Stronghold Cap - Needs to be raised!!!

[Khaleg]

Why? There are enough slots to have one of each. You only have more if you had strongholds on more than one server prior to the server merges. Like me, I had 13 at the release of 5.9.2 so I finally had to delete the double ones I just got because of the server merge to be able to buy the Rishi stronghold. So what?

 

WHAT they STILL need to fix (after "just" freaking 9 months lol) is the unintended bug with the multiplied decos over the actually allowed limit (depending on from how many servers you came from prior to the merges). This makes the the whole prestige ranking a joke since then although I "benefit" from it atm. But it's pointless right now. People who even came from 3 servers are totally unreachable.

 

AND they need to allow guilds to own more than one stronghold, call it headquarter with dependancies or something lol. I sure would hate to disband our well designed Yavin HQ just to buy Rishi for the guild.

Edited August 11, 2018 by Khaleg

[JediBoadicea]

Why? There are enough slots to have one of each. You only have more if you had strongholds on more than one server prior to the server merges. Like me, I had 13 at the release of 5.9.2 so I finally had to delete the double ones I just got because of the server merge to be able to buy the Rishi stronghold. So what?

 

WHAT they STILL need to fix (after "just" freaking 9 months lol) is the unitended bug with the multiplied decos over the actually allowed limit (depending on from how many servers you came from prior to the merges). This makes the the whole prestige ranking a joke since then although I "benefit" from it atm. But it's pointless right now. People who even came from 3 servers are totally unreachable.

 

AND they need to allow guilds to own more than one stronghold, call it headquarter with dependancies or something lol. I sure would hate to disband our well designed Yavin HQ just to buy Rishi for the guild.

 

If the countering questions you posed above, meant to belittle my request, are genuine, I respectfully suggest you read through the previous posts on this thread, wherein I and others already were quite clear in explaining why we are over the cap and why we do not wish to deactivate strongholds. "So what?" for you is not "so what" for me.

 

I have a hard time imaging how it would be possible to "fix" the duplication of decos at this point, because it is almost certain that anyone who actively decorates has unlocked more decorations since that time. You could not roll back to a 9 month old state without a ludicrous amount of data history, and I don't feel it would be right to do so anyway; I have continued to invest heavily in decos over that time period.

 

I personally do not see why Prestige should matter at all (my complete strongholds are well over 1 million Prestige, but I do not publicly list them so it makes no difference), but then I acknowledge that what is unimportant to me might still be important to other players.

 

That being said, a stronghold cap actively prevents players from accessing new content, while an unintended multiplication of Prestige does not impact the ability of players to keep using strongholds, so I feel the cap is more impactful on how players play.

 

Now, that being said, you also specifically called out decos over the actual allowed limit, and that at least is probably a fix that could be implemented without requiring an unfeasible 9 month roll back. My personal feeling is that there are many, many more very significant strongholds related bugs and issues that should have priority first, but as long as we're compiling a list this would certainly have a place on it.

 

As for allowing guilds to have more than one stronghold, that is something I and others repeatedly called out in this very thread as well. Your comment about hating to disband your well-designed existing guild SH in order to get Rishi for your guild is exactly the argument I posed repeatedly here, and all throughout the PTS feedback phase, so I sympathize. I sincerely hope the devs consider lifting the cap for guild SHs as well. Unless there is a significant negative technical consequence that would come from letting guilds have more than one SH, an arbitrary cap of 1 seems pointless. If guilds wish to invest more time and resources into a second stronghold, surely that is all to the good? Player investment and interest and all that.

Edited August 11, 2018 by JediBoadicea

[Khaleg]

If the countering questions you posed above, meant to belittle my request, are genuine, I respectfully suggest you read through the previous posts on this thread, wherein I and others already were quite clear in explaining why we are over the cap and why we do not wish to deactivate strongholds. "So what?" for you is not "so what" for me.

 

I have a hard time imaging how it would be possible to "fix" the duplication of decos at this point, because it is almost certain that anyone who actively decorates has unlocked more decorations since that time. You could not roll back to a 9 month old state without a ludicrous amount of data history, and I don't feel it would be right to do so anyway; I have continued to invest heavily in decos over that time period.

 

I personally do not see why Prestige should matter at all (my complete strongholds are well over 1 million Prestige, but I do not publicly list them so it makes no difference), but then I acknowledge that what is unimportant to me might still be important to other players.

 

That being said, a stronghold cap actively prevents players from accessing new content, while an unintended multiplication of Prestige does not impact the ability of players to keep using strongholds, so I feel the cap is more impactful on how players play.

 

Now, that being said, you also specifically called out decos over the actual allowed limit, and that at least is probably a fix that could be implemented without requiring an unfeasible 9 month roll back. My personal feeling is that there are many, many more very significant strongholds related bugs and issues that should have priority first, but as long as we're compiling a list this would certainly have a place on it.

 

As for allowing guilds to have more than one stronghold, that is something I and others repeatedly called out in this very thread as well. Your comment about hating to disband your well-designed existing guild SH in order to get Rishi for your guild is exactly the argument I posed repeatedly here, and all throughout the PTS feedback phase, so I sympathize. I sincerely hope the devs consider lifting the cap for guild SHs as well. Unless there is a significant negative technical consequence that would come from letting guilds have more than one SH, an arbitrary cap of 1 seems pointless. If guilds wish to invest more time and resources into a second stronghold, surely that is all to the good? Player investment and interest and all that.

 

I have read all that, just your "reasons" make absolutely no sense at all from a rational point of view. That's it, even if you can't see it. My view is just a rational view on the matter, and not the "I feel I have a right to..." thing. That's all, a rational opinion.

 

And regarding the bug with the decos, you said it yourself. They don't really need to take away actual decos that are already placed in the strongholds, that is a minor or no issue at all. Let's keep the decos for all for their personal use.

BUT they can at least cap the prestige accumulation for each deco to the amount of decos that is actually allowed (most times 999). That would not fix everything but it is close enough to make the rankings somewhat meaningful while they have no meaning at all atm

What I just described is btw EXACTLY what they have intended and announced in the patch notes back then prior to the merges, just they once again failed to deliver as described (thanks to their legendary bad quality control and testing) in the actual patch/merge and we ended up with this annoying bug now that has seen no fix for 9 or 10 months...unbelievable in my eyes. they don't even fix their own failed intentions.

The reason in general to fix this? Obvious isn't it?

As a matter of fact the prestige ranking exists, if someone decides to list for that or not, and a ranking only makes sense when the data it is founded on is at least somewhat comparable, and it's not even remotely atm, when people come either from 1, 2 or even 3 servers prior to the merge and have synchronized all their deco data via char transfers before (without buying any actual deco), then ended up with multiple amounts of all their decos above the limit after the merge depending on how many servers they came from since they were added up unintenionally by Bioware (up to 2997 while only 999 are allowed), makng the prestige count a joke now.

It's simply bs atm, and again, not even intented by Bioware - THEY intented to make it so as I descroibed above - and this is still possible today.

