why is the SWTOR community so against "pay to win"

I wouldn't know about the whole community, but I personally don't like the pay-to-win system many new games use because then the game only focuses on the money part and everything else suffers, and then there is nothing for those who don't pay to do.

It for me is like when I'm playing my Pokemon games with the VS Seeker item to rebattle field trainers with my insanely overpowered level 80 Mons against the snooty lv 5 trainers. Crazy fun the first five times, but then I start to miss the challenge those trainers once gave me.

Yes, I am a subscriber who from time to time buys CC cards. I prefer the CM to be filled with cosmetics to make the paying part optional. As in I don't have to buy those cards to keep playing.

Now, I don't do much grouping. Why? I'm a terrible healer on my main, even at 55. And I don't want to feel guilty about it, because I can't keep my healing up with my heat value for my merc. Consequence? I don't have the gear mods passed 146/156 on a couple mods. And I'm okay because I made that choice and can still play the parts I like that do give me the challenge I enjoy.

Now, let's say those mods above mine are on the CM. I would feel pressured to do one of two things, spend the money for CC, or do badly on the group ops and hmfps because I am undergeared by the standards of what can be easily bought with CC.

And I don't like being pressured to buy things just to play at the same level for a challenge I can enjoy. I enjoy buying my subscription because I don't actually need to buy it.

Tl;dr -- I pay because it's an option. I am more willing to give them money because it is an option. And I play Pokemon.

EDIT: I am aware of the seemingly not required image the game gives in terms of the subscription stuff, because I know it is a ploy to get me to buy the subscription. But guess what? I am more willing to pay for that illusion.

But just how fun and enjoyable would the content be if you could gear yourself up to the max at the push of a button? Would you still do flashpoints if you had nothing more to gain from them?

In 2001 I played a lot of Diablo II. At one point I got my hands on a third-party character editor program. Besides giving my characters any unique item in the game, it also allowed me to design completely custom item. So I did the obvious thing and gave my character the most insanely powerful loadout possible, sporting some +240 to all skills (the highest normally reachable level is about 30). I then set out to the world, leaving a trail of destruction in my wake. Enemies fell before me like flies, and all the health buffs from my new gear made me nigh invulnerable. It was great fun... for all of about one hour. Then I got bored and deleted the edited character.

I'm driven in games largely by the search for unknown. It may be a storyline I haven't yet experienced, an environment I haven't yet seen, or a challence I haven't yet overcome. I repeat already known things mostly as a means to achieving something unknown. For example, currently one major motivator is the challenge provided by hardmode operations, so I run content which gives me ultimate commendations so that I can improve my gear and thus chances in beating the operations.

Once the outcome of an activity is no longer unknown, I easily become bored with it. In the Diablo II example above I didn't even need to kill every boss in the game. I already knew I could beat them all. Boring. Sometimes it's enough to have a step-by-step plan by which I can achieve a certain outcome with 100% certainty. If there are no unknowns involved, it's boring and I don't want to do it.

Let's imagine for a moment that Bioware released 186 gear on the CM and I had the right mindset to buy it. What would happen? I would probably stop running flashpoints immediately, since I could no longer improve my gear through them. I might take up the challenge of soloing them, and continue with hardmode operations for a while as well. But since I now have the best gear in the game, it wouldn't take too long to either beat them or decide that they are just too hard for me. And then it would be game over, at least as far as group content is concerned. I'd complete the two and half storylines I've yet to see (solo, of course) and quit the game.

Pretty much what this guy said.

Exactly. Just like the community isn't ready for something like that for the reasons I mentioned previously, perhaps the industry isn't for the reasons you mentioned. At some point, however, we have to encourage someone in the industry to take the chance and see if the theory could work in practice, and have the trust and faith that whomever it be will resist the temptation to resort to the current typical P2W practices. I know there are those out there who can do it. They now just need the will and support.

As I mentioned before, I still run flashpoints because I find them fun. I run them on overleveled characters because sometimes it is fun to faceroll the bad guys (especially after a bad day of work). I run them on low level alts that are already in gear that is better than what drops in the flashpoint because it is fun to keep facing that challenge on a different class and playstyle. I run them with my 9 year old daughter (and adult noob friends with low level characters) and sit back and let them do all the work (and help from time to time in those moments to avoid certain disaster) because I enjoy it.

I can certainly empathize with that, as I am the same way. But pulling your own weight can come from more than gear. Personally speaking, in MMOs that I am playing (if the mechanics allow for it) I usually won't group up with people until I have run through content solo so I can get a feel for how that content plays out and determine what the best way of beating that content is based on my character and playstyle. That way, when I do group up, I can feel less like a noob and more like a mentor to those who are not familiar with the content, and more like a team player for those that are.

In terms of gear, one can be in max level gear, but still not pull their own weight if they have no idea what they are doing in any particular piece of content (which happens even now, when there is no purchasable max gear in a cash shop - so that would not be a point against offering it). I have played in groups with people who were really undergeared for content in a particular game, but still did more to help (and beat the content) than those that were because they were already familiar with what they needed to do to succeed. So there are ways around these kinds of issues.

Perhaps one solution could be to make all content in the game soloable so that those who do not want to be carried can play said content and learn the mechanics and discover solutions to success prior to joining a group and getting that feeling of inferiority. Naturally, rewards would be scaled down/vastly different when playing solo as opposed to playing "normally."

I am against P2W, it destroys the fabric of the game.

Devil's advocate here: Why do we need to encourage someone in the industry to take the chance?

The "carrot on a stick" approach to high-end gear drives a lot of players to run operations. Those of us that like the activity of running these operations end up with a wider pool of players. This results in more people actually playing the content the game has to offer.

In other words, the current model works.

What problem is being solved by encouraging developers to adopt a "Pay to Win" approach?

For the reason that just because something works doesn't mean that we can't find something better, or at least in the attempt of finding something better, improve the system we have. That's pretty much how society advances and evolves, and exactly how the gaming industry has and will continue to evolve - if it is to survive.

But is pay2win better? Several reasons have been posted on this thread why it would be worse for at least some players. Who is to say whether the good sides outweigh the bad?

If you can come up with a reason why pay2win is objectively better than the current model, I'm interested to hear it.

And yes, the gaming industry does evolve. But that doesn't mean every game has to be the same. Not every animal is a fish. And making drastic changes to an existing game is always a risk as well; if it angers enough of its old player base, they'll write negative reviews of it, making it more difficult to get new players.

No doubt.

But my question was, "What problem is being solved by encouraging developers to adopt a "Pay to Win" approach?"

This is an important question. If the P2W approach were better, than by comparison, what we have now would be worse. Such a condition could be described as "what's the problem with the current approach"?