Actually you're forcing it. You're choosing to min-max AND be neutral. They never claimed both would be available at launch. In fact before beta ever closed they stated "grey" items wouldn't be in at launch. Here's the official most recent statement: " Grey alignment is in the pipe - we have a design, and that design includes a plan to make the itemization fair for light, dark, and grey. I do not have an ETA for this feature at this time, but can't wait to announce one." That's from the most recent Q&A that's linked on the Community home page. With 1.2 being pushed back to April, hard to say if this will be in. My guess is doubtful but, you never know. And if it's not, it'll come some time after. Whether you're here to experience it or not is not my concern.

Or it's not? Not every MMO released is going to cater to every niche of the entire MMO player base. If it's BioWares decision that their content isn't going to satisfy the hardcore, epeen waving raider, so be it. Some will say "Well that means the game fails" which the response is no, it's just failed that subset of people. It's also humorous that these so-called hardcore believe their competitive drive at raiding is what fuels the masses to raid ... to achieve the same alleged greatness they have. While there are certainly some that may be true for, I'm thinking it must be quite a blow to their ego to realize that many people raid simply to experience the content and couldn't give a rat's backside if you did it first, 2 months ago, on nightmare mode, etc etc.

Just to screw with people who can't step towards the light of "they died, we lived" and choose to remain shackled their spreadsheets and meters.

So you're saying Anakin hadn't achieved Dark 1 by the end of Ep3 eh? Because he was still wielding blue when he fought Obi Wan. And I would assume that completing the "missions" he did for Palpatine, excepting him as his master, slaughtering the younglings, etc etc would have him at least achieving Dark 1. Maybe the scene with him griping about having to farm a red crystal so he could use his lightsaber was left on the cutting room floor.

This ^^ Last official word in any dev interview/blog/Q&A was that the ability to switch Advances Classes was not something they were currently considering.

My comments in red show how much of all those awesome things you can do now that you could not do at launch. WoW evolved over time as will this game. I remember people griping that came from games like SWG, AC2 and EQ that griped about all the things that WoW lacked. WoW when it launched, after four years of development, offered very similar amounts of content that TOR has. You were expecting something with three years of development time to have similar amounts of content quantity and polish that something enjoying near 11 years of development has ... understandably if you set your expectations that high you would be disappointed.

Pretty much this ^^ Level 35 assassin, 29 juggernaut, 23 operative, 22 powertech and the remaining 4 advanced classes on Imp side between 18 and 20.

And WoW with 4 years of development launched with just Molten Core and Onyxia, the latter being a single boss encounter, raids added in with patch 1.1 right around when the game came out. And after that Nov'04 launch? Next raid, Blackwing's Lair came in a patch in Jul'05 ... that's right, roughly 8 months after launch. Blackwing's Lair, Ahn'Qiraj and Naxxramas were the only 40 person raids (WoW's default size at the time) added in the first 1.5 years of launch. There were other 5 mans scattered in, like Dire Maul and a 20 person lesser-raid, Zul'Gurub. But please, let's not try to sugarcoat WoW's endgame content availability during "vanilla".

Actually no, your mode of thinking is what has flawed this genre. The RPG based on the old PnP games like AD&D had a leveling process. In fact the old PnP games really didn't have an end-game. There were just different adventures to go on. Computer RPGs have long included the leveling process. From the early days of Ultima and Might & Magic and into the MMO versions. But, I honestly think many of you would be happier if these were like Battlefield ... pick your kit and go. No leveling. No questing. Minimal to no story. Just hop from one "end-game" dungeon map to the next. That wouldn't be a MMORPG ... it would be a MMOFPS. If that's what you're really looking for I suggest keeping an eye on Planetside 2 .. it might end up being more along the lines of what you're looking for. I've been hearing since the early days of WoW (never heard it really in AC2 or SWG) and it was probably a carry over from the EQers coming over to WoW at how the game begins at 60. I guess all the detail in quests, stories, environments, etc from 1-60 is a waste then? I'm glad developers don't all feel the same. The game begins at level 1. If your view of it is that the developers are just wasting your time to get to end game than perhaps you should look for a different genre that better suits your playstyle. I hear things like Team Fortress 2 have no leveling required at all.

