Conquest Changes in Fallen Empire

[Psychopyro]

I don't have too much pity for small guilds that choose to be small, if that's your choice then forget winning conquest basically.

 

Smaller guilds tend to stay smaller for a reason.

 

It's been proven time and again, large guilds are only the way they are to feed the top few in the guild. I have never EVER seen a large guild that functions outside those parameters. The upper ranks of the guild ask stupid requirements of the members that only benefit those in power.

 

The other problem with large guilds is it still tends to be groups within groups. At that point, why should the smaller groups who tend to be excluded due to the elite attitudes of those in charge? Why not be able to go off on their own, instead of being a slave to stupid rules that only benefit a few?

 

Most of the larger conquest guilds I have seen require you to hit target, and then turn in your encryption to them, even if they have a maxed guild ship, so they can sell them, so they can make "money" for the guild, which is actually money for the officers to buy whatever they want.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Bashing small guilds because you think they are too lazy to get people is unfair, some guilds like getting people that they want to spend time with rather than having 500 random people that 90% wont even talk of do stuff with the 10% that likes being part of a team

 

It's not bashing small guilds, it's just stating why should they be rewarded and "helped" for choosing to be small?

 

You get to have your guild and niche little community compared to a large guild that supposedly never talks etc. You get your benefits and the large guild gets theirs.

[TUXs]

Sadly, no you can't... We went thru this when conquest started. In a PvP match, all someone has to do is do something. Move, 1 attack, w/e to keep from getting kicked.

 

GSF all they have to do is weight down the w key and constantly suicide...

 

Then I report you. Not the best option of course, but hopefully Bioware watches out for these types of ways to cheat.

[AdrianDmitruk]

Completely agree with the fix for FP/OP - even suggested it numerous times last time conquests were in the "news".

 

As for small guilds ... I don't know ... maybe we should cater to them? They choose to be small and do less work than the GM of a massive guild in building up and maintaining his guild so why should they be carried?

 

There is nothing stopping them getting as large. I'm in a massive guild that can win any planet any time we choose and no one was paid to join the guild or anything like that, likewise no subs are paid. Just word of mouth and advertising ( and we're not even close to being a top raiding guild with that sort of rep ).

 

I don't have too much pity for small guilds that choose to be small, if that's your choice then forget winning conquest basically.

 

I would point out that the "work" per player in a small guild to place the guild in Top 10 for conquest is generally several multiples higher than the "work" required per player to achieve the same result for a large guild. And if we're locked out of doing such "work" on our own to achieve a desired result (i.e. expansion of our guild ship), we will find another way.

 

Oh, we'll "win" conquests alright, by "merging" (to put it politely) into larger guilds so we have a critical mass of conquest points from which to accomplish our personal goals (which mean utterly nothing unless the guild places in the top 10). We'll still keep our native guilds around, but we won't be actively playing characters on them. Instead, we'll send our encryptions that we earn while in your guild, back to ours, until such time as our own guildship is expanded.

 

You don't want small guilds to be catered to--be prepared for the drama, acrimony, and subversion when small conquest guilds are forced to "merge" into larger guilds to effectively participate in the conquest system. Be careful what you wish for, as you might just get it. I've played EVE Online, where this kind of thing is par for the course; I know of what I speak.

Edited September 8, 2015 by AdrianDmitruk

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Smaller guilds tend to stay smaller for a reason.

 

It's been proven time and again, large guilds are only the way they are to feed the top few in the guild. I have never EVER seen a large guild that functions outside those parameters. The upper ranks of the guild ask stupid requirements of the members that only benefit those in power.

 

The other problem with large guilds is it still tends to be groups within groups. At that point, why should the smaller groups who tend to be excluded due to the elite attitudes of those in charge? Why not be able to go off on their own, instead of being a slave to stupid rules that only benefit a few?

 

Most of the larger conquest guilds I have seen require you to hit target, and then turn in your encryption to them, even if they have a maxed guild ship, so they can sell them, so they can make "money" for the guild, which is actually money for the officers to buy whatever they want.

 

Our only requirement is to at least have voice chat. You get a rank once you've shown you have it, you don't have to use it again ( I almost never do ) and from there you only get removed if you were offline for weeks.

