And to Zach, If the hacking is as "utterly rare" as you make it to be, Mr Musco would never have commented. He and Bioware do have all the raw data to this game, they are the all seeing eyes in the sky. Bill Parcells always said "the eye in the sky never lies." Bioware has all the data on this game, they can give us a frequency. They aren't commenting on a problem so "utterly rare" as you are suggesting it is. But I guess until the day they actually post a frequency and more info, none of us will ever know with certainty. I strongly believe you are minimizing it, because I don't think they are commenting to the community if the incidents were as "utterly rare" as you suggest. And human nature says that too. People cheat their taxes, their employers, their spouses, the stock market all the time. Why should we think people wouldn't cheat a free to play video game, especially when official and unofficial voices in and around the game suggest cheating is occurring more frequently? But more productive is to hope and pray they stop it going forward and they keep it as enjoyable as it has been since day 1. Because for whatever flaws it may have, it still is a great game and I for one am thankful it is around still has people who care to comment, so thanks all!

The "logical fail" here is on your part. Bioware's own representative offered proof contrary to yours. "This season in Ranked has had the highest number of hackers in it so far. Since the post last month asking for reports on these hackers, many people have reported these hackers and many of them have been punished." Musco and Bioware have the proof, and I choose to believe them. Since you dispute their claim, where is your proof? Provide us the evidence that says Bioware and Musco are lying. Please do! I beg of you! Please don't take offense if I don't hold my breath, because I REALLY doubt that proof is coming, jack. And I feel you know that proof isn't there, which is why you tried to liken me over 2 posts to a creationist at a Trump rally, which is your way of trying to insult, I suspect. Have at it! You cried for proof, you got the best proof any of us can offer, and you ignore, minimize and insult. I might remind you of Matthew 7:1-5, which are words by which we should all seek to live: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

To Krackerjack and to Zach, First off, much respect. I've read you on these forums and have learned quite a few things from you. But I shudder to think of you in law enforcement or any level of administration, civic or private, thinking that a first person POV video constitutes some greater conclusive proof of anything. From a video of zach shooting people in huttball only offers proof of him playing huttball, nothing else. I live in Chicago, and by all metrics, we have a problem with people shooting people here. Last year there were more shooting deaths in Chicago than in Falujah. Now, call it hubris, but I don't go around fearing for my life, but I also don't deny we have a bad problem. And, what kind of person would I be to say "I haven't seen any shootings, so show me proof or I won't believe you." And then if I doubled down by saying "here's video of me walking around Chicago with a GoPro on my head. If the shootings are this bad, then surely I'll be able to catch one on video." Right......... Wouldn't the best proof be statistical? Like the Police or FBI or DOJ's official numbers, or even the words of a member of the Police? I would think so. So I offer that Musco, who actually works for Bioware in some official capacity and has access to their data and he recently said that "This season in Ranked has had the highest number of hackers in it so far" but that doesn't count, but two dudes on message boards say there are only 10 incidents across all NA and EU servers and that's what we are going with? Right, trust the two dudes who play pvp but not the guy employed by the game itself?

There has been a lot of hacker deniers crying for proof that there is no hacking going on in this game, which at face value alone seems like an absurd claim. Even funnier to me is Zachariah (not to be confused with Zechariah, the father of John or the prophet Zechariah who gave us 9:9 and 3:3-4) posted a very compelling video of him patrolling mid in a huttball match as proof there is no cheating. A good video, and a really good player, no question, but how is that the smoking gun? I find it extremely interesting that nobody bothered to reference Eric Musco's interview with snave, which is I believe the top thread in the PVP forum. page two of that thread has a link of the entire youtube interview, as well as a summary of the main points. I will quote: "This season in Ranked has had the highest number of hackers in it so far. Since the post last month asking for reports on these hackers, many people have reported these hackers and many of them have been punished. At the same time, this season has seen a very low number of win-traders, partly due to the harsh punishments they received for the last few seasons." Given that Musco himself admits that hacking has become more widespread in this game than at any other time in this game's life, how are we seriously demanding more proof of the problem that that???????????????? And given that Ranked is level 65, how is anyone trying to argue that this is not a level 65 issue, but basically a harmless lowbie issue??????????? Or did I miss something?

To Jethsidi, 1000 times you are welcome! I'm glad it made you laugh and smile. And to all who took the time to contribute to this thread, a most Blessed and Happy Easter to you all! Now if you will all excuse me, I must put on Frozen for my 18 month old daughter!

