As I recall (haven't been active for a few months and just started poking around the game again, but I doubt it's changed) the health caps for every planet actually correspond to a LOWER endurance value than the planet's endurance cap. I'm sure that would be the source of the oddity you're observing. If you're at or below the synced level the game doesn't care what your stats are, but as soon as you get over that level the stat caps are enforced, and health is going to show the most obvious signs of this because of that strange quirk (why bother capping health at all when the endurance cap will serve that purpose anyway?) in how they set it up. But yeah, the system has its flaws but people really exaggerate the impact of it when they talk as if it makes them unable to take on weak trash mobs or whatever. Because we get to keep the benefit of all the unlocked abilities / utilities, plus the subtle benefit of the stats that aren't capped. Stuff that a character which is actually at that level and geared for that level would not have. My thoughts on it had always been that: 1) they really should have found a way to make it work regionally, not planet-wide (ie select a sync level based on X in areas with level X enemies, possibly setting sync level to X+3 or X+2 or X+1 depending on whether it's a normal area or a bonus series area or a heroic area (edit: X+0 for heroics which are part of the bonus series portion of a planet?), shift automatically when crossing any line between different regions of the map) 2) they should have considered a conditional check based on your current spec to enforce different caps based on role (go easier on the endurance/health cap for tanks compared to non-tanks, go easier on the mastery and power caps for DPS and heals compared to tanks, maybe between DPS and heals one gets better mastery and the other gets better power?) 3) sync based caps should only cut off stats from gear, not the extra received from buffs / stims / abilities / etc. (granted, some additional rules may need to be created to regulate those bonuses)

I still like the idea I used to propose on this subject where the machine could include some sort of prize ticket as a more common alternative to the cartel certificate drop, and then add options to the rep vendor where all of the items they sell have an alternative pricing using those prize tickets. Add the other machines based around each of the other reputations. Each machine has its own separate prize ticket associated with that specific rep vendor. Maybe as an example you might expect on average 25 prize tickets to drop for every certificate that drops, and in the pricings at the vendor each 1 cert and each 100k (or however many) credits in the normal costs would translate to about 10-15 prize tickets (maybe a bit more or less than that, depending on the item) in the alternative costs. All of the stuff from the rep vendors is cosmetic and bind on pickup anyway, right? So prize tickets wouldn't offer any way to try to make a profit selling rewards on the GTN. It would be purely about getting the items because you want them for yourself.

I haven't been paying attention to the game in a little while. I played the first chapter of KotET the day it launched and haven't really been in the game much to continue it since then. So as I wait for it to patch right now I saw the thing announcing the start of another xp bonus tomorrow and thought "Aren't we already in the middle of one right now?" Seriously, when did the previous bonus end? Anyway, Personally I think the problem with level sync is not that it exists or that it allows use of later skills (that part is awesome). The problem is some questionable decisions in its implementation, such as... * That it is a "one size fits all" setting across an entire world map instead of custom-fitting a unique setting for each region. (Imagine if the sync was always within 2 levels of the nearby enemies (maybe +2 in non-heroic areas and either +1 or +0 in heroic areas) instead of being set globally based on a planet maximum and being 5+ levels high in many earlier parts of the planet.) * That the above point translates into some of the vanilla class story endings leading to an extremely trivialized level 10-15 final boss fight instead of the originally designed level 50 fight. (If they can't implement regional sync settings, they ought to just move these fights to their own separate map that we load into which can have their own level 50 sync.) * That the caps cut things off after "temporary" bonus values from buffs / stims / abilities / procs / etc. instead of only capping "permanent" stats from gear and letting "temporary" bonuses apply on top of the cap. (Although fixing that one wouldn't sit well with people like yourself who want more challenge.) * That health is capped at a value that corresponds to a lower endurance value than the value that endurance is capped at. (Why? Just why?)

This idea makes for a nice addition to the list of things I mentioned in my post in that topic you linked. "Planetary Activity" could cover heroic missions, GSI missions, hotspot missions (dedicated dailies zones like Section X, Black Hole, etc.), support missions (converted bonus series stuff as you just described), and event content (when one is running). I'd also call back to some ideas I've had about conquests needing a revamp pretty much since day one of conquests. It's dumb that a conquest week typically acknowledges planetary activity (heroics, a rampage, and maybe some faction base guards or a world boss) for about 1-2 out of 3 target planets or for about 2-3 out of 5 target planets. I have long wanted to see some sort of "Conquest Mission Terminal" on every planet and dailies zone (could convert the current heroic or dailies terminal on each of those locations to create this) and each terminal would be filled with all of the planet's heroics, dailies, and weeklies including some new (possibly GSI inspired) missions introduced just for conquest as well as missions for rampages for specific regions of the planet or against specific groups of enemies, plus missions for other things like world boss, commanders, faction base guards, PVP kills, crafting/trade (ie missions where an NPC needs a delivery of materials such as the war supplies, prefab kits, assembly components, etc.) and whatever else. And then instead of needing a bunch of separate entries in the conquest week to reward points for each type of activity on each planet, it would only need an entry for each planet which rewards completion of any mission from that planet's Conquest Mission Terminal.

