It's a roughly 4% drop either way. Do you want it on a plate or on a bowl? Either way, you have to take a 4% decrease in the healing you require in order to get to the cookie of the next tier. Neither choice changes anything substantial about your gameplay. If you are actually using Reactive Shield regularly to decrease damage taken, it actually changes NOTHING about your gameplay. If you often forget that button is there, then you probably took the flat 4% anyway, and again no change. You are still the same person when you put on a hat. Dressing it up doesn't make a DR ability a real choice. You will still play a Combat Medic exactly the same way. That was determined the moment you said "I want to heal as a Trooper." Nothing after that was a choice.

I think the disagreement comes from differences in how we define "choice." Let's examine three scenarios: Scenario 1 is NOT a choice. You must eat rice and broccoli to get your cookie. Scenario 2 is the ILLUSION of choice. You get to choose how you get the broccoli, but you still must eat rice and broccoli. Scenario 3 is a choice. Now, if you find Scenario 1 compelling and consider Scenario 2 to be exciting game design...Congratulations! You've found the right game for you! If you don't find Scenarios 1 and 2 compelling, your options are to accept that the only real choice is role and class and find another aspect of the game to extract enjoyment from, or move on to a different game. If somehow, remarkably, that analogy was lost on you, the point is that there is only one way to spec a Commando Healer. The choices are just a matter of presentation, but nothing changes your mechanic or influences your gameplay. If, instead, they made Kolto Wave reliant on various Kolto Bomb skill choices, and made Bacta Infusion and Trauma Probe reliant on various single target skill choices, you would have two vertical lines within Combat Medic, one focusing on AoE and the other on Single Target healing. Not only that, but to maximize the HPS on the tank, the AoE healer might need to stand in melee range to hit the tank with KW. This would result in two different play styles, one reliant on Trauma Probe and one on Kolto Bomb/Wave. A third option opens up if you could sacrifice the skills from the other trees for Aim, crit, alacrity, etc to take both, but have all heals be weaker. Now you can fill either role, but not as well. That is choice. Med Zone vs Treated Wound Dressing? Illusion of choice.

Some commentary: A typo: Under "the Basics" you say "KB (for single heal and KP)". Pretty sure you mean KR instead of KP. Under Intermediate, make a point to mention that a KB dropped right at the end of SCC can provide the shield for the entire duration it takes to recharge 30 stacks of CSC. It lasts 15s, and a zero alacrity HS provides 3 stacks every 1.5s. 100% shield uptime on the tank and melee is easily doable with any alacrity. I'd recommend changing your terminology to avoid saying "tanking your ammo." This is clearly an idiomatic choice by you, and while it may be common among your friends it is not a universal term. This game is pretty easy, so there are plenty of young players. There are also lots of non-native English speakers. Try more common language like "If your ammo drops too low." Nothing about "the Kithide" sounds overly advanced. It sounds like "when the content is easy enough to not require rolling SCC to maximize healing...don't. But when it does, do. You'll be less efficient, but honestly it doesn't matter on most content when you have decent gear because this game is really quite easy." No new techniques are mentioned. "Kithide" and "Kit Style" are strange terms that apparently are meaningful to you, but not to the general audience. Try replacing them with "Advanced." And then put some advanced guidance in that section. Consider mentioning use of RPC and Tech Override in the Advanced section since you don't mention it under Basic or Intermediate. Full Auto and Charged Bolts are free under SCC. Hammer Shot is always free. Consider discussion of when to DPS and when not to. I realize that this is "whenever you can afford to not heal," but a guide should mention it so that those just learning see that written out. You'd be amazed how many healers never do damage because "that's not my role." A dead boss can't hurt anyone. Discussion of placement of CW heals and about when to use TP on the tank vs yourself. Again, pretty obvious, but a guide needs to assume some people are just reading up on a class/role they have never played before.

1) I mentioned the options while leveling. This is, however, mostly an illusion of choice because the choice has little effect at the time and no effect by endgame. 2) PVP and PVE are different games. That they have different specs is not a "choice." You could use a PVP spec in Operations, but you'd be wrong and hurting your team in the process. 3) SWTOR is not a hybrid spec friendly game. I haven't played WOW in years, so I could be out of date, but back during LK the hybrid builds were actually considered during balancing. In SWTOR, they aren't just not considered, they are actively opposed with most classes having 1st and 2nd tier skill choices that require a stance/ammo/mechanic unique to that tree. Anything on the first two tiers that requires a certain ammo cell has the requirement to prevent hybrids. 4) All of this comes down to your final point, inability to take both of an elective choice because they force you to take something useless to you. However, to them, this means far less variability. They don't have to compare Frontline Medic + 4% dmg reduction against 4% dmg reduction + 20% reactive shield healing against Frontline Medic + 20% reactive shield healing. They only have to compare the one. Keep in mind that this one extra spec variant is for one spec of one class. They'd have to deal with similar increases in specs across all specs and classes...and that's a lot of variability. It is much better for them to limit where and how you get to choose and, ideally, to have those choices be very similar. A 4% damage reduction in content with X DPS coming in can be directly related to a 20% healing boost with a Y% uptime assuming an average of Z HPS. I'm not saying they can't look at the max healing from Frontline Medic assuming constant damage coming in and the two internal cooldowns, just that those two are essentially two choices of the same thing and the balance difference is negligible.

