Conquest Exploit Farming - Battle of Ilum (Is it an exploit? Or just boring farming?)

[SirTwist]

Here is the thing. This feature of the Battle of Ilum has always been there. Just no one thought to use it until this event. I feel that there are a lot more bugs in the game than just this one to be fixed. This is a minor thing, and should not have been fixed in the first place. All who have cried about it are the ones who were doing the worst damage possible. I say ban the large guilds, you know who they are, from the events for a week, and let the rest to their thing.

 

The biggest problem with the game, and I will mention this, is the guardian leap, the comms cap is screwed 1 billion ways to Sunday, and don't get me started on the other things that this game has wrong with it. The best solution to these problems, Bioware, is to fix all that need to be fixed. I suggested that the commendations cap be reversed. Actually, I have given more thought to that. Here is my thought, make the daily cap on commendations 500, make a weekly cap of 1k, or better. And the prices on the gear a bit more sane, to me. Have your minimum item 100, next level item, 125, next level 150, and the most expensive 175. This way, it's easier to do the math.

[Pinkasaurus]

The changes are no surprise to me. They want people playing pvp and gsf, the gameplay is so terrible they need to heavily incentify these activities, otherwise people will just do the dailies and forget they exist. I would expect all the underused parts of the game to be heavily featured in each weeks conquest.

[Nothematic]

Am I missing something or does that not clarify if it's an exploit or not.

 

Are we to assume it was deemed acceptable by BioWare?

[ML_DoubleTap]

Am I missing something or does that not clarify if it's an exploit or not.

 

Are we to assume it was deemed acceptable by BioWare?

 

I'm not sure how it could be considered an exploit when the game itself said it was a repeatable mission. It's an oversight by the devs, but certainly not an exploit. It was playing the game as presented.

[Khevar]

I'm not sure how it could be considered an exploit when the game itself said it was a repeatable mission. It's an oversight by the devs, but certainly not an exploit. It was playing the game as presented.

True. It's also kinda of a moot point since it can't be done anymore. /shrug

[Grayseven]

I'm not sure how it could be considered an exploit when the game itself said it was a repeatable mission. It's an oversight by the devs, but certainly not an exploit. It was playing the game as presented.

 

An exploit is any game error or bug that is taken advantage of by the players to their benefit. If the repeatable FP issue was unintended then taking advantage of it is an exploit. However, it wasn't an exploit until the Dev's told you it was unintended since we as players have no way of knowing Dev intent without them telling us.

 

Basically, EA/BW would be remiss in punishing anyone who repeatedly ran FP's for Conquest before they announced it was unintended but would be fully in the right to punish people who did it after the announcement...if those people visit the forums at any rate.

 

It's a lawyers dream as it is vague enough to have plenty of wiggle room.

[ML_DoubleTap]

An exploit is any game error or bug that is taken advantage of by the players to their benefit. If the repeatable FP issue was unintended then taking advantage of it is an exploit. However, it wasn't an exploit until the Dev's told you it was unintended since we as players have no way of knowing Dev intent without them telling us.

 

Basically, EA/BW would be remiss in punishing anyone who repeatedly ran FP's for Conquest before they announced it was unintended but would be fully in the right to punish people who did it after the announcement...if those people visit the forums at any rate.

 

It's a lawyers dream as it is vague enough to have plenty of wiggle room.

 

That's my point, it would require our knowledge of their intention being the exact opposite of their implementation. You can't really punish players for gather points in the exact way the system suggested. The unlocking of one time objectives last week had a better case than this instance.

[dscount]

TAIT -

Can you please have them FIX the Legacy Wide lock out on conquests? That would go a LONG way to making sense if we didn't get locked out on ALL our toons for points from one of them. (IE: Each ALT can complete an FP once for points)

 

THEN I would understand the knee jerk locked down after one FP is completed.

Edited August 29, 2014 by dscount

[BuriDogshin]

TAIT -

Can you please have them FIX the Legacy Wide lock out on conquests? That would go a LONG way to making sense if we didn't get locked out on ALL our toons for points from one of them. (IE: Each ALT can complete an FP once for points).

