PTS Final (Really!) Patch Notes and Info

[Jerba]

I get the frustration, but this here means there was a communication problem, and it was not on the Dev's side. I'm not criticizing you, cause I've seen a lot of the stuff you have written and you have clearly been testing and writing feedback, but the devs have 0 responsiblity to be policing twitch and discord to get feedback when they specify a specific place to leave feedback on the official forum and they don't get any there.

 

Hopefully a lot of the bugs you see will get fixed after things go to live and more pvpers start frequenting it. But I can't put blame on the devs when the decorators descended on the stronghold en masse, and there only seemed to be a few people using the Stronghold for PVP.

I'm torn; on the one hand, you are correct, the devs can't be expected to go into private communities for feedback. On the other hand, the Twitch streams of players like Snave were a great place to get feedback from PvP players; he mentioned all of the major issues on the first day of PTS on stream, so I do hope the devs have watched that. (In fact I linked his VOD in one of my posts since he did a better job of explaining the issues than I could ever do.)

 

While the saying "don't complain if you were not on PTS" is true, it is too easy to just blame the PvP players. A community manager must represent all player groups equally, regardless of how much or how little feedback they give; that's pretty much in the job description.

 

But there's really no point arguing about it. I just wanted to point out how I felt the PTS was handled poorly, so that it hopefully can be improved for future PTS cycles. Unlike other players, I don't feel that the testing went perfectly.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Jerba

[LordTurin]

I'm torn; on the one hand, you are correct, the devs can't be expected to go into private communities for feedback. On the other hand, the Twitch streams of players like Snave were a great place to get feedback from PvP players; he mentioned all of the major issues on the first day of PTS on stream, so I do hope the devs have watched that. (In fact I linked his VOD in one of my posts since he did a better job of explaining the issues than I could ever do.)

 

While the saying "don't complain if you were not on PTS" is true, it is too easy to just blame the PvP players. A community manager must represent all player groups equally, regardless of how much or how little feedback they give; that's pretty much in the job description.

 

But there's really no point arguing about it. I just wanted to point out how I felt the PTS was handled poorly, so that it hopefully can be improved for future PTS cycles. Unlike other players, I don't feel that the testing went perfect.

 

Generally I agree. And honestly, I'm sure BWs lack of responses to feedback historically had a lot to do with lack of feedback from PvPers. But honestly, when basically the feedback given was from you, and outside url's that you linked in your feedback, and that's it, it's hard for me to hold BW responsible, especially when they actually set up a PTS, and have been relatively responsive throughout the whole time the PTS has been up.

 

Honestly given how responsive they have been with the PTS (the official forums anyway), from my perspective the only way they can improve it in the future is to continue being responsive to feedback given on the forums so people know that is the place to provide feedback (and that people know they actually listen), and not give feedback on their private channels that the devs may or may not be watching. I totally believe that Snave gave great feedback, but (probably due to lack of dev responsiveness previously) he didnt give any in the forum they specifically set up for this, and so it wasn't implemented as it could have been (note, I have no idea if Snave was an Influencer and if he followed the channels set up for them. If he did, then basically nvm, cause he presumably wouldn't post on the general forums).

 

Anyway, this is one of those "BW screwed up in the past, so now when they do things right, people dont bother to respond in the way they would if they'd done it right in the first place" and the only way to fix it is BW continuing to be super responsive (on the PTS).

[septru]

I get the frustration, but this here means there was a communication problem, and it was not on the Dev's side. I'm not criticizing you, cause I've seen a lot of the stuff you have written and you have clearly been testing and writing feedback, but the devs have 0 responsiblity to be policing twitch and discord to get feedback when they specify a specific place to leave feedback on the official forum and they don't get any there.

 

Hopefully a lot of the bugs you see will get fixed after things go to live and more pvpers start frequenting it. But I can't put blame on the devs when the decorators descended on the stronghold en masse, and there only seemed to be a few people using the Stronghold for PVP.

 

Of course PVPers arent saying ****. We've grow accustom to being placed on the sidelines about issues like deco LOS (problem since its creation), holotraverse bug (problem since its creation), players falling throw the map (problem since its creation), while the deco community complains about their "house".

 

You notice a pattern? Bioware only creates more problems and never fixes them for PvP. Game breaking problems like dsync. Or the fact that holotraverse will NOT WORK more than it will work. But we know..... we know, of course, the railings on the Overlook are more important than any game breaking pvp problems.

 

 

If Bioware wanted feedback all they have to do is ask credible PvPers their opinions. If they want feedback on how their PvP areas can be used in tournaments, why not ask tournament hosts like Snave or myself. Why not? Because if they did, we would tell them.... tell them that WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF USING THE HUTTBALL ARENA WITH THE AMOUNT OF BUGS IT HAS NOW.

Edited July 31, 2018 by septru

[AscendingSky]

Of course PVPers arent saying ****. We've grow accustom to being placed on the sidelines about issues like deco LOS (problem since its creation), holotraverse bug (problem since its creation), players falling throw the map (problem since its creation), while the deco community complains about their "house".

 

You notice a pattern? Bioware only creates more problems and never fixes them for PvP. Game breaking problems like dsync. Or the fact that holotraverse will NOT WORK more than it will work. But we know..... we know, of course, the railings on the Overlook are more important than any game breaking pvp problems.

 

If Bioware wanted feedback all they have to do is ask credible PvPers their opinions. If they want feedback on how their PvP areas can be used in tournaments, why not ask tournament hosts like Snave or myself. Why not? Because if they did, we would tell them.... tell them that WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF USING THE HUTTBALL ARENA WITH THE AMOUNT OF BUGS IT HAS NOW.

