Sad fact is he's lying. I was an active member of the pre-launch community and while raids were one of the things (like half a dozen others) that got peoples collars to rise there was never anything like a massive decisive vote against 'raiding of any kind'. There most likely was some polls that indicated as such (with maybe about fifty people tops voting) but at that time every day there was anywhere between three and six new topics with polls on them on every topic concievable that would be repeated by another person the very next day. The few topics that remained successful and long lasting never really derived any massive consensus of any kind with the potential exception (from what I recall) of realm-control based world pvp.

I'd like to see people actually define their 'casual' and 'hardcore' modifiers. More so people who claim to be representing '99% of the playerbase'. Because they're just subsuming the vast and diverse playerbase under a singular mantle of 'casual' in a means of projecting 'virtue' rather than as a concrete argument.

I love it how people make this '1%' claim without defining it. Either they are subsuming a broad and diverse playerbase under a single label... or they have the belief that virtually every player of these games is a bumbling idiot. I suppose if you consider the playerbase in general to be a bunch of incompetents people shoudl be more offended.

Nope. Did you even read my post? . Must be lack of imagination. People dont have the mental capacity to CONCIEVE alternatives even if they are presented to them.

Someone obviously hasn't played both 8 man and 16 man currently. Also: /sign I don't see bioware taking the appropriate route and just designing appropriate mechanics for both 8 man and 16 man seperately. So the whole thing about making 16 man a snooze for people just takes the piss and removes the choice.

I made long diatribes back pre-launch about how i thought raids should be but im going to try and keep this a bit more readable (ie short). I'd just like to start with a mild disclaimer though that im not totally against the traditional dungeon crawling type of raid like some people are and hope that it will be continued to be embodied at times if bioware choose to depart from it in future raids. Basically I agree with the splitting mechanic. It can be a very poor experience if done badly (same with wave mechanics) but if done well it can be a blast. One format I'd really like to see would be a raid where you have to fight on a battlefield. You have a main objective (eg take out the enemies forward base) but also optional objectives. This raid format wouldnt have 'difficulties' in normal/hard/nightmare. That would be based purely on how well you did in completing optional objectives. Allowing pug groups to just plow through in one swarm and rush the main objective but other groups to try the optionals. Have it be slightly random as well, like if you strike hard at a flank (an optional objective to push down X flank for instance) it may incite an artilery that was moving to a certain location before firing to stop suddenly and strike your position. Your strike team that was going after the artilery may have further to travel at that point to put a stop to the artilery and the rest of your forces have to react to the artilery in the meantime as well. That kind of structure with maybe optional objectives appearing depending on how the battle goes your raid may be split into as many as four or five groups to deal with the optional objectives as the battle requires. Other things may be a bit more trying like maybe behind the forward base a couple minutes out (far out of the area the battle would normally involve) is the enemies main base. While nominally the objective of the battle is in the main objective (ie to destroy the forward base to force a retreat) optionals may require diverting forces to assassinate enemy leaders/sabotage/steal plans at the main base. Have a couple of stealth classes? That may not be so trying. Dont? You have to make a full frontal assault wiht half your raid while the rest plays more defensively. Be very important to ahve your own little npc fighting force you could do mild orders (wont ask for something amazingly complicated there I think that would be pushing things considering whats being asked is demanding enough as it is). These would support your battle plan your raid is enacting. But with optional objectives maybe to preserve their lives you have to use them sensibly. Not exactly short, but thats the thing I would LOVE some examples of. Of course these would never be huge in lenght considering the enormity of all the different things that could happen, but those kind of things in 15-20 minutes long battles would be an amazing twist to some raid scenarios in my view with a dynamic focus on gameplay which stresses leadership on the general battleplan level while allowing the individual squads to deal with things on their local level.