Add in an option to use components to purchase requisition grants? That would tie them into GSF's gearing of ship parts / upgrades (it doesn't use player gear or the class ship's gear but it does have its own system of gear!), and it's a lot more obvious and straightforward than trying to shoehorn in some sort of weird way for GSF to start pulling stats from player gear for something. Although to be fair, they could have just as easily offered this option with Fleet Comms. Hmmmm... Remove the Fleet Comms and change current fleet comm rewards to components... Add option to obtain GSF requisition grants with components... Change current fleet comm vendor for the forgotten solo on-rails space mission gear to ask for components instead... This sounding like a reasonable idea? GSF and solo space missions would then be integrated into the same reward system as at least some other parts of the game (side note: I agree with sentiments throughout this topic that it would be nice to see PVE options with component rewards too), and GSF's gear grind could seem a little less daunting to newcomers since they could just throw some spare components in to get some extra requisition to spend on upgrades.

The set bonus will go wherever the armoring piece goes.

Yep. Might as well just offer the choice. It would also be a nice touch to add options where it doesn't already cover every conceivable option and to perhaps even see about adding brand new options as well. So we'd see a list like someone else mentioned, with options grayed out after you've completed them that day or if you haven't unlocked them yet. And aside from each planet having an entry for its heroics, the list would also have entries for Black Hole, Section X, CZ-198, Oricon, Yavin, GSI-Makeb, GSI-Alderaan, GSI-Tatooine, GSI-Hoth, new GSI stuff for other planets, restored on-planet Belsavis dailies, restored Ilum dailies, Makeb's non-GSI dailies, Rishi dailies (with a terminal added next to the one daily mission's NPC (downstairs in the cantina) for easy access to all of the other Rishi dailies), and anything new they could think to add like new GSI style dailies or new on-planet dailies. (And anything I forgot to mention.) Maybe also add entries in the list corresponding to each event (obviously they'd be grayed out when the event is not running). (Gree option teleports you to the right place on Ilum and asks for completion of some non-pvp Gree dailies, 3 separate Rakghoul options to teleport to the THORN base on the correct planet and they each ask for that planet's on-planet event daily along with some tunnel dailies, and then the Bounty Week option only teleports to the pick-up on fleet but it asks for completion of both a henchmen and a kingpin.) Hmmm... a thought for all of this... Each mission from GC for a set of basic on-planet dailies would be set to reward bottom tier CXP since they would contain no heroics. Most of the ones for the proper dailies zones and for the GSI stuff would be a middle tier CXP reward since those generally have one heroic mixed in. And then the ones for several heroics would typically be the highest reward because they're all heroics. Except maybe make the capital planets' heroics worth a middle tier CXP reward and add an option for your class's starter planet heroic(s) but it's actually worth less than the bottom tier CXP reward.

It's got to be that. The setting is off by default and stored separately for each character, so it's something to remember to check on every character if you want all of the missions to be visible on all of them. It was part of the streamlining with 4.0 that shifted the focus to class story (and maybe some mix of planet and flashpoint story) being (more than) enough to level a character all the way up, with those sources specially marked in purple to set them apart from regular missions. Many of the sidequest missions (although not all of them) got their icon changed to have a star over it which marks it as an "exploratory mission". I don't know why some got this designation and some didn't. It's not like it's marking dailies/weeklies or anything like that. It's marking one-time missions just the same as the sidequests that didn't get updated to be marked like this... Anyway, the idea is of course that sidequests are now an optional thing that you can choose to do if you want to explore a planet some more.

