Summary: Institute WEEKLY rewards to improve The CXP rate to reward 4000 to 4500 cxp per hour without causing a new FARMING method.

Ben, you requested feedback on CXP earning rate because you wanted your players to feel that playing was fun and feel rewarded for an hour of play. You asked for our reasoning for our suggested CXP rate as well.

• First off, this post will ignore the elephant in the room: RNG. Duplicate protection/ability to get item needed ... It is not going to feel fun unless RNG is addressed. But that is not what this post is about.
   
  
• Secondly, I am finding all PVE content I do (except raids and Vet uprisings - raids have a woeful cxp rate - Vet uprisings are fine atm, imo) earns me about 1800 to 2300 cxp per hour. That is about one command level every two to three hours and does not come close to the expectations you set in your pre-5.1 livestreams of a command level an hour.
  

Conclusion:

A large WEEKLY reward for activities (or for easier content, groups of activities) can accomplish a much needed boost to CXP without undermining the current rates, avoid creating a new FARMING opportunity and provide added incentive for players to participate in a variety of content. An additional benefit is this might also encourage playing ALTS to get that weekly reward.

Reasoning in spoiler below.

For this to work properly, you will need to create 2 new types of WEEKLY missions. One for all planet heroics that mirrors the Defending Voss-Ka mission on Voss. A new HM/NIM mode Weekly mission.

Current WEEKLY Mission rewards // Suggested WEEKLY Mission rewards

Regular Weekly Mission for Daily Areas – 20 CXP // 500 CXP

Planetary Heroic WEEKLY - 0 (doesn't exist*) // 500

Eternal Championship Weekly – 100/200/300 CXP // 400/600/800 CXP

Warzone Weekly – 300 CXP // ?

Solo Ranked Warzone Weekly – 350 CXP // ?

Group Ranked Warzone Weekly – 600 CXP // ?

Veteran Flashpoint Weekly – 200 CXP // 1000

Master Flashpoint Weekly – 300 CXP // 2000

Story Uprisings Weekly – 200 CXP // 500

Veteran Uprisings Weekly – 300 CXP // 800

Galactic Starfighter Weekly – 600 CXP // ?

Operation Weekly – 200 CXP for EV/KP, 400 CXP for all others // 800 cxp EV/KP 1800 cxp others

HM/NIM Weekly - 0 (doesn't exist) // 4000 cxp

Toborro’s Courtyard/Monolith Weekly – 100 CXP // 500 cxp

Weekly Personal Conquest – 600 CXP // SAME

Again, personally I believe that the RNG crates are a BIG part of the 'no fun' problem, but this might at least alleviate some of the grindy feel.

EXCELLENT suggestions and a great post. I am seeing the almost identical numbers you claim to see as well, so I think you've honestly portrayed CXP gains from a player perspective.

Very good post...well worth the read.

Why not just make meeting the weekly conquest objective award 15,000-20,000 cxp for each character that meets the objective? If you want to meet the object with PVP, fine, GSF, fine, Ops, fine.....

Edited to update the weekly rate - i had a daily rate in my head.

I'm all for increasing CXP gain and adding Unassembled Components to Uprisings & FPs, but as long as neither CXP nor Components are Legacy wide it's always going to be a nightmare for alts.

The only way this game can possibly be alt friendly again is if the Unassembled Components gained increased so much that you could buy the gear for your alts and rip off the mods and place them into legacy gear to transfer them. But at the same time, if they increased it too much then the people with 1 or 2 toons would benefit in such a way that there wouldn't be a carrot at the end of that stick anymore for a long time for them.

I'm all for increasing CXP gain and adding Unassembled Components to Uprisings & FPs, but as long as neither CXP nor Components are Legacy wide it's always going to be a nightmare for alts.

 

The only way this game can possibly be alt friendly again is if the Unassembled Components gained increased so much that you could buy the gear for your alts and rip off the mods and place them into legacy gear to transfer them. But at the same time, if they increased it too much then the people with 1 or 2 toons would benefit in such a way that there wouldn't be a carrot at the end of that stick anymore for a long time for them.

