It's not so clear. A lot of backbone carriers block ICMP trace packets because they don't want you mapping their datacenters (or because the paths are dynamic and the packets just end up causing weirdness in their routing behaviors). I know that Level3 is pretty good about allowing trace packets through, but I believe MCI used to drop everything that reached its TTL inside their datacenter. The timeouts in those cases mean absolutely nothing. If the OP was getting latency and loss at those hosts, they'd see that latency and packet loss continue on in the following hops. Its not like the packets get to teleport over those hops when they're not tracing them. The correct way to diagnose this issue isn't a simple tracepath, but to do packet statistics over time. A graph of packet latency over even 100 packets should be enough to narrow down the problem. In that procedure, you'd automatically ignore any hops that report 100% packet loss, since you know for certain that it has to be coming from packet filter rules and not a complete lack of service (because later hops reply back). Of course, the funny part in this is that there's still a decent chance those non-responding hops are the problem, its just that the data you posted doesn't prove that. If Comcast checked the local line, then the next most likely culprit is one of the handoffs between carriers along that path. The first one I'd look at is that #5 hop that reported two packets back, but skipped one. That suggests the 4-5 path might be the issue. However, with the latency difference that low, it could also be the 5-6 hop with the first packet failing due to an already congested hop to a new network carrier. The next place would be the 7-8 hop, simply because we have no more information on it. Regardless, the short version: The lack of response on 6,7 almost certainly means nothing because the carrier is probably just filtering the ICMP returns. However, the problem is still very likely somewhere in the area of those hops, simply because most of these issues happen on the boundaries between carriers.

If I had to guess, probably a combination of marketing effect and entertainment. While I'm not questioning the skill involved in them, I tried to watch the videos you posted and even though I've been playing the game since beta, I quickly got bored with them. For someone who has never played the game before, I can't imagine them being even remotely convincing. If I wasn't already playing SWTOR, seeing that gameplay would probably drive me away. So, yeah. It's probably impressive to hardcore PvE/raid fans. It might be interesting from a tactical point of view. However, I really doubt Bioware was seeking videos of the most efficient solo kills. They were probably looking for something that was memorable, something that grabbed your attention, and something that showed off what SWTOR did better than other games. Soloing a HM boss does none of those things.

Somewhat Strongly Disagree. Level Sync needs to remain in order to keep high level characters from running roughshod over the leveling portion of the game. There are people (like you, OP) who would happily send a L65 to low level planets trashing everything in sight to get rewards, finish quests, whatever, and leave normal players struggling to finish similar quests. At the very least, it would greatly reduce any sense of immersion. You've misused the word "practical". You probably meant "beneficial", but realized this sounded selfish... because it is selfish. Meaning: You wish that you could get all the rewards for doing lower level content without actually having to be challenged. Your goal.... is to get stuff without any challenge. Noted. One of the few issues I find with level sync is that it encourages players to over-level, because you continue to get XP in low level areas. In itself, that's not a problem. The problem is that over-leveled characters can make far more mistakes and use far less efficient play to get those rewards. And again, the rewards aren't so much the problem as the fact that those players often lose out on the challenges that would have taught them to play better. Perfect example: Any competent Level 65, of any class, should have no problem at all with any Elite-or-lower mob. In most cases, a Level 65 character synced down to 12 will still be able to one-shot weak mobs with their strong openers. Champions or other Players will still be easy, but will simply take a little more time. You still should not be in any actual danger of losing to a Champion or a Player. Only World Bosses are really out of reach. The fact that you apparently have lost to a Level 12 player/mob tells me that you simply haven't learned how to play in your journey up to Level 65. You should probably focus on more Heroics and maybe even some PvP to help you learn how to play your character. Level Sync is just highlighting your lack of experience. If you tried PvPing another Level 65 on a non-synced world, you would likely lose much more quickly. One of the issues is that without Level Sync, a lot of low levels players simply can't play the way an MMO player would. Before Level Sync, it was pretty rare to see groups of at-level players killing a world boss. I was involved in a couple attempts, but both fell apart as Level 65 characters jumped in to kill the boss solo before we could assemble full groups of at-level players... the sort of players that the designers intended to be killing those bosses. I would only support this so long as turning off Level Sync would add the following restrictions: You cannot attack World Bosses outside a group of at least 8 players You cannot engage in PvP with a player more than 5 levels lower than you You get no XP, credit, or item rewards off of Heroics (I'm fine with keeping normal kill drops) You cannot progress any quests on that world ...Of course, nearly everyone would be opposed to that. Because they, like you, just want the game to be easier for them to get no-effort credits and items, even at the cost of other players. This highlights your lack of skill again. On a planet with a Level Sync of 12, a Level 65 player will still absolutely trash a Level 12 player... even if neither of them uses companions. The Level 65 still has the benefit of all the extra abilities, all the CC, all the escapes, all the damage bonuses, and all the level perks they got while getting to level 65. Some of those bonuses end up doubling the damage of certain attacks. Some of them generate a series of quick, high-damage attacks. Some of them guarantee crit hits... which get bonus damage at percentages that aren't scaled down. A reasonably competent Level 65 has virtually no chance of losing to a Level 12 player, even with Level Sync. If companions are out... then the Level 12 player is going to find themselves getting taken apart just by the Level 65 companion. Many 65's are running around with companions in the 20-50 influence range, while a Level 12 could only get above 5 if another character traded/gifted them stacks of gifts. An Influence 40 companion in DPS mode would be enough to kill the Level 12 without any help from their player at all. Yeah... great... So you get to come by and get your quest done... meanwhile, everyone else gets to wait a few hours for the boss to spawn. Or... you could play the game like an MMO and get a group. Oh... if only there was a mechanic in place that would ensure that you needed to form a group before you killed a boss and made everyone in the instance wait a few hours before they got their shot.... Have you even tried playing on lower worlds with Level Sync? I was on Nar Shaddaa last night with a Level 39 character (on a Level 26? world). That's only 13 levels of downward-sync, and I was still destroying groups. I could kill Strong's before my companion got a single hit in. Only Elites managed to make it past my initial opening hits. And that's 13 levels. You're saying that at 30 levels, you still wouldn't feel powerful enough? Yes. And I think that a lot of your argument here seems to be based on a lack of knowledge of the game. While I support the idea of expressing your opinion, you don't seem to have enough understanding or experience with the game to be able to properly analyze the effects of your own proposal.

