Most of the criticism I have seen, demonstrates an understanding how games are made -- because they often cite existing games as examples. On the contrary, I see a lot of defense of Mythic posts, that cite nothing than a theory that it cannot be done --- often followed by a critic citing a game that did it before. Basically, imo, it is 'straw-manning' to stereotype a critic as someone that is clueless about MMORPGs, especially in 2012, when there are so many people that have experienced the development process and/or beta tested other games.

I have seen Devs respond to 'rants' in forums before. I have also seen some 'squeeky wheel' threads/posts, also get developer responses. I do not believe there is any rule to which posts Devs respond to, and which ones they do not. It is more a lottery, than a formula.

I have never been a waiter, but I can tell you the difference between great service and when to call the manager/owner. I do not know how to be a head chef at a 5 star restaurant, but I do know what to expect for the price of a 5 star restaurant. I do not have an MD, but I do know when I am not receiving the best medical treatment I can afford. Customers do not need to 'know how to do better', to evaluate the quality of a product, or a service. We see it all the time in the real world. So no, someone does not need to know how to develope an MMORPG before they are allowed to criticize it.

If you want to only hear from people that are completely happy about the game, then why not start your own fansite that only allows such posts? However, BW allows for both positive and negative feedback on their forums. Also, BW, not the fans, decides what qualifies for 'feedback'. The forum is is filled with very diverse people, each with an individuality, that might not meet your desired tone, topic, and/or opinion. As a member, you are going to face this diversity regardless if you like it or not, unless you isolate your self. Basically, it is up to you to insulate yourself from posts and threads you do not wish to see, rather than expecting the community to change to fit your desires. You can create an long ignore list. You can only look at certain forums. What ever you do, it is basically up to you to take the steps. We all are entitled to post our opinions, as long as they are with in the guidelines and evaluation of BW. It is what being a member of a diverse community places upon each one of us.

I disagree. In STO, I hung around giving negative feedback until I left. I now see some of the feedback has appeared in patch changes to the game. I certainly do not think that it was only my feedback that spirited the changes, but I do feel that my feedback was another log on the fire that ultimately inspired the developers to make the change. Additionally, there is the entertainment value in discussing games, regardless if one is planning on staying with the game for months, or they are on their way out the door. I might not care about a particular football team, but I will still participate in a discussion about their performance in last sunday's game, simply for the 'entertainment' of the discussion. So, imo, there are levels where a discussion like this is not 'pointless'.

I agree. It doesn't apply to 'all criticism'. My bad for not making that more clear. However, imo, we have seen the issue where criticism that even BW is now adding to their patches, were met with vitriol and name calling by fans of the game. Basically, it is about pointing out there is too much blanket attacks on critics, and that this seems to result in Developers releasing games of lessor quality (patching up after launch). Imo, it would be a lot better if we had seen TOR launch with say patch 3.0 (future patches, less obvious content), as a result of a more united front presented by the 'future customers', and less in fighting between fans and critics.

If the game is great, why is BW releasing patches and press about how they are listening to customers and making changes? I am not saying that your opinion about the game being great is 'wrong', but rather pointing out that it seems that not everyone -- including BW -- feels the game is great. What the OP is basically suggesting, is that TOR should have launched with Patch 3.0, rather than launching without it. And the way to see that happen in future games, is to push for that, rather than arguing with people that are suggesting it. Ultimately, we are all customers that want to see the game be great, for the most part, so less fighting with critics and more asking developers to do a better job at launch, is a good thing for all of us.

Imo, I would say that the message is that rather than fight people that are critical during devepment, all customers should push for the game to be the very best it can be at launch. For example. Someone might have an issue about how the Auction House works during Beta. I do not care about AH systems. They push for improvements, so I either support the improvement or investigation by the developer for improvement, or I do not comment. The problem is that here, we saw people attacking critics, not because they thought the AH was the best, but because they did not think someone should criticize BW. And so we launch with an reduced quality AH, that even BW is working on now improving. Basically, it is about fans fighting against anyone saying something negative, rather than supporting that a developer do the very best they can.

And you are entitled to that opinion. However, without evidence to support it, it is just your opinion. I feel the it is not pointless, which is my opinion, so we sit a draw. In otherwords, the discussion is open to continue, as there is no clear winner. Ergo, it is a discussion among people that share a common interest, but different views.

But again, the mmorpg gaming market has not has the same pleasure of customer retention across the board -- but rather suffers from lack luster sub retention in most cases. Again, the difference between comparing 'chips' and 'MMORPGS'. Standard practice for MMORPGs is to put up forums and allow for criticism, rather than censoring all but positive praise for the game. In some cases, criticisms that were flamed as 'trolling' and 'QQing', ultimately appears in game patches. Another common practice, despite Fans expression to the contrary, companies do care that people leave, and often send out 'please come back' emails to lost customers --- rather than telling them 'dont let the door hit you on the way out'. Seems that despite fans insistence that critics are unwanted, the game companies seem to express a desire to retain or recapture them. I dare say, that despite all the vitriol thrown by fans, companies actually value critics as customers, desiring to retain their dollar --- conflicting with the 'leave' demands of fans. As you say. 'crazy'.

I have yet to be asked to provide feedback on chips I have purchased, but most MMO's ask for feedback when I cancel. Perhaps there is a difference between chips and a video game, with regards to customer imput.

I can tell you that 'film only' Dp's are having problem finding jobs, because so much is being shot digitally now. I can also tell you that a department head that turns in a more expensive budget, because they are using older tech, usually also gets replaced.

