. The resources and therefore the supply is inexhaustible, but the time to adjust prices and monitor the GTN for fluctuations in average is not. There's always more doonium so long as players continue to run missions, sell units and farm it. At that point the economy shifts away from a financial system to a time-sink wherein the objective is to dump product for the lowest cost. A production cost would make this activity prohibitive at some point, regardless of how much time is spent repricing (or how many repricing cycles occur) there's a diminishing return in place on the product itself. So short of pulling the item being sold off the market altogether, price is always a consideration (the point at which price floor hits net zero) and the product being dumped either has no worth or very little. If the minority of players' behavior (dumping) didn't adversely result in overall reduced price of commodity for the majority, then yes, I would agree. There's nothing wrong speaking in terms of a financial system with dumping (to a point, there's a reason why in international commerce dumping is penalized, and that's part of the issue here). In small quantities, it's similar to a sale on the product, for a short period there's a run on the product, prices dip and profit with it. But this is never sustained over the long term, otherwise the market would only ever continue to drop (market crash). Creation of a price floor doesn't force a seller to price in such a way that profits are maximized. But it does apply a penalty which makes dumping undesirable on an ongoing basis. Someone offloading a 99 stack of molytex probably won't notice or care if they lose a few credits getting rid of it to make inventory space. But if they, over an extended period, continuously sell the molytex for crap prices or repeatedly over (or underprice) and then try to reprice (remember, the issue is repricing without a cost, not undercutting as a behavior) eventually the molytex is not worth selling; they're making less than vendor cost because of the way in which they're selling. Is it based on money supply, or the fact that there is no cost affecting the money-supply for price-changing activities? As I mentioned before, there's no cost to manufacture these products, and so the only credits which come into play are those moved between players (to your point). GTN today takes a pointless margin out of each sale for "listing cost", so to some extent, the developers understood 1) the game needs some credit sinks to price down inflation, 2) some pricing controls are necessary. In some ways, what I'm proposing is a "re-listing cost". Not the ~100 credits you spend to put a product up for sale, but if you continuously take it down, reprice, rinse and repeat that at some point the amount is no longer an arbitrary 100 credits, it becomes an amount you have to care about, and factor into your original point of sale. Something similar to a product cost, and you could almost argue an opportunity cost.

And personal attacks on the speaker, not the idea under discussion is the typical response when someone is faced with a logical argument but cannot form their own counter with adequate support. Again, you state "GTN is fine", but you provide no evidence or logical support to back your statement. You've made one accurate statement thus far, almost every single other post in this thread has provided some attempt at discussing the topic versus targeting the speaker; this does make their arguments far more constructive. "Recognize the situation for what it is"... Narcissistic self-validation doesn't provide any more evidence or support than any of your previous posts. It does however make one thing apparent, your mind was already made up before you entered the thread, there's no counter-argument that anyone can offer to convince you otherwise. Therefore, there's simply no value in discussing the issue further with you. You have to have an open mind, to BOTH sides of the discussion in order to have a constructive debate.