/signed

[Kalispa]

So again with the changes, the pvpers will be able to log on and do what they normally do and get points all day long. While people who play pve will be able to heroics and Fp at greater point rewards but only once a day per toon. So the entire stupid conquest event once again is for the try pvpers. And if you make the pvp rewards higher for pvp wins well then its just over and a waste of time for the pve players. Nice job BW I'm glad you are trying in act some sort of balance.

May I recommend something if this is the route you are going to take. Make all the Ops weekly quest give conquest points. And make the reward points high enough to balance out the repeatable pvp rewards. Try to remember that even 1 tiny pvp guild lest say with 40 accounts, and they all do there daily pvp routine, lest be modest with 10 matches a day. will earn 200000 points a day, and that's if they don't decide to grind for points. Where as if you add up the Group Finder points, the Heroic points and even the ops GF points for a like guild and the guild manages to get all 40 of its members to do all of them, we are looking at maybe around 180000 points or so (its just an estimate). And then of course that same sized guild is screwed for the next three days of repeating stuff until the ops gf resets to something new, so for the next few days they are capped at 140000.

Again Great job BW for making a exclusive pvp friendly event.

[Ihlrath]

“Conquest Events are intended to provide a set of rotating objectives that incentivize a variety of activities from week to week, including both PvP and PvE – but not necessarily a strict balance between the two. Some events will lean more heavily toward specific activities, and others will be more generalized. The intention is to provide a set of high point value, non-repeatable Objectives that focus on some specific, thematic goals – such as completing certain Flashpoints – while giving highly-repeatable activities such as Warzones and Crafting a broader meaning in the war.

 

As this is a new system, we’re still working out how to create the right balance for the Objectives. The purpose is to create a sense of change and opportunity each week, so that the galaxy’s conflicts feel diverse and interesting. If you favor specific types of activities, you will probably want to gravitate towards invading worlds where those activities receive Invasion Bonuses in order to maximize your Conquest Point gain. Generally speaking, however, players who enjoy a variety of activities should get the most out of the system.

 

All of that said, we will be revisiting the way Warzone Objectives work in 2.10 to put more emphasis on wins and, over time, we may raise the value of other activities (such as Flashpoints) to ensure that things remain competitive and interesting. We are committed to tweaking the system until it better accomplishes its goals.”

 

 

Translation:

 

"We're not changing the legacy lockout to character lockout. And we'll be giving more points for PVP wins rather than PVP losses to reward hardcore PVPers and further ram the red hot wang of PVP up our subscriber's tailpipes. Oh we may change the value of other activities but don't count on it. In closing, suck it."

 

Pretty much sums that up.

[Moonlitwings]

TAIT -

Can you please have them FIX the Legacy Wide lock out on conquests? That would go a LONG way to making sense if we didn't get locked out on ALL our toons for points from one of them. (IE: Each ALT can complete an FP once for points)

 

THEN I would understand the knee jerk locked down after one FP is completed.

 

Concurred. Make it where you aren't shooting yourself in the foot by offering to swap from a main to an alt to run TC for the first time in the week, and thereby rendering you incapable of gaining points on your MAIN toon because your guild needed a healer, not a tank/DPS. I have a ton of 55s so that I can be flexible on behalf of the guild--whatever they need, I can bring it. Now, I'm looking at having to cut back on my flexibility for the guild in order to try reaching conquest goals during certain weeks. Instead of "name a role and I'll bring it" I'm going to pretty much HAVE to say "this is the toon I need this conquest objective on, I'm either taking this one or nothing." Which makes it a HECK of a lot harder for the guild to build a group when everybody starts having to pick favorites--instead of benefiting regardless of which toon runs what first.

 

You've been having all the 2x weeks/weekends in order to get people to level alts, one-time quest rewards that benefit you more if you can run them again, and of course the guild benefits from you being able to swap toons and roles, and now the conquest's legacy-lockout pretty much says that you have to pick one/two toons and focus solely on them. If you swap toons to help out your guild? Well, too bad for you, you're f**ked.

 

Translation:

 

"We're not changing the legacy lockout to character lockout. And we'll be giving more points for PVP wins rather than PVP losses to reward hardcore PVPers and further ram the red hot wang of PVP up our subscriber's tailpipes. Oh we may change the value of other activities but don't count on it. In closing, suck it."