 

They did ask you for feedback. They asked everyone for feedback. That's why they opened the PTS in the first place and made threads on the forums for people to provide feedback. If you or other PvPers turned down the invitation to provide feedback over the past couple of weeks, that's on you/them, not EA. It's not EA's job to track down people on their private channels and interview them.

 

I know EA has been awful at listening to its players in the past. I get that. We've all seen that in action for ourselves, trust me. But turning down an actual opportunity to have your voice heard just because EA hasn't listened in the past is counterproductive, to say the least. It teaches them they shouldn't bother asking for feedback or utilize the PTS because some people will not provide any feedback or even go on the PTS to try out the new content, and then get mad at them for not listening to the theoretical feedback they never gave after the fact. I guess EA are supposed to read minds across the Internet now? That's not a realistic expectation.

 

It also sounds more than a bit entitled to say "If they wanted my opinion they should have had to come to me for it!" You're just one player; why does your opinion matter more than everyone else's? Why does your opinion matter more than those who actually took the time to test out the PTS and provide extensive feedback when invited to? Maybe you're popular in the PvP community, but we all pay the same subscription you do.

 

Also, don't bash on the decorators expressing their concerns. Our playstyle is just as valid as yours. We took advantage of the feedback window for a reason: we cared. We wanted to have our concerns heard. So we actually went on the PTS and gave feedback. That's the exact same thing you and other PvPers could have done if you cared enough to. If you didn't, that was your choice; no one else made it for you.

Edited July 31, 2018 by AscendingSky

[casirabit]

They did ask you for feedback. They asked everyone for feedback. That's why they opened the PTS in the first place and made threads on the forums for people to provide feedback. If you or other PvPers turned down the invitation to provide feedback over the past couple of weeks, that's on you/them, not EA. It's not EA's job to track down people on their private channels and interview them.

 

I know EA has been awful at listening to its players in the past. I get that. We've all seen that in action for ourselves, trust me. But turning down an actual opportunity to have your voice heard just because EA hasn't listened in the past is counterproductive, to say the least. It teaches them they shouldn't bother asking for feedback or utilize the PTS because some people will not provide any feedback or even go on the PTS to try out the new content, and then get mad at them for not listening to the theoretical feedback they never gave after the fact. I guess EA are supposed to read minds across the Internet now? That's not a realistic expectation.

 

It also sounds more than a bit entitled to say "If they wanted my opinion they should have had to come to me for it!" You're just one player; why does your opinion matter more than everyone else's? Why does your opinion matter more than those who actually took the time to test out the PTS and provide extensive feedback when invited to? Maybe you're popular in the PvP community, but we all pay the same subscription you do.

 

Also, don't bash on the decorators expressing their concerns. Our playstyle is just as valid as yours. We took advantage of the feedback window for a reason: we cared. We wanted to have our concerns heard. So we actually went on the PTS and gave feedback. That's the exact same thing you and other PvPers could have done if you cared enough to. If you didn't, that was your choice; no one else made it for you.

 

 

This and I know there were pvp players on the test center. One I had to put on ignore because he was acting like a jerk telling me to get off the test center since it was only meant for pvp players.

 

Another one came to my stronghold and wanted to test something and asked me if I would help him. I am not a pvp player but I said I would and afterwards he said thank you and left.

[rubint]

That's the exact same thing you and other PvPers could have done if you cared enough to. If you didn't, that was your choice; no one else made it for you.

 

Some of us did, for example me. I explained why the Huttball area is a lackluster design from a level/game design point of view in the official feedback thread - the place where they specifically asked to do so. I even suggested a very simple fix that could at least make it less boring.

 

Maybe I should have opened more threads or should have just written that they should fix that in every thread available - that's on me, true, but in game development we don't really like to receive the same tickets over and over, and I thought they can be the same way with that. Even then, unfortunately, it wouldn't have been a solution. As the huttball area is very far from the original huttball designs. It feels like it was given to a graphical artist as a task: "man, just do a similar thing, some railings and stuff and it will be good", and it resulted in something that lacks the challenges the originals offer. There is a huge difference between graphical and level design. It seems they have the graphical resources though, so they can fulfill requests like expanding the stronghold. And I think that is cool they can add new things on such a short notice in that field. Great job on their part there. Unfortunately, when it comes to level design / fixing game mechanics, polishing can't be fit in their resources anymore.

 

I also reported some issues with the healing dummy that is useful for both PvE and PvP players. Nothing was fixed of those - I'm talking about the issues here, my suggestions are another category. The only other feedback from others was "give us an ops frame". Well, it won't be done for sure - resources for game mechanics again. I added very-very small things - like target cycling not switching to main dummy - that would make the thing at least more usable. I don't expect to see them in the game soon.

 

I'm really happy about that at least something could be done, but I'm sad that some departments of the game can't get enough resources anymore.

Edited July 31, 2018 by rubint

[Qarrie]

PLEASE allow the ability to hand out GUILD stronghold keys to non-guild members. This will be helpful for allied guilds especially with the new pvp functionality.:):)

[septru]

If you or other PvPers turned down the invitation to provide feedback over the past couple of weeks, that's on you/them, not EA. It's not EA's job to track down people on their private channels and interview them.

 

Multiple threads have been made about deco LOS, multiple threads have been made about the huttball arena, multiple threads have been made about holotraverse not working, multiple threads have been made about the spectator droid, but you won't find them easily. You're going to have to dig hundred of threads about the house, hooks, and the junk beach.