Thanks for your input. Obviously your post represents some of the PVP perspective my suggestion quite frankly lacks as I am unqualified to address the pvp perspective.

My purpose was to limit this post to EXACTLY what Ben asked for on the stream, i.e. reasonable suggestions for how BW could improve CXP rates and what our reasoning was for this suggestion.

I do not think my suggestion is a fix, but I believe it is the feedback Ben said he wanted to hear and consider.

I'm all for increasing CXP gain and adding Unassembled Components to Uprisings & FPs, but as long as neither CXP nor Components are Legacy wide it's always going to be a nightmare for alts.

 

The only way this game can possibly be alt friendly again is if the Unassembled Components gained increased so much that you could buy the gear for your alts and rip off the mods and place them into legacy gear to transfer them. But at the same time, if they increased it too much then the people with 1 or 2 toons would benefit in such a way that there wouldn't be a carrot at the end of that stick anymore for a long time for them.

The carrot is supposed to be content, not gear.

The sad thing is, the content is starting to finally trickle in, and we have characters with no gear to do it.

There is zero problem with quick gear acquisition (from a retention standpoint) if there are things to do in-game.

Frankly, it helps.

This current system devalues the new content.

Good post OP.

That said, why exactly are we having to do Ben's job for Ben. He has an entire development team along with analytics infrastructure to be able to sit down around a conference table and pen-&-paper this themselves.

Balancing Cxp payouts so that any content choice is roughly in balance with any other content choice, with reasonable adjustments for risk/effort IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. It's not even science... it's straight up data modeling and analysis.

There is zero problem with quick gear acquisition (from a retention standpoint) if there are things to do in-game.

 

Frankly, it helps.

Not to get off topic, but I've got to highlight this point just in case Ben were to read this thread...

Ease of gearing actually promotes playing more because you have more toons you feel attached to. 4.0 was my character bonanza...I think I leveled close to 10 toons during 4.0 and played every one of my toons for the first time since launch...lockouts only impacted ONE toon. I had others decently geared and ready to go. I was able to learn classes I never dreamed of playing (curse you Sorcs!!!) and actually swapped back and form (Pub to Imp) at least daily...4.0 was fun, despite the content drought, because all of my toons mattered to me...

4.0 had gearing right...it allowed us to play the game how we wanted with very little slowing us down.

110% Agree.

This would be a great STARTING point. This should be the bare minimum start point and if the player base feedback after playing the way you laid it out is that it is still too grindy, then keep going higher until the team finds a good level of comfort for the players to enjoy.

BW doesn't care about feedback ! They just want you to stay subbed and buy stuff from CM. They KNOW cxp is **** on so many levels...they just buying themselves time till next expac with GC...then they invent new way of grind,where GC won't matter at all. How hard would be to double cxp on everyting...if they wanted they could do right now,but no...grind,stay subbed and buy **** from CM.

Look at Legacy.... has no meaning

Look at Prestige....has no meaning (sure this was never about gear,but it's a joke)

Next expac GC will have no meaning,because BW will drop it and give your Rep/Imp reputation-like grind with RNG..."oh you grinded GC to 300...well grind this to 500..gg"

Look at gear you got from 5.0 till 5.1....you got on RNG those purple sets,yet YOU ARE UNABLE TO UPGRADE them to t2,because that would put dent into BW plan of making you grind and them buying time till next expac.

Content is less and less every year...8 classes stuffed into 1 storyline..."2" if you count rep/imp (ofc this is a joke). 0 new strongholds,yet tons of new decos.. This 1 opertaion is just a way of BW making you stay subbed for months...do you really think they give 1 boss at time out of goodness of their hearts? NO...1 boss bait till December so people stay subbed.

So mayn reskined items put on Cm and promoted as something new.

Their **** engine is worst of all !

BW says **** you....no bw,I say **** YOU...I am out ! Week or so of sub left and then I am gone.

EXCELLENT suggestions and a great post. I am seeing the almost identical numbers you claim to see as well, so I think you've honestly portrayed CXP gains from a player perspective.

 

Very good post...well worth the read.

I'm with you Tuxxy! I also hope they make this system legacy-wide. Our alts should matter, especially in SWTOR.