 

And I don't understand you babble about the guild strongholds. I only posted what I really think needs fixes and improvements. Certainly it's not legitimizing strongholds that were accumulated in a not legitimate way (on one server that is), and certainly it is not legitimizing deco amounts that were as well accumulated in a not legitimate way, both game design/server separation wise (a server merge ist not a game mechanic), but it could be an improvement to allow more strongholds for guilds. Even better when we agree here but no reason for me not to mention my agreement, is it? :-)

Edited August 11, 2018 by Khaleg

[JediBoadicea]

I have read all that, just your "reasons" make absolutely no sense at all from a rational point of view. That's it, even if you can't see it. My view is just a rational view on the matter, and not the "I feel I have a right to..." thing. That's all, a rational opinion.

 

Ah, I see. I am not rational, and having game play-style interests that differ from yours is what makes me this way. Thank you for informing me. I might not have realized this otherwise.

 

I mean, I could try to explain my position in a different way, but frankly I think in this case it might be more productive to debate the merits of hard solipsism as a sound life philosophy, and I only have so much sanity to go around.

 

In the meantime, I will let what I said previously in this thread stand, since I am comfortable that nowhere did I say I had a special right to anything; my core suggestion, if executed, would in fact require me to pay actual money to get what I would like to get. Like anyone else who has ever posted in these forums to say that the way the game currently handles something is not to their liking (such as not liking a cap on guild strongholds), I am saying that the way the game currently handles personal stronghold caps is not to my liking.

 

In the meantime, I'll happily take every slur against my intelligence and sense of reason if it means that this thread stays bumped up by replies where devs swamped by working on bugs might eventually get their eyes on it, so that they know that some players are negatively impacted by the stronghold cap and would like an option to unlock more stronghold slots. So thank you for the bump!

Edited August 11, 2018 by JediBoadicea

[IoNonSoEVero]

Aside from anything else, IMHO it's perfectly rational not to want to lose an item for which you paid either millions of credits or real-world money. Even if we're just talking the homeworld apartments, unlocking them fully takes millions.

 

It's also rational to be disappointed about being locked out of future gameplay content because one doesn't want to throw away the item they paid millions of credits or real-world money for.

 

And asking someone to deactivate up to 20 strongholds - that again, they bought with millions of credits or actual money - simply to be able to purchase ONE new one is unreasonable.

 

I actually don't have a horse in this race; I have eight SHs on my main server and one on my second, so I'm not affected by the cap at present. But the way the strongholds were handled after the merger has certainly meant that I've not bothered buying any additional SHs or investing any time or effort into decorating or unlocking the SH I have on my second server, in the event that it would just be pulled or I'd be forced to deactivate it later.

[Khaleg]

Ah, I see. I am not rational, and having game play-style interests that differ from yours is what makes me this way. Thank you for informing me. I might not have realized this otherwise.

 

I mean, I could try to explain my position in a different way, but frankly I think in this case it might be more productive to debate the merits of hard solipsism as a sound life philosophy, and I only have so much sanity to go around.

 

In the meantime, I will let what I said previously in this thread stand, since I am comfortable that nowhere did I say I had a special right to anything; my core suggestion, if executed, would in fact require me to pay actual money to get what I would like to get. Like anyone else who has ever posted in these forums to say that the way the game currently handles something is not to their liking (such as not liking a cap on guild strongholds), I am saying that the way the game currently handles personal stronghold caps is not to my liking.

 

In the meantime, I'll happily take every slur against my intelligence and sense of reason if it means that this thread stays bumped up by replies where devs swamped by working on bugs might eventually get their eyes on it, so that they know that some players are negatively impacted by the stronghold cap and would like an option to unlock more stronghold slots. So thank you for the bump!

 

Just read again what I have written, because your interest doesn't really matter here. Of course you are allowed to have the interest in keeping these strongholds, no question, but again, this is not rational.

Those strongholds were not added up via a game mechanic and this did only happen because Bioware had no clue how to decide or implement a selection option for players prior to the merge which ones they want to keep. It was too complicated for them. It simply was beyond their technical knowledge and capabilities, so they decided to go the chickenway and just add them up. The same way they unintentionall messed up the deco amounts. The same way they were too incapable all the years to make urgently needed server merges (after strongholds, etc. were in the game) and finally, and way too late since many players already had left the game due to their ignorance, went the chickenway to open new servers and merge other servers into them, because that is way easier database and generally technical wise. Bioware Austin/SWTOR division has not much sophisticated knowledge within their ranks anymore, they are either not there anymore or working for Anthem. Most left though I'd guess given how this company is organzied like a fast food cart in the streets, or worse. :-)

So this is a result of incapabilty/chickenway run and not an intended game mechanic.

It's just logic that we need to delete them now in order to buy new ones because you never could buy the same stronghold again on the same server. Simple as that.

I would also guess, from an IT pro perspective, more strongholds have a serious impact on their anyway underperforming database infrastructure so this might even have technical reasons. Most likely I'd even say.

Edited August 11, 2018 by Khaleg

[Damask_Rose]

WHAT they STILL need to fix (after "just" freaking 9 months lol) is the unintended bug with the multiplied decos over the actually allowed limit (depending on from how many servers you came from prior to the merges). This makes the the whole prestige ranking a joke since then although I "benefit" from it atm. But it's pointless right now. People who even came from 3 servers are totally unreachable.

 

AND they need to allow guilds to own more than one stronghold, call it headquarter with dependancies or something lol. I sure would hate to disband our well designed Yavin HQ just to buy Rishi for the guild.

 

I think the best fix to decos being over-limit, is to simply raise all of the limits to 999. The restrictions in place are pointless and interfere with decorating multiple strongholds.

 

AND I fully agree that guilds should be able to own more than one stronghold. Old, active guilds are sitting on piles of credits with nothing to spend them on.

[Andryah]

AND I fully agree that guilds should be able to own more than one stronghold. Old, active guilds are sitting on piles of credits with nothing to spend them on.

 

^^ I agree with this. I don't understand why they have upped personal stronghold counts a couple of times now... but have left guild stronghold limit at 1.

[JediBoadicea]

Just read again what I have written, because your interest doesn't really matter here. Of course you are allowed to have the interest in keeping these strongholds, no question, but again, this is not rational.

Those strongholds were not added up via a game mechanic and this did only happen because Bioware had no clue how to decide or implement a selection option for players prior to the merge which ones they want to keep. It was too complicated for them. It simply was beyond their technical knowledge and capabilities, so they decided to go the chickenway and just add them up.

<snip>

So this is a result of incapabilty/chickenway run and not an intended game mechanic.

 

Being challenged on my ability to think rationally by an argument based on psychic insight into the devs' motivation is very amusing.

 

So by this logic, are you saying that everyone being able to keep all the characters they had across multiple servers when the servers merged was also an unintentional mistake born from incompetence rather than a deliberate choice to allow players to retain their investment? Or is it that you consider it to be a different standard for characters than for strongholds? (I mean, surely that wouldn't point to play-style bias, would it?)

 

I'm beginning to get the impression that your nerdrage is rooted in contempt for what you have imagined the situation at Bioware Austin to be, whereas my nerdrage is rooted in my frustration with an arbitrary (word used loosely and based on the fact that the cap has been treated flexibly in the past) limitation that is limiting my ability to enjoy new game assets. We'll see which nerdrage the devs are more sympathetic toward.

