Conquest Changes Following 7.4.1

[TrixxieTriss]

5 hours ago, Stradlin said:

Starting from how pvp is sadly becoming more and more exclusive, as game grows more stagnant over the years. There are six servers now. PvP stuff pops consistently during peak hours on two of those.  Beyond that, even on Malgus and SF, most all of PvP stuff is basically a closed down shop like 8-12 hours a day. - Bad news for everybody whose playtime is restricted to moments far removed from peak.

 

I hope we'll eventually see xrealm queue pools.

 

A lot of that has to do with poor design & total neglect since they released PvP seasons & chased away all the hardcore pvpers. The blame once again falls squarely on the dev team. 
 
FYI, xrealm would kill PvP faster for regions like APAC than doing nothing. Xrealm only works in the same region where you have zero lag differences. 

Edited March 31 by TrixxieTriss

[VegaMist]

26 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Sadly, it’s become abundantly apparent after the whole APAC server debacle that neither BS or the swtor team have a marketing team or anyone with half a clue about marketing anything at all. 

That one is another huge failure. I didn't really comment on that topic since I'm not APAC, but I followed it. The problems started when they started mixing up "New APAC server" and "Fresh Start server" definitions. In my opinion, when they opened an APAC server, they should have allowed everyone forced off of an original APAC server to transfer their entire legacies back free of charge. with no limitations (on credits or otherwise), and regardless of a current subscription status (which would have brought back some of the old timers). For those who created accounts after old server was closed, they should have offered a limited number of free transfers, and time-limited transfer discounts. If they wanted a "Fresh Start server" experiment - then start a new Fresh Start server somewhere else, and let those who wanted a fresh start use it to build new legacies (that server could have character/credit limits or whatever else limits they'd want to impose).

If they did what I described above, I'm pretty sure we'd have healthy SV right now. Though, they'd probably have to start preparing for merging SS and SF due to a decrease of APAC players on both of them.

Edited March 31 by VegaMist

[TrixxieTriss]

1 hour ago, VegaMist said:

If they did what I described above, I'm pretty sure we'd have healthy SV right now.

Every other game I’ve played has opened up transfers on day one if they open a regional server. And most of the time it’s free for subscribers & F2P people too. 

They completely bungled the opening & the subsequent 5 months since. And in doing so, not only alienated potential new players & returning players, but also current paying APAC players.

They have since lowered their cone of silence on anything APAC & won’t even address the topic or players who should have received transfers, but didn’t because of a billing glitch or some technicality.

Ignoring the community has basically made the whole situation 10000x worse than it needed to be. And has lost them any chance of making the server healthy without some considerable effort & actual marketing money spent on their part. Something we know from past experience that they won’t do. They’ve literally flush money down drain for no reason because they won’t admit they made a mistake & own up to it. 

The situation is still salvageable… just… but only if they can be bothered. And I think we all know they can’t be because of the ingrained hubris of those running the team. 

I’d love for them to prove me wrong… I really would… the balls in their court and all they really need to do is hit it.

Edited April 1 by TrixxieTriss

[TrixxieTriss]

1 hour ago, VegaMist said:

Though, they'd probably have to start preparing for merging SS and SF due to a decrease of APAC players on both of them

I’ve not been on SS for quite awhile. But I’ve been on SF preparing my Alts to transfer to SV. 

SF seems very active at the moment. More than I’ve seen in awhile. I don’t think APAC players transferring off SF would cause any drama for numbers. 

And if SS is as dead as I’m hearing, then it would seem many people have already made the decision to transfer to SF or reroll alts there. It’s probably only a matter of time till they decide to merge SF & SS regardless of how many APAC players left them. 

But if they were smart, they would also relocated a newly merged or created server to a more central US AWS location. From what my tech contacts say, it doesn’t cost any more to be in a different Geo-location on AWS. 

The only thing they absolutely need to work out before any merge is how to address name conflicts in a fair manner. Other games like WoW have learnt to do it, so it’s not technically impossible. 

[TahliahCOH]

15 hours ago, Stradlin said:

Not necessarily PvP or GSF as such, but they clearly wanted  you to do more of "something". I'm guessing they see a pretty low engagement from bit too notable portion of population. As in people logging in and not really doing much. "Not much"  in some very basic sense, like very low amount of passed time and  mouse clicks between log in and log out. 

I very very often log into each of my crafters and send them on missions or set them craft x, y, or z, and then log out again. That's what crafters DO.

