Hey folks!

 

It is intended that we did not raise the Stronghold cap, due to its impact on Conquests. The idea of "place chairs in every hook" for your bonus is not a great experience. We would like to allow you to have the Strongholds you want and decorate them the way you want, without negative impact on Conquests. Right now those things are integrally tied together.

 

We may increase the Stronghold cap in the future, but first we want to address some of the issues related to Conquests.

 

-eric

 

What a clusterfrag. Actually, I'm glad I saw this thread - no need now to replay that awful FP agiain and again for a SH that I couldn't use. Also, why do you even give a damn about what peopel do to the SHs? If they want a chair in every hook, let them. But you are oh so fond of teling everyone how to play that game...

Thank you Eric!

 

Hey folks!

 

It is intended that we did not raise the Stronghold cap, due to its impact on Conquests. The idea of "place chairs in every hook" for your bonus is not a great experience. We would like to allow you to have the Strongholds you want and decorate them the way you want, without negative impact on Conquests. Right now those things are integrally tied together.

 

We may increase the Stronghold cap in the future, but first we want to address some of the issues related to Conquests.

 

-eric

 

Exactly! Ever try to visit other people's strongholds? They are usually just cheap chairs and cheevo posters on the walls. Using them to transfer to their respective planet location is now made redundant.

Edited August 31, 2017 by HuaRya

... Also, why do you even give a damn about what peopel do to the SHs? If they want a chair in every hook, let them. But you are oh so fond of teling everyone how to play that game...

 

^^ Actually one of the most insightful points here in a sea of great points. Why on earth should it matter to BW what people do with their strongholds? It's great insight into a company that's firmly committed to dictating a linear gameplay path to its players.

Anyone know whats it called when a person does not know when to use the right solution for a problem?

 

I believe the technical term for that is: incompetence.

 

All The Best

^^ Actually one of the most insightful points here in a sea of great points. Why on earth should it matter to BW what people do with their strongholds? It's great insight into a company that's firmly committed to dictating a linear gameplay path to its players.

 

While I agree with this somewhat, what I would like is when you go visit a stronghold it at least shows someone that actually decorated. I used to visit strongholds to see what people did but after the 5th time and all you see is chairs I stopped doing it so maybe they could do something that only those that are actually decorated show up on the directory.

I believe the technical term for that is: incompetence.

 

All The Best

 

OMG!!!! That is easily the best reply I have ever seen to such a question!!!

 

Damn Good Show Brother.

Edited August 31, 2017 by ThadiusMoor

While I agree with this somewhat, what I would like is when you go visit a stronghold it at least shows someone that actually decorated. I used to visit strongholds to see what people did but after the 5th time and all you see is chairs I stopped doing it so maybe they could do something that only those that are actually decorated show up on the directory.

 

Personally, I agree with this too. But that's the whole point here - personally. For the devs, this should be a complete non-issue - especially when we're talking about paying customers. Does YouTube dictate which video types I can save as favs? Does instagram care if I only share photos/videos of baby puppies (don't judge!)? And thing is, those are "free".

 

And I like the idea of identifying some way of indicating what's been decorated or not. But still, if someone wants to do nothing but put the same deco on every hook, let 'em. As others have said there are many ways to deal with that besides limiting the SH number.

The why not do something like they did for the random mounts, or color matching for armor? Check boxes!

 

Some of us like to decorate SHs not just for conquest, so why not take advantage of that?

Change the SH interface (BTW the current one sucks)

Make people choose what SH they want to include for conquest with a max of 6 conquest SH. "You have reached the maximum SH selection for conquest" And the % of those will only count for conquest.

Then any other SH after that can be for "the decorators" own amusement. You can keep dishing SHs though the years and still will have people getting them. (Those that like to decorate at least, after all, those are the people that buy decos and cartel coin packs the most.)

Edited August 31, 2017 by Naholen

Hey folks!

 

It is intended that we did not raise the Stronghold cap, due to its impact on Conquests. The idea of "place chairs in every hook" for your bonus is not a great experience. We would like to allow you to have the Strongholds you want and decorate them the way you want, without negative impact on Conquests. Right now those things are integrally tied together.

 

We may increase the Stronghold cap in the future, but first we want to address some of the issues related to Conquests.