 

I would also guess, from an IT pro perspective, more strongholds have a serious impact on their anyway underperforming database infrastructure so this might even have technical reasons. Most likely I'd even say.

 

Even though you said you read all the previous posts where it was referred to by myself and others, I'll allow that some of my argument was also based on stuff I linked to rather than outright stated, so let me state it again more clearly: If the game is capable of supporting someone having 35 strongholds, which it has shown that it is, then a cap of 10 appears, by comparison, fairly arbitrary.

 

However, I am not unreasonable, and I can imagine that 35 might not be ideal if every single player were to have 35 (though again I am only imagining, because we don't know for sure what the reasons are for the choices that have been made). But much as I would assume not every player has 100 characters even though they have the option to, I also assume that not every player would bog the system down with 35 strongholds. Yet even if it's just a limited percentage of players who might take advantage of a stronghold slot unlock option (just like it's limited those who do character unlocks, or appearance unlocks, or any other sort of customizability feature) there will always be some, and that's potential profit and happiness unmined.

 

Anyway... in the meantime, thanks for keeping on with the bumps to the thread! Keep 'em coming!

 

I think the best fix to decos being over-limit, is to simply raise all of the limits to 999. The restrictions in place are pointless and interfere with decorating multiple strongholds.

 

To be fair to Khaleg (I may not be rational, or so I'm told, but I can try to be fair), I believe he was talking specifically about the decos that were duplicated into exceeding the 999 limit. So if I had 999 basic metal couches on three servers before the servers merged, my total count for that deco now shows as 2997/999. I don't personally have an issue with this, but it's not unreasonable to point out that it's definitely a bug.

 

That being said, to your point of raising all deco limits at least to 999 - I heartily agree. Perhaps there is some technical reason why certain decos (like vendors) need to be limited, and if that's the case I've got no problem with that. But if I want 100 Rishi Idols or I want to farm 600 Zildrog decos, what's the harm? I might be completely insane in the case of the latter example, but hey, it means I'm spending an ungodly number of hours playing SWTOR, so surely that's all to the good from the studio's perspective.

 

^^ I agree with this. I don't understand why they have upped personal stronghold counts a couple of times now... but have left guild stronghold limit at 1.

 

Yes, this seems to be something on which everyone agrees. I and others mentioned it often in the PTS feedback too, which is all the more frustrating. I mean, if not for this cap I might not have needed to own 8 personal guilds just to get access to more guild strongholds! (I may not be farming 600 Zildrogs, but I'm clearly my own brand of insane.)

[PennyAnn]

I have read all that, just your "reasons" make absolutely no sense at all from a rational point of view. That's it, even if you can't see it. My view is just a rational view on the matter, and not the "I feel I have a right to..." thing. That's all, a rational opinion.

 

And regarding the bug with the decos, you said it yourself. They don't really need to take away actual decos that are already placed in the strongholds, that is a minor or no issue at all. Let's keep the decos for all for their personal use.

BUT they can at least cap the prestige accumulation for each deco to the amount of decos that is actually allowed (most times 999). That would not fix everything but it is close enough to make the rankings somewhat meaningful while they have no meaning at all atm

What I just described is btw EXACTLY what they have intended and announced in the patch notes back then prior to the merges, just they once again failed to deliver as described (thanks to their legendary bad quality control and testing) in the actual patch/merge and we ended up with this annoying bug now that has seen no fix for 9 or 10 months...unbelievable in my eyes. they don't even fix their own failed intentions.

The reason in general to fix this? Obvious isn't it?

As a matter of fact the prestige ranking exists, if someone decides to list for that or not, and a ranking only makes sense when the data it is founded on is at least somewhat comparable, and it's not even remotely atm, when people come either from 1, 2 or even 3 servers prior to the merge and have synchronized all their deco data via char transfers before (without buying any actual deco), then ended up with multiple amounts of all their decos above the limit after the merge depending on how many servers they came from since they were added up unintenionally by Bioware (up to 2997 while only 999 are allowed), makng the prestige count a joke now.

It's simply bs atm, and again, not even intented by Bioware - THEY intented to make it so as I descroibed above - and this is still possible today.

 

And I don't understand you babble about the guild strongholds. I only posted what I really think needs fixes and improvements. Certainly it's not legitimizing strongholds that were accumulated in a not legitimate way (on one server that is), and certainly it is not legitimizing deco amounts that were as well accumulated in a not legitimate way, both game design/server separation wise (a server merge ist not a game mechanic), but it could be an improvement to allow more strongholds for guilds. Even better when we agree here but no reason for me not to mention my agreement, is it? :-)

 

Without being as rude to you as you are to everyone you respond to on the forums, let me just point out that fixing the prestige score would change absolutely nothing. Prestige is a meaningless number, and fixing a meaningless number is equally meaningless. For all your claims of being "rational", sorry but you just aren't (on that count).

 

.

Edited August 12, 2018 by PennyAnn

[Khaleg]

Without being as rude to you as you are to everyone you respond to on the forums, let me just point out that fixing the prestige score would change absolutely nothing. Prestige is a meaningless number, and fixing a meaningless number is equally meaningless. For all your claims of being "rational", sorry but you just aren't (on that count).

 

.

 

It's meaningless to you, not to all. Which makes only one thing meaningless, your reply.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Khaleg

[Khaleg]

Being challenged on my ability to think rationally by an argument based on psychic insight into the devs' motivation is very amusing.

 

So by this logic, are you saying that everyone being able to keep all the characters they had across multiple servers when the servers merged was also an unintentional mistake born from incompetence rather than a deliberate choice to allow players to retain their investment? Or is it that you consider it to be a different standard for characters than for strongholds? (I mean, surely that wouldn't point to play-style bias, would it?)

 

I'm beginning to get the impression that your nerdrage is rooted in contempt for what you have imagined the situation at Bioware Austin to be, whereas my nerdrage is rooted in my frustration with an arbitrary (word used loosely and based on the fact that the cap has been treated flexibly in the past) limitation that is limiting my ability to enjoy new game assets. We'll see which nerdrage the devs are more sympathetic toward.

 

 

 

Even though you said you read all the previous posts where it was referred to by myself and others, I'll allow that some of my argument was also based on stuff I linked to rather than outright stated, so let me state it again more clearly: If the game is capable of supporting someone having 35 strongholds, which it has shown that it is, then a cap of 10 appears, by comparison, fairly arbitrary.

 

However, I am not unreasonable, and I can imagine that 35 might not be ideal if every single player were to have 35 (though again I am only imagining, because we don't know for sure what the reasons are for the choices that have been made). But much as I would assume not every player has 100 characters even though they have the option to, I also assume that not every player would bog the system down with 35 strongholds. Yet even if it's just a limited percentage of players who might take advantage of a stronghold slot unlock option (just like it's limited those who do character unlocks, or appearance unlocks, or any other sort of customizability feature) there will always be some, and that's potential profit and happiness unmined.

 

Anyway... in the meantime, thanks for keeping on with the bumps to the thread! Keep 'em coming!

