I heard there's q pops out Californee way...

Thanks for the feedback, Muljo. Although I forgot to mention it in my original post, I thought it'd be best if all three of the planets with a guild size requirement had the same bonuses and objectives. For example, take the first week of conquests. There were three planets with three sets of bonuses and objectives: Planet A - Flashpoints and Crafting Planet B - Warzones and Crafting Planet C - Flashpoints and Warzones Under the system I'm proposing, that week of conquests would've looked like this: Planet A - Flashpoints and Crafting Planet B - Warzones and Crafting Planet C - Flashpoints and Warzones, with Guild Size Requirement of 1-50 active accounts Planet D - Flashpoints and Warzones, with Guild Size Requirement of 51-200 active accounts Planet D - Flashpoints and Warzones, with Guild Size Requirement of 201-500 active accounts

I wholeheartedly support this. There should be a single-shuttle decoration.

So? Where's the problem? If I do a random group finder HM 55 flashpoint on toon X I'll get points, then if I do a random group finder HM 55 flashpoint on toon Y I'll get points. So where's the harm in killing 250 NPC's on toon X and getting points, then killing 250 NPC's on toon Y and getting points? Or killing 25 guard turrets on toon X and getting points, then killing 25 guard turrets on toon Y and getting points. You're putting in the work either way, and not abusing the system. People with more alts will always be able to get more conquest points overall than a person with only one toon. After reading DawnAskham's post (see below), I now understand why some conquest objectives are counted legacy-wide. It is like this as a matter of dev convenience, not because it was intended. I am bringing this up in the hope that the devs can somehow correct this so that all conquest objectives are tied to individual toons, rather than having a couple tied to legacy. This is not just a matter of convenience, but a matter of necessity for those players who have toons in multiple guilds. Please address this, devs. DawnAskham's explanation:

I'm not sure if this has already been suggested as this is now a very long thread, but I would like to see more holo-decorations, like you see all over Nar Shaddaa. Examples include: - Holograms of Twi'lek dancers like you see in cantinas around the galaxy and in the Red Light District on Nar Shaddaa. - Holo-trees like those that are found on Nar Shaddaa. - Holo-terminal like those found in personal starships. I would also like to see musician NPC's and singer NPC's like those found in cantinas around the galaxy, as well as a stage. Finally, more Republic/Imperial Guardsman styles would be extremely popular! There are so many Republic/Imperial Trooper NPC's already in-game. Making these styles available as NPC Decorations would be really cool.

There is a lot of complaining (and justifiably so) about how the current Conquest system promotes and incentivizes large zerg guilds at the expense of smaller guilds, including those that are made up of hardcore, skilled pve or pvp'ers. My solution is simple: Why don't the devs make it so that some of the week's conquest planets have a guild size requirement? For example, in addition to the regular planets, make it so that each week there is one planet which only allows guilds with 1-50 active accounts, one planet that only allows guilds with 51-200 active accounts, and one planet that only allows guilds with 201-500 active accounts. There could still be other planets with no guild size requirement in addition to these three. This would just ensure that there is at least one option for guilds to compete against other similarly sized guilds, and somewhat nullify the "quantity > quality" complaints about the conquest system. This technology is already in place; the devs could use the system that tallies a guild's active accounts and calculates the guild reputation bonus. Edit: To further clarify, I believe it'd be best if all three of the planets with a guild size requirement had the same bonuses and objectives. For example, take the first week of conquests. There were three planets with three sets of bonuses and objectives: Planet A - Flashpoints and Crafting Planet B - Warzones and Crafting Planet C - Flashpoints and Warzones Under the system I'm proposing, that week of conquests would've looked like this: Planet A - Flashpoints and Crafting Planet B - Warzones and Crafting Planet C - Flashpoints and Warzones, with Guild Size Requirement of 1-50 active accounts Planet D - Flashpoints and Warzones, with Guild Size Requirement of 51-200 active accounts Planet D - Flashpoints and Warzones, with Guild Size Requirement of 201-500 active accounts

Why don't the devs make it so that some of the week's conquest planets have a guild size requirement? For example, in addition to the regular planets, make it so that each week there is one planet which only allows guilds with 1-50 active accounts, one planet that only allows guilds with 51-200 active accounts, and one planet that only allows guilds with 201-500 active accounts. There could still be other planets with no guild size requirement in addition to these three. This would just ensure that there is at least one option for guilds to compete against other similarly sized guilds, and somewhat nullify the "quantity > quality" complaints about the conquest system. This technology is already in place; the devs could use the system that tallies a guild's active accounts to calculate the guild reputation bonus.

This needs to be fixed. For players that have toons in more than 1 guild like me, having certain objectives counted across legacy is very frustrating and limits the objectives I can complete. I would assume this is an unintended bug; for example, if I kill 250 npc's on Alderaan with my scoundrel in guild X, why can I not get credit for killing 250 npc's on Alderaan with my vanguard in guild Y? This penalizes players who have toons in more than one guild.

