Hi Charles and Keith! Any new information about conquest and 5.9?

[Lhancelot]

But hey, to each his/her own. In the end, your general point that we need to just shut up and take it from the studio - or leave - is well-taken, and accepted.

 

Yes.

 

I conceded this a week ago to him, when he said something about the devs following a certain design goal and that it was accomplishing what they wanted. (I believe it was him, I am paraphrasing but regardless, there are certain points he makes which are probably quite true.)

 

Ironically when I said I agreed with him, he then wanted to start a argument over how I misunderstood what he really had said.

 

The issue with him is when he says things like "the new system is better, or the numbers prove it, they say so." These are opinions, and no more factual than the opinions of those who despise the new system.

 

It doesn't matter what Charles tells us about "the numbers showing higher participation" when the statement itself is so vague and unclear. I mean, what participation? You need context to make sense of that statement alone, and Charles chose to leave the details out of it.

 

So, the debate rages on thanks to AGAIN, a real lack of transparency on the studio's behalf. That's how i view it.

 

I suppose I am critical of the community managers... I mean the devs DO good work and the game is fun even with it's flaws. But damn, clear communication and transparency really does go a long way.

[olagatonjedi]

Yes.

 

I conceded this a week ago to him, when he said something about the devs following a certain design goal and that it was accomplishing what they wanted. (I believe it was him, I am paraphrasing but regardless, there are certain points he makes which are probably quite true.)

 

Ironically when I said I agreed with him, he then wanted to start a argument over how I misunderstood what he really had said.

 

The issue with him is when he says things like "the new system is better, or the numbers prove it, they say so." These are opinions, and no more factual than the opinions of those who despise the new system.

 

It doesn't matter what Charles tells us about "the numbers showing higher participation" when the statement itself is so vague and unclear. I mean, what participation? You need context to make sense of that statement alone, and Charles chose to leave the details out of it.

 

So, the debate rages on thanks to AGAIN, a real lack of transparency on the studio's behalf. That's how i view it.

 

I suppose I am critical of the community managers... I mean the devs DO good work and the game is fun even with it's flaws. But damn, clear communication and transparency really does go a long way.

What type of participation shouldnt matter with how we interpret it, in truth. If they see participation as the key element, and they see its up, then do you really think it will matter if they give any extra information or data? The other data might be inportant to us, but it doesnt mean its important to them, or to the business model. So all of this hype being created for transparency is really all for not, unless our view or info matches theirs.

 

From an MMO business standpoint, I can totally see how even a vague statement or data point as participation could be the all determining factor in success or failure. If people dont participate, the game goes down. But if the majority of people participate, and the vocal.minority doesnt, its still counted as the majority. The forums, no matter how much people wish to claim it and scream it over and over, is NOT the majority, but they are the loudest. Unfortunately for them, BW isnt measuring loudest participants.

[KendraP]

What type of participation shouldnt matter with how we interpret it, in truth. If they see participation as the key element, and they see its up, then do you really think it will matter if they give any extra information or data? The other data might be inportant to us, but it doesnt mean its important to them, or to the business model. So all of this hype being created for transparency is really all for not, unless our view or info matches theirs.

 

From an MMO business standpoint, I can totally see how even a vague statement or data point as participation could be the all determining factor in success or failure. If people dont participate, the game goes down. But if the majority of people participate, and the vocal.minority doesnt, its still counted as the majority. The forums, no matter how much people wish to claim it and scream it over and over, is NOT the majority, but they are the loudest. Unfortunately for them, BW isnt measuring loudest participants.

 

The issue with this interpretation is they are accepting numbers over the outrage without trying to put said mystery numbers (sorry Kanning, I reserve the right to doubt numbers I cannnot see and naturally uou cannot share whatever you're going off of with us, business decisions) into any kind of context.

 

The one thing Andryah said that I happen to personally agree with is that both you and your "numbers tell the whole thing" and my (i thought obviously sarcastic and exaggerated but apparently i need to point out every time i am sarcastic) "forums trump numbers" discussion is that the two should go hand in hand. I.e. what are the numbers and why are they that way? People are a notoriously difficult system to work with: we all act differently.