 

-eric

 

My immediate suggestion would be to CAP the possible SH bonus to 150% - make it so there is not a limit for the number of SH you can own (other than one of each, no getting 3 Yavin SHs or anything crazy like that) and let us actually decorate how we want. I would LOVE it if you actually had a line of code that went 'SH requires 750 decos for X SH, Player has 750 unused decorations for fully unlocked SH -> Player gains 25% bonus for SH decorations // SHa requires 750 decos, player has SHb which requires (picking random #) 575 decorations. Player has 985 decorations unused. Player has 2% bonus for current SHb's furniture that has been placed - Player has 985 decorations unused, 415 unused decorations are counting for SHb's bonus, 570 decorations remain unsued of the required 750 decorations for SHa. Player gets x% applied for conquest from decorations unlocked.'.

 

If there were a line of code like that which also checked by subtracting the unused decorations for each SH that isnt yet fully decorated it'd make it so we don't have to buy 999 chairs and stuff every crevice possible with them in the existing SHs.

 

As it is I really wanted to get the train deco and had hopes that I'd be able to get it to decorate, I've had hopes for a while now that the conquest bonus would be capped and changed so we could get more SHs and not have to worry about competing.

 

As it is currently.... we have to stuff a chair in every corner for conquest, I've got layouts that are much more sparse than my current ones that I would love to use but can't because of conquest and how much of an impact having it fully decorated and shoving things into walls has vs leaving them with just the decorations I really want.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what people assumed, if it was fair to assume, or what was done in the past. The simple truth is that people don't want to tear apart a stronghold that they worked extremely hard to decorate and might be using for roleplay.

 

This punishes the very people they're trying to reward with a new stronghold. The "Temple of Chairs" folks already have their full conquest bonus. They're not the ones who want a new place to decorate.

 

Shutting down a stronghold and switching to another does nothing for the decoration economy, as people can just recycle the decos they already have.

 

The Conquest <--> Stronghold system was already in need of a redesign. The new SH didn't cause this problem.

 

If they want to wait until that system is fixed to increase the limit, that's fine, assuming they get around to it soon.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Xina_LA

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what people assumed, if it was fair to assume, or what was done in the past. The simple truth is that people don't want to tear apart a stronghold that they worked extremely hard to decorate and might be using for roleplay.

 

This punishes the very people they're trying to reward with a new stronghold. The "Temple of Chairs" folks already have their full conquest bonus. They're not the ones who want a new place to decorate.

 

Shutting down a stronghold and switching to another does nothing for the decoration economy, as people can just recycle the decos they already have.

 

The Conquest <--> Stronghold system was already in need of a redesign. The new SH didn't cause this problem.

 

If they want to wait until that system is fixed to increase the limit, that's fine, assuming they get around to it soon.

 

this. this. this. ^^^^^^^^^

Since I completed the title 'Galactic Conqueror' over 2 years ago I have no need for conquest. To make sure I have all my best decos in my preferred stronghold I deactivated all but one.

 

My question for you is: Do you actually visit all of your strongholds?

 

 

 

 

I know you'll say yes to prove a point

 

Yes I do visit all 6 of my strongholds not to mention they are handy for immediate intergalactic travel.

Hey folks!

 

It is intended that we did not raise the Stronghold cap, due to its impact on Conquests. The idea of "place chairs in every hook" for your bonus is not a great experience. We would like to allow you to have the Strongholds you want and decorate them the way you want, without negative impact on Conquests. Right now those things are integrally tied together.

 

We may increase the Stronghold cap in the future, but first we want to address some of the issues related to Conquests.

 

-eric

 

I'm going to throw my opinion into this mix.

 

You don't penalize players for choosing to solo their way to BiS gear, as noted here: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=931733

 

You don't penalize players who never do ground game stuff, but have earned enough crates and unassembled components to be in full 248 BiS gear: http://www.swtor.com/community/member.php?u=1228086

If you are on Harbinger, go and inspect Miria Alyssa next time Verain is flying and see his character is in full 248s, yet he doesn't play the ground game. I am not calling him out ... he is a friend of mine. Rather, I am pointing out that he has legitimately obtained gear he doesn't use via game mechanics. He is not penalized for taking advantage of the rewards offered with GSF to have the best gear possible, even though he will probably never use it in its intended domains, like MM operations and ranked PVP arenas.

 

Finally, and most importantly, you haven't penalized anyone prior to this for just throwing a bunch of things into their strongholds to get the 150% bonus.

 

So, I'm calling this claim nonsense.

 

Not wanting people to just fill their strongholds with chairs MAY be a reason to institute the cap of 150%, but it is not a legitimate reason to cap the strongholds at 6.

