Return the Weekly Conquest Requirement to 50K Points Again, Unless Point Opportunities Are Changed Further

[FrontLineFodder]

1 hour ago, DeannaVoyager said:

all GSF objectives should be nerfed by 80% and changed to once per legacy instead of daily or infinitely repeatable.

This,

just as CQ points for PvE activity has been reduced.

reduce the CQ for PvP and GSF to discourage the behavior of players being AFK.

that would solve the problem for other PvP and GSF players having to put up with those CQ hunting AFKing players if there is no incentive.

alternatively, don’t nerf reputation CQ and boost PvE CQ by making things like rampage, heroics, mission& flashpoint pinnacle permanent weekly objectives.

Edited March 18 by FrontLineFodder
GSF and PvP

[Samcuu]

33 minutes ago, FrontLineFodder said:

that would solve the problem for other PvP players having to put up with those CQ hunting AFKing players if there is no incentive.

People aren't going afk in warzones for conquest points, they are most likely doing it for the pvp season. It honestly doesnt happen very often, i played all weekend long and only noticed afkers at the end of a match if it was a blowout loss.

But im a bit iffy on the logic that it would be a good way to earn cp regardless. First off you are going to lose a good majority if you are sticking ur team in a 3 v 4 or 7 v 8 situation. Which means let's say u actually win half the matches, which is being very generous for the sake of the argument. That's 6 warzones which take roughly 15 minutes plus the queue time. So 2 plus hours, or more if ur losing, for like 230k conquest. There are for more efficient ways to afk for that much conquest like for example GSF, which would take half the time. Of course maybe gsf doesn't pop as often. 

You can easily get two toons to 100k in an hour or less so to me it's just not an efficient way to do it. Not saying it doesn't happen but I just don't think it has anything to do with conquest. 

[FrontLineFodder]

14 minutes ago, Samcuu said:

People aren't going afk in warzones for conquest points, they are most likely doing it for the pvp season. It honestly doesnt happen very often, i played all weekend long and only noticed afkers at the end of a match if it was a blowout loss.

But im a bit iffy on the logic that it would be a good way to earn cp regardless. First off you are going to lose a good majority if you are sticking ur team in a 3 v 4 or 7 v 8 situation. Which means let's say u actually win half the matches, which is being very generous for the sake of the argument. That's 6 warzones which take roughly 15 minutes plus the queue time. So 2 plus hours, or more if ur losing, for like 230k conquest. There are for more efficient ways to afk for that much conquest like for example GSF, which would take half the time. Of course maybe gsf doesn't pop as often. 

You can easily get two toons to 100k in an hour or less so to me it's just not an efficient way to do it. Not saying it doesn't happen but I just don't think it has anything to do with conquest. 

Good points.

i was bundling GSF and PvP when saying PvP though.

typing both PvP and GSF on the phone keyboard is added characters. I assume people would get it, guess I’ll type both GSF and PvP in the future 

[Stradlin]

On 3/17/2024 at 1:04 AM, Toraak said:

 

And for the main purpose of this thread. 50k to complete conquest on a character is to little. Even at 100k barely using the Reputation objective only once per week, there are weeks I'm getting 20-30 characters done in conquest. 

Huge portion of people posting on these threads  want conquest on an individual character to be as fast, trivial  and low effort as possible. That's pretty much it. Everything that'd make it faster is great game design, everything that'd make it slower is infuriating game design.  Daring to suggest it has mayhaps gone bit too far on this route infuriates them. 

 

Lots of people bring 20-50 characters to conq target with relative ease. Everything a dedicated player can do on 50 characters a week is utterly trivial for one single character, no matter how casual the player.  Reaching Conq should not be utterly trivial for one  single character.

Therefore, conquest is utterly trivial for people who usually  only play..what, 1-3  characters .   It is kinda bad and sad to see game mechanics be this trivialized.

 

Beyond that, rep tokens come with certain unfairness. I've slacked with few rep bars and still have stuff like railshooter rep to ding. This is a massive advantage over people who've been more dilligent in this. Many  established  players have no easy, fast rep left  to ding. Maxing an easy to grind rep is punishing for somebody who is after conquest. 

[DeannaVoyager]

2 hours ago, Stradlin said:

Huge portion of people posting on these threads  want conquest on an individual character to be as fast, trivial  and low effort as possible.

