6.1.4 Conquest Feedback

[RameiArashi]

Stop trying to force group play. The people who like that are already doing it. Your penalizing most of the players who dont like PVP or Starfighter and don't have an OPs guild.

[Stradlin]

Stop trying to force group play. The people who like that are already doing it. Your penalizing most of the players who dont like PVP or Starfighter and don't have an OPs guild.

 

Buffing multiplayer stuff so that after six months in the gutter, multiplayer exclusive content would again somehow compare to playstyle that needs no popularity or other people prolly doesn't equal "forcing group play".

 

Think of people who like earning tons and tons of conquest to help their guilds. Or do so in order to benefit from it personally as much as possible. (Or both, which is prolly most common option.) Those folks have only one alternative at the moment. Gameplay heavily leaning on soloing planetaries.Sure, you supplement it with 1x ding of space pve here and some singular fast FP run there. But ultimately, if you bring dozens of characters to conq target each week, you must heavily lean on Planetaries. Only one playstyle gets you there. - one that in no way benefits from popularity or needs any popularity to happen. Wouldn't it be nice if everybody had a path to great conquest, no matter which playstyle they'd prefer?Including stuff that -need other people to even happen.-

 

 

 

The people who like that are already doing it

I assume this is pretty universal then? If multiplayer exclusive content doesn't need any buffs because "The people who like that are already doing it" then surely it is completely trivial how much or little conquest planetary mission grind brings, right? They can be nerfed to gutter then I guess. Because "The people who like that are already doing it" and therefore, it needs no rewards? No?

Edited September 27, 2020 by Stradlin

[Stradlin]

Not gonna copypaste this stuff here at any greater length, but here is a suggestion I made earlier.

 

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=980022

 

TLDR: Let people pick "sub classes" that are all about conquest. Which objectives are great conquest would depend on which "sub class" you pick.

For Starfighter Pilot, path to great conquest would open through GSF, Railshooter and precious few other Starfighter themed bits in the game.

For Galactic Adventurer, planetary missions would be every bit as great conquest as they are now.

ForGround pvp class, WZs, ranked and open world pvp would be path to great conquest. And so on. Each major playstyle could have such class designed aroun it.

 

 

People could pick and choose. And switch " sub classes" every week, if and when they feel like trying something new.

 

 

I'm not sure if this stuff would be that difficult to implement.. There are already (very few) objectives that show up dependning on your in-game choises. I can think of at least one conq objective that is different based on your decisions in saboteur storyline.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Stradlin

[DuchessKristania]

Okay so I think with the exception of a few posters, the general consensus is that the multiplayer stuff needs to buffed up to the level of the solo/small group stuff. Most people also seem to agree that it shouldn't mean a nerf for the solo/small group stuff. We need to be really clear and concise about this or the point will get buried and the dev team will disregard it. Then in a few months or a year when the taking from one group and giving to another doesn't achieve what they wanted it will happen all over again and we'll be right back here screaming on the forums.

 

Dev team, buff multiplayer points and offer them more objectives. Leave solo play as it is on the live servers. Don't buff it, don't nerf it, just leave it. Let your players do what they want and have fun while gaining conquest points. You want to reduce toxicity, you want people to do group more and try different things. I'd be willing to bet that if you didn't make changes that pit one player group against the other you would actually see less toxicity and more willingness to do different things.

[Darev]

Not gonna copypaste this stuff here at any greater length, but here is a suggestion I made earlier.

 

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=980022

 

TLDR: Let people pick "sub classes" that are all about conquest. Which objectives are great conquest would depend on which "sub class" you pick.

For Starfighter Pilot, path to great conquest would open through GSF, Railshooter and precious few other Starfighter themed bits in the game.

For Galactic Adventurer, planetary missions would be every bit as great conquest as they are now.

ForGround pvp class, WZs, ranked and open world pvp would be path to great conquest. And so on. Each major playstyle could have such class designed aroun it.

