That would ruin the entire flavor of the Jedi Series. The games are about rebuilding the Jedi order. Mandos and Jedi are enemies. Mandos as a playable class would make no sense. Mandos as an enemy to destroy/defeat might fit in but then you go down the path of Revan in Kotor. Fighting the Mandos was what caused Revan's fall. If it is so popular, they could try to make a Mando based game but The Book of Boba Fett was such a flop, they are probably hesitant to go there. That and making a single player game about the bad guys is risky.

Correct. Opening transfers will result in a flood on old players back onto the server since they are more interested in having their legacies than their credits. Most old APAC players are not going to have more than a few hundred million credits anyway since they quit playing back when 100 million was a lot of credits.

The transfers just need to happen. The credits issue is secondary. With active transfers people would be playing instead of worrying about their credits.

I guess, it could hardly be more pathetic than the GS5 "story", but who knows. We don't really know what rock bottom is.

Oh good, another daily area, just what we need. Edit: I don't know what they could do within the limits of GS story that would make Copero interesting. It likely would be tied into previous story which as I said was bad. Would have been a good time to add a Chiss companion though

It's because GS5 was such a joke. There was no companion to make the tiny bit of story even vaguely interesting (In my opinion, Bioware/Broadsword wasted a good extended story opportunity for the game with that trash). The weapons/armor/gear were extremely underwhelming (They're all reskins of old armor sets). A stronghold is fine in that it is a good way to burn GS tokens you'd otherwise lose, but to be honest the whole part of the game that included Copero was terrible, not much incentive to have a stronghold there when there isn't even an associated planet space (just a flashpoint - and a bad one at that. "For House Inrokini") New companions make lackluster story a little bit better. GS is all grind old content otherwise. It's also that people are getting fed up with the rinse and repeat nature of GS and want something more interesting. For a lot of people it is starting to come down to what to do with GS tokens besides lose them because you already have too many. That's where incentive to play is needed and a stronghold doesn't cut it either.

But I don't want more strongholds, I have more than I can use already. Too many companions is also a "you" problem. I prefer companions to strongholds because I get more use out of the companions. Every companion we have in the game (outside CM ones, which I never buy) is the main companion on one of my multitude of characters (and I do play them all at some point during the year). As far as strongholds go, I only use about 3 of them and 1 much more than any of the others (so deactivating them is not an issue for me personally but it is for others). Copero will end up being just like the two fleet apartments for me, something to buy to get below the GS token cap (assuming the Copero stronghold is going to cost GS tokens - if it doesn't it's completely worthless to me) and never use.

But it does exist, whether you like it or not.

I currently have 20 active strongholds an 5 inactive ones (from server merges) so to add Copero I'd have to deactivate one of them

There is, it's 20 active strongholds.

There is a limit to how many you can have active. If you deactivate a duplicate stronghold (from server merges - which you may have paid real money to activate/open in the first place) you can't reactivate it. Deactivated strongholds have to be redecorated when they are reactivated.

I got the impression they needed something else to convince the higher ups to open an APAC server beyond the APAC region potential player base and that the "test economy" was how they sold it. As to the free transfers, How about a variation on Trixxie's earn a transfer. For each consecutive month subbed you earn 4 transfers whether that be retroactive to the server opening (or even before) or after transfers open. If you have 4 consecutive subbed months prior to transfers opening, you get all 16 at the point transfers open. Otherwise you get 4 per month continuously subbed prior to opening transfers and earn another 4 each month continuously subbed at the renewal date up to a max of 16 total. More complicated but it also potentially spreads out the impact of credit influx.

These aren't even the three sides 1) Players who would prefer a companion over a stronghold 2) Players who would prefer a stronghold over a companion 3) Players that don't care either way (or would rather have both). The point is, 1 & 2 don't even have to be mutually exclusive. You could have a companion that you gain through story (which you don't have to even summon if you don't want another companion). Lets be honest, the GS companion story play is pretty weak and would only really apply to a completionist who would do it anyway regardless of whether there is a companion or not. If you don't want the stronghold, you don't have to use it (Assuming you even have the space for it, we have so many strongholds right now)