Honestly, I was surprised at the launch of strongholds that they didn't do this and that they instead just made a few generic currency tokens for us to craft and spend on decorations. It just gives the decoration side of crafting zero personality. You've got the one token that 3 of the skills can make. You've got the other token that the other 3 skills can make. You've got 2 additional components that anybody can make. And you've got the last token which anybody can make by combining the previous 4 items. (Well, all of that split up into 3 different tiers of those items.) So you don't make decorations, you make a stockpile of currency and you browse a vendor to see what you can buy with that currency. You probably aren't generally going to be crafting with a specific decoration in mind because that requires knowing which fabricator droid sells which item and for which tier of the currency. You just make a token here or there to burn off some stockpiled materials and then maybe eventually you notice that you have several tokens stockpiled and you wonder what you can trade them all for. And then they piled the conquest crafting in on top of this, all globbed together as one big mess of a category in our crafting windows. With 3 of the skills making 2 of the smaller war supplies, 2 of the skills making another 2 of the smaller war supplies, the last skill making 1 last type of smaller war supply, and anybody being able to combine those 5 into 1 great big war supply. (And you have a few alternative crafting schematics to make each small war supply out of different tiers of the base material (changed now to making them out of different tiers of the assembly components / bonded attachments / cell grafts after that crafting revamp.)) And then all 6 of the war supplies might as well just be junk items for all the use they are after they've been made. The smaller ones go into the big one, the big one goes into a dark project, and the dark project can buy 2 very limited-use perks (one purely cosmetic as I understand it) for guilds to use ONLY on a planet that they've won and ONLY in the week after they won it... or the dark project can be used with the highest tier of universal prefab to buy decorations that look like the class ships...

The old group finder had been a bit of a mess from trying to organize around level 50, 55, and 60 hard modes. But I have felt since the release of the revamped format that they never should have done away with minimum level requirements to queue for flashpoints. It should have continued to just enable them as players reach the level for them, as you said. And they only needed to remove the maximum level. Keeping all options available forever after they become available. So as you'd level up the options in the story/tactical queue would expand bit by bit until you have the full list available, and hard modes as well would get certain options added at 50, 55, 60, etc. until you have that full list available as well. On top of that, I also always felt like max level bolster should not have been the answer at all. They should have instead made use of level sync for all of them. Sync the story/tactical flashpoints to a fairly lenient target, like 4-5 levels higher than the flashpoint's level or something like that. And sync the hard mode flashpoints no more than 1-2 levels over the flashpoint's level to make the requirements stricter compared to story/tactical mode. Only consider using bolster if it can be uniquely configured for each flashpoint's specific level to meet a bare minimum requirement equivalent to cheap gear for that level. Freeing up the roles to be free form was kind of a necessity for convenience to help queue times, although it can create bad matchups... Honestly, the solution that I'll suggest uses something that was added long after the group finder revamp but I would think that people would manage just fine if the game provided some sort of generic toolset on the temporary ability bar for all players in a tactical flashpoint, giving us abilities along the lines of what they eventually came up with for Heroic Star Fortresses and other content released throughout KotFE / KotET. (In particular, if each player could place down a high-threat turret like the one from the Heroic Star Fortresses, a team without a tank could kind of fake their way through an encounter that otherwise benefits from having a tank in the team.) And yeah, it's weird that Colicoid War Games and Kaon Under Siege and... Was there another? I thought there were a few of them? But it's weird that a few specific flashpoints were left out from getting changed to tactical. They were left floating around as their original story mode with outdated rewards and at their original level, no sync or bolster.

The planetary option in Galactic Command covers both heroics and dailies. It would be nice, however, to have an interface there to just select what you want instead of getting one randomly chosen for you (and then rejecting / canceling it and asking for a new random selection if you want to try to get something else). And from what I've seen when clicking on it, it does seem like it might be missing a few of the options that it could be covering. I mean, it covers all planetary heroics from Coruscant / Dromund Kaas to Corellia (and I acknowledge that the lack of starter planet heroics in that is because those are just too quick and easy), and it covers the standard dailies areas like Section X, CZ-198, Oricon, and Yavin. Probably Black Hole too but I don't know that I've seen it come up. But I know that I have not seen Rishi dailies come up (although those would need a mission box added for a one-stop pickup, which I would propose should be located downstairs in the cantina (don't include the daily that starts and ends down there on the terminal, we'll just talk to the guy), haven't been there in 5.0 but I'm pretty sure those dailies are still just scattered about with no option to pick them all up in one place). And they could also consider adding back in the removed Ilum and Belsavis dailies that were lost in 4.0 and feature those as well. And on top of that they could also have a GSI dailies option for each of the planets that include them (and maybe add GSI to a few more planets as well).

