I very much do have her as a companion on the character trying to place her. That isn't the issue. I do appricate your suggestion, but to be clear the issue is that she doesn't show up as an item in my decorating window, even though yes the character trying to place her has her as a companion.

That I know isn't the issue. I should take a screenshot, but she doesn't even show up as an item for the purposes of decorating. That and I can place any other NPC here in this house.

Yes I have, although I don't remember if I paid credits or cartel coins, but yes I did pay for her, do her tiny quest, and so forth. She should be unlocked.

I'll give it a go, maybe sooner or later I will be able to place Treek. And good luck on your end with Jaesa.

No, far from it. She shows up as if I don't even have her as a companion at all. So it's not an issue with lack of space.

Has anyone been able to place Treek in their Stronghold? I have her unlocked of course, in fact I use her often when I want a healer companion. And yet when I try to place her, it shows I don't have the companion. I've had no issues with my other companions including HK-51. I also am not at the 25 NPC limit for that stronghold. I also posted in the bug report section, and will submit one in game as well.

Hello, I can't seem to be able to place Treek in my Coruscant Stronghold. The rest of my companions, including HK-51 I can place fine. I'll also submit a bug in game and possibly a duplicate post in the general discussion area. Anyone else have this issue?

I kind of already made this point, but the more social/casual player base existed before f2p. I played EQ2 from six months after it launched to 2012, and still log onto it once in a while. It wasn't f2p until I think 2011 or so, and it had a LOT of casual players, along with of course a lot of endgame. This FP is meant to cater from level 15 to 55. I would make some changes to the level 55 version, but overall it sets out to do what it's meant to do. A FP that characters of most levels can play. Not every update will be ONLY for the endgame. Do I want more endgame content? Sure! But I also do want more low and mid game content as well.

I seriously don't see how adding Kuat Drive Yards FP is going to cause the game to end soon. Myself, I would like to see a HM level 55 version of it as well. And I do wonder about the logic of planetary coms being the reward for the 55th level version, when a 55th that isn't levelling an alt has no real use for planetary coms for the most part. But the FP itself is fun and a nice diversion. I like challenging FP's and ops, yes. But some days I just want to bash stuff with some friends, this FP is good for that. You also forget that not everyone has only 55th level characters. Some do level alts. Many in my guild have a horde of mid level alts. This game still does attract new players, many in my guild are new or people that quit then came back without hitting 55th as well. So not every instance/FP will be ONLY for 55th. To keep a game vital, one was to a degree cater to everyone, not just the end game. Want to kill a game? Cater ONLY to people at end game cap level. Or worse yet, to only hardcore players. Or the tl;dr: The FP isn't perfect but it's fun, and it won't kill the game. It's far from the worst and I'd make some changes for 55th level characters, but overall it accomplishes what it set out to do.

I suppose f2p might exasperate the situation some, but I played EQ2 for years, and until only a couple years ago that game was subscription only. Yet it had a bad plat/gold seller problem for a while, with the sellers usually sitting in the n00b area but spamming via /tell, some spam done via in game mail also. Their solution was to impliment a pretty effective filter, one that works well enough that even when the game did go to a f2p model similar to SWTOR's, a major gold seller problem didn't reemerge. I guess my point is that it's far from exclusive to f2p games, and one shouldn't try to blame this game going f2p as a primary reason as to why we currently have gold seller issues. At least they for the most part on fleet just spam in /say and/or /yell on my server, and thus can be put on ignore after the first time they do such. Still, I'd love to see a lot better enforcement and/or some sort of filter.

/agree

I'm not trying to troll, but all I will say is welcome to the world of random number generation. For everyone like you, there's someone that probably had each mount drop two or three times or more and possibly bought less packs as well. It's not like if one buys 20 packs, and there's a 5 percent chance of an item dropping (to use random figures) that you WILL get the item. It just means you have 20 chances to roll five percent or less. You just had horrid luck and never rolled whatever number is needed to hit the mounts. Anyway, take a look at what you DID get with each pack. See what they sell for on the GTN. Some of the items might be fairly uncommon as well, and thus sell well. Some of the ink dye packs can sell for a small fortune if nothing else. Sell those items on the market once they unlock, and then buy whatever mount(s) you want. It's what I do when I buy a few packs wanting something specific but don't hit the item.

I don't know. Mind you, most people in any MMO I've played have been honest, but yes there are a few people that will post "OH, I know of a guy with a working Treek" to troll. Or maybe repeat that, the trolling becomes a claim that such does exist and so forth. My account of people claiming to have a working Treek is based on a post I saw here at least a couple of weeks ago, so it could very well be either someone trolling or repeating a claim as if it's fact.

Looks like you did a double post and edited this one, but I bought her via cartel coins and have the bug. I have heard that a few people do have a "working" Treek, although I haven't talked to any on my server. I'm guessing that it's coincidence that the people you know with a working Treek used the cartel market.

That is not my understanding at all. I'd have to dig up threads myself but I do remember them saying with I think 2.3.1 that they had only done a partial fix on Treek with regards to this issue, and thus they didn't mention anything. I also remember seeing a post where someone quoted a developer a good 2 weeks ago saying that they would have a fix for her affection conversations with next patch. So for at least two weeks, possibly even a full month they have known about this, if I am not mistaken and I honestly think I'm not. Anyway, regardless yes I'm happy as well that they are working on the issue. I of course wish she would have her conversations now, but at least this is a high priority issue. regardless.