Wonderful! I didnt wanna go back and look through a bunch of posts.

It wasn't very hard to find. It was the FIRST post in this thread. Had you actually read that, you wouldn't have said:

It hasnt been said in one direct quote, but it can be deduced from the focus of their multiple posts that it was one of the goals.

Which just shows, again, that you're not reading and just spouting randomness and hoping that some of what you say may be close to the mark, while most of it is out in left field.

It wasn't very hard to find. It was the FIRST post in this thread. Had you actually read that, you wouldn't have said:

 

Which just shows, again, that you're not reading and just spouting randomness and hoping that some of what you say may be close to the mark, while most of it is out in left field.

This post made my day 😁

This post made my day 😁

Happy to be of service.

It was undoubtedly their goal (i dont wear my tinfoil hat enough to believe that they are actively trying to get rid of people) I must question how well it has been accomplished.

Kanning seems to think that it has worked to some degree as he posted:

a lot more guilds are receiving rewards, and there is higher participation overall.

But in my guild conquest participation, as I measure it by people actively attempting to gain points is reaching a record low.

Now, many people are gaining points simply by doing things they would be doing anyway (again, I am the guild leader of a pvp guild), but the number of accounts reaching cap, much less toons, has plummeted.

My hypothesis is this has helped a very narrow vein of people, like those who now get conquest primarily for doing events, and the rest of us are still trying to cap, so it looks like (i.e. the numbers reflect) greater participation amd more guilds are getting rewards.

If that is right (and i admit, its a big if), i strongly request Kanning and the others reconsider their implementation of this goal. People do not like being shoehorned into specific content or being practically forced to play one toon. Its a "why are you hitting yourself?" Moment.

I am a numbers person by profession, but with people, you must realize, numbers can only tell half the tale. People are a stasitically terrible system - difficult to predict, and often act in spite of all logic. If i am right, the numbers are there- but they do not give the whole story.

It was undoubtedly their goal (i dont wear my tinfoil hat enough to believe that they are actively trying to get rid of people) I must question how well it has been accomplished.

 

Kanning seems to think that it has worked to some degree as he posted:

[/color]

 

But in my guild conquest participation, as I measure it by people actively attempting to gain points is reaching a record low.

 

Now, many people are gaining points simply by doing things they would be doing anyway (again, I am the guild leader of a pvp guild), but the number of accounts reaching cap, much less toons, has plummeted.

 

My hypothesis is this has helped a very narrow vein of people, like those who now get conquest primarily for doing events, and the rest of us are still trying to cap, so it looks like (i.e. the numbers reflect) greater participation amd more guilds are getting rewards.

 

If that is right (and i admit, its a big if), i strongly request Kanning and the others reconsider their implementation of this goal. People do not like being shoehorned into specific content or being practically forced to play one toon. Its a "why are you hitting yourself?" Moment.

 

I am a numbers person by profession, but with people, you must realize, numbers can only tell half the tale. People are a stasitically terrible system - difficult to predict, and often act in spite of all logic. If i am right, the numbers are there- but they do not give the whole story.

No matter how the numbers are twisted, I do not believe it. We're the players, we know what's actually going on in game. I don't know a single person who thinks this system is working or better...it's not. No amount of lies and twisted numbers will make it so.

No matter how the numbers are twisted, I do not believe it. We're the players, we know what's actually going on in game. I don't know a single person who thinks this system is working or better...it's not. No amount of lies and twisted numbers will make it so.

I don't know anyone who likes the new system better and that is why i question where the disconnect is.

Olag finally has one point in the other thread: if more players are participating, then to them thats an "improvement".

I question then, how, they are measuring this. Despite being unhappy I am still trying to scrape guildies in line to get our ship unlocked. So, data wise, I am probably reflected as participating.

That is where the feedback comes in. Am i happy to participate? **** no. I'm cranky and miserable about it.

And thats where the issue lies: we're frustrated, they're frustrated and no one can win.

I don't know anyone who likes the new system better and that is why i question where the disconnect is.

