"Not to mention, giving every other class a hard counter to your main ability generally doesn't work well(ask full healing sorcs pre-2.0)." But there are hard counters to the main abilities of both watchman and combat spec, and they are absolutely crippling. For instance, well-timed stuns against a combat sentinel reduces that sentinel's dps by maybe 40%. Why does smash spec get a free pass? "You can already cleanse force crush" Glad you brought this up, because the recent 2.0 changes to focus spec *weaken* your argument. Whereas pre-2.0, providing classes with an easy way to eliminate singularity might have made focus spec about as useful as watchman spec for PvP, i.e. pretty much not useful at all, the post 2.0 boost to surge for focus spec, combined with the relative decrease in importance of singularity (balanced by the increased single-target capability) means weakening singularity is now a comparatively less severe balancing action. And in any case, force crush is one of two ways to generate singularity. Are you suggesting a counter to both methods of generating singularity be preferable? "Even with smash, they are behind carnage, mm, decep, lightning and probably arsenal in terms of burst, and on the low end in terms of sustained." This is mostly false. Have you seen the numbers in every PvP scoreboard ever? It's not intelligible to make arguments about abstract notions like "burst" without considering counters; sure carnage can burn down a passive target faster than focus, but placed in a match, it is hard-countered by stuns, well-timed evasion (e.g. scoundrel dodge), well-timed escapes like force speed/scamper, accuracy reduction, knock backs... I could go on like this all day. Lightning is countered by *interrupts* which are available as fast as every 6 seconds. And yeah, there's nothing wrong with that, because a lightning specc'ed sorc has to be smart about snares, stuns, knockbacks and positioning to be effective. Compare this to a focus specc'ed sentinel who only has to leap into the biggest cluster of people he sees and use sweep. "Proper positioning" Firstly, focus is already almost as effective as the other two sentinel specs in 1v1 situations (again, because it does not suffer from hard counters, and also due to 2.0 improvements). So even if everyone were spread out all the time, focus would still be, if not decent, at least tolerable, partly because it is easy to play. Secondly, clustering will always happen; several PvP maps in fact encourage it (side turrets on Alderaan, pillars in Voidstar). And clustering *always* happens in teams which have a lot of melee players (digressing for a moment, my view is that focus spec makes melee-heavy party compositions comprised of non-focus-specc'ed players unviable, which in my opinion is poor design). "its a smash mara, stun" This would not be an effective way to counter focus spec, even if my proposed nerf were put into place, because poorly timed stuns would have no effect. At higher levels of gameplay, focus specc'ed sentinels would then have to play more cleverly, baiting stuns, rather than leaping in blindly, assured in their knowledge that nothing anyone can do will deny them their gratification. Requiring focus-specc'ed players to bait raises, rather than lowers, the skill required from both the sentinels and the targets. At casual levels of play, crummy players will still be crummy players, incapable of using their stuns at all, much less in a proactive fashion. So there, the impact is quite small. So it's not as simple as you make it sound. But even if it were that simple, let's compare to the existing combat spec. Whenever I see a combat specc'ed sentinel come after me, I look for the precision slash, I stun them, and I laugh at them because all they have is blade rush (doesn't do any more damage than slash), blade storm, auto-attack and master strike. That looks suspiciously like your list, "vicious slash, force scream, obilterate and autoattack", except with one less gap closer (though to be fair, combat can spec into an extra immobilize). So what, it's okay that combat is easy to tear down (despite being more difficult to play), but leave focus alone?

Impact on PvE It doesn't affect PvE (or if it does, the impact is very minor). Impact on PvP The problem with focus spec in PvP is that one cannot adopt any intentional defense against it (with the exception of shadow + resilience or sage + egress). The primary tools of other sentinel specs are susceptible to well-timed counter measures; watchman is vulnerable to cleanses and combat is crippled by well-timed stuns/CDs. Smash spec, on the other hand, can wait out the entire duration of a stun and still have a massive auto-crit at the ready. Worse, after the stun wears off, leap and zealous leap are off CD, allowing the smasher to snare his target. There should be analogous counter measures against focus spec. This raises the overall skill level of PvP since players who know they face a smasher can look for the singularity buff and take appropriate actions against it. Also, please implement some semblance of a matchmaking system in PvP. Let the pre-mades beat each other into pulp rather than matching them against a bunch of players who can't even move and attack at the same time. I've been in matches where the damage difference between the two teams needs to be measured on a logarithmic scale. This is sadly not hyperbole.