Not futility, but it's not the governmental authority that some people expect. Lots of companies will go through quite a bit to maintain a good BBB rating, sometimes even to the point of outright ignoring what their own contracts declare. However, the larger the corporation, the less they might care if their BBB rating drops in some locality and the less they will care about the BBB's attempt at arbitration. If the company refuses BBB interactions, there really isn't much more that can be done. Ultimately, the BBB is not affiliated with nor supported by the US government, and it holds no manner of governmental authority. In modern days, its roughly equivalent to things like Yelp or Angies List or simply Twitter. While they hold no official standing, businesses tend to work hard to keep up their public appearance in whatever venues they might be visible in. So, its not futile to put up a complaint to the the BBB, just like its not futile to put up a complaint on Angie's List. However, its entirely up to the company to decide to take action on that complain. None of the mentioned services have any power to force action.

Incorrect. The game is working. They aren't enjoying it. Those are two separate things. Buying a ticket to a movie guarantees you a seat and the fact that a movie will be shown. It doesn't guarantee that you'll enjoy the movie. Wrong. They are getting exactly the service they are paying for. The subscriber agreement does not guarantee that ranked warzones will be fun or that GSF will pop at least once every half hour or that group finder will build fun groups for you. It simply says that you'll be given access to the game and whatever game functions are available at the time. There is no statement ensuring that any of those things will even be part of the game. They have. Multiple (actual) lawyers have gone over this and nearly all of it has been set up by various precedents over the last twenty years or so. Let's break it down to the raw, gooey center: 1: You do not own your characters, your guild, your items, your collection, or your legacy. EA/Bioware owns all of them. The money you pay is essentially "rent" or a "ticket" to use them. If Bioware were to delete all your characters tomorrow, you'd have no grounds for a lawsuit, because you've lost nothing of any value... because you never owned them. Bioware deleted their characters. 2: Your subscription pays for access to the existing state of the game. There is no service level agreement, nor is there any statement made about a core feature set or expected user experience. If Bioware removed the idea of Strongholds tomorrow, you'd have zero legal recourse. They never guaranteed that Strongholds would always exist, you never owned yours, so there are no damages. 3: A subscription is a voluntary agreement, between both parties. Should you decide to sue Bioware, their very first action will likely be to simply terminate and permanently delete the account. You can't be legally compelled to subscribe to their service, and they can't be legally compelled to provide you with service against their will. You could demand a refund of any subscription fees for time beyond the cancellation, and maybe you'd get it. But you almost certainly wouldn't get any further refund, as Bioware rendered the service they promised, and all of the data attached to your account was already owned by them, not you. Most importantly: You agreed to all of this when you signed up. While some clauses might be arguable in court (Forced arbitration and restriction of class action lawsuits are good examples), the stuff mentioned above has been established rather well, through dozens or court cases both video games and simple contract law going back dozens of years. Very well, just remember that third point above: The most likely result of any legal challenge to EA/Bioware over the EULA will be the deletion of your account, and you have zero legal grounds to prevent that from happening.

