Jump to content

SelenaCat

Members
  • Posts

    40
  • Joined

Reputation

10 Good
  1. I am experiencing positioning issues during the Malgus fight during the Ruins of Nul story mode flashpoint. I have successfully completed the fight several times already, but today, I am constantly pulled into the floor during the Relentless Assault ability. It does not occur consistently as I survive maybe 1/3 of the pulls, but most of the time I see a brief image of the world underneath the map and then take instant-kill fall damage. On a whim, I used /stuck prior to the fight to make certain that I wasn't experiencing server disagreements with my character position, and it teleported me instantly under the world. I have been able to reproduce that issue very consistently (occasionally using it within the central area does not take me under the world, though it often moves my character slightly), particularly from the location you are taken to with the repair droid after a death.
  2. I have had this same issue on multiple characters, both weeks. Hitting your personal conquest goal while in a GSF match does not give the 34 neuro-key charges that should come with completing personal conquest. I have seen this happen both when the Starship: Achiever goal was met and when I hit conquest from an activity finder goal, so it appears to be due to the location ("Space") rather than a specific achievement.
  3. I was pretty excited when I saw that the Victorious Pioneer set bonus did not have a level limit like the 6.0 class sets. However, I wanted to confirm that it was actually working and not just a display bug, so I ran a quick test. To my dismay, it appears that the set is not actually working correctly at level 75. I transferred in a fresh level 75 character (with a duplicate copy, as it always does). This character has no leveling perks, no resting xp, is unguilded, and no xp boosts are active. In both cases, I completed the Hutta "Man with the Steel Voice" heroic, which requires no combat if you take the darkside option. The only difference between the two tests was the use of the 7-piece Victorious Pioneer set (all other gear was removed). Without the set: 85,818 xp With the set: 89,251 xp It appears that at level 75, the set is only providing a +4% xp bonus rather than the full +40% that it provides on live servers (I did confirm that a lower-level character on the PTS did still receive a +40% xp bonus using a level 25 character and the same testing methods). I also ran the same test on another set of level 75's (again, no perks, unguilded, etc.) using the +25% major experience boost. It worked, but only seemed to provide a +20% xp bonus (102,982 xp vs. 85,818 xp), which sort of tracks since the Victorious Pioneer tooltip says +50%, but only provides +40%, so is off by a similar amount. But that's clearly a much smaller discrepancy than +4% vs. +40%.
  4. This x 100. As an avid GSF fan, nothing bugs me more than the folks who essentially just fly around in circles waiting for the match to end so they get their rewards. As it stands now, the folks who are playing GSF are playing it because they want to be there. Makes for much better matches overall. I am regularly able to cap 20-30 characters in a day and a half with this new system with minimal effort, which gives me plenty of time to do other activities that I also find enjoyable. In fact, I didn't even pay attention to conquest this past week, just did the activities that appealed to me knowing that if I had any characters uncapped, I could easily take care of it over the weekend. I've also started seeing a lot of "rarer" activities like the Shroud H4 and non-GF ops being run precisely because folks aren't concerned with whether they're going to hit their conquest goals for the week. I'll also note that the SRM market hasn't exactly dropped off, either. Even with the flood of players listing them, they still sell for 300-400k depending on the time of week (as opposed to 500k pre-changes). About the only "negative" to this system is that it hasn't changed the balance of power in terms of winning planets. But no change is going to make it possible for small guilds to realistically compete with large, organized guilds. So yeah, I'm quite happy with the new system. I've always enjoyed having to figure out how best to make use of my play time to cap alts, but now I can do that and still have plenty of time for other things.
  5. Prior to this week's update, the "Crafting Rally - Part 2" purchased as a Docking Bay guild perk was repeatable once per day. With the update, it is now a one-time objective, despite the other purchased guild perks still providing a daily repeatable objective.
  6. This argument has been circling around since the beginning of conquest. Yes, Bioware might have originally thought it'd be viable for small guilds to win a planet, but then they made it nearly impossible by giving only 3 planets to choose from and then furthermore gave incentive for the big guilds to run the smaller planets in order to win achievement titles. Unfortunately, large guilds are almost always going to beat small guilds, no matter how you design the rules, simply because they have more legacies that can do the one-time bonuses. Basically, if Bioware wants to make it viable for small guilds to win titles, they either need to open up the number of planets that can be invaded each week, or else start awarding titles for a top-5 or top-10 finish. In the meantime, do what everyone else has done: put a character in one of the big guilds, run conquest with them on the weeks you need a particular planet, and get your titles that way. I've yet to find a conquest guild (outside of the heyday of Harbinger, perhaps) that wasn't willing to have folks join who wanted to run conquest with them.