Well it was a real question. But mainly in regards to classifcation as 'hardcore'... people use it as a blanket statement to suggest some like top five guilds in the world when obviously it matters more than that. In my view hardcore encompasses people who care enough about game mechanics to try and work with it. Casual is people who will literally throw what they can on (making allowances that its better still) and just go do it without concerns for how the gameplay works. So going back to your original point, 'this game isnt for the hardcore'. The hardcore doesnt mean those top 60 odd people as I mentioned before. It encompasses a significantly larger portion of players than that. It is by no means a bad group to be in and definitely is not indicitive of the 'mothers basement' stereotype. I just disagree with people who make the casual vs hardcore argument as purely a basis of casual as whiter than white virtue. Theres no classification there and as such a pointless argument. If the game is for 'casuals' then there would be no need for difficulties as one setting would work for them (as in the levelling process). Otherwise if you acknowledge different levels of skill sets in them (as you seem to by saying a lowest common denominator as 'every joe casual') you cant blanket claim a diverse grouping under a singular label as 'casual'. You cant make substantive points like that around content. Get a bit pissy with people who cant take or deal with any constructive criticism of the game before breaking out the crosses and laying claim to all factions of the gaming population under the label 'casual' with the kind of self-righteousness you'd think they were saints. If the best people have to bring to a topic is 'LOLZ THUS GAME 4 CAZUALS!' (as if all players are the same) then really shouldnt even waste their time. Personally I miss attunements. I really liked it when MMO worlds actually meant you coudlnt just blow through everyone as a bunch of 'equal opportunity' activites in the first week. The old form of attunements and similar systems were perhaps too restrictive. But there is something to be said in viewing systems like attunements, or perhaps alternative systems, as simoultaneous reward systems. Best thing about TBC attunements was that they didnt ******** you about throttling it for four weeks. If you did it you did it. Otherwise it was something you worked on and completed at your own pace. It really was something to aim for, unlocking content, as well as doing content and getting gear. Granted in the TBC example some of it was too restrictive (more of an issue a few months down the line when people have done it than when it was new). You could make sensible tweaks with it. The legacy system in TOR is a great way to approach this. Do an attunement on one character unlock it with all. Though still have the option to do the attunement quest though. Some people (like myself) like doing them regardless. You could relax attunements over time, old content only needing one person for it as an example. Which with the legacy shared-attunement would make it unlikely to be a problem, while giving something to aim for alongside gear when its new. I mainly respond to attunements because of the original post and because of a personal fondess for them. But really I'd like any additional system to function similarly to add something to the endgame. I'm by no means a 'hardcore' player by most peoples definition (though that hasnt stopped many a poster trying to dismiss my argument by accusing me as such as if its some horrible slur) but these MMOs miss something in the endgame by dismissing additional systems out of hand. While I think we're past the point where more restrictive systems in past MMOs are wanted (or even desirable) the game is about chasing after the next plateu. Thats not even an MMO thing. Thats an RPG thing. Making everything a cheap equal opportunity grindfest in approach to its content eliminates the drive of progress by dumbing down the systems of engagement. For all the ************ about endgame I dont see people griping about getting rid of the levelling process. Why even have that? That just blocks off casuals and hardcore alike doesnt it? Could have the same thing without having to gain levels and power. Why are we putting up with this archaic system!? Could it be because there is something about aiming for something... for sensible initial restrictions that are worked around through engaging gameplay... that virtually all players find desirable?

Then what purpose does difficulty settings serve?

My own view on the whole 'oh it takes time' argument is that they claimed the game was close enough to consider releasing for spring time last year. I honestly cant imagine the state it would have been in that they actually considered the game pretty complete eight months before the actual release. I would have been a lot more forgiving for its faults had it been released then in the state its in now. Right now the game lacks... structure if not a sense of completeness to justify that extra eight months of development contrasted with the confidence expressed when justifying the delay.

If your in no rush to get to the level cap... why would the time it takes to find a group and travel be that big an issue for you? Not that TOR couldnt stand to benefit from: a) a dedicated LFG system that allows people to filter b) a more efficient means than /who and whispers to communicate between planets rather than praying the fleet has the people on it at the exact time your on. Face it... your rushing to level cap otherwise the time wouldnt be an issue for you . I mean travel time is a bit piss. Every planet has a shuttle that takes you right to the fleet anyway dont even have to do the 3x loading screens for your ship.

Gimme voss and I can drink the tears of everyone else denied their hope

I believe the change means they are still linked to certain slots. Eg you can only transfer mods/set bonuses from the raid chest to the non raid chest. Not the raid boots to the orange chest. So there will still be some limitations at least.

Agreed. I dont really see the logic behind the mixed up loot at the moment.

Kind of hate not even having the option to pass/trade to other people. Kind of hate doing normal mode in my runs with friends from other guilds and keep getting crap that other people could be using over me. Feel sorry that some people think they have to have a mechanic that smooves over 'jealousy' and 'elitism' (wow they must CHOOSE to play with fun people) but in my experience people complain about the sillyness of the current system far more than they ever would any percieved 'elitism' from other players.

You've spent your time on these forums disparaging raiding full stop as an evil... why should you get a say in how it should be again?