 

My problem is not with decoers. I enjoy decoing myself from time to time. My problem is when a stronghold that was advertised as the "salvation of dueling", intended to replace the elimination of 8v8 ranked and arenas in regs, has glaring issues that prevent the PvP areas from being used as intended.

[DuchessKristania]

Multiple threads have been made about deco LOS, multiple threads have been made about the huttball arena, multiple threads have been made about holotraverse not working, multiple threads have been made about the spectator droid, but you won't find them easily. You're going to have to dig hundred of threads about the house, hooks, and the junk beach.

 

My problem is not with decoers. I enjoy decoing myself from time to time. My problem is when a stronghold that was advertised as the "salvation of dueling", intended to replace the elimination of 8v8 ranked and arenas in regs, has glaring issues that prevent the PvP areas from being used as intended.

 

Was it advertised as that? I'm asking honestly. I only ever saw things saying that you could PvP in the stronghold, but I always had the impression that it was meant more as a fun addition to strongholds for people who wanted to PvP, than anything else.. Wouldn't it kill the regular PvP pops if the stronghold functioned like a normal match? I wonder if some of the choices made were deliberate in order to keep regular PvP from suffering over much with this new addition.

 

While I don't begrudge the addition of PvP to strongholds and I think it's great that they are offering a new avenue for PvPers, I think pairing that particular gameplay with strongholds was a bit of an odd marriage. Maybe in the future a better option would be to put out arenas that can be designed and decorated like a stronghold but have them be their own thing wholly focused on PvP. I imagine it's been difficult to find the balance between PvP and stronghold mechanics.

Edited July 31, 2018 by DuchessKristania

[IoNonSoEVero]

Strongholds have always been the realm of decorators, PvErs and RPers, although some of those categories can and do overlap with PvP for some players. This is also a location that specifically has been requested by decorators for a very long time.

 

Thus, IMHO it's not really reasonable to resent that decorators made use of these forums and voiced their concerns about the stronghold, or that they should step back and let one of the few remaining things for their playstyle be taken from them. While it was said to be a place for PvP, considering that the PvP is optional, it's clearly not just for that.

 

Plus PvPers have, AFAIK, received another arena that is not the stronghold in this patch, as well as the cross-faction games to help them play more often and with a wider pool of players.

Edited July 31, 2018 by IoNonSoEVero

[septru]

You're right. A stronghold that was initially built without the toggle PvP on/off function was not intentended for PvP. Or the fact that the roadmap titled "A PvP Summer" is not about PvP. Or the fact that devlopers specificaly stated

 

 

For the first time, we are introducing a Stronghold designed around PvP which can be tailored toward Player-driven dueling, 4v4, or even 8v8 battles! We know there’s a passionate audience of PvP players who run their own dueling tournaments within their Strongholds, so we want to support that by making some under-the-hood improvements and by tailoring the spaces to support different styles of play.

... all have nothing to do with PvP.

Edited July 31, 2018 by septru

[IoNonSoEVero]

No one said it had nothing to do with PvP. But again, that's not what strongholds have ever been about, the PvP within Rishi is confined to two specific areas, and decorators have been requesting Rishi forever.

 

If they did an update intended to 'improve story' where they required you to watch a 10-minute cut scene, recruit a companion or have a companion romance before every PvP match, would you smile and nod, or would you push back because you don't want your play style pushed to the side?

[DuchessKristania]

You're right. A stronghold that was initially built without the toggle PvP on/off function was not intentended for PvP.

 

No one is actually saying that. My question was in regards to the comment about it saving 8v8. I hadn't seen anything specifying that it was the purpose of the stronghold to do that. I was asking genuinely, because I thought perhaps I'd missed where that was said. I wanted more information, or rather clarification. Thank you for the quote, it is appreciated.

 

I do stand by my statements about making custom arenas for PvP might be a better option than actual strongholds. That way the arena could be wholly designed around the idea of PvPing rather than trying to make it work for multiple groups. I would think it would make putting it together with PvP mechanics in mind much easier to accomplish. It need not be a this group against that group situation. This is the first time they've added PvP to a stronghold. Finding the balance is bound to take some experimenting and will probably not be refined the first time. Hopefully, the next time they do this it will not require so many adjustments, and hopefully the live patch for this SH will have addressed some of the PvP concerns.

 

For the record, if these are truly deal breaking issues for the PvPers I would support another delay to see them fixed. Many PvPers supported a delay to address the PvE concerns. It's only fair to support them in return. I do PvP from time to time, but I'm not practiced or skilled enough to offer quality feedback on the performance of the patch.

Edited July 31, 2018 by DuchessKristania

[Jerba]

Was it advertised as that?

No, the Rishi stronghold was not advertised to replace Rated PvP, but it was created for the PvP tournaments in mind. From the summer roadmap:

For the first time, we are introducing a Stronghold designed around PvP which can be tailored toward Player-driven dueling, 4v4, or even 8v8 battles! We know there’s a passionate audience of PvP players who run their own dueling tournaments within their Strongholds, so we want to support that by making some under-the-hood improvements and by tailoring the spaces to support different styles of play.

They clearly refer to the PvP tournaments by Snave and Prum, and not to some small guild event. Since neither Snave nor Prum like the stronghold, I consider the PvP features of the stronghold broken. If the devs create content for these players specifically, they need to talk to them directly to get feedback, or at the very least watch their livestreams.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Jerba

[septru]

No one said it had nothing to do with PvP. But again, that's not what strongholds have ever been about.