 

Pretty much sums that up.

 

Sadly, too true.

 

Personally, I'd like to see a lot more reward for running operations--especially end game/harder mode ops. It's what I'm certain a huge number of PvErs do. Add a flat conquest point bounty to operations bosses depending upon ops level and difficulty mode. You've already got the lockouts, which guarantee no more than ONCE per conquest per toon, so there's no farming opportunities besides swapping ops-- plus more decor drops!

 

These would be set values that would not change between conquest setups (as they already have the ops [WEEKLY] stuff to provide one-time emphasis to certain operations, as well as NOT being affected by any planetary bonus. These "bounties" for the bosses would be static, save for perhaps the stronghold bonuses, and due to lockouts, limited to once a week for each toon.

 

For example:

Level 50 Ops: (Could adjust values to make EC harder, as it has one less boss but significantly more difficulty)

SM boss: 250; Final SM boss: 500 (Full EV/KP: 1500 conquest points, EC: 1250 conquest points)

HM boss: 500; Final HM boss: 750 (EV/KP: 2750 conquest points, EC: 2250 conquest points)

NiM boss: 750; Final NM boss: 1000 (EV/KP: 4000 conquest points, EC: 3250 conquest points)

 

Level 55 Ops: (Could adjust values to increase DF/DP due to harder difficulty, and maybe lower SnV, although as it HAS all of the bosses and is thus that much longer than other ops, not sure how much shouldn't just be left for it to be higher)

SM boss: 500; Final SM boss: 1000 (TC: 500; TfB/DF/DP: 3000; SnV: 4000)

HM boss: 1000; Final HM boss: 1500 (TC: 1000; TfB/DF/DP: 5500; SnV: 7500)

NiM boss: 1500; Final NM boss: 2000 (TfB/DF/DP: 8000; SnV: 11000)

 

Yes, the values do start getting high, especially for the NiM 55 content, but then, that's far from easy content to clear, and even with the skills, you need to earn the gear to run it (means very few people can do these on more than one toon, if they can even do them at all), and at best you still can only run it ONCE. You can adjust the numbers as you like, but it allows a lot of the end-game operations people to get conquest points by doing what THEY usually do (since that's what the PvPers are getting away with doing) and as it won't be affected by planetary bonuses, means that it's just one more motivating factor for people to progress through and run the endgame content-- even for the harder modes slightly older content, like TfB and SnV that don't drop the gear you need, but would then be able to rack up a decent amount of conquest points from FULLY clearing (not just to the weekly boss, but kill it all!) and provide more opportunities for getting the decor drops.

 

This is an MMO, might as well give decent rewards for the stuff that PvE people go gather a good team of friends together to play in the game! I know you know the stats on how many PvPers vs PvErs there are (and how many run ops!), and just because the PvPers are loud doesn't mean that they're the only ones you should listen to. Give something for those of us who run ops, and hey, maybe we can attract more of the PvErs that spend their time just grinding flashpoints and bring them into the operations content.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Moonlitwings

[XavinNydek]

Hey everyone,

 

I know many of you have questions about the change made to the Flashpoint Conquest Objectives with the release of 2.9c. I wanted to get some clarification, so I spoke with Lead Designer Jesse Sky:

 

“Conquest Events are intended to provide a set of rotating objectives that incentivize a variety of activities from week to week, including both PvP and PvE – but not necessarily a strict balance between the two. Some events will lean more heavily toward specific activities, and others will be more generalized. The intention is to provide a set of high point value, non-repeatable Objectives that focus on some specific, thematic goals – such as completing certain Flashpoints – while giving highly-repeatable activities such as Warzones and Crafting a broader meaning in the war.

 

As this is a new system, we’re still working out how to create the right balance for the Objectives. The purpose is to create a sense of change and opportunity each week, so that the galaxy’s conflicts feel diverse and interesting. If you favor specific types of activities, you will probably want to gravitate towards invading worlds where those activities receive Invasion Bonuses in order to maximize your Conquest Point gain. Generally speaking, however, players who enjoy a variety of activities should get the most out of the system.

 

All of that said, we will be revisiting the way Warzone Objectives work in 2.10 to put more emphasis on wins and, over time, we may raise the value of other activities (such as Flashpoints) to ensure that things remain competitive and interesting. We are committed to tweaking the system until it better accomplishes its goals.”