 

 

People could pick and choose. And switch " sub classes" every week, if and when they feel like trying something new.

 

 

I'm not sure if this stuff would be that difficult to implement.. There are already (very few) objectives that show up dependning on your in-game choises. I can think of at least one conq objective that is different based on your decisions in saboteur storyline.

 

For someone who wants group content buffed, you spend a lot of time trying to change the other aspects of the game.

[Darev]

Okay so I think with the exception of a few posters, the general consensus is that the multiplayer stuff needs to buffed up to the level of the solo/small group stuff. Most people also seem to agree that it shouldn't mean a nerf for the solo/small group stuff. We need to be really clear and concise about this or the point will get buried and the dev team will disregard it. Then in a few months or a year when the taking from one group and giving to another doesn't achieve what they wanted it will happen all over again and we'll be right back here screaming on the forums.

 

Dev team, buff multiplayer points and offer them more objectives. Leave solo play as it is on the live servers. Don't buff it, don't nerf it, just leave it. Let your players do what they want and have fun while gaining conquest points. You want to reduce toxicity, you want people to do group more and try different things. I'd be willing to bet that if you didn't make changes that pit one player group against the other you would actually see less toxicity and more willingness to do different things.

 

^Yep

 

(added for character length)

[Decalin]

Okay so I think with the exception of a few posters, the general consensus is that the multiplayer stuff needs to buffed up to the level of the solo/small group stuff. Most people also seem to agree that it shouldn't mean a nerf for the solo/small group stuff.

 

This seems to be the case to me, last few days seem to be either old arguments or issues from other threads being brought up in here even though the involved parties actually seem to be in overall agreement as far as I can tell.

[Stradlin]

This seems to be the case to me, last few days seem to be either old arguments or issues from other threads being brought up in here even though the involved parties actually seem to be in overall agreement as far as I can tell.

 

More or less. If you skip ad hominem stuff and old grudges, almost all here seem to agree on most points. Arguing without much to argue out of knee jerk reaction or due to who says things vs focusing on what is actually said.

 

It would be so nice if devs actually communicated even a little bit. Why are they so slow or unenager to add a generous supplement of daily repeatables for multiplayer content? It imust be a nightmare trying to balance stuff if you have to try to figure out how cram activity with two daily repeatables and an acticity with 100 daily repeatables to same ballpark. As has been pointed out many times by several people, giving one juicy pile of 100k conq is much worse than giving 10 piles of 10k conq each. If you are stuck trying to figure out how on earth you are supposed to make doing 30 planetary dailies and couple of GSF(or Ops..or Wzs..or..) dailies equally valuable, you are stuck with overloading those couple of dailies like there is no tomorrow. People can't distribute such conq reward across their legacy, like you can distribute 30x 10k ding.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Stradlin

[The-Kaitou-Kid]

More or less. If you skip ad hominem stuff and old grudges, almost all here seem to agree on most points. Arguing without much to argue out of knee jerk reaction or due to who says things vs what is actually said.

 

It would be so nice if devs actually communicated even a little bit. Why are they so slow or unenager to add a generous supplement of daily repeatables for multiplayer content? It is a nightmare trying to balance stuff if you have to try to figure out how cram activity with two daily repeatables and an acticity with 100 daily repeatables to same ballpark.

 

You say this a lot, but how would you actually fill out those 100 daily repeatables? Especially when balancing around the fact that while planetary heroics and dailies have a lot of daily repeatables, they have no infinitely repeatables. PVP, GSF, FPs, and Ops all have infinitely repeatable objectives at the moments with higher point values than most of those daily objectives you're mentioning. I think unranked Warzones are currently the worst at 4.5k, GSF is 5.5k, vet mode FPs are 6k, etc.

 

So with that in mind, what would you suggest to fill out those 100 daily objectives, and how would you balance them with the presence of those infinitely repeatable objectives that the content that currently has so many daily objectives does not have?

