Use a Points Cap for Daily Repeatable Activities and Make Conquest truly Legacy Based

[Kurj]

Edit: TL/DR:

 

1. Make daily repeatable activities repeatable up to a points cap (i.e., you can run any objective as many times as you want up to a points cap).

 

2. Make Conquest legacy based and grant personal goal rewards for every multiple of the personal goal you reach. I.e., first reward at 15,000, second reward at 30,000, etc.)

 

3. Apply a multiplier to the rewards so small guilds can acquire flagship encryptions in a reasonable timeframe, i.e., at 15,000 you get 1x the reward, at 30,000, you get an additional 2x the reward, at 45,000, you get an additional 3x the reward. Apply a bell curve to this if needed to prevent inflation.

 

1. Use a Daily Repeatable Conquest Points "Cap" Instead of Requiring Completion of Each Daily Repeatable Objective

 

Many players have complained that the new system requires them to participate in activities they do not like in order to achieve their personal goal. This seems to chiefly be an issue for the Daily Repeatable activities, which taken together represent the most significant potential source of Conquest points (it is nearly double the total potential points you can achieve with one-time activities). There is also anecdotal evidence that this is reducing the quality of many activity queues, by either encouraging unproductive behavior (dropping matches at the first sign of a loss), or reducing queue populations because there is now less incentive to participate in those activities. These unintended effects are bad for the game as a whole, because they potentially diminish the enjoyment of everyone, whether they participate in Conquest or not.

 

One way to allow player choice is to establish a daily points cap for Daily Repeatable activities, which would allow players to repeat their chosen Daily Repeatable activity up to the points cap. For example, if you complete all of the Daily Repeatable activities this week, you will earn 12,250 Conquest Points. Why not simply make 12,250 points the maximum amount of Conquest points a player can earn from Daily Repeatable activities on any given day for this Conquest, but let them do so by completing any Daily Repeatable activity as many times as they want up to the points cap?

 

You can still encourage particular types of Daily Repeatable activities per the Conquest Theme by giving those activities a more appealing effort/reward ratio, but so long as you do not make it too extreme, those players who truly do not like to step outside of their comfort zone will still be able to benefit their guilds while doing what they like. This should reduce or even eliminate some of the unintended side effects of incentivizing players to participate in activities they detest.

 

2. Make Conquest Truly Legacy-Based (Legacy-Restricted =/= Legacy-Based)

 

We have many yellow posts telling us that Conquest is "legacy based." However the term seems to be misapplied. While there are now many legacy restrictions, it is not legacy-based, because rewards are earned on a per-character basis. As a result, players are forced to min/max their Conquest participation by character, which makes Conquest feel more like work than fun. That does nothing in and of itself to achieve the stated goals behind the Conquest redesign, while angering or even worse demoralizing many players who choose SWTOR precisely because it has a robust alt system due to class stories and numerous different specs. And, while this has always been the case, the effort required to earn points is far more demanding than under the old system, making min/maxing a far bigger concern.

 

There is a simple way to resolve this: Make conquest truly legacy-based, by tabulating Conquest points by legacy and issuing additional rewards for each multiple of your personal goal achieved on a legacy-wide basis, regardless of which toon completes which task. I.e., for the Kurj legacy, at 15,000 points, I get one set of rewards, at 30,000 I get a 2nd set, etc. This will let players freely switch between alts (or continue playing their main) without concerns that they have "left points on the table," while not affecting the total number of Conquests points any particular legacy can earn.

 

I don't know how difficult coding either of these suggestions would be, but to the extent they are doable with reasonable effort, I think these changes would benefit the system as a whole without compromizing the developer's stated goals for the Conquest redesign. Thanks for reading.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Kurj

[DWho]

A diminishing returns approach could work as well. For something like crafting, perhaps the first 40 items yield full CQ points, the next 40 yield 75% CQ points, and so on down to 25% at items120+ on your legacy. You could do something similar with the "once dailies", first time is full pionts, second is 75%, and so on down to a minimum of 25% on your legacy. That way you tamp down a little on alts but don't eliminate them completely. It would still give an advantage to guilds that are more accounts than alts but someone with a lot of alts could work really hard and push their guild over the top.

[Kurj]

A diminishing returns approach could work as well. For something like crafting, perhaps the first 40 items yield full CQ points, the next 40 yield 75% CQ points, and so on down to 25% at items120+ on your legacy. You could do something similar with the "once dailies", first time is full pionts, second is 75%, and so on down to a minimum of 25% on your legacy. That way you tamp down a little on alts but don't eliminate them completely. It would still give an advantage to guilds that are more accounts than alts but someone with a lot of alts could work really hard and push their guild over the top.

