It does indeed. But if that works, and I can chat to guildies, it'll do until the rest is done.

I'm going with the website download. It's at 40% of the minimum 'ready to play' download. So we'll see how that goes.

So tonight's patching fiasco (never had it this bad before) lead me to try the official and unofficial fixes listed on this forum. Ended up with the old launcher that would not, no matter which fixer I downloaded, update to the new one, and would only report that the login servers are down. So now I'm on to a full reinstall... yay! Moral of the story: if you get the network errors, can't retrieve patch data, and other shenanigans, don't try to fix it. Just go do something else tonight, and come back tomorrow and see if it works.

Personal thoughts about he high's and low's of SWTOR, I believe Guild Wars 2 will do equally well, if not better in the long run. I also believe that Secret World will do better than a lot of people think, or might like.

I wish I had an answer for that one. I'm guessing you would have a huge bunch of dialogue waiting for you at 50. Honestly couldn't say for sure though. I think these bugs are just due to having such a linear, story-driven system. (Which is fine, btw.)

Yeah, usually when this happens (in my experience), the system is waiting for you to complete a certain quest. Not a huge bug, but quite why the companion sometimes wants to talk, even though you haven't completed a pre-requisite quest, eludes me.

JTL but better, with SWTOR graphics, pretty please, thank you!

Agreed. Communication is the key to all group activities.

Is the above not what you wrote? Look, if you intended to write 'feel you are being selfish', that's all well and good. This is getting us nowhere, and continued personal attacks, and debating people's posts and not the thread topic itself, have been often stated as unacceptable by Bioware staff. So let's drop it, and either get back to discussing the topic, or offer each other a forum beer, and get back to playing the game we both obviously enjoy passionately?

We're obviously having misunderstandings. I'll try again: 1. I communicate with group. 2. No loot rules were established (regrettable if a misunderstanding occurs, but the entire group's fault); OR.. 3. The group agrees it is acceptable to Need for companions. I this situation, I may roll Need. Please, tell me why this behaviour is unacceptable? I have communicated, agreed to rules based on my desire as a decent human being to have a good time and work as a team, have put in the same effort, and then proceeded to select the roll as agreed (or forfeited) by the group, the 'popular consensus'. Are you being purposefully beligerant, or am I not making my view-point clear? I am not going to debate dictionary definitions, even though I disagree. It serves no purpose here, other than to score imaginary points.

The (assumed) soreness occurs when you place a label on someone without any factual evidence to back up the claim. I could simply label you 'purple' because you think purple is better than orange. I have no way of knowing if you are purple though, unless I see you. In a similar way, people are reading opposing opinions, and then bandying around the selfish label without any proof, or any effort to understand the opposing point of view. With that explained, let me return the question to you: Why so sore about a virtual lighsaber?

You're missing one thing here: if Bioware do change the rules, and the rights they give me, then naturally the way I play the game, and how I interact with other players will change to abide by those rules. Again, there seems to be this belligerancy among those 'against Needing for companions', where they automatically seem to think, by default, that because I am arguing for or against a certain basic concept, that I am some evil, sociopathic human being. If this is going to continue being the only argument, then I invite any of you who think this way, to join me on Primogenitor (same character name as here on the Forums) and run a Flashpoint with me. I'm quite certain that we'd have an ace time together, have a few laughs, and get some 'phat lewts'. But, unfortunately, for some people, it just seems like it is easier to throw out some insults, slurs and labels, and leave it at that, instead of sitting down like the bunch of gamers we ought to be, and discuss differences in opinion with each other. If you want, I can just call you all a bunch of d'bags for telling me how to play, or some other popular internet meme, and then leave. But that doesn't really achieve anything. I'd rather acheive something through meaningful discussion, even if it means my opinions change, because you're all my fellow gamers at the end of the day, and the whole point of this hobby is the shared experiences it offers.

