If you are dating someone who does not enjoy Star Wars puns, you may be looking for love in Alderaan places.

I humbly contend that much of the "heat" in this thread relates to interpretations of your intentions for posting this thread as much as Conquest balancing concerns, precipitated by your own original words: "I did not show that to boast. In fact, most of my guild is sick and tired of Bioware's conquest system, and it's insane preference towards crafting. Some of my guildies were so stressed all week they were dreaming of mats in their sleep. I never want to see another War Supply again." We understand that you do not want to see crafting as such a significant part of Conquest, no need to repeatedly keep bumping this thread to page 1 as a means of keeping it "hot", there is nothing more that needs to be said to answer your question other than "working as intended until Bioware says otherwise". Enjoy your gaming.

Very well stated except I did not say "wrong reasons", wholeheartedly agree the community can be better served as a whole regardless of OP intentions by balancing the system for the greater good of all, looking forward to any official Bioware responses.

Could this have any connection behind the strange silence from Bioware? Here is an interesting idea, nerf crafting so people can spend even more in Cartel Market to fund crafting efforts.

Listed no assumptions, the truth is out there, people can often agree to the same end without necessarily agreeing to the same means to justify that same end.

As shown in previous posts, always maintained there is lack of balance in the Conquest System for all players, crafting tweaking is certainly needed, it is simply that motivations are becoming clearer that larger Guilds have more to "lose" if Conquest System keeps the high grinding element that may fatigue players. For example, on our server, players in one large Guild are kicked from Guild if they do not meet CPs quota, which could easily be achieved through crafting, non-crafters had to keep grinding to keep their spot. Balance system, then see the place of each element within the system, such as PvE, PvP and crafting for the greater good of the entire gaming community, that is all I have advocated, nothing more, nothing less, at the moment crafting is king. As for the primary intentions of others, that remains to be seen, what is left unsaid by Bioware so far is coming through loud and clear.

There is no need to keep pretending you kept something to yourselves that most players already knew about regarding crafting and that doing this "magician's reveal" is somehow of benefit to the entire community, we can all see through that transparent attempt at genuine altruism, nice try though. The thread title answered itself as a rhetorical question through a wide range of intentions that may not necessarily be designed to promote the highest levels of the entire gaming community.

Since large active Guilds have a lot to gain from crafting, they also have the potential to lose from crafting, calling for a crafting nerf is significantly more about the upside to large Guilds who can, by your own admission, win through non-crafting means than a downside to our gaming community. By your own arguments then, if crafting is nerfed, your win strategies lose the most significant threat. We mostly agree there is no "scissors, paper, rock game" happening in the Conquest System, there is "bomb", which beats all, now you want "bomb" out of play since, by your own admission, you can "win" by any other means. You could have equally asked "Bioware: is zerging to win intended?" detailing how more people clicking more buttons is what Conquest System in its current form is truly all about. Thank you for making it increasingly evident what may be the true motivating spirit behind your intentions to start this thread calling for a crafting nerf, the rest of us will continue to do our best to promote the interests of the entire gaming community above the preferences of any particular group of players.

Since there are no interdependent choices between "game players" in "game theory" terms, crafting has been incorrectly identified as a "saddle point", will not expound "saddle point" here to go off-topic, plenty of resources on internet, crafting is simply the most time-efficient manner to gain Conquest Points. 1. Is crafting the most cost-efficient pathway? That is another story. 2. Is crafting the most enjoyable gaming pathway? Again, another story. 3. Does Conquest System need further tweaking? Still, another story. What the OP revealed is unsurprising to anyone who has applied basic math skills since many Guilds and players have been crafting to win since Conquest started, thank you OP for the clear breakdown. However, why we have so many pages in this thread is a mixture of people offering suggestions to similar questions above together with questioning intentions behind doing the "magician's reveal" here, since it was hardly a mystery to anyone who put some thought into the current system. Back to OP question, "Bioware: is crafting to win intended?" Though many Conquest System tweaking issues may still remain, no word from Bioware yet like previous adjustments to PvE and PvP, so fellow gamers, until Bioware announces any crafting tweaks, if you prefer to stay on the leaderboard through time-efficiency, keep on crafting to win.

Conquest "winning" is simply more people clicking more buttons, so instead of each Conquest week being: 1. Conquest competing. 2. ??? 3. Profit. ...it is evident that every Conquest week primarily becomes: 1. Conquest competing. 2. Crafting to win. 3. Profit. While Bioware may enjoy the increased Cartel Market sales, player participation, credit sinks etc, tweaking the Conquest system will continue with player feedback. Perhaps also, as players, we can individually define and/or redefine what "winning" means to us in terms of our unique talents, treasures and time opportunity costs.