 

It definitely could. I based my suggestions on a points cap since that is what they've used, but there are many ways to skin this cat.

 

One other thing they should do: add a multiplier to the rewards based on the number of times you hit personal goal. I.e, at 15,000 points you get 1x the reward. At 30,000 points, you get 2x the reward, for a total of 3x the reward. At 45,000 points, you get 3x the reward, for a total of 6x the reward. You can tweak it however you like, but the issue of encrptions for small guilds is a serious one. Maybe you need a bell curve to prevent inflation. I.e., starting on the 4th toon you cap, the multiplier reduces back to 2x the rewards, etc.

[Andryah]

Yeah.... this is an approach that makes more sense.

 

The alternate suggestion of diminishing returns would work even better I think as it would ease the player into the point of no good return, whereas a daily cap is kind of a hard wall. That way.. if the player wants to push things (like when they are close to their point goal for example), even though it becomes less efficient if they do, that is the players choice.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Andryah

[commanderwar]

I think this is a very reasonable and great suggestion

[Joonbeams]

Yeah.... this is an approach that makes more sense.

 

The alternate suggestion of diminishing returns would work even better I think as it would ease the player into the point of no good return, whereas a daily cap is kind of a hard wall. That way.. if the player wants to push things (like when they are close to their point goal for example), even though it becomes more efficient if they do, that is the players choice.

 

Spot on summary. Agreed.

[Kurj]

Yeah.... this is an approach that makes more sense.

 

The alternate suggestion of diminishing returns would work even better I think as it would ease the player into the point of no good return, whereas a daily cap is kind of a hard wall. That way.. if the player wants to push things (like when they are close to their point goal for example), even though it becomes more efficient if they do, that is the players choice.

 

I agree. If they had simply based the whole system on a DR model, you don't even need to differentiate between "daily repeatable" and "infinitely repeatable". You just set the effort/rewards curves per the theme of the week, and you can draw from one list of potential objectives rather than two. Much simpler for everyone to understand/play according to. I'm assuming they are not going to go back and re-tool the basic structure at this point. However, that doesn't mean they can't achieve the functional equivalent of that by tweaking what we've got.

 

The bigger issue seems to be getting the playerbase to stop venting/infighting and start asking for common-sense changes that respect the developer's decision to level the playing field. Anything else is just unrealistic and does more harm than good by driving away potentially sympathetic posters who understandably don't want to witness let alone participate in the free-for-all.

[PennyAnn]

I hope this, unlike all other feedback threads to date, receives the attention of those who can actually make changes to the system, and not just the people who have diminished all threads feedback with trolling, arguing and speaking for the developers like they have a crystal ball that the rest of us don't.

 

The suggestions you've made here would be an improvement, though my only criticism would be that it still encourages players to be involved playing the game less per week than the former system - and any reason to play the game less is not going to be beneficial to the game itself long term. Remember, Conquest was devised as a system to encourage the player base to repeat old content while waiting for new content. Restricting how much we can do that and be rewarded for it, after NOT restricting it for four full years (Conquest was released in March of 2014) is a large reason why they are facing so much negative feedback. They are absolutely taking something away from the population after letting it ride for four years (which obviously didn't hurt the game any, but these changes very much have).

 

It is however, an improvement on how to handle it that feels slightly less punishing. I hope that you can both keep the thread clean AND get feedback from someone with a yellow tag (or at least their notice). I've tried to do the same in the past with a "clean" thread about the road map feedback, and even though it didn't devolve, it was also completely ignored. I wish you much better luck than I had. Cheers, Kurj.

 

.

Edited April 4, 2018 by PennyAnn

[Kurj]

I hope this, unlike all other feedback threads to date, receives the attention of those who can actually make changes to the system, and not just the people who have diminished all threads feedback with trolling, arguing and speaking for the developers like they have a crystal ball that the rest of us don't.

 

The suggestions you've made here would be an improvement, though my only criticism would be that it still encourages players to be involved playing the game less per week than the former system - and any reason to play the game less is not going to be beneficial to the game itself long term. Remember, Conquest was devised as a system to encourage the player base to repeat old content while waiting for new content. Restricting how much we can do that and be rewarded for it, after NOT restricting it for four full years (Conquest was released in March of 2014) is a large reason why they are facing so much negative feedback. They are absolutely taking something away from the population after letting it ride for four years (which obviously didn't hurt the game any, but these changes very much have).

