Although they don't have the 70% slow, IO mercs hava a semi-permanent 30% slow (Incendiary Missile) as well as a potential 40% slow (Power Shot). Furthermore, a typical IO rotation consists of only 2~3 skills with an activation time (Mag Shot can even decrease that by one), whereas Arsenal mercs have 4~5. That means, IO mercs are more mobile and Thrill of the Hunt is still useful for IO mercs, unless you want to double the time you can't move. IO mercs actually have quite a noob-friendly DoT rotation. You only have to make sure to reset Mag Shot every 7.5s. but you're otherwise free to arrange your 6~7 rottional skills in any way you want. There are only two minor complications: You must choose your filler depending on your heat level and Explosive Rounds becomes a valid filler once the target drops below 30% HP. Another strange design decision: Arsenal - the burst spec - actually gets the passive heat mamagement bonus (Terminal Velocity), whereas IO - the DoT spec - gets a bonus on the bursty alternatives (Vent Heat & Thermal Sensor) as well as a focus purely on Mag Shot (Particle Accelerator). In the end, Mag Shot not only creates no heat, it even vents some. ______ But more about Trauma Regulators, Responsive Safeguard & co: First of all, it seems there's no limit of how often these effects can be trigger per second. Attacks that deal damage more often or that trigger some bonus damage, will trigger the def. skill more often. And due to the fact that Reactive Shield can be iinterrupted prematurely, it would IMO be a good start to introduce the typical 1~1.5s delay between triggers. Second, both Responsive Safeguards and Trauma Regulators can be bypassed by dealing anything but direct damage. So no matter wether you agree to nerf mercs or not, to have two def. skills with the same sort of bypass that punishes players who don't know that, makes the game significantly harder for casual players... and this isn't a wise strategy for any MMO franchise. It would be at least better to focus on simplier def. skills.

You still don't analyse why the Arsenal spec does more damage than a Marksman. IMO, the reason is that the high damage Arsenal skills (Railshot & Heatseeker Missiles) can be used more frequently. On contrast, a Marksman Sniper will spam Followthrough and Snipe most of the time. Furthermore, although Orbital Strike deals ~13,000 non-crit damage (compared to ~6,550 non-crit damage of Snipe and the ~7,000 non-crit damage of Followthrough), you won't find Orbital Strike in any Marksmanship rotation // parse. WHY? - Simply because it has an base activation time of 2s instead of 1.5s... and due to 'procs' dictating a certain rotation. First of all, there's a difference between nostalgic and iconic. That aside, keep in mind that it's an Imperial Agent skill, not a Sniper special. In that way, it's just as iconic/nostalgic as a Frag Grenade... and is surely far less iconic than a flamethrower... and we know what happens to that skill. I.e. just because every spec has access to a specific skill doesn't mean it has to be in the rotation of every spec. And in that regard, Corrosive Dart is one of the worst examples (even worse than Rail Shot). So I really meant it when I said that I would rather remove Corrosive Dart from this spec, limit it to some other spec or replace it with a more flavorful skill. E.g. just like PTs don't have Missile Blast anymore and Sorcerer don't have melee attacks. Both a Crushing Darkness variant (activation time; high initial damage; short DoT) and a Explosive Dart // Thermal Detonator (delayed effect) would have made more sense. And that Markmanship - the only burst spec - should be the spec to refresh the Corrosive Dart DoT makes no sense either. But even that aside, I still believe that the very idea of a duration reset similar to Gut would be a mistake. Because it means that the skill is downgraded to a "used once" effect that wastes a slot in your skill bar and causes an unnecessary inconvenience when you're forced to switch targets frequently. If it's meant to be a semi-pernament effect, better make it a combat-cell-like trigger effect. Sure, the dev can implement anything they want as a visual temporary buff, but there's no need to do that. In fact, even the 60min buffs that polute your 'buff tray' could have been permanent passives instead (like other legacy bonuses). Take Muzzle Fluting f.e. (Followthrough reduces the energy cost of the next 2 Snipes by 5). It makes no sense to me that this a proc rather than a permanent effect. Snipe should have cost 15 energy to begin with, just like Tracer Missile, Lethal Shot, Overload Shot, Shiv and so on. In addition, this spec already has Sniper Volley & Sniper Nest as situational energy regenation boosts, so was there really a reason to add another one? And btw: Just like Zeroing Shots - this proc triggers way too often. Or take Recoil Control (i.e. almost everything resets the cooldown of Followthrough) - another proc. It's one of the reasons why this class has some DPS issues, simply because it prevents players from enqueuing their skills. It would have been better, if this skill would have had no cooldown and a lower base damage. All the other skills could have trigger a damage boost to raise the damage to it's current level, but it would have allowed players to enqueue this skill ahead of time. Or to be more extreme, the devs could have kicked Followthrough out alltogether and could have used Takedown instead. With a lower 'normal' base damage and an additional damage vs. targets with less than 30% HP, it could easily take up the part of Followthrough. Last but not least, the devs already agreed to your suggestion and added Finish the Job - a proc for Ambush (Ambush increases the damage of the next Takedown by 20%). Sure, it might deserve some changes, I simply don't agree with your proposal. IMO, the problem isn't that snipers have to recast Corrosive Dart occationally.... Oh and btw. Noone said it would transform Marksmanship into a DoT spec.

