Discussion Topic: Game Update 5.4 and the Next Roadmap

[Exly]

Only people who desire an unfair advantage would defend the current system. You lose absolutely nothing by allowing others to have bolster at 250. They could even keep the UCs and allow people to gear up for PVE through PVP if they so desire, and it would work perfectly fine alongside bolster at 250. You could even set bolster at 248, and say that people with full 248 were outside of the bolster system, and thus be able to min-max till they were blue in the face, but still be at the same general level as the bolstered 248.

 

And yes there are many other factors to consider than gear, so why make gear an issue to begin with.

 

Just today I had the notion of trying out a Shield Tech, but the thought of leveling to 70, then to 300 and then to BiS made me cry mental tears. And yes I absolutely want BiS for ranked and even for regular warzones. It was perfectly fine before.

 

So now I play my ops once again, and it gets bleeding boring to never be able to experiment.

 

Exactly. Things were fine in PvP in 4.0 when people could get a full set of bis pvp gear on the first day that they reached level 65 if they wanted to, and things were fine with 5.0 when gear was bolstered to level 250 in pvp.

 

People weren't complaining about gear in either 4.0 or in the early days of 5.0, but now gear is an issue, and having a gear gap does make pvp less fun to play, and makes playing alts even less fun.

 

The truth for me is that the gear grind that accompanied 5.0 sucks, and it causes me to turn away from the game and play less now than I ever did prior to it's launch.

 

It's time to stop the grind, and to stop the nerfs, and to let us get back to enjoying the game again.

 

The game is not better when some players have a distinct advantage over other players because they have better gear. It is best when skill, not gear, is the determining factor on how well everyone performs.

[Paulsutherland]

Bring back Darth Marr! and Vaylin and Saresh so I can kill her again!

[Transcendent]

Perhaps the devs should just put bolster to 250 and remove PvP from the gear progression grind; so it doesn't drop anything relating to gear, as it would be hypocritical to say PvP should be outside of the gear grind but I still want my gear grind reward and then see how it does.

 

There needs to be some form of carrot apparently, so unless they're going to add in cosmetic rewards such as new armour sets / titles / mounts / pets etc etc, I'm not sure that would work. Or to put it another way, I agree there should be some form of "progression" system, I don't agree that it needs to be gear.

 

On the flip side, I also admit freely I've always gone into operations (PvE) using PvP gear prior to 5.0 landing, including ToS, which was perfectly fine (3.0 era). Heck I used to 2 man older operations in my PvP gear. So it still has uses outside of PvP.

 

To be fair, this whole mess could be resolved by detaching PvP gearing from PvE gearing, allowing PvP gearing to be faster than PvE gearing (with all that entails.... zzzzzz..... grind ..... zzzzz). Heck at this point I'd even say having Expertise was better than GC / 5.0 gearing. Either that, or just raise bolster to 248, players in 248 gear get bolstered to 250 anyway, so they still technically have a small benefit from their inane grind they've gone through (I mean really, they need to add a title for all the CR300 players, "The Persevering" or something.)

 

I have no idea how any player has had the patience to be put through the wringer with 5.0 gearing, I applaud you, I also think you're completely insane.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

But the carrot of gear is what gets people to PVP, including myself and many others. Take the carrot away, and a lot of people will just stop doing it. I did it in 4.0 when my toons were in 208s, I'm doing it now that my toons are in 248s.

 

Correction, the carrot of gear is what gets you playing PVP. I avoid PVP due to said carrot because said carrot means I am disadvantaged stat wise at PVP from the outset unless I achieve said carrot - that's not a fun concept to me so I don't bother.

 

On the other hand if the carrot were vanity items and I ran into PVP on even footing with everyone else (class balance and skill withstanding) then that's a carrot I would want to go after knowing the fun of seeking of the carrot by doing the content isn't diminished by the fact I have not yet got the carrot.

 

Basically I personally believe PVP should be about having fun, I would have more fun if everyone was on the same stat level.

IMO players with attitudes like you are why PVP suffers in MMOs. You say you PVP for the gear grind and stop when you reach the end of that grind (funnily enough that's the point you are actually at the most competitive stat wise) so it seems to me you aren't there for the PVP and fun at all, just some looney grind to get gear you will no longer use on the content that you got it from ... this is just nonsense.

