Ok lets talk about drag racing. You bring your lovely car just to find that you can't beat "that guy". By faaaar margin. Yeah, his car is much better, you need to improve. Its ok so far. But will it be funny for you to do one more round against him? He will beat you again, you can't win because of gear. What about 10 rounds per day for 6 monthes? Will you enjoy that, will you PAY for that? In drag racing "improvement" is separated from "racing". You can't make your car better by racing again and again. And now the funny part comes - once after monthes of loosing you were "rewarded" with car improvements and you are capable to competete with "that guy" - its suddenly skill based NASCAR lol. So stupid...

He just don't understand what is he speaking about. Providing those links is like saying that "space combat game should be like in SWTOR, here are researches about MMO addiction so SWTOR implementation is how it should be". Or even like "here some researches, PVE should be line in Lineage". Stupid. Yes people are addictive to their avatars. Yes, "small reward" conception works. No, this has nothing to do with competitive PVP. I like how somebody in this thread says that there is like "nascar" vs. "drag racing". Guess what is more popular and why. Its great to develop your car, to improve it and everything. But when you start racing (and not only in a straight line over a measured distance) again and again and again - you will need even field.

Ilum, class balance, win based dailies and RNG bags? Oh cmon...

There are studies. And those studies shows that this approach didn't work for PVP. Plain and simple. People want fair playfield. They stop playing even if thay have advantage based on something besides skill. But nooooo..... Anyway, eventually this will change. Like they change PVE. If in 2003 anyone will come with the idea "hm, why I need to kill 100000000 mobs to get new skill level" what will MMO "vets" say? "Its called MMORPG noob, I'm developing my character, go back to..." But than Blizzard comes with zillions of quests. Most of them were stupid "kill 10 rabits" but still. And now we have storyline based leveling and so on. Same will happen with PVP in MMORPG someday. Actaully already happening - GW2. (I just hate fantasy setting and was waiting for this fcking SWTOR for years).

People really need those carrots in PVE. People need that "character progression". So they come with "we should reward our customers" idea. Skinner's box. "Every action should be rewarded" And that really works for PVE! Than some bright idiot in Blizzard (ok all this started before WOW but hey everyone punching Blizzard is welcome here, right?) come with this idea - what if we do the same in PVP? What if one player will have advantage over the other just because they play more? Even if they pay the same ammount of money? Those defective noobs will just play more to close the gap, they will be ours forever. It didn't work,iIt just didn't work.

I want to play GCD-based competitive PVP game. Game that reward situation awarness and so on. No, I don't want to play COD, its aim based. Same for everything else. And I want it bevause I like this type of games. And I want it in SWTOR because I like the universe, because I like few other aspects of SWTOR, because I like the setting. The more interesting question is - why I shouldn't want to make SWTOR better game. Why if I don't like something I'm should go to GW2? Or "go back to WOW" or whatever.

Blablabla. So there is zero examples and insult is your only argument. "That is why you fail"©.

When someone comes with an analogy you can't argue with what will you do? Yeah I know I know - "all analogies are dumb". But lets pretend this analogy is dumb. And lets pretend "american football" analogy (multiplayer, two teams, different classes) analogy is dumb as well. Hey lets even pretend that GW and GW2 doesn't exist. Whats your justification of having gear progression in SWTOR? "Its essential part of RPG" - WZs are not RPG. And plz don't tell me that space fights in SWTOR is RPG. Skinner's box? It's not and this approach fails in any other competitive PVP game. There is zero competitive PVP games (online or reallife) with any kind of disadvantage besides skill. Ah...that how WOW did it? Even if thats the reason this days Blizazard do everything to reduce gear gap as fast as possible. So...why?

False argument. Yes they were looking at WOW while making SWTOR. What was the best part of WOW gaming experience? PVE. And what was the worst part? PVP. What BW did did with PVE? They try to improve it. At least they improve leveling - storyline, voice... What did they do with the worst part of WOW? Copy/paste. They actually even make it worse with RNG bags and Ilum. So - all this "this is how it was done in successfull MMO" is not a justification itself. If that MMO was succesfull because of the way it implements PVP - yeah, there are reasons to copy that with few improvements. But if that MMO was successfull despite of PVP implementation...not you shouldn't reproduce failures.

Oh cmon. I'm speaking about PVP only. There is no RPG in warzones. And there was not RPG in WOW arenas. Think about this as "american football". Two team, 11 players, 3 different classes (at least). I failed to see why one of the team should start with baseball bats.

No, PVP to PVP. False. When you start "King of the hill" you have equal oppotunities. This game rewards early success _in the same game_. And if you are off the hill - you lose all privileges. Same when the game is over. Yes, this is the only valid type of games to be successfull in competitive enviroment. But you can always prove that I'm wrong by the example of succesfull massive competitive game with gear progression. PROTIP: war is not a game.

What I'm saying is - the whole idea "my pawns are stronger than yours when we play against each other" is stupid. There is no justification for that approach. Skinner's box doesn't work for PVP this way, period.

MMO is Massive Multiplayer Online game. Playing chess online is at least MO - Multiplayer and Online. As for massive - WZs are not "massive". So no, my logic was not misplaced. GW2. Gear progression in massive PVP (WvWvW). Gear progression in PVE. Equal conditions for skill based PVP (rated WZs in SWTOR). Again. There is no real reason why it was done this way in SWTOR. If there was, if there any logic behind that - please enlight me.

english is not my even 2nd language so sorry for mistakes... This is once again about gear progression in PVP. - "Hey Bioware, can I play chess with my friends using your online service? - "Of cause you can! We will give special color for your queen and title Founder." - "Probably there is a bag. I start the game and all I have is pawns and king. And my chessboard looks dirty." - "Working as intended. You didn't play enough to earn the right to use other figures. They will be your reward as you progress with this game. You will feel yourself more powerfull. Also you know....learning curve. You should practice with pawns and learn how to use them before you start with other figures" - "But I do understand how to move pawns, its pretty easy. Actually its not about "how", its about "when". And I can't learn when to use them if I didn't have full set of figures." - "Don't be a ********." ..... - "I'm playing with rivals and they have almost all figures. And no wonder - I'm losing." - "Thats right. But you can always win if you are skilled. Chess is all about skill." - "You just mention that I can't use other figures because I'm not skilled...learning curve blablabla." - "Don't be a ********." 600 matches later. - "Ok I "earn the right" to use all figures. It was not fun but I did it. Can I play normal chess now?" - "Sure" - "I just found a bug in your game. My pawn was not able to take some other player pawns. Funny guy, plays like **** but has a title "chessmaster" - "Working as intended." - "***?????!!!!" _ "This is called progression. We think that chess as a game isn't funny enough by itself to keep you playing. So we deside to reward players". - "Ok I got this, thats why that idiot have chessmaster title. Doesn't make much sense though... But anyway - why again I can't take his pawns with my pawns?" - "Figure progression. Chess is all about improving. We must continue to reward you for your efforts. We are improving your game experience..." - "********" - "Players fill that they don't have any reasons to play if there is no reward in terms of advantage over other players..." - "********. They fill that way because you train them to fill like that. Also there are studies that shows that in long run players don't like that mechanics and think its unfair". - "Ok I will tell you the truth. We did this because this is how it was done in some other online game. I can't tell you the name of that game but WoW it was really successfull and has some kind of chess as a part of the game. They even think it will become some kind of sport..." - "Hm never play it. Was that implementation really successfull?" - "No."

War? Just kidding...