I think it's extremely important that the PvP and PvE both have equivalently grindable repeatable objectives. If you want to kill grinding, then fine, but it needs to be equally killed for PvE and PvP (of course then you even further incentivize soulless zerg guilds, which IMO should be discouraged).

 

Mainly, start looking at your point allocations as points per hour instead of whatever calculations you are using now.

 

Also, the legacy lockouts are alt hostile, and need to go.

Edited August 29, 2014 by XavinNydek

[Khevar]

So again with the changes, the pvpers will be able to log on and do what they normally do and get points all day long. While people who play pve will be able to heroics and Fp at greater point rewards but only once a day per toon.

While this is true, I feel you're overlooking a few things.

 

1. A PvE guild is unlikely to invade a PvP-bonus planet.

2. So competition against PvPers would be at 500 points per warzone, not 1000 points per warzone.

3. The total PvE points per day may be limited, but they are earned at a faster rate than PvP points.

4. The PvE points are per toon, and can done in about 3 hours.

5. A PvE'er that spends more than 3 hours every day playing this game is going to have more than one alt.

 

In this week's conquests, invading Balmorra, a PvE player can earn 20,500 per day per toon on repeatable activities. That's a lot of points.

 

Imagine two players on vacation, able to spend as much time as they wanted to win Conquets for their respective guilds. Player 1 is PvE and has 2 level 55s. He makes 41,000 points per day over 6 days. 246,000 points for 36 hours of work.

 

Player 2 runs warzones. To match those points, he would have to run 492 warzones.

 

Who has it easier?

Edited August 29, 2014 by Khevar

[ArielaKnight]

Hey everyone,

 

I know many of you have questions about the change made to the Flashpoint Conquest Objectives with the release of 2.9c. I wanted to get some clarification, so I spoke with Lead Designer Jesse Sky:

 

“Conquest Events are intended to provide a set of rotating objectives that incentivize a variety of activities from week to week, including both PvP and PvE – but not necessarily a strict balance between the two. Some events will lean more heavily toward specific activities, and others will be more generalized. The intention is to provide a set of high point value, non-repeatable Objectives that focus on some specific, thematic goals – such as completing certain Flashpoints – while giving highly-repeatable activities such as Warzones and Crafting a broader meaning in the war.

 

 

As this is a new system, we’re still working out how to create the right balance for the Objectives. The purpose is to create a sense of change and opportunity each week, so that the galaxy’s conflicts feel diverse and interesting. If you favor specific types of activities, you will probably want to gravitate towards invading worlds where those activities receive Invasion Bonuses in order to maximize your Conquest Point gain. Generally speaking, however, players who enjoy a variety of activities should get the most out of the system.

 

All of that said, we will be revisiting the way Warzone Objectives work in 2.10 to put more emphasis on wins and, over time, we may raise the value of other activities (such as Flashpoints) to ensure that things remain competitive and interesting. We are committed to tweaking the system until it better accomplishes its goals.”

 

 

Honesty if this is just mainly for the pvp players why not admit that. I think it would be better if you did that. I know my guild leader has tried to get her personal conquest points the last two weeks with a couple of other individuals. Even the one member that does pvp doesn't just do pvp all the time. He likes to do other things as well.

 

It seems the focus on this is for pvp but yet you don't say that as you may be aware that if this is the case some people will not be doing it. I know the guild I am in is working on getting the guild ship but I am wondering why if all the incentives are based on pvp.

 

It is okay if you want it for pvp as there are players that like that but at least be honest about it and not do what you are doing saying it is for pvp and pve when it clearly isnt.

 

Have a good weekend.

Edited August 29, 2014 by ArielaKnight

[APCrol]

Hey everyone,

 

I know many of you have questions about the change made to the Flashpoint Conquest Objectives with the release of 2.9c. I wanted to get some clarification, so I spoke with Lead Designer Jesse Sky:

 

“Conquest Events are intended to provide a set of rotating objectives that incentivize a variety of activities from week to week, including both PvP and PvE – but not necessarily a strict balance between the two. Some events will lean more heavily toward specific activities, and others will be more generalized. The intention is to provide a set of high point value, non-repeatable Objectives that focus on some specific, thematic goals – such as completing certain Flashpoints – while giving highly-repeatable activities such as Warzones and Crafting a broader meaning in the war.