Add <Force of Light> Guild Stronghold from Begeren Colony to the vanished list, is shown as "Offline" on Public Listing. Edit: with different members on different characters, it alternates between Flagship and Stronghold that is missing. Bug reported in game, hoping a fix arrives soon.

Imagine you enter a Warzone and there are players not participating, just using /dance or emote variations since they simply are here for the Conquest Points, would that diminish your gaming enjoyment? Please fix this situation of rewarding repeatable Conquest Points for Warzone completion with something that will enrich the gaming enjoyment of the wider community. Thank you kindly.

Same here, any help appreciated.

LilyJedi, you make way too much sense, thank you. Now say we agreed on a fair cap on distributing CPs to broaden gaming objectives, can we cater equally to someone who would prefer to RP for Conquest Points, which could be accounted for with initial suggestion of measuring active non-afk time played, or would some activities like RP be excluded from CP rewards?

PvE, PvP, RP, whoever, how about giving us all 10 Conquest Points (CPs) for every 1 minute of time played, totally fair, no one has any advantage or disadvantage and everyone enjoys what they prefer with their own precious game time. How about Crafting? Crafting is its own reward, no CPs for you! Add some random bonuses to surprise players, just moved your mouse to inspect the worst looking cosmetic outfit combination on Fleet, here's another 10 points, just tickled Satele Shan, there's another 10 points, reported a Gold Spammer on Fleet, that's worth 50 CPs! Any other fun suggestions?

<Force of Light> 480 members with 120+ active qualifying accounts, +10% max cap for Rep/XPs, seeking high quality people who enjoy enriching our gaming community, will help gear and train players for PvE or PvP. Website link: http://www.forceoflight.enjin.com May the Force be with you.

While ever players continue to collectively spend real money to buy in-game "fluff" such as mount re-skins, one-use dyes, cosmetic clothing etc this game may continue to survive, perhaps even thrive with additional game enhancements, as a licence to print Credits.

Do you know why in many MMO's average sustained dps is analysed for an actual live instance? It positively correlates to actual gameplay, burst dps on a dummy does not correlate anywhere near as well for combat effectiveness in actual gameplay, do you agree? Notice, neither are "facts", learn the difference between evidence and "facts", seems like you prefer to keep comparing apples to oranges, that is your choice. This is a forum, a place to discuss and share views, you repeatedly share an opinion on what this advanced class should be compared with the reality the company chooses to deliver. Your passive-aggressive tones and insults addressed to our awesome community together with the disrespect you show the company delivering the gameplay only detracts from the credibility of your opinion amongst the more enlightened members of our community.

OP starts another thread on same topic while ignoring or attacking majority community feedback. Time to find some perspective, parses on dummies are not "facts", they are simply a measure of static dps output that bears little resemblance to actual PvE or PvP gameplay. Shadows/Assassins are a utility advanced class with stealth, crowd control and an option to tank or dps. That is the reality, what the OP is seeking is one advanced class that can tank or dps at close to the highest levels in the game while maintaining a suite of valuable utility skills such as stealth, crowd control etc. Official announcements have been clear about no further class balancing in the short term, their business model seeks to grow profitability with added gameplay features, this answers the OP's rhetorical question, hopefully you can learn to respect this choice before you decide to start more threads on this exact same topic.

Give everyone who bought Treek through CM an option to switch on the Credit sign over Treek's head as a symbol so we all know they are awesome with their money. Give everyone who bought Treek with their Legacy and credits an option to switch on the Infinity sign over Treek's head as a symbol so we all know they are awesome with their time.

I have often pondered this question before, even posted a similar thread a while back. For example, in LOTRO, Moderators actively remind players in chat, take actions quickly and typically respond rapidly to any degeneration in chat. Even the presence of Moderators chatting tends to uplift the tones of discussions. Perhaps SW:TOR may not see it as a high priority for resource allocation? How about even if they asked volunteer moderators to assist? Would that be a reasonable approach as a starting point if limited resources is the primary constraint?

Welcome back, whatever you choose, enjoy the journey.

Content variety for a change of pace, some people still enjoy surprise discovery. Thank you Devs.

Best ways to implement pod racing would be what?

This is an awesome thread, thanks to all the contributors, just two quick questions: 1. I was of the view that different classes intentionally had unique strengths and weaknesses to optimally cater to different game content so would it not make more sense to bring the "right" type of tank for Nightmare PvE content rather than remove a weakness of Shadow/Assassin damage spikiness? Follow up question: 2. If Shadow/Assassin spikiness as a weakness is appropriately addressed, given its already superior class/mirror versatility for PvE and PvP content, why would anyone be interested in playing or welcoming any other type of tank? Look forward to your views, seeking some concise clarity, thank you in advance.