I won't be addressing any of ratajack's point from here in. I have yet to see a constructive post from him, in short because in a level debate there is no incumbent. You can propose a change to a system in a vacuum just as easily as one that takes into consideration environmental factors such as that the existing GTN is in place. What I've done is extract the current situation and excised driving factors for the current market in order to discuss them. Implementing the changes I propose doesn't immediately modify the market, it modifies the behavior of the participants in the market, and the market by proxy. Now in addressing your question, it's not specifically grade 11 materials that this argument applies to, and I'd caution to be careful about making assumptions of products I do or don't sell. I'm quite diversified myself, I used grade 11 materials in my examples above as the majority of the GTN market is not diversified; those are examples they will be able to relate to (the material will therefore make sense to a broader audience). True. I've made no argument above that states the system doesn't autocorrect when a commodity is disproportionately overpriced. That function of correction does operate as one would expect, if you overprice, and the demand isn't there, the commodity isn't purchased. This is where I would argue your conclusion is incorrect. A number of buyers when commodities are undervalued will buy them and repost for increases. But there is a continuous supply of undervalued product as a result of the repricing cycle I reference above. As a result, the price is only continuously driven downward within a set period of time. Now keep in mind, nowhere above did I state that sales price should be abnormally profitable. The desired gain here is in market stability, not commodity profitability in itself. That is to say there needs to be a mathematic means to calculate worth of a product that is something more than arbitrary, and something less than unreasonable. I would argue ~70% of the player base operates within a min/max range on the GTN that could be described as average when placing their initial prices. It's the other 30% that then enter the market, and over/underprice which the other 70% has to adjust for. The market's equilibrium therefore was disrupted by a minority. Here's the thing about sales, they're sustainable indefinitely if there is no cost of production. That is to say if every minute a hen lays an egg, I can then sell that egg. So long as the hen never dies, and so long as eggs continue to be produced, I will never be in the negative. There will always be something to sell, whether I sell that egg for $40,000, or $0.01. The argument being made is that if I choose to sell that egg for $40,000, and someone else sells it for $35,000, there should be a cost to lower the price, since the supply is endless (in a game with infinite resources) and over an extended period, so is demand. The market needs a stabilizing force for each sale; otherwise it's not pricing that drives a sale (you don't lose the sale because you got underpriced), it's time spent repricing the product ad infinitum. From your earlier point, there will always be that "next thing" in an MMO that has an exceptional price point. But the market shouldn't swing as wildly as it does from 25,000 for a piece of doonium to 50 depending on the hour. That's not supply/demand working itself out, that's outliers (both high and low) artificially driving inflation on a per unit basis.

You've provided no evidence for your conclusion that "the GTN is fine" . Your counterargument is still poorly posed and presents a straw-man fallacy. Given the complexity of any financial system, let alone a virtual economy, two sentences shows a lack of tangible consideration given to the points I've raised. In short, you find the GTN is working as you feel it should be working, and you've presented no evidence to support an argument for or against that stance. You haven't attempted to address my points (for or against them) using any kind of logic, and you've made no case on why things should remain the same. You're not even in the discussion at this point. You're just nay-saying for its own sake. I can debate the merits of why this is/isn't a good idea based on facts and hypothesis with a willing person. I can't logically convince someone ignorant to the information, who wishes to remain so, of the benefits. This is an internet forum, but in this particular post, you're expected to think and present a logical constructive argument. As you seem to be placing no effort into doing so, I'm now done with you.

It's a large post that discusses financial condition of the SWTOR GTN marketplace. A lot of thought went into it, your counter-point is weak and poorly considered. I'm calling for a stable and closer to consistent marketplace, something more realistic. Dumbing down that thought into price gouging, which is only one of several topics I discussed, is an issue in your understanding, it is not reflective of my post. Re-read my original post, and try again.

That one can go two ways depending on BW's preference. If they went the harsh method, the debuff could continue to run and a bad sale and selling habits could actually cost the seller money (if you price below your break-even and continue to pump out product at that cost point, you go out of business due to lack of funds). Or, they could set a minimum point (0-10% of original cost) at which point you stop bleeding credits. At that point, the profitability is almost nothing (this is the deterrent), but it never puts the player in a negative situation. Even an 8-year old will understand the concept of selling something and getting nothing for it. They have problems with the calculations (or don't even make an attempt at them). But giving something away for free, that they'll understand, and most won't do.

