12 x XP for class-missions

[Edzew]

Your absence either way is NOT sufficient reason for removing many of those who ARE there in the "grouping pool" while leveling by adding in a "light speed, easy mode, fast path to lax level", IMO.

 

You must decide which is more important to you:

 

A) avoiding the minimal effort required to play those new classes you wish to play, or

B) actually being able to play those new classes

 

You can do one or the other, but not both.

 

you do know that amount of time in game leveling does not contribute to how well you play your class right???

 

o yea sure it may help some people but most people it wont matter at all.

 

 

so again what would you rather have??

 

A) fewer people in game?

or

B) many more people in game?

[Ratajack]

you do know that amount of time in game leveling does not contribute to how well you play your class right???

 

o yea sure it may help some people but most people it wont matter at all.

 

 

so again what would you rather have??

 

A) fewer people in game?

or

B) many more people in game?

 

I'm betting that many, if not most, of these so called "extra players" are already playing on their max level characters. I do not think that 12Xp will greatly increase the number of players playing, although there may be more of the existing players leveling alts.

 

Those existing players leveling alts will, in all likelihood, not be a benefit to other players at lower levels, though. This is due to the likelihood that those existing players who might be leveling alts would be focused only on story missions and not any other content, including FP's or heroics.

 

I see no huge benefit to 12XP. I do not think it will drastically increase the number of players at end game, but I do think that 12XP would drastically reduce the number of players in the "grouping pool" at lower levels.

[Djiini]

I'm betting that many, if not most, of these so called "extra players" are already playing on their max level characters. I do not think that 12Xp will greatly increase the number of players playing, although there may be more of the existing players leveling alts.

 

Those existing players leveling alts will, in all likelihood, not be a benefit to other players at lower levels, though. This is due to the likelihood that those existing players who might be leveling alts would be focused only on story missions and not any other content, including FP's or heroics.

 

I see no huge benefit to 12XP. I do not think it will drastically increase the number of players at end game, but I do think that 12XP would drastically reduce the number of players in the "grouping pool" at lower levels.

 

I will not be continuing my subscription if we don't get some form of valuable experience boost in the patch on the 28th.

 

I just don't go around shouting it because nobody needs to know.

[ekwalizer]

But you're missing the point - I'm suggesting that the majority of these players are not leveling anything because of the time required. If there was a 12XP perk more players would be more likely to be "in the grouping pool".

 

The experienced players who have already completed all the planetary side quests are likely to only level another character if conditions are favourable to them - ie XP bonuses, but are FAR less likely to do so without this perk.

 

Additionally, if these players want to complete group content as they go along, they will still do so. In fact, in my experience there were more people queuing for FP's during XP bonus events than there are at other times, because the players who want to do group content still will, regardless of whether XP bonus is running or not.

 

If they do not want to complete that sort of content there is no requirement for them to do so even without any leveling perks, so they simply will not participate regardless. You can level through the entire story line without doing any H2/H4/FP's, they are simply not required (and add to this fact that many are already solo-able anyway).

 

So preventing 12XP doesn't change that fact. Having a leveling bonus like this available will increase the total number of leveling characters and hence the "grouping pool" as you put it will actually be larger.

 

I'd like to see the metrics behind your analysis. Most of the people I know in game are still leveling alts even after 5-10-15 toons.

[Djiini]

I'd like to see the metrics behind your analysis. Most of the people I know in game are still leveling alts even after 5-10-15 toons.

 

'Most of the people you know' is not a good sampling size.

 

'Most of the people I know' on TOR are quitting for dumb reasons, by no means does that mean that Bioware is losing tons of subscribers.

[ekwalizer]

You are ignoring the fact that a larger number of players does NOT necessarily equate to a larger "grouping pool".

Yes it does, Jim.

 

Dj,

You are partially right, but so is Rat. While you might gain more numbers in the pool, you are not going to change the role composition. So basically all you are doing is pouring 1000 liters bottles of lemonade into a 1 kiloliter vat.

