Problems continue on a per-toon basis following the restart.

Players on Star Forge are still having issues. Specifically on a character-specific basis I cannot log into Section X (some toons can, some can't), Rishi, etc. When the zone-in fails I am booted back to character select on that toon.

Daily per legacy or daily per toon? Could you please address the question anyone with an alt actually cares about? And if the answer is per legacy can you just go back to the drawing board, because then you still don't get it.

You know, I get that you've decided to iterate changes, and I get that you plan further changes for patches after this one, but tell me, please, how is this system, including changes you have contemplated for 5.9 or thereafter, better than the prior system? Except for people who play one or two toons, who can therefore cap by completing multiple one-time objectives, this system is and promises to continue to be worse in every way than the old one.

This is the core blunder of the 5.8 changes. That 5.8 debuted with Gree week was actually a good thing, since Gree week, with its limited palette of bonus activities, highlights the flaw of the philosophy demonstrated with the above goal. Diversity in the abstract is fine. But if you make it impossible for a player to cap all the toons they want to cap via the activity in which they enjoy participating, they're going to go find some other game to play. They're not going to investigate other activities within this game. An ops guy isn't going to suddenly start pvp'ing. A crafter isn't going to jump into pvp. Die-hard PvP'ers who never do ops aren't going to aug their gear with accuracy to cap a toon. They'll just go find another game. The entire purpose of Conquest is to motivate players to retread old content. For most there's one style of old content they're willing to tolerate for the nominal gains and associated camaraderie of Conquest. If you force diversity, if you force folks to do things in the game they have no intention of doing, they won't do them to cap Conquest. They'll just leave the game. My guild is the largest, most successful Conquest guild in the game. One of our most avid PvP'ers took one look at the conquest payouts and said, "forget it, I'm out." The big crafting guilds are losing players. My own guild (not really a crafting guild) didn't run more than a handful of KP lockouts yesterday - just no reason to. If this mishandling of activity-related rewards continues, every day will be like a Monday in the old system. Much reduced concurrency, much reduced participation, much reduced everything. My advice is this: Take every conquest activity in the game and figure out how many iterations of that activity you want to require to hit the weekly personal goal, divide the goal by that number, and award that number of points, per toon, per iteration. Get rid of per legacy rewards. If there's a particular activity you want to nerf into the ground (crafting, apparently) then limit the payout to daily, again, per toon. But then I should still be able to cap each toon just with crafting if that's my thing. Put the schematics for war supplies back to the way they were so that crafting is affordable and lacks the ginormous barrier to entry you've erected. If you want to foster diversity among conquest events, then create something extra for each conqeust event that rewards additional points, while ensuring that folks can still cap their toons (all their chosen toons, within reason) doing only their chosen activity. For example, Gree operation and Gree dailies for Gree week; Bounty contracts for Death Mark; Bonuses to GSF (above and beyond what's required to cap normally) for Clash in Hyperspace. Regarding opportunities for small guilds, the stratification of rewards is well meant, but originates in a misunderstanding of how the larger Conquest guilds operate. If my guildies need Iokath or CZ-198 to complete their Galaxy Conqueror titles, my guild will invade and win Iokath or CZ-198. It doesn't matter what scale of reward is offered for the different grades of planet. The title is our only motivator in planet choice in that instance. In the previous Conquest regime, we had a schedule worked out with default planet choices so my officers would know where to send the guild in each circumstance. Invasion targets were decided well in advance and were planned to ensure we'd hit every planet at least once a year while giving our guildies the greatest opportunity to cap as many toons as they could during each event. The point is, a smaller guild is never going to win a planet invasion except via crafting (assuming you restore crafting). It would be a better idea to create some parallel conquest-like or conquest-related activity for smaller guilds to participate and compete in that larger guilds wouldn't bother with (because they're going after planets). Or create a competitive "allied forces" roster and let smaller guilds compete to contribute points to a specific larger guild and share in the title if they're the winning contributor. There are lots of ideas along these lines that work better than what you've come up with. So, in summary, don't attempt to force diversity, let people cap toons doing just want they want and not something else, and rethink your strategy for inclusion of smaller guilds.

If the goal here was to keep players active on relatively few toons in order to hit conquest goals on those toons, then ... GREAT SUCCESS. Without spamming invasion force deletions, you'll have to keep busy all week to make Conquest and you'll only accomplish it on a few toons. Guilds with lots of unique active accounts will be sitting pretty. The price will be somewhat shocking, though. PvP no longer is the road to conquest, so participation wil be down. Groupfinder ops are no longer the way to conquest, so participation will be down. With no real chance of capping more than a handful of toons no one will run multiple ops, as you only get points once per day per legacy. There's no compensating mechanism to incentivize more difficult content, so there won't be any commensurate uptick in participation in HM runs. Conquest was a primary motivator of bustling activity on the servers and that just got damped down to an excruciating degree. <Unchained Wrath>, the biggest Conquest guild running, won't be doing lockouts under the current regime. But that leaves us with little we can do in large groups that's still rewarding. Without the lure of daily lockouts, or at least full runs, to put points on all our alts, there will be a lot lower participation across the board. Every day will be as dead as Monday. Please consider strongly changing daily repeatables to per-toon instead of per-legacy. That will restore lockouts and multiple operation runs per legacy. Without that I think you're going to see concurrency counts nose-dive.

I'm not clear on how lockouts give bigger guilds an advantage. As someone else above pointed out, you just need 8 people to run a groupfinder lockout (just like you do an op). Tiny 8-person guilds can run both ops and ops lockouts just like larger guilds can. Lockouts, whether planned or not, have become just another content mode. They offer easy 8-man group content in bite-size 15 minute installments. A valid reason to eliminate them from a Conquest standpoint is that guilds must do lockouts, rather than full runs, to be competitive on a non-crafting week. Is it worth removing a very popular game mode to remedy that requirement, though? [Edit] And, to top it off, the request to remove lockouts further makes no sense because the changes Keith and Eric listed pretty much eliminate all competition from Conquest. Conquest, as a competitive activity, is dead as of next Tuesday. You hit your point total, you get your goodies. The number one spot for each planet will still be won by the top Conquest guild that wants that planet. The smaller guilds still don't have a chance at it.

This is just SM. In HM the drop rate appears to be around every 15 seconds. And for all those scoffing at SM dps: sure, we get it, SM is SM. It's not difficult, it's not progression, it's just something to do. That being said, it's where 80% of the community spends its time, and some folks wouldn't mind having info that makes the run faster and/or more efficient. In both SM and HM most tanks kite the boss all over the place (well, usually around the edges of the room). In SM, at least, it's possible to not move him at all, and just drop all the puddles on top of each other (with proper use of cooldowns). Again, it's not progression, it's not difficult, it's for funsies.

The story mode fire puddle timers are as follows: 20 seconds 1 minute 1:30 2:00 2:45 3:15 3:50 4:25 You now have no reason to move the boss. So, please, stop moving the boss. Sincerely, Anyone with a reflect. P.S. If you actually need the last value, no one with a reflect (or adequate dps of any sort) is there, and you can disregard this message.

Cogent reports a major fiber cut in the D.C. area. Rerouting of traffic will have major Internet traffic impact in North America. http://status.cogentco.com/