 

 

 

To be fair to Khaleg (I may not be rational, or so I'm told, but I can try to be fair), I believe he was talking specifically about the decos that were duplicated into exceeding the 999 limit. So if I had 999 basic metal couches on three servers before the servers merged, my total count for that deco now shows as 2997/999. I don't personally have an issue with this, but it's not unreasonable to point out that it's definitely a bug.

 

That being said, to your point of raising all deco limits at least to 999 - I heartily agree. Perhaps there is some technical reason why certain decos (like vendors) need to be limited, and if that's the case I've got no problem with that. But if I want 100 Rishi Idols or I want to farm 600 Zildrog decos, what's the harm? I might be completely insane in the case of the latter example, but hey, it means I'm spending an ungodly number of hours playing SWTOR, so surely that's all to the good from the studio's perspective.

 

 

 

Yes, this seems to be something on which everyone agrees. I and others mentioned it often in the PTS feedback too, which is all the more frustrating. I mean, if not for this cap I might not have needed to own 8 personal guilds just to get access to more guild strongholds! (I may not be farming 600 Zildrogs, but I'm clearly my own brand of insane.)

 

I don't think we need to be hostile to each other. Some people just misunderstand my direct and merciless way to say something as personal affront, which it isn't and is not intended at all. I have a thick skin myself (and for instance don't run to "mum" aka mods in case someone does not agree with me and uses a not sugar coated phrase or something like that here) and somehow expect this from others as well. I can handle this myself and reply appropriate and don't need mommy aka mods to "assist" me. I'm just a friend of a straight forward and honest conversation without any useless and stupid diplomatic blah blah. Just so you understand me and that I'm not personally attacking you. :-)

I just said your approach is not rational, and come on, you have to acknowledge this as a matter of fact. Again, these multiple strongholds don't exist because of a game mechanic but just because of Bioware taking the easy way, either too lazy or more likely too incapable given how long they have delayed looooong overdue real server merges, and then came with that solution which is not a server merge but merging servers into a new one - a totally different thing technical wise.

This is common knowledge here since they even have admitted it prior to the merges in between the lines and sometimes even directly.

Amusing is that you don't know that or can not see that from a technical point of view. They did a lot in this merge because it was easier for them and less likely to fail miserably, the strongholds are a part of this. Adding up data in databases is much easier then merging data without major errors.

Therefore they have chosen the chickenway (in Mountain Biking we call that taking the line that is less dangerous). You need to accept that very fact regarding their motivation to do this or that on your honorable way to be or become rational. :-)

 

Strongholds, personal and guild ones, and guild ships, and guilds, were THE VERY reason for them to delay a solution to the last possible point in time before that game woud have totally went down the drain with countless dead servers being there for way too long time already..

That is a matter of fact and common knowledge here, even admitted by Bioware. So there you go.

Characters are technically a totally different topic btw but I don't give an IT class here now. :-)

 

I just find it logical to now be forced to delete the illegatimate aquired strongholds existing on one server now. That is rational isn't it!? And it is not affecting your subjective wish to keep them for whatever reason.

Also, they can claim what they want, everybody who plays that game and has some technical knowledge/experience knows their database infrastructure is at its limit (see response times when opening a full legacy stronghold, etc. pp.). All legacy based hits/queries on the database are very ressource intensive. That includes strongholds and guild rosters. This might also be the reason why they don't raise the guild member cap.

Everything they take away, like strongholds, reduces the impact, everything they add might result in the need to upgrade hardware or their likely outdated and miserable database setup. It's definately at the limit atm. You can feel it while playing this game.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Khaleg

[PennyAnn]

It's meaningless to you, not to all. Which makes only one thing meaningless, your reply.

 

It's good to see you're sticking to your guns on the being rude thing. Really, this forum doesn't have enough people like that.

 

And it has nothing to do with me, it is a meaningless number in that it changes absolutely nothing in the game if you have 100,000 prestige or 10 million. That is why it has no meaning, it represents nothing, changes nothing, and has absolutely no effect on anything. Your feelings about that number don't give it any meaning because no matter how you feel about it, or how high or low the number is, it changes absolutely nothing about strongholds.

 

.

[Khaleg]

I think the best fix to decos being over-limit, is to simply raise all of the limits to 999. The restrictions in place are pointless and interfere with decorating multiple strongholds.

 

But that doesn't fix the issue I'm talking about!?

I couldn't care less if they raise the limit for the few decos which are just allowed 1 or 50 times to 999. That would have a minor impact on prestige count to legitamate the 2 or 100 above the allowed limit per deco now. There are not so many this applies to and the not legitimate numbers are relatively low anyway.

 

But those that were already at 999 limit, now have often a count up to 2997, while still having a 999 limit (when people merged from 3 servers) and that has a significant impact.

Again, I would agree people should and can keep the actual deco to use, I don't care, but the prestige accumualtion should end with the 999 limit.

Or if the really want to fix this without compromize then really purge everything above 999 since it is obviously a bug and not intended when a deco shows 2997/999. :-)

We have a meaningless prestige ranking as a result of that since 9+ months now, and Bioware didn't even intend this to happen, but does nothing to fix their failure here. Again, in 9 freaking months,

Edited August 12, 2018 by Khaleg

[PennyAnn]

We have a meaningless prestige ranking as a result of that since 9+ months now, and Bioware didn't even intend this to happen, but does nothing to fix their failure here. Again, in 9 freaking months,

 

Dude... it was meaningless before as well. And they know it. And that's why they haven't and won't bother to "fix" it, because it will change absolutely nothing about strongholds to do so.

 

.

[Khaleg]

Dude... it was meaningless before as well. And they know it. And that's why they haven't and won't bother to "fix" it, because it will change absolutely nothing about strongholds to do so.

 

.

 

That says all about your understanding of the matter in general and Bioware as a whole lol.

I guess that also applies to the endless list of bugs that were not fixed since years right? Get a grip for once, pretty please.

Bioware even made the effort prior to the merges to announce how they want to handle this. They just failed miserably to deliver due to their legendary bad testing and quality control. But it was obviously not remotely meaningless to them. It's just not trivial to really fix that mess up 100 %, THAT is the only reason. At that point, technical knowledge wise, I would just see Bioware being able to apply a semi fix. They are not capable to fix that 100 %.

AND again, it is meaningless to YOU, don't you even get THAT dfference? It's not too much to ask for, or at least it shouldnt be.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Khaleg

[Khaleg]

It's good to see you're sticking to your guns on the being rude thing. Really, this forum doesn't have enough people like that.

 

And it has nothing to do with me, it is a meaningless number in that it changes absolutely nothing in the game if you have 100,000 prestige or 10 million. That is why it has no meaning, it represents nothing, changes nothing, and has absolutely no effect on anything. Your feelings about that number don't give it any meaning because no matter how you feel about it, or how high or low the number is, it changes absolutely nothing about strongholds.

 

.

 

You just don't get it, right? So full of yourself thinking your opinion is all that matters...talking about being rude...haha. Own goal.

And btw, it was not rude from me to state the obvious. If you really think your opinion is all that counts your reply was definately meaningless. That is not even debatbale. And it is not rude.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Khaleg

[PennyAnn]

That says all about your understanding of the matter in general and Bioware as a whole lol.

