It would be a great time saver if the origin story is more easily identifiable in a couple of places. My friend and I often bounce back and forth trying to find compatible origin stories for play-through or meeting quest/galactic seasons requirements. And while yes, the information is there, I wish it was easier to find without having to click around in multiple areas or pulling up a companion list. 1. The server character selection list. While I understand that that icon next to the character name identifies the origin story, I honestly never remember what they are supposed to mean and neither does my friend. It's a bit of a time killer to say "so the icon to the left, is it the blue light saber or the glowing hand?". It would be great to insert the origin story name in front of the current selected combat style, something like: Saebel Level 23 Jedi Knight / Guardian. Alternatively, you could do something like have a tool-tip that pops up when the cursor floats over the origin icon. Or perhaps overlay the name of the origin story over the character image when selected, maybe at the bottom center of the screen? Lots of options there. 2. The "character" window module. I know the origin story is incorporated into the Combat Style and Load Out tabs under the character name, but I think it should be included in the "Gear" and "Outfitter" tabs as well. I would just have all of them use the same pattern. Something like: Level [##] - [Origin Story] / [Combat Style] or maybe break it up into rows like: Level [##] - [Origin Story] [Combat Style] 3. The "log" window module What about incorporating the origin story into the window title? Instead of just "LOG" it could say "LOG - Jedi Knight"? 4. Player frame Incorporate it into the detail under the name in the player frame: [Character Name] [Origin Story] / [Current Combat Style] Possibly include the origin story in the pop-over information when the cursor floats over the character's avatar in the player frame? Thanks for listening and considering.

In the context of this *specific* problem, that this thread is dedicated to, of logging in to play the game, these machines did NOT have issues before the update. Continually bringing up the 128 video ram thing is distracting from the real problem of the coding. It's sending people down a rabbit hole of trying to make fixes and making it seem like they have to buy a new computer when it is NOT the hardware that is the problem. The fact that low end graphics cards aren't going to perform well in other areas is irrelevant to this topic. Why do you insist on continually bringing this up?

Intel article: Can I increase the Dedicated Video Memory for Intel Graphics? Summary Provides information about adjusting the graphics dedicated memory. Description Use the information below to change the maximum Video RAM(VRAM) available for Intel Graphics. Resolution There is no way to preset your VRAM to a specific value, you can only limit the maximum memory that it can take. The Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) does not have a dedicated memory; it uses shared memory that will be allocated automatically depending on various factors. The option to adjust the maximum memory is usually available in the BIOS but the setting may not be available for all systems. The setting is typically listed under VRAM or Dynamic Video Memory Technology (DVMT). The settings values can typically be adjusted to 128 MB, 256 MB and maximum DVMT. Setting other values depends on the motherboard manufacturer and the amount of RAM installed on the computer. We recommend checking with the motherboard manufacturer for more information about the BIOS and the availability of the settings provided in the BIOS. Additionally, check this article under the following section: What is the maximum amount of graphics memory or video memory my computer can use in Windows 10? Additional information The current VRAM can be confirmed by checking the information about Dedicated Memory under the Display Devices section in the DxDiag* report. source: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000041253/graphics.html --- My take-away: it's labeled as "Dedicated Memory", but that's *not* what it actually is. --- Now... that said... can tweaking the VRAM settings in the bios fix the issue? Maybe. But mucking around with the BIOS can really mess things up if you make a mistake. It's not something most folks I know feel comfortable with. I think it's asking too much to put the burden of the fix on the users who aren't necessarily computer savvy when the problem is *clearly* a coding issue, not a hardware issue. These machines did not have issues before the update. EOS. *CONTINUALLY* pointing back to the users' machines and saying "that's the problem" is not only untrue it is also unkind.