 

15 hours ago, Stradlin said:

From developers'  pov, that is alarming, Once one begins playing less and less, active sub becomes harder and harder to justify. Eventually things reach a point where nerf of a rep token is a valid reason to call it quits. So they'd like to make you more engaged. 

 

Or it could be that players don't give a flip what the devs want and will do what WE want since we are paying (or WERE, in my case). If I'm logging in for brief periods on numerous toons, it's because I am crafting. Period.* The cq rep token was no part of that since I would then complete cq on the toon I was using reputation on. It was a daily, so that meant I was logging in on and completing cq (with the rep points) on one toon per day; I was also completing cq on other toons without the rep, though. I mostly used it on my alts in small guilds to help them progress, now I don't bother.

I have x number of hours to play, and if I spend those crafting on multiple toons, decorating a SH, or sitting on the fleet, or running cq, that's up to me. All this has done is ensure that I run fewer alts, thus harming smaller guilds, and, perhaps importantly for the devs, have unsubscribed. Now they don't have to worry about me logging in to set crafting on multiple toons, I won't be in-game AT ALL. What a win.

*EDIT to add: I may also toon hop when I am looking for some gear item or thing that I forgot was on some alt (I have a LOT of alts and tend to lose track until I want whatever it is they have--I also forget which toons craft what, so I may hop on to craft something specific, like a gold crit aug, and accidentally log into the toon who crafts gold whatever else augs). This hyper attention to how long we are logged into one toon is just stupid. There are a LOT of reasons players my log in briefly and then log back out, not of the game, but to another toon.

15 hours ago, Stradlin said:

GSF/pvp(and to some varying degree all multiplayer content in general) comes with tons of longevity for everybody who is lucky enough to like it. But ofc, it isn't for everybody. Any form of pvp in general isn't for everybody.

No, PVP is not for everybody. It's certainly not for me, but since the only way that makes sense to make up for the lost rep cq is to sit around in PVP or GSF, that's what solo PVEers will do because they have limited time to play and will just do what gets them cq quickest and easiest. I personally would not do that because I don't think it's right to crash PVP or GSF when I know I hate it and won't contribute a thing because I hate it. On the bright side, they will be able to blast through their cq on the toons they choose to run it on. That's got to be good news for smaller guilds. 😛

 

Edited April 1 by TahliahCOH

[VegaMist]

1 hour ago, TrixxieTriss said:

And if SS is as dead as I’m hearing, then it would seem many people have already made the decision to transfer to SF or reroll alts there. It’s probably only a matter of time till they decide to merge SF & SS regardless of how many APAC players left them. 

I'm exclusively on SS, ever since Harbinger kicked the bucket, and it's been active enough for me so far not to consider paying for transfers to SF (especially since it would mean redecorating my strongholds which I definitely would rather not). But I'd have to be blind not to recognize lowering population numbers, especially with decisions like Rep token nerf and removal of Reputation track from GS.

[AFadedMemory]

7 hours ago, captainbladejk said:

You're never going to have an equal number of pvp and pve players

Which is exactly why points discrimination/inequality you describe isn’t a problem. The population, interest, number of actual modes etc are not the same, and unless PVE starts to underperform, PVP doesn’t need points nerf nor does PVE need special accommodations (PVP does need special accommodations just to stay alive) 

Consider this. Should BS spend the same amount of time and money on PVP as it does on PVE? One clearly gets more content and updates. 

Edited April 1 by AFadedMemory

[Mercielaga]

3 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

And if SS is as dead as I’m hearing, then it would seem many people have already made the decision to transfer to SF or reroll alts there. It’s probably only a matter of time till they decide to merge SF & SS regardless of how many APAC players left them.

SS is struggling in a number of respects, and did not get the activity bump that I would have expected from the start of the new Galactic Season. While our guild has lost around 20 characters impside and close to 30 pubside, most likely to transfers, there are a number of people who are usually active for GS and play multiple servers that are not showing up.

[AFadedMemory]

44 minutes ago, Mercielaga said:

there are a number of people who are usually active for GS and play multiple servers that are not showing up.

Did they show up and drop or did they not even come back for GS?

[FrontLineFodder]

With the current proposed changes where BroadSword are changing the rank for the repeatable Heroic missions from 10-49 to 10-80+, I would expect the current Planet: Heroic will go away (in case some of you were expecting both the daily+ the repeatable)

While I believe this is a good change for PvE, I do not think it is the only change that they need to make.