 

Maybe we are an exception to the rule *shrug* though I have heard of guilds with requirements like you speak and I honestly wonder how they manage to get that many people and why people would want to be part of such a model when a model such as the one my guild uses is much more casual and requires you do practically nothing. *shrug* again.

[MaximusRex]

Eric,

 

Some good changes, but part of the problem, and why crafting became the defacto way to earn conquest is the time constraints, and the lack of any other way for PvE focused players to complete most of these in a weekend afternoon. Additionally, the PvE objectives, like running flashpoints have a fairly poor effort to point return, and are gated by needing to have the daily reward available to earn any points. What I am afraid this change will do is get people to spam as many Warzone/GSF matches as possible, with the intent of losing as fast as possible in order to rack up as many points as possible. You might ultimately have to also time gate PvP options by tying them to their dailies.

 

What conquest needs to do is offer more PvE activities that are rewarded, and preferably some that aren't also time gated. My guild works on Hard Mode Progression and we have a set schedule. Give us points for every boss we kill that week. Some weeks give credit for heroic missions done on the key planets, expand that to all the weeks, and all the planets that give a bonus for that week. If it is a planet that is also a daily quest hub, like Ilum or CZ-198, count all the daily missions as well as the heroics, and the weekly. Weeks tied to events, like the Gree and Rakghoul, should have their activities tied more closely into conquest as well, with dailies giving points along side the Ops boss. Make sure each week has a good compliment of Flashpoints and Bonus Boses that count.

[well]

At least I can vote to kick you if you AFK in a WZ...if you craft (while completely offline mind you) to conquest glory, I have no recourse atm.

 

So does the Easter Bunny drop those mats in your storage? The cheapest way is to farm them. Which means you spend time in the game. If you use missions you only get one part instead of both as you do farming. You can buy off the GTN and spend a lot of credits. Still someone had to farm them.

[Psychopyro]

Then I report you. Not the best option of course, but hopefully Bioware watches out for these types of ways to cheat.

Someone in my guild was reported for this... Nothing happened. We kicked him for it, but still the CS did nothing to stop it.

 

It may depend on the CS who gets the ticket as seeing it as some kind of violation, but I doubt they care as they could say they were participating the way they wanted to within the rules in the game. AFAIK, there is no rule against what they are doing, as they are not technically doing anything at all.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

I would point out that the "work" per player in a small guild to place the guild in Top 10 for conquest is generally several multiples higher than the "work" required per player to achieve the same result for a large guild. And if we're locked out of doing such "work" on our own to achieve a desired result (i.e. expansion of our guild ship), we will find another way.

 

Oh, we'll "win" conquests alright, by "merging" (to put it politely) into larger guilds so we have a critical mass of conquest points from which to accomplish our personal goals (which mean utterly nothing unless the guild places in the top 10). We'll still keep our native guilds around, but we won't be actively playing characters on them. Instead, we'll send our encryptions that we earn while in your guild, back to ours, until such time as our own guildship is expanded.

 

You don't want small guilds to be catered to--be prepared for the drama, acrimony, and subversion when small conquest guilds are forced to "merge" into larger guilds to effectively participate in the conquest system. Be careful what you wish for, as you might just get it. I've played EVE Online, where this kind of thing is par for the course; I know of what I speak.

 

My argument is if conquest ( or your ship ) means that much to you then make a large guild to begin with.

 

It's honestly easier to make credits in this game ( if you know how and what you're doing ) and buying the damn things from the GTN. The time spent doing conquest per toon to get the plans vs spending the same time doing money making opportunities makes conquest a pretty silly means to expand ones guildship when you think about it.

 

Maybe a solution to all that though is set a guild target? Each guild that gets the target then their members who got their personal target get the current weekly reward. Thus ALL guild can expand in the manner you mention.

 

Then you have top 10 for kudos and some even better rewards of some ilk. Everyone wins?

[Muljo_Stpho]

So many replies in this topic already. I'm sure most of what I could say has probably already come up.

