It's honestly mental, I have to teach the basics. Again. This guy, clearly, CLEARLY, has watched me for YEARS, but I still am expected to explain micro gameplay he doesn't get. I'll do my best. lol. I've played against the players your excessively suck off, No one knows who you are, obvs, you're a spectator judging, but i've beat the best of the best in regs, you've cheesed rating and still watch me non stop. Take peace in knowing, I do not care about you.

You are certainly hilarious. You're not a clown, you are the entire circus, which is appropriate seeing as you listed the entire circus as needed to take me down. I actually feel bad for biggs being tangentially related to you.

No, it doesn't equal that lol. You genuinely think that objective play = 4 players standing still clicking. You are truly hilarious mate. 1v1 I can probably stall for much longer than 2 minutes. And it doesn't make it a coin flip situation if I'm defending, because I'm defending anyway. I have a video guide on how to count to 8 if it helps? You are clearly not well informed on this, like, at all lol. And you'll have to forgive me, I obviously have no idea who you are, and you have clearly been following me for a long time.

I am flattered by your frequent mentioning of me, but it's a 8v8 match lol, pinning it on any individual player is kinda stupid right? But I can understand why you would think they way you do. Plus, Prum has too many friends to make an 8 man team. Just reading your post is pretty funny tbh.

This is a perfect example of the single-minded nonsense people always bring up in these threads. Objective gameplay does not equal 4 people standing still clicking a button, in the same manner that me spamming rifle shot doesn't equal damage farming. The argument is always made that damage farmers, by the virtue of them farming damage, are superior to objective players in every facet of gameplay. This is objectively incorrect. If you want to just do damage and show off your amazing, elite, and breathtaking understanding of your class, then solo ranked and team ranked exist for you to do so. It's actually mind-blowing how dead those game modes are, considering the masses of people on every thread like these proclaiming how much they love just doing damage. It's almost like they don't actually want that at all, and what they actually want is to do a dummy parse against "inferior" players. That is fine, by the way, there's nothing wrong with that being your motivation, but making up some pseudo argument that blah blah blah real gameplay is kinda pointless and transparent. The simple fact that people refer to objective gameplay as meaning, doing nothing other than clicking a node, shows how far removed the players in these forums are from what it actually means.

I'm hilarious and delightful.

You get 2 points IIRC for every kill in Yavin. If you want to win Hypergates you split sides to prevent the enemy from capping, while capping your own. AHG is the silliest map because there is no reason for anyone to be at mid, ever. There is also this really silly presumption that damage farmers do more DPS. If you're poop and farming numbers, and the enemy is not poop and DPS'ing with objectives in mind, the good player will most likely out DPS the bad player. People also forget that having players pulled away to inconvenient places via objective play creates a numerical and pressure advantage that should result in a superior kill count. These arguments are so ill thought out. This is semi correct, but separating objective gameplay from pressure and effectiveness is truly stupid. The 8's team I played on had good pressure, but not the best, we had some of the best "win" based gameplay based around effective kills and objective play. We were also the only team after the great migration to TOFN that had a positive win / loss ratio against every other team. Stop comparing things in vacuums because it's stupid.

I'm glad you specified pressure rather than just DPS. DPS creates pressure, pressure creates kills and opportunities to cap. It's one of the main reasons stalling multiple players outside the main fights on the off nodes is such a valid tactic of creating pressure elsewhere. The better your DPS is compared to the enemy, the more pressure you create. This doesn't have to be via individual skill or class difference, if you can tie up players and give your team a numerical player advantage in the main skirmish, then you can create more pressure. Still a relevant video on this -