I've brought this up before, but it appears to have been overlooked. From what I've read, the dedicated memory value displayed for Intel graphics card of 128 MB is a fictitious number just so that there is a value that games and other programs can look at. It does not reflect the actual graphics processing power of the machine/graphics card. You can change that value in the registry editor to make it look like there is more, but it doesn't actually change how the machine behaves. Integrated graphics cards can use up to 50% of the RAM of the machine as their VRAM. The OS dynamically assigns the ram as needed. So if you have a laptop computer with 16 GB of RAM (like my friend who is having issues does), then up to 8 GB of RAM could potentially be assigned to video resources. This all depends on how many programs are running. The minimum requirement for SWTOR is 6 GB of RAM and 1 GB of Video RAM. Most dedicated graphics cards have anywhere from 2 GB to 4 GB of dedicated memory. The high end ones obviously can have a lot more (my desktop has a dedicated video card with 16 GB VRAM and my laptop has a dedicated video card of 6 GB of VRAM). So a 16 GB machine with integrated graphics should *technically* more than meets the specs to run the game at lower resolutions. This is why users were not having issues before the update. After the update, bam - issues. And the published game minimum specs are the same as they've been for quite awhile. It's *clearly* a change in the update that is causing the problem. Otherwise, all these users would have been having problems these past several years. From what I am reading, it seems like folks are pinning it down: The character list screen for the selected server is loading high-resolution graphics, even if the settings are set to something else. The more complex the outfit (meshes, polygons, colors, etc.) the more memory is going to get pulled. The more characters on a server, the more memory is going to get pulled. High resolution settings are going to multiply the amount of memory. With those four things in mind, then the issues folks are having make total sense, as do many of the resolutions: New accounts won't have as many characters, so no freeze. "Current gear as outfit" is probably not going to be nearly as memory intensive as some of the more complex fancy stuff folks have. We saw one example where a person "reset" all their outfits on their characters, and one by one changed them back to their full custom outfits to eventually, inevitably, freeze up when going back to the server character list view. Sub accounts that don't have that many characters on a server will still be able to log in. Systems with a dedicated graphics card and high core memory have extra "oomph" that can be thrown at the problem. I suspect that my laptop (6 GB card) may also be having to draw upon my system's memory (32 GB) to handle the additional resolution pull from the forced high resolution in list view. It also explains why once users can get past the login screen, they can play normally as their normal graphics settings kick in. Meaning that if they were to set their graphics resolution settings to high and try to play the game, even on a server with few characters, they would probably run into problems. In essence: this is a coding problem. Unless there is more information that is missing that can shed more light on the issue, by all reports, someone accidentally coded the character list to force high resolution graphics rather than look at the client ini settings. So maybe try to fix that and see what happens? To tell users to "just get a newer better computer" is unkind and inconsiderate of the financial burden that places on people. Especially in these trying times when SWTOR is an escape from the myriad of problems that people are dealing with on a daily basis. They are paying customers. The devs screwed up. It happens. Just fix it already and stop blaming it on the hardware. And as a side note, I make my living as a programmer. And I have personally made errors like this introducing new coding or programming that unintentionally wrecked people's ability to use the program. And it sucks for everyone - but it is rarely ever the end users' fault. And such is the case here. It's just one of the drawbacks of designing on high-end machines and not having resources/time to beta-test the changes on machines with low-end specs or with full user load. I can make recommendations for future beta-testing procedures to make sure these sorts of things don't happen in future roll-outs. The devs can send me a private message if they are interested. C.

In terms of number of characters, the more I think about it, the more I believe it's not the *number* of characters, but how complex they are: loadouts, outfits, equipment, combat styles, level, history, missions, etc. All those bits of data add up. One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention is if they were able to log in on a good computer, create a simple level 1 character on the same server they are having trouble with, and then log out with that toon as the currently selected toon. Then see if they launch. That would determine if it's a server load with all the toons (which is likely) or just the last toon used.

I think it may be a combination of last server used + Num characters on that server + integrated graphics card. [I was able to log in to my friend's account (who was having the freezing problem) on my computer and she has tons of characters on all the English servers, so I think the computer does factor into it partially.] Please note that the integrated graphics card that displays 128 MB dedicated memory is just throwing up a number for game systems to detect (see link below), and does not actually reflect how much ram is used for the graphics card. The OS is supposed to automatically pull from the available RAM up to 50% for graphics. Which is why the computers haven't had an issue since the last patch. I suspect that the new patch might have some sort of detection thing going on where: 1. The game tries to load 2. It is trying to load into the last server/character that was saved before logging off. 3. The last server has 16+ characters (I'm guessing 16, because it's a standard doubling increment in computerese:: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, etc. 4. It looks at the dedicated RAM setting of the computer system, and sees "128 MB" and decides "nope", and then freezes up without any warnings - possibly because there is conflicting data in which there is technically more than 128 MB of RAM available? You can supposedly fake a higher amount of dedicated VRAM by using the registry editor. I have not tried this yet with my friend who I have been helping out, but if one or more of you feels comfortable trying this, here's a link to how to do it: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/video-ram-windows-10/ Go to the section titled "Faking VRAM Increase in Windows". That might fool the launcher/game into thinking everything is okay and let you in.