I guess that also applies to the endless list of bugs that were not fixed since years right? Get a grip for once, pretty please.

Bioware even made the effort prior to the merges to announce how they want to handle this. They just failed miserably to deliver due to their legendary bad testing and quality control. But it was obviously not remotely meaningless to them. It's just not trivial to really fix that mess up 100 %, THAT is the only reason. At that point, technical knowledge wise, I would just see Bioware being able to apply a semi fix. They are not capable to fix that 100 %.

AND again, it is meaningless to YOU, don't you even get THAT dfference? It's not too much to ask for, or at least it shouldnt be.

 

In no way is this remotely similar to the "endless list of bugs" that actually affect game play or how the game operates. That's the point - "fixing" prestige will change nothing. I'd rather they work on game breaking bugs that actually impact how the game plays if they are going to bother. Take a look at the bug forums and you will see a very long list of things much, much more important than prestige scores (which indicate nothing, change nothing, and do not have any bearing on the functionality of strongholds).

 

I think it's actually you that doesn't understand the difference. It's not just meaningless to ME. It's meaningless by very definition. The score has no meaning. To anyone. Except, apparently you... but that is not based on anything but emotion. And, I'm pretty sure they don't prioritize bug fixes based on your emotion. "Fixing" something when it makes absolutely zero change to the game instead of fixing one of the many bugs that are making the game unplayable in certain areas is a complete and utter waste of resources, and you should want better things for this game and the people that play it, including yourself.

 

You just don't get it, right? So full of yourself thinking your opinion is all that matters...talking about being rude...haha. Own goal.

And btw, it was not rude from me to state the obvious. If you really think your opinion is all that counts your reply was definately meaningless. That is not even debatbale. And it is not rude.

 

How is it my opinion that the prestige score affects nothing about strongholds? That's not an opinion, mate. That's facts about how the game works. How the game actually works is what matters... not my opinion and not yours, here. I know you think you are stating the obvious, but you're so convinced that this is an issue and so entrenched in your own opinion that you're completely projecting that onto other people when they give you facts.

 

FACT: The prestige score has no meaning. It changes nothing about strongholds or their function. That is why nothing has been done about the fact that it did not implement the way Bioware intended for it to go live. Because... "fixing" it would change nothing and would be a waste of development resources to "fix" something that does. not. matter.

 

You can continue telling me that I'm the one who is meaningless (and then pretending like you're not being totally rude), I really don't care. To be rude to someone just because they state facts about game play that are contrary to your personal feelings and emotions and then continue to double down on that just shows that you are the one that doesn't get it. And that's okay. You can be clueless all you like, doesn't really affect me at the end of the day. But this is facts (mine) vs. feelings (yours). Plus, as the OP states: you keep bumping this thread and that's great for the actual topic at hand.

 

Bioware: Please raise the stronghold cap, especially for guilds, so that no one has to sacrifice an investment to take part in the new content. We'll even pay for that luxury via unlocks in the Cartel Market. Make some money by making your customers happy!

 

.

Edited August 12, 2018 by PennyAnn

[Slowpokeking]

Also increase the decor limit

[SourOrange]

You just don't get it, right? So full of yourself thinking your opinion is all that matters...talking about being rude...haha.

 

It's meaningless to you, not to all. Which makes only one thing meaningless, your reply.

 

... Yet you somehow can't wrap your head around the fact that the same can be applied to your appraisal of the OP's opinion? Their requests and desires are no more "irrational" than yours. And you're not the only one living on planet Earth either, in case that hadn't actually crossed your mind..

 

Why are you so against this? It's not going to hurt you in any way. Letting people have more strongholds if they want them would hurt no one and benefit everyone who had an interest in buying and maintaining them.

 

The only thing here that's truly meaningless is your nasty attitude. You're free to voice your opinion. You are not free, however, to be an absolute jerk while you do it. That's one absolutely surefire way to be certain very few people will want to listen to you.

Edited August 12, 2018 by SourOrange

[AlienEyeTX]

If some people don't have an interest in strongholds such that they haven't imagined a use for more than one SH, that's great for them; play how you want to play. If you don't have a need for more than one stronghold, chances are you're not that interested in strongholds as a mini-game or creative outlet, and therefore this is understandably of no concern to you. Which means you probably weren't the target audience for the new stronghold anyway. Which means the question of a cap is irrelevant to you. That's great. But it's not irrelevant to me, nor to others for whom strongholds are an interest, so for sure we are part of the target audience for the new SH.

 

The duplicate strongholds we got after the merge were not an error. The studio made sure that no one would lose a stronghold when servers merged because they knew people wouldn't want to lose things they had invested time and love and money into, exactly like they made sure no one would lose characters even if they went over the character cap. If they knew we wouldn't want to lose them when the merge happened, then it's logical to assume we don't want to lose them now either. The only thing that has changed about players' circumstances since the merge is that we've now had more than half a year to invest time and love and money into the duplicate strongholds we got to keep. Which makes it even more imperative to address this question.

 

If they want to set the cap on the number of stronghold slots you get for "free" at ten, that's fine, I have no problem with that whatsoever. It's exactly the same as character slots, where there's a cap of slots you get for free as the baseline. But with characters, you can purchase more slot unlocks if you want more than the soft cap. I'm just saying we should have the same option for strongholds. There is absolutely no reason that I should have to accept I can't get an 11th stronghold if the game supports having up to 35, which it does. I am offering to pay for it. How is this an issue?

 

I think it would be an added bonus if people were able to purchase additional/duplicate copies of the same stronghold with their stronghold slot unlocks, because why not? If I want a fifth Coruscant SH, who does it hurt? I want to spend more money on slots and decorations doing a thing I enjoy doing. Let me do it!! As it stands now, as much as I do want to get Rishi, I also don't want to lose the strongholds I've invested so much into crafting. If we were to be told "the game really needs a hard cap of X" then so be it, but if one player has 35 strongholds while the other has 10, then it's been proved that 10 is not the hard cap. There's absolutely no reason to lose out on potential revenue and take a potential hit to interest metrics because of this, especially since it was called out long before the SH released (and it's not like it's a new issue, it's been an issue with every new SH released since Yavin).

 

 

 

The question of the cap on guilds got called out repeatedly during the PTS feedback as well, so it's disappointing to see it didn't get addressed. Especially pertinent for guilds, since Rishi is such a guild-friendly addition.

 

And I agree, I think it would be great if we could provide direct revenue (via slot unlocks on top of what we spend on decos) as a metric for interest in strongholds. There's no guarantee that would go straight back into development for strongholds but at minimum it would show what the interest is. Given how much of an interest there is in decorations, I have to assume stronghold enthusiasts are at least not an insignificant demographic.

 

You're right. What does it hurt to have multiples and duplicates? Why should my bounty hunter have to live in the same Nar Shaddaa stronghold as my inquisitor (or even another BH for that matter)?

 

I'm just going to toss this out there, but why wouldn't the number of stronghold slots be at least equal to the number of character slots? Shouldn't each character be able to live in their own home and not have to have roommates? Shouldn't they all be able to place their own minions... er, I mean companions, in their own home?