Yes, we'd want them to be as easy and massive to get as they are with GSF. Or fast, trivial and low effort as you put it. But most of us would be satisfied with just returning the 43k conquest points we got from reputation token. We aren't greedy, you'd get to keep your special treatment points as long as we get back what we had.

[Darcmoon]

2 hours ago, Stradlin said:

Lots of people bring 20-50 characters to conq target with relative ease. Everything a dedicated player can do on 50 characters a week is utterly trivial for one single character, no matter how casual the player.  Reaching Conq should not be utterly trivial for one  single character.

How are they doing upwards of 50 characters with relative ease?  20 I can see, but unless they are playing for an extended time every day I can't see 50.

[Toraak]

6 minutes ago, Darcmoon said:

How are they doing upwards of 50 characters with relative ease?  20 I can see, but unless they are playing for an extended time every day I can't see 50.

I usually do 20-30. I also would find 50 hard to believe. Not to mention past 30 your no longer getting half of your personal rewards. At that point you've passed the Conquest Comm weekly cap, and it's not really worth doing more.

Edited March 18 by Toraak

[Samcuu]

2 hours ago, Stradlin said:

Therefore, conquest is utterly trivial for people who usually  only play..what, 1-3  characters .   It is kinda bad and sad to see game mechanics be this trivialized.

 

I've already said this in another thread but it applies here as well. This is how bioware have trained their players to play their game. They don't release new content. I've seen you say before game developers have to trick their players into having fun. Okay show me the content they've released that can trick me, I'm willing to try it 😂😂 For a raider they've released 2 raids since 2019, one doesn't even have a nim mode. For pvpers they introduced one arena map while taking away ranked, typical one step forward two steps back. The story/space barbie players get more attention than most and even then they get a 30 minute story and a daily area every 5 months or so. 

So even if what you are saying is true, the game is wanting for any type of real content regardless. The devs know that, it's why they set up these hamster wheels like conquest, and galactic seasons where they recycle their decade old content. It's why they decided to raise the gear rating in the middle of expansions because in their minds gear grind is content lol. So what do the players do? They play what they are given, and sadly the little things like hitting 2m conquest with only 2 people in a guild constitutes a mini game within the game to keep ppl having fun. In short we have to create our own content because the devs give us next to none. At this point the end game population are hard core swtor lifers, most likely because they have so much time invested. Takes a lot to chase those types of ppl away but it feels like the devs are trying 😂😂

Edited March 18 by Samcuu

[arunav]

40 minutes ago, Toraak said:

I usually do 20-30. I also would find 50 hard to believe. Not to mention past 30 your no longer getting half of your personal rewards. At that point you've passed the Conquest Comm weekly cap, and it's not really worth doing more.

Are you retired? Do you work a full time job (typically 40+ hours a week, if in the US)?

Because completing Conquest on 30 characters a week would generally mean you barely have time to eat or take care of basic errands, if under the constraints most full time jobs impose. 

I'm honestly curious, because I think you posted this elsewhere too, in discussing the recent point changes. If you are completing up to 30 characters a week, you are almost surely an outlier in BS's player data, and Conquest shouldn't be designed around that extreme a playstyle, in my opinion. 

Edited March 18 by arunav

[Traceguy]

I was thinking about it some more. I'm sitting here at 150% CQP bonus, meanwhile new/poor players barely have even 10%. They're getting like 1k CQP for a heroic or for killing enemies. The amount of points the game is paying at base level is too low. All points need to be doubled.

 

7 hours ago, DeannaVoyager said:

Not to mention they get even more if they crash, change the ship, crash, change ship and so on.

100%. Pick a ship & Crash. Repeat 5 times get 40,000CQP per ship.

  

19 minutes ago, Darcmoon said:

How are they doing upwards of 50 characters with relative ease? 

I'd like to know as well. I was doing upwards of just 30 for some months. It is extremely challenging, and requires so much time that's it's almost a second full time job. I had to create a massive spreadsheet with toon names, days of the week, and a list objectives for each to stay on track to doing it in so many toons without fail, week after week.

[Toraak]

8 minutes ago, arunav said:

Are you retired? Do you work a fulltime job (typically 40+ hours a week, if in the US)?

Because completing Conquest on 30 characters a week would generally mean you barely have time to eat or take care of basic errands, if under the constraints most fulltime jobs impose. 