Edited September 27, 2020 by The-Kaitou-Kid

[Stradlin]

You say this a lot, but how would you actually fill out those 100 daily repeatables? Especially when balancing around the fact that while planetary heroics and dailies have a lot of daily repeatables, they have no infinitely repeatables.

 

100 daily repeatables is indeed a lot. Iirc you are about to get even more. Stuff build around KOTFE chatpers and whatnot. How long til you are done with that three digit number? 'm not sure how many here have made it through all of them before running out of gaming hours/day. We speak of..6 hours here? 7? I don't even know.

 

So with that in mind, what would you suggest to fill out those 100 daily objectives, and how would you balance them with the presence of those infinitely repeatable objectives that the content that currently has so many daily objectives does not have?

 

Towards beginning of this thread, there was lots of constructive discussion about this. Since I'm most familiar with GSF and like it most, I'll focus on that here.

 

 

• Clash in Hyperspace has multiple GSF daily repeatables. This conquest week is virtually extinct. It happens twice a year or less now. Objectives forgotten behind such gate don't matter to anyone in grand scheme of things. Lift them away from there, adjust them and make them available every week.
   
  
• Medals earned would make a great daily objective, for GSF in particular. Or infinitely repeatable instead of having an infinitely repeatable for participation. In case you have it as a daily repeatable, you could offer it in three tiers or so. Earn 10 medals,. earn 25 medals, earn 50 medals.
   
  
• Kills and assists would make a great daily repeatable. They could work just like planetary rampages do.
   
  
• Damage done could be turned into a daily repeatable
   
  
• Destroy satelites-mission for Sat games.Pick up powerups -mission for Death matches
   
  

 

Small pile of dailies that currently sit behind Clash in Hyperspace plus ones listed here would total something like..12 daily repeatables or so. Bit more if you make ones suitable for multiple tiers delivered in 2-3 tiers. (like rampage is tiered, as an example.) Having like 15-20 daily repeatables for GSF would be swell.

 

Same list with minor and obvious changes prolly works alright with ground pvp, too. Ground pvp themed week is just as extinct and pointless as Clash in Hyperspace, so making those objectives, too, readily available each week would be nice.

 

I think FPs, Uprisings and Ops prolly have about bazillion obvious kill missions for bosses and so on , coming up with this stuff for those ispretty simple I guess... But prolly not my place to suggest, bit too detached from that stuff. Moderately juicy daily mission ding for killing 4/4 bosses of an FP could be cool. Maybe 4/4 bosses+X amount of mobs to make sure soloable stealth runs are suitably unrewarding. Have this mission available for each FP. Make sure more time consuming and difficult FPs give bit better conquest. HS MM and MMs of most recent FPs should never be seen as equal content.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Stradlin

[Pamplonac]

Reading through the Fourms, and watching the Livestream Thursday, I Didn't hear or see anyone addressing INVASION TARGETS.. x3 targets was great for 3.0 Could we get more TARGETS to INVADE for the system. More guilds earn 1st place, More get interested in the system. Its 6.X we should have 6 or More targets a week. The old setup was great as we learned about conquest, suffered through all the changes and learned a NEW conquest system, it's high time you gave some love to TARGETS PER WEEK. It really would bring more people into the fold. More would want to invest in this system that currently can only be taken by guilds willing to BOOT out anyone that doesn't participate in there conquest THAT WEEK. It may be great for the 3-4 Conquest ONLY guilds. But those that focus in PvE/PVP and partially conquest haven't got a chance of taking a planet... MORE INVASION TARGETS! = More Guilds Winning!! = More Players Enjoying the System!! - There is NO reason I can see why you WOULDN'T or COULDN'T make this implemented... there is one conquest that has 12 targets... One has 6... 3 I mean 3...... it was great for 3.0

 

This is truly one of the best ideas I have read on this forum, and since I posted, I read all of them. I totally agree with you here There should be more targets weekly, every week for that matter.That would really give a chance to the number of small/medium guilds, and many more players would be down with this. Thanks for posting this and mentioning it I just hope they will consider this seriously and give us all the chance

[The-Kaitou-Kid]

100 daily repeatables is indeed a lot. Iirc you are about to get even more. Stuff build around KOTFE chatpers and whatnot. How long til you are done with that three digit number? 'm not sure how many here have made it through all of them before running out of gaming hours/day. We speak of..6 hours here? 7? I don't even know.