Not to get off topic, but I've got to highlight this point just in case Ben were to read this thread...

 

Ease of gearing actually promotes playing more because you have more toons you feel attached to. 4.0 was my character bonanza...I think I leveled close to 10 toons during 4.0 and played every one of my toons for the first time since launch...lockouts only impacted ONE toon. I had others decently geared and ready to go. I was able to learn classes I never dreamed of playing (curse you Sorcs!!!) and actually swapped back and form (Pub to Imp) at least daily...4.0 was fun, despite the content drought, because all of my toons mattered to me...

 

4.0 had gearing right...it allowed us to play the game how we wanted with very little slowing us down.

I played many characters in 4.0. I enjoyed playing them, I enjoyed trying content with different classes when my team needed a healer or a tank instead of my usual DPS. In 3.0 we had a newcomers raid team and I played all sorts of alts through SM ops there while we helped people learn abut running ops. That was all fun. With 5.0 all that fun is gone and mot of the problem is the RNG crates being the primary source of gear. Upping CXP gains isn't going to fix that one, major problem. It isn't going to make you happier about getting 5 crates with nothing you can use in them and having no way to get the gear you do need.

Great Post.

A couple suggestions:

PvE -

1. I would bump daily and bonus missions slightly.

2 Revert to 10 CXP per gold with a daily cap of 5,000. I never farmed golds but I was enjoying doing heroics and not skipping what ever I could. Honestly I just run past/around everything i can now.

3. Give 2 per silver. Daily cap - 5,000

PvP -

PvP is a bit trickier as some people only do PvP while other do stuff in between pops while other just do dailies etc.

1. I would shoot for 4,000 per hour based on a a 50/50 win loss ratio and 3.5 regular warzones per hour.

2. I would give roughly the same CXP for a win or loss but keep the disparity in UCs where they are at. Regs are a mess right now as being on the losing team has poor rewards. Give incentive to continue try (and stay) but reward the winners also. Too many leavers in 5.1.

2B. Increase 4X4. The current rewards are bunk, especially on those matches that last the full time per round. I left everyone last night that had a healer on both sides as soon as they popped because it is a waste of time now.

3. Increase the weekly reward to be at least on par with your PvE suggestions. PvPers only have two weeklies.

4. Increase the daily reward also.

Great Post.

 

A couple suggestions:

 

PvE -

 

1. I would bump daily and bonus missions slightly.

2 Revert to 10 CXP per gold with a daily cap of 5,000. I never farmed golds but I was enjoying doing heroics and not skipping what ever I could. Honestly I just run past/around everything i can now.

3. Give 2 per silver. Daily cap - 5,000

 

PvP -

 

PvP is a bit trickier as some people only do PvP while other do stuff in between pops while other just do dailies etc.

 

1. I would shoot for 4,000 per hour based on a a 50/50 win loss ratio and 3.5 regular warzones per hour.

2. I would give roughly the same CXP for a win or loss but keep the disparity in UCs where they are at. Regs are a mess right now as being on the losing team has poor rewards. Give incentive to continue try (and stay) but reward the winners also. Too many leavers in 5.1.

2B. Increase 4X4. The current rewards are bunk, especially on those matches that last the full time per round. I left everyone last night that had a healer on both sides as soon as they popped because it is a waste of time now.

3. Increase the weekly reward to be at least on par with your PvE suggestions. PvPers only have two weeklies.

4. Increase the daily reward also.

Thanks for adding a pvp perspective! Your suggestions make sense to me, but honestly, I'm not the best judge.

As to your PVE suggestions, I, too, would love an increase to gold and silver mobs. But I really think BWA won't do this (even with your cap), so I didn't put it into my Original post. That said, I'm fully in favor of what you propose. The first two days, I made sure to clear ALL gold trash when I went and did stuff and seeing a visible cxp jump from them was FUN and encouraging.

I am hesitant about proposing a general mission and bonus mission cxp boost. Not that I don't think it is needed, I do, but I also feel it might have impact on the overall cxp rate in many many ways that might not be apparent until a large player base were to test and give metrics. This is the type of suggestion I would make as a phase 2 CXP modification suggestion, one which might require a bit more testing/caution.