If this was one or two players, it would be possible to do so. But undercutting in this fashion is now the practice, not the exception to the rule. A behavior across a large majority (necessitated by poor behavior of a minority population) can be corrected. But you can't make GTN a monopoly as few players generate enough credits to control or in themselves set market pricing for any given commodity. In other words, like lemmings, bad behavior causes more. In order for people who understand GTN to make a sale, they have to resort to the same tactics as those who don't understand the SWTOR economy and just want a quick buck. This is why prices vary so wildly hour to hour (a stick of doonium can sell for 50 credits one hour and 24,000 the next). Back to my original analogy, you don't go to the grocery store and see a can of corn selling for $24,000 and another for $0.99. There is an acceptable range, a point at which making that can of corn has a cost and to price any higher (or lower) means you take a loss. That floor might be $0.50 a can; but on GTN, you can get all the way down to $0.01 a can, because there's a demographic of player that doesn't understand economic concepts. In real world, this self-corrects. If your minimum price per unit is $0.50 (that's the BARE minimum it costs you to make and sell a can of corn), then you can't, physically cannot sell below that price. You wouldn't be able to make the product if you tried to sell for $0.49 or below, so you wouldn't have product to put on the shelf. Setting a floor price does the same thing. At some point, it actually hurts you to relist prices every 10 minutes. You then actually have to consider a cost to every item you list. It requires players with bad economics begin thinking more, or incur a financial penalty.

This is the key point. The debuff generates a price floor based on the original point of sale for the item. If said 8-year old sets value of the item originally at 25,000 credits, their price floor is net zero, so 10 stacks. The very price they set their product at becomes the exponent that deters them from repeatedly relisting price. At 9 stacks, their price floor is 10% of original cost (2,500 credits, they in effect cheated themselves out of 22,500 by repricing).

I anticipated that argument, and my response is that supply and demand are only self-sustaining provided that a break-even point exist in the manufacturing process. At some point, supply either becomes too costly to meet demand, or demand can't be met due to shortage in supply. SWTOR experiences neither of these conditions (outside of high end cartel super rare items). 99% of items in-game any given player can supply, and as such there is almost always a demand. The problem is the equilibrium between them is never stable because outliers (those who price products far below or far above break-even of supply-demand) are continuous. The solutions I propose force the outliers to begin operating within the median min/max of supply and demand, artificially creating equilibrium, not limiting contribution. The same quantities of product still exist within supply and demand. In my example, the can of corn the local grocer sells doesn't change prices as you're standing there looking at it on the shelf. In SWTOR, it does. It wouldn't, if there was a reason for that pricing to remain stable (a cost to repricing said product).

