And then you'll be complaining there are no pops. This is an MMO and people are going to group up and play together. If you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't be playing a MMO?

Congrats Vulkk!!! I agree that this is well deserved props to you!

Eric, I feel that a 3 month sub would be sufficient for those that want access to HK-55 and the relevant Chapter. Not only for those that had been unable to be subbed during the original time, but for those that are newer to the game. I don't feel that new people playing SWTOR should be, in some ways, punished for not playing the game back then. For instance, one of my children was too young to play back then, IMO, but now he's allowed to sub with his own money. Now both my boys are old enough and will most likely purchase the 3 month sub when school is out for the summer.

Ok, that makes sense to me. I guess the ships that offer different component builds, and there isn't another duplicate ship option from the CM, they're just giving the information depending on your preference for flying that ship - I know some people prefer to fly Bombers only in DOM and not TDM, as an example. Yes, I understand that, but was more trying to understand why the first post was offering different builds depending on TDM or DOM when we can't change our ships once the match is set, as it was for the same ship. But I got it now, the CM option or just using that ship for one particular match type.

There's been some talk about this technique and build lately so I decided to look into it further and found this old thread. I think others need to read it but also watch the short video so they understand fully that what they are calling a Hack, isn't one, it is WAI since Bio hasn't done anything to change it. Also, I have a quick but probably stupid question. I see it in many guides, some new and some old, of different builds depending on if it is a DOM or TDM and it always confuses me. We're only able to have one build active on a ship at a time and since we have no idea which map we'll get, or even if the map will be a DOM or TDM, do people just decide to only do one build and use it for only one of those instances and ignore it if a different map comes up? Or, are you able to make changes to your ship before a match starts but once you know what map you're playing? I don't believe the latter is possible, but maybe it is and I'm just not aware on how to do it?

Knight Vigilance or Watchman (I love them both) Not sure as I play what I like so see above Tanks are about to take a hit but there's only one choice with Knight, so... I believe this will still be the better one. Actually I prefer the Sith Armor over the Jedi Armor.

I used it myself a little over a month ago when I got a new phone, so if it's not applicable any longer, than it was very recent.

https://help.ea.com/en-us/help/star-wars/star-wars-the-old-republic/swtor-security-key-faqs/ I'm not making light of your situation or what you went through, but that link would've helped you in avoiding having to deal with CS at all. Maybe bookmark it as you will have the issue again - whether your phone breaks, get a new phone, or it gets reset again.

I honestly took his remark as sarcastic as there are some, like here on the SWTOR forums, that frequent the LOTRO forums saying the game is dying, in maintenance mode, devs not doing enough, and etc.... Fact is, the game is still going strong and is in its 11th year. New players sign up every day. I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon, unless Standing Stone decides it has done as much as it can - and I don't think that's the case.

Released and can get it from the new conquest decoration vendor on the Fleets.

Yup, and they are having their 11th Anniversary Event right now. Oh, and they have 10 servers available, though some are more active than others... Point is they haven't had to downgrade in quite awhile due to this maintenance mode.

And in LOTRO they released Mordor expansion with over 300 quests alone, not to mention deeds, raids, and etc (Aug 2017). They also just released Strongholds of the North last month with over 125 quests, and again not to mention deeds and whatnot. LOTRO has a cheaper subscription as well. I know there are some here that don't like the game, UI, engine and etc.... But there are also some that do or those that have never given it a chance. The plug-ins are also really good so for those that want to change the UI a bit, can. In less than a year LOTRO has given their customers 2 new areas to explore with a TON of content. What has SWTOR done again? Oh....right.

I have 3 characters at level 115 and doing the Mordor expansion currently and none have HAD to do any group content to get there. It is very easy to skip the few "grouping" situations and still continue with the Epic storyline and any side quests as well. It is almost impossible to do all content in LOTRO without having multiple characters as there is just SO MUCH to do. I actually find it a much more pleasurable game when compared to SWTOR just for the amount of content available - group or solo. For those interested in the differences between F2P/Preferred/VIP, see the link. https://lotro-wiki.com/index.php/Account_Types

And not everyone has or can afford 6 SH's so the bonus shouldn't be considered when factoring the pts. It's a bonus for a reason.