That's an exaggeration. Neither do 'endgame raids' fail due to missing AoE damage nor does a MM sniper have an overly powerful AoE. This spec runs out of energy really fast and other classes with sustained AoEs, DoT spreads or rotational AoE skills will catch up easily. "Burst" and "easy target swap" are empty buzz words used by DoT lovers to justify their DPS advantage. In PvE, these aspects aren't that important at all. DoTs are rarely interrupted prematurely, crucial targets usually don't die to a short 3~4 skill burst and most DoT specs have their own 'burst-like' skill combinations. It's way more important to stay mobile AND deal damage.... and MM snipers are on the losing end in this regard. Many abilities have an activation time or channel duration and can't be used on the move. That's what I am talking about and one of the reasons why DoT specs don't necessarily deserve a higher DPS. Why not? Both are ranged burst specs. When did I state that? All I did was to check your statement that MM snipers have 'weak' attack skills. And it turned out to be wrong. So better try to figure out WHY a Commando deals more damage in total. Corrosive Dart - an Iconic skill? Really? So the first thing that comes to your mind when you think or talk about snipers or about Imperial Agents is the skill that slowly etches itself through armor? Don't get me wrong. If it's an iconic skill for you, that's fine. Not for me though... And honestly, it makes me doubt the logic behind your proposal. If Ambush would reset the duration of Corrosive Dart, this latter would end up like Gut - used only once and then constantly refreshed by other skills. I.e. it would vanish from the normal rotation and be replaced by other less-iconic skills - like Snipe. How would tthat fit to your statement about Corrosive Dart being the most iconic skill? Sure, keeping track of the cooldown can be annoying and a 18s duration doesn't really fit into a 11~12.5s rotation, but most classes do have skills that result in similar inconveniences. That's nonsense. A lack of 'flavor' or 'thematics' has nothing to do with class balance. A Sith using a green lightsaber wouldn't ruin class balance either. Both are honorable goals, that's it. Are you mad because someone on the internet didn't support your ideas? See, reducing the casting time of Orbital Strike could make it a part of your rotation, not just a skill that is a pre-cast opener... and it's a DoT! In other words, I actually suggested to improve an existing skill rather than introducing a new, arbitary DoT for Ambush. Likewise, my suggestion to make Takedown usable against targets with more than 30% HP under certain circumstances would be a situational effect that is quite common for other classes as well and would support the - quote: 'proc based' theme of this class. So what exactly do you blame me for?

If this would really be BioWare's point of view, it would be totally stupid. It's just like saying that there can't be new iPhone features because buyers and app develeopers have spent so much time & money on the old version. This isn't how markets work. Even if you would split colors into separate primary and secondary parts... it doesn't mean you can't make any profit out of it. Black and white could still be rare or CM-exclusive colors.... or you could introduce CM-exclusive material overlays (like a 'matallic', 'rusted' or 'worn out' look). Just look at the special gree weapon effect. And you could even go a bit further and to introduce dye for mounts or stronghold decorations (f.e. changing the color of the ceiling light, etc.)

Additional difficulty levels - even for any 'old content' - would be easy to implement.... simply by altering the level sync... DONE! F.e. if the planet is opted for lvl 23 characters, the level sync would currently adjust the character to a max. level of 25~26. But BioWare could add a 'hard mode' which would lower character level down to 23 and a 'nightmare' mode that adjust the character level to 20. Just add some 'convenience' features to give players more control over the difficulty settings of other team members... or the difficulty setting of 'team-oriented map instances' to make sure everyone has chosen the same difficulty level.