Sentinel -- Miruriya Dead on Arrival 2107? http://www.torparse.com/a/150610/time/1362290870/1362291189/0/Overview

A matchmaking system places players of approximately equivalent skill against one another. Besides skill matching, the system should also match groups of 4 against other groups of 4, rather than placing 2 groups of 4 on one side and 8 random players (in full recruit or worse) on the other. Shouldn't this be common sense? Perhaps a system is already in the works. Fine. But roll it out sooner. An incomplete solution is better than no solution. Perhaps a few regular veteran PvP players who only ever run in full pre-mades will be upset. That's fine, because they make the game miserable for every other player. I'm sure this has been suggested before, but there is no search box so I cannot bump the relevant thread. Please relocate this suggestion where appropriate. Also, the suggestion box forum needs a search box. And the site needs to stop re-directing users to the homepage when they log in from the suggestion forum page.

After SWTOR becomes F2P, a market could be established for players to buy/sell (in-game) credits. Sellers could receive Cartel coins at a fixed rate while buyers could purchase credits for a fixed rate of RL currency. Admittedly, this is somewhat gimmicky, but I think the model has some interesting advantages: Credits = convenience The current legacy system effectively maps credits to time spent playing. A problem with the current system is that it's a positive feedback loop. Players who play the most accrue the most credits, and are then able to purchase the most convenience perks (rocket boots, bonus XP, etc.), thereby reducing the amount of time they spend progressing through the available content. On the other side of the spectrum (i.e. me), you have players who desperately want to explore all the content, but do not have the time to play five hours a day, every day. A credits market would benefit both parties and fits nicely into the rule that micro-transactions should sell convenience. Deflationary pressure on in-game currency On my occasional visits to forums about SWTOR, I see a large number of comments to the effect of "credits are easy to earn/credits have no value/if you do not have enough credits to purchase every legacy perk, then you obviously do not know how to play the game/etc." So I think it is not unreasonable to believe that some additional anti-inflation mechanisms will be -- if not. are -- needed. Thus, simply selling players credits, hence introducing even more currency into the economy, may be unwise. On the other hand, by creating a market where the supply is determined by currency already in circulation, SWTOR could at minimum maintain the total currency in circulation, and, of course, also reduce currency from the game by removing a percentage from each transaction. Monetize the free-play base This is really a combination of the first two points with a dose of cynicism. A small but vocal minority of the players-with-too-much-time somehow feel that they are entitled to better stuff because they play more; this is directly at odds with the indisputable fact that, by playing as much as they do, they burn through more content in a given amount of subscription time, so in fact they are worth less. Thus, the goal should be to monetize the amount of time they spend in the game. By introducing a credits market, SWTOR realizes this by translating their play time into convenience that other players (I) can purchase.