I haven't seen this personally but I've heard that enough people have been backed up on that mission before that they were able to form an ops group to destroy him. (Too bad for the majority of that ops group that credit for non-ops content only goes to the 4 players in the same subsection of the ops frame as the one who got the first hit.)

Outside of Diablo 3, what non-MMOs force you to connect online to play single player? ... Xenoblade on Wii U, I suppose. I don't know if it actually forces you to be online but it does connect for some random side feature. Anything else? There's soloable stuff in swtor and that has definitely always been a selling point of swtor over a more traditional MMO (although I guess others have their share of soloable stuff too?) But I'm not really seeing "online single player" as its own standalone gaming genre.

When I paid for digital deluxe that's what I thought that it was. Just the in-game portion of the collector's edition package. (Obviously the actual collector's edition had a bunch of out-of-game extras as well. Let's be honest, the price tag wasn't so much on that thing because of in-game VIP lounge access, it cost as much as it did because of the Malgus statue (and to a lesser extent also the CD, the metal game case, and an exclusive book.)) Why would it be anything different, right? There's absolutely no reason to expect it to count as something different. So of course I was annoyed when I found that all that digital deluxe opened up access to was a vendor with one overpriced crappy speeder while the vendor with the stuff that someone might actually want refused to talk. A couple thoughts: 1) The lesser vendor should have had lots of stuff on it as well, keeping in mind of course that the selection would still be better on the better vendor. There's just no reason to care about VIP access if it doesn't actually count for anything. And the way they handled it VIP only counts for something if you got in because of the physical collector's box. 2) The lesser vendor is obviously accessible to all VIP users whether they paid credits on one character to get in or if they paid real money to have access on all characters. But the better vendor should be accessible to all VIP users who paid real money to have access. Granted, just as there is that 1 pet that collector's edition users get mailed to them that digital deluxe users do not get (1 digital perk out of the 7 total digital perks that users can get), there could be 1-3 vendor items (to be fair, maybe counting a full gear set as "1 item") that only the actual collector's edition users could get as well. But that's the maximum amount of difference that there should be between the digital perks of the two real money paid options.

Random thought I had when they were rehashing the upcoming gearing change: Add unassembled components into flashpoints / uprisings and maybe even some solo content as well. (Being careful about the number and trying to match (or hit a target just slightly slower than) the pace of earning the components from warzones, of course.) It wouldn't nullify ops as a fast-tracked option since it's only for the components, not a full unassembled piece. The solo and non-ops group PVE content would fit in as a slower grind just the same as PVP will.

Nightlife happened again one year later. Although I didn't touch it the second time around because they didn't add anything and I'd gotten everything from it the first time. They did skip nightlife after that though. We ended up with DvL instead.

It's not so much "better" as you've reported statistics from a couple actual observations of the machine's RNG in action while I was simply giving a theoretical expectation based on the known drop rates. (And to repeat the disclaimer there, actual results may end up with more or less of the good drops depending on your own luck with the game's RNG. The calculated expectation is not a promise that you will get those exact amounts.) Anyway, the number of certificates from your smaller sample does fall kind of close to the theoretical expectation. (You were luckier than the expectation in your larger sample though.) While the drop rates say 0.05% chance for a certificate, that is not representative of what percentage of your tokens turn into a certificate because there's also the 20% chance of getting your token back. So if you factor out the re-spin result the actual final totals predict that 0.0625% of your tokens turn into certificates. Your result was 1.056 times as much as the expectation. A correction: Your 0.066% is NOT saying that you had a 0.066% chance on each spin to get a certificate. It's saying that 0.066% of the tokens that you invested into the machine ended up as certificates after you were done spinning/re-spinning all of your tokens away. You still had a 0.05% chance on each individual spin. It's just that you get more than 3000 spins out of 3000 tokens. Somewhere around 600 of the 3000 spins would get you your token back, and then somewhere around 120 of those next 600 spins would get you your token back again, and then about 24 of those next 120 spins, and almost 5 of those next 24 spins, and 1 of those next 5 spins. So it was probably something more like 3750 spins in total from those 3000 tokens. These expectations were calculated based on a sample size of 2000 tokens. 1.25 certificates is 0.0625% of 2000 tokens. (That percentage stays the same when calculating the expectations for different sample sizes.) So in theory it's 1600 tokens per 1 certificate. (1 is 0.0625% of 1600.) That's 1.2 mil spent. Plugging 1600 as the sample size into my spreadsheet... Expectations will include ~340 green rep, 260 blue rep, and 90 purple rep, which are worth ~655,000 credits when sold to the vendor. (That's 54.58% of the initial 1.2 mil investment.) So that knocks the 1.2 mil down to 545,000 credits. That's to (in theory) receive 4 green scrap, 3 blue scrap, 2 purple scrap, and 1 certificate. (To repeat the point yet again, actual results can of course end up better or worse depending on your luck. Some may not see a certificate in a sample that size and some may see two of them.* RNG is a fickle beast. Some may have better or worse luck on the pricier rep drops and get more or less than 54.58% of their initial investment back as well. But for hundreds of users over thousands of trials the average of all of the results ought to be close to the calculated expectations.) * Hmmm.... Your sample of 10,000 tokens... 1600 goes into that 6.25 times, so that's the expected number of certificates for that sample size. You lucked out and got 8 of them (so you definitely got multiple within a span of 1600 tokens somewhere in there). That's 1.28 times as many as expected.