 

This game's population is low enough that I'm pretty sure there's enough storage space on the servers or rows in the spreadsheets to accommodate this.

[JediBoadicea]

I don't think we need to be hostile to each other. Some people just misunderstand my direct and merciless way to say something as personal affront, which it isn't and is not intended at all. I have a thick skin myself (and for instance don't run to "mum" aka mods in case someone does not agree with me and uses a not sugar coated phrase or something like that here) and somehow expect this from others as well. I can handle this myself and reply appropriate and don't need mommy aka mods to "assist" me. I'm just a friend of a straight forward and honest conversation without any useless and stupid diplomatic blah blah.

 

I do not know why you are now condescendingly referring to someone's attempt at engaging mediation. If you are attempting to suggest that I reported you, I can tell you that I did not. If someone else reported you, I am guessing this would not be the first time.

 

I am beginning to think that my cheekily sarcastic invitation for you to keep bumping the thread was possibly ill-advised. Mea culpa. And though normally, as someone who realizes that the word "diplomatic" also encompasses in its definition the virtue of being effective, my instinct toward being diplomatic would at this point be urging me to bow out before frustration results in sarcasm getting the better of me, in this case I think I am going to indulge in some lengthy forum warfare and still reply. (Because hey... ill-advised or not, it's still keeping the subject in discussion.)

 

I just said your approach is not rational, and come on, you have to acknowledge this as a matter of fact.

 

Actually, I do not have to acknowledge that your belief about the reasons that Bioware are doing things is fact, nor do I have to acknowledge that your opinion about what constitutes rational thinking is fact. I find it profoundly ironic that you do not recognize this in the midst of attacking my ability to think rationally.

 

Again, these multiple strongholds don't exist because of a game mechanic but just because of Bioware taking the easy way,

 

I find it interesting that you continually dismiss the studio's choice to do this as being irrelevant. You seem to only care about whether or not their reason for doing so was about "incompetence" (thus giving you an opportunity to insult them as cowards), while not entertaining the possibility that perhaps their reasons for doing so might actually have taken into consideration the idea that players wouldn't want to lose something as a result of the merge. I can't help but feel that it says something about the hierarchy of your thinking process that you are willing to speculate about Bioware's reasons when it opens the way for you to adopt a position of superiority, but not willing to speculate about their reasons when it comes to the possibility that the interests of people other than yourself might have played a part in the choice they made.

 

Adding up data in databases is much easier then merging data without major errors.

 

It sure is. One might almost say this was a good reason to take this approach, if you are working with a smaller staff but still want to make changes to your game that minimize the risk of negative impact.

 

They did a lot in this merge because it was easier for them and less likely to fail miserably, the strongholds are a part of this.

<snip>

Therefore they have chosen the chickenway (in Mountain Biking we call that taking the line that is less dangerous). You need to accept that very fact regarding their motivation to do this or that on your honorable way to be or become rational. :-)

 

Since we're being very free and straight-forward with our opinions, something of which you said you are fond, allow me to express my opinion that I am relieved that you do not run my company's IT department. The world does indeed need innovators and visionaries willing to take risks in order to invent and advance - but those are qualities you leverage in the development stage, in that lovely stellar nursery stage of creation. No responsible manager of sensitive data or data belonging to other people chooses experimentation with riskier ventures over safety net options when performing a data center migration or platform upgrade.

 

Also, I feel compelled to point out that here we are again at the irony party, wherein you once more equate your belief about the reasons that Bioware are doing things to fact, and call me irrational for not agreeing with your opinion.

 

Strongholds, personal and guild ones, and guild ships, and guilds, were THE VERY reason for them to delay a solution to the last possible point in time before that game woud have totally went down the drain with countless dead servers being there for way too long time already..

That is a matter of fact and common knowledge here, even admitted by Bioware. So there you go.

 

It's a matter of fact, really? It's a matter of fact that they "delayed" the server merges (which I am assuming you mean by "solution" though I am open to being corrected if I have misunderstood) because of strongholds? If I missed the dev post where they stated this (it's possible, I certainly haven't read every single post ever made), I would appreciate being pointed to the post in question.

 

Characters are technically a totally different topic btw but I don't give an IT class here now. :-)

 

I do not require an IT class, because you are both misrepresenting the question I asked and also skirting an answer.

 

You said:

 

Just read again what I have written, because your interest doesn't really matter here. Of course you are allowed to have the interest in keeping these strongholds, no question, but again, this is not rational.

Those strongholds were not added up via a game mechanic and this did only happen because Bioware had no clue how to decide or implement a selection option for players prior to the merge which ones they want to keep. It was too complicated for them. It simply was beyond their technical knowledge and capabilities, so they decided to go the chickenway and just add them up.

<snip>

So this is a result of incapabilty/chickenway run and not an intended game mechanic.

 

And then I said:

 

So by this logic, are you saying that everyone being able to keep all the characters they had across multiple servers when the servers merged was also an unintentional mistake born from incompetence rather than a deliberate choice to allow players to retain their investment? Or is it that you consider it to be a different standard for characters than for strongholds? (I mean, surely that wouldn't point to play-style bias, would it?)

 

The disconnect we seem to be persistently running into here is that you wish only to discuss what your beliefs are about Bioware's motives for doing things in a manner that allows you to fit the evidence to your theory, and like most people preoccupied with doing so you are dismissing any evidence or argument to the contrary that doesn't support your aim.

 

Yes, strongholds function differently than characters. Apples are apples, and oranges are oranges. The fact that the apple is different from the orange has no bearing whatsoever on how you might feel when, after my having given you the fruit of your choice to enjoy, I then take it away from you. You argued that the only reason strongholds were added together during the server merge is because Bioware couldn't figure out a way to do it differently. Yet when I ask if you feel that "logic" could also be applied to why characters were added together you pretend like it is not an analogous situation because characters are different technically from strongholds; I did not ask about whether or not characters were different technically from strongholds, I was asking about your logic because you seem to be a champion of "rational" thinking. If your argument posits that there is no way that Bioware took into consideration that people might not want to lose something they had invested in (in this case strongholds) during a merge they had no choice over, that it was solely about their not being able to come up with a "solution" other than being additive, then how do you justify not extending that argument to characters?

 

And the reason that I put forth the challenge of the character vs. stronghold question was to highlight my belief (I cop to this being a belief and not "fact") that players would have been justifiably outraged had they been told that their characters were going to be deleted as part of the merge rather than added together. The reason for that outrage is because people care about their investment. Just like I care about my investment in strongholds.

 

I just find it logical to now be forced to delete the illegatimate aquired strongholds existing on one server now. That is rational isn't it!?

 

I do not find this be a rational argument because you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the concept of illegitimacy. Bioware announced that strongholds across servers would be added together. Anyone who, after the merger, ended up having their strongholds added together, therefore did not break any rules. At worst, they took advantage of the rules while still playing by them.

 

That being said, allow me to reiterate what I have said all along, because I have no interest in being hypocritical: I fully acknowledge that Bioware previously stated that the cap would be 10 and that acquiring a new one would require deleting strongholds to get below the cap. You will notice, I hope, that the entire purpose of this thread was not to ask why I couldn't get a new stronghold, it was to request that this policy be changed, and to suggest a ways by which it might be. I feel it is not unreasonable on my part to make this request because, all subjectivity aside, they have raised the cap before. See Mubrak's earlier post in this thread as only one example.

