<<Flexes Hutt Fingers, takes a sip of martini, and says ... Let's Rock>>

 

 

<<Takes another sip of his martini and tosses another hapless Gaorrean in to the beast pit for entertainment.>>

 

Dasty

Kewl story, women's clothing article!

On a semi-serious note; I've long ago started to ignore everything FourPawsPony has to say because it's often baseless rambling of the "Are you high?" variety or a (PvP related) tantrum I couldn't care less about.

You know all of you having such a problem with the gear really really really need to go to the PTS area of the forums & post about it.

That way they get the point.

Now, if the OP and others want to complain about the cost of the gear that is one thing. But there is no way they can make the gear grind more interesting for many of us because it is not associated with any type of content that interests us. It is that mythical pot of gold at the end of the rainbow designed to keep the masses happy. As soon as you reach it, there is another brand new pot.

I look forward to the day that they tie the gear grind to romances

That was LOL... as was Rion's response.

*bows*

Ben Irving: "The gear grind I introduced to 5.0 with Galactic Command lost half our player base and forced us to merge servers...I don't think it could have gone any worse."

 

Keith Kanneg: "Hold my beer"

Heh yeah and for that he got a lead on another big Game Project........dear god.....

Heh yeah and for that he got a lead on another big Game Project........dear god.....

Which is why I will NOT be purchasing Anthem. Can't keep supporting EA for their bad decisions.

I thought you guys liked Ben Irving. He brought you the much-acclaimed 4.0 pvp gearing.

Also, regarding Galactic Command: I have a suspicion this was less a BioWare/Ben Irving thing than an EA thing. Remember the EA crate fiasco? Those tools at EA were really really into RNG crates. So I'm not sure Ben Irving should be the scapegoat.... How about Andrew Wilson, the CEO of EA?

I look forward to the day that they tie the gear grind to romances

That would certainly give me an incentive to worry about gear!

I look forward to the day that they tie the gear grind to romances

I might actually have good gear then because I'll be forced to care about it lol.

I might actually have good gear then because I'll be forced to care about it lol.

Look out!! Its a Trap!!

Look out!! Its a Trap!!

More than likely. Gotta watch what we say around here.

I thought you guys liked Ben Irving. He brought you the much-acclaimed 4.0 pvp gearing.

 

Also, regarding Galactic Command: I have a suspicion this was less a BioWare/Ben Irving thing than an EA thing. Remember the EA crate fiasco? Those tools at EA were really really into RNG crates. So I'm not sure Ben Irving should be the scapegoat.... How about Andrew Wilson, the CEO of EA?

I realize you enjoy antagonizing people but I will humor your troll-question.

Let's pretend Irving was responsible for 4.0 and created it himself. it was his idea and he masterminded the entire system. Does it really matter if months later he replaced it with 5.0?

No. it doesn't, does it.

I actually don't view him as the villain many do, although I get a kick out of his "exciting!" quote. I blame BW and the game developers that commandeer this ship and recognize there's probably others to blame too.

5.0 was an immense mistake. Hopefully they remember history and create a gear grind that is not more grindy than the one we got, otherwise it's going to be 5.0 version II.

I actually don't view him as the villain many do, although I get a kick out of his "exciting!" quote. I blame BW and the game developers that commandeer this ship and recognize there's probably others to blame too.

I don't hold a grudge so much over 'rng is exciting' (even though I remember looking at him like was utterly mad to say that); I hold a grudge for him saying "MAH-la-VEE Quinn." I mean really. W. T. H.

I don't like the gearing system introduced with 5.0 but I think it is a bit disingenuous to imply 5.0 gearing was responsible for server mergers. The game's population had been in decline long before 5.0 with several of the old servers either dead or dying. Server mergers had been a frequent request on these forums for years, as servers like Jung Ma and Prophecy of the Five were dead long before 5.0 was a blip on the radar.

The server mergers were likely going to happen with or without 5.0.

Don't fault me for your inability to do math, brah. They took RNG out of the system more so than any other MMORPG I can think of.

 

If you have a specific complaint about 5.10, level it. We are approaching 2019. If you want to engage in a pointless gear grind prior to 6.0 that's on you. I'm on record saying I have no need to do it.

 

Dasty

Everyone seems to forget no content will be rebalanced for 5.10's tier 5 gear.

Until 6.0 hits and content finally becomes rebalanced, you would have been sitting pretty and OP OP with your tier 5 gear. That's the advantage of getting gear during the road to 6.0.

Hear it from the community manager if you don't believe a lowly forum poster with a Hutt avatar and signature about trolling...