Unnecessary. It's a DPS class similar to a Gunnery Commando. No need to add another DoT and no need to make the rotation 'simplier' by resetting the duration of Corrosive Dart. Quite the contrary. In my opinion, Corrosive Dart makes no sense for this spec at all. F.e. it's the only tech attack and it's this tech attack that increases the damage taken from ranged attacks by 5%. Not quite true. Snipe: ~6,550 non-crit damage (~10,400 avg. damage) Grav Round: ~6,150 non-crit damage (~8.800 avg. damage) Pen. Blast: ~13,500 non-crit. damage over ~2s (~20,000 avg. damage over ~2s) Boltstorm: ~19,500 non-crit. damage over ~3s (~27,000 avg. damage over ~3s) Followthrough: ~7,000 non-crit damage Vortext Bolt: ~7,700 non-crit damage (but way less often) Well, we do have a completely different opinion on that one. I don't enjoy all these random interactions that are just a complex way to state: "skill X deals a bit more damage". Instead, I'd want these skills to be balanced and interesting right away. Therefore, Penetrating Blast doesn't have to provide some unnoticable, silly bonus to other skills in your rotation. Instead, I'd like to have the casting time of Orbital Strike reduced to 1.5s ... or that Takedown can be used above 30% HP under certain circumstances. But more than anything else, I'd want Snipers to get a true 12s rotation. Edit: Adjusted damage values and separated values into non-crit and avg. damage for a more detailed response

There's a simply a difference between 'viable' and 'best suited'. It's the same difference between asking if a Telekinetics Sage is a viable DPS class and asking how good the DPS is compared to other specs / classes. So yes, the ST PT is a viable tank class, but it has some noticable drawbacks. The main disadvantage is the lack of a short-term invulnerability or high damage resistance. And although taking the damage might be no issue at all as long as your healers are good, it might still be more stressful. So it depends on the rest of the group whether they accept you or not. From my personal experience, I can tell you that a ST PT tends to be pushed into the 'offtank' role. A few examples, where the PT tank isn't that great: Dread Fortress (Draxus): Subteroth explosion; Guardian kick Dread Fortress (Brontes): lightning ball explosion Dread Palace (Raptus): Deadly Slash & Forced Execution; tank challenge Ravagers (M&B): Master's Wheel of Death / Ion Cutter phase Scums-&-Villany (Titan 6): grenade explosion Scums-&-Villany (Styrak): Kell Dragon spines; Styrak's final attacks Another disadvantage is the lack of damage reflection... Not just talking about the non-capped Deflection (Assassin) abusal, but also about the 'normal' use case, when it's used to speed up the fight. An example: In a fight against Karagga, a Jugg might be automatically chosen as a main tank due to saber reflect. Another example might be the Scum-&-Villany operation chief challenges. Don't be surprised if your ST PT will be assigned to a different group. So yes, a ST PT is viable, but not as great as the other two options. My personal experience: Sin > Jugg > PT

Even if you find three threads claiming that a certain ship type is overpowered, it would be wrong to assume they might be balanced. They are inbanced, but not in every existing constellation. Likewise, if one class would have op heals & defs whereas another has op CCs and a third one an op range, it would be foolish to consider them balanced.

@ AronisContar: I've posted the same calculation a while back and concluded that indifferent of the actual drop chance, the only real solution would be to spread the items across two slots. My proposal was to separate all the moddable gear pieces from the 'left side' items (ear, implant, relic). The remaining 9 different types of moddable items would require approx. 26 crates (with a sure drop) to complete (IIRC). And although there are only 3 types of 'left side' items, the sheer number of different variants makes the result quite similar. If we then assume any kind of fail-safe mechanism (like unassembled components), the average amount of crates you need to complete a set would drop down 17 boxes (if you can buy the last missing piece). So even with three different item qualitiies per tier (prototype, artifact & legendary) and a reasonable variance, the chances to complete a set would be quite fair. Nevertheless though, I wish BioWare would strip the whole system down to no more than 2 item qualities per tier, reducing the required number of command levels per tier down to 50~60 (while raising the required CXP per level accordingly (if they have to)). IMO, the differences between the various item qualities aren't significant enough to keep the interest up. So no matter how high the chances are, the sheer number of 90~120 crates per tier will stay quite frustrating. (especially if BioWare introduces sure item drops in operations) IMO, they could introduce such a change when the current CXP boost ends

I wouldn't want that. It would still be worse than lowering the total effort to max. a specific, single character. I mean, why should switching to another toon of the same base class be less annoying than switching to a toon of a different class? That would even allow players to create countless characters of the same spec in order to bypass weekly limits. So given the choice between hefty global achievements // reputation and hassle-free personal ones, I'd always choose the latter.

