I have noticed occasionally with some AOEs that have a "charging" period, that you take damage if you started inside the AOE and then moved out before it is executed (interrupt seems to work if the AOE is interruptible). It seems to be more a glitch than anything since it does not occur consistently in my experience. The "increased damage" AOEs added to some FP to make them more difficult seem to be more prone to this effect.

While a nice idea, It's not exactly simple to implement. You would need to incorporate some sort of code that differentiates between a new player crashing due to inexperience and someone deliberately crashing. It would probably have to involve some sort of "crashes/minute" mechanic which would be easily circumvented by switching between crashing and not paying attention to the game. It wouldn't be fair to the team with inexperienced player(s) crashing to be penalized for that in addition to the loss of "uptime" it already causes. Eliminating crash/destructions altogether, though not truly realistic, would be a simpler solution.

Maybe they're saving the ending for the next Galactic Season. No real ending is pretty consistent with the very low quality of this season's story (When you start the story with "run these three old and very tedious flashpoints" you knew it wasn't going to be good. GS story has been on a trend downward since GS3.

One thing to keep in mind with all this complaining about how many CQ points people are getting is that it is the only way outside of group content to gear up your characters. It literally takes tens of thousands of Tech Frags and Conquest Comms to gear up a single character. And even when you get one character there and can use Decurion crates to bypass the base gear (which currently takes completing the weekly for a planet's heroics for one piece), you still need thousands of tech fragments and CQ comms to upgrade your relics. If you play PVP you are getting both CQ comms and WZ-1s at the same time, both of which can be used to upgrade your gear (and WZ-1s drop at a prodigious rate in PVP). If you are doing flashpoints, the same is true with FP-1s, and with Operations OP-1s. Should group content have more options for gaining CQ points? The simple answer is yes, but pushing for ways to make gaining CQ points for those that don't enjoy that game mode more time consuming isn't the answer.

And this is what it comes down to in the end. All of the pro-nerf stuff (from all sides) focuses on what a few players do and undercuts what most of the players do. The Rep nerf has far greater impact on the casual players in that they now have to do additional content just to get 1 or 2 characters to their goal (people who get 10, 20, or 30 to the goal already have a system to get there). With the Rep objective in place you could quickly complete 1 or 2 characters and then go on to playing the part of the game you enjoyed. I like to get a couple characters to the conquest goal each week. With the nerf, I now have to put in more time doing the part of the game I don't enjoy (grinding content). I like playing the heroics and some of the dailies but don't want to feel I have to just to gear an alt. There are too many people worried about what someone else is getting out of Conquest.

Maybe this is the core problem and why they don't get what they want. The fly 5 ship objective change also has nothing to do with your "hypothesis" of having more smaller objectives. If you don't put forward ideas for these new "objectives" you have no place complaining about not getting them.

Sounds like something to ask for then. Why don't you start a thread about it and see how popular that is within the GSF community? I'd do it myself but I'm pretty clearly on record as not liking the game mode and my starting a thread like that would likely just initiate a flame war.

You have misquoted me here. What you quoted is actually Stradlin's comment

Perhaps they looked back at their data over the last several years where they have continually reduced the number of CQ points obtainable from "solo" activities and determined that all their "encouragement" of players to do group content as a means to increase subs or maintain subs or at the very least increase participation in "group" activities was completely ineffective and now they are going to try something different. That said, Operations do need more ways to gain CQ points as they are seriously underrepresented in CQ (ask for them to buff your content not nerf other people's)

1) Better story broken up into fewer minuscule fragments. Story should be 20-40 hours every year not 15 minutes here and 15 minute there. 2) Take GS back to where it was in Seasons 2 & 3 3) Get rid of Flashpoints as story 4) Make Planetary Missions replayable once you hit level 50 5) Do a better job filling in what happened during the 5 years you were in carbonite in KotFE (post KotFE areas of the vanilla planets)

What trivializes Conquest even more is advancing multiple objectives (5,6, or even 7) with a single mission. If they left the points the same for GSF but made it so you could only advance 2 objectives at once, I'd bet there would be outcry from the GSF community on how the devs nerfed Conquest for them even though the number of points available was the same..

So why is it exactly people are against someone else completing CQ on multiple toons? Does it really affect you negatively? If you have tons of creds and are fully geared you don't even need to do Conquest. People completing CQ on multiple toons seem to want either the creds (or the mats, if they are crafters) or the gear.

I think inability to create new content for whatever reason plays into it as well. Based on the assets in the game, it's clear GS6 was intended to have a reputation track but for some reason, they were unable to implement it (or it was a last second change). Why even have a currency drop if it is only really vendor trash, sort of goes against the idea they were trying to reduce the influx of credits to cool the economy. The choice of the flashpoints in the first GS misssion as well is telling. Those are some of the longest flashpoints to run (thus "stretching out" the content).