Because every companion was overpowered shortly after KotFE was released. With most of the healers being shockingly effective, Treek's slightly different combination was plenty effective at healing but with some changes that some people liked. However, for the most part, declarations of her being "OP" were just internet exaggerations made by people trying to get attention by being sufficiently loud. You seem to understand that idea. Legal notice: No. You spent money on cartel coins. Those coins come with no guarantees. They buy game stuff and there's no statement about how useful that game stuff is or how well it will work or how much you'll enjoy it. You chose to spend those coins on a companion. You knew at the time you used them that Treek could be changed in the future. You knew that balance changes might make her the weakest companion. Or that she might have other changes that made you stop liking her. This was in the agreement you signed. No. She's not useless. She might not be as useful as you want, or rather: she might not perform the way you like for the purposes you're using her, but that isn't the same as being useless. I've seen people soloing H2 Star Fortresses with her, so apparently she's far from useless. Of course... that's not what you meant, was it? You just used "useless" because you thought it would be more dramatic and convincing.... if the truth isn't convincing, just exaggerate until it sounds convincing, right? And now she's about the same as everyone else. What you want is a tank. Most of them function the same way. There are loads of Shadows/Assassins in the game and they get on just fine with normal Tank companions. You'll be fine. 1: Because you didn't buy her. You bought cartel coins. 2: Because you got exactly what they said you'd get at the time you "bought" it. 3: Because you were never told that she would retain the features or performance you wanted. On the contrary, you were told that her abilities --just like every other thing in the game-- might change in the future. You made an agreement saying that you were okay with that. 4: Because nothing about how she was presented to you was ever false. A change in implementation does not justify a "bait and switch". Having an airline change my plane or my seat assignment isn't grounds for a bait and switch complaint. Having HBO change actors in one of their shows is not bait and switch. Having Microsoft break support for some devices in a Windows update is not a bait and switch. The core of 'bait and switch' is deception with the intent to drive sales that would not have occurred if there had been honesty. Treek was working as initially advertised for a long time before changes were made. 5: And the changes that were made were both legal, fully disclosed to you, and applied in a global fashion. That's a bit ironic coming from the guy who didn't realize you could recruit her with in-game credits.

First: That's not terribly helpful. Second: The minimum requirements have very little to do with running the game well. Finally: The minimum and recommended specs are outdated and not terribly specific. Nvidia Experience makes a good starting point, but what it sets as the "best" is often not the "best" for any particular person. The settings often favor graphical detail over performance. That's not really how that works. Turbo will let one or more cores run faster under load so long as the core temperature stays below certain thresholds. It's a bad idea to rely on this behavior in a laptop as they tend to run hotter and are more likely to cause the CPU to revert to normal behavior. The overclocking is not applied to the process. Nor is the "underclocking" applied to process, and underclocking the unused cores doesn't improve performance on the other cores, except in the case where power use is reduced to save a little heat. A 2.5GHz i7 in a laptop is a pretty good CPU for the game. There are quite a few gaming laptops in the current generation running at ~3.5GHz, but 2.5 will still make the game reasonably playable. Expect some framerate drops in animation-heavy areas... just like pretty much everyone else. It's not really a "low version". It's the third highest performance mobile GPU of its generation, and one of the more popular ones. It's essentially a slightly less powerful and notably more efficient 770m. It's roughly equivalent to a GTX 560 Ti (desktop), which was very popular for this game.

The number of cores that SWTOR utilizes has nothing to do with whether they'll see performance increases. They're moving from a first-gen Core CPU to a sixth-then Core CPU. Even ignoring the 25% increase in raw core speed, the IPC is drastically increased between Bloomfield and Skylake. The end result is a performance increase of 50-100%. The new CPU is going to change a lot. Probably about as much as the new GPU. The SSD will improve load times, but won't have much impact on overall frame rates.