 

Basically it comes back to what Lhance is getting at. We wish simply that, rather than a vague, frustrated post every 2-3 weeks we simply wish they would communicate with us more interactively. If potential changes were announced and discussed before they were released, it would make the result more palatable, and thus end much of the outrage.

 

I do not see this as a complicated argument to make.

Edited April 23, 2018 by KendraP

[curulz]

The forums, no matter how much people wish to claim it and scream it over and over, is NOT the majority, but they are the loudest. Unfortunately for them, BW isnt measuring loudest participants.

 

Forum posters are a % of the overall player base, and I think most would agree it's a small %. but that doesn't mean it's not representative.

[olagatonjedi]

The issue with this interpretation is they are accepting numbers over the outrage without trying to put said mystery numbers (sorry Kanning, I reserve the right to doubt numbers I cannnot see and naturally uou cannot share whatever you're going off of with us, business decisions) into any kind of context.

 

The one thing Andryah said that I happen to personally agree with is that both you and your "numbers tell the whole thing" and my (i thought obviously sarcastic and exaggerated but apparently i need to point out every time i am sarcastic) "forums trump numbers" discussion is that the two should go hand in hand. I.e. what are the numbers and why are they that way? People are a notoriously difficult system to work with: we all act differently.

 

Basically it comes back to what Lhance is getting at. We wish simply that, rather than a vague, frustrated post every 2-3 weeks we simply wish they would communicate with us more interactively. If potential changes were announced and discussed before they were released, it would make the result more palatable, and thus end much of the outrage.

 

I do not see this as a complicated argument to make.

I just dont see more communication, or more specifically early communication, as a need or smart idea on their part. In fact, it has bit them in the behind already, amd recently, woth the 5.9 changes. Yes, they did communicate those changes before. Yes, they got a LOT of backlash already, before it came out. The overall community response isnt doing the community any favors to get more, and early, communication. They are asking people to wait and tey the changes before passing judgement, which is a fair ask.

[KendraP]

I just dont see more communication, or more specifically early communication, as a need or smart idea on their part. In fact, it has bit them in the behind already, amd recently, woth the 5.9 changes. Yes, they did communicate those changes before. Yes, they got a LOT of backlash already, before it came out. The overall community response isnt doing the community any favors to get more, and early, communication. They are asking people to wait and tey the changes before passing judgement, which is a fair ask.

 

Where was this conquest stuff before? I remember planet split, gui changes, mentions of hopefully better competitiveness for small guilds and that sort of thing.

 

I remember nothing about point values being slashed or alt usage being considered problematic.

 

What i thought was they were tsking the old system and giving us 3 planets but the point values and individual toon caps would remain the same, with a fair cap for guild rewards.

 

What i got was a gutted, buggy, grindy, and frankly for me fruatrating system.

 

I explained in detail how communicating with us would help. Sure they might hear things they do not want to hear; i for one prefer to fix things proactively than reactively.

Edited April 23, 2018 by KendraP

[masterceil]

Where was this conquest stuff before? I remember planet split, gui changes, mentions of hopefully better competitiveness for small guilds and that sort of thing.

 

I remember nothing about point values being slashed or alt usage being considered problematic.

 

What i thought was they were tsking the old system and giving us 3 planets but the point values and individual toon caps would remain the same, with a fair cap for guild rewards.

 

What i got was a gutted, buggy, grindy, and frankly for me fruatrating system.

 

I explained in detail how communicating with us would help. Sure they might hear things they do not want to hear; i for one prefer to fix things proactively than reactively.

 

I believe they're referring to Musco's post of the 5.9 changes, which did not quell the tide of angry responses from forum-goers. They did communicate upcoming changes, and were still bitten on the *** by rabid "fans" of the game. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

While I'm posting, I'll also point out that Keith tried to be cordial and talkative in Musco's "BRB, AFK" thread, and he was immediately jumped on in what should have been a happy thread by angry posters. I totally understand their reticence in reaching out to the community more, as every time they do, without fail, they get their hand slapped.