 

Also, they can claim what they want, everybody who plays that game and has some technical knowledge/experience knows their database infrastructure is at its limit (see response times when opening a full legacy stronghold, etc. pp.). All legacy based hits/queries on the database are very ressource intensive. That includes strongholds and guild rosters. This might also be the reason why they don't raise the guild member cap.

Everything they take away, like strongholds, reduces the impact, everything they add might result in the need to upgrade hardware or their likely outdated and miserable database setup. It's definately at the limit atm. You can feel it while playing this game.

 

Allow me to inject some of the diplomacy here of which you are so dismissive in order to say that I acknowledge you may very well be right in your belief that legacy-based hits on the database are a technical challenge when it comes to many things, including strongholds. You may very well be right that this is part of why they have been conservative with the stronghold cap and slow to roll out changes on this front.

 

If the devs were to publicly say - "Look, guys, we understand, but here's the situation: 35 strongholds was pushing the limit and we could only move forward with letting strongholds be additive after the merge because we knew it would be a small percentage of players in that situation and therefore the load wouldn't break us, but if the number of players in that situation were to increase then we'd have problems, so we have to keep the number under 35 even though we've proven that 35 is technically possible." - then you know what? I would understand. The problem is that the dev team has not explicitly stated as much, and so I am left having to assemble my position (and hang my hopes and dreams) based on the evidential history that A) the game can support 35 strongholds, and B) they have raised the personal cap in the past.

 

Also, I don't know how many strongholds you have, but I have 21, and I have noticed no lag or issues at all with loading or using any of my strongholds. That's not to say that there aren't any, and of course I am only a sampling of one, but it does lead me to speculate that the situation may not be as dire as you believe it to be.

 

So... having now dissected your post directed at me I could potentially dig into things you were directing at other people, but honestly I think PennyAnn handled that quite ably. It is, again, ironic that you insist something which impacts an issue emotionally important to you (the "honor" of your "Prestige" score) is exempt from being held to the standards of "rational" argument while insisting that something which emotionally impacts others is irrelevant because it's not "rational." Whereas, as has already been pointed out, a Prestige score does not impact your ability to use strongholds, while a stronghold cap directly does.

 

In the meantime, I will continue to hold out hope that the stronghold cap will be raised. I continue to believe that a CM-purchasable slot unlock is a good way to do it, because it asks players to pony up in order to support the cost of the feature while simultaneously giving players the happy satisfaction of being able to have more fun with something they enjoy. I also think that allowing people to buy duplicate strongholds is a good idea, for all the reasons I (and others) have already stated. And I definitely think the guild stronghold cap especially should be raised, if at all possible.

Edited August 12, 2018 by JediBoadicea

[JediBoadicea]

Shouldn't each character be able to live in their own home and not have to have roommates? Shouldn't they all be able to place their own minions... er, I mean companions, in their own home?

 

You know, that is probably the better way to think of strongholds: minion storage units. And I'm sure it's only to be expected that no self-respecting Sith would accept being forced to store their minions with lesser Sith's minions (or worse, with the minions of Republic scum).

[Khaleg]

... Yet you somehow can't wrap your head around the fact that the same can be applied to your appraisal of the OP's opinion? Their requests and desires are no more "irrational" than yours. And you're not the only one living on planet Earth either, in case that hadn't actually crossed your mind..

 

Well, it's really annoying to explain stuff to people who can't even read precisely or at least try to make the effort. Why can't you even try? Is that too hard? This is the most annoying and impolite form of being rude.

I don't talk about opinions here, I said it is a bug, and in addtiion to that a not intended bug since Bioware announced a different outcome prior to the merges, and failed. So it needs fixing, also from Bioware's perspective. That is no opinion.

I also said explicitly it is important for some, for others not. Can't you even understand that? How is that even remotely comparable to these "full of myself" + "my opinion is fact" and therefore irrelevant and meaningless statements from that PenynAnn? *shakes head*

 

Edit to fix the misunderstanding you have caused which resulted in my reply above:

 

BTW, I just realize and this might also be a result of you not reading precisely enough: What you quoted was about the not intended deco bug and not at all about the thead topic itself. Therefore a big part or your posting makes no sense regarding what you have quoted?!

To be clear, I have absolutely no problem or am "so against it" that the OP or others are wishing for to keep the strongholds. I just inject some rationality into the discussion and in addition mention some technical implications (which are not a "belief" as the OP keeps believing from a ordinary person/layman perspective).

Edited August 13, 2018 by Khaleg

[Khaleg]

I do not know why you are now condescendingly referring to someone's attempt at engaging mediation. If you are attempting to suggest that I reported you, I can tell you that I did not. If someone else reported you, I am guessing this would not be the first time.

 

I am beginning to think that my cheekily sarcastic invitation for you to keep bumping the thread was possibly ill-advised. Mea culpa. And though normally, as someone who realizes that the word "diplomatic" also encompasses in its definition the virtue of being effective, my instinct toward being diplomatic would at this point be urging me to bow out before frustration results in sarcasm getting the better of me, in this case I think I am going to indulge in some lengthy forum warfare and still reply. (Because hey... ill-advised or not, it's still keeping the subject in discussion.)

 

 

 

Actually, I do not have to acknowledge that your belief about the reasons that Bioware are doing things is fact, nor do I have to acknowledge that your opinion about what constitutes rational thinking is fact. I find it profoundly ironic that you do not recognize this in the midst of attacking my ability to think rationally.

 

 

 

I find it interesting that you continually dismiss the studio's choice to do this as being irrelevant. You seem to only care about whether or not their reason for doing so was about "incompetence" (thus giving you an opportunity to insult them as cowards), while not entertaining the possibility that perhaps their reasons for doing so might actually have taken into consideration the idea that players wouldn't want to lose something as a result of the merge. I can't help but feel that it says something about the hierarchy of your thinking process that you are willing to speculate about Bioware's reasons when it opens the way for you to adopt a position of superiority, but not willing to speculate about their reasons when it comes to the possibility that the interests of people other than yourself might have played a part in the choice they made.

 

 

 

It sure is. One might almost say this was a good reason to take this approach, if you are working with a smaller staff but still want to make changes to your game that minimize the risk of negative impact.

 

 

 

Since we're being very free and straight-forward with our opinions, something of which you said you are fond, allow me to express my opinion that I am relieved that you do not run my company's IT department. The world does indeed need innovators and visionaries willing to take risks in order to invent and advance - but those are qualities you leverage in the development stage, in that lovely stellar nursery stage of creation. No responsible manager of sensitive data or data belonging to other people chooses experimentation with riskier ventures over safety net options when performing a data center migration or platform upgrade.

 

Also, I feel compelled to point out that here we are again at the irony party, wherein you once more equate your belief about the reasons that Bioware are doing things to fact, and call me irrational for not agreeing with your opinion.

