Jump to content

EzioMessi

Members
  • Posts

    1,885
  • Joined

Reputation

10 Good
  1. The rating requirement for Master Mode flashpoints canNOT be 242, that is far too high. It should be 236, or 230+augments. 242 isn't even necessary for the hardest FPs such as Lost Island and Rishi, and any wipes for players in 236 gear or above are caused by lack of skill which vote-to-kick can deal with. Additionally, it'd be really nice if the classes that have overtuned DCDs got their DCDs nerfed. Bioware literally gave Merc players free Ranked rewards for this season, and that is not fair to other players at all. Likewise, some classes such as Lightning Sorcs would really like not being one-shot by everything that moves. The rest looks good though.
  2. Either do Option 3 and make bolster equal to 242, or bring back Expertise gear. The PvP gear grind is absurdrigjt now, and if you're concerned about making it "too easy" and hurting the raisin community, the only solutions are to either leave the grind as is and make bolster huge, or separate the PvP grind entirely.
  3. "Sorry we only balance by target dummies" -Bioware 2017
  4. As another followup to this question, is there any plan to take the storyline away from the "EVERYONE RULES THE GALAXY!" mess we have right now? There is no logical way to introduce a plausible threat into the game without writing out the entire Eternal Alliance/Empire and its Eternal Fleet, because every problem can be solved by just throwing hyperintelligent ships at it. Just look at how many "why can't I crush both the Republic and the Empire??" threads that Iokath spawned; a good story can't be written when every conflict can be won by the player pressing their "I win" button.
  5. While I do agree PvPers are far more toxic to other PvPers than they should be, please don't even start on "PvPers are never pleased". Literally if they just balanced the classes more often than once every 6 months, got rid of FoTMs within a month instead of taking YEARS and just gave us Ranked and/or OWPvP rewards that aren't Cartel Reskins, most PvPers would be happy. An additional warzone and/or OWPvP map every 1.5 years would be cherry on top of the cake. On the other hand, we've had 2 full years of story, and story players are complaining that they have to wait four months for the next story update. So let's not pretend PvPers are "hard to please", when this game's story players are the loudest, hardest to please crowd; we can literally coast on by with 0 new content as long as existing content is actually balanced. (Can't make any comments about PvErs being impatient here though, especially the raiders. Raiders have waited 2.5 years for a new Op, and got a single boss instead, so they have every right to complain. And then there's the poor GSF community )
  6. That johnny/billy bullsh*t is their most transparent baiting attempt, and it's pretty funny when you consider that it does the exact same thing they keep insisting the pro-merge crowd are doing: assuming that the other side's complaints are somehow less important. Say you want merges, they say that those are harmful to guild assets. Say you want merges with guild assets solved, they say you can't assume they'll be solved. Say you want free legacy transfers off of depopulated servers and their response is a very open "but what about meeeeeee" response, questioning why players should get free transfers off of dead servers and this imaginary johnny who hates the "cesspool" shouldn't. And then they have the audacity to claim that YOU'RE the one who's uncompromising.
  7. Okay this is the 7th or 70th time I have seen this post, who or what in the name of the Force are Grenkk and Sellexith????
  8. That's good to hear, with this we at least have concrete examples of you guys listening to our feedback over your own metrics. Even though KotFE and KotET are considered to be your most successful expansions, you are making sure to introduce varied content based on our feedback, instead of continuing to focus on pure story/solo content. Thank you! Is it possible we can get a clarification on what TUX said though? I personally have played through all major expansion releases since 2.0 (except for joining the KotET party pretty late), and I can assure you that the number of active players I have seen for any of the expansions was RotHC > KotFE > SoR > GSF > GSH > KotET. And in terms of longevity, GSF, KotFE and KotET were both at the bottom of the ranking (the former two I noticed a surge in activity at release followed by a massive drop in a month, for KotET I joined too late to judge a drop-off at any point). Why do many players have experiences that vastly differ from Bioware's metrics for expansion success? Is this being measured it by subscriber numbers, active player count, number of expansion purchases or CC revenue? I doubt it's subscriber count because KotFE release hit a 3-year peak in subscribers, while the earnings call following KotET mentioned a significant drop in sub count. And I sure hope you're not measuring it by the number of expansion purchases upon release, because that'd kinda be "cheating" for KotFE/ET, since those are purchased by simply subscribing, and even players who