 

It doesn't matter. The point of daily repeatable objectives is that they force you to vary the content you're doing instead of doing the same thing over and over. So while you may not run out of daily objectives in a day, you can't do all the missions on one planet and get Conquest points for all of them, even if some of them are longer than others. Once you get all the objectives, you have to move on.

 

Infinitely repeatables means you can keep doing the same content without having to vary it. A FP runner could just keep spamming Hammer Station for a 6k infinitely repeatable. I've timed this, it takes about 20 minutes duo without the crew skill skips. On the live server that got me 20k, it would be closer to 25k now. So 2 runs would hit the goal (and also count for the now-buffed Socialite, so a second character could hit the goal with 1 run, etc).

 

You have to keep that in mind when balancing. I'd argue it's why planetaries have so many daily repeatables. An infinitely repeatable objective is worth more than a daily repeatable objective of the same value, because that infinite objective does not go away. Having daily repeatables for planetary missions forces players to move between planets if they want to keep gaining Conquest, which means eventually you're gonna hit planets with heroics or dailies that take longer and are more tedious. You can't just stick to the fast planets the whole time.

 

Towards beginning of this thread, there was lots of constructive discussion about this. Since I'm most familiar with GSF and like it most, I'll focus on that here.

 

 

• Clash in Hyperspace has multiple GSF daily repeatables. This conquest week is virtually extinct. It happens twice a year or less now. Objectives forgotten behind such gate don't matter to anyone in grand scheme of things. Lift them away from there, adjust them and make them available every week.
   
  
• Medals earned would make a great daily objective, for GSF in particular. Or infinitely repeatable instead of having an infinitely repeatable for participation. In case you have it as a daily repeatable, you could offer it in three tiers or so. Earn 10 medals,. earn 25 medals, earn 50 medals.
   
  
• Kills and assists would make a great daily repeatable. They could work just like planetary rampages do.
   
  
• Damage done could be turned into a daily repeatable
   
  
• Destroy satelites-repeatables for Sat games.Pick up powerups -repeatable for Death matches
   
  

 

Small pile of dailies that currently sit behind Clash in Hyperspace plus ones listed here would total something like..12 daily repeatables or so. Bit more if you make ones suitable to offer multiple tiers delivered in 2-3 tiers. (like rampage is tiered. for example.) Having like 15-20 daily repeatables for GSF would be swell.

 

Same list with minor and obvious changes prolly works alright with ground pvp, too. Ground pvp themed week is just as extinct and pointless as Clash in Hyperspace, so making those objectives, too, readily available each week would be nice.

 

I think FPs, Uprisings and Ops prolly have about bazillion obvious kill missions for bosses and so on , coming up with this stuff for those ispretty simple I guess... But prolly not my place to suggest, bit too detached from that stuff. Moderately juicy daily mission ding for killing 4/4 bosses of an FP could be cool. Maybe 4/4 bosses+X amount of mobs to make sure stealth runs are suitably unrewarding.

 

A slayer type objective for all content would make sense. I'd hesitate to go further than that for FPs (see above and their general highly rewarding nature at the moment, they don't need much help), but GSF and PVP getting the objectives you describe would work fine I think, that's a good list. I think those two pieces of content are still lacking in rewards right now too, separate of Conquest, so that still needs to be kept in mind while balancing them vs FPs for instance.