 

"For the first time, we are introducing a Stronghold designed around PvP"

 

If they did an update intended to 'improve story' where they required you to watch a 10-minute cut scene, recruit a companion or have a companion romance before every PvP match, would you smile and nod, or would you push back because you don't want your play style pushed to the side?

 

No, PvPers would push back just like the decorators are pushing back now. And the decorators would get their house, and the PvPers would still get a 10-minute cut scene, recruit a companion, and have a companion romance before every PvP match.

 

No one is actually saying that. My question was in regards to the comment about it saving 8v8.

 

Many people have wanted a 8v8 ranked huttball league since the beginning of this game. I would have liked to use the huttball arena for that purpose, but that is no longer a reality.

 

No, the Rishi stronghold was not advertised to replace Rated PvP.

 

With the coming matchmaking changes, Bioware is removing arenas from the regular warzone que (or at least making it very hard to get one). In their stream, they stated that they hope players will turn to strongholds to prepare for ranked and practice 4v4s.

Edited August 1, 2018 by septru

[DuchessKristania]

No, the Rishi stronghold was not advertised to replace Rated PvP, but it was created for the PvP tournaments in mind. From the summer roadmap:

 

They clearly refer to the PvP tournaments by Snave and Prum, and not to some small guild event. Since neither Snave nor Prum like the stronghold, I consider the PvP features of the stronghold broken. If the devs create content for these players specifically, they need to talk to them directly to get feedback, or at the very least watch their livestreams.

 

If PvPers feel it needs more work I think that's something that should certainly be taken into consideration. I hope that the devs are able to address the problems before the patch goes live, or that they take the time they need to in order to fix the problems. I support them taking whatever time is needed to make the SH the best possible product for everyone. I know my saying I would support a delay doesn't fix anything, but I feel it is supportive to back improvements whether they are something that effect me or not.

 

I think the PvP in a stronghold thing is very experimental at this point and will likely evolve quite a lot if the practice continues. It's a bit of an awkward pairing in my opinion, but if they can make it work I think it will be a good one. I wonder how many of the problems are due to a clash between the mechanics of strongholds and that of PvP.

[IoNonSoEVero]

"For the first time, we are introducing a Stronghold designed around PvP"

 

No, PvPers would push back just like the decorators are pushing back now. And the decorators would get their house, and the PvPers would still get a 10-minute cut scene, recruit a companion, and have a companion romance before every PvP match. .

 

Right, because having your playstyle taken over by something that is not your playstyle bites. Which is why the decorators were so angry and upset about having strongholds taken over by PvP. Strongholds are literally one of the only things in the game this entire year to look forward to for the non raid/non-PvP crowd.

 

They added one three-room apartment and some tweaks to make the stronghold more comfortable for non PvPers. They also seem to have taken a lot of PvP suggestions with every PTS update and added things like bolster terminals and key control of the terminals, more versatility with walls, etc. which seem to help PvP. They're adding the arena and cross-faction queues to get more people playing and have shorter queues.

 

So I feel like this is sour grapes that the devs spent ANY time listening to decorators or putting in anything they wanted. I'm always lectured that I'm supposed to be happy when PvPers or raiders get something. So be happy that the devs did something for decorators.

 

Given how this one went, I agree with DuchessKristiana that maybe they just need to design separate PvP arenas that players can customize and not involve them in SHs at all.

[PennyAnn]

Strongholds have always been the realm of decorators, PvErs and RPers, although some of those categories can and do overlap with PvP for some players. This is also a location that specifically has been requested by decorators for a very long time.

 

Thus, IMHO it's not really reasonable to resent that decorators made use of these forums and voiced their concerns about the stronghold, or that they should step back and let one of the few remaining things for their playstyle be taken from them. While it was said to be a place for PvP, considering that the PvP is optional, it's clearly not just for that.

 

Plus PvPers have, AFAIK, received another arena that is not the stronghold in this patch, as well as the cross-faction games to help them play more often and with a wider pool of players.

 

Strongholds are not only the realm of decorators, PvErs and RPers. Many guilds have held dueling competitions in their guild strongholds and ships as part of large guild events.

 

That said, I do not think anyone has stated that they "resent" decorators, that is you putting words in others mouths. What is true though is that a stronghold that was designed with a PvP focus will not be good for the intended purpose because much of the development time was spent pleasing home-makers instead of solving bugs in the PvP portion of the stronghold.

 

There is a ranked map coming out, and there was promise of a huttball map for unranked, but there has been no more word on that development for PvP players.

 

It is too bad that so much of the feedback on the PvP portion of the stronghold was lost in the perfecting of the ambiance and hook layout. I fear it will keep it from being anything that anyone will ever really be able to use as intended. But at least the people who wanted a beach house are happy (mostly).

 

Also, be careful suggesting they quit developing Strongholds and do customizable arenas for players to use instead. The limited amount of development time that resulted in the Stronghold with PvP focus being tweaked for decorators and not bug fixed for it's stated and original purpose should tell you that they cannot do both and release it in a timely fashion. It would be one or the other, just like it was with the feedback on Rishi in the most likely scenario, and I'm sure you'd be none too happy about that (as it means you would have gotten nothing instead of something that was supposed to be for both groups).

 

Edited to add:

Also, I don't think anybody is sour grapes here. I think they are just rightly disappointed that feedback to improve the intended purpose of the stronghold was lost and forgotten while development time was spent making it a better place for decorators, as you've labeled yourselves. It means that Bioware wasted their time in making a "PvP focused" stronghold at all, since it will not work for that purpose due to the number of issues that were stated in feedback threads, but not acted upon while they worked on putting in more hooks and creating an apartment and cleaning up the beach.