I'd propose that the event datacrons should be a mix of "placed adjacent to a pre-existing one" (somehow I suspect "technical issues" where they won't be able to dual-purpose the existing ones) and "brand new exclusive to the event" (like how the DvL event had 5 datacrons to find and they were all their own new locations (although the one on Nar Shaddaa was just at the halfway point to one of the regular datacrons)). They also don't necessarily have to all be "datacrons" exactly. They could use many different models, like for the various relics / artifacts collected in Telos's Alliance recruitment mission, as the objects that we're seeking out. They would probably also take a cue from bounty week and have a bit of combat in it as well, rather than only being about running around. (Maybe some missions are low-risk / low-reward and really are just about going somewhere simple and picking something up, or maybe one pushover guard shows up. Then some missions are medium-risk / medium-reward with slightly out of the way destinations and multiple guards who are each comparable to a bounty henchman. And then at the high-risk / high-reward level you'd have somewhat more out of the way destinations, maybe some points along the way to the destination where easy/medium enemies are added in for the event (not spawned in by doing anything, just waiting for players to come through), and a guard comparable to a bounty kingpin who spawns in when we try to claim the item at the end.

Pretty sure that's not true, or at least not in all cases. I noticed when I did Belsavis this way (Imperial side, to be clear) that it was asking for one less heroic than existed on the planet and one of the heroics I completed did not count towards it.

That's what I would think. I'm pretty sure I've seen non-human NPCs throughout the game who had cyborg features. Same idea here. Just because we're not allowed to create characters with certain options doesn't mean that the devs have the same limits when creating NPCs.

Should be really easy to do that for Huttball. Imp Vs Imp and Rep Vs Rep matches already show that the team names are not synonymous with a particular faction anyway. So mixed faction teams wouldn't be any different. It's just Rotworms VS Frogdogs, which implies nothing about faction. (I've heard that in normal Imp VS Rep matches each faction is always a specific team, but I've honestly never noticed that, don't even know offhand which is supposed to be which, and wouldn't notice the difference if they changed it to assign the teams randomly.) I would assume that mixed faction warzones would just use the "simulation war game" intro message that Imp VS Imp and Rep VS Rep warzones use. You would only ever have a chance to hear the intro that treats it like a serious cross-faction encounter when the system can find enough people queuing on both sides at the same time.

Estimates saying "this particular drop's average cost is X" are always kind of sketchy but if I recall the idea is that you derive it from the drop rate... Let's see, 0.05% chance on each spin to get a certificate... That's a 1 in 2000 chance. So the expectation (results can always be better or worse than this because of RNG, of course) is that for every 2000 tokens you run through the machine you'll get 1 certificate. 2000 tokens at 750 credits apiece is... 1.5 million. (So I don't know where they think they're getting 2.5 mil from. That amount is wrong.) Of course, the sketchy part about making an estimation like that is that this one result is not the only thing you obtained with those 2000 tokens / with those 1.5 mil credits. (Rarest and most expensive portion of it, sure. But you do get other drops for that money.) Punching 2000 into the old spreadsheet that I've still got sitting around from way back... The expectation for your 2000 spins would be that you'll end up with 900 losses, 400 returned tokens, 340 green rep, 260 blue rep, 90 purple rep, 4 green scrap, 3 blue scrap, 2 purple scrap, and 1 certificate. Of course then those 400 returned tokens get run through the machine, and you'll have some more returned tokens among that set of results so those carry forward as well. Ultimately after all of the tokens have been burned off the sum of the expected results of each of those rounds of using the machine will be 424.97 green rep, 325.00 blue rep, 112.50 purple rep, 5.00 green scrap, 3.75 blue scrap, 2.50 purple scrap, 1.25 cartel certificate, and 0.02 mount. And then you can also point out that if you've got the rep maxed out already you're going to be selling all the rep items to the vendor for 425 * 500 + 325 * 1000 + 113 * 2500 = 820,000 credits. Meaning that you only actually lost 680,000 credits to obtain 5 green scrap, 3-4 blue scrap, 2-3 purple scrap, 1 (maybe 2 occasionally) certificate, and most likely no mount (except on a very very rare occasion). You want something really crazy though? I've also got work in this spreadsheet where I had tried to really take it a step further and assume that credits returned from selling rep items always gets reinvested back into buying more tokens. Let's see... In that sheet, starting with a 2000 tokens initial investment and reinvesting all credits won back through rep items... In the end, after all tokens and all rep has been burned off, your expected average total will be 11.009 green scrap, 8.257 blue scrap, 5.504 purple scrap, 2.752 certificates, and 0.055 mounts. (Those numbers are a bit better than double the results before reinvesting like this.) So for the full investment of 1.5 mil (no banking the returns) you ended up with 11 green scrap, 8 (maybe 9 occasionally) blue scrap, 5-6 purple scrap, 2-3 certificates, and probably still no mount (except on a very rare occasion). It's just more work / more of a time sink to squeeze the most out of your investment like that.