Lockouts and win requirements exist to encourage players to stay in games, and to actually try to win. Since lockouts and win requirement has been introduced, in my experience, there has been a large up tick in objective gameplay. I'm not saying damage farmers don't exist, or that the tactics used on the objectives themselves are necessarily good, but I am saying more players are attempting to play the map rather than just play their class. Backfill is a problem, especially when you join something like a voidstar with 14 minutes left in the game and virtually zero chance of winning. Bioware could add in a "do not join backfill games" option to the queue similarly to what they have for PvE, they've talked about enabling a map toggle for players for literally years, so maybe that will materialise with their "PvP Revamp" they're planning for this year. I would say that until we are able to select maps, and to not join backfill games, the lockout timer should probably be reduced to 5-10 minutes in regs. Keeping it as is for ranked is a good idea, seeing as one of the major problems ranked used to face was players leaving games at the start as a way to throw the match. In regard to matchmaking, I'm not certain how it works at the moment, but premades should always be prioritised to fight against another premade. If there are, for example, two premades currently playing then the game, with one team in a match and the other in the queue, the game should be able to recognise this and wait for the game to be over before matching them vs each other. This would result in longer queues if there are only 2 groups in the system, but obviously you can just drop the group if you're looking for a faster queue. Premades are not, never have been, never will be, the problem with regs. PvP in this game was significantly better back when multiple guilds ran multiple premades most days. The community was also significantly better back then, probably because it actually existed. None of these changes are likely to happen any time soon, if at all. In all honesty I'm dreading the upcoming PvP revamp because bioware haven't produced any good PvP maps or changes, since like AHG or NC I forget which one was the latter. If 7.0 is any indication of the talent left to produce content, they're better off not changing anything rather than making it significantly worse than it already is.

In the defence of his comment. You're complaining about constantly losing games, and how the matchmaking system is a direct factor in those losses, and therefore should be changed. When you look at the videos in your channel, it's very clear that your mechanical performance in the game is quite poor. It's far more likely that your poor performance is leading to poor results, rather than it being an in game system that is somehow unfairly targeting you. For example, if I was complaining that PvE group finder operations were unfairly putting me with sub par players, and I was unable to complete them, me having combat logs uploaded where I was pulling under 1k DPS would indicate that the problem isn't the other players or the group finder system. The solution to premades in warzones has always been, and will always be, more premades in the queue. Not to wax too lyrical here, but the in game infrastructure for PvP has never recovered from the removal of 8 man ranked and the mass collapse of every PvP guild shortly after. Until there are real reasons for PvP guilds to form, for people to invest the time with guides, forming groups to learn and teach together, and everything else that goes along with an in game infrastructure, this is how it will be.

I would genuinely love to know what tactics you use to result with an 85% successful cap rate. I'd love it even more to see you play a series of games and maintain that %.

If you have an 85% cap rate, you are the single greatest player in the history of this game. These comments are so absurd it's fun to read

LOoK iT uP yOuRsElF

No. I've asked you several times what exactly you mean by "priority" and "built matches" but you refuse to answer any of them and then direct people to look for one forum post out of the many done by Eric. Either SPECIFY what exactly you're complaining about, provide evidence of what you're talking about, or shut up about the whole thing. At this point, I'm more inclined to view you as a forum troll and just report your posts.

Not necessarily, and the game does match roles within the warzone. Saying "at least one good dps", you are projecting the idea that premade players are inherently better than those that queue solo. This isn't the case, at all, and really just shows the level of delusion you have on this topic. Again, not necessarily. The match making cannot factor in skill other than the "hidden MMR". The only noticeable pattern I can see from you are: You are always vs a premade You are always vs better players The premade you are vs only ever contains the best players on the server You always lose You could quite easily stream or record an evening of you playing and then make it available for the players and developers to review. If the situation is as bad as you make it out to be, then this should be very easy to provide, and it would dramatically help your case. I stream, have watched other streamers, and I have never seen anything close to what you are describing. As I mentioned earlier, removing the win only component actually encourages number farming and focus on only killing red, which is usually why premades are queueing. Removing the win only requirement would make your situation worse. Group queue would essentially be the old 8 man ranked system and this game doesn't have the player base, PvP infrastructure, or devs savvy enough to make it work. This isn't the case, and I strongly get the impression that if there was a solo only queue, you'd still be on here complaining about losing all the time.