 

At least with a vanity grind they could make it so that you never reach the end and aren't affected because of it ... not that you are now because it sounds like you stop playing once you reach the goal anyway.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Oh I never said I don't want to make pvp more accessible. You are just assuming that because I disagree with you. I actually really like the pvp in this game. The point is that you don't speak for everyone and you never will. You aren't special. So stop using phrases like "the players want it" because you don't speak on behalf of all the players.

 

Oh and sure, you definitely can bring the comparison. But you also can't just compare the pvp in one game to another. Things are more complex than that. swtor's engine isn't also the best for massive scale pvp and that's why the pvp (while I really like it) will never be the main focus of the game in contrast to games like Overwatch or Battlefield.

 

The palyers do want it, go read the bolster thread and see how FAR more players want it than don't.

 

Don't think you speak for all players when you say we don't want it - works both ways see?

 

If you can't actually put up a valid counter argument anymore and have to resort to petty "you don't speak for everyone" nonsense then it's time to stop responding.

[fushnchips]

The palyers do want it, go read the bolster thread and see how FAR more players want it than don't.

 

Don't think you speak for all players when you say we don't want it - works both ways see?

 

If you can't actually put up a valid counter argument anymore and have to resort to petty "you don't speak for everyone" nonsense then it's time to stop responding.

 

No not all of us want it I'm a player.

[ZionHalcyon]

So firstly you never asked for MMO games and if you did in that statement above then you couldn't also put the term "burden of proof" to me because I never stated "MMO PVP" games as having far more successful models.

 

Uh oh, watch out, that logic trap sure looks deep ... I don't think you're getting out in a hurry.

 

Now for arguments sake how do you define PVP with "an MMO aspect"? A bunch of people on teams trying to kill one another with their abilities and skills? Achieve goals? Control points? Gee sounds a lot like many PVP games to me ...

 

I am curious now I've given you a brief run down on similarities as to how you differentiate PVP games from PVP in this game in regards to your "MMO aspect"?

 

You know what he was asking and what he intended and yet still you are trying to win a pissing contest on a technicality.

 

The person who always ends up arguing form and structure of an argument rather than the points made within the argument is the person who loses the debate.

[ZionHalcyon]

No not all of us want it I'm a player.

 

I agree, it's what he resorts to when he doesn't have a valid counter argument in order to try to shut down the discussion.

[lemonsquare]

Heaven forbid game designers actually be in charge of the design for their game.

 

Developers should take player feedback into account as one factor --and an important factor at that-- that goes into their decision-making process for the game. But it is never going to be the only factor...

 

 

*Upvote*

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Wrong. I lose something very, very precious to me: time. Fortunately, the vast majority of MMOs recognize this which is why they incentivize people to play.

 

There is an obvious solution too: have ranked PvP with a uniform bolster rate / set of gear. Claim your fancy title / mount at end.

 

When Menace (foolishly) listed that exhaustive list of PvP games (leaving out Hots, which I love), curiously absent from that list was any MMO. There is a reason why MMOs offer gear for PvP because otherwise all you royalty PvPers would be:

 

Kings and Queens of a Poisoned Realm, waiting for WZs to pop.

 

Right so you can't address the post made and resort to back handed comments like thiat, how cowardly. Not surprising though when your argument is left with no legs to stand on so to speak.

 

I love how you state how PVP would be without a gearing aspect without anything to actually support your view what so ever - basically you're just talking nonsense. At least with the games I listed, I listed PVP games that are hugely successful that do not rely on stat gearing.

So then are you insinuating that people who play MMOs are completely different from people who play those other games? Good luck substantiating that stance.

 

I also understand you're kind of new around these parts so probably don't have a firm grip of the history of the game but many of us actually want to see the game grow be that through attracting new players or bringing back old players. The status quo is not achieving that, players are leaving and nothing you've posted anywhere on this topic of PVP bolsters/gearing offers up any valid solution to reversing that trend ... your entire argument hinges on basically "this is how MMOs are, deal with it, it can't be different" which is the weakest form of justification for the status quo I've seen so far.

 

If people are happy to see queue times increase and the population continue to decline then by all means listen to whatever Jdast has to say because that is the direction we are heading.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

You know what he was asking and what he intended and yet still you are trying to win a pissing contest on a technicality.