 

It is however, an improvement on how to handle it that feels slightly less punishing. I hope that you can both keep the thread clean AND get feedback from someone with a yellow tag (or at least their notice). I've tried to do the same in the past with a "clean" thread about the road map feedback, and even though it didn't devolve, it was also completely ignored. I wish you much better luck than I had. Cheers, Kurj.

 

.

 

Thank you, Penny. I was inspired by your efforts, and your support is hugely appreciated.

[Kurj]

I PMed Eric and Keith about the thread, and got the following response from Keith this morning:

 

Dear Eric and Keith:

 

I have 3 suggestions that I believe fit in with your goal of leveling the Conquest playing field while increasing playstyle choices and making alt-play a non-issue. The final suggestion also addresses the impact on small guilds with respect to flagship encryptions. I have posted these on the boards here, but the thread has been largely ignored. Perhaps I need to threaten to quit or personally attack other posters to get more attention? Weak attempt at humor aside, here are my suggestions:

 

1. Make daily repeatable objectives infinitely repeatable up to a daily or weekly points cap. For example, currently a player can earn 12,250 Conquest points per day by completing all daily repeatable objectives. So, make the daily cap 12,250, and allow a player to repeat any daily repeatable objective for points up to 12,250 points per day. Alternatively, you could make it a weekly cap, which would allow players to better adjust their playstyle around real life commitments. Regardless, either of these options will allow players to play their chosen content and reduce the impact of the changes on activity queues.

 

2. Award conquest points on a legacy basis, rather than per character, and grant personal goal rewards at each multiple of the personal goal achieved. I.e., 1st reward at 15,000, 2nd reward at 30,000, 3rd reward at 45,000, etc. This will remove concerns related to alt play, and permit players to choose the class roles needed by their guilds, or to simply stick with the character that they are most comfortable/proficient playing.

 

3. Apply a multiplier to conquest rewards to reduce the impact the changes have on small guilds' ability to earn flagship encryptions. I.e., the 1st time you hit personal goal, you get 1x the applicable guild reward. The 2nd time you hit personal goal, you get an additional 2x the applicable guild reward, for a total of 3x personal rewards received. If there are concerns with material or encryption inflation, you can have the multiplier decrease at the appropriate point (i.e., after you hit personal goal 5x, the multiplier reduces), or even simply apply the multiplier to the encryptions.

 

I don't know how difficult these changes would be to program into the current system, but I am confident they would reduce or eliminate the complaints raised by the majority of players thus far. The Conquest fanatics will never be satisfied due to the new soft cap imposed, but I'm assuming you guys have determined the changes are better for the game as a whole regardless. Thank you for reading.

Hey, thanks for the info. I'll pass it along to the designers. You're right about the naysayers, but what we are seeing is a much higher overall participation rate plus many more guilds receiving rewards (even if they are not in the top 10). So the change has been beneficial to many guilds. We still have changes to make and refinements in the future. We plan to do a lot more with Guilds this year, so hardening our underlying systems is very important.

 

Best to you,

 

Keith

 

While the reply is short on details, it does appear to confirm one fact: They are seeing higher overall guild participation following the revamp, with more guilds receiving rewards. I take that statement at face value, and continue to believe we will not see any change to the account-based soft cap they have imposed on Conquest.

 

That aside, I think we should try to unite on the issues of playstyle choices and alt-based play. It's far from being a complete solution for any individual group, but improving those two aspects would improve the Conquest experience for everyone.

[Andryah]

While the reply is short on details, it does appear to confirm one fact: They are seeing higher overall guild participation following the revamp, with more guilds receiving rewards. I take that statement at face value, and continue to believe we will not see any change to the account-based soft cap they have imposed on Conquest.

 

Honestly, I find this comment from Eric hard to believe. But then again... he has no reason to misrepresent at a general level of detail like this.. so there must be something they are seeing that reinforces the stated observation. Could be this is server dependent to some degree...... but at the end of the day only they have the data to actually evaluate something like this. /shrug

 

That aside, I think we should try to unite on the issues of playstyle choices and alt-based play. It's far from being a complete solution for any individual group, but improving those two aspects would improve the Conquest experience for everyone.