Pretty much everyone is agreeing with you that teams should be fighting teams. This is a matchmaking problem, not a team problem. What does Musco mean by "priority"? Does he mean they get prioritised vs pugs, vs other teams, bumped up the queue for a faster pop? This really needs to be specified because "given priority", means nothing unless you specify what priority they're being given. Even if warzones were completely randomly assigned (other than roles), you'd still have team imbalance based on the distribution of players. I understand we have the mythical hidden MMR for warzones, but most of the "best players" you're talking about play multiple alts of the same class, so this isn't as effective as you might think it is. And it's already not very effective. Basically, even with a purely solo queue you'd still have imbalance, and potentially more. If the queues are dying because of a constant premade presence, that means there are multiple premades in the queue, resulting in every game having premades. If there are that many premades in the queue, then simply matching them against each other would resolve your problem. So again, it's a matchmaking problem, not a group problem. If there's only one premade in the queue, and there's only one match going at any given moment for them to join, then the queue is already dead, making this point moot. If you're facing the same premade for 8 games in a row, try waiting until they get in a game and then queue. You may face another premade but what happens a lot of the time is, the pool of available players obviously increases once your match ends and most players immediately re-queue, so you're more likely to be placed in a match with a similar play composition. The simple fact is, the highest participation of warzones was during periods where most guilds ran premades. You make out you only ever face a premade without having one yourself, or a "superior" premade to the one you have. If the majority of players do not group up, then the majority of games shouldn't have premades in them, again making your point moot. And again, this is a matchmaking issue, not a group issue. I don't know the post you are referring to, and you haven't given details on what it contained other than "priority" and "built the queues". I don't know what you specifically mean by either of these terms, and if you're quoting a bioware staff member on the issue maybe you should be more specific or, even better, link the post, so we know what you're talking about. The burden of proof isn't on us. I have no issue with wins being needed to progress a quest. I think a 20-minute lockout for leaving a game is too much when we're unable to filter maps, and can get backfilled in to an already lost game. The win requirement is there to incentivise players to try and win the game, rather than just farm numbers. If premades are happy to lose the map but with the damage game, I'm absolutely fine winning those games and by removing the win incentive, you actually encourage more roflstomping premades to play the game mode. TLDR - No

Can you supply the links to this please? Splitting the queues will obviously increase queue times for players in both queues. I'd like it if the game prioritised premade vs premade more than it currently does, but splitting into solo and group benefits neither groups of players. MMO's are designed to be played in a group. I understand lots of players (the majority in fact), play primarily solo, but most game modes, Operations, Flashpoints, Arena, Warzones, are designed to be played as a group with the intent that you work with other players towards a common goal. Being able to play through these game modes in some form of solo capacity is there as a convenience, not as the pinnacle of the game mode itself. As has been said over and over in this thread, the problem lies with match making, and players unwillingness to take any initiative themselves to solve their own problems.

https://c.tenor.com/h-HbCr7aW8UAAAAd/darth-vader-alter-the-deal.gif Massive grind to complete the DvL event, told we could use it in the future, get it taken away anyway. To be fair, even if it was a bug they have so many fixes needed ATM I can see them deciding to just back bench this out of convenience.

You absolutely can, so long as you're making a fair comparison. I'm treating the steam launch numbers as the theoretical peak number of players this game can pull in, I'm viewing it as the ceiling / golden standard for success. I'm not treating it as a standard peak, it's more of a cap. Back when I was on Twitch I would do a similar thing when the SWTOR channel itself streamed. I was never going to pull in the same numbers as them, but I can use them as a benchmark to how many people would actually tune in to watch a SWTOR related stream. This isn't a perfect comparison either, but their numbers did normally align with the general popularity of the category and the game. We have overwhelmingly negative feedback on a platform that heavily "moderates" negative posts (reddit), we have overwhelmingly negative feedback and activity on the forums. The viewership numbers for the game on streaming sites has not seen it's usual significant up tick, and the numbers on steam (even if you discount the launch figures) are not something I'd call a success. There may be an increase over the weekend when people have more time to play, but to even suggest this launch was anything other than a wet fart is silly.