Your argument here is based around the assumption that I am not using my companion in the Flashpoint activity. But what if I am using my companion? Let's take it a step further; you are controlling only your own character, and I am controlling my character and my companion. Am I still not allowed to roll Need for my companion? I did, arguably, twice the work that you did. Who has more 'rights' in this instance? My point of view is that all who participate have the same right to a random roll. I think that demonstrates quite adequately my level (or lack) of selfishness. It has nothing to do with an imagined (on your part) defense of selfish behaviour. I am treating everyone in my group equally. Please tell me how that is being selfish? Also, I have neither written nor implied any level of condascension. If you read that in my post, then that is unfortunate. I prefer to remove emotion from the equation precisely so as to avoid this kind of misunderstanding, and have a polite, logical discussion with others. So you go on to bring up facts, logic, and then finish by simpling judging, and labelling me selfish, when in fact, you have no factual evidence that this is the case. You are implying, and stating as fact, something that you cannot prove without grouping with me. You are also assuming that I play a certain way that you and others find unacceptable. So, let me clarfiy my gaming style when it comes to groups: when I accept an invite to a PUG, I communicate. Firstly, as a means of guaging my fellow players, and secondly, as a means to establish ground rules. The ground rules help to avoid misunderstandings. Now, if I do not agree, I am free to drop from that group, and find another, with no hard feelings either way (it is, after all, just a game, not a reflection of real life). If either no rules have been established, or it has been stated to be acceptable, I will roll Need for a companion item, if it is an upgrade. Quite often, if the item is of no real interest to me, I will Pass. Even if the item is worth credits. I think you can agree that this is quite an agreeable form of behaviour, yes? But with regards to facts and logic, let us approach an issue from the following angle. If one side of an argument cannot be substantiated and proven, then the other side of the argument must be correct, right? The two sides, in this case, are - and let's remove our personal opinions of what constitutes selfish behaviour from the discussion: A. Follows the rules as set by the game owners (Bioware), no more and no less B. Follows the rules as set by the game owners (Bioware), but add their own addendum to the rules, and goes so far as to proclaim that 'they are right' Since Side B cannot prove or substantiate that they 'are right', and Side A can - because Bioware makes it quite clear what is and is not acceptable - then surely Side A must be correct. This is the pattern I am seeing in these discussions: Side B: believes in the equal, game-given right that everyone who participates should get their fair share, with no restrictions, and does not get upset when they lose the roll. On occasion, Side B comes off as cold, callous and uncaring toward others, though this is generally implied by Side A, and in no way proven. Side A: believes that certain game-driven entities and players deserve more priority than others, and that to believe otherwise is 'selfish'. Side A then goes on to the forums, often using harsh language and derogatory terms and threats, in attempt to 'shout down' Side B using mob-rule tactics and arguments. Again, please tell me which of those is more selfish?

Incorrect. In this particular context, society does not define my rights. Nor do you. The rights and boundaries are defined by the game software and Bioware. If we are talking about the rights mandated and given by a society with rules and laws, then I'd agree. But we are talking about a videogame. In addition, 'popular opinion' only defines the rights of those who are lacking enough self-awareness and mental aptitude to do anything but follow them. And that's one of the major problems here: 'popular opinion' says - definitively, with no room for discussion - that 'the game is played this way, and you are wrong, and anathema if you don't play how we say. It has been successfully, and politely argued why this mode of thinking and behaviour is wrong. If someone still cannot understand why the above statement is wrong, then I am sad for them.