 

As this is a new system, we’re still working out how to create the right balance for the Objectives. The purpose is to create a sense of change and opportunity each week, so that the galaxy’s conflicts feel diverse and interesting. If you favor specific types of activities, you will probably want to gravitate towards invading worlds where those activities receive Invasion Bonuses in order to maximize your Conquest Point gain. Generally speaking, however, players who enjoy a variety of activities should get the most out of the system.

 

All of that said, we will be revisiting the way Warzone Objectives work in 2.10 to put more emphasis on wins and, over time, we may raise the value of other activities (such as Flashpoints) to ensure that things remain competitive and interesting. We are committed to tweaking the system until it better accomplishes its goals.”

 

Remove points for loosing WZ and give more for wining or its a hell when people just doing nothing.

[Kalispa]

The problem is that currently no matter the circumstances PVE conquest points are finite, while any pvp guild can just grind and grind to beat anyone guild eventually. Now of course pve guilds can start to pvp, but if you reward more points for pvp wins, this turns into nothing but a try hard cry baby pvpers event!

[Khevar]

The problem is that currently no matter the circumstances PVE conquest points are finite, while any pvp guild can just grind and grind to beat anyone guild eventually. Now of course pve guilds can start to pvp, but if you reward more points for pvp wins, this turns into nothing but a try hard cry baby pvpers event!

Perhaps you missed my last response to you (it was on the bottom of the page). Let me try again:

So again with the changes, the pvpers will be able to log on and do what they normally do and get points all day long. While people who play pve will be able to heroics and Fp at greater point rewards but only once a day per toon.

While this is true, I feel you're overlooking a few things.

 

1. A PvE guild is unlikely to invade a PvP-bonus planet.

2. So competition against PvPers would be at 500 points per warzone, not 1000 points per warzone.

3. The total PvE points per day may be limited, but they are earned at a faster rate than PvP points.

4. The PvE points are per toon, and can done in about 3 hours.

5. A PvE'er that spends more than 3 hours every day playing this game is going to have more than one alt.

 

In this week's conquests, invading Balmorra, a PvE player can earn 20,500 per day per toon on repeatable activities. That's a lot of points.

 

Imagine two players on vacation, able to spend as much time as they wanted to win Conquets for their respective guilds. Player 1 is PvE and has 2 level 55s. He makes 41,000 points per day over 6 days. 246,000 points for 36 hours of work.

 

Player 2 runs warzones. To match those points, he would have to run 492 warzones.

 

Who has it easier?

[shackboredguy]

Can you go back and ask them why they're making the one time objectives per legacy instead of per character? For a game that supports creating alt characters where legacy was basically put in to support that, having it so that it discourages playing on your other characters seems quite short-sighted.

[Moonlitwings]

Perhaps you missed my last response to you (it was on the bottom of the page). Let me try again:

 

While this is true, I feel you're overlooking a few things.

 

1. A PvE guild is unlikely to invade a PvP-bonus planet.

2. So competition against PvPers would be at 500 points per warzone, not 1000 points per warzone.

3. The total PvE points per day may be limited, but they are earned at a faster rate than PvP points.

4. The PvE points are per toon, and can done in about 3 hours.

5. A PvE'er that spends more than 3 hours every day playing this game is going to have more than one alt.

 

In this week's conquests, invading Balmorra, a PvE player can earn 20,500 per day per toon on repeatable activities. That's a lot of points.

 

Imagine two players on vacation, able to spend as much time as they wanted to win Conquets for their respective guilds. Player 1 is PvE and has 2 level 55s. He makes 41,000 points per day over 6 days. 246,000 points for 36 hours of work.

 

Player 2 runs warzones. To match those points, he would have to run 492 warzones.

 

Who has it easier?

And let's look at it a different way:

 

1. Both the PvE and PvP guild decide to take the "path of least resistance" and both opt to invade Corellia, hoping that the fewer bonuses mean less competition. And or their guildmaster is a spontaneous clicker who just doesn't think things through sometimes. And/or was drunk.