 

The person who always ends up arguing form and structure of an argument rather than the points made within the argument is the person who loses the debate.

 

Oh look a Zion post that makes little sense and has nothing to do with the topic at hand ... color me shocked!

[MeNaCe-NZ]

No not all of us want it I'm a player.

 

No not all which is probably why I left that word out. The majority that bothered to participate in that thread seem to though - so replace the word "the" with "most" and we're sorted right?

 

Point I was trying to make was is that we can't run around stating a point of view is wrong with silly points like "but you can't prove EVERYONE wants/does not want it".

 

So we can argue semantics all day on whether or not ALL players want something (they will enver agree) or we can look at what the majority would benefit from and if it would even grow said player base.

 

If we lost 1 player to gain 10, I'd be happy with that.

[Ratajack]

As of right now, it is not a Legacy currency. But, I know exactly what you're thinking, so let me pre-announce something which I suspect will make you smile, while at the same time, irritate you because I won't tell you when until I update the Roadmap.

 

We are working to change currencies to be Legacy based. This includes unassembled components, credits, the Umbara currency, and more. I'm not aware of any major obstacles preventing this from happening, and doing so will help with a number of changes we are planning for the future.

 

I know that doesn't solve the concern about having to run the Flashpoint multiple times on one character, but once you have the Key to open the Stronghold, you can use the currency for other items on the vendor.

 

Have a good weekend,

 

-Keith--

 

I just love how people have already taken this statement to be an absolute promise that legacy credits are coming, despite the part about "major obstacles". Although it was phrased as "not aware of any major obstacles", he did address the possibility of obstacles preventing the implementation of one or more forms of legacy "currency".

 

We have already had several posters point out possible obstacles that would likely have to be addressed if legacy credits were to be implemented. Those include, but are not limited to:

 

Raising or removing the credit caps for F2P and preferred would be a gold sellers paradise.

 

What happens with those players that have a total number of credits across their legacy that exceeds the maximum number of credits permitted?

 

How would legacy credits (or any legacy currency) be handled in the event of a transfer?

 

 

I've said before that a legacy credit storage would be very convenient if it could be implemented "properly", so I would welcome legacy credits, but I will not be surprised if a previously unforeseen "major obstacle" prevents legacy credits from happening.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

I just love how people have already taken this statement to be an absolute promise that legacy credits are coming, despite the part about "major obstacles". Although it was phrased as "not aware of any major obstacles", he did address the possibility of obstacles preventing the implementation of one or more forms of legacy "currency".

 

We have already had several posters point out possible obstacles that would likely have to be addressed if legacy credits were to be implemented. Those include, but are not limited to:

 

Raising or removing the credit caps for F2P and preferred would be a gold sellers paradise.

 

What happens with those players that have a total number of credits across their legacy that exceeds the maximum number of credits permitted?

 

How would legacy credits (or any legacy currency) be handled in the event of a transfer?

 

 

I've said before that a legacy credit storage would be very convenient if it could be implemented "properly", so I would welcome legacy credits, but I will not be surprised if a previously unforeseen "major obstacle" prevents legacy credits from happening.

 

Still you have to admit it's great that Keith is giving us a heads up on the thought process of what they want to bring.

I mean otherwise they could have just "surprised" us with this boon and maybe neglected the points you mentioned and all hell breaks loose as a result.

 

By giving us a heads up of what they want to do in the future or what might be coming it means the community gets a chance to put up discussion and point our issues BWA may have not thought of.

 

I just wish Keith were around for GC and could have communicated that well ahead of time so maybe, just maybe, GC had of launched in the form it's in now as opposed to how it did.

Whilst I'm still not happy with how it is (and maybe I never will be, I preferred the old currency system) - it's much better than it was.

[AllisonLightning]

I just love how people have already taken this statement to be an absolute promise that legacy credits are coming, despite the part about "major obstacles". Although it was phrased as "not aware of any major obstacles", he did address the possibility of obstacles preventing the implementation of one or more forms of legacy "currency".

 

We have already had several posters point out possible obstacles that would likely have to be addressed if legacy credits were to be implemented. Those include, but are not limited to:

 

Raising or removing the credit caps for F2P and preferred would be a gold sellers paradise.