The devs should just make one planet each week be pvp only. That way, all the hardcore pvp guilds can just go there and compete with each other while doing what they enjoy. No crafting shortcuts, no pve grinds, just pvp. And please, add an objective for open-world player kills. Even something small like 50 points per kill. It's an absolute joke that "conquering" a planet means who can run the most hardmode flashpoints, craft a bunch of items, or farm repeatable heroics. "Conquering" means taking from someone else, forcibly imposing your will; it's laughable that anyone would call farming HM False Emperor over and over for six days the criteria for "conquering" Ilum. There's really no conquering involved in this "Conquest" system, at least not in its current form.

True. Tons of filthy casuals and carebears flooded warzones last week while wearing their best pajamas and sporting impressive levels of incompetence.

Survival of the fittest, mang! Pot5 > All Servers at All Things (except maybe carebear stuffs but who cares) And that's real.

The only thing that can stop the PvP slide in swtor is cross server q's, but the devs have said it's "too hard" and they don't want to invest the time/resources into a pvp-saving system. Who'd have thought a game which started with such a huge budget and fanfare wouldn't have a basic cross server q system. In the absence of cross server, only thing you could do is transfer or reroll to Pot5 or maybe Bastion for better pvp pops.

T-Assassin did post a comparison of the stats on a 69, 63, 61 setup vs. a 69, 66, 58 setup: From just looking at the stats outside of a wz, it appears 69, 63, 61 should come out on top. Still, I'd like to see or hear from someone who's compared how 69, 63, 61 vs. 69, 66, 58 affect bonus damage/healing in a warzone under actual bolster conditions, because if there's one thing that's perfectly clear, it's that bolster has a habit of working in unexpected ways. For sure though, if you don't have old War Hero/Elite War Hero gear (61's/63's), it would be easier to get a hold of 66's and 58's than to run some of those old operations for the 61's and 63's. But a lot of pvp'ers do already have their old min/maxed elite/war hero gear in their bank, and it's easy to plug that stuff in. It still blows my mind how the devs have imposed a system where, rather than just being able to say min/maxed Obroan is BiS for PvP, we're left with this cluster**** of having to fumble around with weird combinations of old pve gear in the hope of finding what is actually BiS for PvP under a mysterious bolster system that even they (devs) may not fully understand.

193 is the magic number. Hence why I said 69, 63, 61 is BiS. Although I didn't think to check 69, 66, 58, it makes sense that would also bolster well, and now I'm curious which version of 193 is better. Has anyone compared a 69, 63, 61 setup to a 69, 66, 58 setup? The bottom line is you want to get as close to 193 as possible (the sum of the armoring, mod, and enhancement ratings). Anything more than 193 and you're losing expertise. Anything less than 193 and you're missing out on some stats. (Also note that it's scaled. As in running a 69, 61, 61 (=191) is not quite as good as 69, 63, 61 (=193), but not by that much. 69, 61, 61 (=191) is a fair amount better than 61, 61, 61 (=183), though. Get as close to 193 as you can.)

It's absolutely absurd that someone can be fully min/maxed in the highest tier of pvp gear and not be BiS for PvP. But given that Bioware continues to insist on using their deeply flawed bolster system in rated pvp, players have a right to know how to properly utilize that system if they truly care about being BiS for top-tier pvp. This is a good guide; that said, I would recommend you take another look at 2 sections of your guide and consider editing the original post to be more accurate. The answer to whether Obroan is BiS for non-weapon, modifiable pieces depends on your class. If your spec in your class needs the pvp set bonus tied to the Obroan gear, then yes, "Obroan is BiS for PvP on non-weapon, modifiable pieces." However, if your spec in your class either doesn't need the pvp set bonus or needs a pve set bonus, then you should not be wearing Obroan. (For example, Bioware in their infinite wisdom removed the 15% boost to Kolto Cloud from the pvp set bonus in 2.0 so now it's only found as a pve set bonus. Therefore, it is preferable for healer scoundrels to be running a 2 piece pve set bonus for pvp.) If you don't need the pvp set bonus, then Obroan is not BiS for non-weapon, modifiable pieces. Instead, you should be running a 69, 63, 61 combination, same as your mainhand/offhand. I suspect the reason you chose to show setups with straight 58's and straight 61's is that you don't have the necessary 69 and 63 pieces, but it's probably a good idea to make clear in your guide that a 69, 63, 61 setup is BiS for mainhand/offhand/armor (if you don't need the pvp set bonus). Once again, the answer to whether Obroan is BiS for PvP on non-weapon, non-modifiable pieces depends on your class. What we're really talking about here are the "Experimental" level 54 crafted implants. And again, the genius of Bioware comes into play. (The "Experimental" implants each exist with different secondary/tertiary stat combinations depending on whether it's an aim, cunning, strength, or willpower piece. In order for the implant to be BiS over Obroan, it must have a ton of power on it. It will only have a sufficient amount of power if a green version exists with power as the original secondary stat so that it can be possible to reverse engineer it to a purple where the only secondary stat is a massive amount of power, rather than having to split the secondary stat allotment between power and crit.) An "Experimental" implant with power as the only secondary stat does not exist for cunning and strength, but does exist for aim and it might for willpower though I'm not positive. This means that if you're a class that uses aim (possibly willpower), the "Expert Experimental" implant will be BiS over Obroan. Bolster has no place in ranked pvp, but if Bioware insists on keeping its broken system in place, pvp'ers need to know how it works and how to deal with it since pvp gear is not BiS for pvp.