[KendraP]

I believe they're referring to Musco's post of the 5.9 changes, which did not quell the tide of angry responses from forum-goers. They did communicate upcoming changes, and were still bitten on the *** by rabid "fans" of the game. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

While I'm posting, I'll also point out that Keith tried to be cordial and talkative in Musco's "BRB, AFK" thread, and he was immediately jumped on in what should have been a happy thread by angry posters. I totally understand their reticence in reaching out to the community more, as every time they do, without fail, they get their hand slapped.

 

On the last point i agree, no one should have hijacked Musco's happy thread to be an ******e. Notice despite being one of thr largest critics of both conquest and the tanking chsnges, all I did there was sincerly wish Musco the best.

 

I have been critical of the 5.9 changes because, in my opinion, i feel they are too small for me to have to wait an entire month for. People were already angry because of the sudden chsnge to things like having hundreds of suddenly useless mats stocked up. So enter an incredibly minor change, an entire month later, into this highly charged atmosphere. Then don't respond to the "whys it taking so long" or "whys it so small" ot "where are you trying to go with this"

 

Its GC part 2. That took a very long time to get to the decent spot it is in right now. To me, altogether unacceptably long.

 

And in the lack of a better reason why, and in light of the tone of last Friday's dev post, feels like a total case of "take it and be happy, even if you're not happy. We don't really care what you have to say, just keep spending money ok"

[Akevv]

I believe they're referring to Musco's post of the 5.9 changes, which did not quell the tide of angry responses from forum-goers. They did communicate upcoming changes, and were still bitten on the *** by rabid "fans" of the game. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

While I'm posting, I'll also point out that Keith tried to be cordial and talkative in Musco's "BRB, AFK" thread, and he was immediately jumped on in what should have been a happy thread by angry posters. I totally understand their reticence in reaching out to the community more, as every time they do, without fail, they get their hand slapped.

 

Its just been a frustrating time. Watching the game wither and the lackadaisical response to it all freaks us out. You've got one alternative reality guy who thinks the game is getting a new engine, and the rest of us who know its over. We really don't want it to be over. Hence, the anger and frustration. If only they'd announce the follow on, and relieve some of the pressure. Perhaps then, they'd stop bleeding folks as we'd just sort of mill around and wait it out.

[PiiTarr]

What type of participation shouldnt matter with how we interpret it, in truth. If they see participation as the key element, and they see its up, then do you really think it will matter if they give any extra information or data? The other data might be inportant to us, but it doesnt mean its important to them, or to the business model. So all of this hype being created for transparency is really all for not, unless our view or info matches theirs.

 

From an MMO business standpoint, I can totally see how even a vague statement or data point as participation could be the all determining factor in success or failure. If people dont participate, the game goes down. But if the majority of people participate, and the vocal.minority doesnt, its still counted as the majority. The forums, no matter how much people wish to claim it and scream it over and over, is NOT the majority, but they are the loudest. Unfortunately for them, BW isnt measuring loudest participants.

 

Without knowing their methodology for determining participation we don't know if the data really represents an actual increase in conquest participation or simply an increase in the way they count conquest participation as the result of the inclusion of new activities. Prior to 5.8 I would reach my personal conquest goal on anywhere from 0-11 characters each week. Outside of the characters who reach their individual goals, none of my other characters would earn any points towards conquest. After 5.8 the number of characters I've had reach their personal goal has been 3, 2, and 0. However, if they are counting any points earned towards conquest as participation, then the number of my characters who participated each week would be 6, 44, and 0.

 

Regardless of the methodology in use, participation numbers will not be accurate until they fix the daily repeatable bug that's been present since 5.8. As it stands, I was able to complete conquest on more characters than I would have without the bug, and more of my characters earned points than they should have without the bug. Either way, my participation appears higher than it actually is, or would be, without the bug.

[Andryah]

I believe they're referring to Musco's post of the 5.9 changes, which did not quell the tide of angry responses from forum-goers. They did communicate upcoming changes, and were still bitten on the *** by rabid "fans" of the game. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

While I'm posting, I'll also point out that Keith tried to be cordial and talkative in Musco's "BRB, AFK" thread, and he was immediately jumped on in what should have been a happy thread by angry posters. I totally understand their reticence in reaching out to the community more, as every time they do, without fail, they get their hand slapped.