I'm honestly curious, because I think you posted this elsewhere too, in discussing the recent point changes. If you are completing up to 30 characters a week, you are almost surely an outlier in BS's player data, and Conquest shouldn't be designed around that extreme a playstyle, in my opinion. 

I don't, but I don't play as much as I used to. 2-3 hours a day would net 20 easily for my personal playstyle. The weeks I go to 30 I do spend far more time in game. I try to keep it closer to 20 if I can. I'd rather be doing RL stuff with friends at that point.

[Samcuu]

1 hour ago, Traceguy said:

I'd like to know as well. I was doing upwards of just 30 for some months. It is extremely challenging, and requires so much time that's it's almost a second full time job. I had to create a massive spreadsheet with toon names, days of the week, and a list objectives for each to stay on track to doing it in so many toons without fail, week after week.

Nah I don't think it's actually that hard. If you actually enjoy pvp and it's ur main activity you can get conquest just from playing matches. If you hit ur weekly and move on to another toon you could probably get a lot of chars done in a week. I actually have time constraints and I play for like an hour a day average and can finish 12 - 14 toons without pvp. In a week where I actually have time to play I can hit like 1m conquest on a toon just from pvping on the weekend.  

Edited March 18 by Samcuu

[Traceguy]

14 minutes ago, Samcuu said:

Nah I don't think it's actually that hard. If you actually enjoy pvp and it's ur main activity you can get conquest just from playing matches. If you hit ur weekly and move on to another toon you could probably get a lot of chars done in a week. I actually have time constraints and I play for like an hour a day average and can finish 12 - 14 toons without pvp. In a week where I actually have time to play I can hit like 1m conquest on a toon just from pvping on the weekend.  

Collecting CQP in 1 toon form PVP is fine, but that doesn't help at all reach 100k on 30 toons, let alone 50. The weekly for WZ is 170,000, which means 70,000CQP fall to waste (outside for guild conquest). Maybe things are slightly faster for SF, but on Satele Shan, the amount of time it takes to complete a PVP weekly is so long that it's inefficient. Outside of contributing to Socialite I and II

Edited March 18 by Traceguy

[Samcuu]

1 minute ago, Traceguy said:

Collecting CQP in 1 toon for PVP is fine, but that doesn't help at all reach 100k on 30 toons, let alone 50. The weekly for WZ is 170,000, which means 70,000CQP fall to waste (outside for guild conquest). Maybe things are slightly faster for SF, but on Satele Shan, the amount of time it takes to complete a PVP weekly is so long that it's inefficient. Outside of contributing to Socialite I and II

I dont disagree, it's not an efficient way to achieve conquest but I don't pvp for cp, I pvp because it's the thing I most enjoy in game. So my point was if you have a bunch of different toons u pvp on and u switch when u hit the 100k goal, you could easily get maybe 8 to 10 toons done in a week if you are just in game enjoying the thing you like to do. Yes it takes a bit of planning but the points are there. I do have conquest only toons that I never pvp on that I use the dailies and heroics to hit the 100k goal on, and that basically takes me an hour a day to get two toons done. Again if I had more time to play I could probably get 3 done a day but yeah that's a grind cuz most of the easy point objectives u can only do once a day. So 30 toons is definitely doable if you can play often imo. 

[mcenterbar]

10 minutes ago, Traceguy said:

Collecting CQP in 1 toon for PVP is fine, but that doesn't help at all reach 100k on 30 toons, let alone 50. The weekly for WZ is 170,000, which means 70,000CQP fall to waste (outside for guild conquest). Maybe things are slightly faster for SF, but on Satele Shan, the amount of time it takes to complete a PVP weekly is so long that it's inefficient. Outside of contributing to Socialite I and II

The most logical solution to resolve that challenge, among many others, would be to merge SS and SF.  I can't tell you how often I hear this story about trying to complete simple objectives on SS due to lack of population.  I wonder if many of the SS players are taking advantage of the free/discounted transfers to SV on the slim hope of an improved experience.

Edited March 18 by mcenterbar

[Samcuu]

4 minutes ago, mcenterbar said:

The most logical solution to resolve that challenge, among many others, would be to merge SS and SF.  I can't tell you how often I hear this story about trying to complete simple objectives on SS due to lack of population.

I dont think the most logical solution is merging servers because there are logistical issues with that for example ppl losing their character slots that they paid for, and also losing character names. Some ppl enjoy playing on a lesser populated server as well. 