 

What happens with those players that have a total number of credits across their legacy that exceeds the maximum number of credits permitted?

 

How would legacy credits (or any legacy currency) be handled in the event of a transfer?

 

 

I've said before that a legacy credit storage would be very convenient if it could be implemented "properly", so I would welcome legacy credits, but I will not be surprised if a previously unforeseen "major obstacle" prevents legacy credits from happening.

 

To be honest- subscribers are a gold farmer's paradise and are the ones that keep them is business, restrictions for a non sub are all well and good but subs who buy credits are at fault for those gold sellers. The exceeded credit cap among your characters would be an issue for a few people- they obliterated the crystals and commendations to a negative exchange for some people- I don't think they would care about obliterating the credits on a handful of people that would be affected. No, I don't think they shouldn't do anything like that but they haven't been concerned implementing changes on dedicated players before.

[Ratajack]

Still you have to admit it's great that Keith is giving us a heads up on the thought process of what they want to bring.

I mean otherwise they could have just "surprised" us with this boon and maybe neglected the points you mentioned and all hell breaks loose as a result.

 

By giving us a heads up of what they want to do in the future or what might be coming it means the community gets a chance to put up discussion and point our issues BWA may have not thought of.

 

 

 

I absolutely agree that it's great that Keith gave us a heads up on some of their thought processes.

 

I also like that some potential pitfalls have been pointed out, so hopefully those pitfalls can be addressed and avoided should legacy credits ( or any any legacy currency) become a thing.

 

I just foresee all sorts of furor over "broken promises" (ones that were never actually made in the first place, mind you), should any "major obstacles" prevent legacy credits (or any other form of legacy currency) from happening.

 

 

I remember many other cries of "broken promises" or demands for ETA's if BW even mentioned something in passing, or that something may happen "eventually".

 

While I'd like to see more communication as much as the next person, I understand the why it seems that the devs have been reluctant, at best, to communicate.

 

 

I just wish Keith were around for GC and could have communicated that well ahead of time so maybe, just maybe, GC had of launched in the form it's in now as opposed to how it did.

Whilst I'm still not happy with how it is (and maybe I never will be, I preferred the old currency system) - it's much better than it was.

 

On this we can also agree.

 

If GC had been implemented in the current form, it might have been better accepted. Unfortunately, the way GC was implemented has led to a severe bias against it that will likely always taint the GC system.

[Ratajack]

To be honest- subscribers are a gold farmer's paradise and are the ones that keep them is business, restrictions for a non sub are all well and good but subs who buy credits are at fault for those gold sellers. The exceeded credit cap among your characters would be an issue for a few people- they obliterated the crystals and commendations to a negative exchange for some people- I don't think they would care about obliterating the credits on a handful of people that would be affected. No, I don't think they shouldn't do anything like that but they haven't been concerned implementing changes on dedicated players before.

 

While I am not one that would have to worry about exceeding the maximum number of credits, I think the number of people that could potentially be affected is far higher than some would think. I also think the number of credits that could potentially be "obliterated" is far higher than some think.

 

Hypothetically, player A has 10 characters, each with over 3 billion. That is over 30 billion credits. If the maximum number of credits is a little over 4 billion, that is almost 26 billion credits that could be "obliterated", over 85% of player A's total credits.

 

Would you want to lose 85% of your credits?

[Sareeph]

I just wish Keith were around for GC and could have communicated that well ahead of time so maybe, just maybe, GC had of launched in the form it's in now as opposed to how it did.

Whilst I'm still not happy with how it is (and maybe I never will be, I preferred the old currency system) - it's much better than it was.

 

There was a 5.0 test server in which many had voiced their displeasure concerning the rng drop rates. With statistics of how much of what type were dropping in the crates. Had pleaded with the devs to not go forward with the system and how it would drive people away. We all know what that feedback accomplished.

[ZionHalcyon]

Hopefully, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm always blunt, I disagreed with you in the past, but...

 

1) I like Type A personalities who actually care about something. That includes you.

