JediMasterSLC Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) 1. There needs to be one objective for completing a PvP match, and another obj for winning a match. Winning a match should reward a total of about twice as many points as a loss. This would discourage people that have no interest in winning the match from queuing to farm points, but would also discourage people from leaving the match if it doesn't look like they're going to win (because they will still get some points). 2. There should be a reward for completing both the reg and ranked weekly every week. This obj was in week 1, but needs to be there every week. "Different types of content are being encouraged during different weeks" is not a reason as to why this should not be the case. The presence of more than 1 PvP objective during the first week of conquest did not constitute PvP-centrism with respect to point farming. It is logical for the "winning" and weekly objs to be bare minimum. PvE will still usually be the fastest way to farm points unless you have no life outside this game, and are on a server with very fast reg pops- especially if you're not on the only PvP bonus planet for that week. @ those still QQing that grinding wzs for points is OP relative to PvE grinding capabilities: I would be fine with toning down the nerf of repeatable PvE objs to once-a-week objs (and make them once a day). 3. There should be a clear feeling that "the harder content I do, the more points I get". Where are the increased point rewards from completing HM and NiM ops? 4. Lower the desirability of commander win trading for dual faction guilds and cross-faction guild alliances. This is partially just a problem stemming from this game's "community" and low population (if there was a higher pop and therefore more guilds, the presence of a few guilds allowing their friends on the opposition faction to kill their own commander- while attacking any other enemy players- would not be as much of a problem, because the rest of the defending players would not adhere to such an agreement and just kill all enemies). Regardless, I think there should be either a tangible positive incentive for defending your commander, or a negative incentive for allowing your faction's commander to be killed (particularly the commander of the planet your guild is invading). What form this incentive would take, I am not sure. Temporarily preventing the opposing faction's commander on that planet from being killed, disablement of the invasion bonus buff if your commander is dead, flat point losses or a temporary diminished returns debuff on future points on all guilds invading that planet of that faction, the opposite effect (point buffs) for either the guild(s) involved in the commander kill or all guilds of their faction on that planet, X points added to every guild's score on that planet for every minute their commander remains alive after respawn... just some ideas. 5. PvE servers: healers need to be flagged for PvP if they heal a base NPC, especially the commander. 6. They need to disallow the commander from leaving the base/being reset. If someone attempts to agro/taunt them outside the base perimeter, it should function as an agro dump and the mander would just agro someone else. 7. Tweak on a suggestion I posted before for giving smaller guilds a better chance to compete in conquest points: rather than nerfing points earned by larger guilds, buff points earned by smaller guilds. This is how it would work. The legacy/account (not toon, as that would discourage alts) in every guild with the highest point total contributed to the guild score will earn his/her guild a bonus amount of points, scaling off their total score. Example: if BW decided to set the 1st place legacy bonus at 200% (just an example), and a guild's top point earner earned 100k points across all his/her toons, the guild's score would receive an additional 200k points. The second highest contributing legacy would also produce bonus points for the guild, but it would be something like 190% of the legacy's score. 3rd place legacy produces 180% bonus and so forth. Each successive legacy down the total point list contributes to the guild's score a little less efficiently than the last. This would not punish large guilds. A guild with 100 players/legacies earns the same point bonuses among their top-10-earning players as a guild with only 10 players. The larger guild's other 90 players still contribute to their guild's score- just not as efficiently. It is a diminishing returns on guild members mechanic. Larger guilds will still have a numerical advantage over smaller ones, but the gap would not be as much. Under this system, there is never incentive to kick any player from your guild, because they are still earning you points, but inviting randoms to your guild for point farming isn't as effective. Edited September 5, 2014 by JediMasterSLC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khevar Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Well-thought-out ideas. Kudos. I think these could improve the way Conquests are run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychopyro Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 On the list.... 1 and 2 won't work, and the reason being is the fact that big guilds will just trade wins... They are already working together, trading wins in WZs is not a far stretch at this point. They already do it for ranking, this would just add another reason to do it. Until they can solve the win trading problem, this can't work. Not saying it's a bad idea, they just need to get the underlying problem with WZs and trading fixed first... 3 does happen, we saw it with Ilum FPs. Bonus Boss only awarded in HM. They just need to add it for OPS somehow. 4, 5, and 6 all have separate issues, but are at the core the problem. Commanders were a bad idea and I think it needs to be rethought in it's entirety. I honestly think the commander should be a quest. Make it a 8 or 16 man OP. Once per day that you can only do on the planet you invade. We can already see it's only marginally increasing PvP and majorly increasing griefing. This would at least allow all guilds a chance to get the frameworks at a fairly even pace. Large guilds would still have an advantage cause they could in theory run it more times, and they have more money, but would allow smaller guilds at least a fair chance at unlocking stuff. It pretty much solves all 3 issues with one broad stroke. And since you only do it on the planet you are trying to conquer, it adds to the actually doing something on that planet. I don't think they can fix 5. This is from an underlying issue that flagged people PvP when using an AOE. You used to be flagged for PvP if you healed an NPC that a flagged person was fighting. When they changed the code to stop accidental PvP flagging (or griefing by PvP enabled players) this was one of the side effects. On 6, the commander should really be rooted in place and have a massive ranged damage attack if you are standing outside a designated area. On 7, not sure on adding a bonus. Take last week for instance (I know numbers were inflated), but I accounted for almost 10% of my guild score across my legacy. That's a huge chunk. Especially if the top 5 or 10 in the guild are responsible for more then 50% of the guild total. I'd have to do the math, but I'm pretty sure I could come up with an easy way to game the system. I really don't think there is much of a way to fix this point problem. When dealing with numbers, there is always a "sweet spot" so to speak. Number people will find it and abuse it. It's just the way math works. The system would have to make such a spot unattainable, and I'm not sure it can be done. Not saying it's a bad idea, just saying I am not sure how.