Nope. It's the intent to keep older content viable and therefore increasing diversity. Just look at Heroics, Flashpoints or the Eternal Championship. The alternative would be to use a downward level sync similar to the one used on regular planets. But I guess that's not a real option either, because loot still seems the major / only incentive... just look how many have pledged for a sure item drop in operations (including EV & KP) or just imagine the enrage, should BioWare scale PvP down to lvl50 (or match the level-sync of every map according to their release date).

Why would you want a new ship that might - if ever present - balance out other ships? Why not balancing the existing ones instead? And it wouldn't be that hard either. The bomber was introduced to secure an objectives long enough for the remaining team to play offensively. The gunship on contrast was introduced to prevent an overly focus on bombers and to force opponents out of their defensive 'confort zone'. Both legit ideas. The problem is that - in order to achieve that goal - the opponent must be able to recognize such a situation and be able to react properly. Especially in regard of gunships, that's not the case.

To invert this statement: Why should you limit specific items like a mainhand, etc. to more difficult OPs, why would you limit the drop chance to 1 item per boss (rather than 1 per player) and why would you restrict the availability of certain items to operations in general (they could drop in flashpoints as well)? So why would you be opposed to these forms of 'easy grinding'? BioWare could introduce a vendor for these items, could introduce more crafting recipes, could make all the items legacy bound right away or even give them away for free. If a group of players prefers to get their items that way, who are you to deny them that? Or let's apply the same scenario to PvP: BioWare could make every item except the mainhand, offhand, head and maybe the chest purchasable for a single unassembled component (UC). Let's then accuse anyone who would question this uneven / unfair UC requirement of ruining the PvP metric.... Who cares if these players get slaughtered, flamed for their lack of experience (in hutball f.e.) and might propably never return. As long as they've made the PvP metric look better, who would care about the rest? Why would anyone ever question a disparity, inequity or exploit? ____ So it's not about whether a character should get the gear or not. and it surely isn't a black-&-white decision. It's about the question how to come up with a system that's fair to everyone... especially to new players. And in that regard, 4.0 wasn't really a good system. To make the items bound on pickup f.e. (or to prevent the mods from being inserted into legacy gear) wouldn't stop any player from running EV & KP. BUT it would stop players from using their fully equipped main character to equip a long-forgotten alt. That then resulted in a lot of tension between players. The better equipped players were eager to blame the less equipped players for anything, if not for at least making the run longer than necessary. I can remember countless of runs where unexperienced tanks & healers had to face a lot of hatred because they didn't satisfy the expectations of the better equipped players (but I bet it was pure coincidence that the well equipped characters tend to be primarily DDs ). So some players got kicked & replaced by guildmates, others weren't even invited... what a healthy community. Furthermore, the less equipped players then had a hard time fighting for their gear, because a token could always be used to equip another alt, even one that does not yet exist. Which then resulted in lovely things like players being adviced to skip their roll on a certain item or to trade their token for another one they were also missing. In many cases, the loot master simply changed the order in which the players roll for the items, leaving the one he/she needed the most for last. And that's just the 'bound-on-pickup' part. In regard of the difficulty level, the number of rewards and the 'item overlap' in EV & KP: That's a matter of diversity! One of the greatest achievements of 4.0 was that the level-sync made the existing content (i.e. all the operation) viable again. Theoretically, players were free to choose to run whatever operation they want. But the truth was that the difficulty level wasn't even despite the level-sync. Now, the more items you make available in EV & KP, the more often a player is 'pushed' to repeat these two operations only. Not out of their own desire to choose the most easiest run, but due to the behavior & responses of other players, should they try to join a different OP. If BioWare would limit the rewards instead (f.e. by increasing the item overlap), more players will be tempted to choose another operation, which would then lower the 'entrance barrier' and smoothening the gear progression as well as increasing the overall variety. Because despite the fact that the highlighted operations had their own noticable downsides in 4.0 (but who would ever oppose this form of 'easy grinding', right?), they at least gave players an incentive to try out more challenging operations.