Really? So by your logic then, because several places (not just 1 like this Amazon sale) offered Skyrim for $39.99 the week or two before Christmas that by now we should have been seeing it in the bargain basement sales right? RIGHT? People arguing on game forums are like analysts with statistics ... tell me the answer you want to prove your point and I'll show how the math/numbers work to prove it. Walmat? $60 Best Buy? $60 Gamestop? $60 Sears? $60 Toys R Us? $60 TigerDirect? $60 NewEgg? $50 Yeah ... I see a trend. But, if you don't want to educate yourselves with information that other posters linked like the video explaining Amazon's sales ideas, please continue with your ignorance. After all, everyone should have somebody to point a finger and laugh at.

I was with you right up until you said "server forums". I won't say that they aren't wanted by some folks, they are. But the people I play with on a daily basis, the ones that I really look forward to playing with, are my guild. The rest of the people on my server are just like the rest of a crowd at a bar, sporting event, concert, etc. that's outside the circle of friends I'm there with. It's not to say I won't strike up a conversation with those folks or maybe pass some time with them but, they're not the reason I'm there and they're not the ones I spend enjoying the vast majority of my time with while I'm there.

*shrug* I don't recall them saying the reason they're updating the rolling system is because they agree one view is more valid than the other. Nor have I seen them state exactly what changes to the rolling system they are making. Like every other time the devs state and change/update is coming, people read into it all sorts of things. One could just as easily argue that the reality of it is that they're tired of watching many of those pitching fits in these arguments as being as incapable of coming to an understanding as two pre-teen siblings screaming at each other, "IT'S NOT FAIR!!! MOM!!!!!!!", that they're simply going to offer more options of choice of roll system that the group leader can select. In other words, I would bet it is far more likely they are adding to the current system rather than simply changing how the existing NBG works. Which is great because having options is fine. It's the way the go. It lets the players decide what works best for them. It just likely means that instead of the group leader having to take a few seconds to state how loot should work, the other players can simply see it somewhere in the UI. I only hope that whatever changes they're making to the roll system in their hopes to alleviate this issue is flexible/robust enough to handle the next loot storm that's on the horizon and is due to hit when they release dual-spec into the game ... MS>OS Another player-construct that players will debate on the forums with the same fervor with both sides insisting their way is the only true fair way.

To go FTP for a MMO means they are banking (literally) on an alternative revenue stream to provide the financial resources to keep updating the game. Many of those alternative revenue stream ideas are frowned upon by players. Not saying it can't work. AND, not saying that they couldn't do a hybrid like DDO does where you can still pay a subscription and be a "premium" player versus a "standard" player. Meaning new content and stuff you automatically get in a patch where a standard player has to pay to unlock it. *shrug* doubtful you'll see this game go that route at least before 2014.

Would I like developers to launch MMOs with more polish? Yes Do I think any one game is going to be a signal to the various developer studios? No From Meridian 59 and UO through now, every mainstream MMORPG has been this way. Heck, most every game launched since I know they have patch updates for everything from Skyrim to Civilization 5, Battlefields, etc etc. "Bug free software" has about as much absolute truth in it as "balanced PvP" does in an mmorpg. And to be honest, we the consumers are partially to blame. I've seen this same opinion (heck, I even said similar things myself way back when) since I got into MMOs in Asheron's Call 2 in Dec'02. EVERY SINGLE LAUNCH. People claim the same thing. "Developers or going to need to wise up and realize the public won't tolerate these types of launches or they risk losing substantial revenue." And we watch games like WAR. AoC and STO have a decent amount of interest/sales initially but crappy launches and have to scramble. And we see others with questionable launches but then continue to do well. Personally I think TOR will do decently. It won't be the next anomaly in the genre. Not sure if we'll ever see that kind of an anomaly again. But, I don't think TOR is heading down the road that SWG, AoC, etc. were on shortly after their launches. But hey, you're free to make your opinion known, especially with your wallet. If you feel cheated by the devs, or that they didn't release a game you thought they promised, or just don't see the potential in what they currently have, walk away. Nobody is forcing you to play. Just like nobody is forcing the devs to make a game that's going to appeal to every single MMO player out there.