I've liked four out of six weeks better in the new system so far. Flashpoint Havoc and Emergency Operations are the only two that I think are genuinely pretty abysmal.

I've liked four out of six weeks better in the new system so far. Flashpoint Havoc and Emergency Operations are the only two that I think are genuinely pretty abysmal.

You are the primary reason i included the event thing as my hypothesis. The flashpoints and operstions have been 2 of the few week personally ive been able to handle. At least doing operstions, ill probably cap 3 toons easily. Still pathetic compsred to the 5-10 i did before (which by the way i did have to work for, as i still had to play all those toons to cap them).

By know in that instance i meant in game, its ops week and i still struggle to find ops groups! If conquest participation was up, shouldn't more people be doing ops? And this was around 8-9 pm pacific on SS - what should have been high time. "Oh you need a healer, sorry i only need conquest on my dps." That shoukd be the motto of the new conquest system

You are the primary reason i included the event thing as my hypothesis. The flashpoints and operstions have been 2 of the few week personally ive been able to handle. At least doing operstions, ill probably cap 3 toons easily. Still pathetic compsred to the 5-10 i did before (which by the way i did have to work for, as i still had to play all those toons to cap them).

 

By know in that instance i meant in game, its ops week and i still struggle to find ops groups! If conquest participation was up, shouldn't more people be doing ops? And this was around 8-9 pm pacific on SS - what should have been high time. "Oh you need a healer, sorry i only need conquest on my dps." That shoukd be the motto of the new conquest system

I, personally, am fine doing MM FPs or Ops for Conquest. I haven't done any ops this week, but my play time is pretty limited until Fridays.

My distaste for these two events is purely out of consideration for how narrow in scope they are (you literally almost have to do MM FP Bonus Bosses or the five most difficult Operations to effectively earn points), which is something I'm against in principle. At least with Rakghoul Resurgence, you could still do Corellia Heroics and Rampage and Black Hole stuff, in addition to the much-easier-than MM FPs/Ops Rakghoul missions. Flashpoint Havoc and Emergency Operations are both much more limited in available point earning opportunities.

I've liked four out of six weeks better in the new system so far. Flashpoint Havoc and Emergency Operations are the only two that I think are genuinely pretty abysmal.

Every yard needs a couple of dogs....

Clearly, you and KendraP are running in different circles of friends in game.

I would say at this point.... our guild membership is neutral about the new Conquests, with the expectation that changes are coming and we will re-engage as a guild when things are fixed to a reasonable degree. We do have a few Conquest junkies in the guild that are working the new system and so far have not been negative about it's current deficiencies.

How a player takes something like this, and how they choose to react to it, is largely a phenomena of different mindsets at play. Same basic reason some players love PvP and hate PvE and vice versa. Which is fine, and to be expected. The only real issue I have with this in discussions is when someone demands that their mindset and viewpoint is the only one that counts and make demands or express negativity because something does not live up to their personal ideals of perfection to their personal wants and needs. Entrenched player idealism causes more negativity in the context of games, particularly MMOs, than any other phenomena in my experience.

No matter how the numbers are twisted, I do not believe it. We're the players, we know what's actually going on in game. I don't know a single person who thinks this system is working or better...it's not. No amount of lies and twisted numbers will make it so.

I agree. I think the participation numbers are like I surmised earlier in the thread: That it's mostly incidental - players getting points for doing things regardless of whether it's for conquest or not. Those numbers would only be valid if those numbers of personal rewards have increased along with the numbers for participation.

I was an active participant for a guild that I recently joined, and I always placed in the top 3 for points, and more times than not I placed first for points. That has changed drastically since 5.8. I haven't even bothered for 3 of the new conquests, and since my sub expires in a few days, that won't change going forward.

It wasn't very hard to find. It was the FIRST post in this thread. Had you actually read that, you wouldn't have said:

 

 

Which just shows, again, that you're not reading and just spouting randomness and hoping that some of what you say may be close to the mark, while most of it is out in left field.