The key thing to remember is that the only real choice is which tree. After that, they are purely a progression visualization tool. The only "choice" is while leveling, "Do I want this flat healing boost before the ability specific boost?" Choices mean variability, and variability means more specs to balance and tougher juggling of metrics and tuning. Once you accept that you only have the illusion of choice, the frustration of having no good choices will go away. Or you'll stop playing...either way, frustration resolved.

The whole board is dead, are we surprised the occasional Necromancer stops in?

In that case your argument was unclearly stated. It appeared to be an argument that the Gambler's Fallacy didn't apply. If I am reading your reply correctly, you are instead saying that "the elements necessary for addiction are not present." You are also stating that money as a reward is one of those elements. I refer you to many well written posts in this thread by Kubernetic and others that demonstrate exactly why you are wrong, but the short version is that the elements necessary are present, and you are wrong about the need for money as a reward.

On phone, so not going to multilquote. You said "you can't win money so the Gambler's Fallacy does not apply." (Paraphrase due to phone) I linked to an article on the Gambler's Fallacy demonstrating that money is not a requirement. It is a misunderstanding of probability, the belief that prior independent events influence future ones. No money needed. That you are wrong doesn't make it a straw man. You made an assertion. I countered it. You are, objectively wrong. Deal with it.

If we are obligated to fix the #1 greatest problem first before making even minor efforts on other problems, then we should fix nothing until malaria is eliminated. Or, we could be reasonable and accept that adding Parental Controls to a video game can help both excessive time in the game and compulsive CM purchases, is already common in the industry, raises no liability issues, is decent PR, and negatively affects no one and, as such, should be implemented as soon as the reasonably can.

The Gambler's Fallacy is a misunderstanding of probability. It does not require any gambling at all. Do people give much thought before typing out things in this forum? You clearly didn't.

Please point to a single point where I have expressed a hatred of gambling. Please point to a single post where I use your extremely lax non-definition of "absolutely anything non-guaranteed." My point has always been: 1) Gambling can be a problem for some people, beyond the ability of self-control. 2) These packs appear to mimic some of those triggers. 3) BW/EA should evaluate if they are behaving ethically. 4) Reasonable checks should be investigated. 1 is unarguably true. 2 has been detailed by people more knowledgeable on the topic than me. 3 is out of my control. 4 has expanded to include the very reasonable suggestion of Parental Controls. Please explain why BW, or any person or company, should not periodically evaluate if they are being ethical. Please explain why optional Parental Controls are a negative feature. If you don't disapprove of either of those, then guess what, like it or not you agree with me.

I think the page count on this thread is evidence I have read every argument the respective ignored person have to make, and they have had the opportunity to read my replies. 10 more pages of PRATT from them is unlikely to change anything. That's a gamble I'm willing to make.

Valid points. That's exactly what I don't have Andryah on ignore. They seem to have serious reading comprehension issues, at least in this thread, but they have said things of value elsewhere. On the other hand, there reaches a point where someone is not engaging honestly in discussion. You can see for yourself the numerous people in this thread who insist on repeatedly making up their own definition of the term "gambling" or artificially imposing the restriction that it be "legally defined gambling." Posts by the other guy, I already forget his name, were either disingenuous, dishonest, or exceptionally unintelligent. In any of those cases, there is no value in continuing to read them. I also know that I have a tendency to respond despite the futility of attempting to reach such people. Putting them on ignore places a check on that inclination, much as a Parental Control mechanism would put a check on problem gambling with packs.

Others who are far more knowledgeable about gambling addiction than myself have already posted at length about the exact features of Cartel Packs that are triggers. You have responded to these people, so presumably you have read their posts. You are either being disingenuous or willfully ignorant for your own reasons. Either way, I appreciate any future bumps you provide for raising awareness while occupying a fresh spot in the ignore list.

Your post claimed I couldn't raise an issue without first holding up a victim. No such restriction exists. I can raise issues regarding addiction without being an addict or knowing one personally.