 

I very much agree with this and I very much support and appreciate your taking a rational and thoughtful approach to providing some level of unified feedback that is actually actionable by the studio. You and PennyAnn and a few others have endeavored to be objective advocates for adjustments, and I really think this approach is much more likely to get their attention much more then the semi-pro food-fight promoters who are just railing and ranting and providing no actual actionable feedback.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Andryah

[PennyAnn]

I also got the same response, before they even posted the changes coming in 5.9 or did the livestream interview with SWTORCentral, so they have been towing that line after even the first and partway through the second week of conquest. It makes it a little less believable to me, honestly... but I don't know why he would say that unless it was either 1) True or 2) Trying to convince me to look away from the problems.

 

Here is my message chain with him (using spoiler tags because they are quite long):

 

I know you are busy, and I haven't heard back from you about the 5.8 conquest changes message I sent last week, but I feel I need to come to you with feedback yet again.

 

The objectives being once per Legacy per day vs. once per Character per day forces us to choose a single character, in a single guild, on a single faction to complete conquest with and locks us out of even being able to participate on both factions for conquest.

 

This and lockout out lower level characters with the crafting changes, as I mentioned in my last message to you feels like it is sabotaging your effort to make conquest more inclusive.

 

Once per Legacy per day also punishes primarily the small guilds who only compete with the large mega-guilds via alts. If you are wanting smaller guilds to have any shot at conquest, you are going about it the opposite way in order to succeed at that goal.

 

Please reconsider. There is a lot of really great feedback in the 2 large threads since last Tuesday (one of which Eric has locked). I urge you guys to really read through it and hear us. There are better ways to address your concerns about crafting and operations lockouts than to limit us to getting conquest on a single character per week. It's punishing enough that many will just quit doing conquest all together when it becomes too much like a job. We come here to have fun, and this system is not fun in many ways - this being one of them. Please, give us back our alts. Please, let us complete conquest on more than a single character, in a single guild, on a single faction. Remove the per-Legacy daily restriction.

 

Thanks for your consideration.

PennyAnn, We made some changes this week and have a number of improvements planned for 5.9 that will or have already addressed most of the concerns. Let me know if the adjustments we made Tuesday help. From our standpoint, we are seeing much higher participation from many more guilds than in the past.

 

I believe Musco will be posting up the 5.9 changes by tomorrow.

 

Keith

 

None of the changes have addressed the once per legacy per day issues that pigeon-hole us into choosing not only a single character, but a single faction, to focus our efforts on.

 

I have done my best to give this system a fair shake this week, working with the changes (adding in weekly objectives, etc) and would have to say my opinion it is not enough. I more easily got 2 characters to goal this week, but again have been forced to choose a single faction and have been unable to support my Republic guild in addition to my Imperial guild on even a single character. If I do manage to put in some time over there, many of the "once per legacy" restrictions that would see me at least get a decent amount of my personal goal reached have been done and cannot be repeated (daily missions, warzone victory, operations participation).

 

Too grindy, too much work, and too alt-punishing remains my feedback. Waiting another month to see any further changes to this system is disappointing.

 

It's interesting that you see more participation from more guilds, when I've only noticed that even with the changed yield requirements, there are still zero guilds hitting the large planet yield (on Thursday, the official halfway point of the week), 3 guilds total that have hit the medium planet yield, and the lowest yield planet is filled with huge guilds who have easily hit the new target range. (This is on Satele Shan server).

 

This says to me that there is still a pretty big problem with the system. Small guilds now cannot compete on the lowest yield planets that were intended for them because there are only mega guilds on that planet, and the other 2 planet categories will see any guilds attempting them receive less rewards than they would have before for hitting the top 10 (but not the total point yield requirement).

 

I'm trying my best to hang with this system, but it is still what feels like a very long way from being rewarding, or even fun. I would say unless the changes Musco posts tomorrow address the "once per legacy per day" restriction (or at least easing this across factions), it will still be a struggle that I'm not sure many of the people who have participated in the past will want to endeavor to undertake, myself included. And that is heartbreaking, being one of the only things keeping me playing this game since launch.

 

On a positive note, Izax is an enjoyable fight. It is a shame that once I've cleared that raid on Vet mode that I will struggle for a reason to log in and repeat things, where that reason used to be conquest.

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I really am trying to remain positive about this, but watching my guild of conquest focused casual players drop like flies is hurting my heart. I lost 6 subscribing guild members this week alone due to the conquest changes. That makes it even tougher to keep my chin up, but I will continue to try.

 

Regards,

Penny

Help me out here...give me an idea of the steps you took each day to complete the conquest objectives. Then, I can walk through it with the designers and make sure we are all in sync.

