Yep. The very point of real "data" is that should speak for itself. Giving a conclusion summarizing hidden data is not the same as handing over the data itself.

 

Which sounds correct?: "We've seen a 33% reduction in the number of unsubcribers month over month" or "96% of remaining subs quit the game last month?" Which sounds worse?

 

Here's the "data":

• Last month we had 100 subs, 75 quit.
  
• This month we had 25 subs, 24 quit.
  

Both conclusions are accurate, true, and supported by the "data."

 

The conclusion that we all need to take it or leave it is clear. I was wrong about that. I'm grown enough to cop to being wrong where I'm wrong. But the 'data' supporting these changes is still very much an open question since, of course, none of us has seen it. Arguing somehow that one has been "vindicated" by data here, is just (facepalm)...

I think it's closer to:

• Last month: Guilds reaching conquest goals and members getting rewarded: 30 (for 3 planet conquests) because that was the cap. ONLY the TOP 10 received rewards.
  
• This month: Guilds reaching conquest goals: 72 (Though 70% of the Large Planet failed to reach goal, 40% of the Medium Planet failed to reach goal, but there was a 250% increase in Small Planet goals).
  

They're seeing that 110% drop vs. that 250% increase and thinking that it's still an improvement by 140%.

*These are completely random numbers.

It could also be a lot worse too, so what point were you trying to make?

What does that question have to do with what you quoted?

Read the post, i make multiple points including:

1. Increased communication would mean they could address our concerns before outrage hit

2. They dont tell us major chsnges that we will be unhappy sbout because (tinfoil hat moment) they know we're going to be unhappy and choose to hide their head in the sand.

And

3. They get on and then claim confusion at the frustration, when most of the frustration is a result changes we were not told about

Notice every post i make has a point about conquest., not some random tidbit of unhelpful advice.

Unless we see cold hard data that shows the majority of people dislike it, and take action, nothing will persuade me that it was a poor idea and implementation.

Well of course not. Thats a safe place only someone delusional would take because the numbers will never come. It takes a bit more intelligence. I don't need anything from bioware to know the negative impact conquest changes had and are having as I see it nearly every day. The negative impact them waiting so long to get conquest to even some remote resemblance of decent is also a problem.

Just because they got the handing out of rewards right doesn't fix the glaring problem conquest continues to have. You inability to see the obvious doesn't change the negative impact either. The few positives we got do not outweigh the negatives.

In fact, according the the only source of data available, its been a positive change. Keep your head in the sand if you so choose, but it wont change facts by reliable sources.

More guilds does not in any way include more players. Thats a fact. The change is not positive and you can continue to be blind to it but that doesn't change the fact of the damage bioware has done and continued to do with said terrible conquest changes.

Your reliance on bioware as some honest information giver is a joke because you can bet they will spin anything just like server mergers. West coast / Apec players relied on bioware to be honest and look what happened to them.

Well of course not. Thats a safe place only someone delusional would take because the numbers will never come. It takes a bit more intelligence. I don't need anything from bioware to know the negative impact conquest changes had and are having as I see it nearly every day. The negative impact them waiting so long to get conquest to even some remote resemblance of decent is also a problem.

 

Just because they got the handing out of rewards right doesn't fix the glaring problem conquest continues to have. You inability to see the obvious doesn't change the negative impact either. The few positives we got do not outweigh the negatives.

Just because i havent seen a negative impact doesnt mean there hasnt been one. Just as you seeing a negative impact doesnt mean there has actually been one on a large scale. You are limited with immediate info surrounding you, just as I am.

Oh, and go re-read Keiths post, he didnt say guild participation.

After Keith's post on Friday (which merely just verbalizes an attitude that is already clear from the studio's actions) and after enjoying a beautiful CA weekend, I've come to reluctantly accept the (troll) position that we need to just shut up and accept whatever the studio throws at us -- or quit.

Personally I take this stance, I don't encourage others to do so as I believe positivity and will can sometimes win.