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/306300086?t=05m44s

Will we rebalance operations at all across the game given there's a new tier of gear?

 

"No. The answer would be no. We know that by adding a new tier of gear; 1: it's extremely hard to get a new tier of gear whenever it comes into the game. It's intended to be for progression players. Everyone is of course going to want it, but it's intended to be for progression oriented players. But, no. If you can get tier 5 gear, yep, it's going to make other content in the game quite a bit easier."

I don't like the gearing system introduced with 5.0 but I think it is a bit disingenuous to imply 5.0 gearing was responsible for server mergers. The game's population had been in decline long before 5.0 with several of the old servers either dead or dying. Server mergers had been a frequent request on these forums for years, as servers like Jung Ma and Prophecy of the Five were dead long before 5.0 was a blip on the radar.

 

The server mergers were likely going to happen with or without 5.0.

Population of game at the end of 4.0 was actually pretty decent. Yes, POT5 & Bergeren were dead but TEH, Shadowlands, Jedi Covenant and Harbinger would consistently have 2 fleet instances every night and when 5.0 dropped we had 4 instances of fleet that first month. The mergers actually created a lot of excitement for people to play with (or against) each other. My opinion is that if 5.0 had been successful the game would have been in a much more healthy state than it is right now, especially if they had focused on a lot of the quality issues (such as matchmaking) when they rolled it out.

Unfortunately, the RNG combined with the grind is, as we all know, what killed off so much of the game. By the time February rolled around server population was substantially less. Today, Star Forge is about the same population as TEH or Shadowlands was before mergers. Satele Shan is probably less than what Harb was.

Also, don't forget how they didn't bother with a preseason and they just started the season off with the release of 5.0 with OP Mercs which it literally took them 10 or 11 months to do a slight nerf.

Population of game at the end of 4.0 was actually pretty decent. Yes, POT5 & Bergeren were dead but TEH, Shadowlands, Jedi Covenant and Harbinger would consistently have 2 fleet instances every night and when 5.0 dropped we had 4 instances of fleet that first month. The mergers actually created a lot of excitement for people to play with (or against) each other. My opinion is that if 5.0 had been successful the game would have been in a much more healthy state than it is right now, especially if they had focused on a lot of the quality issues (such as matchmaking) when they rolled it out.

^^ Revisionist view being presented as fact.

SWTOR active populations were way down at the end of 4.0 compared to when 4.0 dropped. They were actually down notably 4 months after 4.0 dropped and continued to dwindle all the way to 5.0 release.... though there was a bit of a short term surge with the DvL event, in spite of all the complaints about the event.

Yes... the early release state of 5.0 drove others away.. but to say the games populations were very healthy (on a numbers basis) at the end of 4.0 is just revisionist history being peddled.

To recap history for you:

A) the week 4.0 went live several of the servers were full and had login queues. It was the biggest return surge ever since launch.

 

B) On October 29, 2015.. they increased the server capacities by adding more hardware to the server configurations. This largely eliminated the server queues.. but the servers, other then the PvP servers... ran HEAVY for many hours per day.

 

C) 4 months later... February 2016, most servers never exceeded medium... showing a persistent decline in active players vs 4 months prior when there were queues.

 

D) Servers continued to slowly decline in player activity through the summer of 2016 as players grew tired or frustrated with KoTFE.

 

E) the DvL event in the summer lured some players back ahead of 5.0 to play the event. This was a promotional event leading up to 5.0 and seemed to work somewhat.

 

F) 5.0 released in late 2016 and servers continued on at light to medium... save for the PvP serves which were largely empty. Appeared from available data on the internet to show modest increases in player activity as players consumed the new content. Population levels were nowhere near what they were with the release of 4.0... indicating that players that left during the second half of 4.0s life simply did not come back, or if they did... it was to do a brief play and try it out.

 

G) Player activity began sliding quickly after 5.0 released.. and has never really recovered since.

Population decline over time, as with many MMOs, is much more about the games age and people who have played for years just needing a break and a chance to do something new and different (and there are numerous MMOs to fill that need). Players also come back after a break (either short break or long break). Pace of content releases in 5.x is more of an aggravation effect that accelerated boredom/burnout for some players + the protest vote of people saying "bye" for a while in protest of 5.0.

^^ Revisionist view being presented as fact.

 

SWTOR active populations were way down at the end of 4.0 compared to when 4.0 dropped. They were actually down notably 4 months after 4.0 dropped and continued to dwindle all the way to 5.0 release.... though there was a bit of a short term surge with the DvL event, in spite of all the complaints about the event.