Well, one possibility is that the corrupted file is specific to the account, which would explain several things: 1. Why creating a new account would not cause the same problem. 2. Why logging on to a different computer would not cause the same problem (because that computer wouldn't have any files related to that account on it). However, since one of the users stated that they bought a relatively brand new computer with good specs but it didn't work, then that makes a muddle of it, unless they transferred their hard drive and all their data over into the new computer as part of the update. Then the corrupted file would have been carried over. The one thing we didn't do that worked for someone else was a deep clean program which goes much further than just uninstalling the progam folder and app data folders. There are probably some other folders or settings that I am overlooking that aren't stored in the folders we cleared out in our experiments.

I've been troubleshooting this for AmorandaAdamah. At first I thought that it might be something related to an object or purchase connected to the account that was corrupted and so stalled the load. So I let AmorandaAdamah log in to her account on my computer (which is fairly high-end and has it's own separate graphics card). And she was able to get in. So that kills that theory. Makes me wonder what it is in common with all the subscribers who can't log in under their subscript on their specific computer systems, but are able to log in with free accounts or can log in on another person's system. Maybe it's a corrupted registry entry? We haven't tried cleaning that out yet. Already cleaned out the programs directory and the user appdata folders.

Hi, the travel costs make no sense whatsoever, *ESPECIALLY QUICK TRAVEL*, and could use another overhaul. It can cost anywhere from 0 to 5000 credits to travel across the galaxy, but sometimes over 2000 credits to quick travel to a location on the same planet - one that would normally only take 150 credits if done by taxi? It's really ridiculous and especially punishes new players, low level players, and those that prefer stealth or are combat-avoidant. There have been times where I have literally lost money on a quest because I quick traveled back rather that take an insanely long (and often boring) time winding my way back to whatever taxi point I needed to get to just to save a few credits. Ridiculous way to punish players who want to save a bit of time. To be clear, I don't have a problem with paying for quick travel. I just have a problem with your current pricing for it. Recommend a reasonable distance based algorithm that is more in line with taxi rates and then maybe add on a reasonable "surcharge" because it's a custom pickup. But nothing nearly as obnoxious as what it currently is. Presumably you should be able to calculate distances based on x-y coordinates and go from there, yes? So for a simple example: - Let X = baseline distance of 1000 coordinate points (xy to xy). - Let's say the base cost to travel X is 100 credits - Standard surcharge for quick travel is 25% because it's a custom pickup: If you want to add flavor, come up with a base travel rate for standard taxi service and quick-travel using the capitol worlds as the baseline. Then for each world apply a multiplier that is in context with the world: Starter planets (Tython, Hutta, etc): x .5, because new players/characters are poor. Poorer/remote planets (Tatooine): x.75 Capitol planets/Fleet: x 1.0 War-torn planets (Corellia): x 1.25 Popular/wealthy planets: x 1.5 Resource-poor/corrupt planets: x 1.75 etc. You could also apply modifiers for things like terrain or environment. If the planet is relatively flat and open like Tatooine the multiplier would be less compared to one that had very rugged terrain like Mek Shah or lots of twists and turns like Nar Shadda. Planets that have severe weather conditions like snow storms, sand storms, lots of rain, or other weird atmospheric conditions that makes travel a bit more hazardous could have additional multipliers. Heavy traffic on dense urban population planets could be a factor. Maybe the multiplier is factored into the whole planet's multiplier or maybe it's factored in to a specific area on the planet. You could also block out zones within a planet that are flagged as safe, risky, or dangerous and apply some additional multipliers for that when it comes to quick travel. For example: Safe (no concerns about custom pickup): x 1.0, no additional charge Risky (a bit iffy, so driver has to be cautious - jungle beasts, smugglers/thieves): x 2 multiple Dangerous (risk of serious damage to vehicle/personal safety - aggressive sapient enemies / war zones): x 3 multiple Example of how it would apply in game: I'm a new Jedi running around on Thython. I request a quick travel from deep within enemy territory after completing a quest. The xy to xy distance from my location to my destination is 1400 points. Cost = (100 base) * (1400/1000 distance) * (.5 Tython) * (1.25 Quick Travel) * (3 dangerous territory) = 263 credits (rounded up from 262.5), So with some (hopefully) simple assignments of multipliers and risk zones based on the context, you'd have what I would imagine to be a fairly straight forward system that makes sense story-wise, still charges more money credits-wise, but isn't insane economically.