 

^^ Indeed.

 

Players really are (collectively speaking) their own worst enemies with respect to wanting more communications from the studio. This is a two way street.... and players are quick to snap, jab, bite, and condemn when communications are forthcoming... which just encourages the studio to keep quiet until right before patch time. Players will of course blame the studio for justifying the snaps, bites, and jabs.. but the fact is.. more often then not.. the studio takes the high road and does not engage the really toxic ranting and demanding and continues to communicate WHEN they have something to actually communicate.

 

Note: I am in no way saying the studio is particularly good at communications. They could do better for sure.. but the fact remains that the way the player base treats them does not encourage them to communicate more.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Andryah

[Jdast]

On the last point i agree, no one should have hijacked Musco's happy thread to be an ******e. Notice despite being one of thr largest critics of both conquest and the tanking chsnges, all I did there was sincerly wish Musco the best.

 

That's 'cuz you got class. There was some good news, though, for me personally and a couple others who at least got a chuckle and benefited (naturally) from my boundless wit. As soon as Eric posted his getting married / going on vacation thread, I tied my hands and sent several PMs (something I rarely do) calling out the three individuals I said would undoubtedly find a way to get their digs in.

 

Oh look, Dasty (smart Hutt's annoyingly refer to themselves in the 3rd Hutt) was right -- again (I so tire of my Hutt-like intellience ) !

 

More broadly on the subject at hand. I think the points about how to read / interpret the data are on point. Put bluntly, different data metrics used as a premise can result in very different conclusions. Setting aside the meta-debate about accepting change (which got tiresome, at least for me), I think there is broad consensus that...

 

Under the new system it is certainly doable, but it does pigeonhole both characters and activity. For me personally, as someone who doesn't give a rip about Conquest / Decorations / Titles, it still has the consequence of lowering the overall amount of certain types of activity.

 

Whether that was intended or not is unknown, but a lot of sturm und drang could have been avoided if they discussed the goal of the changes -- and more importantly -- the numerical values / legacy vs. character issues before implementation.

 

At this point, though, I think it is pretty clear what the various perspectives are. But don't let me stop you!

 

Dasty

Edited April 23, 2018 by Jdast

[Elliraen]

Where was this conquest stuff before? I remember planet split, gui changes, mentions of hopefully better competitiveness for small guilds and that sort of thing.

 

I remember nothing about point values being slashed or alt usage being considered problematic.

 

Right. What they said was they were taking out the invasion bonus (the x2 or x3 to the base objective points) and that any bonuses would come from strongholds.

 

What i thought was they were tsking the old system and giving us 3 planets but the point values and individual toon caps would remain the same, with a fair cap for guild rewards.

 

What i got was a gutted, buggy, grindy, and frankly for me fruatrating system.

 

That's probably what most people expected. But Eric did admit that the new system came off harsher than they intended, which is surprising (the admission part).

 

I explained in detail how communicating with us would help. Sure they might hear things they do not want to hear; i for one prefer to fix things proactively than reactively.

 

We all know why they don't communicate things in advance. If they had told us 2 weeks in advance what the point values were going to be, and that we wouldn't be able to participate with alts (which is actually a bug if you go by what Eric said in Vulkk's interview) how many people would've just cancelled on the spot instead of them getting those extra 2 weeks worth of auto-renewals? If I'd have seen those numbers beforehand, I'd have cancelled prior to being billed. Now I'm paying $15 for this month and haven't played more than a few hours for the entire month.

 

And right here, in Keith's response:

So, I'm a bit confused. Eric went on vacation just two days ago. Before he left, he provided updates about the changes we're making in 5.9 which is scheduled for release on May 1st.

 

We realize some of you are not happy with the changes we made to Conquests and the 5.9 adjustments will help. As we all know, Conquests were broken and preventing players from receiving rewards which caused a lot of unnecessary frustration, extra Engineering work and wasted time for you and Customer Service. It had to be replaced with a newer and maintainable system.

