Devs: Can we please have the "Medal of Bravery" conquest objective every week?

[Nemarus]

Normally, Conquest only offers two GSF-related objectives:

 

Conquer the Skies (complete a GSF match)

Critical Missions (complete the weekly)

 

However, there are two Conquest events, Clash in Hyperspace and Total Galactic War, that include these two extra GSF objectives:

 

Dominate the Stars (win 10 GSF matches)

Medal of Bravery (earn 50 GSF medals)

 

Is there any way we could get both of this second pair to be available in every conquest event? Or at least Medal of Bravery?

 

Without them, there's really very little incentive to play GSF well--you are rewarded the same whether you win or lose, and regardless of whether you contribute]. Someone could just queue up to AFK or self-destruct in order to farm conquest points, and they'd get the same reward as a GSF-fan playing to win.

 

But with Dominate the Stars and Medal of Bravery, there is incentive to play well and play to win. They finally offer an out-of-GSF reward for playing GSF well--something we've been asking for since GSF launched.

 

I understand that if GSF always has four objectives, it might have an unfair advantage in conquest vs. other playstyles. If that is a concern, then can we at least swap out Critical Missions and replace it with Medal of Bravery? Functionally they are very similar: they both reward good play with faster completion, but they do not require victories in order to be completed.

 

Medal of Bravery at least requires earnest participation though, and cannot be completed by AFKing or self-destructing.

 

Similar changes were made early on to Warzone conquest objectives, to incentivize dedicated playing-to-win. GSF needs to have the same conquest rewards, or else we see conquest farmers simply self-destructing over and over to end the match as quickly as possible.

 

Thanks

Edited March 25, 2015 by Nemarus

[MaximilianPower]

/signed

 

I don't care all that much about conquest in general, but the level of play this week has been noticeably better than I've seen of late (at least, I think that's the case).

[Zoom_VI]

Normally, Conquest only offers two GSF-related objectives:

 

By normally, you mean last week. There is no standard at all. Just look at warzones, last week it had three objectives all similar to the current GSF ones, this week there is - one - objective for it.

[Icebergy]

How do we know what "normally'' is when its only been out for two weeks and the thing you are requesting has been there 50% of the time?

[Nemarus]

By normally, you mean last week. There is no standard at all. Just look at warzones, last week it had three objectives all similar to the current GSF ones, this week there is - one - objective for it.

 

How do we know what "normally'' is when its only been out for two weeks and the thing you are requesting has been there 50% of the time?

 

Many of the Conquest events were previewed on PTS. All have been datamined. We know from data mining that no changes have been made on LIVE as compared to the PTS. There is no mystery here.

 

Of the 14 events, 2 have all four GSF objectives. The remaining 12 have only the two queue-and-self-destruct objectives.

 

Of those 12, 4 of them do not offer any planetary invasion multiplier for the GSF objectives. This is worse than any other playstyle. Warzones, crafting, PvE--none of them have more than 2 events without a planetary invasion multiplier.

 

Yes, this is a great week for GSF. And after that, we will get one more good week for GSF when Total Galactic War (the other event with all 4 objectives) comes. But apart from that, prepare for 8 weeks of self-destructers (because there are only "participation" objectives) and 4 weeks of GSFers being entirely cut out of conquest (because of having no invasion multiplier).

 

It is a completely reasonable request to make that future GSF conquest objectives reward skilled play more than they reward queue-and-self-destruct. Wishful thinking will not get us anywhere. When we see a problem, and we see a solution, we should call for it.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Nemarus

[TrinityLyre]

This is a mandatory addition to the game if you want GSF to remain relevant, fun and interesting.

 

ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION.

Edited August 27, 2014 by TrinityLyre

[Caernos]

Agreed!

[Kintosi]

One again, Nemarus has the right idea. However, i would be in favor of keeping the original two achievements intact. It is important to rewards the effort of newer players, win or lose. If a two shipper just constantly gets ROFLstomped by a premade, they will get frustrated and give up on winning 10 games, or earning 50 medals. A good/experienced GSF player can rack up 10-16 medals a match, but a newbie often only gets like 4 or 5. I doubt a new player will stick around for 10+ matches of ROFL stomp a week without rewards for simply participating.

 

That being said, the two new achievements should definitely yield higher rewards than the original two.

[Armonddd]

One again, Nemarus has the right idea. However, i would be in favor of keeping the original two achievements intact.

 

I think Shayd meant, keep the success-rewarding objectives every week in addition to the current "grind 'em out" objectives. I agree with that, because GSF has startlingly few options for Conquest (and those that do exist are exploitable).

[StrixHiraeth]

/agree with OP.

[DamascusAdontise]

/signed 50 medals and 10 wins should be every week. Complete GSF match should be as well IMO. This at least would allow GSF toons to contribute / participate in conquest on a regular basis.

[BrianDavion]

Devs, you said you wanted to structure warzone bonuses to favor victory? guess what? the OP has just done your work for you, impliment this for GSF and warzones and you DO make it favor those whom actually try

[Shoraan]

I support this idea for GSF and warzones. One achievement for number of wins and another one for medals really gives an incentive to try harder.