after 7 pages of reading, this thread breaks down into a debate over 2 different methodologies producing a difference of 0.135%. What's even more amazing is that after establishing that both sides can agree upon this number as a means of "STOCHASTICALLY" quantifying their differences, the church of KBN maniacally clings to this as some sort of justification of superiority over the infidel jethsidi's heretical approach. Where I come from, 0.135 means "IT'S THE SAME THING!" Now before this radical concept ignites 7 more pages of debate, I suggest some people pop Frozen into the DVR and take heed to the lyrics of "Let it Go, Let it Go...." Or perhaps we can all indulge in a little fantasy, and imagine jethsidi and KBN at the same cookout....... Jethsidi: "hey KBN! Nice to see you! Thanks for coming to my cookout! Would you care for a bacon double cheeseburger? they are my speciality!" KBN: "Why thank you! But how are you going to make that? You do know I have posted a guide that discusses how to make the most statistically relevant bacon double cheeseburgers? By chance, have you read it?" Jethsidi: "Oh yes, I am very familiar. You did great work. And I do base my bacon double cheeseburgers on you guide." KBN: "Sounds great! I would rather enjoy a BDCB then....But wait, what are you doing?" Jethsidi: "1 patty, 1slice of cheese, 2 pieces of bacon, that's just how you wrote it up!" KBN "Not at all, if you review my work, you will see I used the following equation Patty size=50*1/AASM( where AASM=average adult sized male)*(0.9975, the ratio of hunger over wind friction) plus Bacon (which is factored as weight, not strip of pattry size/2.5, then doubled)plus cheese as measured by surface area of patty*the hunger ratio which is 0.9975" Jethsidi: "KBN, when you break it down, and we assume AASM=200 pounds that equals 1/4 pound patty, which I used. using the same 1/4 pund patty, your equation = 2 slices of bacon (approximated) and where as you measured surface area of the patty to determine cheese size, I found slices equal to bun size, which comes out almost identical to your formula." KBN "what about max hunger assumptions? You do know I am a computer programmer? I recently developed an app that helps restaurant owners use my complex algorithm to make the statistically best and most efficient burger possible. Recently, a small bed and breakfast posted on yelp that they have downloaded and started using my app to improve the efficiency of their burger making process. It is only a matter of time before all national restaurant chains adopt my app and methodology. After all, it is mathematically based and I am not capable of making an error, because I am a computer programmer." Jethsidi: "hey, I respect that. But I'm telling you, this is a good burger! do you want one." KBN "Good as defined QUANTITATIVELY? or ALGEBRAICALLY? You methodology is devoid of any proof it works." Jethsidi: "My burgers and yours are about the same, man. It's a burger. It's how you cook it, man! Do you want one or not?" KBN fan chimes in "how dare you challenge KBN. Do you know he is a computer programmer? All of his work is mathematically derived and is quantifiable. You can't just eyeball a burger! What kind of person would do that. And by the way, I see no account for wind direction or speed in your bastardization of KBN's work. You have offered no one anything of use in your attempts to make a burger. please leave!" Jethsidi: "but it's my house man, my yard, my grill!" KBN fan #2: "you can't prove any of that! stop polluting the internet with your lies!" Jethsidi, to himself "I knew I should have just ordered a pizza!"

So just to be clear, since I think a few people either misread or didn't understand my point made a few posts back, I proposed making a tactical level operation. This was not meant to replace the storymode, this was meant as it's own unique tier. I am of the opinion that the storymode runs should be very accessible, so that any player that makes it to the end can have a chance to experience them if they want without going down the road of becoming a professional raider. From reading these posts, many of the progression/professional raiders expressed that they felt the story modes needed to be left at the difficulty levels they are currently at in order for them to essentially weed out players. My own personal view is that isn't likely necessary, especially since most of the voices calling for this also feel that as currently constructed the SM ops are already "faceroll easy" and these people are going to be spending the vast majority of their time in HM modes anyway. But in the spirit of fairness and democracy, let's concede and say that fine, many guilds and progression/professional raiders would fine benefit in being able to use the SM ops to weed players or prep players. Fair enough, then let it be, but you still need to have an option for larger majority of players who would like to try to run an op or two without making running ops and learning ops a full time job. So I proposed making tactical level an option. Far lesser skilled players, and also players without ops experience, could have a chance to experience the op. This just offers more players an outlet, would possibly clean up the SM's in the process. To me, it's a win win. Someone tried to dismiss based on gear drop? really? Make the gear the same as the other tactical flashpoints. Who ever ran a tactical for the gear? The old cz tacticals used to drop 148 gear, and everyone running it was in at least 162. so back then you gave some gear to lesser used companions and trash sold the rest. now, with the Yavin weeklies, no need to gear the comps, so people would run these to first have a low stress ops experience and secondly for the comms and whatever weekly or stronghold missions they fulfilled, no different than how the tactical fp's function, except this would give people a chance at doing that with the ops, and in a much larger group. Someone seemed to suggest FP's do the same thing. Not at all, or not anymore than the reverse would hold true. This gives a whole new demographic a chance to experience content they might not, and a chance to experience a larger group. Making the game more accessible to more players helps to keep this game strong, healthy and relevant. I've been playing since the beginning, I love this game, and I want to see it keep going strong. To do that, people need to think bigger than themselves and be inclusive, not exclusive. Thanks again all! Really enjoying the conversation!