 

Although it'll take a few updates to get it exactly right, we have not had the same issues with rewards, a lot more guilds are receiving rewards, and there is higher participation overall. However, we also acknowledge that it's more difficult for alternate characters to complete their weekly goals which some of the changes in 5.9 will address.

 

We will continue to review the data and your feedback to determine if additional adjustments are needed. I'm not sure that gives you any additional insight, but we need to release 5.9 to identify further changes.

 

--Keith-

 

1. The new system was created to address the rewards issue.
   
2. More guilds are receiving rewards and there is higher participation. (This mainly because guilds no longer have to place top 10 to receive rewards). But this doesn't necessarily mean there is higher player participation.
   
3. Alts were an unintended casualty of the new system, to be fixed (somewhat) with 5.9.
   

 

Of course, there's also the issues with all of the bugs like the once per legacy/per day resets when logging off for some characters, rampages still resetting, and PvP win x/10 resetting when logging out on some characters.

 

I may be back some day. I'm not going to stick around while it takes months to iron out this mess, and because of this mess I've lost the desire to play this game any longer.

[olagatonjedi]

Without knowing their methodology for determining participation we don't know if the data really represents an actual increase in conquest participation or simply an increase in the way they count conquest participation as the result of the inclusion of new activities. Prior to 5.8 I would reach my personal conquest goal on anywhere from 0-11 characters each week. Outside of the characters who reach their individual goals, none of my other characters would earn any points towards conquest. After 5.8 the number of characters I've had reach their personal goal has been 3, 2, and 0. However, if they are counting any points earned towards conquest as participation, then the number of my characters who participated each week would be 6, 44, and 0.

 

Regardless of the methodology in use, participation numbers will not be accurate until they fix the daily repeatable bug that's been present since 5.8. As it stands, I was able to complete conquest on more characters than I would have without the bug, and more of my characters earned points than they should have without the bug. Either way, my participation appears higher than it actually is, or would be, without the bug.

Here is an example of one likely way they are measuring participation:

 

How many different players are engaging with conquest?

 

If they remove alt play as an indication of PLAYER participation, it is very likely that more players are participating. Maybe not more toons, but more actual players.

 

To them it doesnt matter if you play 1 toon or 50 toons, you still pay the same sub (if subbed), and participate as 1 person. They are likely looking to get more Players involved, regardless of how many of those alts some of these people are worrying about missing out on conquest. Alts dont spend money, the player does, and alts are always available to gear and twink out no matter if you play conquest or not.

[MikeCobalt]

 

To them it doesnt matter if you play 1 toon or 50 toons, you still pay the same sub (if subbed), and participate as 1 person. They are likely looking to get more Players involved, regardless of how many of those alts some of these people are worrying about missing out on conquest. Alts dont spend money, the player does, and alts are always available to gear and twink out no matter if you play conquest or not.

 

So with this in mind it is true, 1- what the customer thinks is not important (or wanted mostly), 2- Legacy is Superfluous, 3- The only way to get anybody's attention Vote with your wallet (Quit the game, by then its too late, they're gone *With Animosity). So in a "Completely Fan Driven Economy" this is 1- true and 2- say this *To the fans?

[Lhancelot]

To them it doesnt matter if you play 1 toon or 50 toons, you still pay the same sub (if subbed), and participate as 1 person. They are likely looking to get more Players involved, regardless of how many of those alts some of these people are worrying about missing out on conquest. Alts dont spend money, the player does, and alts are always available to gear and twink out no matter if you play conquest or not.

 

If they don't care to retain the players disappointed with conquest changes who focus their gameplay around conquest, then I can see how conquest player alts don't matter.

 

Seems to me that's lost revenue, unless the number of players who focus their gameplay around conquest is strikingly low.

 

If that's the case, I could see how they would flip conquest upside down with no worries of how it would affect the game population.

 

My perspective is anytime you got players leaving, it's bad. Less players means less players in WZs which is my focus. Punishing alts and not giving incentives for people to queue in the WZs is bad for my gameplay style.

 

Hopefully 5.9 will be pleasantly surprising with changes that move the pendulum back to a place where conquesters are happy again.

