Wow, so many replies. Here I thought I'd drop this in the suggestion box and it'd eventually find its lonely way to page 2. Of course you're right, UlaVii, that people with multiple characters in the guild could still withdraw the maximum with all of them. The solution I proposed and the variant by DarkTergon - also a good idea, simply letting you port with credits out of your own inventory after the guild allotment is used up - merely serves to allow GMs to keep that limit as low as possible without inconveniencing people. To the end of protecting the guild bank, I actually like DarkTergon's solution better than mine if it means you could set the allotment to 0 and people could still port using their own credits, just completely disconnecting the guild bank from the teleport mechanic or at least having that option.

This is an issue I've come across in several guilds, especially large ones where you don't know everyone personally, which is them not wanting to give a high credit allotment per week out of fear that members will empty the guild bank too quickly and not pay back into it. Only having 1-2 (or no) ports per week is very annoying for players who don't mind paying for their own ports, but don't want to have all characters in a private guild just for that purpose. To fix this, why not allow credits people pay into the guild bank go to refilling their weekly credit allotment? So say the GM allows 20k/week (one port), you use it, go to the guild bank, pay 20k in, now you have another port that week and can do that as often as you'd like for "unlimited" ports so long as you have the credits.

I agree with the OP. Choice in how you want your own character to interact with others, including going so far as killing them, feels like a good thing - after all, how can choice in an RPG be bad? - but it burns too many bridges. Once they've offered a kill option for a companion, that companion can no longer play a pivotal role in the story, keeping in mind that the devs no longer have the resources for multiple alternate storylines. One Rep story, one Imp story, both very static with at most a few L/D choices that change a couple lines and a bonus mission here and there is the most we can hope for anymore. Even in games with far more resources devoted to alternate storylines, like Mass Effect, you still have the issue of characters you could have killed off earlier at most making an appearance while the story progresses, but they're not a part of the story in a meaningful way. If they no longer fit into a story made for everyone, you can be 99.9% sure they'll never be back except for maybe a voice line here and there if we're lucky. That's why I'm always sad to see an option to kill a companion I find interesting, even if they were controversial, because it means that even if I leave them alive their story arc is essentially over and they'll just be another in an ever-growing list of combat companions.

Eh, I don't find the event that bad. Remember that swoop bike you ride for the Ziost daily? Yeah, that's how low my expectations were for this event in terms of the sporadic position updating and (clientside appearance of) lagging around. In that respect I wasn't disappointed, but I can feel for those who expected something more polished like GSF and were let down. I enjoy the event for what it is, grabbed all the perfect achievements that aren't bugged, and will go for legend with all 3 factions because I value being at legend with every faction. Is it something I'll do just for fun after that? Probably not, but it's still something different to do for a while. What's missing is a track on Taris right on top of the old swoop track from KotOR. That whole area would make a neat swoop track anyway, even without the nostalgia factor. If anything bothers me about it, it's how it invades with huge eyesores maps that would otherwise be used for story questing or dailies and ruins their atmosphere. Can't really compare it to events like Gree or Pirates because those occupy otherwise-empty maps designed for them and only them, and you don't even notice the bounty event if you don't know what you're looking for. Some way to go to a "story" or "non-event" instance would be cool, but honestly, they've never offered that possibility before and it's a pretty small grievance in the grand scheme of things. *shrug*

Wait, there's a mount with 15% damage reduction? That sounds like a pretty awesome defensive "cooldown" for stealth classes, at least on bosses in areas where mounting is possible.

Multi-kill in PvP with Carbonize has to be the best. Only happened once, and it wasn't planned, but nothing beats the reactions you get after that.