 

I'm not invested enough into Ops myself to know their reward-to-time ratio, but dailies for slayer and bosses would probably be fine. I know PTS has some new objectives for Uprisings as well, but I'd need to go see them again to suggest more than slayer objectives there. I'm of the opinion, though, that Uprisings need more help on the reward front, so them getting more would help in that regard. FPs give gear boxes for AF and weeklies, Uprisings don't. If that's not going to be fixed, Uprisings should give better Conquest than FPs do.

[DuchessKristania]

 

Small pile of dailies that currently sit behind Clash in Hyperspace plus ones listed here would total something like..12 daily repeatables or so. Bit more if you make ones suitable for multiple tiers delivered in 2-3 tiers. (like rampage is tiered, as an example.) Having like 15-20 daily repeatables for GSF would be swell.

 

 

I wonder how hard it would be to add rampages to ops as well as planets. Like have the numbers be exactly the same but have them tied to ops as well. I've never done one and belong to small guilds so I don't really have to opportunity to do them, is there something like that already in place?

 

It seems to me that some of the things that apply to solo and small group could also be made to apply to larger multiplayer stuff. I don't play it, but I want the people who do to have the same options that my play style offers me.

 

Balance means making it equal not just tilting scales back and forth. Once they opened the point box up for solo they created a situation where they can't find balance by nerfing them again without creating an atmosphere of punishment. Leave what is already on the live servers, add to multiplayer to find that balance. I'm going to say it again and again because the message needs to be heard clearly and without white noise.

[Darev]

Planetary Heroics in the original incarnation were infinitely repeatable.

Not all of them, but when Nar Shaddaa was in an invasion week, you could spam all of the missions and get a set amount of points for them. No restrictions from the conquest side of things.

However, of course, you could only do Nar Shaddaa heroics once a day on your toon.

 

That same Invasion week, if your guild CHOSE Nar Shaddaa to invade, then you got bonus points for each heroic on that planet.

 

Doing ALL the missions got you the 15k points that you needed at the time (presuming you had the max'd out SH bonus).

 

You could therefore get your toons max'd out just by doing those on all your alts.

 

Honestly, I consider that the gold standard.

 

The way it is on live now, is pretty close, however you can run out of daily heroics if you spend a few hours, so in essence it's "less than" now compared to what it was...even though very few people probably run into that wall.

 

 

 

 

I kind of like the points per boss for FP's (provided you have to complete it to get the points) but wow, if you think Hammer Station is spammed now? It'd go through the roof if that were implemented.

[DuchessKristania]

 

I kind of like the points per boss for FP's (provided you have to complete it to get the points) but wow, if you think Hammer Station is spammed now? It'd go through the roof if that were implemented.

 

I actually really enjoy fps, though Hammer Station is not one I do often. I'm in the minority here, but Traitor Among the Chiss is my favorite, lol. I don't do any of them much when going after conquest because they take a bit more time with alts. I am more likely to do them when getting conquest on my mains. I really like the idea of getting the same benefits by just gaining lots of points on one toon that I do by running lots of alts through.

Edited September 27, 2020 by DuchessKristania

[Sarfux]

im glad to see bioware taking actual feedback seriously, and not just listening to a certain dictator that wants things to go HIS WAY in the game. Thank you BioWare

[Sarfux]

This is truly one of the best ideas I have read on this forum, and since I posted, I read all of them. I totally agree with you here There should be more targets weekly, every week for that matter.That would really give a chance to the number of small/medium guilds, and many more players would be down with this. Thanks for posting this and mentioning it I just hope they will consider this seriously and give us all the chance

 

there should be 6 - 12 targets EVERY week to do! it would be so awesome! it would make it feel so much better too!

[mirrordances]

I'd really like to see some more organizational tools for the conquest objectives list, so I don't have to scroll through tons of objectives I will never touch every time I'm thinking about what to do next for conquest. Sorting by progress helps me keep track of which ones I'm currently working on, but I really want the ability to take things OFF the list (for me, not for everyone).

