Devs, if there is one sentence you should print out, frame, and put on the wall across your desks, it would be ^^that one.

Wrong, try again.

It appears that we need to spell it our more s l o w l y for some of you to pick up. The issue is that the changes cause the opposite of the stated goals. It is now LESS choice, instead of more. There is LESS chance and MORE grind for smaller guilds, and with the changes that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "looking at the others" (which was competitive and fun, BTW), because Top Ten is not necessary anymore, you "just" need to hit the cap, but this has been made tremendously more difficult. The math is all there, in these three threads The main issue is that this new conquest systems removed repeatable conquest goals for things we HAVE BEEN HAVING FUN DOING in the game, and replaced them with stuff THAT WE DO NOT ENJOY DOING, and that takes ACTIVE PLANNING, to boot, in order to achieve the cap on multiple alts and by extension hit the guild cap. Before the changes, between mostly two of us (we have 6 active players and another two semi-active in the guild) we managed to achieve Top Ten every time since the mergers (and are now at 120 encryptions). We weren't able to hit the guild cap under 5.8 yet, and are bound to fail again, courtesy to idiotic points per legacy per day and as the two main contributors we would need to make about 90k each (which would be _6_ chars, just in case you have trouble keeping up with the numbers). Go see if you can make the cap on main + 5 alts, and keep playing the stuff that is actually fun for you. I dare say you will find it impossible. Oh, and of course choice points of this will be quoted by the usual suspects out of context, so I will just add that by killing the rewards for running stuff that, while fun, is still basically old content, has made us play less, list less for FPs etc. and therefore will have detrimental effects on other people, as well, whether they run for conquest or not. As others have repeatedle stated, this is already obvious with queue times, even around Easter, with Double XP and holidays, participation was way down and it hasn't gotten any better. SNy

"We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked." -- Monty Python, Holy Grail (1975) SCNR, SNy

Sadly, the same thing can apparently be said about the people that designed this new, "improved" version of it. SNy

Aye. Time for the TDoCE, BioWare edition. Obvious candidates: "Improvement", "monitor". SNy

^This. You have put it much more eloquently than I could have, thank you. SNy

Clearly, you understood incorrectly. Has hitting the Top Ten been easy with small guilds under the old system? No, but it was possible, nonetheless. It was possible by running the multitude of alts through their individual goals, each getting their points into the sum, each qualifiying for the guild reward should the Top Ten be reached. We did this for the last 6 or 7 consequitive conquests before the change, with basically 6 (7) toons from only TWO PEOPLE (with some minor support from the others that came on for a few hours throughout the week) (see the post I made in the other thread). EVERY char that made their goal got flagship expansion items. That was 13+ for us over the last weeks. Now? With the idiotic change to daily per legacy, no more alts. We can TRY to reach the cap on 3, maybe 4 chars, but with the lack of repeatable objectives, and the legacy dailies for just about everything, it will be a massive grind. None of our other members are near the 150% bonus, so they will simply be UNABLE TO QUALIFY for their personal goal. Given that, it will remain to be seen if we can even make the 200k we need (we are at <80k ATM). Just run the math (it has been posted above), it will be a frigging GRIND whereas it was just running the content we were running, anyway. Speaking of which, the queues for FPs etc. empty. I have been waiting in queue with a healer (!) until I got auto-logged out while I was writing that other post, and that was with Double XP on and school holidays, to boot! Unthinkable the weeks before! So, get your facts straight, and stop spouting the nonsensical notion that any of this has been asked for or is even backed by data. Also, the math has obviously not been done, or they would not have reduced guild threshold by ~60% and personal by 25% within the first week of this "improved" system. It appears also heavily "optimized" for a +150% bonus and the apparent belief that everybody had racked up thousands of Invasion Forces. Hint for the devs: those small guilds, that you wanted to "help out" with this? Those that presumably had trouble to hit Top Ten before? That will be the same guilds that do not have +150% bonus and have not accumulated those huge amounts of Invasion Forces to burn. Neither will they be able to craft them now, what with the uncalled-for changes to the recipes. So, all in all, just when we got the hang of it, you drop this hot mess on us. I will also cancel my subscription, because this is LotRO all over again, and the sheer amount of dev communication (read: lack thereof) is the very same. Tanks, but no thanks. SNy

So... you're saying that you didn't even do the math before you came up with this? And here I thought I'd seen it all back when I played. LotRO. You haven't hired the people Turbine/SSG got rid of, have you? Would fit right in with this mess.