There are a few items involving GTN which have been a problem largely since launch and I think with a few tweaks could be made better. Please consider the following. RE-LISTING OF ITEMS: There's nothing wrong with relisting a product for a lower-cost. If you go to the grocery store, you'll find a can of corn next to another, priced one cent apart (usually the local store's is cheaper) as a result of market pricing. And while this is somewhat reflected in SWTOR, it's out of control today. There is an opportunity cost to reprice a product to a lower sales point on a store shelf; that is to say the local grocery store can't easily price its corn at 99 cents and then when a competitor prices theirs at 98, the local store can then drop their own price from 99 to 97 cents. There's a cost to relabel the product, and more importantly this takes time, which is not true of GTN. This same practice arbitrarily and unrealistically drives down prices (player-driven inflation) depending on the players (and remember your F2P and subscriber base mixes a variety of ages from children to adults). The above concept of price point is intro economics/accounting, not something a low-age subscriber is going to understand. The reason I mention this is a low-age subscriber has no concept of cost, time or market stability. THIS is the key reason we see behavior of cyclical 1-credit underpricing ad infinitum. Two players selling the same product, one aged 8, the other aged 25 are going to behave differently. If the price point of the item is 25,000 credits, the adult will price at that initially, the child will undercut (either by 1-credit, or alternatively by several thousand credits). And that's fair so far. The adult will then adjust price, let's assume down to 15,000, closer to the child's price. That child will now pull the product and relist for 5,000 credits. This lack of economic understanding has now depreciated the worth of the product below its break-even point in selling. The child will not care, their goal was always to make some amount of credits, even if only a few. The adult however, likely pulls their product and waits for that child to go to sleep, waiting for an 8-hour window where a realistic sale point can occur (somewhere ~17-20,000 credits). THE SOLUTION: In the above scenario, there's nothing wrong with relisting the products or pricing, and I'd argue there's even nothing wrong with the child subscriber 1-credit undercutting the previous listing. The problem is an economic one; at no point in the repricing cycle does the product reach an axis where cutting the cost is no longer attractive to an uninformed seller. That is to say, there's no reason for the 8-year old to care what he sells the product for, so long as he sells it, and so he will ALWAYS drive the price down further, beyond the product's worth. This is a problem in the form of break-even point, there are none in SWTOR, artificial or otherwise. The only deterrent to selling a product too high is it may not sell at all, there is ZERO deterrent to selling a product too low (so long as "YOU" get the sale). The solution I propose is creation of a breakeven point. Every time a product (or each unit in a stack of product) is DE-LISTED on the GTN, it should acquire a debuff. Each debuff stack, upon sale of that product reduces the amount of credits to the seller upon sale by 10% of the original GTN listing price, stacking up to 9 times in total. The debuff would have a 48 hour time period (and travels per unit in the stack to prevent abuse, such as breaking apart a stack and mixing with another). This corrects the break-even problem as in the above scenario if the product was originally sold at 25,000 credits, if it sold at that point without being relisted the player gets a full 25,000 credits. When the 8-year old sub posts theirs for 24,999, if theirs sold they'd get the full cost. When the adult sub drops his price to 24,000 he takes a 1-stack of the debuff, so if he sells it at that point he gets 24,000-2,500 credits. When the 8-year old reprices to 17,000, he now takes a 1-stack for 24,999-2,499, and so on. 8 or 9 cycles later, continuing this repricing cycle no longer becomes profitable (24,999-2,499,-2,499-2,499 adds up). At some point, the product is only going to sell for 10% of its perceived worth to either party. They will either wait 48 hours for the debuff to clear, or they'll avoid repricing like this altogether. In either event, it causes both players to think carefully about placing an item on GTN, pricing it realistically, and it gives a 48-hour window in which to sell something for a realistic price before the product can be re-listed without penalty. AVAILABLE TIME: One additional factor to consider which increases the merit of the above suggestion is time. Your average adult works a minimum of 40 hours a week. Add in travel and the adult in the above scenario is not at their home computer the majority of the time, nor could they be even if they