Actually, that's incorrect. I am not arguing for the right to do as I please to the point of upsetting people - even though, technically, if someone gets upset at what I do in a videogame, that's their problem. What I am arguing for is that everyone who helps defeat a boss (in this particular case) should have the right to roll on the dropped item. That is simply treating people as equals. To do otherwise - to assign priorities on who gets what - is to put one's own needs above the needs of others, which is part of the definition of selfishness. Unfortunately, the common counter argument to this viewpoint seems to be factless judgementalism, and often rude behaviour such as name-calling. The reason why Eldren's point of view and debate is so easy to understand, and easy to subscribe to, is because he/she manages to write in a clear, concise manner, and manages to remove emotion from the equation to bring the issue down to simple elements. The emotion should have nothing to do with the article being discussed. This is one of the reasons I personally do not mind if someone needs (and wins) an item I wanted too. I don't attach the same amount of emotion to a virtual lightsaber as perhaps some other people do. If I don't win it, sure, I'm sad for a few minutes. But the item will come around again. In fact, I'd dare say developers make such instances repeatable, and then use the NGD system, to keep you running that treadmill a while long, thereby keeping you paying. But let us stick with the logic facts at hand: Unless Bioware publishes an addendum to the EULA where it states that it is forbidden to roll Need on an item for a Companion, then people should not be judged for using the system 'as is', and that is working 'as intended'. And yet they are labelled as 'ninjas' (which is incorrect, the plural of 'ninja' is 'ninja'), 'scum', 'selfish' and all other manner of derogatory names. That actually says more about a person's behaviour and level of selfishness compared to someone who simply clicks a button and 'lets God decide'. I could go on and on, trying to explain and debate why one pattern of behaviour is more or less selfish than the other, but there's no point. What it comes down to, is this: Assigning your personal, emotional opinions and rules onto others with regards to loot (when you have happily accepted their assistance for the last hour or so) means you are being selfish. Allowing everyone in the same group the same right to roll shows your ability to treat others as equals. I don't know how to make it any simpler to understand: * Assigning priorities (based on personal opinion) to who may roll for what = you hold your priorities higher than other's = selfishness * Giving everyone participates the right to roll Need (regardless of outcome) = treating all equally = unselfish

Yeah.. I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, of us who subscribe to the belief that everyone has a right to roll, want nothing more than for all of us to have the innate, un-bullied right to roll on any item they helped to obtain. We treat all our fellow players equally, and refuse to dictate how they play. I don't know about you, but that's not how I define selfish behaviour. And yet, the majority of the 'other camp' seem to believe that they should be able to dictate who gets what, and failing any real arguments, simply resort to calling 'us' selfish, scum, and that 'we' should be named and shamed for treating people equally? Seems rather strange to me. Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

I am slightly troubled by a self-proclaimed community that holds that denying another participating player's right to roll on an item is less selfish than simply allowing everyone the right to roll as they wish. To impose your own set of ethics on to another is just - and even more - selfish as simply needing on every item you helped to obtain. That is why there needs to be simply 'Want/Pass'. With a level of purity and simplicity comes clarity. And while it wouldn't entirely remove the arguments, I am certain it would lessen them to such a degree that we would not be seeing multitudes of threads such as this one. Equally troubling, to me personally, is how so many people become so emotional over such things as pixelated lightsabers.. Whatever floats one's proverbial boat, I guess. On another note, I would just like to thank Eldren for some amazingly well-written, logical, and ethical posts, equally devoid of an overbundance of emotion. Is there a fanclub I can join?

Indeed. Might just as well ask some people why they don't like ice-cream. Might seem weird, but that's just their preference.

Quoted from the New Player Guide: http://www.swtor.com/info/newplayerguide/chapter-two So, how is 'trick-flagging' or accidental AoE flagging in anyway 'agreed to by both sides'? It does not say PvP may be agreed on by both sides. It says it must be. Therefore, it must be a bug, right?

PvP server: you expect, and agree to, non-consensual PvP at any time. PvE server: you expect, and agree that, PvP is consensual at any time. 'Trick-flagging' or accidental flagging is not consensual.

Do you know what the difference is between a player and a NPC mob? NPC mobs don't hop around in circles like a Duracell bunny on acid.. Seriously, do people still exist that believe playing one version of a video game makes them better than others?

Could also be that the models have a finite amount of anchor points for facial accessories (beards, piercings, headgear, etc). This is a guess, though.

Whether or not Cyborgs should have been a race in this game, it was a cheap way for Bioware to add another playable 'race', and generally-speaking, more is better than less.

I just thought the OP was trying to be sarcastic and clever, and failed at both.. *shrug*

What is he then?