First of all, thanks to the majority of posters who have kept this a lively discussion. It seems most of the people here were end game progression raiders, so I'd like to offer a different perspective. It seems that most of the posters here are end game progression raiders. Some want the SM mode to be quite difficult, a sort of proving ground for HM's. Others are worried about the game not being accessible to the larger majority of the player base, and feel the SM modes should be easier for lesser skilled players, especially since they make up the majority of the revenue stream. To me, my gut says, the SM modes should be easier. I don't think it makes good business sense to say we only want elite players, if you aren't elite, go home. A successful business tries to expand customer base, I've never heard a business succeed by saying "we will be better if we get less customers." There are plenty of decent players that have difficulty in the SM modes, so lesser skilled players won't stand a chance. And if they feel like they are not welcomed at all in endgame content, they will eventually leave. Making the SM mode easier will keep revenue flowing, which is needed. I've heard some suggest that the SM modes are proving grounds for the HM's, but I have to question that. Most of the progression raiders are running exclusively in the guild, and they are going to know who can hang and who can't just by looking at their parses, no? I've got to believe the percentage of people that they weed out from SM mode is pretty small, and that there are other methods of weeding players. But that being said, let's assume some validity to that opinion, that some guilds need a beefier SM mode to weed out players. Then how can you reconcile the need these two opposing views? I propose making tactical versions of the ops. Obviously the progression raiders would ignore them, or most of them would, but you could then create an easier version of the op for less elite players. It would also be easier to get a GF pop, meaning you wouldn't have to wait forever. I know many people that went on to running the CZ FP's in HM started out running the tacticals and were thankful the tacticals were there to help them learn the run and get better. This would accomplish this, and would probably make the SM runs more smooth for the elite players. Thanks for hearing me, let's keep the discussion going strong!

While so many players focus solely on ops and end game stuff, let us not forget that this is a wonderfully written STORY DRIVEN game, and so far, to date, I don't think that is fully reflected in the strongholds. Each of the 8 main classes have a host of characters that would make excellent additions to the wall hooks. So adding portraits for players in the class stories, like Keeper, the Minister of Intelligence, Darth Baras, Yuan Parr, the original Havoc Squad members, etc....I think all those toons at the very least could add some variety to the small green sized portraits. Same can be said for some of the planetary and heroic NPC's, like the old man from Czerka on Tatooine, or the CZ death squad on Tatooine, or the Sith on the imp side hunting the artifacts...A portrait of all the comps, perhaps once they get to 10,000 affection, would also be nice, since that too is such a part of the story. Finally, we have big picture of Revan, Malgus, but nothing for any of the Jedi, especially Satele Shan. Why not make an achievement for completeing all FP's in storymode, with a prize being a larger portrait of Satele. I feel these would be easy to incorporate going forward. When you consider the number of wall hangings needed in these strongholds, I mean, how many imp/pub banners could I put up in the Tatooine stronghold? Good God, that's a lot of redundancy. Thanks for reading this! Big ups to the Bioware team, regardless of what the haters say, this is a GREAT GAME and strongholds makes it EVEN BETTER! Just hope you will consider some of these changes to make it even more better!

Especially on imperial fleet. I have a toon that needs and I also have a sorc that can pull for others...haven't caught one in a while, but hoping someone is gonna give it a go soon

yep, just got booted 5 minutes ago

Thank you for a SANE CONTRiBUTiON!!!! It is complete BS, an obvious glitch and an obvious flaw. Just glad to see that intelligent adults read these message boards so often dominated by trolls who drink too much mountain dew and smoke too much weed in their parents basements. Anyone who has ever competed at anything should recognize BS when they see it. I would prefer to play a game with matches based on fair competition, not ones flawed and gimmicked like a WWE match. Thanks for the response and keep posting

This is the one I meant to quote! Marrius, this was a GREAT post. Thanks for being a problem solver and a sane head. that dude from Blizzard was 100% SPOT ON! I'd love to see Bioware adopt a similar policy. premades go ranked or have a premade que. Pugstomping is so ridiculous and distasteful, and against what competition is supposed to be about.

I linked the quote incorrectly, but the person Nathaniel was quoting had it right, with his link to the Blizzard people. I sure hope Bioware does the right thing and sticks the premades in ranked or their own que's where they belong. I think they should adopt a mechanic like used in groupfinder, in that I can't join a group if I am que'd. regular pvp should be blocked if you are grouped...if u want to group, then go in the ranked or premade que. Problem solved in my world

I think this is misinterpreted. What Marr seems to be saying to me is that the Emperor is no more, regardless of his status. All the imps say "long live the Emperor." That is what will not be mourned. I take this as Marr seems to be similar to Malgus, in that he recognizes the shortcomings of a government tied to a madman who might not even exist anymore. Dead or not, the absence shows the flaw and weakness. Like Baras, I doubt Marr will miss dealing with idiot mystics like the Hand, or the Voice. The Emperor hasn't been seen in years, and there are rumors some knight killed him. In ANY case, this indicates an inability to lead, and the future of the Empire stands in the hands of Marr and the Warrior, and the influences of Baras and Malgus are just as important than the whims of a weak madman that nobody even knows is alive or not. It doesn't matter, because he is no longer relevant, regardless of how powerful he once was.