We are seeing posts already where players are mapping out the shortest heroic path to conquest, repeating the same missions on each alt every day to get conquest. this is ok, but it is not getting more players into more areas of the game, just repetition of the same daily heroics, that are solo'd in as short a period as possible, in this case BS is better off giving the rep points back as it is not increasing player engagement (just frustration).

 

I think new/modified objectives are needed for PvE conquest.

A daily repeatable objective to complete a planet Heroic Weekly from a rotating list of planets (complete 1 from a list of 2-3), for a nice bump in available conquest, have a follow on objective to complete another of the planet weekly's in the same way as Defeat Enemies 2.

• Each week is different so there is more engagement across the existing content being consumed, not the same short missions.
• Solo friendly

Make World Boss kills daily repeatable, and double the hidden conquest reward from ~500 to 1000 (I think it's 525 with the SH bonus just using it as an estimate). Not everybody plays every day, by the time Sunday comes around, there are fewer players willing to do WB runs, as they have already completed the kill, so why do it again when there is little to no conquest reward. Also why is it only SD-0 and The First that gives Conquest rewards, along with making it daily repeatable, and giving more hidden CQ points, rotate the planets do it is not always SD-0 and The First (or keep those two and add two more that rotate)

• Group friendly throughout the week

A daily repeatable flashpoint objective, complete a specific flashpoint (or flashpoints) that rotates weekly (like the GS objective), which rewards bonus CQ. Along with this don't punish people selecting this specific flashpoint for the conquest objective (or remove the punishment from the missions {[WEEKLY] Searching For Allies} and {[WEEKLY] Veteran Flashpoints} altogether)

• Group friendly throughout the week
• Solo friendly via Activity Finder

[captainbladejk]

7 hours ago, AFadedMemory said:

Which is exactly why points discrimination/inequality you describe isn’t a problem. The population, interest, number of actual modes etc are not the same, and unless PVE starts to underperform, PVP doesn’t need points nerf nor does PVE need special accommodations (PVP does need special accommodations just to stay alive) 

Consider this. Should BS spend the same amount of time and money on PVP as it does on PVE? One clearly gets more content and updates. 

Now I'm convinced you're just trying to troll. So you're telling me that for the same amount of work pvp should get nearly twice the points in some instances? Yeah no that's not how it works. You're not entitled to extra points just because your game mode is different, especially when you can literally AFK and do nothing to get those points. By your own admission you just said pvp needs special accommodations just to stay alive. If it's in that state of affairs by your own admission that tells me the vast majority of players are pve players. If the game wants to make the most money they will cater to the vast majority of their players. This doesn't mean the pvp players can't or shouldn't get updates from time to time, but they are not the primary audience. If 70% of your players are pve, that's where 70% of your money is coming from. If those people start to feel alienated or punished by changes and leaving, you're in trouble because without them it won't matter what the pvp people do since there's barely any of them, with your own admission confirming it. 

If you're really concerned about most efficient use of money and not just trying to troll, you focus your primary efforts on what makes you the most money. The reason pve gets more content and updates is because that's where the majority of the customers are. By your own admission there's barely enough people to keep pvp alive since you need special accommodations just to keep going. So tell me, what's their motivation to spend alot of money for very little if any return? What business sense does it make? Clearly you want me to answer a specific way and have a point you want to try to make so quit beating around the bush and say it. 

There is no "special accommodations" for pve, it's simply putting both on equal grounds far as points generation goes. Neither side should have a free ride, and neither side should have nearly double the points of the other. Trying to nerf pve isn't going to suddenly make people want to play pvp, it's just going to make people want to quit. And since you've said there's barely enough people to keep pvp alive, if enough of the pve folks quit, then it won't matter what you do on the pvp side because the game itself will tank. So assuming you're not just trying to troll, is that what you really want is for the game to tank? 

[Traceguy]

On 3/30/2024 at 11:27 PM, Darev said:

You're focusing on a single toon.

I am not. Never once did I even mention a single toon. I have only used math to show we need 63 heroics to get 45,000CQP.

  

On 3/30/2024 at 11:27 PM, Darev said:

45k (old value) - 8K (new value) = 37k missing points per day.   It's 56 Heroics per week, not 63, to make up the difference.

It doesn't devalue  the point you're trying to make...but...the numbers were off.

Rep tokens don't spawn in our inventory. Where do you think they come from? Do you think I'm wasting my time earning  a  rep token when they cost a measly 8,000? No way. So yes, it's 63 heroics.

Edited April 1 by Traceguy

[Darev]

2 hours ago, Traceguy said:

I am not. Never once did I even mention a single toon. I have only used math to show we need 63 heroics to get 45,000CQP.