 

However, you, the development team, initially said the plan was to cap the SH bonus at 100% right before Yavin was introduced. Here's where you posted about it Eric:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=8857653#post8857681

 

And then you changed it to be 125% when you realized you couldn't fix the problem. You said at the time you wanted to reward people for taking the time to fully decorate five strongholds, but you know they could stuff them with chairs just as much as they can now. Here is your post, one month after the previous one:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=8900223#post8900223

 

Maybe the team just couldn't figure out how to make the cap properly work in the scenario of partially filled strongholds, so you took the easier option of allowing it to be greater than 100%. Either way, its not like someone couldn't fill their Temple of Chairs for the past year and get to 125%. Then you released Manaan and increased the SH bonus further along with the cap. It's not like people suddenly figured out with Manaan that you could fill a stronghold with garbage and get the bonus.

 

Just be honest with us... if you can't increase the stronghold cap because of database concerns, then say so and be truthful. No one will fault you because of technical limits on the database.

 

And if you are concerned about the numbers of conquest points that people in some mega guilds are putting up, then the solution is to fix conquests, not cap the bonus or the number of strongholds.

 

But don't try to blame either problem on people putting chairs in a seventh stronghold. That just doesn't make sense, given all the facts.

Edited September 6, 2017 by phalczen

While I agree with this somewhat, what I would like is when you go visit a stronghold it at least shows someone that actually decorated. I used to visit strongholds to see what people did but after the 5th time and all you see is chairs I stopped doing it so maybe they could do something that only those that are actually decorated show up on the directory.

 

I was taken aback by how many had like a bajillion Imperial soldiers or chairs.

 

I enjoy messing about with my SHs, it's a nice thing to do either late at night or in the morning with coffee. There are some folk who do decorate and do it nicely indeed. Saw a Yavin4 one last night that blew my mind. It was amazing. But then I also saw 5 "soldier/chair" ones. Real shame.

I was taken aback by how many had like a bajillion Imperial soldiers or chairs.

 

I enjoy messing about with my SHs, it's a nice thing to do either late at night or in the morning with coffee. There are some folk who do decorate and do it nicely indeed. Saw a Yavin4 one last night that blew my mind. It was amazing. But then I also saw 5 "soldier/chair" ones. Real shame.

 

That is a fault of the prestige system, and how your prestige score is calculated. Currently prestige is legacy based and calculated only on the number of decos. It could be based on a measurement of how many unique decorations are in a stronghold, and what types of hooks are being occupied. For example, five different centerpiece hooks could add more prestige to an individual stronghold than five chairs. Then it would be easy to sort strongholds by prestige score for outsiders visiting, or act as a threshold needed to list your stronghold publicly... in the same way that you need Valor 23 to get into ranked pvp or item rating 242 gear to queue up for MM Umbara.

 

It is not a failure of conquest nor is it a reason to keep the cap at six strongholds or cap the bonus at 150%. I took the time to decorate all my strongholds and list them publicly but if some conquest grinder wants to fill their stronghold with chairs because having a full conquest bonus is important to them, who am I to stop them? Again, if it's because it makes conquest all that much harder to win or get on the leaderboard on a server with mega guilds... that's a fault in conquest itself, not in the bonus or how you decorate it. I wouldn't even oppose a revamped prestige system as I describe, where better decorators are rewarded, factoring into each stronghold's contribution instead of simply a raw tally of decoration hooks filled.

 

The degenerate play style has been present from the beginning, and not addressed despite two additional strongholds being added. I just don't buy this as a legitimate reason not to raise the cap to 7.

I never got why they didn't/ don't set up something where your 4 (or however many) most decorated strongholds count toward conquest and the others are just for vanity or convenience Something like this would allow the monty haul'ers to fill up a room with chairs if that's what they want while allowing us decohaulics to design places actually worth visiting..

It was really disappointing. I got about half way with the grind, before I saw that people weren't able to get it without giving one up. I'm not going to give one up...but talk about a letdown.

 

I wish they'd tell us when they're planning on increasing the number. There's already quite a nice bonus for those who do conquests, future strongholds wouldn't need to have a bonus if that's the reason...at least in my way of thinking.

 

Although I wasn't thrilled that it was a train, it would have served to stave off my boredom until more story comes.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Lunafox

Again, I would like to say, just cap it at 150% where it is now no matter how many strongholds a person has. Why can't this be done and solve the problem without making us give up something we have worked hard on in order to get the next one. It doesn't make any sense to me and it seems like a simple solution.