You could always ask one of the progressive raiding guilds to take you on a SM run with parse and if you handle yourself well enough, they may opt to take you on a HM run without costing anything. If you think you can do it, then prove to them you can by running SM with them first. The most they'll say is no, but you may find one saying yes - you just have to ask around.

So Eric and team, what will you do to stop the Larger Guilds from being able to still use this "not intended" and "exploit" going forward? My guess; nothing. You'll do nothing. Go back to my first post that you started this particular conversation on and you'll see that colored part above is what I was getting at. In the chat they had Eric clearly stated that part of the reason things were being bound by legacy was due in part to; Crafting and OP Lock-out farming. However, with OP lock-out farming it was a "not intended and exploited" feature we the players were taking advantage of. That is the biggest load of BS that they've come out with yet, considering any other EXPLOITED areas of the content they normally ban people for and close-up the exploit fairly quickly. If OP Lock-out was an exploit, well, what is their excuse for allowing it to continue for years and never once CALLING IT THAT???? Now, they've gone ahead and put a name to OP Lock-Out Farming = EXPLOIT! The Larger Guilds are still able to do it due to the overwhelming number of players they have. Are they going to start banning all these players that only do the last boss and not the full OP? They should, as according to Eric it is now an EXPLOIT! Continue to twist what I say or what I question all you want. I've given up on you actually understanding anything anyone posts on these forums that don't agree with what you think or want 100%. I, like others, have now put you on ignore. You're not worth my time any longer.

I never said it wasn't nor was that the point I was making. Reading comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours, apparently.

The changes only stopped the guilds from using OP Lock-outs with Alts. Reread what I wrote and you'll see the changes didn't STOP the Larger Guilds from doing OP Lock-outs with their extensive player base.

Posted this in the other thread but in case Keith decides to read this thread again, maybe he'll provide an answer? Yeah, I know.... not likely. What truly amazes me is that Eric, and the rest of the team, believe that the OP lock-out will stop, or has been stopped. It hasn't. In fact it helps larger guilds while punishing smaller-medium and smaller guilds completely. Just an example: Large guild does an OP run in the morning hours and at the last boss someone drops. Another member enters and they complete that run. Later on there are 50-60 guild members online. The person that dropped that morning gets 7 people into the last boss, drops, and a person replaces them. They then start another OP last boss run, drop, and someone replaces them. When they are then down to the last few people that need the run, the person that dropped stays in the OP and finishes the last boss run. Now the Larger guild is able to have more members complete the Operation and in a much quicker time period as the majority only have to fight the last boss and are able to move onto other Conquest Objectives and complete those as well. Binding behind legacy isn't hurting the Larger guilds whatsoever. Sure, they are in the same position as the rest of the guilds that they can't do these things on their Alts, but the fact that they just have, in general, more members will always keep them a step ahead and continue to use what Eric has now, all of sudden and out of the blue, decided was an "exploit". If it was truly an "EXPLOIT" then they would've done something to the Operations to not allow someone to drop and the Operation to then be completed by a member with a different legacy name. Or hey, why not just REMOVE Operations from the Conquests completely???? To claim something now, after years, as "not intended" or an "exploit" is just incredibly insulting. Smaller-medium or small guilds themselves??? They had to rely on Alts as they didn't have that many members either online at the same time, or in general in the guild. They may have, at most, 20-30 members on throughout the day. That forces these guilds to do the full Operation, which can take hours, leaving them less time to work on the other Conquest Objectives. So Eric and team, what will you do to stop the Larger Guilds from being able to still use this "not intended" and "exploit" going forward? My guess; nothing. You'll do nothing.

