In the top level of the Watchtower, the two side consoles are now barely clickable (it will not register places to click almost anywhere) and there is no clickable area on the back-middle console. This is the second time I have reset this mission. The first time, the back-mid console was clickable, but the central force field did not lower to allow the central objective to become clickable. All three (side, side, and mid-back) consoles remain blue after they have been clicked as well.

The new (100k) conquest threshold did not grandfather in last week's rewards, meaning that a number of characters that achieved 50k conquest (and properly received their "time of completion" rewards) did not receive their end-of-conquest rewards. I filed separate tickets for each of these in-game, but this really must be addressed across the entirety of the game. Particularly irritating is the fact that even the character upon whom was used the "Personal Conquest" weekly loyalty reward did not receive the end-of-week prizes, probably because this was not correctly set to 100k.

Hey there, In addition to the keybind "reset" applying to previously saved keybinds (i.e. saved keybinds no longer can be loaded), Quickbar 5 and Quickbar 6 have been mysteriously taken out of their correct places in custom user interfaces. Additionally, setting a new keybind to switch to Quickbars 4 and 5 does not work. I set mine, for instance, to "V" -- nothing else is set to "V" and when I hit V, nothing switches. I confirmed this on separate PCs and through setting/applying different keybinds.

I think that's also a good idea!

I actually quite like that idea, speaking for myself. I'll definitely bring that up at the next meeting. That having been said, the problem that small guilds face isn't that they can't unite to bring down commanders; it's reputedly PVP trolling, so eliminating that = significantly reduced issues.

The good news is that with the inclusion of enemy commanders on non-PVP instances, even "me and my alt" guilds would be able to make progress on flagships at an increased rate without having to rely on conquest as a system for guild expansion.