  

Rep tokens don't spawn in our inventory. Where do you think they come from? Do you think I'm wasting my time earning  a  rep token when they cost a measly 8,000? No way. So yes, it's 63 heroics.

You're right, you do have to "earn" them through content.    I tend not to rush max'ing out rep, so I have LOTS of tracks available from content I'm not interested in.   So with that in mind, you would need to do more heroics to make up those points.

 

However people feel about it, the dev team saw this "reward value vs. engagement time" as a problem they wanted to solve, and they did.      You don't like it, I don't like it, but it's done.   It also seems very unlikely they're going to reverse it.

They are adding points to Heroics to help make up for it.
They are adding access to daily mission areas for legacy alts that haven't unlocked the story to help make up for it.

While it doesn't make up for the TIME investment, to me at least, it does make up for the POINT side of the equation.

[DeannaVoyager]

13 minutes ago, Darev said:

You're right, you do have to "earn" them through content. 

And not just earn them, we also need to level up to 50 to be able to use them for conquest points. 

 

[Traceguy]

36 minutes ago, Darev said:

I tend not to rush max'ing out rep

I've been playing at 10 years now. I had pretty much all the original rep tracks maxed before the conquest system became thing (including KDY) just by playing the game.

Other rep tracks have been maxed simply by using tokens for conquest points 1 day at a time for years. I have only a few places left, such as Onderon and Kessan's Landing. Places I'd rather be anywhere else but. And now I have zero reason to be in those places without the rep token being used to bait me.

36 minutes ago, Darev said:

   So with that in mind, you would need to do more heroics to make up those points.

Running out of rep tracks is why I relied on Galactic Seasons having rep tracks. They gave me a reliable source of rep throughout the year. But also, when the devs release a new expansion area, it can to come with a rep track. I imagine 7.5.0 will introduce some kind of Hutta rep.

But yes, I already foresee the time when I have no more tracks left, and I've already working on a solution to safeguard that. This finite limit on rep tracks should only be used as a reason to not to nerf it. It's as if @JoeStramaglia and @EricMusco believe you continue earning rep after maxing it. You can't. They're not a free infinitely repeatable source of conquest. It's not like "Kill 75 enemies on Korriban" which is available until the end of the game's life.

Edited April 1 by Traceguy

[Darev]

1 minute ago, Traceguy said:

I've been playing at 10 years now. I had pretty much all the original rep tracks maxed before the conquest system became thing (including KDY) just by playing the game.

Other rep tracks have been maxed simply by using tokens for conquest points 1 day at a time for years. I have only a few places left, such as Onderon and Kessan's Landing. Places I'd rather be anywhere else but. And now I have zero reason to be in those places without the rep token being used to bait me.

Running out of rep tracks is why I relied on Galactic Seasons having rep tracks. They gave me a reliable source of rep throughout the year. But also, when the devs release a new expansion area, it can to come with a rep track. I imagine 7.5.0 will introduce some kind of Hutta rep.

But yes, I already foresee the time when I have no more tracks left, and I've already working on a solution to safeguard that. This finite limit on rep tracks should only be used as a reason to not to nerf it. It's as it @JoeStramaglia and @EricMusco believe you you continue earning rep after maxing it. You can't. They're not a free infinitely repeatable source of conquest. It's not like "Kill 75 enemies on Korriban" which is available until the end of the game's life.

They might be thinking it's like XP....and it very well could be.

You DO keep earning it even at level 80, but it doesn't count for anything because the XP "bar" is full.

You can see that happen in game in the right circumstances.
If you are on your very first toon, and you get to 80, you're not full up on your Legacy XP.  Legacy XP is a percentage of "normal" XP meaning it needs the "normal XP" first to do the math to see how much Legacy XP you get.  That's why, when using XP bonuses at level 80, your legacy XP goes up as well, following the percentage.
Maybe the Reputation values are still accumulating, but in a vacuum, so to speak.

I imagine the only way to test/confirm that would be to consume a bunch that you're already max'd out on and see if, at would normally be the weekly limit, you can't do it anymore.

[Traceguy]

4 minutes ago, Darev said:

Maybe the Reputation values are still accumulating, but in a vacuum, so to speak.

I imagine the only way to test/confirm that would be to consume a bunch that you're already max'd out on and see if, at would normally be the weekly limit, you can't do it anymore.

Once you reach max rep, the tokens are forced into your inventory, and they are greyed out. When you attempt to click on them you get a system message pop up saying something such as "You have already reached the maximum rank for this faction". You have 2 choice now: Discard the token or sell it.