[wvwraith]

Agree with Nemarus. If you take away points for just showing up for a match and reward it for winning each match(this goes for ground pvp too), bam, you get rid of the people sitting there to earn points for matches and ones self destructing in tdms to get participation points. What about conquest points for kill numbers and objective points? I know objectives would favor bombers though...

[BrianDavion]

Agree with Nemarus. If you take away points for just showing up for a match and reward it for winning each match(this goes for ground pvp too), bam, you get rid of the people sitting there to earn points for matches and ones self destructing in tdms to get participation points. What about conquest points for kill numbers and objective points? I know objectives would favor bombers though...

 

I think there should be something for participation to enchourage people who aren't all that great to try but definatly adding more things to enchourage trying is good too

[philwil]

What we have run into, at least on Harbinger, is that guilds will purposefully tank GSF games to make them go quicker.

 

Their members continuously self destruct.

 

I've only seen this with one guild.

 

Watching them self destruct in such numbers, if you are on their team, your jaw just drops.

 

Nothing we can do about it either.

 

Disheartening to those that want to win.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I think there should be something for participation to enchourage people who aren't all that great to try but definatly adding more things to enchourage trying is good too

 

Maybe there could be a "Medal of Courage" or something that is awarded for 15-20 medals? That way if you couldn't earn the Medal of Bravery you could at least get the runner up.

 

I do think though they should rethink the objectives that can still be earned by throwing a match. GSF already has enough playerbase issues without having newbies decide to not que because they get stuck in matches where guilds are throwing them.

[Altheran]

I think there should be something for participation to enchourage people who aren't all that great to try but definatly adding more things to enchourage trying is good too

 

Medal of Bravery does that in some way. Maybe that the goal is a bit high for a newcomer "trying to do something", but that's the good way IMO.

 

Similarly, I'm not fan of the likes of Dominate the stars, which rewards the wins only/preferently.

These kinds of goals are okay from times to times, like when the focus is set upon GSF, but ultimately it brings a completely different mood, much more tense if you know what I mean...

So I'm not for this one to be available everytime. I'd rather have GSF to remain being GSF, not being "ranked GSF" because of conquest rewards..

 

In the end, I'd prefer that the "usual" ones would be :

- Conquer the Skies

- Medal of Bravery

while the other two are limited to when GSF is at the core of conquest, so that serious objectives (when winning matters directly or indirectly) are only up when it's really serious about GSF.

[Shoraan]

Medal of Bravery does that in some way. Maybe that the goal is a bit high for a newcomer "trying to do something", but that's the good way IMO.

 

Similarly, I'm not fan of the likes of Dominate the stars, which rewards the wins only/preferently.

These kinds of goals are okay from times to times, like when the focus is set upon GSF, but ultimately it brings a completely different mood, much more tense if you know what I mean...

So I'm not for this one to be available everytime. I'd rather have GSF to remain being GSF, not being "ranked GSF" because of conquest rewards..

 

In the end, I'd prefer that the "usual" ones would be :

- Conquer the Skies

- Medal of Bravery

while the other two are limited to when GSF is at the core of conquest, so that serious objectives (when winning matters directly or indirectly) are only up when it's really serious about GSF.

 

Dominate the Stars awards 1000 points (without bonus) for 10 wins. Even if someone wins 10 matches in a row, he gets 5000 points (without bonus) for those matches and only 1000 for winning all of them. That's only a 20% bonus to the points someone gets anyway. Medal of Bravery awards 1000 points for every 50 medals earned, which (for a decent pilot) may be an average of 5 to 7 games (less medals in TDM, more in Domination).

 

This means that Dominate the Stars is really not such a big deal. Yes, it makes a loss (a close one even more so) more painful but it's not like a loss resets the counter to 0. It's comparable to the Daily/Weekly where a win counts as much as two losses.

[Altheran]

Dominate the Stars awards 1000 points (without bonus) for 10 wins. Even if someone wins 10 matches in a row, he gets 5000 points (without bonus) for those matches and only 1000 for winning all of them. That's only a 20% bonus to the points someone gets anyway. Medal of Bravery awards 1000 points for every 50 medals earned, which (for a decent pilot) may be an average of 5 to 7 games (less medals in TDM, more in Domination).

 

This means that Dominate the Stars is really not such a big deal. Yes, it makes a loss (a close one even more so) more painful but it's not like a loss resets the counter to 0. It's comparable to the Daily/Weekly where a win counts as much as two losses.

 

It's not the proportion of points that is a problem. It's the implications on the game itself.

 

Lots of guys came back. That's good.

But a lot abandoned their fun ships those they used because of preferences or personal goals. They took again the few overwhelming ones, because "winning mattered".

Ship diversity took a severe hit because it became serious. This, on the contrary, was less desirable.

 

I prefer very much when I can play my Starguard, or Condor, or whatever, facing Bloodmark, Jugoran, Blackbolt, Quell, with only a few individuals playing the favoured ships than seeing a match where half of the team is made of Mangler and Sting, and where you have to either use a ship you may not like/want using, or endure the meta...