BUT! I am cynical. I went down this road with 5.0 and the RNG crate system which wrecked my enjoyment of PVPing on alts and gearing them.

What I did then was I quit playing for a year and a half. I played other games, and when I finally was over my disappointment with swtor I came back. What I found was they have walked back some of the gearing issues, improved upon it.

I still prefer how the old gearing system was, the new one sucks IMO. I think those who are unhappy with the new conquest system will find the same thing happen here. Slowly some bad changes will be walked back, and conquest will be better than now, but inferior to how it was before 5.8.

I recognize that for some, these changes are not a big deal. Just like the gearing system was changed, and not all people were as angry and disappointed as I was with 5.0. That's how conquest is now too.

BW / EA are telling us the numbers indicate the system is better. Whether it's true or not really is an opinion when you think about it, it's very subjective like flavors or colors. Perhaps the new conquest system IS better for the design goals they have in mind.

For those who are upset with the changes, I feel you. Stay positive, and keep up the respectful fight of expressing your perspective and perhaps more changes will happen, but I honestly believe changes are going to be stretched out over a lengthy course of time.

Just because i havent seen a negative impact doesnt mean there hasnt been one. Just as you seeing a negative impact doesnt mean there has actually been one on a large scale. You are limited with immediate info surrounding you, just as I am.

 

Oh, and go re-read Keiths post, he didnt say guild participation.

You're still ignoring the facts and going on your own random assumptions.

First you claimed that you had access to private data, and can't share the source because it's not free, and now you claim that you are limited to the "immediate info surrounding you." So which is it going to be?

You're just arguing for argument's sake. The real information is there, and has been provided for you. You're just choosing to ignore it.

I'll save some time. Here's Keith's post (note the BOLD, UNDERLINED & ITALICS)

So, I'm a bit confused. Eric went on vacation just two days ago. Before he left, he provided updates about the changes we're making in 5.9 which is scheduled for release on May 1st.

 

We realize some of you are not happy with the changes we made to Conquests and the 5.9 adjustments will help. As we all know, Conquests were broken and preventing players from receiving rewards which caused a lot of unnecessary frustration, extra Engineering work and wasted time for you and Customer Service. It had to be replaced with a newer and maintainable system.

 

Although it'll take a few updates to get it exactly right, we have not had the same issues with rewards, a lot more guilds are receiving rewards, and there is higher participation overall. However, we also acknowledge that it's more difficult for alternate characters to complete their weekly goals which some of the changes in 5.9 will address.

 

We will continue to review the data and your feedback to determine if additional adjustments are needed. I'm not sure that gives you any additional insight, but we need to release 5.9 to identify further changes.

 

--Keith-

Look. What's that? More guild participation? Imagine that. But it still doesn't equate to more player participation.

Reading may be fundamental, but comprehension is the key.

You're still ignoring the facts and going on your own random assumptions.

 

First you claimed that you had access to private data, and can't share the source because it's not free, and now you claim that you are limited to the "immediate info surrounding you." So which is it going to be?

 

You're just arguing for argument's sake. The real information is there, and has been provided for you. You're just choosing to ignore it.

 

I'll save some time. Here's Keith's post (note the BOLD, UNDERLINED & ITALICS)

 

 

Look. What's that? More guild participation? Imagine that. But it still doesn't equate to more player participation.

 

Reading may be fundamental, but comprehension is the key.

Re-read what you bolded. I certainly dont see the word guild right before participation, so i cant, in good faith, believe he forgot to it there. Or maybe he left it off to be more vague. We surely dont know, no matter how many times you tey to quote and misinterpret it.

You're still ignoring the facts and going on your own random assumptions.

 

First you claimed that you had access to private data, and can't share the source because it's not free, and now you claim that you are limited to the "immediate info surrounding you." So which is it going to be?

 

You're just arguing for argument's sake. The real information is there, and has been provided for you. You're just choosing to ignore it.