The 1.5m ranking (to preserve the current state): Assault Specialist / Innovative Ordnance: 8,34 Saboteur / Engineering: 8,10 Ruffian / Lethality: 6,33 Combat / Carnage: 4,20 Dirty Fighting / Virulence: 3,85 Infiltration / Deception: 3,15 Watchman / Annihilation: 2,55 Tactics / Advanced Prototype: 0,64 Scrapper / Concealment: 0,58 Gunnery / Arsenal: -0,42 Vigilance / Vengeance: -1,27 Concentration / Fury: -2,05 Focus / Rage: -2,27 Serenity / Hatred: -2,85 Sharpshooter / Marksmanship: -5,73 Balance / Madness: -7,52 Plasmatech / Pyrotech: -7,67 Telekinetics / Lightning: -7,95 Annihilation DoTs only last for 9sec or less, so it wouldn't be fair to put it in the same category as other 24s DoT specs. And in most cases, melee classes can deal consistent damage in PvE as well. In regard of PvP, other aspects are way more important than a 1,5m DPS parse. Nevertheless, it's still fair to state that the overall discrepancy needs to be addressed.

What makes you think the CXP boost will be gone. They've changed the system from a multiplicative one into an additive one, so there's no real 'going back' anyways. So why bother with OP loot tables. Make the gear tradeable... or give it away for free! Likewise, make housings free as well and let's make every cosmetic and every cartel market item available for credits, since it would be just jealousy or basest desire to deny other people what they want. Do you see how unobjective such a response is? IMO it's a good question, who decided to allocated the items the way they are. And that includes the question why EV and KP has only a small overlap compared to other OPs. EC & TfB f.e. have three items: Relics, Implants & Helms that can be obtained by either OP. IMO, it's questionable why the Ancient Pylons in EV are even considered a separate boss. You could state that these are the 'mob group' or 'secondary threat' the Infernal Council is missing (compared to other boss fights). And last but not least, SOA is the only final boss a 8man team can easily defeat running a 16man mode. @Eric Is it correct to assume that you won't fix any of the 4.0 shenanigans with 5.2. I.e. adding character-bound mods into a legacy gear in order to bypass this limitations and being able to equip alts that had never run an OP? And to shift your gear between multiple characters of the same class to bypass the weekly operation limit? If so, do yourself a favor and remove both the weekly limit and the item/mod limitations right away. This would at least avoid the quarrel about unmoddable items like implants, relics and earpieces.

You don't "resolve most of these issues" in the context of RNG crates, you're providing alternatives. In other words, you're separating the current 3 tiers into 10 'groups of different item qualities' and a more fluent transition. I.e. Lvl 1~30: most likely a tier 1 prototype Lvl 31~60: most likely an tier 1 artifact Lvl 61~90: get spammed with duplicates Lvl 91~120: most likely a tier 2 prototype Lvl 121~150: a relatively fair chance for an tier 2 artifact Lvl 151~180: a not so bad chance for a tier 2 legendary item Lvl 181~220: most likely a tier 3 prototype Lvl 221~262: a relatively fair chance for an tier 3 artifact Lvl 261~299: at least an existing chance for a tier 3 legendary item Lvl 300+: most likely a tier 4 prototype, a low chance (if at all) for other tier 4 items. Be aware that using the same words multiple times implies 'the same category'. In a system with 3 options, medium means approx. 33%. I.e. Medium-high drop rate = more than 33% (probably 40%, but no more than 50%) Medium drop rate = 33% Medium-low drop rate = less than 33% (probably 25% but not less than 15%) But as long as there's still only a single slot for all 14 pieces, the chance to obtain a specific legendary item is only 33% / 14 = 2.2%. Even if there would be a 100% drop chance, there would still be only a 7% chance (1/14) to get the item you're looking for // hoping to get. If we assume a player wouldn't get any duplicates, it would take 14 crates with a guaranteed drop to get all 14 items of that quality. But due to the fact that there are 3 different qualities of items per tier, it's unlikely that more than 30 crates will contain the highest quality. So it would require a "14 pieces out of the last 30 crates" chance. Keep that in mind when you talk about "getting closer to the top of the tier" assuming that this allows players to get the gear they want. ___ So all in all Eric, this doesn't really addess any of the RNG concerns, it simply provides different shades of RNG. Players that won't use the alternatives (PvP UCs, operation drops) will propably wear a mixture of prototype, artifact and legendary items from various tiers... and might be facing degrading comments, should they ever run a flashpoint with PvP- or operation-geared players. IMO,the only purpose of these crates will be to give players a minor chance to skip some PvP fights or operations (if that player is lucky to get a head or mainhand f.e.). But they are still quite demotivating for all those who don't like PvP & OPs, or are forced to join random operation groups (two crappy types of RNG => the crates and the /roll mechanism). Even for those who do run operations, they aren't that fascinating either. To get 8 legendary items by farming EV & KP, at least 84 crates will be of no value (the remaining 6 might contain a missing item). So how can you assume that players will enjoy these new RNG crates? (PS: Please consider if you really want to keep the PvP conversion limited to legendary items)