 

It is a situation that is likely not created by Medal of Bravery but by Dominate the Stars alone, as the first can be completed regardless of ships, and regardless of winning or losing.

Hence, why I'm in favor of Medal of Bravery, and not of Dominate the Stars.

[Nemarus]

It's not the proportion of points that is a problem. It's the implications on the game itself.

 

Lots of guys came back. That's good.

But a lot abandoned their fun ships those they used because of preferences or personal goals. They took again the few overwhelming ones, because "winning mattered".

Ship diversity took a severe hit because it became serious. This, on the contrary, was less desirable.

 

I prefer very much when I can play my Starguard, or Condor, or whatever, facing Bloodmark, Jugoran, Blackbolt, Quell, with only a few individuals playing the favoured ships than seeing a match where half of the team is made of Mangler and Sting, and where you have to either use a ship you may not like/want using, or endure the meta...

 

It is a situation that is likely not created by Medal of Bravery but by Dominate the Stars alone, as the first can be completed regardless of ships, and regardless of winning or losing.

Hence, why I'm in favor of Medal of Bravery, and not of Dominate the Stars.

 

I do agree that there were a ton more Flashfires and Stings in play during "Clash in Hyperspace". That being said, Dominate the Stars is not the reason people are playing more seriously/viciously.

 

You get the most conquest rewards just by completing a match. That means completing as many matches as possible. That means winning efficiently and, in some cases, ruthlessly.

 

Unfortunately, Battlescouts are the best way to do that in TDM. They are in Domination too, unless there are a huge number of Bombers to stop them.

 

Even if "Medal of Bravery" was always there, and even if a shorter match means fewer medals, it'd always be worth it to try to finish a match as quickly as possible.

 

Even with both Dominate the Stars and Medal of Bravery present, there were still mega-guilds self-destruct-farming GSF matches.

[Altheran]

I do agree that there were a ton more Flashfires and Stings in play during "Clash in Hyperspace". That being said, Dominate the Stars is not the reason people are playing more seriously/viciously.

 

You get the most conquest rewards just by completing a match. That means completing as many matches as possible. That means winning efficiently and, in some cases, ruthlessly.

 

Unfortunately, Battlescouts are the best way to do that in TDM. They are in Domination too, unless there are a huge number of Bombers to stop them.

 

Even if "Medal of Bravery" was always there, and even if a shorter match means fewer medals, it'd always be worth it to try to finish a match as quickly as possible.

 

Even with both Dominate the Stars and Medal of Bravery present, there were still mega-guilds self-destruct-farming GSF matches.

Fair point about match length, but I highly doubt that it was the main reason behind this Flashfire resurgence, instead of Dominate the Stars.

 

Completing Dominate the Stars obviously granted points. It was written, people were literally said "win = more points". It's an easy correlation to make.

 

Winning faster is much less of an obvious gain in the way it's not clearly stated. It's indirect.

It's something that is likely to not be thought of by everyone. It actually didn't cross my mind.

 

Add to this, that even now, I don't see ship choice as a reliable way to end a match significantly faster, and since faster matches usually means less medals for Medals of Bravery, it's kind of counterproductive.

And that's if you're going to win. When you lose, "better ships" means "longer resistance". So at best, it's supposed to be even with the earlier point, and not change the average match length.

 

 

Lastly, why people did not use these ships massively until this particular week ? (Among those who played seriously on both weeks)

The logic of winning faster was true at that time too.

So, what could explain this change if not the addition of these new objectives ?

 

For me, faster matches is a kind of an illogical motive to choose those ships, and so is not likely to be the reason about last week experience.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Altheran

[Nisdain]

The main idea as far as I know from the serious competitors was finish the match was quickly as possible with a win.

 

I could draw a map out and snag 15 medals, or finish it quick and grab ~10-12. A few extra medals wasn't worth extending a match an extra 5 minutes due to the fairly instant queue times, because I could earn more getting into another match faster. At best I'd about break even on medals sometimes, but even then, because of the points from wins and matches it was still better conquest/minute to finish as fast as possible and play as ruthlessly as possible.

 

Addon: The win wasn't often in question regardless of what I would have chosen to fly, more often finishing faster was the primary motivating factor (ruthlessness).

Edited September 3, 2014 by Nisdain

[Nemarus]

Bumping this one more time.

 

Medal of Bravery is a great conquest objective. It encourages earnest effort and participation, regardless of whether your team is winning or doomed to lose a match.

 

It rewards aces for flying their best, but also gives new players something to strive for. And it's not a zero-sum game--everyone can receive medals in a match, for a variety of different playstyles and types of contribution.

[MiaowZedong]

Bumping this one more time.

 

Medal of Bravery is a great conquest objective. It encourages earnest effort and participation, regardless of whether your team is winning or doomed to lose a match.

 

It rewards aces for flying their best, but also gives new players something to strive for. And it's not a zero-sum game--everyone can receive medals in a match, for a variety of different playstyles and types of contribution.

This.

 

Please enable this objective in every conquest event.