 

Personally I'm not sure that their solution to crafting spam is necessarily the right one, but I personally think that the "once per legacy" implementation on restricting some objectives was just about the worst idea ever and needs to be eradicated wherever possible. Don't enforce limits by making conquest activity unfriendly to players trying to work on it on more than one character. Enforce limits by tying the points to daily and weekly missions so that the limit is only on a per character basis.

 

Granted, crafting doesn't have any sort of in-game missions and would not be covered by such a solution right now anyway. Unless they want to add a terminal on fleet with a few missions like a [Daily] to craft any War Supply, a [Weekly] to craft an Invasion Force, a [Daily] to craft an Industrial Prefab or a Synthetic Prefab, a [Weekly] to craft a Universal Prefab, a [Weekly] to craft a Dark Project, and maybe even some other missions asking for batches of other crafted items. Maybe there could also be something like a [Daily] for receiving crew skill mission results 10 times or a [Weekly] for receiving critical crew skill mission results 10 times. And make the crafting conquest objective repeatable with the condition "Complete any mission on the Crafter's Union Terminal".

 

For the flashpoint abuse that prompted moving the objectives for specific flashpoints into the "once per legacy" wasteland shortly after conquests first started, that definitely needed to be changed but I still believe that their solution was the absolute worst way to go about it. The goal should be to enforce the idea that you actually need to do a full run of the flashpoint every time, right? No skipping ahead to the end to collect points for doing practically nothing. So what they needed to do was to change the conditions on the objective so that instead of awarding points for "completing" the flashpoint it awards points for crossing off a list of bosses. Name every boss that's in the flashpoint with a count X/1 next to their name. Kill a boss to add to the count next to its name. Every time all names on the list have counts of 1 or higher, reward points and subtract 1 from all counts. Objective would be repeatable, but skipping to the end for the last fight / last conversation after someone else has done it solo will not get you any points because you'll have conditions that haven't been met yet. Or to make it even simpler, just make every boss kill worth some small number of points on its own

 

I'd suggest something similar for operations. Award a moderate number of points for every boss kill instead of having a lump sum for operation "completion" to address the lockout abuse that has been going on. Those who skip bosses shouldn't get points for those bosses.

 

Those flashpoint and operation objectives could probably also be written to reward double for hard mode. So the condition of the objective says X/1 (whether that's next to every name in a list or just next to a generic "kill a boss in this instance"). Have it work out so that kills in hard mode / nightmare add 2 to the count. This means that the reward triggers twice when fulfilled in a higher difficulty.

 

I would also like to see more options for different ways to earn points, wherever possible.

 

Someone mentioned the on-rails solo space missions. That would be one small thing that they could add to it. Award points for each space "operation" (aka daily that calls for a specific pair of missions) that you complete, and maybe award double (same as the fp/op suggestion for rewarding double?) for completion of any "heroic" space missions (the top level ones that are near impossible even with the best ship parts equipped, don't think I've seen the word heroic actually attached to any of them but that's what we call them apparently).

 

But when I say "add more for us to do" I've actually got something pretty ambitious in mind. I want to see a "<Planet> Conquest Mission Terminal" added on every planet. This terminal will have a ton of dailies and weeklies on it for missions like "complete these heroics", "complete these dailies" (including new GSI-daily-like missions for surveillance of enemy positions), "kill this list of champions" (same NPCs listed in achievements), "kill enemy NPCs in this area of the map", "kill faction base guards", "kill an enemy commander", "kill a named enemy commander", "kill some enemy players (within 5 levels of your own level)", "kill the world boss", and so on and so on. And then in our conquest objectives we would see one objective per planet that's up for conquest that week which reads "Complete any mission on the <Planet> Conquest Mission Terminal." We don't need separate objectives for each individual task. Just that one objective for each planet can cover any and all planetary activity that's covered by the missions on the planet's terminal.

 

Because currently the system does not reward on-planet activity in many cases. We'll have a week with 3 or 5 planets targeted and we'll have objectives for NPC kills / heroics / faction base guard kills on only 1 (maybe 2) of those target planets.

 

Note: On that terminal, for a mission like the NPC slaughter, I would suggest having level-gated alternate versions of that mission (like the different versions of Emerging Conflicts for leveling flashpoints) with realistic targets for the character's level. A character in the planet's level range is at the correct level of difficulty against the planet's enemies and so their target to complete the mission will be fairly low. A character way above the planet's level range is in "god mode" against the planet's enemies and so their target to complete the mission will be much much higher. Although I'd also suggest that faction base guard kills on the planet should count for a huge chunk of this count so that upper levels can group together and assault a base to earn these points without the grind.