It wouldn't help following this nerf if we could earn infinite rep. Because at least that would be a good extra 8k per day from CZ-198.

Edited April 1 by Traceguy

[Darev]

2 hours ago, Traceguy said:

Once you reach max rep, the tokens are forced into your inventory, and they are greyed out. When you attempt to click on them you get a system message pop up saying something such as "You have already reached the maximum rank for this faction". You have 2 choice now: Discard the token or sell it.

It wouldn't help following this nerf if we could earn infinite rep. Because at least that would be a good extra 8k per day from CZ-198.

That's right...I knew that.   (I was posting as I was walking out the door for some errands)

[Darviset]

On 3/28/2024 at 11:23 AM, EricMusco said:

• The infinitely repeatable “Complete a Heroic Mission” Conquest Objective is now available at all levels (previously only available from 10-49)
• The “Complete a Heroic Mission” Conquest Objective is now worth 2000 Conquest points (up from 1650). 
  • This is 5000 points for those of you with max Stronghold Bonuses

It is appalling to me that you made us wait weeks for any real response to the Rep change, and this is what you gave us. I have no interest in grinding Heroics. None what so ever. I do 1 on whatever planet I'm on plus the face rolling activity of Defeat enemies 1 and 2. This is a half measure. Kinda like throwing poo on the wall to see if it sticks. "Perhaps the community will be satisfied w/ this concession...." Having already canceled my sub, I was hoping for more before my playtime expired. If this is the best you can do. I won't abide the change.

That said... In the spirit of partnership and compromise, I'll add this. This heroic objective is a barely quantifiable step in the right direction. A step none the less. As stated above, I have NO interest in grinding Heroics. You screwed me and people like me that have spent inordinate amounts of time playing the game to grind Rep Tokens for later use. Show a little good faith and open up your idea to all areas of the game. I don't wanna do Heroics, but I do wanna run Ops. Make Ops conquest objectives infinitely repeatable. While you're at it, I'm sure there are others that enjoy Flashpoints or Daily/Weekly quest areas. Make these activities infinitely repeatable. Why is your solution pigeon holing people into one activity? What's the harm in opening this up to everyone and the activities that they actually enjoy spending money/game time on?

 

EDIT: The day you implement these suggested changes is the day I'll purchase a 6 month subscription.

Edited April 1 by Darviset

[DawnAskham]

1 hour ago, Darviset said:

It is appalling to me that you made us wait weeks for any real response to the Rep change, and this is what you gave us. I have no interest in grinding Heroics. None what so ever. I do 1 on whatever planet I'm on plus the face rolling activity of Defeat enemies 1 and 2. This is a half measure. Kinda like throwing poo on the wall to see if it sticks. "Perhaps the community will be satisfied w/ this concession...." Having already canceled my sub, I was hoping for more before my playtime expired. If this is the best you can do. I won't abide the change.

That said... In the spirit of partnership and compromise, I'll add this. This heroic objective is a barely quantifiable step in the right direction. A step none the less. As stated above, I have NO interest in grinding Heroics. You screwed me and people like me that have spent inordinate amounts of time playing the game to grind Rep Tokens for later use. Show a little good faith and open up your idea to all areas of the game. I don't wanna do Heroics, but I do wanna run Ops. Make Ops conquest objectives infinitely repeatable. While you're at it, I'm sure there are others that enjoy Flashpoints or Daily/Weekly quest areas. Make these activities infinitely repeatable. Why is your solution pigeon holing people into one activity? What's the harm in opening this up to everyone and the activities that they actually enjoy spending money/game time on?

QFT

As long as end game items (currency / mats) are tied to conquest rewards, either silly 'log on' objectives that make it easier to complete conquest (like rep tokens) must exist as a QOL and / or all the repeatable operations, flashpoint, crafting, and other content objectives that have been removed, reduced in points, and / or restricted to once per day per legacy need to be added back, made repeatable, and buffed.

Otherwise they cannot expect me to reinstate my subscription.

I'm not about to pay for access to mostly old content.(most operations are like nine to ten years old or older at this point, we've gotten three in like the last seven years) to be treated as a second class citizen to F2P players flying ships into asteroids in GSF.

Edited April 1 by DawnAskham

[TrixxieTriss]

15 hours ago, FrontLineFodder said:

Solo friendly via Activity Finder

Group finder is not solo friendly. By Definition it’s for groups of pug players. 

[AFadedMemory]

10 hours ago, Darviset said:

Rep Tokens for later use.

