Is This A Joke? A Bug? Intentional?

[Stellarcrusade]

Hey folks!

 

It is intended that we did not raise the Stronghold cap, due to its impact on Conquests. The idea of "place chairs in every hook" for your bonus is not a great experience. We would like to allow you to have the Strongholds you want and decorate them the way you want, without negative impact on Conquests. Right now those things are integrally tied together.

 

We may increase the Stronghold cap in the future, but first we want to address some of the issues related to Conquests.

 

-eric

 

Wow, just wow. There is nothing wrong with increased limit and allowing 175% conquest. Its a credit sink and everyone who does earns the same conquest. "we want to address some of the issues related to Conquests" is rediculous. Every change since 5.0 has been a bad one, so how about you guys just fix bugs, no more changes. What really gets me, why do all changes negatively affect the majority of players and typically cater only to the 3 actual OPS groups on each server, or the 7 people who play ranked. It seems like you are trying to encourage more participation in OPS/Ranked but fail horribly.

 

Do your self a favor, examine your roadmap of planned changes (I mean the real roadmap, the stuff you do not tell us about ahead of time included) for the rest of 5.x and see if each one passes these tests, and if it doesn't, just cancel them:

1.) This change doesn't cater to a small group of players (like OPS/Ranked PvP) but at the same time negatively affects the larger group.

2.) This change doesn't discourage players from doing something they enjoy.

3.) This change improves game play for the largest group of players affected by said change.

4.) For whatever group this change improves game play, are there any groups left out which should be included.

 

I bet you'll cross out most of every planned change left.

[Khaleg]

OK, but did they, in the post-Yavin patch, raise it to 5 or to 6? (It's hard to see how, if they didn't say one way or the other, you'd be able to *know*, since there were only 5 available, and nothing in-game says "you have 5 of a maximum of 6" nor "you have 5 of a maximum of 5."

 

That said, I do have this recollection of them saying it would be (had been?) raised to *five* at the time, but there's no way I have the slightest interest in digging through the devtracker to find it.

 

Ok, now I understand what you mean. I'm not entirely sure about this but the live agent said it was raised to 5. But sometimes they have not the slightest clue what they are even talking about, so who knows. :-)

I didn't care about that back then because only 5 were available anyway. I would rather believe they have raised it to 5 and when Manaan was introduced by another +1. Any reasonable person or company would have done the same with the introduction of the Umbara train as well, BECAUSE what kind of dumb explanation was given here?! As if raising the cap to 7 now would block future tweaks to the conquest bonus/hook count correlation in any way!?! It's so dumb and ignorant I can't even...As I said before I rather beleive it was forgottoen due to extremely flawed and unprofessional, I would guess chaotic, working processes and now they want to keep their straight face claiming it was "intentional". The other option is they have made an obviously outstanding dumb decision, and that 100 % intented...both is not very charming.

But even this unique dumb move should have been announced BEFORE the 5.4 release or at least in the patch notes. I think that is the very minimum any slightly reasonable or smart person can agree on. Given this fact I question what kind of people work at Bioware... lol. Not really blaming Eric here since he has to announce the bs he is allowed to, at the given time, bs others decide or f8ck up unintenionally.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Khaleg

[Jerqa]

You should spend less time thinking of new ways to slow player progression, and more time putting the chairs we can actually sit on, in the game as decos.

 

How is it that you can recode conquest to nerf crafting, but you can't do it now to make the new SH not count towards conquest?

 

There are chairs in game that we can actually sit on? Not emotes but actual chairs?

[Tsillah]

There are chairs in game that we can actually sit on? Not emotes but actual chairs?

 

The Umbara Stronghold does, all the way in the front. Not kidding.

[JattaGin]

Do your self a favor, examine your roadmap of planned changes (I mean the real roadmap, the stuff you do not tell us about ahead of time included) for the rest of 5.x and see if each one passes these tests, and if it doesn't, just cancel them:

1.) This change doesn't cater to a small group of players (like OPS/Ranked PvP) but at the same time negatively affects the larger group.