 

Should they perhaps also move the commanders further inside the base? From what I've seen, since the introduction of conquests players have always intentionally avoided making a full assault against the base (and so nobody ever gets points for that faction base guard kill objective) by luring the commander to the group (waiting a safe distance away from the base) with one tank while another tank leads all the other enemies away until they reset.

 

Going beyond all of that, I've also thought for a while that it seems like they could probably rework when/how rewards are given for completing conquest. Instead of just lowering the personal goal, my suggestion for a while has been to make personal goals multi-tiered. So you hit the easy goal line for a small first personal reward and then you hit a higher goal line for a slightly better additional personal reward and then you hit the high goal line for a much better final personal reward. So those with less time or less resources or whatever have an easy goal that they can aim for just to get something out of it, and those who can put more into it get more out of it when they reach the not-so-easy goals.

 

I also had this crazy idea that they could add a terminal to our personal ships that would let us assign a conquest target for our legacy. This would apply a legacy-specific conquest bonus. And in this idea I see the scoring being changed up slightly so that only your stronghold bonus increases your points earned towards your personal goal. You earn points for your guild's total with the benefit of both your stronghold bonus and your guild bonus, and you earn points for your legacy's total with the benefit of both your stronghold bonus and your legacy bonus. But personal points earned would not receive bonuses from guild or legacy.

 

But the scoring isn't the important part of that idea. The important part is that you would select as your target a region on a planet. There would be a top 10 list for legacies in that region, and there would be extra rewards for those who place in this list when the conquest week ends. (At least as good as the top tier personal rewards, but not as good as guild rewards.) The legacy bonus for your selected target would be the same as what guilds get for selecting that planet.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Muljo_Stpho

[Psychopyro]

Our only requirement is to at least have voice chat. You get a rank once you've shown you have it, you don't have to use it again ( I almost never do ) and from there you only get removed if you were offline for weeks.

 

Maybe we are an exception to the rule *shrug* though I have heard of guilds with requirements like you speak and I honestly wonder how they manage to get that many people and why people would want to be part of such a model when a model such as the one my guild uses is much more casual and requires you do practically nothing. *shrug* again.

 

Sadly it's double edged. People put up with it because it is expected because, sadly it is the was it has always operated. They know they have people at a disadvantage because the only way to get high up is with a guild that is big enough, so they push those rules as far as they can.

[AdrianDmitruk]

My argument is if conquest ( or your ship ) means that much to you then make a large guild to begin with.

 

It's honestly easier to make credits in this game ( if you know how and what you're doing ) and buying the damn things from the GTN. The time spent doing conquest per toon to get the plans vs spending the same time doing money making opportunities makes conquest a pretty silly means to expand ones guildship when you think about it.

 

Maybe a solution to all that though is set a guild target? Each guild that gets the target then their members who got their personal target get the current weekly reward. Thus ALL guild can expand in the manner you mention.

 

Then you have top 10 for kudos and some even better rewards of some ilk. Everyone wins?

 

Actually, since I know what to do with the purple Jawa Junk from the guild rewards, and use it to eliminate the bottleneck in purple mats for crafting for GTN sales, I'm actually able to make the crafting-for-conquest self sustaining and even buy extra encryptions off GTN to help things along a bit from time to time. In fact, doing conquests in such a manner (again, I know what I'm doing) pays a lot more per hour than dailies--hence the only reason why I will do dailies anymore is if there is a new rep to grind. But, typically I spend 2-3 hours a day just crafting/gathering before even actually doing something that you would consider "playing the game," i.e. PVP.

 

What you fail to understand is that a lot of times small guilds want to stay small because of loyalty to guildmates. It's a lot harder to maintain that kind of camaraderie when you're one random face out of 200 and hardly anyone knows anyone.