What truly amazes me is that Eric, and the rest of the team, believe that the OP lock-out will stop, or has been stopped. It hasn't. In fact it helps larger guilds while punishing smaller-medium and smaller guilds completely. Just an example: Large guild does an OP run in the morning hours and at the last boss someone drops. Another member enters and they complete that run. Later on there are 50-60 guild members online. The person that dropped that morning gets 7 people into the last boss, drops, and a person replaces them. They then start another OP last boss run, drop, and someone replaces them. When they are then down to the last few people that need the run, the person that dropped stays in the OP and finishes the last boss run. Now the Larger guild is able to have more members complete the Operation and in a much quicker time period as the majority only have to fight the last boss and are able to move onto other Conquest Objectives and complete those as well. Binding behind legacy isn't hurting the Larger guilds whatsoever. Sure, they are in the same position as the rest of the guilds that they can't do these things on their Alts, but the fact that they just have, in general, more members will always keep them a step ahead and continue to use what Eric has now, all of sudden and out of the blue, decided was an "exploit". If it was truly an "EXPLOIT" then they would've done something to the Operations to not allow someone to drop and the Operation to then be completed by a member with a different legacy name. Or hey, why not just REMOVE Operations from the Conquests completely???? To claim something now, after years, as "not intended" or an "exploit" is just incredibly insulting. Smaller-medium or small guilds themselves??? They had to rely on Alts as they didn't have that many members either online at the same time, or in general in the guild. They may have, at most, 20-30 members on throughout the day. That forces these guilds to do the full Operation, which can take hours, leaving them less time to work on the other Conquest Objectives. So Eric and team, what will you do to stop the Larger Guilds from being able to still use this "not intended" and "exploit" going forward? My guess; nothing. You'll do nothing.

SF - GSF Every day is about the same. Normally anytime after 2p Eastern you'll start seeing pops, though at a trickle at first. Maybe 2 an hour. Anytime after 5p Eastern you'll start to see more frequent pops, usually 5+ an hour and even sometimes multiple matches taking place at once. The que slowly stops popping anywhere from 1a-2a Eastern. Don't ask about which side as it flip-flops ALL THE TIME. On the SF many of the active GSF'ers have characters on both sides. If we see that one side is completely dominating to the point that the que will stop popping, a few of us will switch factions to try to balance things out. I'll warn people now though, there ARE a few leeches on both sides and the active GSF'ers don't stand for them. Not only will you get kicked, you'll also get reported on. You'll also be called out on Fleet General and in the GSF channel - constantly. If you're not going to even attempt to try to help the team, don't que. Those that are willing to learn will find many people offering to help, though like any other area of the game there are a few elitists that may give newbies a hard time. We mostly ignore them and suggest you do as well.

The issue of BW handing out the rewards on Tuesday's was an intermittent problem that started over a year ago. It normally only happened on the days that the servers were being maintenanced or an update was coming out - which happened to coincide with the rewards being delivered. This didn't happen EVERY TIME, but happened a few times. Those that were affected needed to have CS force those rewards through. The personal conquest rewards had no issue being delivered 99% of the time, but the ending Guild Rewards and Titles started to see problems with the automatic delivery. All of a sudden mid - to - late summer and into the fall of last year it started happening ALL THE TIME. But again it wasn't a persons personal conquest reward that wasn't being delivered, it was the ending Guild Reward and Titles. If it was the conquest objectives that were breaking the reward system than it wouldn't have just affected the ending result - Guild rewards and titles - it would've also affected all the players receiving their personal conquest rewards when their character met the limit (which as I've stated wasn't an issue 99% of the time). Now, in regards to your question my answer is: common sense tells me it had NOTHING to do with the objectives in the conquest activity AT ALL but their back-end sending out those rewards. Otherwise, this issue would've been happening the whole time that conquest system was in place - and it hadn't been. Not only that, but we, the players, could see exactly who the guilds were that won each planet on each server, who made the top 10 for each planet on each server, and those within those guilds could easily see who made their personal goals. Logic tells us that if we can see this information, so can BW, and again it had NOTHING to do with those people completing the actual objectives the conquest week laid out. It had to do with BW handing out those rewards automatically. That is what was broken - the automatic rewarding of the items and titles to the individuals within the guilds that won them. To try to tell any of us that the reward handling issues had anything to do with the conquest objectives themselves for a given week is, IMO, weak and manipulative and them using an excuse to completely break a system that wasn't broken, instead of just tweaking it, and avoiding fixing the actual problem they were having - handing out automatic rewards.