Interpret as you wish, my friend. I dont spend my time criticizing others on anonymous web forums.

Interpret as you wish, my friend. I dont spend my time criticizing others on anonymous web forums.

Um what? Coming along and spewing random nonsense in an attempt to ridicule someones perspective isnt criticism? Still waiting on the atm to just spew money at me when i drive up btw.

Interpret as you wish, my friend. I dont spend my time criticizing others on anonymous web forums.

That's so hilariously untrue I had to laugh. There is no interpretation needed.

No matter how the numbers are twisted, I do not believe it. We're the players, we know what's actually going on in game. I don't know a single person who thinks this system is working or better...it's not. No amount of lies and twisted numbers will make it so.

Hi, im olag. Nice to meet you. I think the system is working better. You can choose to ignore, but now you cannot state the same thing in good conscience, because it would be inaccurate. And yes, we are players, but we only see a limited portion of whats going on in game. Unless you are omniscient, you cant tell me whats going on in the exact point opposite of you on this earth, can you? So in truth, neither you, nor I, really dont have an accurate pulse of the game, the players, or its success.

Interpret as you wish, my friend. I dont spend my time criticizing others on anonymous web forums.

I think your assessment is correct anyway, but this is the issue. Watch the interview, hear what they say, read their posts, then look at the changes they made. They are all over the place.

On one hand they say they want it to be friendlier for alts, yet they do nothing to indicate that. It's like they say one thing, do another. Maybe they have too many hands in the cookie jar?

I don't know, i just think the entire thing was a lot of unnecessary work. They dismantled a working conquest system; replaced the entire thing with a conquest system that is far less enjoyable by the players as a whole.

Not to beat the poor dead horse, but this is just like 5.0 that introduced us to the RNG crates. Let's be honest, no one complained about that older gearing system they had finally tweaked it to near perfection when they gutted it.

Now they gutted a conquest system that really wasn't that bad. Why?

Oh well. It's their time, money, energy and business I guess.

I just find these changes frustrating because it really seems players have very little input on the direction this game takes.

It reminds me of a private emu server, where the devs do what they want because it's their server. This is not a private server, it is a game to paying customers. I just feel like the players should have more sway here.

They can present statements saying numbers justify their newly implemented game designs but the most important aspect is left out of the equation which is the fun factor.

Ask the players. Is this new system fun? I don't know ONE person who says it's fun. Not one. That speaks volumes of this new conquest system.

I think your assessment is correct anyway, but this is the issue. Watch the interview, hear what they say, read their posts, then look at the changes they made. They are all over the place.

 

On one hand they say they want it to be friendlier for alts, yet they do nothing to indicate that. It's like they say one thing, do another. Maybe they have too many hands in the cookie jar?

If you have the time, i encourage you to seperate each issue, and create a timeline of statements related vs actions taken. I doubt you will see much flip-flop on stance, but rather their initial view followed by changes to be made in addition to things they will monitor. I havent seen them say one thing and do anything unless you independently applied a general statement to something specific. I think creating a timeline will alsonshow you how little time has passed and that no changes have been made yet, so you cant say they have said one thing and done the opposite, because other than the full revamp, they havent done anything yet

I think your assessment is correct anyway, but this is the issue. Watch the interview, hear what they say, read their posts, then look at the changes they made. They are all over the place.

 

On one hand they say they want it to be friendlier for alts, yet they do nothing to indicate that. It's like they say one thing, do another. Maybe they have too many hands in the cookie jar?

 

I don't know, i just think the entire thing was a lot of unnecessary work. They dismantled a working conquest system; replaced the entire thing with a conquest system that is far less enjoyable by the players as a whole.

 

Not to beat the poor dead horse, but this is just like 5.0 that introduced us to the RNG crates. Let's be honest, no one complained about that older gearing system they had finally tweaked it to near perfection when they gutted it.

 

Now they gutted a conquest system that really wasn't that bad. Why?

 

Oh well. It's their time, money, energy and business I guess.

