Ok they brought back the win requirement but you can still be 2-3 weeks without winning a game because your team is so bad and doesn't play objective that makes people discouraged and the disapointment is such high they just don't play pvp at all.

 

I hate to agree with ransu on...anything, but that sounds almost statistically impossible. at some point you're going to land on a good team that can carry you while you hide under spawn in AHG or run around any other map like a chicken with your head cut off. but by the sound of it, I will offer one suggestion: never guard. never let anyone on your team even think you are guarding. if you can't walk into one win in 2-3 weeks, the absolute last thing you should ever do in a WZ that you want to win is play an important role.

 

2-3 weeks!

Edited June 6, 2021 by CheesyEZ

i really dont see the issue. i never fail to get all 10 points for my weekly usually every tuesday if not wednesday night; i almost always do the entire weekly in a single night, and i am a number farmer who plays solo 90% of the time, i dont have an objective bone in my body. if people are having trouble finishing the weekly there is only one possible explanation and that is that they are the cause of their losses, they are probably the ones who are expecting to be carried, throwing a fit when they aren't carried, and not participating.

 

So, you’re a number farmer who doesn’t do objectives, yet you complete your weekly in a single night. Clearly, your team does the objectives while you jerk off over dps numbers. Since objectives are the only way to win regs matches, you don’t really have a leg to stand on in arguing about people getting carried, as you’re contributing nothing to your team’s win condition.

 

this is why i suggested a performance based weekly. sure, the worst of the useless **** bags will end up leaving and not play anymore. but there will be others that will actually learn to PvP, and actually PvP in order to get a reward. as for the people who already enjoy PvP, they will still be there PvPing too, regardless of the reward. because they dont care about it anyway.

 

So, basically your solution is to alienate a solid portion of the current PvP community and completely turn away newer players because they don’t play the way you want to play. I’m sure that when you say “performance based weekly” what you mean is you want number farming in regs to be rewarded, because that’s all anyone would do at that point if the numbers were worth more than e-peen points. And, as I and multiple other people have said time and time again, if you want just pure kill-based PvP, go play ranked. It exists for a reason. Let objective players have regs.

 

At any rate, the old system of wins for two and losses for one needs to come back.

 

3. Change the win/loss back to a points system, but increase the ratio to 3:1 or 4:1. You can even increase the number to complete the weekly to 20.

 

Trixxie has said this in multiple threads now, and it remains the most logical and equitable solution to the issue presented so far. I’ve agreed with it and so have others. At this point, I say make it happen, devs.

Ok they brought back the win requirement but you can still be 2-3 weeks without winning a game because your team is so bad and doesn't play objective that makes people discouraged and the disapointment is such high they just don't play pvp at all. You have the problem between discouraging AFKERS and people who try to get their weekly. Even 10 wins is too high and some people here wish 40 win? LOL! Insanity! Plus, some people wanted votekick back! LOL! I can't believe people are tunneling their mind with this. I lost so many games in ranked and still don't want the votekick back And now people think win requirements was the best thing xD

 

The more they keep the ranked like this, the worst is going to happen to pvp. People are gonna get pissed by trying to climb and fail every time, just like the 10 win requirements. This is why I stopped to focus regs and try to get a better rank each day in ranked '' but in vain ''. Trust me this is going in the bad way

 

I’m guessing English isn’t your first language. So I can see why you might have misinterpreted what I said.

 

It would still be 10 wins to complete the daily under my 4:1 points system.

 

But if you have bad luck or purposely AFK to complete the weeklies, the worst it would be is 40 matches.

 

The reality is even with bad luck, the chances are you would win some games and the number of losses required to complete the weekly would be lower than 40.

 

I know 40 seems like a lot, but that would really only ever affect those players who purposely don’t try and win or help their teams in anyway. I don’t have any sympathy for people who afk to complete stuff or expect others to carry them.

 

Under the current system, you get nothing if you lose. You can play 40 matches or 100 matches and if you lose you get zip, nada, zero, nothing towards completing your weekly.

 

Under my proposed system you would at least complete your weekly eventually. And it may takes 10 matches or it may take a maximum of 40 matches, but most likely, it would be somewhere in between.

 

Also, to be clear, I’m not suggesting this be implemented in ranked. Ranked is a different situation and should probably have a “win only” requirement to discourage wintraders.