 

2) My only disagreement with you is about restoring the past. I think you laid down a good marker about how the game should go moving forward. And in a different life, (I understand you are in IT by your own admission), I think you should be a story writer. You may not remember, but our first exchange was me agreeing with you about the role of the Emperor / Valk. FYI, I'lll still piss in your cheerios when I disagree, assuming you don't unsubscribe.

 

Bottom line: You have made me think, which I would be lying about if I said otherwise, even when we disagree.

 

I appreciate that. If nothing else, what I want to do is provoke thought, to inspire creativity.

[ImmortalLowlife]

While I am not one that would have to worry about exceeding the maximum number of credits, I think the number of people that could potentially be affected is far higher than some would think. I also think the number of credits that could potentially be "obliterated" is far higher than some think.

 

Hypothetically, player A has 10 characters, each with over 3 billion. That is over 30 billion credits. If the maximum number of credits is a little over 4 billion, that is almost 26 billion credits that could be "obliterated", over 85% of player A's total credits.

 

Would you want to lose 85% of your credits?

 

Did I miss something? How do you figure if they implement a "legacy storage" for credits that you'd lose all your credits over X amount? That line of thinking makes no sense.

 

With legacy storage, once you fill up all your tabs you can't put anything else in it. That's all. You don't lose everything else in your individual cargo hold. So it seems logical to assume that even if they have a max storage space of 3 billion credits, all your other characters will still have all their credits individually.

 

As far as f2p/preferred players....I'm of the mind that they shouldn't be able to use it anyway. It should be a sub only perk.

 

 

And whoever got 30 billion credits.... lemme hold about 100million till Juvember 32nd.

Edited July 31, 2017 by ImmortalLowlife

[Ratajack]

Did I miss something? How do you figure if they implement a "legacy storage" for credits that you'd lose all your credits over X amount? That line of thinking makes no sense.

 

With legacy storage, once you fill up all your tabs you can't put anything else in it. That's all. You don't lose everything else in your individual cargo hold. So it seems logical to assume that even if they have a max storage space of 3 billion credits, all your other characters will still have all their credits individually.

 

As far as f2p/preferred players....I'm of the mind that they shouldn't be able to use it anyway. It should be a sub only perk.

 

 

And whoever got 30 billion credits.... lemme hold about 100million till Juvember 32nd.

 

It depends on how they choose to implement legacy credits, if they do implement legacy credits.

 

One option is to add a "credit vault" to legacy storage. Another option would be to just "lump all character's credits together" in the currency tab, as they do for all other legacy currencies.

 

Unless I am mistaken, there is a "hard cap" maximum number of credits, that is "hard coded" into the game's engine. Right now that "hard cap" is per character.

[wursta]

Hello, I have a quick question I am sure has been answered or said but I don't know the answer so that's why I am asking lol! When 5.4 comes out, will it be just an FP or a storyline + FP? Like on Rishi there was a storyline then two FP'S that went with the storyline? Just was wondering... Thanks to whoever answers!

[MeNaCe-NZ]

There was a 5.0 test server in which many had voiced their displeasure concerning the rng drop rates. With statistics of how much of what type were dropping in the crates. Had pleaded with the devs to not go forward with the system and how it would drive people away. We all know what that feedback accomplished.

 

To be fair that was under Ben's watch ... this is the guy who thought RNG was exciting (thrill of the hunt) and I believe in one of the streams even went as fara s to insinuate people weren't play the way they should be playing (i.e. how he wanted them playing with GC).

[LordTurin]

Hello, I have a quick question I am sure has been answered or said but I don't know the answer so that's why I am asking lol! When 5.4 comes out, will it be just an FP or a storyline + FP? Like on Rishi there was a storyline then two FP'S that went with the storyline? Just was wondering... Thanks to whoever answers!

 

The implication from the info they have released so far is that the FP will be the story. So I would guess it will basically be we meet with a quest giver, have a conversation, do the FP, and have another conversation with the quest giver. I don't think it will be anywhere near as expansive as Rishi was.

[Kaizersan]

To be fair that was under Ben's watch ... this is the guy who thought RNG was exciting (thrill of the hunt) and I believe in one of the streams even went as fara s to insinuate people weren't play the way they should be playing (i.e. how he wanted them playing with GC).

 

And you are forgetting that the system was decided by people above Ben but then that makes it harder for you to just blame Ben rather then the bosses above him that approved it.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Kaizersan