[BRKMSN]

Tuxs, the proof of their erroneous methods was given by Eric when he stated they did not separate the Skank tank from pure tank damage output. They stated that 'tanks' were over performing.

 

Their methodology in data gathering is suspect and against the norms of collecting it, separating, and analyzing every bit of the information. The fact that they used the combined output of the skank/tanks is proof of their cherry picking and using purposefully skewed (read manipulated data) to base their decision on for this upcoming tank discipline nerf counts as empirical proof of their 'cherry picking.'

 

In my professional opinion, the decision-making process on anything in this game based on the aforementioned nerf and what they are doing with Conquests tells me what they say cannot be believed. Their decision-making methods are suspect based on the statistical analyzation of said data from their 'metrics.' If my students tried this on me, I'd fail them because they used erroneous data and manipulated to arrive at their conclusion.

 

One thing for certain, they pull this kind of "conclusion" in a business environment where decisions made by operations managers, they'd find themselves without a job. One can make the numbers say what they want and desire; however, when put under intense scrutiny, it falls apart quickly. This is happening now based on their own outcomes of these changes and their admissions on their data analysis and collection.

 

For the most part, I've been avoiding much of the de-skanking drama (mostly because, IMO, most class nerfs are disappointing, not game-breaking). But you tend to bring it up at every opportunity. I've seen your argument and it's based on one really important premise ...

 

derived from:

 

"Second, when comparing all tanks (regardless of gear) against the DPS targets we outlined last year, tanks are doing more damage than intended."

 

There is more than one way to read that statement, but you insist that the way you read it is the correct way. You feel that they are saying they measured all tank output, averaged all the results and decided that tanks are over-performing. The way I read that statement says that they tested all tanks and even if they were in the appropriate tank gear (not skank), they were still "doing more damage than intended."

 

In other words, you are making an assumption that their data is corrupt based on your interpretation of the same statement that tells me that tanks in tank gear are over-performing according to their intention.

 

I'm not saying I agree with their "intention," but that doesn't mean I don't believe their findings. I feel like my tanks were doing more damage than tanks used to do (based on solo content and mild pug content) and I don't deviate from the tank gear much at all. There were lots of valid points made in the appropriate threads from the different perspectives. I just don't think your interpretation of the statement that has you worked up is the correct interpretation.

[KendraP]

For the most part, I've been avoiding much of the de-skanking drama (mostly because, IMO, most class nerfs are disappointing, not game-breaking). But you tend to bring it up at every opportunity. I've seen your argument and it's based on one really important premise ...

 

derived from:

 

"Second, when comparing all tanks (regardless of gear) against the DPS targets we outlined last year, tanks are doing more damage than intended."

 

There is more than one way to read that statement, but you insist that the way you read it is the correct way. You feel that they are saying they measured all tank output, averaged all the results and decided that tanks are over-performing. The way I read that statement says that they tested all tanks and even if they were in the appropriate tank gear (not skank), they were still "doing more damage than intended."

 

In other words, you are making an assumption that their data is corrupt based on your interpretation of the same statement that tells me that tanks in tank gear are over-performing according to their intention.

 

I'm not saying I agree with their "intention," but that doesn't mean I don't believe their findings. I feel like my tanks were doing more damage than tanks used to do (based on solo content and mild pug content) and I don't deviate from the tank gear much at all. There were lots of valid points made in the appropriate threads from the different perspectives. I just don't think your interpretation of the statement that has you worked up is the correct interpretation.

 

everyone is doing more damage than they used to do. my tank in tank gear tops off around 3k. my dps in dps gear tops off around 9k in single target non-aoe fights.

 

i think gear has something to do with it because when i throw on my skank gear it jumps to 5k.

[BRKMSN]

If they don't care to retain the players disappointed with conquest changes who focus their gameplay around conquest, then I can see how conquest player alts don't matter.

 

Seems to me that's lost revenue, unless the number of players who focus their gameplay around conquest is strikingly low.

 

If that's the case, I could see how they would flip conquest upside down with no worries of how it would affect the game population.

 

My perspective is anytime you got players leaving, it's bad. Less players means less players in WZs which is my focus. Punishing alts and not giving incentives for people to queue in the WZs is bad for my gameplay style.