Edited June 6, 2021 by TrixxieTriss

i really dont see the issue. i never fail to get all 10 points for my weekly usually every tuesday if not wednesday night; i almost always do the entire weekly in a single night, and i am a number farmer who plays solo 90% of the time, i dont have an objective bone in my body. if people are having trouble finishing the weekly there is only one possible explanation and that is that they are the cause of their losses, they are probably the ones who are expecting to be carried, throwing a fit when they aren't carried, and not participating.

 

this is why i suggested a performance based weekly. sure, the worst of the useless **** bags will end up leaving and not play anymore. but there will be others that will actually learn to PvP, and actually PvP in order to get a reward. as for the people who already enjoy PvP, they will still be there PvPing too, regardless of the reward. because they dont care about it anyway.

 

Basically other people carry you, that’s why you complete it. Cause you don’t try to win with number farming. You just hope you have enough objective players to do the work.

 

And while what you do isn’t AFKing, expecting other people to carry you because you refuse to play objectives is only a little bit above what AFKers do with your attitude.

It's pretty funny how Bioware doesn't learn from past mistakes. Originally the PVP weekly counted both wins & losses they then changed it back in 2013 to wins alone. PvP'ers complained - a majority that it wasn't a good idea, there were around 1-2 folks that would oppose and say they loved it - however most of their post seem trollish in nature.

 

Anyways the point is yall did this already and it didn't work so you put the PVP reg weekly back to its 10 wins / 20 losses for the weekly, and yet you repeat history again as it will actually fix something?

 

https://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=656565&highlight=pvp+weekly

Counterproposal: 30 games, +1 for getting a set number of medals that's set by class, and +1 again for winning.

I’m guessing English isn’t your first language. So I can see why you might have misinterpreted what I said.

 

It would still be 10 wins to complete the daily under my 4:1 points system.

 

But if you have bad luck or purposely AFK to complete the weeklies, the worst it would be is 40 matches.

 

The reality is even with bad luck, the chances are you would win some games and the number of losses required to complete the weekly would be lower than 40.

 

I know 40 seems like a lot, but that would really only ever affect those players who purposely don’t try and win or help their teams in anyway. I don’t have any sympathy for people who afk to complete stuff or expect others to carry them.

 

Under the current system, you get nothing if you lose. You can play 40 matches or 100 matches and if you lose you get zip, nada, zero, nothing towards completing your weekly.

 

Under my proposed system you would at least complete your weekly eventually. And it may takes 10 matches or it may take a maximum of 40 matches, but most likely, it would be somewhere in between.

 

Also, to be clear, I’m not suggesting this be implemented in ranked. Ranked is a different situation and should probably have a “win only” requirement to discourage wintraders.

 

-Agreed with you about afkers.

-Who had time to do 40 regs a week?

-Agreed with the ratio for win requirements.

-Agreed with you about afkers.

-Who had time to do 40 regs a week?

-Agreed with the ratio for win requirements.

 

who loses 40 matches in a row?

who loses 40 matches in a row?

 

Someone who doesn't know when to quit.

I personally dislike pvp and find it a chore, but I try on one toon for the new seasons. I originally did not even get the daily or weekly because of the win requirement. I tthen tried to get the daily done if the unranked pvp objective appears, but that got to be too frustrating. I will get the daily now and even the weekly, but I have no illusions about finishing them. The weekly will probably turn into a monthly. I always try my best even though at times I have no clue what I am doing in some circumstances. Another idea if you want people to try is to change the weekly to number of unique medals and not just guarding a node, which is sometimes needed because leaving it unguarded is even worse. Requiring something like 100 medals or so should be reasonable. I do agree that medals should be required to have the war zone count.

I recommend you stop trying. and don't pay the "catch up" stuff. if you do, it will reinforce the idiocy BW has going on here and encourage them to continue "forcing" players into game modes where they don't belong or want to be.

 

there's nothing in those seasonal vendors that you must have, but even so, if you decide to skip only pvp or only gsf mission, I guarantee you'll still be able to afford w/e it is you want.

 

ppl pissing and moaning about being "forced" to play pvp or gsf or ops or ow quests are exaggerating or they're trying to skip multiple modes. like, if I ONLY did heroics and skipped all group content, of course I wouldn't be able to buy the stuff I want from the vendors. but if i ONLY avoid ops, I 100% guarantee I could afford anything the GS vendors sell.

Edited June 13, 2021 by CheesyEZ