 

And to the point that it would interfere with regular PvP matches to have this type of thing in the stronghold - no... it will not. You will still not be able to complete daily/weekly quests by doing Stronghold PvP, and you will not earn any Ranked rating there either. It will not affect the regular queues in the long run, especially if the stronghold is undesirable as even a PvP training ground or dueling area.

 

.

Edited August 1, 2018 by PennyAnn

[IoNonSoEVero]

Strongholds are not only the realm of decorators, PvErs and RPers. Many guilds have held dueling competitions in their guild strongholds and ships as part of large guild events.

 

And guild ships and strongholds are always available for that, but I daresay that most individual players do not buy them to host fights.

 

That said, I do not think anyone has stated that they "resent" decorators, that is you putting words in others mouths. What is true though is that a stronghold that was designed with a PvP focus will not be good for the intended purpose because much of the development time was spent pleasing home-makers instead of solving bugs in the PvP portion of the stronghold.

 

They don't have to say it straight out; but there are people posting comments who are clearly in a snit about it.

 

The devs posted threads for all of the PvP aspects inviting commentary, and I specifically saw suggestions made in the main threads that were implemented, like the Bolster terminals and keys for controlling the PvP terminals. If more PvPers didn't comment and make their needs heard and known as loudly as the decorators - that's not the devs' fault.

 

There is a ranked map coming out, and there was promise of a huttball map for unranked, but there has been no more word on that development for PvP players.

 

The ranked map is coming out, so PvPers are already getting more playable content than any other play style this summer. They're also getting something that has been requested for a while that will hopefully facilitate more participation - those cross-faction queues.

 

Also, be careful suggesting they quit developing Strongholds and do customizable arenas for players to use instead. The limited amount of development time that resulted in the Stronghold with PvP focus being tweaked for decorators and not bug fixed for it's stated and original purpose should tell you that they cannot do both and release it in a timely fashion. It would be one or the other, just like it was with the feedback on Rishi in the most likely scenario, and I'm sure you'd be none too happy about that (as it means you would have gotten nothing instead of something that was supposed to be for both groups).

 

I never suggested that they stop developing strongholds. The suggestion was that if PvPers are going to bellyache about decorators and other stronghold users putting in feedback and getting improvements, maybe the devs should make PvPers their own thing and keep PvP out of strongholds entirely. You're right that they might not have the resources to develop both.

 

But if the strongholds are going to be for both PvPers and non, then PvPers will have to accept that not everything in the stronghold is going to be for them, and that decorators have a right to advocate for their own playstyle too. Pushing decorators and non-PvPers out of an aspect of the game that has been a staple for them for years is not okay, and yes, as a decorator I will push back as hard as I can against that.

[PennyAnn]

They don't have to say it straight out; but there are people posting comments who are clearly in a snit about it.

 

The devs posted threads for all of the PvP aspects inviting commentary, and I specifically saw suggestions made in the main threads that were implemented, like the Bolster terminals and keys for controlling the PvP terminals. If more PvPers didn't comment and make their needs heard and known as loudly as the decorators - that's not the devs' fault.

 

Honestly, your phrasing: "in a snit" is more resentful language than I've heard anyone use when referring to the decorating enthusiasts in this thread. It's like you're saying: "we got what we want and you're just crying". If you didn't mean it to come off that way, you might choose your words more carefully. But I get the feeling, reading your posts that you always look for something you can perceive as a slight against "your type of playstyle". Perhaps I am wrong about that, but it's just how you come across in your wording and phrasing. So I think when you talk about people being resentful, if anything it is a little projection... or, taken further, a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

The bolster terminal was a PvP player suggestion, yes. But funny enough... the other example you choose is one that you and others insisted upon because you did not want PvP in your stronghold. So that wasn't exactly a good example of the developers taking feedback from PvP players, but it is another fine example of them taking feedback from the "I hate PvP and won't buy this stronghold unless it has a toggle switch" crowd.

 

Even so, I do not blame the Developers for any of this nor have I said anything remotely like that. I think they did their best to manage the amount of feedback they got, which felt more heavily skewed toward hook placement, asking for revisions to the stronghold, and additions that had nothing to do with fixing the bugs in the PvP areas. Threads about the bugs existed, but they were somewhat buried under the rest, and developer time was obviously limited enough that they couldn't both please those wanting additions/revisions and those wanting bug fixes to the PvP arenas there.

 

The ranked map is coming out, so PvPers are already getting more playable content than any other play style this summer. They're also getting something that has been requested for a while that will hopefully facilitate more participation - those cross-faction queues.

 

Oh yes, that single arena map for ranked only play is such a heap of content I'm sure we can all hardly wait. PvP has been on the back-burner for so long and received scraps so often that it's really high time they dealt with the matchmaking issues that have been an issue nearly since the beginning of the game. It is all very long overdue.

 

I never suggested that they stop developing strongholds. The suggestion was that if PvPers are going to bellyache about decorators and other stronghold users putting in feedback and getting improvements, maybe the devs should make PvPers their own thing and keep PvP out of strongholds entirely. You're right that they might not have the resources to develop both.

 

But if the strongholds are going to be for both PvPers and non, then PvPers will have to accept that not everything in the stronghold is going to be for them, and that decorators have a right to advocate for their own playstyle too. Pushing decorators and non-PvPers out of an aspect of the game that has been a staple for them for years is not okay, and yes, as a decorator I will push back as hard as I can against that.

