Jump to content

Decalin

Members
  • Posts

    93
  • Joined

Reputation

10 Good
  1. And wow, in the time it took me to unsub, more posts actually congratulating the way this was handled. Best part of this is I only actually crafted on one character who never obtained an amount of points worth worrying about anyway, but f'k it, have fun folks, until the whining hits onto something you enjoy and it gets nerfed into the ground!!
  2. It really shocks me how many people are behind this change when there were so many other ways to address the botting without penalising legitimate players. Its just short sited, it may not affect you this time, but this will absolutely impact more legitimate players than botters. People need to stop and consider that the next time the whiners start up, an activity which you enjoy may be caught up and nerfed when alternative solutions are available. I had been giving the devs the benefit of the doubt following the way they listened to us during the last points rebalance, then hiring Jackie to provide a real presence in the forums; it seemed that things were changing... but I think I am done, there truly is no point discussing improvements and trying to provide feedback when we are straight back to problems being handled like this again.
  3. We did raise this during the conquest changes, and as expected, it did lead to more afk players. TBH though, I don't think the afk players outweigh the amount of new participating players by a long shot, leaving us in a better place overall. While I was a supporter of earning x medals rather than being on the winning team, not sure I would change it at this point.
  4. Very disappointed with this. While I am sure this will address the botting that a minority of guilds apparently use, it also just killed crafting conquest for all of the legitimate players. There were much better ways that this could have been handled.
  5. Absolutely agree in regards to gearing, I would kill to have the EQ2 housing here though!
  6. Oh I wouldn't worry, I long ago past the age where I take anything on the internet personally
  7. I am normally against changing things which legitimate players use due to a few exploiting (As said in as many posts already, you wont ever completely stop them anyway). That said, I actually like this idea on its own merit. The big problem I could see is that it would probably be a daily I, II, III situation, which would make it much more of a pain to organise if you craft on multiple characters, so I don't think I would support the change unless it could be made per character rather than legacy wide. As to fairness, its not possible, what we should be aiming for is making the game as accessible as possible to as many players as possible, which is why I think the position we are in with the top 10 should be used as an opportunity to implement something which more people will have a stake in rather than just slapping a band-aid on it and calling it good.
  8. TBH, I wish I had put a bit more thought into the title of this thread; I agree that the core system is in a good place right now and does not need to be overhauled. What I had hoped is that we could suggest enhancements or smaller changes for quality of life, or to make the system overall more inclusive of play styles which are not currently represented. More of an x.1 update rather than full overhaul.
  9. It actually would be really nice if the bonuses were always available, at least the basic ones like conquest bonus. On the botting for point's, I still believe we need to address the problem by targetting the exploiters rather than having a knee-jerk reaction and impacting legit players when there are alternatives.
  10. To be fair, the fact that Jackie is aware the GSF forum exists is still kind of a step up from where we were before
  11. Query for you all, I know its unlikely, but if we were to have a new, somewhat simplified GSF mode, specifically aimed towards a "dogfight" type of combat, would those of you already into GSF find it of any interest? I am thinking set pre-configured ships, perhaps a choice between a couple of scouts or strike's, no lock-on missiles, engine abilities or power-ups on the map. It would put everyone on the same footing, and we could probably lower the amount of players needed for a match to, say a squad of 5 or 6 per side? Other than the fact I just think it would be fun, the thinking is that it may get more players involved as the most common complaints seem to be the difficulty getting ships upgraded and death by gunship wall or missile spam. I know for those who have experience these are not so much of an issue, but they do seem to be problematic for new players.
  12. Personally I don't really bother with titles, which I am sure influences my opinion here; but I think we should just move away from the original purpose in favour of something which is more accessible by the wider player base, i.e. different tiers to hit on each planet. There was an idea which went a bit further than this, which was to require your guild to hit the highest tier for a given planet, but then weigh the republic vs imperial overall points for the planet, and award the titles to the guild's on the winning side which hit the max tier. I liked this as it kept some competition as well as made the system available to everyone, and actually made a bit more sense IMO as far as a combined faction conquering planets as opposed to single guilds.
  13. At this point, I honestly think it would be best just to remove the guild vs guild aspect and work it into a system where each planet has different tiers of reward which can be achieved, the highest level giving the titles. Now what the tiers would be and how many points they would require, that would be a discussion all of its own, but I think opening things up to the wider player base would be beneficial, it would certainly add a whole new level to conquest for guilds who could never beat the big conquest guilds as things stand now.
  14. I thought the description text was pretty clear TBH.
  15. Ah, I see. Then aye, I agree, that is something which should be resolved.
×
×
  • Create New...