 

I'll save some time. Here's Keith's post (note the BOLD, UNDERLINED & ITALICS)

 

 

Look. What's that? More guild participation? Imagine that. But it still doesn't equate to more player participation.

 

Reading may be fundamental, but comprehension is the key.

Not only that, but every character that did any activity even 1 time that gave conquest points "participated" in conquest. How many actually made it to 15k points? that would be interesting info to have.

Not only that, but every character that did any activity even 1 time that gave conquest points "participated" in conquest. How many actually made it to 15k points? that would be interesting info to have.

Rakghoul Resurgence was actually a high point for my guild since 5.8 dropped, with 11 players capping on 18 toons. My guild scored 371k - much higher than our previous post-5.8a high of 315k. The Leaderboards on Star Forge, as viewable from pubside only, also hit a post-5.8a high of 46,366,713 - easily trouncing the previous high of 41,233,008.

Sadly, next week is Emergency Operations, which, having the bulk of its points awarded in Operations, will likely face the same problems as Flashpoint Havoc (which gave most of its points for MM FP Bonus Bosses). That week, my guild only managed 212,005 Conquest Points, and the three Leaderboards totaled a paltry 17,062,592.

My guild does have many raiders, so I'm sure we'll hit our 200k. It's going to be with less players than did it for Rakghoul Resurgence, though. I'm also predicting only 20-30mil on the boards - I doubt it'll be as low as it was for Flashpoint Havoc, but I think this coming week will be the second-lowest scoring for Star Forge pubside.

Rakghoul Resurgence was actually a high point for my guild since 5.8 dropped, with 11 players capping on 18 toons. My guild scored 371k - much higher than our previous post-5.8a high of 315k. The Leaderboards on Star Forge, as viewable from pubside only, also hit a post-5.8a high of 46,366,713 - easily trouncing the previous high of 41,233,008.

 

Sadly, next week is Emergency Operations, which, having the bulk of its points awarded in Operations, will likely face the same problems as Flashpoint Havoc (which gave most of its points for MM FP Bonus Bosses). That week, my guild only managed 212,005 Conquest Points, and the three Leaderboards totaled a paltry 17,062,592.

 

My guild does have many raiders, so I'm sure we'll hit our 200k. It's going to be with less players than did it for Rakghoul Resurgence, though. I'm also predicting only 20-30mil on the boards - I doubt it'll be as low as it was for Flashpoint Havoc, but I think this coming week will be the second-lowest scoring for Star Forge pubside.

And my guild will likely do better as i can usually convince 5 or 6 of the 8 remaining active subs to do one raid before we go pvp. Convincing them to go rakghoul hunting or ralghoul tunnel farming? Not so much.

For all their claims of decreasing homogenity they merely increased it. Oh your guild doesnt want to go after space aids? **** you.

This is why i think they should include the solo AND group content AND give good points for BOTH.

Rakghoul Resurgence was actually a high point for my guild since 5.8 dropped, with 11 players capping on 18 toons. My guild scored 371k - much higher than our previous post-5.8a high of 315k. The Leaderboards on Star Forge, as viewable from pubside only, also hit a post-5.8a high of 46,366,713 - easily trouncing the previous high of 41,233,008.

 

Sadly, next week is Emergency Operations, which, having the bulk of its points awarded in Operations, will likely face the same problems as Flashpoint Havoc (which gave most of its points for MM FP Bonus Bosses). That week, my guild only managed 212,005 Conquest Points, and the three Leaderboards totaled a paltry 17,062,592.

 

My guild does have many raiders, so I'm sure we'll hit our 200k. It's going to be with less players than did it for Rakghoul Resurgence, though. I'm also predicting only 20-30mil on the boards - I doubt it'll be as low as it was for Flashpoint Havoc, but I think this coming week will be the second-lowest scoring for Star Forge pubside.

That had nothing to do with what I posted. The devs metrics show anyone who got any points as having participated. which is meaningless. unless you are actually trying to get 15k, your "participation" is an illusion. My guild, which regularly was in the top three on SS if we didnt win the planet we were going for, has had as close to zero points as can be expected other than random point wins. Our raid groups are gone, participation is pretty much gone.

The devs will say :XXXXXXXX number of characters participated in conquest. SUCSESS!!!!

They wont tell you hov many of those got less than 500 last week.

That had nothing to do with what I posted. The devs metrics show anyone who got any points as having participated. which is meaningless. unless you are actually trying to get 15k, your "participation" is an illusion. My guild, which regularly was in the top three on SS if we didnt win the planet we were going for, has had as close to zero points as can be expected other than random point wins. Our raid groups are gone, participation is pretty much gone.

 

The devs will say :XXXXXXXX number of characters participated in conquest. SUCSESS!!!!

 

They wont tell you hov many of those got less than 500 last week.

See this is the kind of confusion increased communication could clear up.

How is there more participation?

Guild rewards?

Solo player involvement?

Is this affecting the group content queue the way it feels like it has to me?

Saying more participation with nothing else is vague and ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness.

Re-read what you bolded. I certainly dont see the word guild right before participation, so i cant, in good faith, believe he forgot to it there. Or maybe he left it off to be more vague. We surely dont know, no matter how many times you tey to quote and misinterpret it.

Like you said before: "I refuse to understand." So it's not surprising that you fail to understand this as well, and continue to argue for argument's sake.

He talks about guild rewards and participation the same sentence. Most intelligent people don't mix multiple thoughts into one sentence. So yeah, he's not saying player participation. He's talking about guild participation and rewards. And the reason there are more guilds participating is because they are rewarding all that make the cut-off instead of just the top 10's.

Like you said before: "I refuse to understand." So it's not surprising that you fail to understand this as well, and continue to argue for argument's sake.

 

He talks about guild rewards and participation the same sentence. Most intelligent people don't mix multiple thoughts into one sentence. So yeah, he's not saying player participation. He's talking about guild participation and rewards. And the reason there are more guilds participating is because they are rewarding all that make the cut-off instead of just the top 10's.

He didnt even say guilds' rewards. English literature 101.

Like you said before: "I refuse to understand." So it's not surprising that you fail to understand this as well, and continue to argue for argument's sake.

 

He talks about guild rewards and participation the same sentence. Most intelligent people don't mix multiple thoughts into one sentence. So yeah, he's not saying player participation. He's talking about guild participation and rewards. And the reason there are more guilds participating is because they are rewarding all that make the cut-off instead of just the top 10's.

You are absolutely correct in how they've twisted the meaning of "participation".

He didnt even say guilds' rewards. English literature 101.

That's all you got? I never said "guild's rewards" either. Back to reading comprehension. English Lit has no bearing here. Maybe you need to talk to SirCopperfield and learn some new techniques.

Look again:

... a lot more guilds are receiving rewards...

--Keith-

I'll break it down so maybe you'll understand, even though your adamant about refusing to understand anything, so there's little point. But I'll make an attempt anyway. Guilds don't get rewards. The players do.

There's 2 types of conquest rewards:

1. Personal - Awarded when reaching the personal conquest point goal.
   
2. Guild - Awarded for reaching the planetary point threshold. These are the rewards given on Tuesdays. The main reason that the system was changed.
   

You with me so far? Hello? Bueller?

You're continuously failing in your reasoning. You've been shown that you've been wrong so many times that it's almost comedic when you respond to anything because anything you say has to be taken with a grain of salt. Each and every time you fail to admit the truth and move on to argue about something else or attempt to insult someone's intelligence with nonsense. Like I said, go find SirCopperfield. Maybe he'll give you some pointers.

You are absolutely correct in how they've twisted the meaning of "participation".

Honestly I'm not entirely sure what they mean by participation. Maybe someone is right and since the events are conquest now, people are inadvertently getting points that way?

Maybe it actually did help some guilds reach the small cap and get guild rewards?

I do feel (Im no BW employee) it has made queue pops across content take longer, and op formation in particular is a pain now.

Honestly I'm not entirely sure what they mean by participation. Maybe someone is right and since the events are conquest now, people are inadvertently getting points that way?

 

Maybe it actually did help some guilds reach the small cap and get guild rewards?

 

I do feel (Im no BW employee) it has made queue pops across content take longer, and op formation in particular is a pain now.

It's more than likely a scenario like this:

(Whether on a guilded or un-guilded character and not actively participating in conquest)

• A player leveling a character doing heroics that just happen to coincide with conquest, so they get points and are documented as participating.
   
  
• A player queuing for GSF gets points and is documented as participating.
   
  
• A player queuing for PvP gets conquest points and is documented as participating.
   
  
• A player queuing for FP's gets conquest points and is documented as participating.
   
  
• A player doing dailies to grind command xp just happens to do one that coincides with conquest earns conquest points and is documented as participating.
  

Now whether this player reaches the 15k personal point goal or not is irrelevant. They still earned points and are documented as participating in conquest.

Finally take into consideration how many players out there are just playing (even F2P's) and don't care about conquest yet still earn points for doing the above listed activities?

It's easy to see how the participation numbers can be higher.

I wonder why the conquest is only designed for legacy. Many players would like to fullfill the tasks for the conquest with more than just one character. What did you want to reach with these changes? I think you want to make it more difficult for big guilds to reach the weekly planetary yield target on a large planet. Moreover with 5.9. you will get a large chest of materials with every toon you reach your personal target as a reward, when your guild reaches the planetary yield target on a large planet. Do you want to prevent players from getting too many materials?

Please bring back more daily repeatables per toon.

I suggest the following changes you should make to the points(per toon, without stronghold bonus):

- Daily Flashpoints/Uprisings via groupfinder: 500

- Operation via Groupfinder: 1000

- Weekly Flashpoint/Uprising: 1000

- Weekly PvP (ranked, unranked and GSF): 1000

- heroic quest: 320 (per quest)

- Warzones/Ranked/GSF: 200 (per Play)

Honestly I'm not entirely sure what they mean by participation. Maybe someone is right and since the events are conquest now, people are inadvertently getting points that way?

 

Maybe it actually did help some guilds reach the small cap and get guild rewards?

 

I do feel (Im no BW employee) it has made queue pops across content take longer, and op formation in particular is a pain now.

Yes, I think participation has been "incidental", not "intentional". More guilds may be getting some reward, but far fewer players are. Like you, I too have noticed a steep decline in activity...queues taking longer and fewer people on fleet. There's no possible way this change was good for this game.

Yes, I think participation has been "incidental", not "intentional". More guilds may be getting some reward, but far fewer players are. Like you, I too have noticed a steep decline in activity...queues taking longer and fewer people on fleet. There's no possible way this change was good for this game.

Here's hoping im wrong about 5.9 and its a bigger step than appearances suggest

Honestly I'm not entirely sure what they mean by participation. Maybe someone is right and since the events are conquest now, people are inadvertently getting points that way?

 

Maybe it actually did help some guilds reach the small cap and get guild rewards?

 

I do feel (Im no BW employee) it has made queue pops across content take longer, and op formation in particular is a pain now.

Perhaps... and this is just thoughtful speculation on my part.... when they reworked Conquests.. they did so from a list of accumulated observations about unintended outcomes and defects from the original design. I think all reasonable players would agree that some aspects of prior Conquests were flawed and needed attention... even if players cannot agree on a specific list (due to nothing other than different preferences). And it would not be unreasonable to expect that the studio had it's own list of issues about Conquests on top of player expressed issues. It is also not unusual for players and an MMO studio to disagree on some points.

