The reward you get for subbing for a year+, playing the game off and on since release? They make darn sure to take your money every 30 days, but the CC allotment "somehow" got shifted to 33 days. So now I get charged on the 3-5th every month and I don't get my coins until the 23rd? My wife was getting hers the same day you take her money. How hard was that to fix? You lost 2 subs over this.

The pop limit isn't 2.5k. About an hour ago, I made some observations on Ebon Hawk (heavy at the time, two stages before full), using /who on both sides. I got 2388 people. So it's safe to assume that at least up to 2400 is still heavy, possibly more, but any more is speculation. If very heavy started at 2400, I find it highly unlikely that full is just 100 more.

nope, you're not alone

They get more and more useless the higher level you get, once the strongs start hitting harder than elites. It's because their tank stance is absolutely terrible. Interestingly, back in beta (in August when I joined), the tooltip for the companions' tank stances all said that it added 60% armor. It never worked, and it was brought up repeatedly. In the next phase, or the one shortly thereafter, it was "fixed", in that, that part of the tooltip was removed. Then, they tweaked the difficulty on level 30+ content and left the tank companions as they were.

It won't go F2P. Ever. EA doesn't do F2P. Is Warhammer F2P? Nope, in much worse shape than TOR from a sub standpoint. Is Dark Age of Camelot F2P? Nope, and by rights it should be. Tiny, tiny population, 10 year old game, but it's still a sub. Hell, they still charge for UO. Like I said, EA doesn't do F2P.

As far as I remember, it only shows the @username in the chat window.

They should just do what Cryptic does with naming. Like Bob@username. Not sure why that hasn't caught on.

A valid concern, if each character you made was in a vacuum. New players wouldn't be able to get the perks until they unlock legacy. Current players, with at least one lvl 50, would have absolutely no problem getting that much credits. What is that, like one day of dailies?

This. It always baffles me how developers just willingly throw away content that doesn't get used by everyone before it gets thrown away. Seems like such a waste to me.

??? Where are you getting 1.3 million subs/month lost? Number's a little off, as the 1.3 million is what the latest sub number released was. Tor has lost ~1.1 million subs since release. I agree though, sweeping changes to a game don't work. It wrecked SWG (though it was gasping for breath anyway), and it damaged DAoC (ToA expansion). There's a HUGE difference between nerfs and NGE type changes though, especially the nerfs in 1.2. They aren't as bad as people are making them out to be, and he even admitted that sorc/sage healing is harder now than they want it to be. You're overstating the impact of nerfs. They don't cause mass exoduses. I'd imagine the biggest causes of sub loss right now for TOR are bugs (which is natural this early in a MMO, though in the past not as many people flooded into a newly released MMO, so the effect is exacerbated), the scrapping of Ilum, the delay of rated WZs, and server populations (imo this is the biggest contributor to sub losses at the moment, thus their intent on getting out a transfer tool as soon as it's ready). Nerfs might cause the fickle, FOTM players to ragequit, along with some people unfamiliar to MMOs, but to anyone who has played MMOs for any length of time, it's par for the course. There have been nerfs since there have been MMOs. It's just the way it is. Again, if nerfs killed a game, WoW wouldn't have even gotten to where it is. I'm not even talking about Cata. There have been nerfs in WoW from day one, effecting every class, and the population did nothing but grow, until Cata, when they made sweeping changes to the game. See above.

I find it highly unlikely that the number 1 cause of lost subs is nerfing, seriously, and I'd imagine that breaking the game to buff up the other 14 ACs would cost them more, or it would at least result in a much larger outcry on the forums. Besides, if nerfing doomed a game, WoW would be nowhere near the giant it is now. Every class in that game has felt the nerf hammer, multiple times (some being hit so hard that they actually were ineffective afterward), and WoW is doing just fine sub-wise.

The fact of the matter is, it's often much easier, and cleaner for the whole game, to bring one or two classes down than it is to bring all the other classes up. Most people don't think about the effects that would have on the game as a whole, like making PVE pretty much trivial, which in turn would need a buff. In the end, you get the same basic result with MUCH more work and more chance for bugs rearing up. Nerfing, unfortunately, is the best path in a lot of cases. BTW, I do play a Sage healer, and I do just fine. Just can't spam heal and eat health indiscriminately.

Very reasonable. I don't disagree. And the game will be fine with that many once the server transfers start.

Actually, with 1100 per server, average, that's 550 per side. Break that down to a per planet average and it gets ~30-40. Look at the fact that many servers have more and many have less, some zones have more and some have less, and it becomes completely feasible. Fact remains: there's too many servers.

Ok...so about 800k people are recently cancelled and waiting for their subs to expire. Really? He's not far off in saying that? I'm sorry, but that's a completely ridiculous concept. You're making the assumption that every subscriber is playing 24/7 and are evenly distributed, and that's completely erroneous. I'm not saying that every single one of those 1.3 mil are active players because they simply aren't, but to try to argue that the majority aren't by using flawed math isn't any better.