Well, to address the original topic. Making things take longer does nothing to increase revenue for Broadsword. If you're a sub, they get the same from you whether you play 60 hours a week or not at all. The only thing longer slogs does is create the appearance of a server being busy and that only if it is in an area where people would congregate naturally (daily areas and group content). Longer slogs often, in fact have the opposite effect, fewer people subbing as they make the decision the slog isn't worth their in game time. The more likely explanation for the increased slog is that group play is collapsing and they want to try and force people into that style of play (since it is vastly more profitable from a time played perspective to the player). It also draws people's attention away from a compete lack of engaging new content.

Between 30 and 50. Going east it declines rapidly, going west it's solid. There are quite a few more "nodes" going east than west

Like I said, if the cost of "merging servers" is my character names, I'm done and so will lots of other people be. Keep that in mind when you suggest mergers. Mergers always cost subs, they never gain subs. Character names are my line in the sand.

Just curious, but where in the US. I'm in the Midwest and my ping to SV is right around 150 and extremely stable (almost no lag spikes). It was a lot higher (over 300) when they were testing the cloud server in APAC but it is much better since SV went live. Europe on the other hand is over now 250 for me with constant large lag spikes.

Would definitely be the last straw for me. If I lost characters names after being subbed continuously since launch, that would be it. I can put up with a lot of garbage (and have) but that would be a bridge too far. At this point all that is left in the game that is any fun at all is the way the characters are dressed and their names. Where they are doesn't matter but "who" they are does. Change their names, and they're not the same character any more and not worth playing.

Agreed. This is not an either or proposition.

SF queues probably would not benefit as much as people think from a merger since at this point in the game, pretty much everyone with characters on SS will have them on SF (and group players probably play mostly of SF already). SS players would benefit if they didn't already have characters on SF (which is probably a small part of the population at this time). The complaints about pops on SS seem to be mostly about not being able to complete Conquest/GS on a second server. As far as "new blood" goes. You are basically looking at the same players on both servers, not much new blood for SF is likely Having 2 US servers does have the benefit of letting players who want to avoid all the drama that goes with a "high" population server have someplace to play rather than leaving the game and decreasing the overall game population (and thus game revenue). I personally am not against mergers if and only if the "savings" are funneled directly back into content for everyone, not just "group content" adjusted to be solo-able. SV should be left out of the merger talk unless it is performing so badly that it is a true burden on the game financially. If it is even marginally self-supporting, it should be left alone, leaving its fate in the hands of APAC players.

Once you reactivate a stronghold that is fully unlocked on another server isn't it fully unlocked on the new server too? The price of opening rooms you didn't have unlocked isn't any higher now than it was before 7.0. As far as I know, the only things that were changed were travel costs and repair bills. GTN prices are high, but hasn't the argument been that you don't need the stuff being sold on the GTN.

Hardly hatred, just fairness. While you feel the APAC server was closed down unfairly 10 years ago, isn't it unfair to the people who paid for their sub before the transfers to get theirs earlier (which is where we are at now if you fix 1) and 2) from my post). They got theirs for subbing, you should have to sub too to get yours. Besides, I was talking about going forward not looking back. It works out to everyone who subs for 2 months gets their 16 transfers whether that was before or after the transfers went live. As far as "any attempt" goes. I'd go so far as to say anyone who was subbed at the time transfers went live could have 16 transfers right away in the next round (as a benefit to having been subbed), after the people who met the criteria and didn't get their transfers and the people who missed out by a couple of days get theirs. As far as not wanting to subscribe for the reasons you posted above, those are legitimate reasons for not being subscribed, but you shouldn't expect the same treatment as the people who did subscribe. Getting after the fact transfers takes care of your concerns. You still get them, you just have to wait a little longer to get all of them.

Ok, I think I understand what you mean now. I don't see any issue with that approach. I do think it would take a lot more effort from the Dev team than the ideas I listed but it is a legitimate approach, though I do see fixing things with the people who met (or almost met) the original criteria as a higher priority than those who didn't (though I'm not against a second wave of transfers with the server economy already gone with the flood of credits).

That establishes they are from the region (though it is very easy to spoof IPs these days, just about any VPN can do it) but it still doesn't answer the question of what is "a long history of playing from the APAC region". Again, restricting these extra free transfers to the APAC region is fine but what is the minimum amount of support for the game that is required. Is playing on a f2p account good enough, how much time should it be that they played? Is being on the APAC server when it closed enough (I'd say probably it is but what is your opinion)

OK, but how do you define "a long history of playing from the APAC region". Does it have to be in the last several years or can it go back to before the APAC server first closed? It's not an unreasonable request to give "long term" supporters of the game free transfers but how would you define that?