Good to know. I wasn't expecting anything to get deleted, but always pays to make sure before rather than find out after. Thanks for the quick answers.

Not sure where to ask this, so might as well ask it here. I remember reading a while back that in the Free to Play model the players will initially only have a limited number of character slots. I apologize for not having a link to this, but it was a long while ago. I currently have 8 characters, 2 at 50 and the other 6 I've been leveling slowly. When TOR goes free to play, am I going to lose my characters? Are my characters going to be frozen pending I purchase more slots and I'll have to choose who I want and who I don't want? I know that 20 or so levels isn't too hard to make up, but I've actually put some decent time and personal interest into these characters and would hate to lose any one of them.

Crap. TOR, stop making me want to buy more stuff.

I'm looking forward to this. Some face time between players and the devs would be good; get bearings straight.

Kalfear; if you'll notice I have admitted previously in the thread that I my opinion on that was less than correct. I'm probably going to rewrite the opening paragraph to correct that. Dev to Player communication is one of the larger issues, we've determined, and it doesn't seem like there's an immediate solution that we can work on, unless we simply bombard EA en masse, demanding to be heard. If we could get a large enough group of players to start writing EA (snail mail and e-mail) then I think we can probably get their attention. Ardim: A Hard Mode story mode might be pretty interesting. The only issue with it I can think of is when you get to PVP worlds; it will create something of a power imbalance to suddenly have level 50's running around Nar Shaddaa or Tatooine, doing as they please. Then again, if both sides exercise this then it might just work itself out.

An online conference would have an advantage, true. More would get done in a shorter time and the people involved would be more focused. However, a using the forums has the advantage that everybody can see it, go over what's been said in detail, and its readily view-able by all. Also, EA isn't necessarily my favorite company, but they're part of the equation now for better or worse. Finally, you do have a point concerning taking player suggestions, particularly concerning PVP (this thread has me rethinking my opinion on that). This has to do with two things; time and trust. You are correct that the TOR team hasn't done much in the recent past to endear the players to them; being in the dark for the free character transfers was a huge tax on a lot of people, as an example. For that, having the Public Test server does seem kind of arbitrary. As for time, a lot of things seem rushed to meet public demand. People are clamoring for new content, and I guess that's pressuring the team to release it before it's ready. Is that an excuse? Hell no. If the public was really so concerned about new content then they can afford to wait a little longer while the team makes sure it doesn't crash the server. I know it's a subscription based game (at the moment), but sometimes quality saves more money than time saving. The solution, in my opinion? Give and take respect. There was a supposed conference a while back where some of the developers sat down with the heads of major guilds and talked about what players wanted and what was being done. This kind of thing needs to happen a lot more often. Going back to the online conference, having a face to face meeting between creators and players carries a lot of weight. Look at Valve; all of their quality assurance, up until recently, is done with a large degree of personal interaction between the play tester and the programming team. Also, something as simple as a developers timetable, view-able by players, would be fantastic. What's the status on fixing server lag? Even if there's not a definite date that says "Server lag is fixed NOW" in big glitter letters, I'd love it if a subsection of the Dev-Tracker was commited to saying things like "We found out that our x is actually causing a problem with our y; looking to address that in our next regular maintenance!" Also, Ashla, I could not agree more. Bioware definitely has the ideas to make TOR stand out on it's own, but they don't have the experience to make an MMO run. If a company with more experience in the field picked up the rights and kept the original dev team then this game could make some serious improvements! I understand that BioWare should learn how an MMO should run, but they don't have to learn through something that will hurt their reputation to much.

I think that two of these points can be combined. Periodically changing the content on lvl 50 planets would be interested and attract some attention, but I don't think it would be long lived if the only rewards are commendations and credits. However, having continually changing Republic vs Imperial instances would certainly attract some high level play. These faction PVPs could give out something a little more rewarding, like titles or aesthetic gifts. I'd do 20 faction PVPs if it meant I could change the color of my chest piece or get a certain accessory to show of my pub stomping prowess. The main issue I've seen for Rep vs Imp pvp I've seen is the the difference in numbers (Imps have a number advantage, if I recall). I've always wondered why not make Warzone like instances to solve this? While there would still be open world PVP, why not have mission givers that give PVP Warzone (or some other name) missions. When you accept this you're added to the queue for the mission, and once 4 pubs and 4 imps are queued you can teleport to a Warzone like area of the map where you have to fulfill certain objectives, such as defending a base or repairing an object while the other team tries to stop you.

I did indeed read through the article, and while I think it's valid I also think that it seems to focus more on the problems in TOR, a few of which were bad calls from the start and nothing can really be done to fix them now (i.e. the rushed release). It was that you mentioned 1.4 yourself that got my attention. I think that rolling back some of 1.4 could be beneficial. While the added content is a little gasp of fresh air it seems that the other changes caused unintended side effects. I don't think there would be a lot of justified objections if the devs left Terror from Beyond but some of the other features (temporarily) to iron out bugs. However, I'm thinking that the big issue in 1.4 was the shadow upgrade. From what I've seen in the forums everybody's computer has taken this patch differently, ranging from the game closing itself to randomly minimizing the screen (the worst I've had is some random particle effect bugs). If the devs are to pull something, I'd vote on that.