Good post OP.

 

That said, why exactly are we having to do Ben's job for Ben. He has an entire development team along with analytics infrastructure to be able to sit down around a conference table and pen-&-paper this themselves.

 

Balancing Cxp payouts so that any content choice is roughly in balance with any other content choice, with reasonable adjustments for risk/effort IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. It's not even science... it's straight up data modeling and analysis.

It's art and applied psychology (or maybe animal behavior neuroscience and game theory). If it were an easy mathematical solution to a well understood model then they would have gotten it just about perfect on the first try. They have access to people who are reasonably good at mathematics, statistics, and math modelling.

It's also slightly complicated by the fact that the data they have is purely hardware inputs, and self selected player communications. If the question of interest is to do with the social interactions and emotional state of a large group of primates, there's actually a lot of data of interest that those sources don't cover.

I sort of doubt we want them hacking our computers' cameras and hooking up facial recognition/emotion monitoring software to get that sort of data.

There's behavioral science that supports the idea of random rewards having more attraction over the long term than predictable rewards. That's probably the theory underlying GC. The problem is, for that to work, there needs to be a direct link between doing an action, and the random reward. So in a slot machine, pull lever, bell rings, clink of coins coming out. Probably too much navigating through menus to get to the reward for that to really work for GC grind.

They also maybe forgot that humans, primates, and even just mammals in general, tend to get very bent out of shape by loosing things. Loss aversion. So if you have had long term well established sources of fairly rapid gearing, and all of a sudden those sources effectively stop giving out at the normal rate, there's a great commotion.

Adding Galactic Command on the whole, was probably not an issue. Taking away the previous gearing system and replacing it with something vastly inferior at supplying loot/unit time & effort, that's where they ran into trouble.

If you're holding a new bone around a dog, it's likely to be eager and attentive. If you try to take away the nice greasy meaty bone a dog is chewing on so you can give it an old scoured and dried out bone, there's a reasonable chance that you're going to get growled at or bitten unless the dog is both nice and well trained. MMO players as an audience, do not trend to the nice or well trained if you try things that in their view amount to "taking away." Shae customization for example.

The developers are in kind of a difficult position. If you're the sort of wierdo that gets curious enough about the size of the developer team to actually sit through the credits after KotFE and KotET, you might notice that they have very few people doing content creation for a game of this size. They sort of have to do what they can to slow the rate at which people go through content, because even if they all work 90 hours a week, they're still not going to be able to crank out all that much in the view of the players, relative to the size of what's already in the game.

I've suggested in the past that they try to be more creative in gameplay design to enhance the replay longevity of new content, but they have time constraints, resource constraints, engine limitations, and probably other barriers as well. Adding significant amounts of variability to PvE may just not be doable for them. For that matter, it might appeal only to me, and not be a good general solution to their content creation rate woes.

I think the Galactic Command being made a huge grind and low yield RNG with regard to rewards dropping were both on the whole bad design choices. I can understand though, the pressures that would push them that way in looking for solutions to their development problems, and we don't know what other things they considered. What if GC grind is really the least objectionable option that was on the table for them? Scary thought, but possible.

I think the Galactic Command being made a huge grind and low yield RNG with regard to rewards dropping were both on the whole bad design choices. I can understand though, the pressures that would push them that way in looking for solutions to their development problems, and we don't know what other things they considered. What if GC grind is really the least objectionable option that was on the table for them? Scary thought, but possible.

I know it's there because it's what they could come up with to keep players subbed longer, because they promised EA shareholders they had a new system to do that. The problem is beta testers told them people would leave if it went live. When they announced it more than 2 months before launch they got huge amounts of negative feedback and people started slowly leaving. They went with it anyway and when it went live they got LOTS of negative feedback and people started leaving in large numbers. They did 2 emergency streams during their normal holiday disappearing act and put out a survey. They then touted changes to make it more alt friendly, etc. and that patch failed to deliver (which was no surprise to most of us and we told them it wasn't going to cut it.) Now another stream and they say they are willing ti keep tweaking. Tweaking isn't going to cut it. Lots of us are still leaving or already gone. They've had 4 months of feedback to tell them this system isn't what their paying customers want. Now they have to deal with the results. At some point someone is going to have to stand up and admit they screwed up and tell us they're going to actually fix it. The problem is, the longer they wait the less people are actually here to hear them say it.