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom_VI Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) On the list.... 1 and 2 won't work, and the reason being is the fact that big guilds will just trade wins... They are already working together, trading wins in WZs is not a far stretch at this point. They already do it for ranking, this would just add another reason to do it. Until they can solve the win trading problem, this can't work. Not saying it's a bad idea, they just need to get the underlying problem with WZs and trading fixed first..... win trading won't be an issue. Win-trading only works if only that guild is queueing. By incentivizing PvP, chances are there will be other guilds in queue too which will completely disrupt any win-trading the guild might be trying to do. Also lol at "big guilds" because small guilds are prefect little angels that never pull those kinds of stunts, right. Besides guild size means nothing in instanced PvP. Edited September 4, 2014 by Zoom_VI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMasterSLC Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) 1 and 2 won't work, and the reason being is the fact that big guilds will just trade wins... They are already working together, trading wins in WZs is not a far stretch at this point. They already do it for ranking, this would just add another reason to do it. Until they can solve the win trading problem, this can't work. Not saying it's a bad idea, they just need to get the underlying problem with WZs and trading fixed first... Idk why you included #2, that was just about getting conquest points for weekly pvp quests. Are you talking about win trading team ranked? Hmm I've never heard of win trading regs...that shouldn't be possible unless both sides are composed solely of members of the guild(s) attempting to win trade... doesn't seem likely. If you win trade team ranked under my suggestion, you get an average of 50% more points than you do on live: I don't think the threat of win trading is a major con to adding a "win a game" obj, jeez. Also, if enough teams are in queue (win traders or not), you end up hitting teams other than your other win trading group- people that you don't know. Those other groups probably won't be willing to trade wins with you because either 1) they are actual PvPers and can beat you every time they hit you 2) they are not theoretically opposed to win trading, but they don't know you and have no assurance that you will reciprocate the game-throw if they do it first, assuming you hit that team again. And how would you decide on who throws the first game? The only problem is when one guild or guild alliance is the only people in queue... and then you have a bigger problem anyway TL;DR Actual PvPers will just farm people that are just there to win trade. If PvP were to be made into a really good way to farm conquest points, not everybody that's mostly in it for the points would be willing to only win 50% of the time if they think they have a chance of winning more often than that. Edited September 4, 2014 by JediMasterSLC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegeshot Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The big guilds are already training wins. Only thing that will provably work is guild alliances (up to 500 members total). That will solve it in one week easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMasterSLC Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 The big guilds are already training wins. Only thing that will provably work is guild alliances (up to 500 members total). That will solve it in one week easily. No... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infernixx Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The big guilds are already training wins. Only thing that will provably work is guild alliances (up to 500 members total). That will solve it in one week easily. How about this? Whenever a guild with less than 50 players accomplishes a group activity that rewards Conquest points...and they do it as a full Guild group...they get twice as many Conquest points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMasterSLC Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 How about this? Whenever a guild with less than 50 players accomplishes a group activity that rewards Conquest points...and they do it as a full Guild group...they get twice as many Conquest points? wat no. ppl muh sullooshun is teh weh plz c dis bw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 How about this? Whenever a guild with less than 50 players accomplishes a group activity that rewards Conquest points...and they do it as a full Guild group...they get twice as many Conquest points? Why? Why program for something that will make zero difference overall? Even if the guilds that don't make the top 10 had TRIPLE points, they still wouldn't win a planet. All they might do is bump a guild with 60 players out of the top 10...is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychopyro Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Idk why you included #2, that was just about getting conquest points for weekly pvp quests. Because the weekly is win based. The faster they trade wins, the faster they get to the next alt to trade wins with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMasterSLC Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 Because the weekly is win based. The faster they trade wins, the faster they get to the next alt to trade wins with. hahahahahahahahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom_VI Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Because the weekly is win based. The faster they trade wins, the faster they get to the next alt to trade wins with. And how does one trade wins when there are other guilds in the queue....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts