Jump to content

lpope

Members
  • Posts

    226
  • Joined

Reputation

10 Good
  1. You can move it just by clicking and dragging on the very border in the regular UI. It is a pain. They should have put a larger area to the left / right that wasn't clickable to make it easier to move.
  2. Yep, Conquest was never competitive. And honestly, I'm not necessarily bothered by the fact that it isn't. At the end of the day, the only benefits of winning a planet are a title and the ownership bonus. Would I like the title, yes. Can I understand others wanting, yes. Do I believe BW should invest the time and effort to restructure Conquest to allow for a more competitive landscape, No. I think it would take significant effort on BW's part to make Conquest competitive. Probably by adding more tiers and somehow balancing or restricting those tiers based on size. But size based on what? Guild Members? Guild Accounts? Number of Members meeting personal Conquest? Active members? It's gets complicated to develop a model to map guilds into tiers. Then should planets rotate through small, medium, large? Maybe. This would probably be the easiest change to increase accessibility, but without the balancing on size, large guilds would just invade small planets and still lockout small guilds. At the end of the day, what would you accomplish? More people getting the title? Doesn't that devalue the titles? Seems like a lot of effort to get minimal benefit. Especially from a business point of view. I really don't see how making Conquest more competitive would drive subs or cartel coin purchases.
  3. It directly undercuts your "Gravity" assertion in the OP that just because something provides the fastest / most efficient means of getting conquest that people will gravitate towards it. While that may be true in some cases, I believe the effect is muted. Except for those guilds that truly are capable of winning a planet, points beyond your personal target / guild target are wasted. On my server, on normal conquest weeks that is like 3 - 6 guilds which probably equates to 2 - 3 thousand players which is probably an extremely small subset of the server population. The rest only care about meeting the target as points after that are useless because they have no chance to win a planet. So yes, the change is largely irrelevant except that vast majority of people can meet conquest target however they want without tedious planning or coordination, while those who actual can conquer a planet do what they have always done, do the tasks that award points the fastest. I'm not opposed to boosting the rewards for some activities like PvP or OPS / FP, but there are other considerations beyond time investment. For example, OPS and FPs also reward a lot more credits and gear compared to planetary missions and I think that needs to factor into the equation. In any case, I've found that the changes have not significantly altered my group play. I still get conquest on my guilded toons via FPs. What has changed is that I play more overall, specifically my unguilded toons. On them, I do use the planetary missions to get conquest, so overall I'm more invested in the game which is a benefit to BioWare. If the changes to conquest had not been made, I'd be playing the same amount of group play as before at best or I would have canceled my sub at worst as the game was getting stale.
  4. I just play the game. Typically, Vet & MM FPs on my 8 or so guilded toons and then Heroics / Star Fortress runs on all my lvl 75 toons (guilded & unguilded). I'm still trying to clear out all the KOTFE stuff out of the mission logs, recruit companions and max influence the 4 leaders. I'm *somewhat* of a completionist. All my lvl 75 toons have their set bonus, so I just sell the gear drops for credits and sell the gear bought with tech frags. Beyond that I just sell level 10 augment components and the few level 11 augment kits that crit. I make about 1.4 Million / day playing about 2 to 3 hours a day, on average. I don't really buy anything, so it just kind of accumulates. If I really wanted to make a ton of credits, I could probably sell a lot of materials and play the GTN like I did years ago. But that really no longer holds much interest anymore.
  5. Another thing to consider is that group content lovers generally also have access to these simplistic CQ tasks. It's not as if they can't do them as well. And some of the changes to group content CQ reward were what I would consider alignment with other group content rather than intended as nerfs. For example removing the infinitely repeatable task. For a long time, the initial completion of a task granted more rewards and subsequent runs granted reduced rewards. I think that is appropriate and at least partially explains the change to the rewards. Now I also think boosting the reward for the initial completion may be warranted. As an aside, I got 17 characters to personal goal this week which is more than double than what I've done since 6.0 dropped. I completed 7 or 8 of my characters exactly as prior to the patch, via FPs. The rest of the characters were done via the newer CQ tasks. Now someone might say, we'll look you did less group content. Not true, I wouldn't have done group content on the additional 10 characters. I played more hours than in previous weeks. I have plenty of other things I can do including other games. It's not a simple case that I just allocate all my leisure time in SWTOR doing various content.
  6. I don't necessarily think time investment is the only deciding factor for conquest point rewards. Imagine a scenario where BW creates a task that requires clicking something 200 times, but with a 30 second cooldown between clicks. So that task takes approximately 1 hour 40 mins. Should it get the same reward as a MM operation? I would say no. It's a contrived example, but there are some fairly wide ranges in completion time in group content, so it would be difficult to balance around time without adding additional categories to content. There is a reason people spam HS and RR for example. I think there needs to be multiple criteria that determines conquest points, one being time investment, another being skill / difficulty and perhaps others such as incentivizing areas of the game that are underutilized.