 

Yes... the early release state of 5.0 drove others away.. but to say the games populations were very healthy (on a numbers basis) at the end of 4.0 is just revisionist history being peddled.

 

Population decline over time, as with many MMOs, is much more about the games age and people who have played for years just needing a break and a chance to do something new and different (and there are numerous MMOs to fill that need). Players also come back after a break (either short break or long break).

I like how you mock his post as his "view being presented as fact", and in the very next line, proceed to do exactly that...present your own views as facts...

^^ Revisionist view being presented as fact.

 

SWTOR active populations were way down at the end of 4.0 compared to when 4.0 dropped. They were actually down notably 4 months after 4.0 dropped and continued to dwindle all the way to 5.0 release.... though there was a bit of a short term surge with the DvL event, in spite of all the complaints about the event.

 

Yes... the early release state of 5.0 drove others away.. but to say the games populations were very healthy (on a numbers basis) at the end of 4.0 is just revisionist history being peddled.

 

Population decline over time, as with many MMOs, is much more about the games age and people who have played for years just needing a break and a chance to do something new and different (and there are numerous MMOs to fill that need). Players also come back after a break (either short break or long break). Pace of content releases in 5.x is more of an aggravation effect that accelerated boredom/burnout for some players + the protest vote of people saying "bye" for a while in protest of 5.0.

First off, I said decent. In that, in my view they were steady and/or the decline was not as noticeable compared to post 5.0 or the big drop after they announced ranked 8's weren't going to happen.

2nd off, I presented reasoning as to why I felt it was decent which was fleet populations. Yes, when 5.0 first came out in December we had FOUR IMP FLEET INSTANCES on just Shadowlands alone!!! I'd say that was PRETTY DECENT!!! Nowadays, we can only muster 2 on a MERGED server

3rd, in criticizing my opinion (which is what it is) you are doing nothing but presenting your own opinion and aren't even at least addressing the numbers I am citing to show they were at least "decent"

3rd, in criticizing my opinion (which is what it is) you are doing nothing but presenting your own opinion and aren't even at least addressing the numbers I am citing to show they were at least "decent"

Yeah.. I knew as soon as I posted you were going to pull this stunt.

Which is why I spent a bit of time to actually add a historical summary to my post (which can be verified by simply checking the history on this very forum) to help you understand the facts... rather then just leave it at opinion vs opinion. Read it or don't... I don't really care.... because you seem very entrenched in your opinion.

The problem with using terms like "decent" is it is very subjective. One person's "decent" is another persons "unacceptable"... as can be seen by the long running merge-server-now threads that have rolled around in this forum for years now. Personally, I don't really care much about server populations metrics... but many players do.. and as such.. if you are going to editorialize statements about server populations... facts are superior to subjective opinion. If we still had a 3rd party server load tracking site I would have actually done the work to parse the loads over time and given you that as well. Alas... those metrics are now gone since the site has been abandoned.

Yeah.. I knew as soon as I posted you were going to pull this stunt.

 

Which is why I spent a bit of time to actually add a historical summary to my post (which can be verified by simply checking the history on this very forum) to help you understand the facts... rather then just leave it at opinion vs opinion. Read it or don't... I don't really care.... because you seem very entrenched in your opinion.

 

The problem with using terms like "decent" is it is very subjective. One person's "decent" is another persons "unacceptable"... as can be seen by the long running merge-server-now threads that have rolled around in this forum for years now. Personally, I don't really care much about server populations metrics... but many players do.. and as such.. if you are going to editorialize statements about server populations... facts are superior to subjective opinion. If we still had a 3rd party server load tracking site I would have actually done the work to parse the loads over time and given you that as well. Alas... those metrics are now gone since the site has been abandoned.

Did you... did you just add a quote of yourself as some sort of official factual history recap with zero data and zero references? I mean I don't know who is right or wrong or how the population has shifted but unless you actually have data or can link to old posts that referenced data/population size you're still just giving your opinion and your own view on how things were. Just putting your own words in a quote doesn't make it factual... unless I'm missing something... and you can't tell someone to go verify your claims when you apparently can't even directly reference what you're supposedly pulling your claims from!

Did you... did you just add a quote of yourself as some sort of official factual history recap with zero data and zero references? I mean I don't know who is right or wrong or how the population has shifted but unless you actually have data or can link to old posts that referenced data/population size you're still just giving your opinion and your own view on how things were. Just putting your own words in a quote doesn't make it factual... unless I'm missing something... and you can't tell someone to go verify your claims when you apparently can't even directly reference what you're supposedly pulling your claims from!

What on earth are you talking about?

Where did I quote myself in this discussion?