2.) This change doesn't discourage players from doing something they enjoy.

3.) This change improves game play for the largest group of players affected by said change.

4.) For whatever group this change improves game play, are there any groups left out which should be included.

 

I bet you'll cross out most of every planned change left.

 

As said as it is, ^^this.

[Jeweledleah]

joins the voices of "bioware, you should have added this little fact into patch notes of the patch last week. the flashpoint is highly annoying and pretty much the only reason for me at least to do it is to gain acess to the stronghold. that I have to deactivate something else to do so is not making it appealing. that I cannot even preview it in person unless I'm either given a key by someone who already bought it, or grind my way to get acess to terminal first... on a single character? is NOT making it appealing.

 

seriously though WHY isn't there a terminal on fleet? WHY complicate the whole matter by locking the TERMINAL behind the grind, instead of just (I don't know if you are so bound and determined to have people grind for it) - adding the new currency to its purchase price? the lack of communication here as well as what I would say are VERY questionable decisions is just... staggering.

 

this stronghold is starting to remind me of fulfilling wishes in Bedazzled. sure you get your wish... kinda... but the cost is so high, you might be better off not having made that wish at all.

[santafaye]

Hey folks!

 

It is intended that we did not raise the Stronghold cap, due to its impact on Conquests. The idea of "place chairs in every hook" for your bonus is not a great experience. We would like to allow you to have the Strongholds you want and decorate them the way you want, without negative impact on Conquests. Right now those things are integrally tied together.

 

We may increase the Stronghold cap in the future, but first we want to address some of the issues related to Conquests.

 

-eric

 

what you guys need to do is stop forcing people to do stuff by saying stuff like you can earn this by running this 10 6 and 3 times you did not only hurt the players that do decorate there strongholds but alot of players are losing faith in the game when you say one thing and mean another it feels like a lie there are even companions we are forced to do stuff like PVP we have to wait for a event or kill world bosses not everyone is into this now your forcing us to delete a stronghold BW claims to be story driven well give the story and stop forcing us to do stuff we already worked for i thought i heard one of you devs say that the player base would rather have the story all at once instead of broken up like your doing again sorry guys just feels like a big hype then a big let down ..

[ThadiusMoor]

Hey folks!

 

It is intended that we did not raise the Stronghold cap, due to its impact on Conquests. The idea of "place chairs in every hook" for your bonus is not a great experience. We would like to allow you to have the Strongholds you want and decorate them the way you want, without negative impact on Conquests. Right now those things are integrally tied together.

 

We may increase the Stronghold cap in the future, but first we want to address some of the issues related to Conquests.

 

-eric

 

Not only is this a direct slap in the face, it is also a VERY WEAK excuse.

 

It is not my fault you have VERY POOR design choices surrounding strongholds and conquest, but now you use that VERY POOR design as the excuse to block players from enjoying your new content fully.

 

The solution, as many have already posted, is to simply un-bind conquest from strongholds.

 

Place an absolute cap on conquest to 150% and then it should not matter how many strongholds you own, the cap will never go above that 150%.

 

If you do not do this, then your ability to introduce future strongholds will always lead to noone ever buying/using them.

 

This is pretty much the dumbest thing I've ever seen in a game.

 

And to be fair, there has only ever been one game that ever got more stupid than this. Do you know what game I speak of?

 

Runescape.

 

In 2007, Jagex took one of the most popular Java-based games and literally nuked the hell out of it because the lead producer decided it was time to go on a HOLY CRUSADE against bots, resulting in one of the biggest disasters ever seen in the gaming industry. That series of horrible design changes led to the single most massive wave of customer losses any game had ever seen up to that point.

 

Some put the numbers as high as 1 million accounts cancelling their subs all at the same time, some put the numbers higher, some others say lower, but the general concensus was that at least a million players walked away. It was so extreme that Jagex had no choice but to reverse the decision later on down the road, however, the damage was done and they are still recovering from it nearly 10 years later.

