While a nice idea, It's not exactly simple to implement. You would need to incorporate some sort of code that differentiates between a new player crashing due to inexperience and someone deliberately crashing. It would probably have to involve some sort of "crashes/minute" mechanic which would be easily circumvented by switching between crashing and not paying attention to the game. It wouldn't be fair to the team with inexperienced player(s) crashing to be penalized for that in addition to the loss of "uptime" it already causes. Eliminating crash/destructions altogether, though not truly realistic, would be a simpler solution.

Maybe they're saving the ending for the next Galactic Season. No real ending is pretty consistent with the very low quality of this season's story (When you start the story with "run these three old and very tedious flashpoints" you knew it wasn't going to be good. GS story has been on a trend downward since GS3.

One thing to keep in mind with all this complaining about how many CQ points people are getting is that it is the only way outside of group content to gear up your characters. It literally takes tens of thousands of Tech Frags and Conquest Comms to gear up a single character. And even when you get one character there and can use Decurion crates to bypass the base gear (which currently takes completing the weekly for a planet's heroics for one piece), you still need thousands of tech fragments and CQ comms to upgrade your relics. If you play PVP you are getting both CQ comms and WZ-1s at the same time, both of which can be used to upgrade your gear (and WZ-1s drop at a prodigious rate in PVP). If you are doing flashpoints, the same is true with FP-1s, and with Operations OP-1s. Should group content have more options for gaining CQ points? The simple answer is yes, but pushing for ways to make gaining CQ points for those that don't enjoy that game mode more time consuming isn't the answer.

And this is what it comes down to in the end. All of the pro-nerf stuff (from all sides) focuses on what a few players do and undercuts what most of the players do. The Rep nerf has far greater impact on the casual players in that they now have to do additional content just to get 1 or 2 characters to their goal (people who get 10, 20, or 30 to the goal already have a system to get there). With the Rep objective in place you could quickly complete 1 or 2 characters and then go on to playing the part of the game you enjoyed. I like to get a couple characters to the conquest goal each week. With the nerf, I now have to put in more time doing the part of the game I don't enjoy (grinding content). I like playing the heroics and some of the dailies but don't want to feel I have to just to gear an alt. There are too many people worried about what someone else is getting out of Conquest.

Maybe this is the core problem and why they don't get what they want. The fly 5 ship objective change also has nothing to do with your "hypothesis" of having more smaller objectives. If you don't put forward ideas for these new "objectives" you have no place complaining about not getting them.

Sounds like something to ask for then. Why don't you start a thread about it and see how popular that is within the GSF community? I'd do it myself but I'm pretty clearly on record as not liking the game mode and my starting a thread like that would likely just initiate a flame war.

You have misquoted me here. What you quoted is actually Stradlin's comment

Perhaps they looked back at their data over the last several years where they have continually reduced the number of CQ points obtainable from "solo" activities and determined that all their "encouragement" of players to do group content as a means to increase subs or maintain subs or at the very least increase participation in "group" activities was completely ineffective and now they are going to try something different. That said, Operations do need more ways to gain CQ points as they are seriously underrepresented in CQ (ask for them to buff your content not nerf other people's)

1) Better story broken up into fewer minuscule fragments. Story should be 20-40 hours every year not 15 minutes here and 15 minute there. 2) Take GS back to where it was in Seasons 2 & 3 3) Get rid of Flashpoints as story 4) Make Planetary Missions replayable once you hit level 50 5) Do a better job filling in what happened during the 5 years you were in carbonite in KotFE (post KotFE areas of the vanilla planets)

What trivializes Conquest even more is advancing multiple objectives (5,6, or even 7) with a single mission. If they left the points the same for GSF but made it so you could only advance 2 objectives at once, I'd bet there would be outcry from the GSF community on how the devs nerfed Conquest for them even though the number of points available was the same..

So why is it exactly people are against someone else completing CQ on multiple toons? Does it really affect you negatively? If you have tons of creds and are fully geared you don't even need to do Conquest. People completing CQ on multiple toons seem to want either the creds (or the mats, if they are crafters) or the gear.

I think inability to create new content for whatever reason plays into it as well. Based on the assets in the game, it's clear GS6 was intended to have a reputation track but for some reason, they were unable to implement it (or it was a last second change). Why even have a currency drop if it is only really vendor trash, sort of goes against the idea they were trying to reduce the influx of credits to cool the economy. The choice of the flashpoints in the first GS misssion as well is telling. Those are some of the longest flashpoints to run (thus "stretching out" the content).

Well, to address the original topic. Making things take longer does nothing to increase revenue for Broadsword. If you're a sub, they get the same from you whether you play 60 hours a week or not at all. The only thing longer slogs does is create the appearance of a server being busy and that only if it is in an area where people would congregate naturally (daily areas and group content). Longer slogs often, in fact have the opposite effect, fewer people subbing as they make the decision the slog isn't worth their in game time. The more likely explanation for the increased slog is that group play is collapsing and they want to try and force people into that style of play (since it is vastly more profitable from a time played perspective to the player). It also draws people's attention away from a compete lack of engaging new content.

Between 30 and 50. Going east it declines rapidly, going west it's solid. There are quite a few more "nodes" going east than west

Like I said, if the cost of "merging servers" is my character names, I'm done and so will lots of other people be. Keep that in mind when you suggest mergers. Mergers always cost subs, they never gain subs. Character names are my line in the sand.