Relevant PTS threads for GSF fans

[Nemarus]

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=755985

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=755990

 

In short, it looks like there will be some repeatable conquest objectives based around completing GSF matches--and better yet, it looks like it's a pretty cost/time efficient way of earning conquest points. This is a good thing--we want incentive for more people to queue.

 

Unfortunately, since the reward is only for "completion" of matches, it means that we could see whole guilds queuing for GSF and then throwing a match as quickly as possible, in order to farm conquest points.

 

PvP warzones face the same risk, as they also have a simple and repeatable "completion" objective.

 

I've personally suggested that the repeatable objective should require X number of medals earned (cumulative across multiple matches). X should be tuned such that veteran GSFers can get that many in one match with legit effort, but new players might have to complete two matches. So maybe 8ish?

 

Why medals instead of victories? Because you want people to try hard even if they know their team is going to lose. Otherwise you're back to the losing team throwing the match as soon as they know they can't win.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Nemarus

[Itkovian]

Excellent suggestion. But hopefully there won't be so many queuing just to lose. After all, winning is more fun.

[Mathemagica]

Excellent suggestion. But hopefully there won't be so many queuing just to lose. After all, winning is more fun.

 

While I agree with you, a guild that queues for points in galactic conquest only sees those points as a win, not the win of the match.

If I get this right, you suggest that earned medals stack over several matches. So if you make 4 medals in two consecutive matches, you'll have completed the quest. The idea is very nice. I just worry that the code of the game might not be made to count earned medals beyond a single match. I hope that isn't the case though, because the way it currently works on PTS will very likely hurt the quality of Warzones and GSF matches severely.

[phalczen]

While I agree with you, a guild that queues for points in galactic conquest only sees those points as a win, not the win of the match.

If I get this right, you suggest that earned medals stack over several matches. So if you make 4 medals in two consecutive matches, you'll have completed the quest. The idea is very nice. I just worry that the code of the game might not be made to count earned medals beyond a single match. I hope that isn't the case though, because the way it currently works on PTS will very likely hurt the quality of Warzones and GSF matches severely.

 

The game already tracks your medals intra- and inter-match for achievements and for your personal performance scoreboard, so I would bet Nem's suggestion could work. I'd support it.

[DamascusAdontise]

As it stands right now, people can suicide to get the match over quickly. And while this does happen its not wide spread, and its not a coordinated effort (usually 1-2 unhappy people)

 

I doubt that any serious guild, especially a pvp or gsf guild would ever consider willfully throwing matches to get them over faster. IMO its far more likely that a coordinated team would kill faster or 3 cap in order to get the match done more quickly.

 

At any rate I think its a tad paranoid to say that this will hurt the queues at this point. IMO we will likely pick up a more consistent queue during most of the day, and on servers where the pops are already fast im guessing instant queues during conquest times / prime time. Despite the perhaps aggressive crowd it will draw in is a good thing. This environment might not be very noob friendly, but keep in mind there will likely be a large influx of new players keen to do their part for conquest.

 

I am just happy they included GSF at all in the strongholds expansion, and this inclusion could easily be a catalyst for more players to join up. At the end of the day this is a good change IMO.

Edited August 6, 2014 by DamascusAdontise

[Nemarus]

As it stands right now, people can suicide to get the match over quickly. And while this does happen its not wide spread, and its not a coordinated effort (usually 1-2 unhappy people)

 

I doubt that any serious guild, especially a pvp or gsf guild would ever consider willfully throwing matches to get them over faster. IMO its far more likely that a coordinated team would kill faster or 3 cap in order to get the match done more quickly.

 

At any rate I think its a tad paranoid to say that this will hurt the queues at this point. IMO we will likely pick up a more consistent queue during most of the day, and on servers where the pops are already fast im guessing instant queues during conquest times / prime time. Despite the perhaps aggressive crowd it will draw in is a good thing. This environment might not be very noob friendly, but keep in mind there will likely be a large influx of new players keen to do their part for conquest.

 

I am just happy they included GSF at all in the strongholds expansion, and this inclusion could easily be a catalyst for more players to join up. At the end of the day this is a good change IMO.