 

Now, my guild recognizes that this change will only leave PVP as a viable source of conquest points. As a PVP guild it won't affect us as badly as it will the small PVE guilds, but still our 95% placement rate from the last few months is likely to decline to about 30% if we don't merge/infiltrate. And so, we are preparing for the inevitable; it is likely that most of the characters that we PVP on will merge, by hook or by crook, into larger guilds so we can continue to hit the conquest boards and send the encryptions back "home."

 

You maintain the attitude that you don't want to carry smaller guilds--which, ironically, a lot of larger guilds will end up doing if these changes go live. And they will do so in a manner that is corrosive to the health of the game's community at large (see: the PVP community's disdain, and long term population decline, over having to carry "bads").

 

But in reality, you don't want the risk that a small, but superactive guild, could actually out-compete you by logging in 20 crafting alts moments before the close of the conquest event and knocking your guild out of the top 10 (something that typically requires at least a week of preparation beforehand to do, mind you). So you perceive that any change that forces guilds to become larger is a good thing, nevermind the effects upon the community of guilds that don't want to become larger feeling compelled by game mechanics to do so against their will.

 

Now, all of that said...if Bioware did buff the personal conquest rewards to include encryptions? There would be a hell of a lot less reason for us to worry about this. Conquest has long been an all-or-nothing affair, where if your guild could not place in the top 10, there was literally no point in attempting it in the first place. Remove the all-or-nothing part of conquests that motivates us to go to such extreme lengths to place in the top 10 (despite only having a small handful of players), and instead of infiltrating larger guilds to get our encryptions, we'll just PVP normally to get them from our personal targets and save our actual "place on scoreboard" conquest activities for the PVP events and/or crafting events where crafting is allowed to be repeatable. That would be better for everyone, I suspect.

Edited September 9, 2015 by AdrianDmitruk

[Gamazson]

Players don't reach their personal goal, not because of its high target, but because they don't care about the rewards. Griding pvp/gsf/flashpoints is not worth the effort. If you don't reach top 10 you only get 25k + a few mats, I earn more in 8 minutes on Czerka.

 

Add something interesting to the personal target and you will see people reaching 35k without a problem. Maybe a blue reputation token for Republic Hyperspace Armada/Imperial First Mobile Fleet. That would be great. Fleets are associated with fighting and conquering, so getting this reputation for doing Conquest makes sense. The top 10 would get a purple reputation token perhaps.

 

I like that idea.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Gamazson
Quoted wrong person

[RandyL]

So a Guild with 5 people who are super active score 100k each and get 10 million.

The guild with 500 therefore need 100 of them to be just as active as 5 people who can pull a 100k each to tie? ( which will be super tough under the new system ). Yeah that sounds real fair.

 

I did put the disclaimer in there that they might not want guild parity. Is it really fair that a guild of 5 people can compete every week head on with a 500 character guild? Probably not. I think in an effort to find SOME accommodation for smaller guilds some type of multiplier be instituted. So maybe a 5 character guild gets a 25x multiplier instead. That way the larger guild still has the number advantage if it keeps its roster clean with active players while still giving the smaller guild a fighting chance of placing in the top 10.

 

I should add that the multiplier would affect guild conquest points only, not your personal conquest as obviously that wouldn't be fair.

[TravelersWay]

Hey folks,

 

In Fallen Empire we will be making changes to Conquests so I wanted to let you know about what is being adjusted. One thing that we noticed in looking at Conquests is that not as many players as we would hope are completing their personal targets. We feel this may be because the targets are too high, requiring more time to complete than many players may have available. Because of this we are adjusting the target points for rewards in some Conquests:

• All Conquests which previously required 35,000 target points have had that target number reduced to 20,000.
  
• Titans of Industry will remain at 25,000 target points.
  
• Total Galactic War will remain at 50,000 target points.
  
• Trade Emporium will remain at 25,000 target points.
  

Note that Guilds will still compete, as normal, for the top 10 on each Planet once these targets have been reached.

 

In looking at our data and in seeing playing feedback, one thing we have noticed is that many Guilds are primarily using the repeatable Crafting objective to gain points for Conquests. Although we want to include Crafting as an essential part of the Conquest effort, we don’t want that objective to be the “only best answer” to Conquests. Due to this we are making the following changes:

• The Objective “Conquest: War Supplies” is no longer repeatable and is set to reward 2,000 Conquest Points for any Conquest that included that objective.
  