don't play either of two would be forced to get them if they were subscribed during release. Some clarification on the metric would be nice, because the players' experiences don't match up with what's being told to us. Finally, I had an additional question. Is there a metric for how many players replay KotFE/ET? Due to them being a one-size-fits-all story, a lot of players made very vocal complaints about how it has no replay value and they will never subject more than 2 characters to that expansion, and so on, and I am curious to see if this matches up with what Bioware sees in the actual gameplay metrics. I have a stinking feeling they have a metric like "number of copies of expansion that got purchased in the first six months of release" or something like that, hence why KotFE/ET are the two most successful (because nearly every active player "purchased" them). Hopefully Charles will clarify if that's the case.
  9. He fit very well into EA's coffers, that's probably it.
  10. Well, on Voss, Vitiate's Voice was trapped by Sel Makor, who's as much of an Eldritch Abomination as he is, so he probably had to concentrate most of his power in that Voice, not on his Dromund Kaas Voice, or on Valkorion. And thanks to that, he was weakened enough for the Jedi Knight to strike down, which could very easily explain away him not being able to puppeteer an army to stop the JK, and the JK and T7 were both immune to his puppeteering anyways. As for Valkorion on Zakuul, it's been stated that he would go kinda "comatose" ish for months at a time, implying he had a finite amount of attention to divide amongst his Voices, with Valkorion being no exception.
  11. I am fine with both sides coming across as the bad guy the whole time. That's kinda been a theme in SWTOR from the very beginning, with corruption and people like Chancellor Saresh in the Republic. I just need a good reason to actually side with one of them. In vanilla we all had good reasons for the storylines to go the way they did. Most Jedi and Sith characters owed their lifestyle to one or the other faction and among the others they either had good reasons to stay with their factions, or had choices to defect/abandon them even if they're marked as "Republic" or "Imperial" for all intents and purposes. The way it was done here, there's no reason for ANY Outlander to side with EITHER of them. If I am an Eternal Peacekeeper, I wouldn't want to join hands with one of the warmongering factions. If I am Eternal Emperor, I would want to annihilate both fleets right then and there as a warning to anyone who treads on my planet. If they had just used the disabling of the Eternal Fleet as a bargaining chip, the entire choice would look so much more sensible. Have both Republic and Imperial Fleets moving in for the kill on the disabled Eternal Fleet, and both sides offer to stop the other from getting to the Eternal Fleet. Simple as that, and now we're forced to make a choice that we may not necessarily want to.
  12. There have been two different time periods where SWTOR has been a primarily solo/story focused MMO. The full year after launch was the first, and KotET/FE was the second. Both these times saw sub declines. The first period declined from 1 million to around 500k, and the second caused a one-month long spike (to their "highest in three years" aka 500k) followed by a sharp decline because solo players insisted that a 2 year long series of purely story content wasn't enough. So anyone insisting story players are the "whales" has no data to back that up. Simply stereotyping your own group's wants and needs doesn't change the fact that the game's revenue has declined every time the group got focus. Hopefully they do the right thing and follow what made RotHC great; regular group content that uses storylines for flavour, as opposed to focusing on the solo player and making content with 0 replay value.
  13. There is an easy fix to this: 1. If a player has less than 5 medals, give them 0 rewards 2. Ignore rule 1 if the player has the backfill medal. Problem solved.
  14. In a 10 minute fight a difference of 500 DPS is a difference of 300,000 damage done. That's very easily the difference between a dead boss and a wiped team. This becomes way more apparent in fights where the player can't pull off their perfect rotation every time, or in fights with a lot of outgoing damage where the Merc is using their heal2full off-GCD abilities while the Sorc has to waste time bubbles and casting self heals. It also becomes much worse when looking at burst phases, where the Sorc can have their entire rotation get outbursted by nearly every other burst class in the game.
  15. Thank you for this. Between Galactic Command and this example, you've given us a pretty good idea of what the devs consider to be too much sunk cost. While I still think that the players' feedback about GC was early enough to have abandoned or heavily modified GC, I can see why the KotFE couldn't be modified that much. Is it possible we can get a description on the thought process that went into the "story only, literally nothing else" direction the game took these past couple of years, and when and why did you decide to change?
×
×
  • Create New...