This just goes to show that well intended != well implemented. You said your intention was to improve the conquest system and make it more accessible to smaller guilds. Obviously, your definition of "improvement" differs enormously from the generally accepted meaning of the word. I am member of a small guild (8 qualifying accounts). Two of us have been actively participating in the conquest to unlock rooms in our guild flagship. With the occasional help of some of the others, but mostly between the two of us, we managed to reach the top ten for the last 6 or 7 weeks. We did so by carefully selecting the planet to invade, and used what it offered on each of our toons (6 on each account), generally quite overcapping their personal goals. The point was we logged in all of those characters in the course of the week, and gave each of them a fair bit of playtime, because it was fun to compete with the other, quite possibly bigger, guilds and come out ahead. We didn't play those toons because they would need any equipment, they don't. We played them because it gave us something to work for and had an element of competition to it. Apparently, you don't like it if people do that/have that, so you came and forced the atrocity onto us. Not only did you not make any of it an improvement, you achieved the exact opposite of what you presumably intended. We are not going to get near the 460.000 we would need for the smallest invasion this week. I am going to reach my personal goal on only one of my toons, and only because of the 10k bugged points. That is thanks to - not having the daily + weekly FP participation bonus - the crafting bonus apparently being a daily PER LEGACY (ridiculous!) - a general lack in repeatable objectives This causes us to not log in the characters for any extended time. We essentially stopped playing them, and apparantly we are not the only ones, because for those that still try to get into FPs, the queue time has lenghtened drastically. In short: you destroyed our (and probably a good amount of other people's) reason for playing most of the characters throughout the week. Well done. /slowclap PS. Just while finishing this post, I got logged out of the game, having been sitting in a master FP queue as a healer since before I started writing. No match during this time. Go figure.

Same here, error 208. 2017-10-24 18:19:11 INFO ManifestState=GetManifest: , current=-1/upcoming=0/required=0 2017-10-24 18:19:11 INFO Download: http://manifest.swtor.com/patch/patcher2017.patchmanifest (159.153.92.50 ) 2017-10-24 18:20:00 ERROR Patch manifest state error in patcher2017: DownloadFail (8) (e208) 2017-10-24 18:20:00 INFO Going Offline 2017-10-24 18:20:00 INFO Patching end 2017-10-24 18:20:56 INFO User presses exit - E:(false,Error Text) NE:(true,Unable to retrieve patch data. Please check network connection. (208)) 2017-10-24 18:20:56 INFO Closed launcher Yeah, my internet connection is fine, thanks. YOURS appears to be b0rked.

Ouch. This reminds me all too much of another company that failed at maintaining/updating their stuff and their costumers on too many occasions. You can probably guess which from my forum name. BW, you haven't, by any chance, acquired a handful of people from that other company's multiple layoffs on a bargain, and now wish you hadn't? Heh. I had made my own version of that after the fallout described above: Sad to see stuff like that repeated. SNy

I must say I am bit baffled. When I said "check the settings file" I meant file as in FILE, not some setting in some GUI program, especially if it's greyed out. You could have, you know, stopped the process, checked the FILE for the language, changed the language in the FILE and restarted. A bit strange to speak of "two wasted days" when it is apparently PEBKAC at work. SNy

Obviously, what you want to do is to check the launcher.settings file for the language it is set to. While one would naturally want to leave this untouched, it seems reasonable enough that the launcher repair replaces that file to add some quirks settings that enable it to work. So, while a warning might be helpful, I think it is not out of the question for those affected to actually check the file contents before running the new launcher and waiting hours for a download. HTH, SNy

I updated the patch to support the crypto (enhanced provider name and type). link to post You can apply the patch to wine-staging and compile with it yourself and it will work fine (I currently run it). If it gets accepted, you can compile it as-is. SNy

The core issue is that they started to use a SHA256 hashed certificate. This needs to be supported by the crypto provider in the OS and activated either via importing the certificate correctly, or doing the right thing in the code (description earlier in thread). As for wine, I submitted a one-liner patch to wine-staging (that one-liner is also to be found earlier in the thread, inside a SPOILER tag). HTH, SNy

This is getting OT, but to help you out: [strikethrough]I just discard the return value of VerifyImageHash. Likely a very bad idea.[/strikethrough] Need to check with wine devs, of course, but it appears a fairly new addition. Maybe the context initialization is at fault (see linked SO thread). HTH, SNy

OK, so I patched my version of wine (I ignore the signature) and for now I can start the launcher. As for Windows, I did read up on it a bit and I believe the certificate check might be related to what is discussed here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4191312/windows-cryptoapi-cryptsignhash-with-calg-sha-256-and-private-key-from-my-keyst Maybe the installer / lauchner repair whatchamalcallit should set the crypt stuff up correctly on the clients. SNy

It should suffice if they un-break it, as clearly it's their fault, seeing nothing else has changed. SNy

The launcher exits with the certificate failure before even attempting to write any log entry. That's why D2.0.1 does not appear. SNy

Log from today: https://pastebin.com/7fcbRTTK Attempts with the launcher from repair utility D2.0.1 don't even show up, the cert error kills it outright. SNy

I run this on linux + wine. Have been running this fine, so you need not tell me it's not supported.

[quote=Jerba;9376131 Which Launcher Repair Utility did you use? Note that they updated the Launcher Repair Utility, P1.8.2 is the old version. You can get the new version D2.0.1 here. Uh, so... which on is the current one, now? D2.0.1 breaks the certificates, P1.8.2 sits there "Initializing download manager".

Thanks, all others post that old link. But, seriously, BW? How difficult can it be to a) put that CDN on https (you expect use to download some stupid binary **** on an unsecure line, thanks!) b) put up a link to the current version, best directly on the server as LaucherRepairWatchamacallit.current.exe? Please? With sugar on top? Oh, and of course, the certificates are OK again, but the launcher still fails to do anything. Resolved, my ***. SNy