One element that could very well have been on their list is to change things such that players did not work one element of Conquests at the expense of others, not to mention the always popular "low hanging fruit" syndrome that is always present with players in MMOs. I think the changes made to limit the progress from alts specific to Conquests was probably deliberate (which is not to say what they released was properly tuned per se). Since Conquests is, at it's heart, a guild centric segment of content... it makes sense that they would want to make revisions that make it more guild centric, rather then player centric. Guilds, being composed of smart players for the most part, exploited the easy pathway from alts in the prior Conquests, and so are essentially faced with actual "withdrawal symptoms" when the way alts are handled was changed. I think their rationale was to encourage guilds to spread out their efforts more, and probably even slow down the "bingy pace" that was common with the old Conquests. Same could be said to some degree for the crafting aspect of prior Conquests.

Could they have mediated some of the frustration and angst by disclosing in depth before the patch what will change and how? Perhaps... but history (of how players react and behave in the face of changes) suggests that all that would have really happened is unhappy players like yourself would have jumped on them earlier, rather than post-patch and after having played the content first. Then these same players would double down and get even madder when significant changes were not made prior to initial release of new Conquest. In other words, it would have changed nothing except winding up players anger earlier and give said players more self-rationale to get madder and double down on patch day.

As for the pace of "adjustments" post release, and disclosure of them.. in my observation they have been a little better than past major overhauls in terms of disclosure (compared to companions, level sync, heroics in 4.0 and GC in 5.0) so objectively speaking.. I don't see the anger warranted that is being pushed on the studio in this case on grounds of "communications". Make observations, create objective suggestions to address said observations, discuss among ourselves in a manner that distills a clear and crisp set of player requests... and then give them time to analyze and embrace what makes sense to them. And, being a broad based player base.. as you yourself admit.. they can't please everyone.. so what've they do is at best a compromise position to try to address the widest part of the player base successfully.

Now.. being essentially a largely guild centered part of content in game..... guild leaders missed a real opportunity in all this recent drama about Conquests, in my opinion. Guild leaders could have actually met together via internet and discussed, consolidated, and presented a broadly accepted list of change requests that would make Conquests more guild friendly (such that guild members embrace and play it, and basically accept the final change state of Conquests) and presented them in a united front to Keith. Instead.. what we see in forum discussion is a whole lot of passion triggered bickering, arguing, ad hominem, and some outright outburst attacks directed at the studio. Seriously.. if you step back and look at the threads on this since patch... collectively the forum looks like a bunch of lunatics on the matter (even though there is a lot of good feedback sprinkled in, but lost in all the drama and hyperbole). My guild might have been inclined to try to drive something along these lines, but frankly... we don't care enough to try to wade through all the drama that would come with it... we have plenty of activities the guild likes to do.. so we just table Conquests for now. But guilds that are passionate about Conquests.. missed and opportunity here I think.

At the end of the day.. I actually do understand your perspective and points on this topic... once you cooled down some and got off your rage-mount. I also do understand olagatonjedi perspective on the matter as well. If the two of you could stop talking past each other and actually seek common ground (there IS common ground, even in your diverse views on the matter) the discussion would be better for everyone.... including the studio... not to mention the actual game.

Change is best negotiated from an aggregated viewpoint... where a middle ground is found and pursued and differences that really do not matter (other then the ego drive to win an argument) are set aside and the players present a more or less united position to the studio. And stop all the negative rhetoric against the studio... as it really servers no purpose for change..... only for personal egos.

I dream of the day when studio and player base actually get along and work collectively to move the game in baby steps in a positive direction. I won't hold my breath though.. because the player base has a million alleged reasons why none of this is in any way the fault of anyone but the studio.. and that is just plain arrogant in my view and only encourages the studio to disregard player input to some degree.