I know BW says they are looking into their existing NBG system. And this thread is not the place to rekindle the debate that already rages in a coupe of threads on the general forum. It's merely to get across a suggestion for a much more flexible loot system. The group leader when the first person gets invited (or perhaps add a mechanic beforehand) is presented with a "Loot Rule" dialog box. Within that dialog box they first choose how many roll options (other than pass) so if they were opting for something like the current system, the would select 2. Have it go up to say 4 or 5. After selecting number of options they are presented with them in a ranked order of 1-? and blank labels next to each. The group leader fills in those blanks with a word/phrase to describe that option. Examples: In a two option selection instead of need and greed they could enter "I can use that" and "Me!Me!Me!" Or in a four button set they could do "Main Spec", "Off Spec", "Companion/Mods", "Vendor/GTN" Add a checkbox to allow the option for reverse-engineer Could add checkbox option to restrict rolls to the class you have present for class items that drop Add ability to save choices as a preset with allowances for a a few presets and ability to name them ("Progression OP", "Guild fun run", "PuG", etc.) And last, as each person joins the group they are presented a pop-up displaying those loot labels and two buttons for accept/decline with no option to simply close the window. If they click accept they're in the group and if they click decline they're removed from the group. This puts on the onus on the group leader to communicate the intended loot rules for the run. Everyone in the group will have to at least acknowledged them. Allows flexibility to a degree that people can designate the options for whatever they choose. This way Player A can have only 1 preset if he chooses for Need/Greed while Player B could have several depending on the different group scenarios they find themselves regularly in. Again, no rolling system, outside of each player receiving something directly to their inventory when a mob/boss is killed, is going to rule out someone rolling on something they previously agreed they wouldn't. But, imo, what I've suggested ups the level of communication so that everyone in the group knows what's expected of them regarding loot.

Actually my ideal dev-implemented loot system would cover that. I would like to see a set number of loot option buttons in a priority order with BLANK labels that the group leader then populates. And when people join the group they are presented a pop-up that if they click "Accept" then they're in the group and if they click "Decline" removes them from the group. This way the group leader is responsible for setting the precedent every time. I would advocate for a mechanism that stores one or more "presets" so that you can create them once and save them and not have to type them in every time. This would allow you to have a PuG set, Guild set, FP set, OP set, etc. It still would not rule out a person rolling counter to it BUT, it would make it clear (as clear as the group leader creates their button labels) what the loot rolling rules for the group are AND that everyone in the part clicked "Accept" to it.

If it means so much to you that you can see yourself being upset by the potential outcome AND choose not to voice your opinion beforehand, you're equally as liable for that outcome. If you can't or are unwilling to communicate then you're setting yourself up for potential issues in any relationship.

This is true. But, I'd wager there are far fewer "ninjas" out there than people who simply have a differing opinion on what's fair and that once rule is established at the beginning of the run, are content abiding by it for that run. Think of a FP/OP run like a stretch of highway. If there is no posted speed limit, people are going to drive whatever speed they're comfortable with. If there is a sign saying "Speed Limit 65mph", the majority of people drive within the accepted tolerances of that limit. Of course, you're still going to get the idiot that chooses to do 85-100+ even with the sign posted but, they are far far fewer in number than if there was no limit posted at all.

Notice I said that if the PuG I'm in says need for companions, I'm just as fine doing that as not. My point is, while my own personal view of what is or is not fair is certainly not irrelevant, I concede immediately that it is one view out of 4/16/16 and it's entirely possible that others don't think like I do and just as likely that my views are in the minority in that particular group as they could be in the majority. And that's apparently the difference between those like me and those arguing that their side of the argument is the "right way." Those like me can be found on both sides of this debate BUT are willing to ask those around them to be sure everyone's in agreement. The rest are dead set on furthering their agenda that their side of the argument should be the default way everyone views it. Judging from this and every other thread about this, there isn't a consensus. So then my "default" becomes ask at the beginning.