It happens ^^

Bit of both. The highest difficulty should reward slightly better gear. This is because there should be some benefit to doing the higher tier difficulty stuff if its a bit of a grind rather than basically being able to get everything you need for progression on the easiest difficulty several times faster. The gap should be small, simply because: a) Provides an unbalancing effect on other elements of gameplay that will need to be counterbalanced in their arena (eg pvp gear for a start). b) If you make the gap too large it has too much of an effect on content where 'outgearing' becomes a huge weight to consider. This is acceptable when you have single difficulty content (more skilled playesr clear it in lesser gear, les skilled players will eventually accumulate the gear on the earlier bosses to allow them to eventually surmount those previously unachieveable challenges). However when you have multiple difficulties that large gap is harder to justify as it can devalue the achievements of people by making it less skill based (which arguably multiple difficulties should allow the game to be more tightly tuned around skill based as people who cant do the content should just be content at their skill level). Plus there should be some scope to let people 'step up' difficulties if they so choose, but keeping the gear gap small stops it being silly ala wow. If its small then if do T1 nightmare, the gear from T2 hard should be the equal to T1 nightmare so that people who did T1 nightmare can go straight to T2 nightmare. Likewise if people wanted to move from doing T1 hard to the nightmare they dont have to grind mutliple difficulties across multiple different tiers.

I never said the game was ready or working well. My original post was condemning the hypocricy of the 'anti-raiders' on this forum who publicly go for a 'live and let live' approach while at the same time spitting the kind of venom I'd expect if we were shooting each other.

I'm not a pvp player . As such considering your whole refutation was based on my being an 'ignorant pvp player who hasnt stepped into pve content' pretty much just invalidates your entire counterargument. Though I do find pvp more enjoyable in TOR than most other MMOs...

Hope they do it when they rewire all the gear so its fully moddable. If your going to address imbalances in the reward systems makes sense to do it then when your making such a sweeping change to the items. At the moment the system is really out of whack.

Basically this. The point of difficulties with inevitably mean some people wont be able to do the higher ones. Otherwise... whats the logic in having them at all? People were really going for difficulties before 'now everyone can be happy and the hardcore raiders can shut up!' now these same people go on about elitists all the same but effectively laying claim to the whole game. Kind of proves that the people who raged about it before dont have a logical point where they stop, they are so blinded by what they percieve as 'raiding elitists' that all they want to do is complain. Sad really.

Demanding the game should fit your needs. Elitism at its worst. Dont you realise not everyone is ultra hardcore raiders? >.<

Yea. Normal as a base level is fine. The point of the original post is geared towards loot rewards mostly, which I agree with pretty much because bioware have made a pretty poor choice in mixing up the tionese/columi/rakata stuff between difficulties in my view. I would rather not have difficulties, mostly because I like my MMOs to be a continuous 'world'. Some stuff easy some stuff hard. But if your going to do difficulties... do it right. WOW when it implemented difficulties dithered over how it was supposed to be. Either normal was faceroll easy or it was genuinely difficult. Either way it either shut out either the middle tier of people skill wise or the people who are genuinely uncommital and couldnt hack the more tightly tuned normal modes. Having a normal mode thats literally laugh out loud faceroll sorts that. Problem with it at the moment is the shuffled rewards are a bit silly and difficulty on the higher end is too low rather than normal mode itself.

Thats a pointless argument to make. We've known for ages about difficulty scaling as a design choice. What point is there of having difficulties if it doesnt cater to the players who are more capable? If nightmare is supposed to be something everyone can waltz through... why even go through both the PR hassle and design clutter of having multiple difficulties? The number of people that defend, and acknowledge, the easyness of it (as opposed to be if the forums were lit up with people 'hitting the wall' on nightmare mode which would be an indication of success) proves that much.

See the whole 'they made a decision to make the first content tier easy' (or substitute that with 'first tier is always easy) doesnt really hold water. If there was no difficulty scaling for content as a design choice... that argument could easily be made and would be sensible for the game for new players and as a means to serve as a launch pad for the future. However, when you include multiple difficulty levels (which has the purpose of catering to different levels of skill) it isnt a defensible argument to say 'its supposed to be easy'. The normal mode is supposed to be easy. Nightmare is supposed to be as the name implies. Hard being somewhere in between. When you make a concious design choice to have different difficulties, you have to design them appropriately. Because the aim of nightmare isnt to be something everyone can do. Likewise normal is supposed to be the ultra casual level that people who dont want to wipe frequently. With difficulties, people should be running up against the wall on them if its working as intended. But obviously with the scale of the content it isn't. That much is acknowledged by the number of people who stick with 'its supposed to be easy' arguments.