2. PvPers would get 500 per warzone.

3. PvE points for per toon is limited SOLELY to heroics and ability to get a FP queue pop. There's only sometimes an operation available-- and it's either a measly 1k repeatable for a whole hour's+ work, or one-time legacy for something specific.

 

Run the heroics on Balmorra then, (which requires you to complete the bonus series, which can take you a couple of hours of useless running around just to unlock the heroics) 7 heroics x 500 apiece = 3,500 points per day.

 

Two toons, six days, you've got yourself a grand total of 21,000 conquest points per toon. 42,000 points for two, for 36 hours of work.

 

The PvPer can run 84 matches to equal that. At queuing for ranked PvP which will give you arenas complete-able in 5 minutes. That totals out to 7 hours worth of work to get the 42,000 points, accomplish-able with only one toon. If they spent the same 36 hours of work, they would gain 216,000 conquest points.

 

This is, btw, entirely without any stronghold bonus for either team. The PvEer works with two toons and does NOT even manage to get the 35k reward on either of them. The PvPer works with as many toons as they have, and can get the 35k reward on up to 6 different 55s. Even allowing for some deviation due to queue times (as these numbers to rely upon insta-queues) there is still a massive discrepancy between PvP and PvE.

 

216,000 != 42,000

Edited August 29, 2014 by Moonlitwings

[Khevar]

... <stuff about Corellia> ...

You make an excellent point, and the math does not favor PvE on that planet.

 

But you're overlooking something. Corellia is a 2xGSF bonus planet (with no PvE bonuses). Your PvE guild may or may not lose to the PvP guild.

 

But it's certainly going to get DESTROYED by the GSF guild.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Khevar

[DawnAskham]

Hey everyone,

 

I know many of you have questions about the change made to the Flashpoint Conquest Objectives with the release of 2.9c. I wanted to get some clarification, so I spoke with Lead Designer Jesse Sky:

 

“Conquest Events are intended to provide a set of rotating objectives that incentivize a variety of activities from week to week, including both PvP and PvE – but not necessarily a strict balance between the two. Some events will lean more heavily toward specific activities, and others will be more generalized. The intention is to provide a set of high point value, non-repeatable Objectives that focus on some specific, thematic goals – such as completing certain Flashpoints – while giving highly-repeatable activities such as Warzones and Crafting a broader meaning in the war.

 

As this is a new system, we’re still working out how to create the right balance for the Objectives. The purpose is to create a sense of change and opportunity each week, so that the galaxy’s conflicts feel diverse and interesting. If you favor specific types of activities, you will probably want to gravitate towards invading worlds where those activities receive Invasion Bonuses in order to maximize your Conquest Point gain. Generally speaking, however, players who enjoy a variety of activities should get the most out of the system.

 

All of that said, we will be revisiting the way Warzone Objectives work in 2.10 to put more emphasis on wins and, over time, we may raise the value of other activities (such as Flashpoints) to ensure that things remain competitive and interesting. We are committed to tweaking the system until it better accomplishes its goals.”

 

What a bunch of malarkey.

 

The reason for all the problems has less to do with design philosophy, and more to do with a combination of lack of foresight along with not being willing to put forth the development work necessary for conquest and instead trying to bolt conquest objectives on top of the existing mission system.

 

For PVP, this is not a problem as the base mission for PVP matches is handled by the queue itself, which is infinitely repeatable but also has checks to match / bolster for level appropriateness.

 

So while it can be repeated, it can't be trivialized by over-leveling or the 'run 99% of it solo, invite three friends' gimmick, and thus the devs can maintain some control over the time / effort required to earn conquest points.

 

For FPs however, the existing missions are either infinitely repeatable (base FP mission) with no level appropriateness check, or they are level appropriate checked but limited in repetition (daily / weekly missions).

 

The base FP missions are also susceptible to the 'run 99% solo, invite three friends' gimmick, and along with no check for level appropriateness, can be trivialized such that the devs loose control over the time / effort required to earn conquest points.

 

However, all this could have been avoided with a bit of foresight and a willingness to spend the time and money developing conquest as a reasonably balanced system AT LAUNCH.

 

Conquest missions could have been added for FPs (through GF or terminals) that would check for level appropriateness and mission completion while allowing for repetition.