You remove tier 1 to add tier 4. So what you're saying is: tier 2 = the new tier 1 tier 3 = the new tier 2 tier 4 = the new tier 3 But you won't remove the first 90 levels // crates --- that are now rendered useless. Well, you make it sound like a positive thing. We actually have a current max rank of 180. To know how often you've leveled after that isn't important at all. The cap at rank 300 has no meaning, you won't get your the gear by then and the levels itself aren't different. By introducing an increasing chance for an item however, it's going to matter whether you're lvl182 or lvl298. And therefore, your statement about 'keeping the current level cap' means: There won't be an increasing drop-chance for tier 4 crates I guess that's because you don't know for how long tier 4 is going to stay and therefore increasing the cap by an arbitary number of levels would be pointless and quite demotivating anyways. I agree with Quraswren here. Adding this part now would be useless if not contraproductive, unless it's your way to leak what's going to happen. So to me, it sounds a bit like this: "I informed you, so don't be surprised if it's going to be data-mined in the future..."

Like I said, it's more the question whether to have a concept and whether to use it as a guideline or not. Without one, you can request anything for any class. F.e. feel free to argue why you took the AoE DR from Adv. Prototype spec but not // rather than Energy Rebounder; why Assassins shouldn't request the same overall range increase you've proposed; why Jet Charge should be trainable at level 10, but Overdrive still a legendary utility; or why Shadow Stride shouldn't be trainable at level 10 as well. Without clear boundaries, it's possible to agree to or to oppose any suggestion. If you have a concept (or if you add // modify one), there's at least a direction to aim at. But sure, neither the how to nor the how much is set in stone. My concept f.e. did only state that the PTs shouldn't get an early, low CD charge // leap attack because it would contradict the 'heavy armor' aspect. But there was no rigid set of rules you're obligued to comply. And if you prefer a list of 'QOL changes', look at my first reply. The concept I then provided just clarified why I made these suggestions, why other classes wouldn't be able to request the same and included other options to aim for. And it that regard, it's ensured that these changes are reversed in any future release (contrary to shifting the level of Jet Charge up or down).

A PvP match rewards you with ~5 UCs. In other words, approx. 1/20th of a gear piece. A crate containing 50~100 UCs is totally unrealistic. Something around 10 is more likely... if you disassemble the content. Over the course of 90~120 levels, you would receive 900~1200 UCs... almost enough to get all your gear pieces. BioWare could alter the content of the crates instead. But even if you would get all 14 gear pieces over the course of 90~120 levels, that would still result in 76~106 crates that contain nothing of value. And that's the demotivating part. So they would either have to lower the number of levels per tier (further increasing the chances to get an item) or would have to increase the CXP reward for disassembling these crates, so that the unsatisfying results don't waste that much of your time. IMO, the latter would only lessen the 'pain', so the former idea seems way more charming & motivating.

The difference is that 5.0 is a hybrid of 3 systems (crates, UC & OP tokens). So it's understandable that you get worse results if you limit yourself on a single aspect. F.e. let's assume you could transform crates or the content into UCs. Your result would be quite different. So it's more a question if BioWare wants to encourage you to use all aspects, if they should include more conversion options, or if they should focus on a single approach/aspect as well and make sure that one works properly.