Imo the most logical solution is cross server queues for stuff like pvp, which honestly shouldn't be hard to do both servers are located on the east coast of NA. Maybe would he harder to get sv and dm involved with that but you'd think it wouldn't be too difficult for the NA servers. 

Edited March 18 by Samcuu

[Exly]

Maybe the reason pvp and gsf give so many points is because they are so unpopular that the devs are hoping to entice more people to participate in them in order to get points, and maybe the people who don't want to participate in them think they deserve an equal chance at earning points for playing the parts of the game that they do enjoy.  Did you ever think of that?

[Stradlin]

11 hours ago, FrontLineFodder said:

 

reduce the CQ for PvP and GSF to discourage the behavior of players being AFK.

 

There are pretty good afk shields in place. Conq objectives of gsf should def be changed to  based on medals earned,instead of being based on ships flown. 

Playerbase is in gradual decline. There are  Läless and less ppl doing anything at any given moment.  GSF and pvp matchmakers deai with gradually declining pool.  As does groupfinder.   Notable portion of people will always be mercenaries willing to  do content that is most rewarding in most literal sense of the word. So it is useful and important  for the game to ensure multiplayer stuff is always rewarding. GSF and pvp in particular are big asks,you need atlwast 16 players to get a gsf or pvp match filled.

People in these queues are valuable to one another. There's always an occasional troll or bad apple, doing mass suicides or other bannable behaviour. Huge majority of people generally speaking try their best. 

Neither GSF nor ground pvp are rocket science,but there is def a learning curve. Everybody  sucks at 1st. Imagine what a jackbot it is for the player and game alike, when somebody "who has always hated" gound pvp or GSF ends up "forced" in there, gradually figures it out and discovers rhey are actually awesome. Ofc these things are never for everybody,but during GS 1 in particular,it was nice seeing so many ppl on these forums discovering off-the-beaten-path aspects of this game they'd not try without being "forced" by tempting rewards. From pov of devs, Im pretty sure this is the big deal about GS and Conquest, not the reward tracks.

Once the above happens,it is basically as if game had suddenly released a brand new personal expansion out of the blue. This is something devs and players alike are happy to see.

 

 

Edited March 18 by Stradlin

[Toraak]

2 hours ago, Traceguy said:

Collecting CQP in 1 toon form PVP is fine, but that doesn't help at all reach 100k on 30 toons, let alone 50. The weekly for WZ is 170,000, which means 70,000CQP fall to waste (outside for guild conquest). Maybe things are slightly faster for SF, but on Satele Shan, the amount of time it takes to complete a PVP weekly is so long that it's inefficient. Outside of contributing to Socialite I and II

I can't speak for PvP specifically, but if you do a lot of GSF, (AND WIN) you get almost 20k per match for a win. This with efficient use of Socialite 1, and 2 can easily get you 3 characters done in a single day without the use of any PvE objectives. 8 Matches if the queu is going strong can take less then 2 hours. The key thing is you need to be WINNING. Losing in GSF gives you horrible conquest. 

The one thing I'd like to see changed for GSF conquest is the 5 matches per ship type. I don't like how those work, and they need to be changed so you need to stay in the same ship the entire match to get credit for that. I don't like how people just load in and crash for those and swap ships. In a Death match if you get 3-4 people doing that you're far more likely to lose because of it.

Edited March 18 by Toraak

[Stradlin]

23 minutes ago, Toraak said:

 

The one thing I'd like to see changed for GSF conquest is the 5 matches per ship type. I don't like how those work, and they need to be changed so you need to stay in the same ship the entire match to get credit for that. I don't like how people just load in and crash for those and swap ships. In a Death match if you get 3-4 people doing that your far more likely to lose because of it.

Yeah agreed. Entire  GSF community been asking for those to be changed into earn x medals - objective for a long time.  Beyond that, GSF and pvp both favor winning, which aligns nicely  with competitive  spirit of pvp ig. 

[Stradlin]

On 3/18/2024 at 4:17 PM, Samcuu said:

I've already said this in another thread but it applies here as well. This is how bioware have trained their players to play their game. They don't release new content. I've seen you say before game developers have to trick their players into having fun. Okay show me the content they've released that can trick me, I'm willing to try it 😂😂 For a raider they've released 2 raids since 2019, one doesn't even have a nim mode. For pvpers they introduced one arena map while taking away ranked, typical one step forward two steps back. The story/space barbie players get more attention than most and even then they get a 30 minute story and a daily area every 5 months or so. 

