To clarify: "taunt," in addition to the 6-second forced duration, "generates" enough threat for the user to place him at the top of the aggro table. Given what we know about the numbers, this means if you have two melee tanks, Tank A using taunt automatically gives him 130% of the threat Tank B had. If Tank B immediately uses taunt, it will give him 130% of the *new* amount of threat Tank A had. This may or may not be changed in 1.2 but it's how taunt works now. Given proper communication, this aggro swap could give Tank A a huge threat increase and can basically leave him on the top of the aggro table for the rest of the fight.

Re: Thread Title. An apostrophe does not a plural word make. Re: Subject. Tanks won't be affected much, so the pre-1.2 hierarchy of each separate tank build will remain.

If you're placing guard on the healer during PvE, you're doing it wrong. Period.

Can we go back to the original skillbar UI? Not this one or the last one, but the one before the last one. It needed no fixing at all to be functional and easy to understand.

That's something that always bugged me. in the real world, a mob is a group of people. So, to be accurate in-game, a mob would refer to the whole group of "enemies." Instead, it seems to be normal to refer to each individual enemy as a "mob," and then the whole group is just "a group of mobs." Which, to me, is incorrect. To me, point-based AoE would be similar to targeted-AoE, as in it's something where you "target" an area (point-based) for an AoE. "point-blank" correctly implies that the AoE is centered around the user. just my two cents.

Actually, no, it stands for Point-blank Area of Effect. Like an EMP. So, to be fair, "personal body" is more accurate, although still incorrect, than "point-based."

The system worked perfectly fine before 1.1. I'm a JK Guardian and never had a problem with Riposte or Pommel Strike. Those skills would stay lit up even if my GCD was active. Now, with longer CD skills like Warding Call or Force Stasis, I can't tell when they're active because they're lit up even though they're still on CD. While it isn't game-breaking, it certainly isn't a feature. It was working perfectly well before this patch. At most there should be an option (although I don't know why anybody would prefer this system over the last).

I've had precisely none of these problems.

I've never played WoW. Your argument is invalid.

Yes, it's quite a good solution. It removes all the impatient people and the whiners.

There isn't typically a "standard way" to pronounce initialisms. SW:TOR isn't an acronym so I either drop the SW and call it "tore" or just say The Old Republic. The latter is probably more appropriate.

TOR doesn't like to be alt-tabbed out of. That part is working as intended.

Obviously you haven't played the Dragon Age games. Your choices in Origins had consequences so long-lasting they even affected the sequel. Reloading a save completely defeats the purpose, as does "escaping" out of a conversation to change dialogue choices.

You know that light/dark side or companion approval points don't actually accrue until you finish the entire conversation, and usually until you turn in the quest, right? Your action thus isn't "completed" until that point, after which it is indeed impossible to "redo" your choices. Yes, choices matter. You just have to give them time to actually be completed.

And you wonder why you were warned and had a post removed? I bolded the offending, reportable text above. And I'd think this thread alone is evidence that my opinion (AC changes shouldn't be included, for whatever reason) is indeed the majority. Or at least it should be.