 

Hopefully 5.9 will be pleasantly surprising with changes that move the pendulum back to a place where conquesters are happy again.

Yeah.

 

When new content comes out, I prioritize that over conquest. But during long stretches of "please enjoy this old content some more and on more characters than ever before," I want to have a reason to do that. If you take away the reason I would play more characters, then there is less game-appeal to me.

 

I definitely am playing significantly less than before. It's weird. For months, I was kind of excited about the upcoming conquest overhaul. I was hoping for more things to do and more reasons to participate on multiple characters. I was preparing to grind away on as many characters as I had time for each week. After all, that's why the game pushed us toward creating alts, right? Anyway ... then the changes arrived ... like a punch in the gut. Now when I log in and get bored, I go watch TV. Conquest is "dead to me."

[Joonbeams]

...

I totally understand their reticence in reaching out to the community more, as every time they do, without fail, they get their hand slapped.

 

This really "grinds my gears". Look, we're not talking about some bootstrapped indie studio living on ramen noodles and sleeping on eachother's couches. We're talking about EA - a company with a $36BILLION market cap that did $5B in revenues last year (off head, so don't hold me to exact numbers). We're talking about well-compensated staff with all kind of perks and benefits. So please, gimme a break. It's part of their JOB to communicate. It's their (EA's) JOB to make gamers happy. Even SWTOR has a dedicated job that someone is paid money for - not to develop, not to program, but to engage the community. That's a recognition of the importance of engagement. This is a publicly-traded company - if I was an investor here, I wouldn't wanna hear jack about "some internet folks were being mean to us on the forums, so we stopped engaging", meanwhile the title is tanking. Please.

 

To be fair, I do not believe at all that is what is happening here. This is about something else we're not privy too (diversion to other projects, resource constraints from higher-ups, some other hand-tying, etc.). I refuse to believe (stubborn me) that it's simply people deliberately doing a bad job, or that they hate us, or that somehow we've got them afraid to engage:rolleyes:. I still believe (stubborn me) that if Keith, Eric, and others could actually say more and more often, they would -- and I assume they work their butts off. I believe the devs (I know we use that term loosely, but I mean the software folks) work their butts off too. That doesn't make me any less bothered by this, at least as it concerns EA/BW. But it's clear now that this is how communication will be. Something else has to be going on here...

[BRKMSN]

everyone is doing more damage than they used to do. my tank in tank gear tops off around 3k. my dps in dps gear tops off around 9k in single target non-aoe fights.

 

i think gear has something to do with it because when i throw on my skank gear it jumps to 5k.

 

I understand that. I just meant that I feel like the drop off from DPS to Tank in the same content (where role isn't critical) is less of a drop than it used to be, I thought that was an intended change to make tanks slightly more appealing, but now they're saying we're over-performing.

[KendraP]

I understand that. I just meant that I feel like the drop off from DPS to Tank in the same content (where role isn't critical) is less of a drop than it used to be, I thought that was an intended change to make tanks slightly more appealing, but now they're saying we're over-performing.

 

to me the drop off doesn't feel substantially different IF you gear your tank in warding mods and tank enhancements with shield/absorb augs.

 

i propose balancing around an average without separating gearing methods, especially after taunting us with skank nerfs for a month or two is once again ******** on tanks.

 

oh hey guys there aren't enough tanks in low levels to do fps!

oh add a tactical fp! (kdy)

 

oh but now they aren't getting the story of the other FP because everyone does KDY...

Oh make them all tactical!

 

oh we want to simplify gearing!

lets put defense everywhere so that it's approaching the asymptote and they start gearing for dps

 

....

 

oh my tanks are doing more damage now! nerf them all!

 

that as i see it is the logic chain. I'm sick of being shat on.

[PiiTarr]

Here is an example of one likely way they are measuring participation:

 

How many different players are engaging with conquest?

 

If they remove alt play as an indication of PLAYER participation, it is very likely that more players are participating. Maybe not more toons, but more actual players.