wanted to. The 8-year old in the above scenario could be spending their every waking minute logged into SWTOR. This creates an accessibility issue to the GTN market. That is to say even if GTN were to continue in its current form, the 8-year old, by virtue of having more time available can reprice products all day long, 1-credit lower than the current selling price of the adult's product. At some point, the adult has to go to work, this gives advantage to the 8-year old with more time on their hands. This creates an unrealistic market advantage (subscriber time availability to make a sale should NOT impact price point in a virtual market) in favor of the child. The situation this creates is the adult posts a reasonable product for a reasonable price on GTN, then logs for 48 hours. They come back and find the product has not sold, their price was undercut 30-40 times, often by the same subscriber who has time to keep cutting the lower prices on GTN by 1-credit every 10-15 minutes during the day. F2P: The above should be pretty straightforward, but there's absolutely no benefit to F2P players to sell product on GTN for realistic costs. They can't store large quantities of credits for use in the same ways subscribers can (their credit sinks are much different). And as a result, this can have negative impact on product sales price. By definition, an F2P player has no time commitment to the game, whereas a subscriber has for the period in which they are currently subscribed. There's no loss or cost to an F2P player to continuously list something low and walk away, a subscriber has to live with their GTN price points/credit decisions for the length of their remaining subscription. ALTERNATIVE (GTN MOBILE APP): As has been floated many times, creation of a mobile GTN application accessible on android and IOS phones would help this. It would give the adult the ability to interact with GTN while away from their home computer, so at least then they could be competitive with the 8-year old adjusting their price every 10 minutes. This doesn't solve the issue, but at least increases their chances of making a reasonable (profitable) sale. AVERAGE GTN PRICE: While I'm on the subject, the suggested price on GTN is never close to what the products are worth in time, resources and availability within the game. This is why a stick of Doonium sells to a vendor for 495 credits (Ebon Hawk) right now but the market average is ~24,000 per unit. I'd recommend a change to the "default list price" or suggested retail price on the GTN to be the average sales price of the product, data already stored on SWTOR I'm sure. This would inform the player what the current "realistic" price is for a given product. There's nothing quite so funny as dropping a full 99 stack of product onto GTN that sells for 24,000/unit but watch GTN try to list the entire stack for 3,000 credits total. That makes no sense and is generally unhelpful to the subscriber. GTN DATA REPORTING: And my last point on the SWTOR economic system. An API, webpage or other resource should be created that allows subscribers to perform pricing analysis on GTN data for their server. There are a number of projects people are trying to put together, or Excel spreadsheets, but no one has true economic data on the GTN within SWTOR. This should allow minimum prices to be calculated and a more realistic economic experience to be built. It would allow everyone to know what each others' products are selling for, how frequently, minimum pricing, max pricing, and a host of other uses. MAX PRICING: Set a GTN price cap of ~150,000,000. There's a lost of trash posted on GTN of 1 unit at 1-Billion credits. Any analysis of your player base will show you probably don't have more than 1-2 players with such an amount of credits. These players post the listing hoping to trip across a credit buyer who mis-clicks on their item and magically drops 1-Billion credits into their account. There's no product in the game that actually sells (or could sell) for such an amount because nearly none of the player base has such an amount of available cash flow. And I'd argue that any player with 1-Billion credits should be looked at very closely for purchasing credits with real money. FULL DISCLOSURE: In the interests of due-diligence and full disclosure, the above ideas WILL have their naysayers; particularly F2P low-costing and 1-credit undercutting players. The pricing controls I propose above will effectively put them out of business, but if not, it'll at least severely limit their options. They'll have to begin making sales on the premise of what they're selling, and not whether they can "outgame" based on amount of time they have to babysit the GTN search and check for relisted prices. The Dev team will upset a minority of players in making the above changes should you choose to. But the closer the GTN gets to real market economics, the healthier the game's economy will be. For your consideration. --Princess Chibi