So even if what you are saying is true, the game is wanting for any type of real content regardless. The devs know that, it's why they set up these hamster wheels like conquest, and galactic seasons where they recycle their decade old content. It's why they decided to raise the gear rating in the middle of expansions because in their minds gear grind is content lol. So what do the players do? They play what they are given, and sadly the little things like hitting 2m conquest with only 2 people in a guild constitutes a mini game within the game to keep ppl having fun. In short we have to create our own content because the devs give us next to none. At this point the end game population are hard core swtor lifers, most likely because they have so much time invested. Takes a lot to chase those types of ppl away but it feels like the devs are trying 😂😂

 

Lure, not trick. Many things in game have a learning curve. It isn't uncommon for people to feel  unmotivated to deal with the learning curve unless there's something truly motivating in the horizon, as far as carrots on a stick go. Once learning curve has been climbed, then whichever  game element player just figured out has its doors wide open for the player to enjoy. Plenty of stuff can be annoying or frustrating as you are still figuring it out. Then once things click and you learn the ropes, it suddenly turns quite fun and  awesome. I'd be surprised if you can't think of examples from your own gaming, where it has been like this.

Long time back, I got initially drawn to GSF by an achi which awards  "Fleet Admiral" as a legacy title. I wanted it so bad for my Tarkin cosplay character. By the time I reached such goal,I was already busy doing GSF for the sake of fun, reward in the end quickly turning less and less important.. But I wouldn't have bothered to start the journey without getting lured in by such a juicy reward.

 

Beyond that though&when it comes to all of the rest you said? It is what it is. Pace with which SWTOR releases new content of any kind is terrifyingly slow.Devs and players alike are stuck trying to find...new ways to have fun with the old content. Devs try to make sure as many players as possible discover as many parts of the game as possible. Replay value becomes more and more important, since there isn't anything new. In this, stuff like GSF and ground pvp become more and more important. Nothing stands repetition as well as pure pvp content..for people who are fortunate enough to like it. So it'd be good for SWTOR and the playerbase alike if more and more people got into GSF and ground pvp. Neither of these obv is for everybody, Most people are here for new story stuff, which is clearly very expensive/slow to produce. Once we have a  blue moon on and new story bits do  come  out, it lasts a very short time til it is rendered obsolete. Low replay value. Is Tricky catch 22 really.

 

 

Edited March 19 by Stradlin

[TahliahCOH]

This would be an acceptable compromise for me. I am still waiting for this issue to be properly addressed because I am not staying subbed (or even playing preferred, tbh) if something is not done to correct this problem. And it IS a problem, one that will bleed into PVP and GSF if it's not fixed. What good does it do to push PVE players to just stand there and die to get four (or considerably more) times the cq that we got nerfed from the rep cq option?  (I, personally, will not ruin PVP or GSF for other players who enjoy it; I will just leave the game, but it's delusional to think that others who are very cq orientated won't just make it up by dying a bunch in PVP, high cq guilds will pay their repair costs, if they bother to wear their actual armor or not since they are just there to die and get cq that was removed from PVE). 

Lowering the requirement back to the original 50K at least gives solo PVE players a way to get their cq on multiple toons for smaller guilds and toward their own armor progression. This is just one nerf too many for many of us, and it feels like solo PVE players are being shown the door . . . and we will gladly go before being herded into activities we loathe (i.e. PVP and/or GSF).

[TahliahCOH]

On 3/16/2024 at 6:04 PM, Toraak said:

Coming from someone that used the Reputation objective twice a week, I do think it was nerfed far to much. With that being said it was way to many points looking back at it for just doing a 2-3 Minute mission and calling it a day on that toon. For me it was do 1 Manaan/ruhnuk or Kessan's landing mission twice per week (Once a day 2 times) and 1 character was done with conquest. This was a bit overtuned. I understand all of us liked it, but it should have realistically been far less. The current value is far to low however. I'd put it about the same as the Gaining an Influence level on a companion or slightly higher because not everyone has access to reputations. Perhaps 20k-25k should be about the right spot for that objective.

 

And for the main purpose of this thread. 50k to complete conquest on a character is to little. Even at 100k barely using the Reputation objective only once per week, there are weeks I'm getting 20-30 characters done in conquest. 