I disagree. STO has a fraction of the budget, and only 2 years of development, yet they were able to launch with a more current UI, for example. If a 'scalable' and 'movable' UI, was such a monumentous task, why was such a rushed and under budgeted game like STO, whose entire budget was probably less than TOR's 'Starbucks' budget, was able to include it?

True. However, it is normal to hold a new product, to the same standards an existing product is held to. A new smart phone needs to be just as good as the current smart phones, not the smart phones 4 years ago. SWTOR's UI should have been just as good as WoW, Rifts, STO, WAR, etc. SWTOR's Auction House should have been just as good as the AH's in those games. SWTOR's LFG options should have been just as good as those games. Etc. It is not about looking for TOR to be 'unbelievably' amazing, but simply not be less than current games, with regards to its base design elements.

Well to be fair, that was all the customers fault for not realizing something was broken (that never existed before). What could BW have done?

Imo, it is a very likely problem to occur, so BW should have designed some quick responses in case it occured -- sort of like having a plan for what happens when a patch causes a major problem.

It is 2012, not 2001, nor even 2008. MMORPG standards are a lot higher, tech is a lot better, and market competition is higher. It would be one thing, if TOR launch with all the features you find in most other MMORPGs + VO/Story, but that is not the case. TOR launch missing a lot of what people considered 'standard' features -- that 'cheaper to make' MMO's were able to release with. In a sense, TOR = WAR/WOW 2009 + VO/Story, rather than WAR/WoW 2011 + VO/Story (which is what customers likely are expecting). Had this been a the Iphone5, and it released with only the same features as the original Iphone, you would have seen the smart phone market flip out -- instead of saying 'good god people, why are you all QQing about it. Give them time to update the software' Same thing would happen if Samsung released a brand new plasma, or toyota released a brand new car line, that only had 2007 features. It really should not be surprising to anyone that people expected more from TOR, nor that people are dissatisfied with the lack of features released -- compared to games released in the past 3 years.

I agree that currently, tech is not there to allow free form 'world pvp', but it might eventually get there. For the time being, I feel developers need to put in more controls, to deal with the obvious issues, and work on better 'masking' those controls for the most part. I would have been happier to have seen Illium be more of a mix of Warzone design and WAR PQ Quests. I have also always felt that 'world PvP' needs to have some sort of 'kick out' when you are defeated, rather than just letting people zerg back from the respawn point. Basically once a World PVP event has started, and you have been 'killed', you are basically locked out of that 'event' until it completes with the winning team still standing. The idea is to balance the timing of the events and have other options/events, so that when someone is killed, they are not 'benched' for hours.

I would like to see BW work on creating more 'controls' in the system -- until we mature to a point that it can be wide open and free PvP. To me some of the problems seem to be: Population imbalances Players 'trading' Objectives Zerging > Tactics/skill Camping Perhaps some solutions would be: Population Imbalance Faction limits before 'spawning another instance' Warzone style 'team queing' to spawn event [*]Exploiting/Farming Create better controls to mitigate the ability to simply 'trade' objectives to farm points Min damage and Kill numbers from both side affecting award Something similar to the 'afk' kickers in warzone starting area [*]Zerging Design objectives and battlefield to support tactics, and discourage 'zerging' (ie having to control multiple points before, continuing on, thus naturally dividing the forces up into squads, instead of rewarding a roving zerg). [*]Camping more 'Barriers' and 'killzones', as well as multiple exits from spawn points Basically, imo, the solution comes in the form of stronger Regulation of the PvP area. No regulation = Chaos - which is what we are seeing. The game design is too simplistic to allow for more 'real life' combat styles and tactics, so we see it regress into what happens now in Illuim (exploits, zergs, and wasted potential PvP battles).

LOL. Imo, Open World PvP objectives should not be truely unregulated and 'open' --- at least not at this stage of game development. Rather I think they need to figure out how to create something that is bigger than a 8 v 8 warzone, and has similar 'controls' to it, but is closer to the illusion of 'open world' combat.

I see this as a valid criticism. Imo, BW should have taken into consideration that the 'bad guys' tend to be more attractive to gamers, and thus put in some greater effort to make the Republic have some strong appeal. This has been a problem since development, so BW should have considered some things to help make the Republic more attractive than they currently are. I personally like the Trooper class, so that was my 'carrot' to join the Republic -- but other people need something different. Imo, BW are supposed to be the professionals, so it is their burden to figure something out to make the appeal of both factions relatively 'equal' to their customer market. However, as I am not impressed with how they treat their customers, I would not be surprised to see a BW dev come in and blame the customers for not picking the Republic faction, and thus it is the customers' fault there is an imbalance.

Unless they changed it, you have to have an active subscription to post. Members that waited to purchase the game, or activate their subscriptions were unable to post at launch until after they activated their game key.

Then it is likely a bug with changing the 'flag' or what ever they use to distinguish your account as active/cancelled. They will likely fix it soon.

If you remember the time and the name of the player, file a Bug Report about it. Get a screenshot and report them. The information might help BW close the ability to do what ever exploit he is doing.

Until they can figure out how to balance the population better, I think they should investigate in making Illuim just a much larger Warzone. Thus they can put in some type of controls on the number on each side, and control/influence the imbalance. Sure it is not real 'open world' pvp, but I think it would be better than what they currently have. Again, imo, the tech is not there to have 'open world' PVP when there is population imbalances. It is like trying to Jump your swimming pool on your bike, before you ride without training wheels.