Concerning Mega-Guilds and the Conquest System.

[ivanhedgehog]

Really?

 

I guess we should make sure that any Olympian who wins any event cannot participate in any other events in that Olympics or any of the next three Olympics. After all, it's not fair that the best athletes have a huge advantage over the little guy. The little guy should be able to win that gold, too, even if we have to keep banning everyone better than him until he does.

 

most olympians compete in 1 or maybe 2 olympics. In most sports you cant keep up at that level. and there is a sytem like that, we dont let them complete in another olympics for 4 years.

[ivanhedgehog]

Honestly, the best action is to LET THE CONTENT LAUNCH FIRST so we can actually experience it with REAL server guilds and REAL server populations, instead of pretending we know everything already.

 

if it launches without comment it will never change..this is bioware we are talking about. Uless they come out with a cm unlock they can sell.

[Aries_cz]

I confess that I haven't paid much attention to the Conquest issues. My Guild is not exactly small. Not if you look at our roster.

[including "offline" members ... if you ignore the dates they last logged in and how many are designated as someone's alt.]

But I can count on one hand the number of players who actually log in each week for any appreciable time. It seems almost everyone has "taken a break" or "is busy in the summer" or "am just trying this new game ... seriously, I'll be back" or "am dealing with personal stuff" the past few months. So ... it's not likely that our friendly but dwindling band of renown will conquer anything. /teardrop

 

Rather than waste my time researching developer posts and videos and previous threads to glean the nuances of Conquest for myself, I'd rather waste everyone else's time by asking them to spoon-feed me select cutlets of information in response to the following questions about how the system is expected to work so I can better understand the issues and debate in this thread:

 

1. Is this Top 10 Leader Board thingy per planet conquered or for all planets? I.e., if there are 8 planets to be conquered, is there a single list of the Top 10 Guilds, or could it be as many as 80 Guilds (assuming each Guild only conquers one planet)?

 

2. I take it the Top 10 is determined each month? (Grammatically, the only proper answer to this question is, "How should I know? I can't read Thoronmir's mind!" I realize I could have just edited the question to ask, "Is the Top 10 determined each month?" But I decided that is far too explicit and concise for the internet.

 

3. How is the Top 10 determined? From the comments in this thread, it seems like there is a 35k-whatever target for each character, and the Guild with the most members who meet that goal wins ...? /quizzicalshrug

 

4. Would it mean that I'm too much of a college football fan if I admit that, upon reading the OP, my first thought was that all these prophesied "Mega-Guilds" are like the "Super-Conferences" we seem lunging towards, and all the "small Guilds" are the Division 2 (technically now called FCS) of SWTOR? Because FCS has its own championship. Maybe an equitable solution to any actual inequality we see after release is to create "tiers" of Top 10 lists based on Guild size ...?

 

If the OP's prediction proves accurate (in this case, OP meaning "Oracle Post"), the effect would be that some players would be cutting off others from certain rewards. While such results result every time you PvP, in the OP's scenario of a Category 10 Guild-nado (you know ... like a Sharknado ... but with giant guilds), it would like the same players winning every darn time in PvP (maybe that happens too). I'll be curious to see how this aspect of the game works in actual practice.

 

TL;DR: READ THE DARN POST! I spent time writing it!

 

1. Top 10 is per planet. There is a different amount of planets in each event. However, one guild can compete only for one planet

2. Top 10 is determined for each event. Event run for 6 days (not sure if there is a time between them)

3. It is determined by simply adding all points guild earned

4. No idea about football (nor American handegg), but the Top 10 here is from all guild that commit their ships into orbit of that particular planet

[Thoronmir]

1. Top 10 is per planet. There is a different amount of planets in each event. However, one guild can compete only for one planet

2. Top 10 is determined for each event. Event run for 6 days (not sure if there is a time between them)

3. It is determined by simply adding all points guild earned

4. No idea about football (nor American handegg), but the Top 10 here is from all guild that commit their ships into orbit of that particular planet

Appreciate the responses, but what I really took from all this this is, yes, I probably am too much of a fan of college football.

[Sabatus]

Nope the guild reward is give to you just if you are in a guild and reach the 35k points.