It was only decided it was "too much" because of the Seasons having a daily for reaching 20K cq or whatever it is, which is ludicrous since they stripped reputation out of Seasons anyway.  Further, not everyone plays Seasons (I certainly won't be playing this one since the first objective is to complete THREE flashpoints, two of which I've done a zillion times and have no desire to grind out for a single Season story objective. I don't even care what happens next in the story since there is some slacker squatter in "my" SH telling me what to do. He can pound sand.) or tries to or cares about that objective. When I met it, it was by accident because I was doing cq on my toons for smaller guilds and for gear progression (since that has been tied to conquest now . . . and apparently the devs are rethinking that, too, but have decided to ht solo PVE'ers first).

In other words, the nerf itself was tied to something that no longer exists in large part (players used the Season rep tokens to get their rep cq for that day, trotting off to Manaan or whatever you were doing was not necessary). This was the only bone that PVE players got, compare to the outlandish amount of cq for PVP and GSF . . . which solo PVE players don't play or care about. But who knows, maybe the devs will come for their cq next. Why not? Those objectives are just as easy to get, right? Well, maybe not exactly as quick, but definitely as easy. How hard is it to go die in those? And wait for the outrage when PVE'ers start flooding PVP and GSF to get their easy cq.

This was just an ill-considered move that can only be fixed by either lowering the cq requirements back to 50K or putting the cq rep daily back where it was--at 43k, WITH a full 150% SH bonus . . . a bonus that, by the way, required purchasing and fully unlocking nine (or however many) SHs, not a thing that cannot be done in a day. Or cheaply, so you had to play the game to earn the creds to achieve that SH bonus in the first place, a fact that is lost in this entire discussion.  Without the SH bonus, the cq rep was pretty small. So small, in fact, that I didn't even bother with it when I started playing on another server until I got my SH bonus up to about 100%. I was getting more cq from just gifting my comps or opening a room in a SH than by rep, which I was just getting by doing the story/zones since I haven't maxed out my rep on that server for much of anything. So pooh-pooh our concerns all you want, but if this stands, it will created unintended downstream consequences for guilds, PVP, GSF, and subs.  After all, who needs to sub if it no longer makes sense to play more than one or two toons?

[TahliahCOH]

On 3/17/2024 at 5:35 AM, Toraak said:

I don't support AFK'ing in any play style whether it's PvP, GSF, or any Group PvE content, that's not playing the game, it's ruining other people's enjoyment of the game for those stuck on that person's team/group usually.

I don't support it, either, and will NOT do it. I'll just leave the game. BUT others WILL do it, and in numbers, but I guess that the devs didn't think about that . . . or are planning to kill cq altogether, not quite realizing how it's been intertwined with everything from guild ships/weekly planet cq, guild progression, gearing progression, and the game's economy / credit sinks (like buying and opening up a bunch of SHs to even get the 150% bonus needed to max out rep cq to the previous 43K).

You seem to forget what it was like to start the game and have to play long enough to afford that many SH's or to open some of their rooms! Playing enough to get that many creds was built into the cq rep bonus, that's why it was so high for those with the maxed SH bonus. It wasn't worth doing until you managed to get your SH bonus to at least 50%, though I personally didn't use it much until I got to 100% SH bonus on a second server.  So yeah, after accomplishing that and EARNING my maxed SH bonus, I was more than happy to use a rep cq token I EARNED to get the SH bonus reward I earned.

It's not like it was 43k for everyone right out of the gate, we had to work to get that level of reward for rep gain.  So tossing out 20k off the top of your head doesn't take into account what that will be downstream of the 150% SH bonus.  You don't have to invest a thing to get that previous 43k from sitting in PVP or crashing your ship in GSF.  They are over 200k WITH the 150% SH bonus, so . . . .

Rep must be worth about the same as gathering from nodes now without the full SH bonus, so it's not even worth buying and unlocking SHs at all. Goodbye credit sink for that goal. Why boost your SH bonus if you get nerfed rewards for your trouble? This was just a stupid stupid move, and it needs to be corrected.

[Mick_theStick]

I agree, They have to mitigate this very bad decision. They removed a huge chunk quality-of-life for many solo players, which should not be acceptable in a game which prides itself of being singleplayer friendly and want people to subscribe.