Yes Guild-Oriented but that doesn't have to equate to Group-Oriented. There are a few guilds I know of that don't have enough people on at all times of the day to do some of the group activites. During the day they may have 4 or 5 people only but in the evenings have 12 and then overnight have another 10. OPs alone require either 8 or 16 so for a particular guild like this one, either not enough people are online to do the activity or too many are online and some get left out. Each individual person in a guild helps the guild win, that doesn't mean the activities have to be group related though. The guild as a WHOLE is made of up individuals. Too many see the forest and forget about the individual trees.

Oh I know, and understand what you're saying completely and I have taken into account the other things, but with those other things comes problems in being able to complete them. For instance: I despise PVP. I won't do PVP for any reason. I don't want to be forced to do any PVP for conquest, for mats, for unassembled and etc.... I know the rewards for doing it are nice, but I'm willing to give them up as I don't want to do that activity. So I look for other activities I can do that will get me similiar things - unassembled I do GSF, which I enjoy - as an example. There are the grouping activities such as OPs, FPs, Uprisings, killing X number of champion difficulty droids.... But as some have already stated, these activities can become quite difficult to complete if you're not on the character needed at the time. Not everyone can do the group activities every week due to schedules, available guildmates to run things with, or how the PUG is set-up during a time you have available to you. Hence trying to find a balance of at least things a person can do solo while still helping their guild and making personal goals on more than 1 character. When the devs spoke about giving more diversity I didn't think it meant that in order to make conquest you'd be forced to do 8 out of 15 activities (made up numbers). Obviously I was mistaken and that is a let-down and makes me again question on if I'll bother attempting conquest in the future. I don't want to have to sit down at the beginning of every conquest week and make a schedule as to which character I can have do which activity. This game is supposed to be fun, having to make out a list before playing to make sure I don't use a character for an activity that really should've been done by another character for points purposes kind of defeats the purpose - that feels more like a job or homework, tbh. In the past Heroics was one of the options that a solo player could at least count on to get a good chunk of points and not have to worry about the group dynamic or available pops. That has now been taken away. One of the other reasons I was focusing on the heroics is due in part to them being one of the best ways to level characters to 70 when you don't want to go through the class story again, to level a character through the command ranks as the CXP is better for them, and those that are still collecting the boxes to turn in to the Alliance Reps (Hylo, Dr. Ogg, Sana-Rae, Aygo). Being able to combine the heroics for leveling, conquest points, and if they were the planetary bonus of the day the extra CXP- it was a grinding activity that many could take part in and the reward for doing so went across multiple areas of the game for the person. I also chose that because it was where the difference in points was the most obvious. I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I'm just pointing out my reasoning for doing what I was doing. I did make other posts earlier that showed how more than one character could make conquest every week, but it would feel more like a job than a person having a good time playing a game they enjoy, is all.

We're not exactly comparing the same things. I was specific in what I was comparing: Old system with new pts to new system with new pts for just the Heroics, nothing else like the number of kills and etc.... Old system we were allowed to do all the Heroics on the planet listed. New system we're only allowed to do 1 Heroic on the planet listed. Using the new point system coming about in 5.9, I then applied it to the above to show how much of a difference it would be by only allowing one Heroic instead of ALL. TBH I haven't checked on what the daily activity for bonus CXP has been lately, but at one time Planetary Heroics was on the list. If it still is, then for CXP they expect us to do all the Heroics on the planet but for Conquest we're now only receiving points for doing 1 per day. Not exactly an equal system any longer, is it?