IMO, there is no excuse for spending 2+ years remaking every mistake they made at launch. None at all and the management who did it should already have been terminated, well before they got to 5.0. They no longer have the player base to drag out fixing things like they did after launch. Even then dragging it out didn't work. Look how many of those people never came back. If that percentage of the people who have left now doesn't come back, the game is done. It may drag on for a while, but it will be with less staff, an even smaller budget and therefore even less content and smaller "expansions".

Thanks for adding a pvp perspective! Your suggestions make sense to me, but honestly, I'm not the best judge.

 

As to your PVE suggestions, I, too, would love an increase to gold and silver mobs. But I really think BWA won't do this (even with your cap), so I didn't put it into my Original post. That said, I'm fully in favor of what you propose. The first two days, I made sure to clear ALL gold trash when I went and did stuff and seeing a visible cxp jump from them was FUN and encouraging.

 

I am hesitant about proposing a general mission and bonus mission cxp boost. Not that I don't think it is needed, I do, but I also feel it might have impact on the overall cxp rate in many many ways that might not be apparent until a large player base were to test and give metrics. This is the type of suggestion I would make as a phase 2 CXP modification suggestion, one which might require a bit more testing/caution.

Agree on both. It is a fine line on the daily missions. I actually enjoyed doing the heroics when 5.0 first dropped due to the amount CXP you were getting for golds. Now it is just rush to the end to get the planetary reward. Hopefully at some point they can find a happy medium on both where it is worth doing but not exploitable.

My suggestion is, give us double CXP during weekend(most people can play during weekend) and if everyone is happy with that, keep it as base CXP rate.

Thank You

My suggestion is, give us double CXP during weekend(most people can play during weekend) and if everyone is happy with that, keep it as base CXP rate.

 

Thank You

I can't get on board with that for one simple reason. The cxp rewards are not balanced between activities. Doubling them increases that inbalance. I don't think it would be hard to balance them but that needs to be done before doubling is a good idea.

I also think they need to take into account some other things during the balancing. Risk v Reward. PvP and GSF are both riskless and yet give some of the best cxp per hour out there. They also give components....GSF gives them at the highest rate yet doesn't even use the gear you would make from them....to me that is silly. HM FP on the other hand give very poor cxp per hour and give no components yet involve risk, you can die and need to spend credits to repair and you can spend an hour and fail to complete it because of a team that doesn't work. Same with even SM ops and very much true of HM and beyond ops. You can easily spend an hour or more on one boss in an operation and end up with nothing but massive repair bills. This isn't fair or balanced. If they are going to insist on leaving GSF and PvP two of the best gearing methods they need to bring other methods up to that level.

One step is remove repair costs and armor damage from all forms of play. It isn't balanced that one style has a cost and another does not.

There should be a base amount of cxp earned while in a FP or OP. If GSF and PvP will be awarding participation cxp the same needs to be true of other content as well. Yes you could walk into an op and just stand around....make it a small amount enough so doing it isn't really a good method of cxp but enough so wiping for an hour on a hm boss isn't a total waste but no so much its actually worth doing. Look I see a ton more AFK'ing in battlegrounds now, I get its not cool but to be balanced there has to be something done about time spent in FP and OPs that leads to not completing them.

Components for GSF need to go. I cannot see any real justification for a form of play that requires no gear and uses no gear to earn that gear. OR make it use the gear. One or the other,

HM FP should be a method of gearing up for OPs. That means they should drop components. That only seems right.

EVERY OPS BOSS MUST DROP UAs.

I really want the need for command tokens taken away. Its a stupid way to gate gear.

And then there is that elephant. RNG MUST GO AWAY. Yes I said it. The real problem with the current gearing system is the current gearing system. It can be tweaked, altered, changed. But it will never be right because its a flawed idea that should never have been used.