Well, let's assume there would be no GC crates. Simple as that. You would have to run operations to get your gear and NIM gear would be limited to NIM bosses. All in all, pretty much the same old system. Should the new drop rate bother you, let's assume every boss would drop blue gear variant instead, limiting the purple variants to end bosses of highlighted OPs. Should you be more a PvP player. let's assume BioWare would either reinstall the automatic sync to 242 or would remove the conversion into 242 gear (so only 2 tiers of gear and a downward sync). Should you then mind the complexity to first convert PvP components into a token, no reason to stick to it as it's strictly superior to any previous version. And should you mind that players can craft 240 gear, let's limit or remove that as well (as it's quite a novelty as well). Result: That's essentially the point why most players talk about specific inbalances. And in most cases, these issues are about the content of the crates, the rate at which you earn them and the reward dicrepancies among the various types of content. ________ BUT - and this is my personal impression - it seems that there are still two competeting tendencies that delay certain fixes. With the example above, GC crates and the related levels are nothing more than a nice, little extra. Nothing worth mentioning or worth advertising. The alternative would still be to remove the operation loot & unassembled components once again and to adress the related issues in another way that keeps the system relevant. That's however way more risky because there's a group of players who believe that MMO stands for "consistent premades of 8 players, using their own loot table to trade rewards, treating operations like flashpoints that are always won and used to gear up alts or new players within a single run or two". In other words, this group simply ignores the fact that the /roll mechanism was by no means fair or 'fail-safe' if you had to join a random operation group. And they also ignore the fact that should they really focus on the 'progressive' nature of operations, they would try to defeat a boss they haven't before, would probably fail for quite some time and thereby ruin their drop ratio anyways. And due to these two competeting sides, I believe BioWare won't make any significant changes. And should they change a thing, it will be for the gear yet to come. _________ But let's assume that every operation boss will reward a player with enough CXP to get at least a level up. Completing the related weekly would also be worth at least another level up. Therefore, a typical 2.0~2.5 hour operation consisting of 5 bosses would result in 6 level ups = 6 crates. Let's further assume they increase the usefulness of these crates by designating two 'slots' for gear pieces. One slot for all 9 moddable parts (MH, OH, head, chest, arm, hand, leg, belt & boots) and one slot for the 'left side' gear pieces and their countless variants (ear, implant, relic). Players would then have twice the chance per box to get an item and the chance to get a specific type wouldn't be less than 1 out of 9. (Which isn't much worse than the 1 out of 8 raid members rolling on the item). This change would even make it possible to lower the number of levels per tier And there are many ways to add a 'bad luck' safety; either by introducing special one-time quests that reward players with an item of their choice, by adding a 'joker' item; by allowing the player to disassemble items for components or by introducing crafting recipes of specific, yet untradeable gear pieces. The latter would be my personal favorite because I'd love to see the crafting system renewed. IMO, players shouldn't be limited to 3 professions ber character. Instead, companions should have a specific profession allocated to them. Starting with KotFE, a player can have that many companions that it would be easy find at least 3x of them for each crafting profession. And you would still have an incentive to max them all.

If BioWare would convert unassembled components into command tokens, giving them away as a PVP reward would create new inbalances (i.e. CXP boosts). So they would have to remove them and adjust both the CXP gain per fight and the tokens-per-crate ratio instead. But this will probably create new issues of course...

I made a few checks. It seems to happen to all classes with abilities that bypass the activation time of skills. I can't believe the developers at BioWare are so dumb they didn't even had a few minutes to write a test case that checks their very core functionality. Unbelievable!