 

Also, there is a bug currently that if your guild did not invade this week, it still shows your guild's points from last week. If you did not earn points yet this week, it still shows your personal reward points from last week. So it may be telling you that more people are participating due to this bug than really are. I think the gist of it is that you had to invade with your guild to "zero out" the points from last week and start over. If the guild did not invade, the same points show from last week and are being carried over.

 

This is a second hand report because both my Imperial and Republic guilds set invasions, but something you should definitely look into. I saw screenshots from a friend's guild.

Thanks for all the information. I'll pass everything along to the team for review. Eric will be making a post today about updates to Conquests which should address most of your concerns. Yes, it's a month from now, but we need the time to implement and test the changes.

 

One thing still missing in my head is Conquests objectives have always been Legacy-based as they are based on achievements (which are legacy). So, how did it all of a sudden become Alt unfriendly? I'm not connecting the dots, so I'm missing something big here.

 

Keith

 

The objectives you can perform to get points toward your personal conquest were repeatable on any character for the most part. There were certain objectives that were only repeatable once per legacy: Crafting an invasion force on non-crafting weeks (on crafting focused weeks, these became infinitely repeatable) - the 250 NPC kills was previously once per week per legacy (once you finished it, you couldn't earn points for it again), and other minor things worth points were done this way.

 

The things that weren't:

PvP: win a match, participation, complete the weekly

GSF: win a match, participation, complete the weekly

Flashpoints: be eligible for daily quest from terminal and complete, complete the weekly

Operations: Daily group finder completion

Planetary Heroics

 

These items in particular were repeatable on as many characters in your legacy as you wanted to take the time to complete them with per day, no legacy restrictions. Right now, under the new system, for example... if I win a PvP match, I can't get points for it again on my legacy for that day. If I complete my PvP weekly of 20 matches for unranked, I cannot earn points for completing it on any other character in my entire legacy for the rest of the week. Once I've completed the Group Finder Operation on a single character for the day, I can't even repeat it on the opposite faction for points because I am limited to once per legacy per day.

 

So many of the items in the "objectives" list to earn points toward completing conquest have been too strictly limited using the once-per legacy (per week or per day) such that playing more than a single character in your legacy for conquest is not possible. We went from being able to earn conquest points on as many characters as we wanted to put the work into earning to being forced to focus on a single character per day, and seeing many of the ways to earn points being crossed off for the entire week after completing them on a single character.

 

That's what I mean by alt-unfriendly. This is such an alt-centric game (Dark vs Light event encouraging us to create more alts, the massive number of character slots available, the legacy gear system, etc.) and those of us who played alts loved that we didn't have to pick and choose which we were going to play and/or compete with in conquest.

 

This becomes especially tough when we were say, 20 flagship encryptions away from being able to make a framework and unlock a room on our guild ship. It used to be that if we put in the effort to get into the top 10 leader board on a planet (usually done via alts when you don't have as many individual legacies as mega-guilds), we knew if we worked hard enough we could get 20 more characters through it as a guild (10 of us would grind up 2 more character's points, or 5 of us would grind up 4 more character's points, etc.). Now that is not even possible because none of the activities that earn you significant points (or even enough to hit 15,000 for the week) are repeatable. If you have already done it on one of your characters, every single one in your legacy is now locked out from getting points from that same activity, even on the opposite faction.

 

Hopefully that will help clear up what I feel like is probably the biggest problem with the current conquest system. Not enough is repeatable on more than a single character per week. Once you get to 2 or 3 characters, you are out of ways to earn points at all except for the repeatable objectives that give you 200 or 300 points at a time, and there is not enough time in the week to get 15,000 points when you're doing it 200 points at a time.

 

If you need any further clarification, please don't hesitate to ask and I will do my best. I would love to see you guys get conquest truly fixed in 5.9 so that you do not have to tweak it for the rest of the year like you did Galactic Command. I'm sure you probably have other things you'd like to accomplish too, so I feel like it's really important to get a couple of these bigger issues handled sooner rather than later and return the conquest system to something that is more fun to participate in. As a system, I think conquest is key to encouraging people to repeat older content while we wait for newer content.

 

Thanks again for your consideration of this! It is appreciated, Keith.