  7. Considering they have changed the effects of several tacticals already, I'd hang onto it. You never know if they might make it more useful in the future.
  8. This would likely just have folks queuing for all FP's, but declining any but the easy ones. At least now, the vast majority will at least give the group a shot before leaving if it's a rough one.
  9. This is almost exactly the method I would use to distribute conquest points. Figure out an approximate amount of active playing time you want to require to complete conquest on a single character, and then just multiply whatever fraction of time each activity takes by the total to give a baseline amount of points awarded. For example, if you choose 10 hours total time base (which would be 4 hours with full stronghold bonus), and kept the old 20k total, you would need to reward approximately 2k conquest points per hour spent. (I personally would use about half that amount of time, doubling all these numbers, but I used it for easier math.) Planetary heroic (approx. 3-4 minutes each): 125 CQ points, or some multiple based on completing the daily planetary. (These likely would be specific to the invasion theme, rather than counting for all heroics) PvP/GSF (approx. 15-20 minutes): 500 CQ points, with some bonus (1.5x or 2x) for a win. Daily flashpoint (approx. 30 minutes): 1k CQ points Daily uprising (approx. 20-25 minutes): 750 CQ points Daily operation (I would assume 30 minutes for this: approximately halfway between the 1 hour it takes for most full runs and the 15 minutes it takes for a lockout. Since ops provide some of the best CXP/loot rewards, so you can afford to be a little stingier in rewards): 1k CQ points After assigning base values for every week, then provide bonuses for whatever activity you want to highlight for that given invasion. Boost FPs? Give more points for that week. Specific FP's/ops, world bosses, event weeklies, win 10 PvP matches, etc., and base it on the approximate amount of time it takes to complete each activity. That will still allow the "I mostly play SWTOR for one reason" crowd to still participate in CQ (and by extension, participate in endgame activities), while also providing an incentive to vary activities week by week for those that like to participate in a wider variety of activities.
  10. This would essentially make it impossible for the big, conquest-focused guilds to complete the Galaxy Conqueror achievement. Instead, you'd see the big guilds fracture into BIGGUILD-A, BIGGUILD-B, BIGGUILD-C with strict player number limits that would compete for multiple small planets instead, and then you haven't really done anything useful at all. Sure, the big guilds will still likely win whatever planet they choose to invade, but because they'll typically go for the bigger rewards unless a large enough number need a specific title, it still makes it much more likely that a medium-sized guild could walk away with a title for one of the planets -- something that almost never happens with the current system.
  11. Really? It takes very little effort and almost no additional money to fully decorate a SH if all you are after is the CQ bonus. There are plenty of decorations out there with 999 limits from achievements or very inexpensive vendors. If you decorated in any other way, it's because you got satisfaction from the aesthetic, not because it was necessary for your bonus. I just don't see the why the complaints that suddenly it's "easier" to get the SH bonus. It was a flawed design to begin with, so I'm actually glad they're doing away with the decorating requirement (and this is someone with 7 fully unlocked and non-meat tree decorated SH's).
  12. Will the yields of any particular planet be fixed (i.e. Rishi is always a high yield, Ilum a medium, etc.), or will those be randomized as well? I can forsee problems getting the Galaxy Conqueror title if certain planets are always Low Yield, making them an unattractive planet to invade except when specifically hunting for achievements.
  13. Now that we know that alacrity only affects the GCD in steps of 0.1s, has there been any sort of consensus on how (or if) we should change our stat balance for AP? The 5.2 update to Bant's post recommended a balance of 1617 alacrity and 1831 crit, (1675 and 1443 with mastery stim), which is between the cut-offs for 1.4s (702 alacrity) and 1.3s (1857 alacrity). If we drop our alacrity down closer to the 1.4s threshold, that would give us something around 2700 crit (2400 with mastery stim), which is likely pushing well into diminishing returns. Conversely, if we aim for the 1.3s threshold, our crit drops down to 1600 (1300 with mastery), which seems a little low. Or do we actually want to remain balanced in the middle to purposefully not decrease our GCD while still improving our heat reduction through alacrity?
  14. I have the SR-03 paint job unlocked, but it no longer appears among the cosmetic options for my scouts (though a ship that had it earlier still retains the pattern, I just cannot switch any other ships to it).
  15. We already have a plethora of non-natural colors for hair, would be nice to have these broaden to include eye color, most especially a purple color, which already exists for Twi'leks.
×
×
  • Create New...