Let me be more specific about my last reply and state how my concept looks like and what skill changes I would prefer. My starting point are three different types of tanks: Tank specs Powertech => heavily armored Juggernaut => medium armor Assassin => light armor Yes, I know that Juggernauts use heavy armor. But for me that's more due to the laziness of the dev team. A coat, some chest plates and a headband doesn't make a good armor and you surely don't want them to wear a heavy backpack. Would I want the heavily armored class to leap around or teleport to enemies every few seconds? Definitely not! This doesn't mean Powertechs shouldn't get a charge attack, but it ought be a rare and powerful one. And if they use a speed boost, it ought to be some sort of overdrive. A heavy mass isn't easily set in motion. Juggernaut receive their protection though 'saber skill' and a pure force of will. And that should be reflected by their gap closers as well. They should be able to use a fast leap attack and they should get more frequent speed boosts, but both should be rather uncontrollable. Assassins use stealth to lower the necessity for powerful leaps. Their speed boost should be the shorter, but highly controllable. What does that mean in regard of skill changes? Well, it means that PTs should have a a full set of speed boosts // gap closers rather than a single highly efficient one. And these skills should have a longer cooldown. That's why I don't really agree on an early Jet Charge or a Hydraulic Override with a 25s CD. Instead, I would prefer the following: Powertech Jet Charge Give PTs both the Unstoppable utility and Brawn passive => 4s immunity to push & pull effects // incapacitating effects. I would even go that far and increase the cooldown of Jet Charge just to give PTs the Warmonger utility as well. That's because a Jet Charge should be a rarely used skill, but should have the most significant impact if it's used. Electro Net Yes, if I were to choose, the PTs would receive this skill. Mercenaries never use it as a gap closer or to stay in range, so most of the versatility is lost. A powerful slow for Neural Dart might work as well though. Riot Gas // Distraction With 10m range and the 70% slow, it would be another option. But there could be an AoE stun (some sort of gravity grenade) or flash bang as well. other speed boosts Both Grapple and Hydraulic Override are fine. Juggernaut Force Leap This skill should profit from the Battering Ram benefits - i.e. a potential 2nd leap. Not only does it negate an opposing push effect, it could also be used as an additional positioning tool. And IMO, that makes more sense for Juggernauts that are centered around lightsaber attacks. other speed boosts Mad Dash seems fair due to it's less controllable nature. Like I said, it's the main difference between Juggernauts and Assassins. Juggs shouldn't receive reliable boosts, but combat-related or reactive utilities.. Utilities like Speed Surge make more sense to me. Opponents can prevent the speed boost by avoiding the trigger condition. Assassins Force Speed IMO, perfect. Highly controllable and not combat-related. other speed boosts Contrary to the Juggernaut, the speed boosts ought to be the most reliable ones. For a hit-&-run class wearing light armor, a ~15s window in which they can be sure to get into range, to stay in range or get out of sight is essential. ____ You see, all these things are a direct consequence of the initial concept. And this doesn't just applies to the tank specs, but to the remaining disciplines as well: Concept first. Pyrotech For me, this ought to be the main representation of a mid-range class. Heavily armored, but not as mobile as true melee classes. A Pyro should focus on cluster / area denial and harassment. As a result, I wouldn't have removed Flamethrower. Instead, I would have made it a non-rotational skill with 0s cooldown, just like a Sweeping Blaster or Suppressing Fire (sry Flame Sweep). And I would even go that far to state that a Plasma Probe would make more sense for this class (with a smaller area and a 10m range of course). And similar to the other PTs, I don't see a reason why a Pyro should have a Jet Charge that can be used frequently. A Pyro should seek to control the scene and not be in the midst of it. Adv. Prototype This spec should to be all about tactics and therefore be able to adapt to a new situation // environment quickly. Yes, that means both melee & 30m fights. For my taste though, it's too much centered on a single 'ultimate' skill and a specific 'rhythm' of skills. IMO, both the Shieldtech-PT (with transpose & heat blast) and Arsenal Mercs are way better representations of this concept... ('Grav Round' and 'Vortex Bolt' sounds more like 'Adv. Prototype' anyways). In regard of skills & utilities, the Pressure Override utility makes perfect sense for this AP-PT concept. On contrast, Gut and Thermal Detonator make no sense. The former skill might force the 'tactical' spec into a disadvantageous position and the delayed effect of the latter makes more sense for Saboteurs // Engineers... heck, it's a bomb and Engineers love explosives! Move the Railshot restriction to this skill and it would be tricky enough build a spec around. And once again, this spec doesn't really need to get into melee range. It simply isn't a good position to be unless you have to. To have several gap closers, pulls or speed boost leaves this class with plenty of possibilities.

Like I said, you prefer to categorize it by 'pure distance' rather than 'range category'... that's totally fine. From my point of view, Hatred isn't a pure melee spec either. Instead, it's a hybrid class that tries to utilize 10m attacks, but still relies on lightsaber fillers due to its class heritage & weapon choice. Personally, I wouldn't want another range category to be added for a single class only. But I agree the devs could just remove Rocket Punch or swap Rocket Punch with Rapid Shots to make players happy - i.e. turning Rocket Punch into a low-damage 4m attack with zero cooldown & zero energy cost; and Rapid Shots into a high-damage 30m attack with 9s cooldown. You're right, my statement wasn't intelligible. The first part was about the concept of three range categories - i.e. what it takes to be called a 'melee class'. The second part wasn't that about comparing the number of melee skills though. It was about the concept of three role categories - i.e. what dicernable features are necessary for a class to be called a 'tank'... and whether these features ought to be strictly the same or just broadly similar. Because although most players consider assassins to be a 'melee class', they actually have a 10m interrupt (see Jolt) and a 30m incapacitating effect (Whirlwind). IMO, PTs would deserve that more than assassins. Likewise, of all the assassin specs, it's the tank that still uses Cascading Debris // Depredating Volts. And due to that, it's actually the spec that is the least dependant on melee attacks. And that's essentially the crux! It's not that I oppose any of these suggestions, I simply don't recognize or understand the underlying class concept. I like it when players first state the concept they have in mind and then conclude why certain suggestions are necessary. Wishes don't have to be fair or balanced, concepts do. That's why statements like "all tanks ought to be melee fighters in the end" are IMO way better. They define a good basis for a discussion.