I still say that when they made the 4.0 changes to the flashpoint queue they should have: 1) only removed the maximum levels, not the minimum levels (addresses the point you bring up) 2) bolster and sync to the originally designed level, not to the level cap (would have been less work for the devs when level caps go up, don't need to revisit the flashpoints to rescale up to the new cap, just leave them alone and let sync take care of it) I also kind of envisioned both leading up to and after the launch of 4.0 that the story/tactical flashpoint queue should have been split between at least 2 groups. All the ones with more time spent in cutscenes (Black Talon, Revan arcs, Ilum arc, etc.) grouped together in one queue. All the ones with very little time spent in cutscenes and more emphasis on getting straight to the point with a straightforward premise (Colicoid, KDY, etc.) grouped together in another queue. (In terms of what we have in 5.0, this would mean shifting those simpler / quicker flashpoints into the "uprisings" category.) Anyway, however many categories the tacticals are grouped into the idea would be that as you've leveling up you'd gain the option to start queuing for each of them around the same level that they were originally designed for (11, 17, 21, 25, etc. as is still listed on this outdated page) and you'd just never lose the option to queue for them. All content would still be scaled the same as it was originally designed. Bolster and sync would sandwich players into that specific level (with sync being assigned as a pretty forgiving assignment for solo/tactical instances or assigned as a much stricter assignment for hard mode instances). You could always potentially get grouped with someone above the flashpoint's intended range but you would never get grouped with someone below the flashpoint's intended range.

Legacy levels gained legacy xp at a specific fraction (I forget what it was) of the amount of regular xp that the missions were worth. Honestly, it's surprising that they didn't just select a different conversion rate and pull that trick again. (Or just expand the system out of legacy levels instead of making it a separate thing.) They reinvented the wheel and added this new reward type to missions... Creating something that feels kind of tacked on instead of feeling like a natural extension of previous gameplay.

I've been saying that there could be something like this anyway, within comments I've made about changes that the conquest system has needed since it was introduced. But if they could add it to the current game, everything from my "Conquest Mission Terminal" idea would translate into more CXP opportunities as well. Give every planet and daily zone a "Conquest Mission Terminal". Fill up each terminal with all of the location's dailies / weeklies / heroics (including GSI dailies / weeklies / heroics) as well a ton of new dailies / weeklies. This could include rampage missions (asking for specific groups of enemies or asking for enemies in a specific region of the planet), priority target missions (named enemies in achievements), a world boss mission, assault missions which call for a commander and some faction base guards (weekly for named commander, daily for any commander), craft/trade missions (NPCs on the planet want specific crafted goods like assembly components or prefab kits or war supplies), recon missions (new GSI-like missions), pvp missions (bunch of player kills near commander locations), and so on. For the DvL world bosses maybe there are also weeklies based around them. And then go through ALL conquest weeks and instead of having 1-2 out of 3 locations (or 1-3 out of 5 locations) covered by a heroics objective and maybe a rampage... Change it so that all conquest weeks always include an objective for each location (3 out of 3, 5 out of 5, etc.) which awards points for each completion of any mission from the location's Conquest Mission Terminal. Tons of opportunities in planetary activity for both conquest points and command xp there.