 

Maybe a collapsible submenu for PVP, for GSF, for planetary missions, etc? Then you could collapse the ones that you aren't interested in and only browse the types you want. The list in its current state is a jumbled mess even to an experienced player, and absolutely useless and opaque to a new player.

 

Re: solo and group play. I primarily do solo and small-group planetary stuff, I don't want that nerfed at all, but I have no problem with adding points and objectives to group play. It seems reasonable that the time investment should return increased rewards. (Though please, please don't make me scroll through even more of those objectives. Let me hide them somehow.)

[Stradlin]

 

You have to keep that in mind when balancing. I'd argue it's why planetaries have so many daily repeatables. An infinitely repeatable objective is worth more than a daily repeatable objective of the same value, because that infinite objective does not go away. Having daily repeatables for planetary missions forces players to move between planets if they want to keep gaining Conquest.

 

 

.

 

 

 

Xp->CXP has one covered pretty well though. Assuming there are no conquest objectives of any kind left to ding,

you currently earn 713 conquest points for completing a bonus mission of a heroic. Static 625 conq for completing the heroic mission itself.Additional conq from xp you get from completing the mission. Add to that the cxp you get from golden mobs. Plus renown ding via infinitely repeatables.Or level up repeatable dinging. It piles up.

 

Example: I did 2 missions of Coruscant on max lvl character just now.. One renown ding along the way. Other than that, no conq objective dinged since I have already done them all for Coruscant. Pure xp->cxp. All I did was kill mobs that missions or bonus mission required. 2 missions and 1 bonus mission completed. 6 minutes of my time. 3800 conquest made. Let's assume I'm all about chasing daily planetary conquest objectives. I end up dinging missions just for raw cxp like this only once I'm done with lose to 100 dailies available for me. It'll be what..6-8 hours of planetary mission til I have to settle for this.

 

Of course, it isn't " great conquest" to walk in pure xp->cxp desert like this. But it is there. No matter the playstyle, Im pretty sure [Go outside irl!!!] is the most important objecrtive by the time you been busy conquesting for 7 hours or something. : D

 

 

I think some sort of forest for the trees- level of zoom is useful to have here. I wish they'd do this stuff with pocket watch in hand. See how much conq is easily attainable in 15 mins of gameplay via any and every given activity. See how much is attainable in 30 mins, 90 mins and so on. Make sure as manny of the certain major ..intersections are as close to one another in terms of yield across all playstyles as possible. Imho 15 mins, 30 mins, 1 hour, 3 hours and 6 hours would be pretty good intersections to look at. Go way beyond that and it kinda stops mattering..since very few consistently play much more than 6 hours/day. Even less spend more than that involved in one single playstyle.

 

Once that is figured out, (i think they kinda might have began this work at least&at last?) step 2 would involve making sure all of that conquest across all playstyles is approx as easy to manage for the players. Anyone doing any half serious conq farming knows how profitable and satisfying it is to distribute conq pretty evenly across your legacy. Dinging 30 x 10k daiily objectrives is five or six characters at target. Dinging 1 x 300k daily objective is one character sitting happily with 300.000 conquest points. 250.000 of which don't offer any personal benefit for the player.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Stradlin

[Stradlin]

I wonder how hard it would be to add rampages to ops as well as planets. Like have the numbers be exactly the same but have them tied to ops as well. I've never done one and belong to small guilds so I don't really have to opportunity to do them, is there something like that already in place?

 

 

IIrc this is bit how it used to be with rampages. Pre 6.0 I mean. Sadly rampages have never been a thing in GSF or pvp. However, there was something called Galactic Rampage which was more or less universal. No matter where(world, FPs, Ops) you killed mobs, they'd count towards it.

[xordevoreaux]

one character sitting happily with 300.000 conquest points. 250.000 of which don't offer any personal benefit for the player.