The Guildmaster Hotspot community recently met to discuss ideas and plans for our guilds and wishes for implementation of changes within the game. In this thread, we will share suggestions and reiterate the Quality of Life requests first mentioned in this previous thread. We do, moreover, have a few additions. Guildmaster Recommendations: July 2020 Community Climate - The Hotspot community has been happy to see that some known harassers and ToS/CoC offenders have been facing punishment, but would like to reiterate the need for the customer service community to take seriously the reports of harassment, doxxing, and Code of Conduct violations that are submitted by guildmasters (and our guildies). While some improvement is excellent to see, we hope to continue to see improvements in this arena and applaud efforts on this front. Conquest Changes - The general consensus is that the conquest changes are good in some ways, but extremely poorly balanced. Guilds with a variety of sizes (little mini-guilds through large yield) have some differences in the specifics of their opinions, but we are agreed on the fact that the balance needs to be adjusted as a serious priority for the developers. - Small guilds in particular acknowledge that the it allows for more contributions from a smaller member base and allows for conquest not to be especially a source of anxiety, but we as a whole suggest that flagship plan acquisition be divorced from conquest. This allows for small guilds to continue to expand their flagships while preserving the real competition value of conquest, and allows for some "de-nerfing" of conquest without hurting our small guild comrades. Breaking apart conquest from flagship expansion can reiterate that both conquest and flagship development are meant to be long-term guild goals and collaborative, rather than an “easy win” in either case. On idea that has been supported extensively is to install enemy commanders on PVE instances so that conquest can be separated from flagship upgrades would be an easy way to accomplish this. *Note that this is only relevant if conquest is “de-nerfed" and should not be implemented otherwise. - One of the key issues that guildmasters are seeing is that, particularly in light of the influx of new Steam players, spam-guilds are spamming invites constantly; speaking personally, I have heard from more players that they are being slammed with invites from the moment they spawn in than I ever have before (and, especially during Double XP, I have heard a *lot* of complaints on this front; they aren't nearly as bad as now). What is happening is that the spam-guilds are mass-inviting every player on starting worlds, using them to farm conquest (through normal leveling, etc.) until they hit ~level 40, then the players are kicked to make room for new fresh newbies who aren't in the mid or high-level conquest brackets. In other words, while it's nice that new players are able to succeed in conquest, they are pulling in *massively* more points proportionally through normal play than any level 40+ players. This is not only poor game balance, but is promoting horribly bad behavior among guilds -- new players routinely point out that being spam-invited, or even worse, accepting these sorts of invites only to be kicked a week later by no fault of their own -- is extremely off-putting and makes them wish to seek out other MMOs. - Corollary to this, we strongly suggest a reinvestment in the idea of planetary conquest and rampages/heroics/missions with extra conquest being restricted to a few planets. Group play has been severely and detrimentally affected by the fact that all planets have rampages and quest/heroic options available for equal levels of conquest, and across guilds, we no longer see friendly community group-ups to attain conquest objectives (bye-bye to conquest worldboss hunts, for instance). Constricting the list of planets with rampages/missions to those relating to the week's conquest (as they were previously) would be wonderful and encourage players to be more social to achieve objectives, rather than the apathy from players we are all perceiving now. Having the same planetary objectives week to week makes for very dull conquest. - Along similar lines, group content ought to be upscaled in terms of point assignments, probably as part of a general rebalancing. In other words, completing a VM raid should be worth more than ~2x taking a taxi… Guild Alliances and Channels - Several members pointed out that in-game guild alliances could be helpful or fun, but it was generally agreed that this has a great amount of room to devolve into popularity contests, and would be difficult to properly maintain/implement. Such alliances instead, we believe, ought to be managed through Discord. - This having been said, we strongly support some overhauling of the in-game channels in a few, specific ways: Fix the issue where channels with passwords disappear if their owner is not online. Implement a little directory of available channels (indicating if a password is required). Allow channels to be cross-faction. < This one is huge for guilds and we would all be eternally grateful for its implementation. Quality of Life - Once again, we continue to plead for the plethora of changes in this thread and have not changed our stances; what follows is an addendum to the thread linked here. Many of our GMs expressed a certain level of regret that not even one of these have yet been addressed either in patches or even discussed in the recent livestream. To reiterate and add to a few of the points: o Guildwide permissions for guildbanks: This would be a useful ability for some smaller/egalitarian guilds – one checkbox could set the same permissions across all guild ranks (or, alternatively, a button could be pressed which matches all roles’ guildbank perms to the active view, which then could be altered if GMs wanted). o Recruiter permission as a role; active recruiter will not only be the GM in the guild lookup. This seems obvious, and as if it's glitched rather than how the feature was supposed to work, given that it's a role permission. o In-guild customizable awards/medals: Any kind of special designation beyond roles (i.e. guild-chat colors, actual little “medal” icons that can be attached to the roster entry, etc.) so that guilds can award particular people for awards relevant to their communities. E.g. “player of the month” as a persistent “ribbon” attached to someone in the roster where the guild awards such a title. o Guild languages as a selection in lookups -- especially helpful on Darth Malgus, where there are plenty of "non-server language" Czech, Turkish, Russian guilds, etc. (This would also be really nice in the U.S. to indicate that international members are welcome, and once the in-game guild directory is implemented, will be VERY helpful for people searching for guilds in particular languages). Forum Fixes to Profile - The current profile on the forums includes such “useful” information as your ICQ and AIM screen names, but no Discord, for example... - Expansion and fixing of this would be nice. I haven't seen an ICQ number since roughly 2007, so that's something. Also, AIM doesn't exist any more... Thank you to staff for your attention and consideration, and thank you to the community in advance for (constructive) discussion sans drama.

There isn't. Get grinding.

Agreed. WoW has an opt-in directory feature (and keeps people from wanting to join dead guilds that still sound cool.

Are you suggesting it as an advertisement, or a directory? We went back nd forth at the summit over whether to recommend a physical object directory or to have it in the guilds tab when you hit [G] (if you don't have a guild yet).

Agreed. I appreciate the various privacy concerns raised in the thread elsewhere, but I echo this sentiment. I also agree with Xor above. It's a common tactic to behave poorly then quit in hopes that you won't be apprehended in time for a ban.

Awesome! And any other ideas, just shoot my way (and for future scheduling). Nice to see the crossovers across the different SWTOR communities.

That's a really awesome idea! I'll bring that up at the next summit. Honestly, that might be a nice thing separate from the guild getting a copied percentage of player earnings, too...

Agreed. The "worst" thing that would come from this would be that people with "only my alts" guilds would get a nice little pile of credits deposited into their guildbank on top of the credits that they already would have earned for their quests. Moreover, I think there's value in making it automatic, because some players (like some in this thread, if I might make a supposition) might assume it's being deducted rather than generated in addition to the credits they would have received anyway. If they mistakenly believe this, guilds that enable the function would (incorrectly) appear "greedy." (Never underestimate the power of newer players [and old, to be fair...] to misunderstand features.)

Yeah, it should be optional if it has any kind of effect at all on a player's earnings for sure. If it's an additional amount, though, and doesn't affect players in any way at all, and just is a bonus for players completing quests, it seems like it should be standardly applied to all guilds, so that it doesn't make guilds look "greedy" when they aren't taking anything from players at all.