This is exactly why the nerf exists. Players exploit the weekly cap’s generosity of token giving (Which keeps it from being a real cap that prevents any form of progress once reached) then use those token to progress and profit in a way that was not intended. 
 

By getting rid of that motivating factor the tokens will be obtained/used for their intended purpose.

[FrontLineFodder]

6 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

This is exactly why the nerf exists. Players exploit the weekly cap’s generosity of token giving (Which keeps it from being a real cap that prevents any form of progress once reached) then use those token to progress and profit in a way that was not intended. 
 

By getting rid of that motivating factor the tokens will be obtained/used for their intended purpose.

Yep, I agree with your statement here.

Also when I suggested that the Advancement: Reputation be set to a value (raise my 100 point was my suggestion, but it could be anything) It was shot down as unacceptable.

So a solution that still gives a decent amount of conquest, but is not what players had before, was unacceptable to them.

[DragoslavRadanov]

18 hours ago, captainbladejk said:

So you're telling me that for the same amount of work pvp should get nearly twice the points in some instances

Is it the same amount of work though? Time spent and effort put in are not the same thing. Unlike some others I'm not going to pretend the tokens come out of thin air, work does indeed have to be put in to gain them, but if we're being honest pvp is a whole other beast compared to the missions you need to do to generate the tokens, don't pretend like killing X amount of trash mobs on any of the daily planets or clicking a few clickies is or will ever be anywhere close to the same amount of "work" required to try your best to win at pvp. Let's say it takes 5 mins to clear that amount of trash mobs and 5 mins to complete an arena(some can go that fast if it's all dps on both teams). The arena demands much more of your effort, focus, and knowledge of the game if you're genuinely trying to win and not AFKing/trolling than mowing down some spread about the map trash mobs. Ok, slight indignant rant over and to more constructive discourse.

To your other point about pve being severely behind pvp in amount of point generation, I'd say a few ways to close that would be making NiM ops weeklies equal to pvp, since if we go by gear Rakata and Thyrsian of the same rating have the same stats, so NiM=PVP in the dev's eyes, thus make the NiM weeklies on the board equal to the pvp weeklies. HM maybe like 50-60% of that, and SM ops 25-30%, and for people who don't want to do ops or pvp, keep the rep at 45K and buff the conquest of the weekly patrol for stuff like CZ, BH and Section X up to something like Ossus's 30k or Makeb's 45K, and besides that include a "weekly patrol" for the planetary heroic weekly and buff some FP numbers or make Activity Finder: Flashpoints infinitely repeatable to match the infinite medalist for warzones and arenas. Note I haven't done any math, but trying to spitball some stuff that, to me, sounds reasonable or at least better than nothing.

[DHTarez]

16 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

This is exactly why the nerf exists. Players exploit the weekly cap’s generosity of token giving (Which keeps it from being a real cap that prevents any form of progress once reached) then use those token to progress and profit in a way that was not intended. 
 

By getting rid of that motivating factor the tokens will be obtained/used for their intended purpose.

The thing is this very process has been in the game since reputation was introduced with the Return of the Gree in patch 1.7 back in Feb. 2013.  You could run the Gree event on every character, hit the max rep for week and keep collecting tokens as you keep playing the event. 

I did this on every character I had that could run the event every day and was using rep tokens for 6 weeks after the event ended just so I could get to legendary to get access to the first true legacy modifiable weapons and offhands as quickly as possible.  I've been maxed on the Gree reputation since April 2013, I still enjoy doing the event once and while, just depends on what I am doing when it comes around.

EA/BW never stopped the ability to stack up rep tokens all these years so I don't see how it could be an exploit, they've known about this since the beginning, intended or not they left it working that way.  The weekly cap just slows you down on getting the reputation track ranks and access to any special vendors, not collecting the tokens you earn by completely missions.  If the weekly cap stopped you from earning tokens then that would be a reason to stop playing the event since you are no longer getting rewarded with one of the main reasons to do the events.

They could have changed or removed the weekly cap, the effect would be the same in end.  In fact they did nothing about this token collection even after conquest was introduced and the conquest points for using a daily reputation token was set at such a high amount and has been that way for years.  Why did it become such a problem now that the points needed to be nerfed?  I have my thoughts. 

Add me as one more that is not happy with this stealth nerf and reasons given and after 12 years as a subscriber, this is one more "bad decision / response to player feedback" straw added to the camels back, and it's cracking if not breaking.  For first time I am reconsidering the state of my subscription going forward.