 

Source please? As I understood from the stream, only the guilds who get into top 10 get the guild rewards. So, if you didn't, thanks for your effort. I'm really interested in how this will play out on live servers, especially to see how many guilds are out there and how big they are ... right now I'm afraid there will rarely if ever be a point for smaller guilds to put effort into conquests since for whatever effort you put in, you will get nothing whatsoever (guildwise ie ship unlock tokens).

[DarthDymond]

Nope the guild reward is give to you just if you are in a guild and reach the 35k points. So conquer a planet is useless right now. Just to show off you are big.

I think there's some confusion over the difference between Personal and Guild Conquests here. The Personal Conquest rewards will be granted to anyone and everyone who hits 35k points. Guild Conquest rewards are limited to the top 10 per planet.

Edited August 7, 2014 by DarthDymond

[Infernixx]

I think there's some confusion over the difference between Personal and Guild Conquests here. The Personal Conquest rewards will be granted to anyone and everyone who hits 35k points. Guild Conquest rewards are limited to the top 10 per planet.

 

The Guild Conquest rewards(only going to those that place on a Leader Board) is the only reliable place to get Encryptions, aside from the PVP-oriented Commanders and crafting them. You do not get an Encryption for Personal Conquest.

[Elminster_cs]

I think there's some confusion over the difference between Personal and Guild Conquests here. The Personal Conquest rewards will be granted to anyone and everyone who hits 35k points. Guild Conquest rewards are limited to the top 10 per planet.

 

A ok, well so about 30 guilds will take it, well pretty fair in any case. Yes smaller guild will be cutted out in any way, but is better than nothing.

 

Thanks for the information

[youngones]

Provided I have understood the system correctly (I've not been on the PTS), isn't that like 100 guilds that would get rewards anyway (given there are 10+ planets in game), or are only 2-3 planets conquerable during any given conquest event (meaning 20-30 guilds would get rewards)?

 

Regardless, its not only the top guild that gets the reward. If a guild is large enough to cakewalk the conquest that's fine, they earned it as its difficult to run a guild of sufficient size (and not collapse upon itself), but smaller guilds are hardly out of the running for earning rewards (unless they are unlucky enough to pick a planet that has 10 large guilds competing for the same planet - unlikely on Red Eclipse by what I have seen).

 

So your guild may not get to 'control' the planet, but all the controllers gain is the ability to use walker mounts and orbital flybys on the planet they have conquered, so your not missing much really. People really need to calm down with the cries of doom! LOL

Edited August 7, 2014 by youngones

[Ratajack]

Did you just, even if unintentionally, compare playing SWTOR to the Olympics?

 

Yes, I did.

 

Although the magnitude differs, the principle is the same.

 

The OP wants to punish success in order to reward mediocrity. That is the core of the OP's demand or, if you prefer, "suggestion".

 

"Oh, you won already? Go sit on the sidelines. You can't play again until Little Johnny, who claims it is unfair that he can't win against you, says you can."

[Ratajack]

most olympians compete in 1 or maybe 2 olympics. In most sports you cant keep up at that level. and there is a sytem like that, we dont let them complete in another olympics for 4 years.

 

The OP wants to ban any guild that wins in week one from even competing during the next three competitions.

 

Your statement of "we dont let them complete in another olympics for 4 years" is a far cry from banning any winner from the next three Olympic competitions. How can you ban someone from competing when there is NO competition from which to be banned? That would be like suspending an NFL player for three weeks in March.

[kevinatorz]

Provided I have understood the system correctly (I've not been on the PTS), isn't that like 100 guilds that would get rewards anyway (given there are 10+ planets in game), or are only 2-3 planets conquerable during any given conquest event (meaning 20-30 guilds would get rewards)?

 

Regardless, its not only the top guild that gets the reward. If a guild is large enough to cakewalk the conquest that's fine, they earned it as its difficult to run a guild of sufficient size (and not collapse upon itself), but smaller guilds are hardly out of the running for earning rewards (unless they are unlucky enough to pick a planet that has 10 large guilds competing for the same planet - unlikely on Red Eclipse by what I have seen).