 

Again, your phrasing: "bellyache". No one was complaining about you putting in your feedback or getting improvements. This is you twisting people's words. The stronghold was made specifically for PvP. The developers said so themselves. It will now not work for it's stated purpose (stated by the developers themselves, mind you) due to the fact that they spent their development time appeasing the unhappy decorator crowd. Now, I'm not sorry that they did what they could to make you guys happy, but it came at the cost of the stated purpose of the stronghold not working properly. If there is any "bellyaching", it is due to this lacking. And frankly, rightly so.

 

If strongholds are going to be for both PvPers and non, then the non crowd is also going to have to accept that not everything in the stronghold is going to be for them. And when you don't get your way until you push hard enough and people have to do without because of that, then you can expect that not everyone is necessarily going to be pleased by this outcome (any more than you would be pleased if they focused on fixing the PvP bugs in the stronghold so that it worked like it was supposed to and not exactly gone as out of their way to do as much to appease the "we hate PvP" crowd, for whom this stronghold was not really intended in the first place).

 

See, it works both ways. More often than not I see you advocating for "your group" of players like we're not all playing the same game and meant to enjoy it with one another. We're not adversaries and should really quit treating each other as such around here and taking everyone's opinions as a reason to be indignant or feel slighted. It's not healthy for the game's community (what's left of it).

 

.

[septru]

Honestly, the last points from PennyAnn some up anything I could possibly hope to say, but in the most elegant and respectful way. I am truly amazed by the way she/he put it... wow.

 

To be frank, I'm sorry. There were definently times where I was cursing some of your names. Reading PennyAnn's comments have made take a step back and really reconsider my tone and words.

 

Yes PvP has been put on the back burner. In general and in the stronghold. But that doesn't mean the stronghold shouldn't look pretty as many have so viehmently advocated for. Tbh, I would love to fight in a stronghold with amazing graphics and beautiful scenary. It's just a shame that the actual fighting element is disregarded.

[IoNonSoEVero]

Honestly, your phrasing: "in a snit" is more resentful language than I've heard anyone use when referring to the decorating enthusiasts in this thread. It's like you're saying: "we got what we want and you're just crying". If you didn't mean it to come off that way, you might choose your words more carefully. But I get the feeling, reading your posts that you always look for something you can perceive as a slight against "your type of playstyle". Perhaps I am wrong about that, but it's just how you come across in your wording and phrasing. So I think when you talk about people being resentful, if anything it is a little projection... or, taken further, a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

There are plenty of people here making derisive comments about the decorators, and in other threads as well. "in a snit" is a figure of speech, and if one chooses to see it as insulting, and not descriptive, that's your choice. I actually don't look for offense. But I do speak up, and I won't apologize for that.

 

The bolster terminal was a PvP player suggestion, yes. But funny enough... the other example you choose is one that you and others insisted upon because you did not want PvP in your stronghold. So that wasn't exactly a good example of the developers taking feedback from PvP players, but it is another fine example of them taking feedback from the "I hate PvP and won't buy this stronghold unless it has a toggle switch" crowd.

 

Actually, if you read through the threads, the suggestion for keys came from both PvPers and non, and I believe it as something more PvPers wanted. The reasons were different, yes. I wanted it because I didn't want anyone attacking anyone else in my strongholds. But some of the PvPers, including those who have guild competitions were specifically asking not only for keys, but for different security levels for keys because of the legitimate concern about people disrupting PvP matches by messing with the terminals. So you might want to read more carefully next time.

 

The suggestion for the toggle switch did come from mostly non-PvPers, but it was a legitimate request. Being in PvP areas is triggering for some people. I literally cannot walk into a PvP area without having an anxiety attack, so when I said I wouldn;'t buy the SH without a toggle, I was simply being honest. For others, they didn't want to be booted off their mounts and lose their companions every time they walked through.

 

Oh yes, that single arena map for ranked only play is such a heap of content I'm sure we can all hardly wait. PvP has been on the back-burner for so long and received scraps so often that it's really high time they dealt with the matchmaking issues that have been an issue nearly since the beginning of the game. It is all very long overdue.

 

And you think everyone else is getting so much more? Story/solo players have gotten a grand total of one flashpoint of story in eight months, and it had bugs that still have not been fixed. There are bugs in KOTFE they still haven't fixed, for Heaven's sake. No more story content has been announced. Raiders got, I believe, two or three bosses this year. So please stop acting like PvP is being slighted. I really don't care what happened two or three years ago. THIS year, nobody's getting much of anything. But you're the only play style getting ANYTHING in terms of playable content this summer, while the rest of us are cooling our heels and putting out subscription money for...I don't know what for, actually.

 

Again, your phrasing: "bellyache". No one was complaining about you putting in your feedback or getting improvements. This is you twisting people's words.

 

You keep claiming that I am twisting people's words. I'm repeating and observing what has been said. Go ahead and reread even the earlier pages here, where people complained again and again about how many threads decorators had; that the house was there; that people commented about the aesthetics, etc. Yes, people have complained about that, and have complained that the devs worked on the house and aesthetics instead of their thing. Nothing stopped PvPers from making threads or speaking up just as much.

 

If strongholds are going to be for both PvPers and non, then the non crowd is also going to have to accept that not everything in the stronghold is going to be for them. And when you don't get your way until you push hard enough and people have to do without because of that, then you can expect that not everyone is necessarily going to be pleased by this outcome (any more than you would be pleased if they focused on fixing the PvP bugs in the stronghold so that it worked like it was supposed to and not exactly gone as out of their way to do as much to appease the "we hate PvP" crowd, for whom this stronghold was not really intended in the first place).