This comparison might look good at first glance, but it isn't. When the game launched on steam, the amount of players at peak was 27,416. It's reasonable to take this figure as a baseline comparison number for peak. The peak numbers just before the expansion dropped were around 10,000 each day, it's towards the end of an expansion, so a decrease in numbers is to be expected, but that's a roughly 66% decline in peak players from when the game was launched on steam. Over the last 48 hours the numbers have increased, which I would say is to be expected from any game releasing an expansion, but the peak now is 19,000 on launch day and 17,000 the following day. Not only did this expansion not bring in the same amount of players as simply launching on steam, it brought in almost a third less. Furthermore, a 2000 decline on the second day of launch would imply the people who are playing it weren't coming back. It will be interesting to track these numbers over the next week, 48 hours isn't really a long enough period to get a decent trend. I've been looking at the Twitch numbers for the amount of people streaming, the amount of viewers at peak and concurrent. This is by FAR the most underwhelming expansion launch. Normally an expansion will attract several large "variety" streamers that have a large boost on swtors footprint on Twitch, but so far none have done so. Swtorista had a great attendance for launch day, but that dropped off almost immediately. She is the only person I can see in the directory who seems to be making the most of the launch in terms of increasing viewership. If you're sitting there thinking "bUt SnAvE moSt PeoPlE aRe pLaYiNG sO ThEyRe nOt wAtchInG", viewership on Twitch has ALWAYS spiked significantly for an expansion. I've been following the swtor subreddit, I don't normally spend any time there because the moderation team aggressively deletes negative posts (which they are still doing now under the pretence of "duplicate posts") and it's still overwhelmingly negative other there. Even with posts being removed. I'm not sure if / when the moderation team here will start doing the same thing under the guise of cleaning up the forums and removing duplicate complaints, but I'm sure it'll start as soon as they've worked out which way they want to spin this colossal mess. As of today, if you don't include the sticky posts, I'd estimate around 90% of the posts on the first page here are directly negative about the expansion and changes. TLDR: Numbers are very bad for this expansion, sentiment to this expansion is OVERWHELMINGLY negative.

With all due respect, you clearly have no idea how operative works in pvp. Reflect removal is fine, I've suggested since 6.0 that it shouldn't be an option, everything else you've said is objectively stupid.

If been reluctant to post anything on here because the perception of operative just being "lol roll 4head" makes it impossible in most cases to have a decent conversation, but the nerfs are actually worse than you're saying, for PvP at least. On top of everything you've listed, without The Debilitator set bonus, our base roll cooldown becomes 8s rather than 6s. I know everyone likes to pretend Concealment has unlimited rolls on no cooldown, they can chase, run, roll defensively and be offensive at the same time, but the fact of the matter is this is a 33% nerf to our primary DCD / gap closer / escape ability. We're losing purge on countermeasures so slows / roots (which were already incredibly effective at shutting down Concealment) and most classes are now getting slows / roots baked into core abilities anyway, so you'll be seeing them frequently. Good luck maintaining uptime on Concealment in PvP. As it stands now in PvP with 6s roll and speed increase / movement purge on countermeasures, most classes can kite operatives around a map unless they have cooldowns saved up to try and catch the kiter which you frequently will not and definitely will not in 7.0. I gave a lot of praise to the overall design to Concealment in 6.0, it seemed like they "got" how the class should play and feel. These changes look an absolute mess to me, it's been hard to test on the PTS because A LOT of stuff is just non-functional / bugged. Set bonuses / Tacticals aren't confirmed, so it's impossible to know just how bad it is, but my guess is very bad. Quickly, on the topic of Holotraverse vs Flashbang (or any ability really) seems a non-starter for me. Holotraverse has the worst fail rate of any ability in the game, frequently putting you in a worse position than when you started. Asking people to spend a point on something that maybe works sometimes seem incredibly unfair to me.

Hi Jackie, Can we get a response please to the fact the expansion is launching in 2 months, and we're only now testing max level, without set bonuses and tacticals? Obviously, both of those things make a huge difference to our feedback, but we can't feedback what we can't test. Can we also get some kind of incentive for player to test the PTS because currently unless paying customers are going out of their way to organise groups there is none. TLDR can you make a PTS that's actually a PTS.

Yes, I unlocked the rishi SH and dummy area to test, I also spent 30 mins grinding gear at the vendors so I can test for them. If you don't see why this is a problem I can only assume you love the taste of boot.

Yes, they're level 80. Unless I'm missing some boost I'm still 75