 

So your guild may not get to 'control' the planet, but all the controllers gain is the ability to use walker mounts and orbital flybys on the planet they have conquered, so your not missing much really. People really need to calm down with the cries of doom! LOL

I just watch the swtor live stream today on guild flag ships. And yes they did say that EVERY planet is conquestable.

 

So I believe we could expect there to be about 100 guilds to hold a 1-10 spot on the leader boards for at least one planet. Also the guild flag ship is locked in to a planet for 3 days once they move to a planet. So yes this thread is mute.

 

Fortunately, for the sound of this thread most people are in favor of the current system. And I personally believe this is the absolute best thing that has happened to SWTOR sense launch!

 

Edit: Ok so there are 15 planets available for conquest, So there should be about 150 guilds that can place 1-10 on a leader board!

Edited August 8, 2014 by kevinatorz

[Infernixx]

I just watch the swtor live stream today on guild flag ships. And yes they did say that EVERY planet is conquestable.

 

So I believe we could expect there to be about 100 guilds to hold a 1-10 spot on the leader boards for at least one planet. Also the guild flag ship is locked in to a planet for 3 days once they move to a planet. So yes this thread is mute.

 

Fortunately, for the sound of this thread most people are in favor of the current system. And I personally believe this is the absolute best thing that has happened to SWTOR sense launch!

 

Edit: Ok so there are 15 planets available for conquest, So there should be about 150 guilds that can place 1-10 on a leader board!

 

Do some reading, some weeks only 3 planets are up for conquest. And has always been said, I hope I'm wrong and nothing bad happens. But, if it does, and I think it will, then at least I'll be able to say that I tried to do something to stop it before it happened.

 

And the saying is 'the point is moot.' Not 'mute.'

[markcymru]

Instead of adding the points within each guild and then ranking the guild by points TOTAL, why not simply rank them by points AVERAGE? That is, divide the points accumulated by number of members in the guild . Surely that would even the playing field?

 

In fact, now that I think about it, it might even tilt it towards the smaller guilds -- if say all 10 members of the small guild were dead keen and showed up every time, then their average would be better than a 100-member guild that had a lot of dabblers.

 

of course, then the larger guilds would female-cat about it !

[Trigon]

The OP wants to punish success in order to reward mediocrity.

Are you actually contending that an intimate guild size is mediocrity? I consider our medium-small guild and the 10 years of friendship we've established as wildly successful. In a system not designed to heavily favor megaguilds we managed to win Nym's Scavenger Hunt on Intrepid.

 

Joining a massive guild isn't the equivalent of success, but it could be seen as the path of least resistance. Having said that, I don't fault the larger guilds and accept that maintaining a modest member count comes with limitations.

 

I'd like to see an opt-in scaling solution. Something like "our guild will never exceed 100 unique members". So our grind is reduced and heck even the rewards could be scaled back too. 'One size fits all' generally indicates a poor product.

 

Instead of adding the points within each guild and then ranking the guild by points TOTAL, why not simply rank them by points AVERAGE? That is, divide the points accumulated by number of members in the guild .

Sorry I missed this, I find this solution even more attractive than my own. /signed! Edited August 8, 2014 by Trigon
added quote

[ThorgrimLutgen]

Is there something inherently wrong with six people working as a group on Guild Conquest and competing with the large number of other 6-man Guild groups that are doing the same thing?

 

Is there something terrible with clearing the Mega-sized guilds out of the way early in the month so that the rest of the guilds can compete, too?

 

Yes.

 

The people in the mega guilds are paying to play the same content as you are.

 

Being beaten in the conquest table is one thing, being locked out of it is a different issue altogether.

[Infernixx]

Yes.

 

The people in the mega guilds are paying to play the same content as you are.

 

Being beaten in the conquest table is one thing, being locked out of it is a different issue altogether.

 

Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

[ThorgrimLutgen]

Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

 

You are correct.

 

It is my opinion that everyone paying to play this game, should be able to play it as much as the next person.

 

Choosing what type of content you like is fine, I pvp and craft exclusively, that is my choice to not run pve scripted encounters, I find them boring.

 

I do not believe for one minute though that there are people out there who think that I should not be given the choice to do that content.

 

That is exactly the same as what you are advocating in locking out "mega-guilds".