 

I just find these changes frustrating because it really seems players have very little input on the direction this game takes.

 

It reminds me of a private emu server, where the devs do what they want because it's their server. This is not a private server, it is a game to paying customers. I just feel like the players should have more sway here.

 

They can present statements saying numbers justify their newly implemented game designs but the most important aspect is left out of the equation which is the fun factor.

 

Ask the players. Is this new system fun? I don't know ONE person who says it's fun. Not one. That speaks volumes of this new conquest system.

I think you misquoted. At least I hope you misquoted.

Anyway, they admitted that the changes that made it difficult to do conquest with alts was done more harshly than what they intended, and that it's going to be fixed.

And yeah, I don't know anyone who thinks the new system is fun, either. In that thread that PorsaLindahl started asking who liked the new system, there was only one person, out of the nearly 1000 views, that said they liked it. The rest was either indifference or random, off-topic, responses. I'd take that as a sign of failure.

I think you misquoted. At least I hope you misquoted.

 

Anyway, they admitted that the changes that made it difficult to do conquest with alts was done more harshly than what they intended, and that it's going to be fixed.

 

And yeah, I don't know anyone who thinks the new system is fun, either. In that thread that PorsaLindahl started asking who liked the new system, there was only one person, out of the nearly 1000 views, that said they liked it. The rest was either indifference or random, off-topic, responses. I'd take that as a sign of failure.

Porsa's count was biased - for one, they blatantly admitted omitting my own positive vote, because they think I'm just contrarian for the sake of it.

I did my own survey of the responses and found four generally positive ones. Most of the responses were random/off-topic. But it was a biased survey with a biased person running it, and should be taken with a mountain of salt.

Porsa's count was biased - for one, they blatantly admitted omitting my own positive vote, because they think I'm just contrarian for the sake of it.

 

I did my own survey of the responses and found four generally positive ones. Most of the responses were random/off-topic. But it was a biased survey with a biased person running it, and should be taken with a mountain of salt.

Those that you say were positive were more "on the fence" responses which I would consider indifferent. Only one person actually said that they liked it (other than Olag who I know she didn't count - and if you're Olag too, then you double voted so that's a vote that doesn't anyway). Anyway, no matter how you look at it, out of the nearly 1000 views, if only 1 or even the 4 you claim like it, it still boils down to the same thing: failure.

Interpret as you wish, my friend. I dont spend my time criticizing others on anonymous web forums.

That's all you seem to do.

Um what? Coming along and spewing random nonsense in an attempt to ridicule someones perspective isnt criticism? Still waiting on the atm to just spew money at me when i drive up btw.

When that atm starts spewing, let me know. I could use some free money.

That's so hilariously untrue I had to laugh. There is no interpretation needed.

I had to laugh at that nonsense too. Almost spit my coffee out when I read that.

Porsa's count was biased - for one, they blatantly admitted omitting my own positive vote, because they think I'm just contrarian for the sake of it.

 

I did my own survey of the responses and found four generally positive ones. Most of the responses were random/off-topic. But it was a biased survey with a biased person running it, and should be taken with a mountain of salt.

As someone who claims to be an analyst, you should understand the differences between a positive response, a negative response and an indifferent response. Those additional ones you're claiming were positive were indifferent at best.

Those that you say were positive were more "on the fence" responses which I would consider indifferent. Only one person actually said that they liked it (other than Olag who I know she didn't count - and if you're Olag too, then you double voted so that's a vote that doesn't anyway). Anyway, no matter how you look at it, out of the nearly 1000 views, if only 1 or even the 4 you claim like it, it still boils down to the same thing: failure.

Nobody thinks it's better, except people employed by Bioware. NOBODY!

Nobody thinks it's better, except people employed by Bioware. NOBODY!

You're probably right.

Nobody thinks it's better, except people employed by Bioware. NOBODY!

I'll buy that for a dollar.

Nobody thinks it's better, except people employed by Bioware. NOBODY!

/sign - you are totally right