 

This thing you have done is certain to cause just as much annoyance, and I am already seeing many stating they will drop their subs because of this huge blunder.

 

Don't do what Jagex did... Don't be stupid just cause you are stubborn.

 

Fix this before it really does cost you large.

Edited August 30, 2017 by ThadiusMoor

[jamoup]

Hey folks!

 

It is intended that we did not raise the Stronghold cap, due to its impact on Conquests. The idea of "place chairs in every hook" for your bonus is not a great experience. We would like to allow you to have the Strongholds you want and decorate them the way you want, without negative impact on Conquests. Right now those things are integrally tied together.

 

We may increase the Stronghold cap in the future, but first we want to address some of the issues related to Conquests.

 

-eric

 

This is very frustrating. I can't have a new stronghold, that I had to grind a buggy FP to earn, unless I deactivate an existing stronghold that I spent in-game and real money to purchase and decorate? And this is because of conquest? A thing I never use/participate in. Can't I just turn off stronghold effecting conquest or something? and then suggesting that if given the 7th stronghold I wouldn't decorate the way you want me to decorate is just insulting and rude. Honestly, this was the biggest middle finger I've read in dev tracker.

 

Decorating my strongholds is a big part of the game for me. I've always told people how SWtoR is so great because there are lots of different ways to play. Space battles, PVP, Story, Ops... there is something for everyone. Since strongholds came out, I've largely shifted my gameplay to decorating. Yes. When Yavin came out I had to deactivate one of my others. But I knew that I would have to before I bought it and planned. Now I have to do it again? I'm really happy with the way me strongholds look. I don't want to have to deactivate one. Is there some metric someplace saying its more beneficial to do it this way?

 

Very frustrating that the stated reason for me not getting full access to a part of the game that I use (and spend real USD on) often because of some game mechanic I never have had any part of is infuriating!

 

Lots of people have made some great sounding suggestions on how to fix this. But it isn't our job to think of a fix, it is your job to understand what your players are wanting and apply the necessary fix to fulfill that obligation. I hope this is taken seriously and addressed.

[Nlightened]

If you are doing this because of the conquest bonuses where people throw down chairs in order to get their SH to 100%, why can't you put a limit on the number of strongholds that go into that bonus without actually taking away the stronghold. Why can't you cap the percentage regardless of the number of SHs I own and still allow me to own them all. Seems like a perfect solution for everyone. We get the stronghold and can decorate it, there is a cap for conquest and everyone is happier.

 

Why won't this work?

[Dalethfc]

Yep, you only can have a few active at one time. I only have 3 which is the 1 free 1 then the 2 capital worlds and thats it. So if i can get this game patched with 5.4 then i could get the train. But i cant cause its the patching expect is screwed and besides, i rather have my own personal Ship The Fury as a traveling Stronghold.

I like the Idea of your own Star ship as a Home/Stronghold. Which ever side your on you get a Capital Ship as a stronghold

[Dalethfc]

If you are doing this because of the conquest bonuses where people throw down chairs in order to get their SH to 100%, why can't you put a limit on the number of strongholds that go into that bonus without actually taking away the stronghold. Why can't you cap the percentage regardless of the number of SHs I own and still allow me to own them all. Seems like a perfect solution for everyone. We get the stronghold and can decorate it, there is a cap for conquest and everyone is happier.

 

Why won't this work?

It seems the Hooks are limited for the same reason. So you cant decorate as you want fully or own as many SH's as you want till it's all fixed.

[Thoniei]

Why in the world did you spend resources developing a new stronghold and then not let me use it? I'm not going to deactivate a stronghold that I spent time and money decorating. Please cap the stronghold bonus at 100% and allow us to have as many strongholds as we want. That way I can partially fill the hooks in all 7 of my strongholds and don't need to put a chair in every hook. And you don't have to deal with conquest bonus inflation. If you aren't going to increase the stronghold cap please do not waste anymore resources developing new strongholds.

[TUXs]

Just tie the conquest bonus to unlocking full strongholds.