In PvP, generally, people take issue with two specific abilities: guarded by the force and camoflage. On occasion, the self-healing will be brought up. The common -- and largely short-sighted -- claim is that these capabilities allow sentinels to regular win in 2v1 encounters. In PvE, sentinels seem to receive about as much favor as other dedicated DPS classes (focus-specced sentinels being the exception, though in my mind, every PvE focus-specced sentinel plays his/her class incorrectly). Their ability to use inspiration appears to balance out their liabilities as a melee dps class (admittedly, I do not quite understand this as a single use of Inspiration for damage purposes only amounts to a mere 15 seconds of having approximately one extra dps in an 8-man Ops group). There are a number of cases where having a sentinel is seen as a liability, e.g. Lost Island. I can only comment on the watchman spec: There is a unique enjoyment in PvP'ing as a sentinel. The single biggest contributor to my damage output -- the primary metric of my performance -- is up-time. Other dps classes can increase their up-time via tactical positioning and reactionary use of knock-backs or pulls. In comparison, playing as a sentinel -- a melee class with no tools for repositioning opponents -- often feels like diving into a maelstrom. This fact alone necessitates both moves. It does not, however, explain the joy (and frustration) of playing a sentinel. The times I've been most successful as a sentinel, and the times I have the most fun, are those moments when I feel like I've found the flow in the chaos. In this respect, guarded by the force and camoflage are not only indispensible tools in PvP, they essentially define the most rewarding aspects of being a sentinel. Neither ability is unambiguously powerful; for instance, in the much cited 2v1 encounter, a stun is tactically superior to guarded by the force, as a stun similarly negates the opponent's damage output while additionally negating the opponent's movement, disruption, and mitigation capabilities. And in any case, generally, reactionary use of the abilities will rarely yield a sentinel more than 2 GCDs worth of damage, possibly explaining why so few sentinels do well in PvP in spite of having these tools. On the contrary, the times I've found the most utility from these particular moves are those when I've already managed to confound the majority of the opposing team in spite of being in the center of a large-scale skirmish. The extra few seconds that these moves grant are often those few seconds after the remainder of my team have fallen, just long enough for the first to respawn to return to the battlefield and interrupt the capture. These instances are rare, and that is what makes them treasures (and being especially memorable, I imagine it is also a major source of complaints). My biggest weakness in group play is the inability to efficiently focus fire with my team. After downing my first target, I usually have to leap to the next, whether due to distance or because I simply cannot locate my teammate's target with all the fire and lightning on screen and am relying on my closer to put me in the right location; if my next target follows through with a knockback, then I'm effectively out of the fight for several (critical) seconds. This is partly offset by the single-target damage output of the sentinel, but it does lead to frustration when I hear sorcerers complaining about their class, considering how much less effort they require to be effective team players. A second significant weakness, which cannot be emphasized enough, is the weak selection of stuns. I don't see anything wrong with this, but I note it because, from my own experience, this, along with the lack of repositioning tools, seems to be the trade-off for having strong defensive CDs. Comparatively speaking, the timing and awareness required to properly use guarded by the force and camoflage are more strict than that required to properly use a general-purpose stun. PvE is a lot of fun. Many of the sentinel abilities feel like they have subtle, but effective group utility. To list a few examples: Being a melee range dps class means that it is very possible to pace a tank's threat generation; this, combined with the short-term, but high efficiency defensive CDs creates situations where a sentinel can plan ahead to hold threat for a few key seconds in a fight, whether due to threat drop mechanics or to give the tank some breathing room. Some of my fondest memories, before all my friends quit the game, were of downing the boss with a well-timed use of guarded by the force (followed by camoflage) after both tanks went down and the boss had enraged. The short CD interrupt is an especially nice touch. I would not feel as useful as I do in many encounters without it. Much of this may be psychological. Pacify, awe, and force sweep have allowed me to save a healer on numerous occasions in spite of an inattentive tank. As much as I envy the commandos and gunslingers for their ridiculous knockbacks, I could not find the same enjoyment in knocking targets away from the healer as I do in using the sentinel-specific abilities. The backhand and pommel strike are wonderful, and feel I contribute a great deal in FPs against normal enemies because I can dispatch single targets so efficiently. I do wish they had more impressive animations, considering the damage they do. It just seems wrong that back-handing someone should do more damage than stabbing him. A number of PvE bosses require the sentinel to constantly reposition in certain phases. I love this. It is incredibly immersive to be weaving between hostile attacks while, at the same time, wearing down the opponent(s). I'd like to see more of it, especially in typical HM FPs.