 

Then FPs could be repeatable like PVP WZs, while disallowing running trivial FPs or doing the 'run 99% solo, invite three friends' gimmick, and allowing the devs to control and balance the time / effort required to earn conquest points.

 

Oh and one last 'hello, McFly' moment....coding the system so that anything restricted by conquest itself (invasion supply / kill X on planet Y / the post patch FPs) is locked across legacy.

 

I don't recall the points being generated legacy wide, or the awards being handled per legacy, or that every character in my legacy was in the same faction or the same guild - so why lock character conquest objectives to legacy?

Edited August 29, 2014 by DawnAskham

[Ryenke]

“Conquest Events are intended to provide a set of rotating objectives that incentivize a variety of activities from week to week, including both PvP and PvE – but not necessarily a strict balance between the two. Some events will lean more heavily toward specific activities, and others will be more generalized. The intention is to provide a set of high point value, non-repeatable Objectives that focus on some specific, thematic goals – such as completing certain Flashpoints – while giving highly-repeatable activities such as Warzones and Crafting a broader meaning in the war.

 

As this is a new system, we’re still working out how to create the right balance for the Objectives. The purpose is to create a sense of change and opportunity each week, so that the galaxy’s conflicts feel diverse and interesting. If you favor specific types of activities, you will probably want to gravitate towards invading worlds where those activities receive Invasion Bonuses in order to maximize your Conquest Point gain. Generally speaking, however, players who enjoy a variety of activities should get the most out of the system.

 

All of that said, we will be revisiting the way Warzone Objectives work in 2.10 to put more emphasis on wins and, over time, we may raise the value of other activities (such as Flashpoints) to ensure that things remain competitive and interesting. We are committed to tweaking the system until it better accomplishes its goals.”

 

 

Translation:

 

"We're not changing the legacy lockout to character lockout. And we'll be giving more points for PVP wins rather than PVP losses to reward hardcore PVPers and further ram the red hot wang of PVP up our subscriber's tailpipes. Oh we may change the value of other activities but don't count on it. In closing, suck it."

 

Pretty much sums that up.

 

This is what I'm very much afraid of. EVERY conquest as set up has infinitely repeatable objectives for pvp'ers. Each conquest is heavily PVP favoured. I don't see any truth to Bioware's statement that "Conquest Events are intended to provide a set of rotating objectives that incentivize a variety of activities from week to week, including both PvP and PvE." The only incentivized activities are warzones, crafting and GSF. Everything else is a lot of work and time invested for little in conquest points, or is now limited to once a week per LEGACY.

 

All I see is Bioware saying, 'PVE'ers, well, we are gonna give you weekly legacy lockouts that make it virtually impossible to meet personal conquest objectives except on one single toon, but don't fret, because we care about balance, and MAY make some changes to PVP so that the WZ winners can earn more conquest points than pvp'ers that don't win matches.'

 

I'm pretty much ready to face it. Conquest is a PVP (WZ & GSF) offering only. Bioware is never going to give us a way to expand our 50M credit guild ship because I'm in a PVE guild. All I see here for PVE'ers is the dreaded 'coming soon' TM.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Ryenke

[loztchild]

Bioware needs to avoid rank giving a lot of points due to players doing win trading.I hope the rewards would 250 normal ,time (x2) 500 and time (x3) 750 point for the conquest per player if you win and if you lose you gain nothing.We need to stop people from cheating with those win trades its quite annoying. Edited August 29, 2014 by loztchild

[Khevar]

This is what I'm very much afraid of. EVERY conquest as set up has infinitely repeatable objectives for pvp'ers. Each conquest is heavily PVP favoured.

Did your guild invade Hoth this week? (favors PvP) How about Corellia? (favors GSF) If so, then you only have your guildmaster to blame.

 

If your guild invaded Ilum, you can beat a PvP guild (of the same size) without too much effort. It's pretty balanced.

 

If your guild invaded Balmorra, you can beat a PvP guild (of the same size) with your eyes closed. It heavily favors PvE.

 

The math is right on this very page. Will you stick around to debate me? Or will you whine and moan without looking at the facts, then slink away into the night?

Edited August 29, 2014 by Khevar