 

The difference here is that strongholds have never been for PvPers primarily. They should never have intended to make one excluding PvErs and RPers, especially during a content drought. Not to mention that decorators, and NOT PvPers, asked for Rishi for YEARS. So it was a slap in the face for the devs to say, "sure, we'll do a Rishi stronghold, but not for the people who actually wanted and requested it."

 

See, it works both ways. More often than not I see you advocating for "your group" of players like we're not all playing the same game and meant to enjoy it with one another. We're not adversaries and should really quit treating each other as such around here and taking everyone's opinions as a reason to be indignant or feel slighted. It's not healthy for the game's community (what's left of it).

 

We all advocate for the play style we prefer. That's life. We're all going to angle for as much content we can get.

 

I saw a lot of posts from non-PvPers saying that they were glad for PvPers, and asking for things that would not affect PvP play in any way. I didn't see much of that support from PvPers for what decorators wanted. Instead we got comments that the stronghold was only intended for them and it should be all about them.

 

Decorators did nothing wrong in speaking up for what they wanted with a stronghold they had requested for years; the devs did nothing wrong in listening to them and giving them something. Not much else I'll debate about that.

Edited August 1, 2018 by IoNonSoEVero

[Seireeni]

Just a few comments

 

- First of all, I do sympathize with the "tournament group", for the lack of better word, not getting something that actually works the way they need it to work. I play pvp too, and know there are people to whom pvp is not just one of the several nice things in the game, but the only reason they sub. And, just like those story/decoration only people who feel they haven't gotten many good things between story being delivered in small cutscenes in flashpoints and both Manaan and Umbara having disappointing hooks, those who only sub for pvp often feel they're not getting much at all, with all the wintrading and cheating in ranked, no matchmaking in regs and the amount (and HPS) of healers making warzones boring. In addition, many people dislike the newest pvp maps and arenas as playstyle -- and now this stronghold is a disappointment to them, too. I especially feel for those pvp players who did give loads of feedback (I'd mention Jerba in particular) and did not see Bioware act on that feedback.

 

- I feel that there are some things Bioware hopefully will do before this hits live, such as adding more hooks so pvp players can use it to block off the ramps leading to the score area AND to add higher walls next to the invisible ones (assuming it's still easy to jump on an invisible wall and score that way, I've seen that reported somewhere). However, things such as d-sync, lag and holotraverse being what it is might be bigger issues to fix than a stronghold not having an apartment to live in. They are, after all, issues in the whole game.

 

- However, I do not agree with the sentiment that Bioware should have to go out of their way to get the opinion of the pvp players, such as contacting them directly or watching their livestreams. The pvp aspect of the stronghold is meant for anyone and everyone who wishes to host or participate in stronghold pvp, whether it's training matches or competitive tournaments. Telling everyone to post in the same place is fair, asking some people directly would be Bioware playing favorites. And if EA actually pays people to watch livestreams to find where the bugs are, I need to know where to apply for that job! Sounds like the easiest money ever! Unfortunately, I doubt that job exists, which is why it was asked that people post their feedback on these forums.

 

- Pvp issues getting buried in posts about apartments, hook placements and ambiance is not the fault of the decorators. They were passionate enough to check out what they liked and disliked about the Stronghold, make posts about it and brainstorm ways to fix what's wrong. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that -- and while you guys and gals might not mean it, saying something along the lines of "pity all the pvp bug fixes were buried under posts about hook placement" does come off as "No one saw our important posts regarding pvp because decorators complained about petty issues like not being able to put a table next to a wall in room x". Decorators were passionate enough to keep giving feedback on things they wished would change -- if many of the pvp players only did that in chats and livestreams but didn't bother to write in the forums, it's the fault of those pvp players. Not the decorators.

 

- Pvp things were added, so claims about only decorators getting what they want are false. Bolster was added, so was the droid used to view tournaments. The droid even got tweaks based on feedback. I also feel that the ability to start/end pvp matches being tied to a key was a suggestion from the pvp community, not the decorators. Most of the posts from decorators I saw were asking for a complete toggle off -button (which they did get), while the suggestion to only start/end pvp matches if you have a key came from pvpers worried random people would troll their matches by ending them prematurely.

 

So, in short -- I feel for the pvp players who gave feedback but didn't see things changed, but it's not the fault of the decorators if many of the pvp players didn't bother giving feedback, which might have made it seem like most of the pvp players were fine with the stronghold.

[Jerba]

I especially feel for those pvp players who did give loads of feedback (I'd mention Jerba in particular) and did not see Bioware act on that feedback.

Thanks, but I'm not even a PvP player. My main focus is on endgame PvE and I have my own agenda, but I do try to play through all types of content and report bugs even on stuff I have zero interest in.

 

- Pvp things were added, so claims about only decorators getting what they want are false. Bolster was added, so was the droid used to view tournaments. The droid even got tweaks based on feedback. I also feel that the ability to start/end pvp matches being tied to a key was a suggestion from the pvp community, not the decorators. [...]