I'm the OP, which on internet forums makes me God. And yes, you can absolutely impose a minimum bid requirement or a lockout timeframe on economic systems. Or rather, the developers can at minimal effort and it would improve the overall health of the player-driven economy. The ONLY ones who wouldn't want this, are those playing the 1-credit game. Everyone else will be grateful for the lower prices driven by the minimum bid calculation. Lower prices means more purchases, more purchases means more credits. Real crafters win while those gaming the system wind up broke. Also keep in mind the second principle. 1-credit underbidding, is no different than price fixing with one exception, it ensures your product appears first in the drop-down. That's not a problem for example cereal has at the grocery store. It doesn't matter what you price your products (unless it's sale or clearance), you'll always appear at shelf location XX1. I don't care how it's done, be it a time requirement, minimum bid requirement or have the system take 20,000 credits every time you de-list something. But this delist/relist for 1-credit lower crap needs to be fixed, and is LONG overdue.

Devs, You have a pretty good game according to most, and while I'm a fan of new and better content, there are some things you can do to make life easier on all of us (paying) subs. 1. GTN - Minimum Underbid Requirement: You'd think after all the MMO's someone would have figured out to stop 1-credit underbids on any auction houses or player-driven economies. This one bothers me out of most all economics in the game, because unlike a 12-year old who can sit and watch the GTN all day to keep undercutting the lowest price for the same product by 1-credit, I work a minimum 10 hour shift M-F. While this form of pricing may be acceptable in grocery stores, in no way, shape or form is this "fun" for any of the other players said child is outpricing (again, by 1 credit). It makes no sense that a product which sells for 1 Million credits would sell better at 999,999. So the thought is simple, add a requirement to the GTN that makes underbidding have a minimum credit or percentage requirement (just like your cost to place an item up for sale) that A) ensures if someone is intent on outpricing you, it's by an amount that at least benefits the community at large, B) doesn't allow the GTN Mafia to play pricing games all day long. Seriously, it's not hard to fix, and while credits are fictional currency, the time it takes to sell something, and have it fail to sell due to a 1-credit undercutter is very real. Alternatively, a minimum time after which you make a sell and can't take down your items to relist them would accomplish this same goal. I post an aug for 100k, SuperDip posts an aug for 95k, I shouldn't be able to take 20 seconds, de-list my items, and put them back up at 94,900. This will force players to think about their pricing. Too high and they'll be underpriced as well as locked out for ~48 hours (how about the entire cycle they choose to list for?); too low and they won't make a profit. Smart economics. 2. Cross-Legacy Bank Vault A "Legacy Inventory" that allows all your alts from the same account to store things in the same place, even between alignments would be nice. It makes no sense that I have to mail myself materials from one toon to another just to craft an item, or to reload credits. Effectively, if I have unbound items on one toon, they may as well be available on all of them. I can mail them, hell, I'd even be willing to let such a cross-legacy bank vault deduct credits as though I mailed them to myself, but it should all be in one screen, easily accessible. Yes, we're going to use it for mule-ing equipment too. That's what alts are for. The least you can do is make it easier on us given that items such as HK-51 are doing nothing but driving a requirement to have at least one opposite faction alt. 3. The Broke-@ss GroupFinder It's broke. It's been broke since launch. I know it, and you know it too. FIX IT! I refuse to believe that out of 137 players on fleet, there aren't 8 (5%) looking for an operations group. I further refuse to believe out of the ENTIRE SERVER (let's be kind and assume 1,500 players online), that your code can't find 8 (1/2 of 1%) players to form an ops group with. Further, that the above statement remains true for 3 BLEEDING HOURS waiting in queue for your GF to figure it out, also an issue. Fix it. All your best gear is operations driven, and as it is Cartel Market is breaking up a number of guilds. PUG's are going to drive content until things settle down, and it shouldn't be so difficult to put together a proper TFB/S&V group, seriously. 4. Jedi Companions Lightsabers are there, even when the companion isn't Why? It's cosmetic, it's simple. Just why? 5. Why do you HATE Artifice? Sure, we can craft relics; but they're all bound so our best gear we can't sell. Most of our best items other professions can make too (Mk-9 Aug Kits at the minute). Let's start allowing the other professions to sell their best stuff, because that's what players will pay top dollar for. Half-@ssed equipment, not so much. 6. While I'm on the topic, bound equipment. Why is bound equipment not transferrable between legacy toons or account bound? I'm sitting on schematics my Artifice can't do jack with, but my Synthweaver can! Purple high-end schematics, and you want me to trash them? Really? This form of binding made sense pre-Legacy (kind of...) but with alts and Legacy toons now, it's RETARDED. Recommend changing binding to be bind to account, not bind to toon. There's no reason not to, at all. The shell changes you made with the equipment updates at 2.0 proved that binding to a particular piece of equipment was an unwise idea, the same applies to toons and equipment. 7. Guild Offline Inviting I'm in a guild. I can invite people. I can't invite my alts, because my alts and my main toon with said guild standing can't be on the same client at the same time. I should be able to invite my alts to the guild (for that 10% xp increasing you're plastering all over the loading screens and website), whether or not they're online. It makes zero sense that I can't "mail an invite" to someone to invite them while they're offline. They can accept it when they get online, no? 8. Add a "Stack" option to the GTN If I want to buy 99 Carbonic Crystals and desire to see all they're priced at, I shouldn't have to look through 300 listings of Qty 1, 1,000 credits, Qty 1, 1,000 credits, etc, etc, etc. I also shouldn't have to sort by price. Make it easy, if I want to see a minimum quantity, let me tell GTN what I want to see. I'm sure I'll think of more, but start here. These are SIMPLE things that could roll within a patch or two and make crafters and alt-players lives easier. Let's focus less on the Cartel Market hoping for microtransactions and more on the regular paying customers. Remember that an F2P player can walk out on you at any time, I'll be with you for the rest of the billing cycle...depending on how enjoyable this cycle is.

...Really? That's it? *sigh* Try again. More effort this time please.