Summary timeline to demonstrate the interaction between game, studio, and players: Studio released original Conquests... players found all the low hanging fruit and exploited the heck out of the harvest... the studio collected notes on their own and from players as to what sucks about Conquests.... eventually they do a major overhaul based on their collected list and analysis... some players revolt without pause and thought and slather negative feelings and emotions across the forum... a lot of it pejoratively targeted at the studio AND each other.. and chaos ensues.... the studio watches, takes notes, plans adjustments, makes adjustments, eventually a workable state of Conquests gets established after the fact. Doubt me?? This is almost an exact repeat of what went on with GC between players and studio over a period of months.

@Andryah what i want too is for the players and devs to work rogether. That has been my entire point in the other thread. They feel we aren't listening to their good intentions, we feel they aren't listening to our criticism.

The frustration is obvious on both sides.

On the alt issue- as a small guild leader, since encryptions are granted per toon capped, its either

1. Cap multiple toons

2. Spend buttloads of credits to buy them

3. Craft dark matters that suddenly now require mats that are also used for other, more important things amd that according to my crafter, are the limiting factor for us currently.

As i am not full of credits and don't craft my only option is 1. Even if I was to level crafting, as I told my crafter, we have to use the guild mats for the largest guild benefit.

And thats just the ship angle.

From a points/competition angle, alts helped small guilds and large, but small guilds depended on them more. Thus it runs directly contrary to the supposed goal of helping small guilds compete.

@Andryah what i want too is for the players and devs to work rogether. That has been my entire point in the other thread. They feel we aren't listening to their good intentions, we feel they aren't listening to our criticism.

 

The frustration is obvious on both sides.

 

On the alt issue- as a small guild leader, since encryptions are granted per toon capped, its either

1. Cap multiple toons

2. Spend buttloads of credits to buy them

3. Craft dark matters that suddenly now require mats that are also used for other, more important things amd that according to my crafter, are the limiting factor for us currently.

 

As i am not full of credits and don't craft my only option is 1. Even if I was to level crafting, as I told my crafter, we have to use the guild mats for the largest guild benefit.

 

And thats just the ship angle.

 

From a points/competition angle, alts helped small guilds and large, but small guilds depended on them more. Thus it runs directly contrary to the supposed goal of helping small guilds compete.

1. For this, I really want to know what, exactly, BioWare is seeing as alt-friendly. For me, personally, I'd be fine with being able to cap on five alts "easily", with any beyond that being more of a grind. It's entirely possible they also don't intend for people to be capping on 20 alts on the regular, or 30 alts at all. If they'd come out and say something specific either way, at the very least we could stop guessing about their goals in this regard.
   
2. As I've mentioned before, you can also hunt Commanders. Some unnamed ones can be soloed if you can't get guildies to come along, or perhaps you could LFG in /allies or on Fleet or whatever to try and get a few people to come with you and make it easier/faster to take them down. In this regard, the cooldown on flagship summons is the main detriment.
   
3. I'd have to get back to you on this - I haven't crafted DMCs in a while, and don't even know what mats were involved pre-5.8

Main reason I wanted to post, though, is for that first point. Many people (possibly yourself included) want to effortlessly cap on 15-20 toons. I think anything over 5 or so should take progressively more effort. Neither of us know where BioWare stands, and if we did, we'd doubtless still have many unsatisfied players, but at least those cards would be on the table.

Main reason I wanted to post, though, is for that first point. Many people (possibly yourself included) want to effortlessly cap on 15-20 toons. I think anything over 5 or so should take progressively more effort. Neither of us know where BioWare stands, and if we did, we'd doubtless still have many unsatisfied players, but at least those cards would be on the table.

^^ A point very worthy of quoting for emphasis.

I suspect one thing on the studios list of fixes was to tone down the use of alts as a primary capping method.

I just think they did their usual "throw the baby out with the bathwater" routine... followed now by... "oh &%$* we gotta go pick up the baby off the lawn!"

But I also think they will eventually get it tuned in a more balanced manner, and with a diminishing return effect as you suggest. Diminishing returns mechanics really does work with MMO players as all but the densest/most-stubborn of players can do the math and will realize when to take their foot off the throttle and move to a different vehicle in a particular time window.