These changes will be reflected in Knights of the Fallen Empire when it launches. Thanks everyone.

 

-eric

 

I am glad this is being looked at and these initial changes are being made. However, would the team consider that the types of content required to reach the conquest goals are part of the reason that players aren't getting there? It's good that there is a variety of content that counts for them, but ultimately how can you include crafting and ignore the space PvE content? You have GSF and Warzones count, so why not space as well for those players who still enjoy doing them?

[annabethchase]

I don't agree that the point target being high was the reason for lack of interest. My reason for lack of interest was the rewards didn't match the effort level.

[Shrendic]

Well, after this change, my guild will be done with Conquest. Why? Because we're small and crafting was the great equalizer for us to be competitive. It was hard enough to keep ahead of the material needs for crafting, but we were able to do it.

 

For us, Conquest was really the only way for us to unlock the rooms of our guild ship that we worked hard to pay for. We had a common goal to unlock all the rooms, and it was that goal that kept us hitting the top 10 each week. It was a challenge we accepted, and we didn't complain about big guilds and the sheer numbers they brought to the table. We just figured out a way to compensate. Along the way, we actually won two planets, too - something we never thought possible at our size, although we always tried. Oddly enough, we started conquest hardcore just after the turn of the year and we've managed to place every week. Now, it's all going away.

 

With this change, as a husband, father and full time architect and author, there's simply not enough time for me to get the same results without crafting. The other members of our guild are in similar situations. Our guild won't get absorbed into another guild - we're pretty independent and have been playing various games together since we all met back in the early 2000's to consider that. It's not that we're antisocial, it's just that we've worked very hard to build what we have in this game to throw it away and join a larger guild that really won't give a damn that we're there or not. If this has any effect whatsoever on us, it will probably be part of the catalyst that will prompt us to move to the next game on the horizon.

[Psychopyro]

I am glad this is being looked at and these initial changes are being made. However, would the team consider that the types of content required to reach the conquest goals are part of the reason that players aren't getting there? It's good that there is a variety of content that counts for them, but ultimately how can you include crafting and ignore the space PvE content? You have GSF and Warzones count, so why not space as well for those players who still enjoy doing them?

 

I can already tell you why. It's to skew the metrics.

 

Well we know that those crafting people are reaching their personal conquest goals, so we know that the problem with reaching goals is not that.

 

They know that if they remove the crafting repeatable, they would have to throw those people a bone, hence the lowering of the targets.

 

But now they have doubled the problem of players not reaching goal, because the lowering of the targets is not enough to offset people not reaching target and the removal of crafting repeatable will cause more to not reach target....

 

So..... If they are expecting that all these people that were already reaching their targets to continue to do so, there is only one way, PvP or GSF.

 

Because PvP and GSF is so cheap, because the players are their own content, they want more people doing this. Right now the metrics say people are not doing enough of it. Obviously the gear cost changes were not enough (duh, I could have told them that).

 

So now they need to make people who want to continue to get their conquest objective do those things so that the metrics say, hey look, more people PvP, so we can just make this cheap 1 off map for PvP, which costed next to nothing to make. And then they get to say, hey all these people PvP and they should be happy, and they won't have to make new FPs or OPs for PvE because eventually the metrics will skew that the PvP group is higher... At least that is what they hope.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Psychopyro

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Actually, since I know what to do with the purple Jawa Junk from the guild rewards, and use it to eliminate the bottleneck in purple mats for crafting for GTN sales, I'm actually able to make the crafting-for-conquest self sustaining and even buy extra encryptions off GTN to help things along a bit from time to time. In fact, doing conquests in such a manner (again, I know what I'm doing) pays a lot more per hour than dailies--hence the only reason why I will do dailies anymore is if there is a new rep to grind. But, typically I spend 2-3 hours a day just crafting/gathering before even actually doing something that you would consider "playing the game," i.e. PVP.

 

Dailies? Pfft, who said anything about dailiness?

I said if you know what you're doing. I didn't get 100's of millions over only 3 toons doing dailies I assure you.

 

In saying that, if noone did dailies none of us would have very many credits.