 

1 Fully unlocked SH = +25%

2 Fully unlocked SHs = +50%

 

That simple. No more pointless filling with chairs, cash reward spent on full unlocked is rewarded with bonus and those who enjoy decorating can tinker with their houses and furnitures forever without having to worry about conquest number.

I would love this!

[Slurmez]

Part I don't get - Why is a GUILD conquest weekly event tied to personal stronghold count/filled hooks?

 

 

Didnt you know every invasion in history started because the guy in charge managed to pack his house full of chairs.....

 

More seriously though its a way of forcing content and generating sales to people who wouldnt normally be interested, same reason we got garbage arenas in regular warzone queues, to pad their use so a finger couldnt be directly pointed and said "these resources are underused"

 

Smoke and mirrors....

Edited August 30, 2017 by Slurmez

[orangenee]

Didnt you know every invasion in history started because the guy in charge managed to pack his house full of chairs.....

 

I believe it's called the "Furniture Constant" by military historians.

[TheGreyRanger]

I have to say I agree with the tone of this thread, I couldn't care less about the conquest thing, I've worked hard to get my strongholds the way I want them. I don't want to have to deactivate one just so I can get the new one.

[aerockyul]

Do your self a favor, examine your roadmap of planned changes (I mean the real roadmap, the stuff you do not tell us about ahead of time included) for the rest of 5.x and see if each one passes these tests, and if it doesn't, just cancel them:

1.) This change doesn't cater to a small group of players (like OPS/Ranked PvP) but at the same time negatively affects the larger group.

2.) This change doesn't discourage players from doing something they enjoy.

3.) This change improves game play for the largest group of players affected by said change.

4.) For whatever group this change improves game play, are there any groups left out which should be included.

 

Very well said. I don't think high-level Ops/Ranked PvP should be IGNORED, but it makes VERY little sense to cater to small groups at the expense of the larger groups, OR to attempt to force the larger groups into the smaller groups.

[DarthSpuds]

Don't do what Jagex did... Don't be stupid just cause you are stubborn.

 

Fix this before it really does cost you large.

 

I they were ideologically capable of that Command Ranks would already be gone.

 

They aren't.

 

All The Best

[Zasszz]

Anyone know whats it called when a person does not know when to use the right solution for a problem?

[Raytal]

Unless the patch notes specifically said they were increasing the number of strongholds you could have, why would you assume they had increased the number of strongholds you could have?

 

Every time they've increased it, there has been a specific mention of the increase.

 

I couldn't agree more!

 

(here is where reading the fine print makes sense - to your point, which is exceedingly pointless and usually is. You do however, always seem to make a great apologist for the indefensible)

 

So I understand what your saying -- In the 5.4 Patch Notes, which contained, Five Thousand Two Hundred and Eleven Characters, or, Eighty-Two paragraphs, or, One Hundred Thirty-Six Lines, there was clearly not enough room for: "Please note: to add your very own "Umbara Mobile Base", if you currently have 6 active strongholds you will need to delete one to gain access.", would have made no sense at all! As a matter of fact: Adding that simple line would have created an extra 118 characters. No way according to you! More-so it what would have been very unreasonable to even consider adding those extra 118 inconsequential characters. That's what your saying.

 

Nope, not material at all having to delete a stronghold to gain access to the train. FAIL! MAJOR FAIL!

 

Pure & Simple: They (SWTOR) had a responsibility to notice us right up front that we would have to delete one of our strongholds, if you currently had 6, in order to add the new "train". I for one would like to have had the information in-hand so I could have made an informed decision, as to:

A. not run the content repeatedly (which I did) to accumulate 60 token for something I couldn't use, or,

B. decide up front which, if any, stronghold I was willing to delete to gain access to the train.

 

By not providing such information in the Patch notes we as a community were simply set up....again.