Yes please. I assumed that I would be able to delete load outs when I first created them. So I created a whole bunch to experiment with various combat styles/specializations. But there are some I know I will never use again, and they are just eating up space now.

I recall reading that they were phasing them out. However, I still see slots for them, so I must have gotten that wrong. My apologies.

Hello. First off, I would like to say that in general I like the direction this is going. I've only been playing for about a year, so take that with a grain of salt. I'm sure others who have played longer and more will be able to provide more depth and feedback when it gets to the nuts and bolts. ***POSITIVE FEEDBACK FIRST*** **Training** Thank you for eliminating the need to do the trainer thing in order to get new powers. It was fun with the first character, but it got old really quickly with all the other characters. Having them just automatically trained and available is great. And I like that the list of abilities is now one list instead of two, and that they are listed in the order acquired, rather than alphabetical. *Recommendation: I would, however like to recommend adding a setting that allows the user to choose whether the abilities automatically get added or if the user gets a notification that new powers are available. I have my slots set up in very specific ways, and I found it a bit disorienting to just have them populate in the first open slot. Note that since they do *not* automatically populate in the second combat style, there is variation of behavior. I would say make it the same for both. **Removing Social Points** Thank you for removing the whole social points thing. It was totally random and extremely difficult to advance. Despite my best efforts after a year on just one character with every social boost possible, I never got higher than level 5. The game is already complex enough as it is, and removing that simplifies things. **Removing Renown System** Thank you for removing the renown system. I was getting tired of how useless most of the drops were and the renown points/levels didn't seem to mean much. Based on the description of how drops will happen in the future, I think that's a better way to go. **Augmentation Kits** Thank you for removing the Augmentation Kit system. It was basically meaningless until you could do level 11 Augments. But getting to the point where you could make level 11 augments was nearly impossible. I think in the year I played I had a total of two pieces of armor that were augmented that I quickly out grew. ***MIXED FEELINGS*** **Deprecating Themed Set Armors** I have mixed feelings about the changes with "set" pieces. It was fun collecting them, and I put a lot of time into it, so I am a little sad that they will be useless once I get past 75th level. That said, I think the new system for augmenting abilities with specialized implants will be the way to go and ultimately it will simplify how I equip myself. So ultimately, it's a win. ***PLEASE CONSIDER FIXING*** **Inventory View** It's very disorienting to have 8 rows across but get ten slots at a time. Can you either change it so that it's 10 rows across or at least provide a preference for how many slots across it can be? **Window contrast and colors** For context, I design databases and user interfaces for a living, so understanding UI and how it impacts the user is one of those areas I've studied quite a bit. Blue light is one of the most damaging colors in the spectrum, and high-contrast color schemes can be quite painful. In this release you've unfortunately picked one of the worst combinations with the pitch black background and the bright neon blue light. It's so extremely harsh on my eyes that they it doesn't take long before my eyes get weary. I have a ultra wide screen that allows me to have my map up at all times, which means that neon blue/contrast is hitting me non-stop. In the previous version the color contrast wasn't as harsh. With this version, I start getting a headache after about 20-30 minutes of play and have to hide the map. I have two recommendations: 1. For the immediate next release, significantly tone down the "trim" on the windows to either a soft/darker grey or green as those tend to be soothing. 2. Perhaps at a later release, consider giving the user control over the color scheme of the windows as part of the settings of the application. Make it at the top tier as a graphic setting before selecting a server/character. If I could choose what color the borders were it would be *so* much easier for me to select something that won't be nearly as painful. That's it for now. Hope this is helpful.