We've one member in my guild with only one toon. He wants to grind conquest to help reach our weekly target.

That means he and his one character are always in the 250-350K range.

 

It's an extremely selfish perspective to wonder why one would care to gain points beyond 50k, or that anything beyond 50k is "useless" for a given player. He's investing in his guild for the benefit of everyone in it, and not just thinking about himself.

Edited September 28, 2020 by xordevoreaux

[Stradlin]

We've one member in my guild with only one toon. He wants to grind conquest to help reach our weekly target.

That means he and his one character are always in the 250-350K range.

 

It's an extremely selfish perspective to wonder why one would care to gain points beyond 50k, or that anything beyond 50k is "useless" for a given player. He's investing in his guild for the benefit of everyone in it, and not just thinking about himself.

 

At no point did anyone " wonder" about it. This is pretty basic stuff really; Conquest benefits the guild and conquest benefits the player. Players motivated by both of these goals is common. Players who only want to help their guild is common. Players feeling it is failry incidental if guild benefits and only want to gather personal profit is common.

 

Assuming guild is busy unlocking the ship and members are busy donating encryptions, then guild is without a doubt happy to see somebody with 5 characters bringing in 50k conq on each character. That's 5 characters to target and 5 encryptions to guild bank. Having that 250k on a single character (vs split among 5 characters ) is a big disadvantage from that players' personal pov and irrelevant when it comes to guild xp.(No diference between 250k on 1 char vs 250k split among 5 chars when it comes to guild xp ) So it is a net negative, no matter which angle you choose to look at it.

 

Thus, diging plenty of small objectives is always more valuable and versatile than dinging one single big objective. Assuming they sum up equal amount of points in equal amount of time ofc.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Stradlin

[xordevoreaux]

Having that 250k on a single character (vs split among 5 characters ) is a big disadvantage from that players' personal pov

 

Once again, you are projecting your views onto someone else.

 

His personal point of view? From his POV, he doesn't believe it's a disadvantage. He's already told us one character is all he chooses to play. He's playing his way.

 

Years ago we had another member. His way of playing? Get a toon to level 50, delete it. Reroll the same-named toon to 50, delete it. Reroll. I asked him about that. He said all he's interested in is low-level story.

Just like the member with only one toon, that's how that guy chose to play.

Edited September 28, 2020 by xordevoreaux

[Stradlin]

Once again, you are projecting your views onto someone else.

 

His personal point of view? From his POV, he doesn't believe it's a disadvantage. He's already told us one character is all he chooses to play. He's playing his way.

 

Years ago we had another member. His way of playing? Get a toon to level 50, delete it. Reroll the same-named toon to 50, delete it. Reroll. I asked him about that. He said all he's interested in is low-level story.

Just like the member with only one toon, that's how that guy chose to play.

 

What are we arguing about here again?

Me: " five characters to conquest target is five times the rewards. It is a huge advantage over having one character to target in same amount of time."

You: " Very selfish pov. You see, I have a guildie who doesn't care about that at all"

 

Okay, that's nice? Do you think the underlying point somehow changes? 5 x rewards and 1 x rewards is generally speaking a trivial difference because of your guildie and how this person thinks?

Edited September 28, 2020 by Stradlin

[xordevoreaux]

What are we arguing about here again?

Me: " five characters to conquest target is five times the rewards. It is a huge advantage over having one character to target in same amount of time."

You: " Very selfish pov. You see, I have a guildie who doesn't care about that at all"

 

Okay, that's nice? Do you think the underlying point somehow changes? 5 x rewards and 1 x rewards is generally speaking a trivial difference because of your guildie and what this guildie thinks?

 

The point is, you're stamping what you believe his point of view is one someone you don't know, have never spoken to, and probably never will. I engage with the guy every week.

 

Short answer? You don't know what the hell you're talking about with this guy.

Edited September 28, 2020 by xordevoreaux