 

So a larger pool, isn't necessarily a good thing. Without the group finder, I'd say yes; more people means more availability for clearing content. But in the age of the group finder, the impact of more people is marginalized.

[Djiini]

Dj,

You are partially right, but so is Rat. While you might gain more numbers in the pool, you are not going to change the role composition. So basically all you are doing is pouring 1000 liters bottles of lemonade into a 1 kiloliter vat.

 

So a larger pool, isn't necessarily a good thing. Without the group finder, I'd say yes; more people means more availability for clearing content. But in the age of the group finder, the impact of more people is marginalized.

 

That's a pretty valid analogy--fair enough, Ekwalizer.

[ekwalizer]

'Most of the people you know' is not a good sampling size.

 

'Most of the people I know' on TOR are quitting for dumb reasons, by no means does that mean that Bioware is losing tons of subscribers.

 

I never said BW was loosing subscriptions. In fact, I cited BW/EA's point shortly before release that they needed 500,000 subs to break even. I've never seen them drop below that threshold.

[TUXs]

I never said BW was loosing subscriptions. In fact, I cited BW/EA's point shortly before release that they needed 500,000 subs to break even. I've never seen them drop below that threshold.

You've never seen them report a drop below that threshold...is that what you mean? Or are you insinuating that we currently have at least 500k subs?

[ekwalizer]

You've never seen them report a drop below that threshold...is that what you mean? Or are you insinuating that we currently have at least 500k subs?

 

I haven't seen it reported anywhere that sub numbers are below 500,000. Of course now with the CM, sub numbers aren't the only source of income so it would be difficult to project what they "need". But the last thing they told the community was that they needed 500k. Again, this was long before the CM.

[TUXs]

I haven't seen it reported anywhere that sub numbers are below 500,000. Of course now with the CM, sub numbers aren't the only source of income so it would be difficult to project what they "need". But the last thing they told the community was that they needed 500k. Again, this was long before the CM.

 

That is exactly the point I was going to make, the CM negated the need for 500k...which I also believe we're well under at this point.

[Ratajack]

That is exactly the point I was going to make, the CM negated the need for 500k...which I also believe we're well under at this point.

 

I would believe that this game has at least 500,000 subscribers.

 

I base this belief on the reported revenue and the fact that BW has stated numerous times that the vast majority of CM revenue comes from SUBSCRIBERS and not from F2P or preferred. I find it hard to believe that a few subscribers are spending enough in the CM to account for the reported revenue. I think it is much more likely that there are is a larger number of subscribers with lower average spent on the CM per subscriber.

 

These are just our own individual opinions, however.

 

In the end, though, it only matters that BW make enough to keep the game going, which they are apparently doing now, even without a "light speed, easy mode, fast pass to max level".

Edited April 14, 2015 by Ratajack

[TUXs]

I base this belief on the reported revenue and the fact that BW has stated numerous times that the vast majority of CM revenue comes from SUBSCRIBERS and not from F2P or preferred.

Have anything recent on revenue numbers? Like under a year old?

[ekwalizer]

From August 2014: http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/14/6001503/star-wars-the-old-republic-2014-players-ea-bioware

[Ratajack]

Have anything recent on revenue numbers? Like under a year old?

 

You could try this one from JULY 2014:

 

http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/18/report-swtor-fourth-biggest-sub-mmo-elder-scrolls-has-over-770/

[TUXs]

...they needed 500,000 subs to break even. I've never seen them drop below that threshold.

I haven't seen it reported anywhere that sub numbers are below 500,000.

From August 2014: http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/14/6001503/star-wars-the-old-republic-2014-players-ea-bioware

Hmmm...did you even bother to read the link you gave me?

"And the number of subscriptions has stabilized at just under half a million."

