DWho
-
Posts
2,553 -
Joined
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by DWho
-
-
7 hours ago, Stradlin said:
Somebody made a really good suggestion regarding this in some other thread:
Have self destructs remove a point from your own team, instead of giving a point to enemy team. That way, self destruct still hurts your own team but doesn't end the match any faster. This would completely remove any kind of benefit from self destructing.
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.
-
1 hour ago, BulbulusTheGreat said:
i can't say anything for galactic seasons before 3, as i've never done them, however i did other ones and i know for a fact they do have an ending, like amitys and 5's, sure they're bit vague and not good stories, but they do have an ending. this one simply does not, after talking to Jula it just abrutly ends and it doesn't even end in a sense of "good job you've done this now good bye" it just ends abruptly, like a cliff hanger.
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.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:
And just because you might enjoy or focus mainly on one specific content, doesn’t mean others don’t play a mix of content. Honestly, with such tiny content development to the game since BS took over, if you subscribe & you don’t do more than one thing, you’re literally throwing your money down the drain.
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.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Stradlin said:
They aren't big on some back and forth dialogue.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Stradlin said:
If they added more different gsf/pvp objectives,then the few that are there wouldn't have to be so generous.
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.
-
8 hours ago, Saeten said:
These types of players do heavy PvP, not solo content. They are a minority of what I believe are the majority of subscribers and active preferred and FtP players. The main pull of this mmorpg has been and should continue to be story content which is a high percentage of players doing solo PvE content. The endgame after story has been encouraged and incentivized into achievements and group content. But, with the staleness of endgame, many people do not enjoy repeatable grind objectives for the small entertainment of a battle pass (Galactic Seasons & PvP Seasosn).
You have misquoted me here. What you quoted is actually Stradlin's comment
-
5 hours ago, Stradlin said:
In a situation where single player content& content that needs other people to even happen give approx as much conquest as fast, then single player content is always vastly superior by the very nature of it: single player content is always available,100% reliable and entirely predictable. Much of multiplayer content is basically unavailable for you for 12-14 hours a day..on busiest servers. When it IS available, it is unpredictable. In GSF/PvP, every match has precisely 50% of people participating losing the match for starters!
This once again pushes conquest towards being a single player activity. Every multiplayer aspect of this game will greatly suffer for this change.
Idea was to appease the crowd who wants to do very " short sessions", but this will prolly have massive effect on everybody who enjoys conquest, no matter how short or long their sessions.
Nothing that takes group finder or matchmaker can ever compete with simply soloing some planetaries, when said planetaries are as rewarding as this.
There are tons of hardcore conq farmers who are quite content doing whatever it is that gives them most conquest as fast as possible. This change pulls them away from matchmaker,out of queue pool and squarely plants them in Tatooine, doing some 11 year old planetaries instead. Queue pools and matchmaker will have less people wanting to do multiplayer stuff because of this.
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
-
1
-
-
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)
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Stradlin said:
Figured somebody has to point out it just might be that rep token conq haul have their issues and..trivializing aspects.
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..
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Darviset said:
That's why i mentioned that the jury was still out on who this nerf is really meant for. It has to be about the few newer and or occasional players that may be F2P or don't have billions on hand.
I like what you've said here about the appearance of being busy. If I were a new company trying to make a profit from a video game management gig, I'd want people to feel like there are people here playing the game. But ultimately you're spot on imho. Queue times are a good indicator as well
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.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:
I didn’t realise you got such good ping from the Midwest. If only BW/BS had put SS & SF there 🤦♀️
What ping do you get to the US servers?
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
-
5 minutes ago, MadCuzBad said:
I agree it is not the funnest thing to go thru
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.
-
6 hours ago, Shayddow said:
The only thing is, I don't do much PVP on Shae because the ping is horrible (I'm in the States).
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.
-
41 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:
There are lots of negative connotations that go with the idea of mergers. One of them is character names. This would need to be addressed too in a fair & equable manner or you lose more players.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Luciferior said:
folks who want to go to the APAC server should be free to go there without being guilted into worrying about what will happen to SS if Apac region players do decide to leave
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Darev said:
The credit cost for extra rooms / tabs has always been high.
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.
-
7 hours ago, FrontLineFodder said:
I feel that you have a hatred towards people who "didn't make any attempt to meet the criteria"
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Darkestmonty said:
up to the devs but I would say 75% of their game play from the last annual quarter from now.
If they want to get picky and go back further since their accounts were created and average the time up sure but that will take longer.
All I am interested in is getting APAC players back to a regional server that suits their ping better than the NA servers which they were forced to use after the original APAC servers were shut down.
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).
-
9 minutes ago, Darkestmonty said:
hopefully they have access to players IP's.
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)
-
11 minutes ago, Darkestmonty said:
or just let anyone who has a long history of playing from the APAC region have 16 free character transfers to SV.
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?
Shar Vizla battle.
in Suggestion Box
Posted
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.