Awwww... Look at all the little kiddies who want to play Galaxies v2! Children, let me explain something to you all. The "make Jedi rare" argument died with Galaxies. Why you ask? Because you kids never finish your sentences. What you mean to say is "Make Jedi rare, so I can be the only one!" And when you're not one, or can't become one, or aren't the only one, along comes the NGE and the game goes bankrupt. Nearly all people play games to win. It's the reason why a good portion of the PvP population whine every time gear is nerfed, it's why most console games you buy have "collect it all and you're the best" achievements and it's why guilds will spend countless hours in boring *ss operations to gear up a handful of their people. Most players "want to be the best". But you can't be the best if a large number of people are just as much of a special snowflake as you are. I was there when Sony tried to make something "rare" in a Star Wars game. I remember the blue glowie village, I remember tards running into the middle of a heavily populated planet and lighting up their sabers to be surrounded by hundreds of fanbois. I remember the retarded programming used to make the decision of who was "worthy". You have absolutely ZERO concept of what you're asking and the impacts it would have. That's the burn of a game, let alone a popular one. Anything, EVERYTHING you can get, so can the person standing next to you, and the two hundred standing behind them. But mommy and daddy still love you. Edited: to sound appropriately patronizing.

Hmmm. If they have people available to sit on this thread and delete my posts, someone could be helping to get the servers back up that isn't... Just sayin.

I think it's what you do in that place with the bright flashing thing that's up high. My mother told me something about it once. It was called.....out....out...side? I don't remember. Wasn't that important.

And doing it without kicking the kings from the top of their hills, eh? 50 levels is weak. I'd have preferred if they'd started with 100 to begin with. Jedi should continue to grow and become more powerful over time and with knowledge. It's a very attractive idea that after saving the galaxy, you really don't know jack about the Force, have to grab a ship and go into the void for the next 60+ levels to truly become "dangerous". And then, in a later expansion, another 50 levels to make you legendary, and another after that making you godly... Completionists hate raising of level caps because they can no longer say they've done it all and sit PvP'ing with the best gear all day. They prefer stagnated games because they can sit loftly at the top and do nothing to crush noobs. With a cap increase, if they don't grind it out and improve, someone else will get there and crush them (which is why they quit). No one wants to be the bug instead of the windshield, but some people cope better than others with it.

Was waiting for me as soon as I logged in. Life is good now.

The EXP to level multiplier needs to be increased by 5.0x. It needs to take at least five times longer than it currently does to make next level. As-is, I'm halfway there and I'm not really happy about it. I'm enjoying the game immensely, but it's also "half-over" if we're going by level. I'm going to miss that level-up graphic at 50. Hopefully they planned ahead and the game will max at level 300 after several expansion packs and such.

+1...

I'm glad you learned a valuable lesson about the power of friendship... I however, do not have any issues with self-recrimination. I want, I roll, I get, it's mine. Just like the real world. I go up for that promotion you want, I get it, it's mine. I'm not going to pass up on something advantageous for myself because someone else feels they were more deserving or could have used it better. You can set ALL the rules in the world you want; the reality is most every MMO's devs know better than to get involved in this trash argument, and the whining kids screaming NBG!!!! are going to be ignored. If you want to play NBG, run with your guild. If you work in PUG's, GBN is king. A few hundred players out of MILLIONS are not going to change the play-style of the entire game base, or even influence a large population of a single server. NO ONE other than people with the same values or who feel cheated out of some piece of equipment (they were wronged in a previous game) cares what you roll. I don't care what you roll, Snoog doesn't care what you roll, most people in this world DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU ROLL. You can care what I roll all you like, and you can lecture me on it, and you can whine to the devs about it... BUT IT IS MY ROLL AND I'LL ROLL HOW I WANT. DON'T LIKE, FIND ANOTHER GAME. THIS IS HOW I ROLL! /end

My companion is more important than a WHINY PLAYER. Namely anyone that would agree with the above. My companion will be there the next time I log on. My companion will soak up more damage than any PUG member EVER will. My companion won't whine about the unfairness of life and knows to keep his mouth shut, finish the quest and give his best stuff to me. My companion is awesome. If you were this awesome, maybe I'd give you loot too. Does that help clarify?