 

 

 

It's a matter of fact, really? It's a matter of fact that they "delayed" the server merges (which I am assuming you mean by "solution" though I am open to being corrected if I have misunderstood) because of strongholds? If I missed the dev post where they stated this (it's possible, I certainly haven't read every single post ever made), I would appreciate being pointed to the post in question.

 

 

 

I do not require an IT class, because you are both misrepresenting the question I asked and also skirting an answer.

 

You said:

 

 

 

And then I said:

 

 

 

The disconnect we seem to be persistently running into here is that you wish only to discuss what your beliefs are about Bioware's motives for doing things in a manner that allows you to fit the evidence to your theory, and like most people preoccupied with doing so you are dismissing any evidence or argument to the contrary that doesn't support your aim.

 

Yes, strongholds function differently than characters. Apples are apples, and oranges are oranges. The fact that the apple is different from the orange has no bearing whatsoever on how you might feel when, after my having given you the fruit of your choice to enjoy, I then take it away from you. You argued that the only reason strongholds were added together during the server merge is because Bioware couldn't figure out a way to do it differently. Yet when I ask if you feel that "logic" could also be applied to why characters were added together you pretend like it is not an analogous situation because characters are different technically from strongholds; I did not ask about whether or not characters were different technically from strongholds, I was asking about your logic because you seem to be a champion of "rational" thinking. If your argument posits that there is no way that Bioware took into consideration that people might not want to lose something they had invested in (in this case strongholds) during a merge they had no choice over, that it was solely about their not being able to come up with a "solution" other than being additive, then how do you justify not extending that argument to characters?

 

And the reason that I put forth the challenge of the character vs. stronghold question was to highlight my belief (I cop to this being a belief and not "fact") that players would have been justifiably outraged had they been told that their characters were going to be deleted as part of the merge rather than added together. The reason for that outrage is because people care about their investment. Just like I care about my investment in strongholds.

 

 

 

I do not find this be a rational argument because you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the concept of illegitimacy. Bioware announced that strongholds across servers would be added together. Anyone who, after the merger, ended up having their strongholds added together, therefore did not break any rules. At worst, they took advantage of the rules while still playing by them.

 

That being said, allow me to reiterate what I have said all along, because I have no interest in being hypocritical: I fully acknowledge that Bioware previously stated that the cap would be 10 and that acquiring a new one would require deleting strongholds to get below the cap. You will notice, I hope, that the entire purpose of this thread was not to ask why I couldn't get a new stronghold, it was to request that this policy be changed, and to suggest a ways by which it might be. I feel it is not unreasonable on my part to make this request because, all subjectivity aside, they have raised the cap before. See Mubrak's earlier post in this thread as only one example.

 

 

 

Allow me to inject some of the diplomacy here of which you are so dismissive in order to say that I acknowledge you may very well be right in your belief that legacy-based hits on the database are a technical challenge when it comes to many things, including strongholds. You may very well be right that this is part of why they have been conservative with the stronghold cap and slow to roll out changes on this front.

 

If the devs were to publicly say - "Look, guys, we understand, but here's the situation: 35 strongholds was pushing the limit and we could only move forward with letting strongholds be additive after the merge because we knew it would be a small percentage of players in that situation and therefore the load wouldn't break us, but if the number of players in that situation were to increase then we'd have problems, so we have to keep the number under 35 even though we've proven that 35 is technically possible." - then you know what? I would understand. The problem is that the dev team has not explicitly stated as much, and so I am left having to assemble my position (and hang my hopes and dreams) based on the evidential history that A) the game can support 35 strongholds, and B) they have raised the personal cap in the past.

 

Also, I don't know how many strongholds you have, but I have 21, and I have noticed no lag or issues at all with loading or using any of my strongholds. That's not to say that there aren't any, and of course I am only a sampling of one, but it does lead me to speculate that the situation may not be as dire as you believe it to be.

 

So... having now dissected your post directed at me I could potentially dig into things you were directing at other people, but honestly I think PennyAnn handled that quite ably. It is, again, ironic that you insist something which impacts an issue emotionally important to you (the "honor" of your "Prestige" score) is exempt from being held to the standards of "rational" argument while insisting that something which emotionally impacts others is irrelevant because it's not "rational." Whereas, as has already been pointed out, a Prestige score does not impact your ability to use strongholds, while a stronghold cap directly does.

 

In the meantime, I will continue to hold out hope that the stronghold cap will be raised. I continue to believe that a CM-purchasable slot unlock is a good way to do it, because it asks players to pony up in order to support the cost of the feature while simultaneously giving players the happy satisfaction of being able to have more fun with something they enjoy. I also think that allowing people to buy duplicate strongholds is a good idea, for all the reasons I (and others) have already stated. And I definitely think the guild stronghold cap especially should be raised, if at all possible.

 

Wishing for is not rational - if you are not even able to accept that very fact the conversation ends here for me with this posting since it is intellectually fruitless and a waste of my valueable time. You "dissect" nothing at all btw., you just miserably fail trying to. Facts are not debatable. I don't know if you are generally able to think rational or not, I never said anything about that, it's just that you don't do it in this thread. But even worse is the intellectual dishonesty.

 

Bioware didn't intend to double up the stronghold maximum via a game mechanic and they are just a result of the merges, likely because it was too complicated for them to implement a decision process for the players - they even admitted that between the lines prior to the merges (even to merge the deco count was obviously too complicated for them so we ended up with something totally different and a defintive bug compared to the patch notes and their intents - since 10 months now), technical-wise (like with many other things that happened with the merges and are a result of chickenway runs) or out of pure laziness/lack of ressources.

Or do you really think we would be even talking about this when the merges never happened? Not even you can be that dishonest but you might surprise me once more regarding this.

And no, I don't "speculate", you do. 1.st you are obviously not an IT pro (but nevertheless have "strong" opinion here lol) and 2nd you obviously don't know about the decision making and communication prior to the merge. I do, so I can't take your weak defenses and vague, if not uneducated, opinions seriously - regarding that matter.

No idea why you are so stubborn and dishonest, even to yourself, in this case, because you don't seem to be an idiot.

You know, many things you obviously don't know anything about are no guessing game and, just an example out of your many unfounded opinions, this here "may very well be right in your belief that legacy-based hits on the database are a technical challenge" is not a "may very well be" thing or a "belief", but a simple technical fact. Simple for people with a clue about such things. Just because you have absolutely no expertise here doesn't make it a belief in the real world. I start to believe you believe in beliefs lol.

We might as well leave the topic and the discussion as a whole and go over to creative free dance if we are discussing on this dishonest and intellectual level.

It's very difficult to talk to people who not only argue irrational (or can't at least accept that their wishes are solely subjective or that they have absolutely no clue about technical matters). You know what, THAT is ironic.

Also ironic the fact that you can't realize (or read precisely enough) that PennyAnn said her opinion is fact, while I explicitly said for some it is important, for some not. Do you get the difference or not?

You are so outstanding dishonest in your way to "argue" when it serves your agenda and you don't even realize it I believe. That is sad, because, you know, others do.

And no, the part about reporting was not directed to you at all but actually only a general remark about the often immature way to act here. And I'm by far not the only one with that opinion.

 

THE END (see first sentence).

Edited August 13, 2018 by Khaleg