 

Regards,

Penny

 

Okay, I just read the changes coming in 5.9. I have to tell you that it is imperative that anything that he describes "Daily Repeatable" absolutely 100% MUST be repeatable PER CHARACTER, not PER LEGACY or the problems continue. Right now, you can only repeat things once per day PER LEGACY, and that means if I do it on one single character in my list of 75, I cannot repeat it that day at all for points.

 

This is what absolutely MUST change in order for the system to not be alt-unfriendly. No change to the per Legacy restriction sees this as too little to make any difference to the problems with the Conquest system.

 

However, change that one distinction, and the changes you are adding in 5.9 are now FANTASTIC. It's the one thing, the one distinction that keeps these changes from being a waste of your development time, and I know you have precious little of that as it is already.

 

Thanks, Keith!

 

As soon as I sent this, Eric responded:

The Conquest system is based around Legacy, so it looks like this:

• Repeatable - Infinitely repeatable on anyone
  
• Daily Repeatable - Once per day, per Legacy
  
• One-time - Can be completed one time, per Legacy, per Conquest
  

 

Please note that the Daily Repeatable was NOT per legacy in the previous conquest system. This is a brand new change with system that you implemented in 5.8, and it continues to punish alts even with the changes you are making in 5.9.

 

It keeps me from repeating anything on the other faction that I did that day. That's really as clear as I can make it to explain why it's a problem. You are limiting me playing more than one character per day. That is the definition of alt-unfriendly that we are all employing when we describe it that way.

 

This effort in 5.9 could have been the fix that saw you done messing with the conquest system. Keeping it per-legacy (which was NOT the way it was in the old system) just means that the primary complaint about the new system is not being addressed. You are doubling down instead of fixing.

 

 

 

And then a final message, right before the SWTORCentral Livestream, which I've not heard back about at all:

 

So I think I've figured out the disconnect between the developers and the players.

 

Before, there were indeed per-legacy objectives and infinitely repeatable objectives. In fact, there were much MORE infinitely repeatable objectives in the previous version of conquest, and much fewer per-legacy objectives.

 

Then, you added Daily Objectives and many of those were in the infinitely repeatable category before, and were the parts of the game that we played with alts to earn conquest. Now that they have changed category and are "Daily" objectives, they are limited to once per legacy (biggest example: Group Finder Operations).

 

You also put NEW per-legacy restrictions on things like: PvP Weekly, GSF Weekly, Flashpoint Weekly, Planetary Heroics, and others that were never legacy restricted before.

 

THAT is why we're feeling like the new system is too restrictive. Just take a look at any of the "daily" objectives you added. If it was infinitely repeatable before, it's something we can't even do on the opposite faction anymore. Very alt-unfriendly compared to the old system.

 

I hope that helps!

 

[Kurj]

I think your final PM to them really hits the nail on the head. Yes, we've always had legacy restrictions, but now all points within the soft cap are based around legacy restrictions that remove playstyle choice and kill alt play. I don't know how anyone can state the problem more simply than you did.

[PennyAnn]

I admit that I am now feeling completely defeated (per my signature - stopped trying) in aiming to provide reasonable and actionable feedback to them. I feel like they have blinders on. Or, if they are not able to take a very simple suggestion like: "Look at the new daily objectives that you created and if they were repeatable per character in the old system, make them repeatable per character in the new system, problem solved" - they are not explaining WHY they can't do something that simple to fix what I feel like would solve a huge chunk of the problem.

 

Even if they made tweaks to some of those things - the ones that all the detractors in the "feedback" threads go to: repeatable operations lockouts and repeatable crafting - it would be an improvement to take the restriction out and just make them worth less points or change how their points were rewarded, but not limit these items to a single character per day.

 

This just seems too easy to fix to still be a problem. And they won't say why they won't take a simple approach like this to fixing it, or even respond at all anymore. Now that the nerfs to tanks in effort to try and "fix" skank tanking are published and another obvious miss in development that would be simple to fix (make mitigation stats work in PvP, problem solved)... I feel like we're circling the drain and there are so many things to point out that need fixing that it's likely NONE of them will be fixed sufficiently... maybe ever... but more likely too late to matter.

 

*sigh* Obviously, I'm pretty bummed about this and feeling like I don't know why we've tried to fight the good fight, even though I know looking back on it I'll be glad I took that approach vs. getting in the mud. Just feeling hopeless right now and like this is going to end in me finally cancelling my sub for good, when I've always intended to be here as long as the game is.

 

Best of luck to you, Kurj. I hope you can make some traction with this. I am your biggest cheerleader in that regard.

 

.

Edited April 6, 2018 by PennyAnn