 

Yeah, I'll bet the servers were full on launch day. And that of course looks good on the "% of Users accessing umbara" for their superiors. But had we been given accurate information on having to delete one of our strongholds in order to add the "umbara mobile base", I for one would have simple elected not to run the content repeatedly (hence lowering the % of Users accessing that useless content) to gain tokens for something I have no use for. oh, yeah I need more legacy gear...

 

Yep - read the fine print community and parse every line for comma's, semicolons, half meanings and more half-truths -

 

Why would anyone in their right mind not believe that the new stronghold could be added without having to delete one of your exiting strongholds that many of us spent days setting up? Hey maybe we would have simply gone and picked up all the deco's and deleted a stronghold we paid all those credits to unlock - but, maybe not! And that's where SWTOR had a responsibility to alert the Community.

 

Not sure whats worse - the implementation or someone defending it?

[Mdgshorty]

Hey folks!

 

It is intended that we did not raise the Stronghold cap, due to its impact on Conquests. The idea of "place chairs in every hook" for your bonus is not a great experience. We would like to allow you to have the Strongholds you want and decorate them the way you want, without negative impact on Conquests. Right now those things are integrally tied together.

 

We may increase the Stronghold cap in the future, but first we want to address some of the issues related to Conquests.

 

-eric

 

I call BS on this. There are people who like the SH for bonus but also there are people who would like to collect all of the SH also. When Manaan was released, I honestly thought you learned your lesson from Yavin. You should have let everyone know before this SH was released that there was going to be a limit and you never did. On top of it all, everyone had to wait at least a week to be able to have access to getting it.

 

What are you guys trying to do? Every twist and turn there is some sort of restriction put on what we can and cannot do in this game. You put ridiculously low caps when we know those caps can be put higher or taken totally away, but you choose to put caps on everything we do in game.

[Mithros]

Just tie the conquest bonus to unlocking full strongholds.

 

1 Fully unlocked SH = +25%

2 Fully unlocked SHs = +50%

 

That simple. No more pointless filling with chairs, cash reward spent on full unlocked is rewarded with bonus and those who enjoy decorating can tinker with their houses and furnitures forever without having to worry about conquest number.

 

This does seem to be a nice, simple way to go, but if they want to push sales of decorations then they need to incentivize that in some way.

 

That still leads back to some people filling slots with chairs (or whatever free/cheap decos they can get their hands on) to max out their bonus, but if Bioware sees that as a problem in need of fixing then it's going to take some time to figure that out.

 

So yeah, I think that this is a good place to go for now.

 

Either that or just give them a bonus for each unlocked module. A person wouldn't have to have any stronghold fully purchased as long as they have enough modules purchased for enough strongholds.

 

Either way the math would end up in the same-ish place right? Whether I fully deck out two strongholds or partially deck out five I can get to the same bonus, no?

 

Still, cap the bonus and let people have all the strongholds that they want.

 

It's better for Bioware that way, too.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Mithros

[Tolkyyn]

I posted something similar. The Devs really didn't think this through. I had the exact same experience. so I popped into someone else's Umbara stronghold to see if I was missing anything by not having one. NO. It's just the train. No panoramic views, no beautiful anything. just the dark gray train, same widith and length as in the FP, nothing special - blah.

[ThadiusMoor]

I posted something similar. The Devs really didn't think this through. I had the exact same experience. so I popped into someone else's Umbara stronghold to see if I was missing anything by not having one. NO. It's just the train. No panoramic views, no beautiful anything. just the dark gray train, same widith and length as in the FP, nothing special - blah.

 

After viewing the stronghold, honestly, I will never want to buy this until they increase the stronghold cap, and if that never happens, then I will never own it, or even bother to care about ever going back to that flashpoint for any reason.

 

This is just about the worst patch any game has ever placed in, using the excuse of their poor design as the reason we can't have the stronghold on top of the others we already own.

 

Truely disappointing.

 

And now on top of that all... They have to patch the update because their quality assurance staff failed to see a blatantly obvious exploit:

 

People are summoning via guild ship to the stronghold board, thus getting out of having to grind the recon datas...

 

Just epic and sad.