It added a minimum of tedium (I still blast through mobs even on Corellia), but eliminated a lot of potential abuse and antisocial behavior that would have resulted from high level characters returning to lower level worlds. It actually made World PvP more reasonable, by ensuring that high level characters aren't invincible gods on lower level worlds. It made World Boss killing an activity that low level characters can do, rather than just watching some Ops-geared 65 solo it while they try to find a tank for their group. Level sync isn't perfect but its better than what we had before, specifically because of the attitudes of people like the OP.

You're only talking about endgame gear. Most of the rest of us were talking about leveling gear. That's absolutely incorrect. They used the same stat systems. What you noticed was that the orange drops were better than the blue drops... which is usually (but not always) true, as orange drops were exceptional and usually dropped at a rating slightly higher than the average for the area. That no longer matters when you're getting gear from Heroics as they automatically drop at a Rating that matches your level. Blue gear drops from Heroic rewards are equal-or-better to the green/blue mods you can buy because the blue gear matches your level incrementally, while the mod-level increases are only available every 2-4 levels. You're talking about a completely different system and usage style. First: There were no crystals as currency in 3.0. You're just confused there. Second: Blues in 3.0 tended to be expensive because people were buying them to keep up with 12x leveling.... but that was only late in the 3.0 cycle. More to the point: the topic here is the blues that you get as Heroic rewards... which cost nothing. I've been trying to do that, but you keep claiming that you're right even though you obviously haven't leveled a character in 4.0 and haven't been paying attention to the changes in gear or how quest rewards work. Yes, and we weren't talking about end-game gear. I specifically mentioned the Heroic rewards. You stop getting the gear boxes from Heroics at Level 60, when they turn into the Alliance boxes Yet another thing you are uninformed about: All crafting schematics make "blue" level gear. All hilts are blue. All mods are blue. All adaptive armor is blue. They can be reverse engineered to learn the purple schematics. Only legacy schematics can make "green" gear. First: Go back and read my posts and recognize that I never said the blues were better than an orange of the same rating. I said they were the same. Second: I'm not trying to derail the topic. I'm trying to clear up a bunch of misinformation that some users were spreading before they make silly mistakes, such as assuming they should ignore the blue focus that drops because their orange focus is always better. A lot of what you said was largely true... a long time ago. The game has changed. You should probably go check out what some of those changes are.

The rest of the conversation was not. When you start talking about specific restrictions like that, its best to make sure you announce it. Indeed. That would be incorrect, and a rather strong misunderstanding of how gear works. At the same level, a "blue" focus of rating (for example) 104 will have the same stat pool as an "orange" focus with Rating 104 mods in it. The distribution can vary on both items, with the main difference being that there are more combinations possible on the "blue" item, due to a lack of availability of certain stat combos at various levels of armor/mod/enhancements. You haven't been paying much attention to any gear that isn't modable, it seems. You should probably change that. While all of the very highest gear in the game is modable, up to Rating 216, the "blue" gear is just as good and often far cheaper. With the Outfit designer in place now, it's usually faster, easier, and just as effective to use blue gear as to buy mods for modable shells.

The worst? Really? Skadge? Broonmark? Iresso? Tanno Vik? Rusk? Pierce? I'd put Kaliyo well above every one of those for quality and enjoyability. Hell, personally, I'd still put her above Andronikos, Quinn, Talos, 4X, Doc, and Gault. For me, she's on par with Xalek, SCORPIO, and Yuun: engaging enough to be interesting, but only situationally appropriate.

Why are they garbage? Why does modability matter? A "blue" (Prototype) Focus should have a similar stat pool to a modable Focus with "blue" level Armoring, Mod, and Enhancement.(note that most mid-level and higher offhands have crystal slots, even for un-modable items). So, they have roughly equivalent ability to a modable item, but are less customizable. At the same time, there are combinations and concentrations of stats that you find in the prototype items that you simply can't get with modable items.

Odd. I just got my CC stipend: 550CC for my 3 month sub. That was last Thursday. Certainly you haven't missed something and chose to rage against Bioware before fully researching the situation. Right?

In Scarlet's defense, there is a difference between their statement of opinion with the implied "in my opinion" and the OPs explicit statement that: "no one who subs to your game really cares about your story" Yes, we should assume an implicit "in my opinion" at the start of every post. No, the OP was not even attempting to state an opinion. They explicitly claim to be speaking for every single subscriber and make the claim that none of them hold any contrary opinions. ...of course, that was soundly contradicted by 8 pages of posts.