The PvP gear issue is the *main* point, but I will assume you agree with me, so I won't say any more on it. Let me start with what I think to be your strongest point, which I paraphrase for clarity: -- If good gear is available for all players, then developers will necessarily compensate by making PvE harder. -- I appreciate this point. It is very well thought out. But I have evidence that it is wrong. I have run HMs with very well geared randoms (Champion gear) and we wipe repeatedly because they are clueless. On the other hand, I have run the same HMs with friends of mine, sometimes in astonishingly poor gear, and we breeze through. The content is already tuned so that crummy players with good gear won't get far. The evidence suggests that the developers have no need to make the content any harder. I do not fully understand what you were trying to say about Nightmare mode, so I'm going to assume your argument is this (correct me if I'm wrong): -- If the gear necessary to run nightmare mode is available to all players, then the developers will make nightmare mode harder. -- I'm confused because you've also suggested that nightmare mode is difficult due to its demands on player skill, which means that the issue of gearing is a non sequitur. I think you've rebutted your own argument... "cheapens the achievement" You are equating achievement with material possession (material being used in the loose sense), and it is fallacious. Consider Starcraft. There is achievement in winning ladder games, but no material gain for it. Yet people continue to play ladder games. This suggests to me that no inherent problem exists in separating achievement from material gain. Currently, there is no special gain in doing nightmare mode operations, but groups run it anyway. Why? Because [sense of achievement] =/= [material gain]. Of course, one does not need to remove all material gain from Ops; I see no problem with the unique speeders or similar rewards. That, I think, strikes the right balance between material reward and enriching player experience. "you are asking for gear, with no challenge" No. I'm saying the gear is already available and I'm suggesting that it *additionally* be available for doing something I and others will enjoy. Your attitude seems to be, <these players aren't good enough so they don't *deserve* to have good gear.> This is not a valid point. I enjoy a challenge. What I do not enjoy is seeing my friends be unable to join me in challenging activities because they effectively have no way to get good gear. We have jobs and lives outside of SWTOR. We can't afford to throw ourselves into a five hour HM with randoms who keep causing us to wipe, and we can't always be on at the same time to support one another. "a slap in the face to those who did put in the effort for it" So basically what you're saying is that other players shouldn't have the opportunity to have more fun because otherwise you'll feel less special? "in essence, go grind out your credits, and you will be buying your "leet" gears come 1.2 anyway, which is what your asking for isnt it?" What you're saying is contradictory. You are suggesting that gear will be available, but at the same time, you're trying to argue that gear should not be available. Let me make one point on your behalf. -- On an instinctual level, part of the reason I get fired up to do difficult end-game content is so I can improve my gear. If the gear were available via other means, I wouldn't have the same enthusiasm for end-game content. -- This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, players are eager to do end game content because they want their characters to be stronger. On the other hand, that enthusiasm can lead to much deeper frustration when we fail. I won't deny that there's a trade-off in enthusiasm for end-game content. My belief is that there is more to be gained by reducing (not removing) the gear obstacle. This will empower the players who are in the end-game content for the right reasons, players who are in it because they like working in a team to achieve crazy stuff.

Do you have supporting arguments for your assertion?

"The problem with your suggestion lies in the fact that MMOs, and any cooperative game where gear is a reward are based upon the simple fact that the greatest rewards go to those who manage to work together with others to achieve a goal that one cannot achieve alone." I have addressed this point multiple times, but it is not sticking, so I will address it again. 1. Good gear *is already available* for solo play. As "livnthedream" cynically observed, I just need to afk enough warzones to obtain Columi-equivalent gear. That both cheapens the gear and frustrates otherwise dedicated players. 2. Making decent gear available with sufficient time commitment does not ruin the game for anyone, but it *does* enrich the game for many players. Why are you so intent on denying enjoyment of the game to other players when it does you no harm? And let me make one more refinement to my point. The underlying argument that you're trying to make is, if we could get decent gear in solo play, then no one will do group events. So I must pose the following question to you: if you could get good gear via solo PvE, would you suddenly stop grouping with your friends? Because if the answer is yes, then perhaps you are the one who should consider switching to single player games.