 

Also remember this, "mega-guilds" are generally full of less than mega players and rarely have the necessary affiliation to work together.

 

However, I would not be surprised if you thought differently.

[JediMasterSLC]

Also remember this, "mega-guilds" are generally full of less than mega players and rarely have the necessary affiliation to work together.

 

I think you mean "coordination" lol.

[JacksonMo]

Remember, most "mega-guilds" are generally full of less than mega players.

 

These places will take any old crap into their ranks.

 

Quality will be far more important than quantity when it comes to stopping them taking over the planets.

 

Personally I have no interest in taking over any planets, but I have a lot of interest in stopping other people. This could be an excellent owPVP idea, then again, could be a pile of crap.

 

You win the dumb quote of the week award. If you want to join a guild that offers a variety of chances to do end-game content, you won't find that in a tiny guild. And you won't find any of the casual players from "mega-guilds" taking over planets. It'll be the progression raid teams (PLURAL) who take down nightmare content on a weekly basis.

[Elminster_cs]

Instead of adding the points within each guild and then ranking the guild by points TOTAL, why not simply rank them by points AVERAGE? That is, divide the points accumulated by number of members in the guild . Surely that would even the playing field?

 

In fact, now that I think about it, it might even tilt it towards the smaller guilds -- if say all 10 members of the small guild were dead keen and showed up every time, then their average would be better than a 100-member guild that had a lot of dabblers.

 

of course, then the larger guilds would female-cat about it !

 

This is cool idea, really really a easy and simple solution. But there is a problem, in the new log system you are able to see the conquest point of every player, so for example at the last day you can kick out people with low point to increase your avarage. But you can solve the problem leaving the number of "playining character" and "conquest point earned" do not change if someone leave or join at mid stage of an event.

[JediMasterSLC]

Instead of adding the points within each guild and then ranking the guild by points TOTAL, why not simply rank them by points AVERAGE? That is, divide the points accumulated by number of members in the guild . Surely that would even the playing field?

 

In fact, now that I think about it, it might even tilt it towards the smaller guilds -- if say all 10 members of the small guild were dead keen and showed up every time, then their average would be better than a 100-member guild that had a lot of dabblers.

 

of course, then the larger guilds would female-cat about it !

 

Bad idea: guilds would kick all but their most hardcore players to keep their average high. I would like to see some diminishing returns for contributions to larger guilds though.

[Elminster_cs]

Bad idea: guilds would kick all but their most hardcore players to keep their average high. I would like to see some diminishing returns for contributions to larger guilds though.

 

And they will kick hardcore for? Some ugly mount and an achievement? I don't think so. If you "lock" at the beginning of the week the number of the player that a guild have in the event and you still count kick player you have the problem solved.

 

Or they can set some squadron dependig on how much player you have (still you must lock at the beginning of the event)

 

Or they can give key (bronze?) to player that will partecipate in the event and give contribution to the guild setting a max (20 or 30). This can be fair, and also add even more strategy to the system.

[JediMasterSLC]

And they will kick hardcore for? Some ugly mount and an achievement? I don't think so. If you "lock" at the beginning of the week the number of the player that a guild have in the event and you still count kick player you have the problem solved.

 

Or they can set some squadron dependig on how much player you have (still you must lock at the beginning of the event)

 

Or they can give key (bronze?) to player that will partecipate in the event and give contribution to the guild setting a max (20 or 30). This can be fair, and also add even more strategy to the system.

 

You're not getting it. If they were to take the average points contributed by guild members, then many guildies would be detracting from the guild's status by doing missions, rather than contributing to it. That's a terrible system.

[Elminster_cs]

You're not getting it. If they were to take the average points contributed by guild members, then many guildies would be detracting from the guild's status by doing missions, rather than contributing to it. That's a terrible system.

 

yes, but if you design the system correctly, with some math, you can see that this will be not happen.

 

If you count just account at the beginning of the week, and the you lock the number of course you have to divide it for that number. So every single point will increase the ammount of the avarage.

 

Main problem in that case is that inactive mates for that week will lower the ammount. But this system is in any case more fair. And can be even more if you can give a "weekly bronze key" to the one that will partecipate in the next event.

 

You can mix these kind of thing to tune the fairness of the whole thing.