And I kinda question the date of that article...to have a quote like this:

And as we look forward, we're going to continually invest in new content for the service and for players every six weeks or so

...seems suspect, since that wasn't the case at all in 2014, when this article was supposedly written...and it sure as hell isn't the case now either. It seems like it was written based on outdated info...

Also, the whole:

"Since it was induced in November, we've added more than 1.7 million new players on the free model to the service,"

...F2P was introduced in 2012, not 2013.

 

Too many red flags with that link...

Edited April 14, 2015 by TUXs

[TUXs]

You could try this one from JULY 2014:

 

http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/18/report-swtor-fourth-biggest-sub-mmo-elder-scrolls-has-over-770/

That article uses the year old data of 165 million, which is from 2013. Have anything recent?? Anything??

[Ratajack]

That article uses the year old data of 165 million, which is from 2013. Have anything recent?? Anything??

 

Do you? Can you provide a link with data under a year old to support your "belief" or claims?

[Ratajack]

That article uses the year old data of 165 million, which is from 2013. Have anything recent?? Anything??

 

How about this one:

 

http://www.swtorstrategies.com/2014/10/swtor-revenues-climb-over-100-million-for-2014.html

 

Your turn.

[ekwalizer]

Hmmm...did you even bother to read the link you gave me?

 

And I kinda question the date of that article...to have a quote like this:

...seems suspect, since that wasn't the case at all in 2014, when this article was supposedly written...and it sure as hell isn't the case now either. It seems like it was written based on outdated info...

Also, the whole:

...F2P was introduced in 2012, not 2013.

 

Too many red flags with that link...

 

They were referring to November 2012:

 

"EA announced that the MMO would adopt a free-to-play model by 2012, with the transition taking place in November of that year. Since then, EA's Frank Gibeau said the game has grown significantly.

 

"Since it was induced in November, we've added more than 1.7 million new players on the free model to the service," Gibeau said at the time. "And the number of subscriptions has stabilized at just under half a million."

 

Details, sometimes we get lost in them.

 

OK, fair enough, stabilized at just under half a million. But again, the CM bolsters the reduction in total subs.

Edited April 14, 2015 by ekwalizer

[ekwalizer]

but keep ignoring everything i say, like theres no way everyone is going to use this on every toon. It will be gated by its expense. They will not devalue leveling by making it free, or $5.

 

Why not? You ignore or scoff at every thing that doesn't agree with your narrative.

[EyesOfRed]

I've tried to go point-for-point over each argument. Not my fault if you skip it.

 

the issues stated are pure conjecture, and I've cited why its not an issue, or how others have refuted those claims already. Clearly you know better than people who's jobs it is to know these things. They should really hire you. Maybe SWTOR would've never gone f2p...

Edited April 14, 2015 by EyesOfRed

[ekwalizer]

I've tried to go point-for-point over each argument. Not my fault if you skip it.

 

the issues stated are pure conjecture, and I've cited why its not an issue, or how others have refuted those claims already. Clearly you know better than people who's jobs it is to know these things. They should really hire you. Maybe SWTOR would've never gone f2p...

 

Because WoW in Star Wars clothes was the break-out game everyone expected it to be? Just because WoW does it (after 10 years on the market, mind you) does not directly correlate to the same model being successful in another game.

[Djiini]

Because WoW in Star Wars clothes was the break-out game everyone expected it to be? Just because WoW does it (after 10 years on the market, mind you) does not directly correlate to the same model being successful in another game.

 

Just because World of Warcraft is popular and successful doesn't make it good, either, though.

 

50 Shades of Gray is 'popular', is it good?

(No, it's not.)

 

A person is smart, people are stupid, you know?

[ekwalizer]

Just because World of Warcraft is popular and successful doesn't make it good, either, though.

 

50 Shades of Gray is 'popular', is it good?

(No, it's not.)

 

A person is smart, people are stupid, you know?

 

You'll get no argument from me on any of those fronts.