Having now experienced the changes for a couple weeks, what I find the most unfortunate side-effect of the change is that the only thing that counts anymore for conquest is sheer number of players in a guild. I've joined several conquest guilds in an effort to get that elusive "Conqueror of the Galaxy" title, and what's happened since the patch hit is striking. Before, mass guilds were still advantaged but didn't necessarily always win. In fact, the most successful conquest guild on my server was so despite maintaining standards in the players they invited, requiring a written application and a conversation with a guild recruiter, and they still managed to be on top despite somewhat lower numbers because of organization and constant conquest-related guild events. That created a sense of community that I never expected out of a conquest guild. Now, the only thing that counts is mass - pure body count and nothing else. The guilds that have moved into the "most successful at conquest" role are those that invite everything that moves on Korriban, Hutta, and Dromund Kaas, and have no sense of community at all outside of a very small core. Everyone else is just there to pad the numbers, and half just turn guild chat off to avoid the people writing inane nonsense turning guild chat into fleet chat. The changes are mostly good for people just trying to reach their conquest goals as a small guild, there's no denying that, and they're in the majority. It's just sad what you have to do to win conquests reliably as a guild now.

I played TSW for years. Most awesome story of any MMO out there with some amazing riddles and puzzle quests that don't baby you with marks on the map like most MMOs do. You have to figure them out or consult a guide the old-fashioned way. Unfortunately with the game's re-release as Secret World Legends they dumbed down the combat and build system (which is half of what made the game good) and made gearing pay-to-win. If all you care about is story and the quests, Legends is literally the exact same game in terms of graphics, maps, dungeons, and story, although parts of the original endgame still have yet to be implemented. My recommendation is that if you want to play TSW seriously and can find an old account for sale, buy one. Existing accounts that bought the original buy-to-play game can still play it, but you can no longer buy it new. If you just want to experience the story and the amazing puzzle quests and don't care about gearing or endgame, get the F2P Legends instead. Sorry @OP for off-topic reply, but he asked.

Can't speak for anyone else, but when I go to all the trouble of re-leveling and -gearing everything I want it to be good for a while. The primary enjoyment I still get out of this game is raiding, and being forced to re-grind everything comes like a big gut-punch every time because of how many boring hours of mind-numbing activities will be required just so I can keep raiding the exact same content at the same difficulty level. Been there, done that several times. Besides, bringing new content doesn't have to mean a new expansion. They can gladly take 3-5 years between level-ups and max gear score increases as far as I'm concerned. New FPs, raids, etc are always welcome, though.

I haven't played PvP since cross-faction came out, but from the numbers you're quoting it sounds to me like the PvP trauma debuff has finally outlived its usefulness. Without the inherent 30% healing received debuff, healers would be putting out 14k/0.7=20k HPS, making them as useful as a DD. That would be the simple solution and would solve the immediate problem of having healers and DDs put out equal numbers. The real solution is to finally balance the game separately for PvP so that they can tweak numbers in PvP without breaking something in PvE like they do nearly every balance patch, but I've given up hope of them ever putting in that kind of effort at this point.

Yes, I've let this thread get far too derailed and finally had to block that guy. Sorry about that, won't happen anymore. What's important is that they absolutely need to reconsider what these changes, ultimately directed at healers, are doing to a very average-parsing DPS class. I'm not opposed to them nerfing the set and by default making Apex Predator viable for Arsenal, but then the DPS specs need compensatory buffs to keep them from being the lowest-parsing DDs by a solid margin. The healer tactical nerf is pretty strong (and necessary) already even without touching the set, so hopefully they can find one way or another to make sure this nerf only hits the one spec it needs to.

This is what's on the PTS currently. They're nerfing the Concentrated Fire set in an effort to bring the Commando/Merc healer in line with the other two, and in so doing are indirectly nerfing both DD specs, which were middle of the pack at best. The hope is that they see the unintentional effects of their nerf and give DDs something to balance this out. If they have to swing the nerf hammer, they should at least hit the right target and not everything else nearby. Ad hominem assumes I'm deflecting by focusing on you rather than answering an argument, and that would require you to actually have made a substantive argument. There is nothing to be gained from arguing with someone who's willfully ignorant of what they're doing to the class (or just doesn't care) and insists on dwelling upon style and technicalities as though it were a graded classroom debate, not to mention now resorting to insults. I'm through speaking with you as this is leading nowhere and will only derail the topic further. I only replied to you to begin with because of how disrespectful you were to the OP. If you actually care about seeing the numbers, go to the PTS and parse and you'll see exactly what's happening. If not, don't. I no longer care.