Since you get into specifics, here's my recap of this PTS cycle:

 

 

• 1st patch: Many PvP players checked out the stronghold, and the majority of the current issues were already mentioned back then. There was only one feedback thread, and here the PvP players were definitely drowned out by decorators. In addition, there was a warzone playtest on the weekend, which took away time from testing the PvP areas of the stronghold.
  Nevertheless, we confirmed the major positioning issues with Holotraverse, and held a 7v7 Huttball match with major lag and desync. At this point it was already clear that you can't have large matches inside strongholds, it is an issue with the engine that cannot be fixed.
  Since I was also helping test the decorating/hook layouts and the training dummy, and I couldn't find the vendor to purchase the PvP decorations, I didn't write a huge post on the PvP issues, but I did link to Snave's VOD where he mentioned all the issues. I even gave specific timestamps, so that the devs wouldn't have to watch the whole 3 hour video. But looking back now, it was clear that in this patch, the devs mainly listened to the feedback from decorators.
   
  
• 2nd patch: A spectator mode was added, and it had a few bugs that I reported. But the major focus of this patch was on the matchmaking changes and the Rishi arena. There were several playtest sessions and I was present during all playtest sessions and gave extensive feedback on those, which left little time to test the PvP areas of the stronghold.
   
  
• 3rd patch: The patch notes mentioned changes to spectator mode, however in the process PvP was disabled in the strongholds. In other words, you entered a PvP area and you were not flagged for PvP, so zero testing of the Huttball area was possible.
  In the end I resorted to dueling a player to verify the patch notes, and noticed that half of the patch notes were wrong; nothing was fixed. For example, spectators were not untargeted and could still be hit with AoE. I was the only player to report this.
  There was also another playtest for the Rishi arena, where I again participated and which took time away from testing the stronghold.
   
  
• 4th patch: Here, the major focus was on the new overlook area. The devs also wanted specific feedback on the LoS issues and whether terminals should be restricted to keys.
  Within 6 hours of the patch going live, I wrote a lengthy post, detailing that all the PvP issues from the 1st patch had been ignored, hoping that the patch gets pushed back again and these issues get fixed. In addition, I verified that bugs like the spectator being hit by AoE are still not fixed (despite being mentioned in the patch notes from the 3rd patch), and that the LoS issues are not fixed. We even had a 2v2 Huttball match where I reported issues like stuns not working, PvP adrenals/medpacs not working, and random LoS issues when attacking players in clear sight.
  These are all alarm signs that the patch is not ready to be released and needs more love.
  

 

Instead, the devs have chosen to go ahead and shutdown PTS and release the patch. We do not know how many of the remaining issues will get fixed, but some issues will surely remain.

At least the crit/absorb bug is getting fixed, which makes me happy since it would have prevented my raiding group from running MM ops until it got hotfixed. But I feel bad for the PvP players who wanted to hold tournaments in the stronghold.

 

 

My feedback to the devs specifically:

• For future PTS cycles, create separate feedback threads for each player group. During the first patch, there should have been separate feedback threads for decorators and for PvP players. Instead, it got mixed together and led to the feedback from PvP players being ignored.
  
• And also for future PTS cycles, do not test everything at once. Specifically, if you want to get feedback from the PvP areas inside the stronghold, do not do a warzone/arena playtest session at the same time. Of all players, I probably spent the most time on PTS, and even I did not have time to test both the PvP areas and the warzone/matchmaking changes.
  
• If you cannot delay this patch, at least ensure that the major issues get fixed with 5.9.3. I consider the following to be major issues which MUST be fixed:
  
  • The hook layout in the Huttball area needs to be completely redone.
    
  • Players who didn't select a team must be removed from the Huttball area when a match starts.
    
  • Players must not be able to get inside the PvP areas after the match has already started.
    
  • Terminals must be restricted to silver keys, not bronze keys.
    
  • PvP adrenals and medpacs must not get disabled when you die in the Huttball area.
    
  • The remaining LoS issues with decorations must be fixed.
    
  • Spectators must be ignored by AoE and knockback abilities. Otherwise, it is super annoying and irritating for streamers to comment on a match.
    
  • There should be a stealth detection for silver/gold key holders so that tournament organizers can be sure there is no stealthed player interfering with the match.
    

  The lag and desync cannot be fixed, but with these changes, at least it becomes viable to organize a tournament, and removes the potential for griefing. (More details, incl. screenshots and videos can be found in this, this and this post.)

Edited August 1, 2018 by Jerba

[Seireeni]

Thanks, but I'm not even a PvP player. My main focus is on PvE and I have my own agenda, but I do try to play through all types of content and report bugs even on stuff I have zero interest in.

 

Well, then it's even worse -- I do feel you've gone above and beyond to see which things related to pvp are bugged, and you don't even consider yourself a pvp player. If so many pvp players feel the pvp area is broken, they should have posted about it. :/

 

Create separate feedback threads for each player group. During the first patch, there should have been separate feedback threads for decorators and for PvP players. Instead, it got mixed together and led to the feedback from PvP players be ignored.

 

I think this is a really good suggestion for the future. I feel it's unrealistic to think pvp players will start writing as many long, detailed posts in the forums as the decorators do (even though I do encourage them to do it!). This is because I'd guess many of them don't feel the need to since they have already vented their disappointment to their teammates, friends and so on -- while many decorators use the forums to keep in touch with each other anyway, so they do that venting here instead. If there was a different thread for pvp, the ones who do leave detailed feedback wouldn't disappear between decoration posts.

 

I hope your suggestions get implemented, they seem very reasonable and would hopefully help with tournaments. ^^ Maybe there's also some middle ground if the exact thing can't be done. I.e. if there's something in the programming that makes it difficult to get all the decorations break line of sight, maybe they could at least make some of them (a bunch of different ones, naturally) 100% LoS breaking and call them "pvp friendly decorations".