Let's walk through the logic. You are saying I'm lazy because I want to spend my time doing something I enjoy to acquire decent gear. Additionally, I want this option available for other players, so they do not afk in warzones causing my team to lose. In the same breath, you are saying that I should afk warzones if I want the good gear, and if I am not willing to afk warzones, then I am just being lazy. So... yes. "having pve balanced around it, and therefore forcing me to do what you do also, is a horrible measurement." So I should be forced to do what you do, otherwise you'll maybe have the option of doing what I want to do. I'd prefer if you think through your arguments before committing them to writing. I really feel my suggestion would enrich the game for many players to the detriment of none, and I'd like to have a well-reasoned discussion about it.

"which is the very reason why they are limiting even further the cross over between pvp and pve gear." Last I checked, Battlemaster gear was still on par with Columi gear, so I don't see where you're going with your argument. Also, think of it this way. Given the number of gear options *already available*, does giving me another gear option cheapen the game for you? No. Does it enrich the game for me and countless others? Yes. So... where's the problem?

1- You are asking for free gear. As I said in the original post, everyone already has access to free gear; they only need to do enough PvP matches. They do not even have to perform well. In fact, this is much less preferable than having PvE options, since poorly performing players drag down their teams... but they get free gear anyway. I'm asking for the same option that is currently available in PvP to be available in PvE. I can't see how this is "asking for free gear" since the gear would require time to acquire anyway. 2- If you are not doing HMs, blah blah blah The point is, I want to do HMs and Ops with my friends, but I don't want to have to either 1) run a bunch of PvPs or.... 2) risk running a HM with crummy players, wiping a bunch of times, and have to give up after three hours with nothing to show for my efforts. As a further point, as I repeatedly stress, the gear is essentially available for free anyway; one only needs to be willing to drag down a group of randoms in PvP. Again, I ask for the option to be able to earn PvE gear in the same way that crummy players earn high level PvP gear, via investment of time. 3- The gear will be available via crafting If it's available via crafting and also via PvP, why not make it available via single player PvE? I'm not advocating that people be able to acquire a piece of Columi gear every day just by doing single-player missions, but a rate of, say, 1 piece per 20 hours of solid gameplay does not seem to cheapen the game in any way. I feel this cannot be emphasized enough. I was able to get a full set of Champion gear in about a month of gameplay, and I do not play that often. The ability to get free high level gear *already exists*. However, the method of getting it seems completely backwards. I can be a terrible PvP'er, but if I play enough, even if I cause my team to lose every game, I will have access to better-than-Tionese gear. In the mean time, I will have frustrated a large number of otherwise dedicated players with my ineptitude. How can this possibly be a good thing?

It seems that even with the currently planned changes in 1.2, PvP gear will still be much easier to obtain than equivalent level PvE gear. Single players can continue to jump into a PvP queue and, so long as they have the time, even if they are a constant burden on their team, they will eventually obtain high level equipment. I see no problem with this, but I do suggest that the same option should be available for players who would rather spend their time in PvE. In its current state, the only way to obtain Columi gear is to be in a group, and not only is it necessary to find a group, but a player must be able to consistently find a relatively skillful group; else, the player risks wasting two hours with nothing gained, and probably a sizable amount of credits lost. Even more unfair is that the Republic side does not have access to a flashpoint of the same (lack of) difficulty as Black Talon on the Imperial side. Naturally, players looking to obtain decent gear for end-game content will flock to PvP, typically dragging their teams down. In this situation, everyone loses except for the (often selfish and with overblown sense of entitlement) players who pull down their teams. I cannot imagine that the widespread feelings of frustration are good for player retention. I contrast this to my experiences running dailies when I first reached level 50. I loved running the daily missions. Daily missions were something I could jump into, even if I only had an hour that night to play; it's what kept me coming back to the game when I wasn't sure of what else to do. It wasn't just having something to do; the fact that I could see my character progress was the chief draw. I think the possibility of getting Black Hole commendations from the weekly as currently planned in 1.2 is a great step, though I feel that the rate of equipment acquisition of ~1 month is too slow. It seems to me that as I discover more about the game and about my character, I should be able to capitalize on my increased efficiency, so a hard limit of one piece of equipment per month is discouraging, even more so when I think about how quickly I could obtain similar quality gear via PvP.