All of those things, and/or whatever you think that is causing TOR to suffer. For example, If you that Marketing Techniques were a massive problem then you could bring that up, and people could discuss different marketing techniques that could improve on what's currently being done. For another example, I think that TOR is currently losing the majority of it's fans because of the number of bugs and the game's unreliable game-play, so my solution would be that the devs commit patch 1.5 to identifying issues such as server lag, random crashes, and hardware compatibility and then use the public test server to test out different solutions. However, I'm not very knowledgeable about such things, so I heartily invite others to comment on specific ways to make that happen. EDITED TO AVOID DOUBLE POST: So what are your suggestions to keep TOR going? From your post it looks like you're specifically addressing issues in the 1.4 patch. Do you have any particular issue in the patch you'd like to start with? Also, I try to be direct but I'm bad at it. If I come off as accusing or something I apologize.

I'm suggesting a thread where we talk about larger problems in general rather than one at a time. Rather than just suggesting what we want I think we could get more done as a community by talking about what would and would not work.

Things too keep in mind: 1. Present Issues vs Past Issues - Unless it's something that was implemented in the past and is still an issue, you can afford not to include it. For example, the larger numbers of servers was a long standing problem. The fact that TOR is an MMO instead of KotOR 3 is not. 2. Think of solutions instead of just problems - If you don't like something about the game think about a solution before you rail off on it. Let's say you hate a the Warzone queue, for example. Don't just say it's broken and needs fixing. Why is it broken? How do you think it could be fixed? At the very least say that you're not certain how to fix it and invite other people to speculate on it. 3. Constructive criticism =/= Flaming. The point is to find working solutions; not discredit others. If somebody suggests a fix that you don't think would work talk about it sensibly. If you must argue about it, the forums have a PM system so that the thread can stay clean. 4. Reference other threads for support. If you see something in the suggestion box you like feel free to link it for more input. We're a community; why not take advantage of it? Finally: 5. Ideas are a dime a dozen, but usable solutions are gold. I know I've brought this up, but I really can't stress it enough. Just saying the graphics are choppy and need to be fixed is one thing, but saying that the Shadow rendering system (example) is too complicated and is causing lesser processors to struggle is more useful. Even better would be to say that an easier way to process shadows would be to (your solution here).

I log onto these forums every single day and I see one of three thread types; a thread that thanks BioWare for TOR and a thread that rips BioWare a new one, and "I deserve entitlements so I'm unsubbing!" threads. To be fair, a person's subscription is their own business and some people raise valid issues, and other threads that praise/hate TOR are well written (some; not all). Everybody seems to have an opinion about why TOR is losing subs and their own solution, so why, in a forum community that proves itself to have capable and reasonable people, do we not talk about as a group what it would take for TOR to start winning back subscribers? Finally, feel free to post if you have something to say, but keep it civil. Edit: Since the start of this thread I've changed my opinion: Player to Development communication is pretty abysmal. However, this is probably one of the hardest things to correct.

I wanted to play some Republic classes with my friends, so we rolled up on Jedi Covenant. I decide I'll take the healing class and go Scoundrel, making a Twi'Lek named Tenneus, aka the Good Captain. Then my friends quit after 2 days. I let the Good Captain sit around a while and collect dust before finally deciding to make a name for him. I start playing again and get involved in flashpoints. After a while I start to become a pretty capable healer and eventually settle down into a nice guild. All is well; my guild mates are good, heroics are easy to queue up for and I'm always willing to stop what I'm doing to go help with a world boss. I actively recruit, donate to the guild bank, and give items I don't use or need to fellow guild members. After some time I finally roll around to my legacy. Then one day I have to go visit family and lose internet for a weekend. I leave on Friday night and by the time I log back on the following Monday morning my guild leader has kicked me. I'm assuming he thought I was inactive (AFK period, from the mouth of our guild leader, was 5 days, not 3....), but no reason was every given. Who's your character that you just don't play anymore? Why don't you play him?

I was rolling this over in my head and I think I've found something that would make the legacy system just a little bit better. The legacy system, in game, is supposed to relate our characters, right? Why not have it so that instead of having a kit that you send to a toon that turns into a premade weapon, the characters in a legacy tree can create user designed items that are bound to legacy. I'm not exactly sure how to explain it, so here's an example. In Game Example. I just get my own Legacy, finally! Now, because I have a lot of money and want celebrate, I go to the Legacy Item Smith on the fleet and decided that I want a special type of gloves for my legacy. I talk to the smithy and design select that I want to make a custom pair of gloves. I then design a medium size pair of gloves, I choose it's basic design from a template, I apply the color (or colors) I want to it, I apply any decals or designs I specifically want, and finally I give it a name. As I finish, I get the option of saving this schematic in case I want to come back later and make more (or can't afford it now). Finally, before I accept, I check the little preview window to see if it looks like I want. It does, I accept, and the Smithy, after a wait, sends me my very own Orange [Name Goes Here] Legacy Gauntlets, bound to my legacy and usable by anybody in my legacy tree! I think this is way better than getting a construction kit that builds into generic blue gun that I'll never use.

Hm.... A ship's name should be a reflection of the character's personality, I think. Sniper - X-70B Phantom. "A ship's a tool; nothing more and nothing less. I would sooner name my ship as I would name my gun." Power-Tech - Flies Like Knives. "I named it 'The Black Bird' when I... eh... bought it, but when my kids came up with a better name that I did I decided that maybe it was time to change it." Mercenary - The Tireless Beast. "The more you fly, the less you die." Sith Assassin - Ship. "Name? What for? It's easy to remember and everybody knows what I'm talking about. It's not like I'm going to hurt its feelings." Sith Juggernaut - Justice's Herald. "I'm not evil, but I'm good either. The force has given me a mission; I [/b]am[/b] Justice."