 

It's not the serious PvP or GSF guilds that are the concern. It's the serious guilds who do not give a crap about PvP or GSF and would happily trample over it if it proves to be the optimal way to decorate their flagship.

 

And by trample I mean queue and then immediately do everything they can to lose the match as quickly as possible.

 

There has to be some distinction between winning and losing, in terms of conquest tokens, that makes throwing a match not optimal.

 

I think conquest points should just be given per GSF following the same rules that are used for XP and credit rewards. As far as I can tell, those are mostly based on duration of the match (meaning no incentive to shorten the match), with bonuses for medals and team victory.

[Mathemagica]

Based on the title of this thread, I would like to point towards this thread which is about the fact that the GSF starfighter decorations are rescaled models of the actual starfighters.

I assume that most GSF fans that have an interest in having a stronghold will want to place at least one starfighter in it and it should look like an actual starfighter (1:1 scale) not a shrinked replica, so I recommend checking it out.

[Danylia]

I've personally suggested that the repeatable objective should require X number of medals earned (cumulative across multiple matches). X should be tuned such that veteran GSFers can get that many in one match with legit effort, but new players might have to complete two matches. So maybe 8ish?

I just want to point out the (obvious) fact that 8 medals in Domination is not the same as 8 medals in TDM (well strictly speaking it is, but you get the meaning). In Domination it is a very reasonable number, and even the completely new players can get a medal or two in a match there simply by defending a satellite or being there when it flips (or shooting down turrets). In TDM however it requires quite a focused effort, and in some (lopsided) matches it can easily happen that even a veteran won't get the 8 medals simply because the match was too short to do 30k damage/8 kills, and/or because other veterans on his team were killing the opposition too fast. In the end, it could even lead to the fact that people start to abandon a match en masse as soon as they learn it's a TMD, because "Domination is easier to farm medals".

[Nemarus]

I just want to point out the (obvious) fact that 8 medals in Domination is not the same as 8 medals in TDM (well strictly speaking it is, but you get the meaning). In Domination it is a very reasonable number, and even the completely new players can get a medal or two in a match there simply by defending a satellite or being there when it flips (or shooting down turrets). In TDM however it requires quite a focused effort, and in some (lopsided) matches it can easily happen that even a veteran won't get the 8 medals simply because the match was too short to do 30k damage/8 kills, and/or because other veterans on his team were killing the opposition too fast. In the end, it could even lead to the fact that people start to abandon a match en masse as soon as they learn it's a TMD, because "Domination is easier to farm medals".

 

These are good points.

 

I've since suggested that Warzones and GSF should reward conquest points the same way they reward XP and credits.

 

At the end of a completed match, you get X conquest points--X being determined largely by match duration, but with modest bonuses for personal performance and team victory.

[Luneward]

I'd rather not scream 'The sky is falling' until it actually does. I predict this might only ever become an issue on weeks where gsf gets bonus points for planet invasion. Otherwise ground pvp would be a more likely place for this to happen - though less so since you don't get any rewards at all in ground pvp if you don't participate. Not to mention one of the objectives is to WIN ten warzones.

 

While it might be an efficient way to farm conquest points, you really don't get any other benefit aside from a handful of credits. Whereas taking your team to take out the raid of the week will net 8-16k conquest points for not much more time investment.

 

I'd rather not put in some arbitrary mechanic that would penalize newcomers as much or more than coordinated fail-teams. We'd like more people to queue up, and I don't care for any mechanic that says: "Sorry you don't get full rewards because you're just not good enough yet." We get enough of that already through GSFs steep learning curve.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Luneward

[TrinityLyre]

In short, it looks like there will be some repeatable conquest objectives based around completing GSF matches--and better yet, it looks like it's a pretty cost/time efficient way of earning conquest points. This is a good thing--we want incentive for more people to queue.

Agreed. Right now there's little incentive, and that's kind of sad.

 

Unfortunately, <snip>

Don't give tards on the internet ideas. Ever.

 

All-in-all, I'm very happy to see lots of PTS feedback and dev response to it. I can only hope the next PTS patch addresses even more complaints.