  7. Without knowing the landscape that BW has, it's hard to determine that. In any case, I'm almost certain BW wouldn't need beefy home PCs to combat or research cheating because that is going to be done by analyzing activity logs. They probably have systems in place that automatically do that and spit out summarized data or would be querying the underlying database, both of which would most likely not be performed on the client. Now if the artists & modelers didn't have beefy laptops to take home, new content might get delayed, but that is another thing.
  8. Overall, I like the conquest changes. I think some of the objective could use some minor adjustment. Other than that, I'd like to see the following: Add an option to suppress the objective completion pop-up or allow us to configure size / location in the interface editor Add more objective searching / filtering. I like that you can sort by "Type", but I think the objectives really need to be a table with various attributes that we can sort on similar to the guild roster. For example, I'd like to be able to group all the Bonus Series together, but the sort by type groups doesn't do that. I'd also like to be able to sort by location(how they are named, that's kind of already there). I just think a table with columns might be the most flexible to find what you want.
  9. I feel like the pop-up is half finished. It's weird, some objective completions show it, some don't. I thought it was just the legacy wide ones that popped up, but that isn't the case because I get it on the Renown Rankup. I haven't figured out how it works and what it's purpose is. I was also surprised it wasn't available to configure in the interface editor. While I'm not bothered by it yet, I definitely advocate either for an option to suppress it completely in the options or make it so I can change the scale and location in the interface editor. Or both options.
  10. No, I really don't because the conquest change has not altered my game play behavior. I play the content that I enjoy. There are probably tons of folks like me that aren't all that interested in accumulating the most conquest points in the most efficient manner possible. Perhaps it's because the guilds I'm in are only occasionally competitive in winning a planet. But that was true before the change and after.
  11. While I do think some of the simpler objectives are a little silly, and I would perhaps slightly nerf their value, overall I like the changes. It's added a lot of variety to the tasks. It's also made it so I don't necessarily have to plan how to get conquest. It just seems to happen. I typically get personal conquest targets on 7 or so characters a week primarily by running FPs and that is what I did last night. The queues still seemed to pop just as before, so I haven't seen any impact on the group content I run yet. It's anecdotal, but that's all I have and we'll see if that changes over time as the changes become more widely known. So I don't see the wheels falling off at this point in time, and quite honestly don't expect much to change. I do expect more people and guilds meet the threshold merely because more points are accumulated.
  12. It's really simple if you assume the same health pool with no health regen. It gets complicated because people don't use the acronyms or terminology correctly. In your example, your 3 minute average DPS is exactly 2/3 the 2 minute average DPS. Assuming the same health pool H. You have two equations. DPS being average damage per second or the total health or damage done over the length of the encounter. H / 120 seconds = Y DPS H / 180 seconds = Z DPS So if you divide the two equations, the H's cancel and you get (1 / 120) / (1 / 180) = Y / Z Simplifying, you get. 3 / 2 = Y / Z Then rearranging, you get. Z = 2 / 3 Y Or in other words, it the ratio of the encounter times.
  13. I use just Windows Defender and I have never experienced this. That's across multiple devices over the past 8 years. I'd be concerned that something else is turning Defender off.
  14. I think you are missing the point. The ideal would be for BioWare to do a better job at mission design, mob placement and area layout such that all missions are relatively the same regarding the time / effort vs reward. While I don't expect BioWare to revamp the missions on Onderon to do that, the next best option would be to reduce the number of missions so you can avoid the one or two missions that are out of balance. Also, coming back the second day to do the easier dailies is just a cop out. It's one of my complaints for Iokath where it is enforced. By suggesting that, you are essentially giving BioWare a reason not to critique their design or listen to the players' feedback.
  15. I also find (found) Iokath to be poorly designed. The concept of the area and the story is fine, but the layout and mission design is just horrible. I think it is a perfect example of how not to design a daily area. The simplest adjustment would just be to reduce the number of missions required for the weekly. Beyond that, it would probably take significant work to address the issues. The mobs are not positioned well, the missions are spread out between personal instances and a global world, the respawn timers need lowered, there aren't clear indicators on where things are and more. All of this results in a daily area that is overly frustrating. I got the rep and never went back. On the flip side, I still enjoy going back to pretty much all the other daily areas with the possible exception of Makeb. At least for all the other areas, it's relatively easy to come up with a flow that doesn't make you want to quit. What I find weird for Onderon is that Imp side has 11 quests, while Pub side only has 10. So on Imp Side, I normally ignored the crappy one in the tomb. I think they should drop the weekly requirement for Onderon down to 8 though so you can choose not to do the crappy quests.
×
×
  • Create New...