Having multiple sets all augmented and with best-in-slot mods etc sitting around is definitely an advantage for classes like Sniper IMO, but in the already most expensive expansion of all time going through the expense of basically gearing a whole new class for limited payoff is too much for most players. It's a nice idea being held back by the sheer expense of it. That said, I agree with you about Apex Predator being interesting with the coming set nerf for Mercs. Operative DD is the only one I haven't played in 6.x, so can't comment there. Sadly it appears Merc DDs are getting thrown into the dumpster in an effort to nerf healers, but if they get some compensatory buff to make up for the set nerf then I can see Arsenal Mercs switching to Apex. I've been playing my AP PT with Veteran Ranger since the latest buff and have to say that's one thing they did right. It could still use a slight buff, but there's no single-target DPS check you could pass with Meteor Brawler that wouldn't now be possible with VR. So it appears they're moving in the right direction to make "play your way" a reality for some classes, just very, very slowly.

So you take an entire statement and discount it on the basis of a single word? From your last 3 posts I'm starting to get a picture of how you "debate," and it all has to do with evading the actual topic of the discussion by attacking the style of the person making the point. Almost like you're scared of actual substantive discourse. If that sounds overly harsh, it's meant to - we're here to discuss the game and air our concerns about it, not pass an exam in debate class where we're graded on prose style more than subject matter. DPS performance is an objective measure and not a matter of opinion, and we already have preliminary parses from the PTS. In that sense, "clearly" is directed at people who've actually bothered to parse or look at the numbers and inform themselves beforehand. The current Merc top parse is 23.8k (Arsenal) and 23.7k (IO). Average parses are 500-1k lower, as top parses are just pure crit luck. The very top parse is just over 24k and the lowest per class are around 23k for reference. That puts them very much in the middle of the pack. Check Parsely for verification. Very good Merc DDs have been parsing on the PTS (I've watched one of them in a parse group who regularly parses for 22.5-23k without crit luck), and average DPS numbers have decreased by 1.5-3k(!), putting both Merc specs at least 1.5k below a pack of specs/classes currently parsing fairly close to one another. So, sorry I offended your sensibilities with a word or by having a different style of argument than you, but this is a near-existential crisis for Merc DDs considering how long it takes between patches. Based on past balance patch frequency, they're unlikely to get any love for 6+ months if this nerf - which isn't even directed at them - goes through. There's a difference between parsing a few percent lower than the rest and being completely unable to pass certain DPS checks, thus unusable in NiM raids, which is what I fear if even their top parse dips below 22k at lv75, leaving actual DPS closer to 21k if not below. I hope the preliminary parses turn out to be mistaken, and perhaps with Apex Predator Arsenal will go back up a bit, but that still leaves IO with no set to turn to. The point of threads like this is to inform them how their Healer nerf has unintended consequences and that they should make changes to correct those before it goes live. This is very non-controversial; you were just trying to discount the OP's (and now my) entire argument based on stylistic differences and it's really beneath you. Or maybe it isn't, what do I know. Anyway, that was far more in-depth than I wanted to go in a discussion the OP already has firmly under control. My original point is, people should answer substantively or not at all; a poster's style is not indicative of the strength or weakness of their argument.

So the OP used some phrases other posters have used when their classes were in the dumpster. Oh, the horror. If I'm hungry, I'm going to use words similar to someone else who's hungry. It's called use of language. If we didn't use similar words and phrases to voice similar concerns, we wouldn't be able to understand each other at all. The OP was very specific about what the devs are doing and why it needs to be corrected. People in the hardcore raid scene have been disgusted by how OP Merc healers are since 6.0 dropped, and they're finally getting a needed nerf in a manner that also directly nerfs both DD specs which are currently very average in their performance. Average is a good thing, incidentally. In an ideal world, all specs would be "average," because it means they'd all be perfectly balanced. The nerfs will make them clearly the worst performing DDs in the game, which is unwarranted. What the OP is clearly not doing is "whining" because his class isn't parsing at the top, so I suggest you find a better use for that straw man elsewhere. Like every other bad thing in the world, the fact that it's inevitable that perfect balance will not be attained is just that: an unfortunate fact, not the ultimate goal nor an excuse to dismiss legitimate criticism for not trying to at least achieve some semblance of balance. If Merc DDs are overperforming, by all means nerf them, but when they're already struggling they don't need to be collateral damage in a nerf not intended for them.