 

To them it doesnt matter if you play 1 toon or 50 toons, you still pay the same sub (if subbed), and participate as 1 person. They are likely looking to get more Players involved, regardless of how many of those alts some of these people are worrying about missing out on conquest. Alts dont spend money, the player does, and alts are always available to gear and twink out no matter if you play conquest or not.

 

While it's perfectly valid to look at player participation rather than character participation, it doesn't change the fact that methodology is still important. If they looked at the number of players who completed their individual goal on at least one character, that would present a relatively accurate picture of overall participation in conquest. However, if they looked at the number of players who gained any points towards conquest, then it's still inflated, because anyone who participated in the Gree event or the Bounty event earned points towards conquest during those two weeks, whether they were intending to "participate" in conquest or not.

[silenthc]

This really "grinds my gears". Look, we're not talking about some bootstrapped indie studio living on ramen noodles and sleeping on eachother's couches. We're talking about EA - a company with a $36BILLION market cap that did $5B in revenues last year (off head, so don't hold me to exact numbers). We're talking about well-compensated staff with all kind of perks and benefits. So please, gimme a break. It's part of their JOB to communicate. It's their (EA's) JOB to make gamers happy. Even SWTOR has a dedicated job that someone is paid money for - not to develop, not to program, but to engage the community. That's a recognition of the importance of engagement. This is a publicly-traded company - if I was an investor here, I wouldn't wanna hear jack about "some internet folks were being mean to us on the forums, so we stopped engaging", meanwhile the title is tanking. Please.

 

To be fair, I do not believe at all that is what is happening here. This is about something else we're not privy too (diversion to other projects, resource constraints from higher-ups, some other hand-tying, etc.). I refuse to believe (stubborn me) that it's simply people deliberately doing a bad job, or that they hate us, or that somehow we've got them afraid to engage:rolleyes:. I still believe (stubborn me) that if Keith, Eric, and others could actually say more and more often, they would -- and I assume they work their butts off. I believe the devs (I know we use that term loosely, but I mean the software folks) work their butts off too. That doesn't make me any less bothered by this, at least as it concerns EA/BW. But it's clear now that this is how communication will be. Something else has to be going on here...

 

I consider myself fairly clueless about the game itself, but looking on as more of a distant bystander towards developer involvement and communication, I'm going to have to agree entirely with your assessment, Joonbeams (as sad as it is). As much as has been said about EA throughout the years I can't imagine a company with such assets and resources being this lackadaisacal in its efforts to be forthcoming and communicative if there was not some sort of ulterior message being trickled down towards SWTOR's dev team. Guess some might not agree but judging by the nature of posts by the likes of Eric and Keith I do believe they genuinely care about the product but can only do so much as is being given to them.

 

It is a sad state of affairs, and on a bad day is something that could really tick me off, but I do agree with the thought that the way we're getting it is just how we're going to have to swallow it, and I can't imagine it changing any time soon.

 

Big part of me just hopes Anthem bombs tremendously, if not just to put Bioware out of its misery.

Edited April 24, 2018 by silenthc

[DarthSpuds]

^^ Indeed.

 

Players really are (collectively speaking) their own worst enemies with respect to wanting more communications from the studio. This is a two way street.... a

 

Communication here has NEVER been a two way street.

 

Bioware start a thread asking for feedback and then not only ignore all that feedback but usually never comment again.

 

Musco's job is to communicate with us.

And prior to him taking a break to get married he's posted JUST 6 times in seven days, and NOT ONE of those posts was in any of the long discussion threads about how bloody awful Conquest is.

 

And, as I pointed out, Keith hadn't posted for 37 days - despite a prior promise to be more communicative. He made some comment about not derailing Eric's thread and that he would post elsewhere and has again been totally quiet for four days.

 

The truth is staring us in the face - Bioware simply do not give a damn what we think, they don't give a damn about what we want to see in game, and they certainly don't give a damn about our feedback.

 

And we have two scenarios to explain that situation: 1) they are so out of touch with us - the people who ultimately pay their wages - they that have no actual idea how far out of touch they are, 2) they are deliberately trying to antagonise players into leaving so the few remaining resources tasked to SWtOR can - like the real money and talent - be tasked to Anthem.

 

All The Best