What they could have done, though it would be more complicated, was to base the number of free transfers on how long before the transfers occurred you subbed. As an example: 3 months prior = 16 transfers, 2 months prior = 12 transfers, 1 month prior = 6 transfers, anything less than 1 month = 4 transfers. I'm not saying these are the right timelines, but they would give advantage to someone who subbed right away at (or near) launch over someone who signed up at the last minute yet still allowing some free transfers. Perhaps an "in game" token to "pay" for transfers. If you don't have the token in the character's inventory, they are ineligible to transfer. Fewer free transfers with a higher credit limit would also have been better, though I think their goal is to limit the number of people transferring over just to expand their max number of credits in game (freeing up credit space on their "home" server). A straight up legacy transplant could also have been interesting. Completely removing you from the source server and transferring the legacy intact (achievements, strongholds unlocked, etc). That also would limit non-APAC transfers as you would have to give up your position on the source server entirely.

No point in discussing this further. Your comprehension of what I have said is biased by your own desire to gain advantage from the tactic while denying it to others. You are adding code to the game, while setting SD not equal to death is simply not incrementing the VP variable when the death is via a crash (and clearly there is a conditional determining crash vs death since you get different messages on screen). No points for death is by far the simplest approach and it does nothing to harm new players like your system would. Better to lose a handful of Victory Points to crashes (and it is impossible for the code to differentiate which are intended and which aren't) than have new players be the target of verbal attacks by the pros. I can only assume you are trying to take advantage of a piece of code that allows you to win faster because you want out of the match too. Let me put this as simply as I can. If I am a new player, why should my team be punished for an unintentional crash? Your system doesn't differentiate between intentional and unintentional crashes.

Making them not count at all is far better and much simpler to code. If what you say is true, that is effectively what you are getting with your method (SDs not counting toward victory conditions). It still doesn't solve the issue that new players crash more often and thus will be targeted by other players on their team for making the match unwinable.

What happens is that one side gets a victory point while the other side loses one. That results in an "unwinable" match faster which will result in even more self-destructing. Self-destructs happen when people want to get out of the match quickly for whatever the reason.

But your way just makes it worse. It makes self-destructing even more profitable for ending matches quickly. You effectively are making each crash worth 2 victory points, one for the crash and 1 more as a penalty for crashing. This also will create animosity towards new players who are going to crash more often.

Or just don't make them count al all toward victory conditions (or the non contributing timer reset)

1) No change is going to make the game mode more enjoyable. It has a cult following but most of the people playing are playing for the Conquest points alone 2) How is making it harder for crashes to end up in respawns making it harder for new players. Right now you make one mistake and you are dead (and the other team progresses toward their victory condition). New players crash a lot so making it harder for them to be destroyed benefits them. 3) If it takes crashing into something then running around trying to get shot, that takes a whole lot longer than crashing into the spawn ship repeatedly. If it takes longer to self-destruct it reduces the incentive to use that tactic to "speed-up" the game (and it is much less effective at doing so).

They could make it so crashing into something is not an automatic "self-destruct". If they make "self-destructing" harder, less people will find it to be an easy option to speed up matches. Make it so it takes running into things 3 times to "destruct". First time removes your shields, second time half you max hull, third time the rest of your hull assuming no repairs in between.

The fly X ship 5 times is much more problematic because it is a huge number of CQ points and encourages fast matches. The other issue is how do you differentiate between a player that is just bad at the game mode from someone intentionally crashing (The game calls it a self-destruct if it is intentional or not). What would the crash limit be: 5, 10, or more times per match. Would it require multiple matches to define the player as a self-destructer, how often would that reset. There are some real issues in separating the bad players from the trolls. No one should be punished just for being bad and they shouldn't be expected to go out of their way to get better.

Did you use a boosted character for your troopermission? As I recall, boosted characters complete the story but do not complete the achievements.

This is a big part of the problem. GSF is extremely rewarding for both Conquest and GS (and why people have been pushing for GSF to be part of PVP seasons). People are more interested in getting to their conquest goals quickly for Tech Fragments they can use to buy Embers (and mats) that they can sell on the GTN for credits. The out of control economy along with what are excessive rewards for time spent are creating the problem. AFKing and throwing are not acceptable but as long as the rewards are so far and above any other content in the game, people are going to gravitate to the easy rewards. No amount of monitoring is going to fix that, it's a game of whack-a-mole. Kill one and three others show up because the rewards are so lucrative.

One could also say, how many strongholds do we need or how many speeders do we need or even how many sets of re-skinned armor and weapons do we need. Honestly, what is the difference?