Keep the popcorn handy because I will bet good money that once the devs introduce dual-spec, you're going to see almost the same debate except that instead of it being rolling need or greed for companions/mods it's going to be rolling need or greed for main spec vs. off-spec.

Personally? I don't take exception to it because I don't know if in his mind he's intentionally trying to be greedy, is simply apathetic to the needs of strangers whom he may or may not every group with again, or is simply of the belief that "I was there for the kill so it's fair that I roll." I don't pretend to know a stranger's mind and hence try to be far less judgmental of their actions until I do. My own typical rule in a PuG (for me) is if I win something that's an upgrade for me, I tend to pass on future drops until the rest of the group has also won an upgrade. With credits pretty much raining down on you in this game, winning an extra couple of pieces in the run via Greed rolls just isn't that important to me. I generally don't enforce that sort of rule in the beginning of a run, that's simply how I choose to roll. I also ask in the beginning, "What's the group's consensus on rolling for companion/mod gear?" And I ask it open-ended like that without stating my opinion because I honestly don't care. I'm just as comfortable rolling Greed for something for my companion as I am with everyone basically needing on anything that drops. See to me, the actual loot in and of itself means very little to me. They're colored pixels in a game. And I know where the particular combination of colored pixels can be found so if I don't happen to get an item today, I can return another time and try again. BUT, what does mean something to me is the rest of the group having a laid back, drama-free, fun run. And somebody going ballistic on someone else in the group over such a petty thing, to me, is simply the rude and jerk~ish behavior when a civil, short conversation at the beginning alleviates the problem in call cases except where a group member agreed to your loot rule and then rolled counter to it.

And I would think that if you exhibit a behavior that is natural for you and suddenly some of those around you start hating on you for it, without nobody stating prior that the behavior wasn't appropriate, that those haters are being jerks. Talk it up before the run starts and this becomes a non-issue. It's really that simple.

And you're not respecting their time put in to get the kill just as you did. You're trying to skew the percentages so you have a better chance of getting that piece of gear you covet by telling someone else they can't roll on it. This unspoken code ... Has there been a MMO where companions existed to the extent they do in TOR? Does everyone read these forums? Has every TOR subscriber played a MMO before this one? Or do you simply belong to The Telepathics guild where everyone knows what everyone else is thinking? It's not that I don't see your side of the argument. I do. But I also see the other side of the coin and think that it's valid as well. Meaning simply there are differing views and instead of you (general "you" who are thumping their chest claiming their way is the right/fair/just way) trying to cram your opinion down everyone's throat as the way the game is played, that it is far better to have a simple discussion when the group forms and eliminate any doubt or confusion. But you can't do that can you? You cannot conceive that someone with an opinion counter to your own has a valid reason for it. You cannot bring yourself to use that in-game tool known as the chat window ever so briefly to see if everyone is on the same page when the group forms? You would much rather go on insisting YOUR OPINION is right and then when someone acts counter to it, without your opinion being previously stated to the group, you feel completely justified in tearing down that person and ostracize them. There is no "right" side to this debate. The only thing that is right is what that group of 4, 8 or 16 decide in this game at that moment collectively works for them.

No worries. They've also claimed we will be getting dual-spec at some point in the fairly near future so this debate will get replaced with the whole MS>OS (Main spec > Off-spec) discussion where once again people will try to tell others how to play and insist their opinion on a subject should be the default and any others with a differing view are wrong.

They for the most part aren't tolerating multiple discussions on the same topic. So they close one and direct people to the other. They also are fairly reactionary (ie. not proactive) about the minor slights. Meaning calling somebody stupid will likely go unnoticed until reported by another person on the forums and then you'll receive a warning. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. The rules are clearly stated and it's their house. They're simply saying "Be good or be gone."