 

Also I'm in favour of keeping crafting as your post seems to imply I'm against it.

Your reply to me came over the "small guilds" issue to which I stand by the point if conquest and it's rewards mean so much then you might as well aim to be a big guild.

 

What you fail to understand is that a lot of times small guilds want to stay small because of loyalty to guildmates. It's a lot harder to maintain that kind of camaraderie when you're one random face out of 200 and hardly anyone knows anyone.

 

You have a guild of 20 close friends, you grow that guild, you still have your 20 close friends plus more. What's the issue? You don't disband your guild and go join another, you grow the one you have.

 

Unfortunately too many GMs seem to have the small guild attitude and not even want to attempt to grow their guild and in the same breath complain about how big guilds dominate conquest ... too bad.

 

 

Now, my guild recognizes that this change will only leave PVP as a viable source of conquest points. As a PVP guild it won't affect us as badly as it will the small PVE guilds, but still our 95% placement rate from the last few months is likely to decline to about 30% if we don't merge/infiltrate. And so, we are preparing for the inevitable; it is likely that most of the characters that we PVP on will merge, by hook or by crook, into larger guilds so we can continue to hit the conquest boards and send the encryptions back "home."

 

Again, so much work vs just growing your initial guild.

 

You maintain the attitude that you don't want to carry smaller guilds--which, ironically, a lot of larger guilds will end up doing if these changes go live. And they will do so in a manner that is corrosive to the health of the game's community at large (see: the PVP community's disdain, and long term population decline, over having to carry "bads").

 

I didn't mean it in regards of larger guilds carrying small guilds. I meant it as in the game having to cater to them to a feature that is clearly more geared up towards larger guilds.

 

It's guild vs guild after all, if you're guild is smaller than of course you're at a disadvantage and so you should be.

Why should their be systems in place to to make the hard work a large guild did growing be disadvantaged?

 

There is NOTHING in the game stopping a small guild beocming large, only choice and excuses. If it were an actual limitation that somehow made it unfair I could see a need for a balancing system but it's a choice factor and nothing more so there is quite simply no need.

 

 

But in reality, you don't want the risk that a small, but superactive guild, could actually out-compete you by logging in 20 crafting alts moments before the close of the conquest event and knocking your guild out of the top 10 (something that typically requires at least a week of preparation beforehand to do, mind you). So you perceive that any change that forces guilds to become larger is a good thing, nevermind the effects upon the community of guilds that don't want to become larger feeling compelled by game mechanics to do so against their will.

 

Well now you're just putting words in my mouth and jumping to conclusions on what I think ... very poor form.

 

I quite liked how a small guild could put the crafting effort in to beating a large guild on the old system or could repeat any set of circumstances non stop to achieve it.

 

I prefer the old system as is to this silly concept of a new system.

 

My POINT in regards to small guilds with this system is there shouldn't be some stupid mathmatical balancing system put in place to make the work the small guild does on an individual basis worth more than that of a large guild.

 

Perhaps read my first wee rant post to truly see my thoughts on these changes.

 

Now, all of that said...if Bioware did buff the personal conquest rewards to include encryptions?

 

No, not for the personal rewards but adding a guild target score also. So your small guild has a goal it can aim for and it's not affected by the rank of a large guild.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

I did put the disclaimer in there that they might not want guild parity. Is it really fair that a guild of 5 people can compete every week head on with a 500 character guild? Probably not. I think in an effort to find SOME accommodation for smaller guilds some type of multiplier be instituted. So maybe a 5 character guild gets a 25x multiplier instead. That way the larger guild still has the number advantage if it keeps its roster clean with active players while still giving the smaller guild a fighting chance of placing in the top 10.

 

I should add that the multiplier would affect guild conquest points only, not your personal conquest as obviously that wouldn't be fair.

 

I think the above idea of adding a score target, like personal targets, that rewards the financial gains of the current "top 10" rewards would be better than any sort of system that starts artificially messing with scores.

 

After all a top 10 is the top 10 guilds @ conquest and that should include being able to grow your guild to such a large size and attract the players into it in any legal means you see fit.

[Leen_]

So does this mean that u will make it that the singles are once per character or are the gonna stay once per account. And question on the weeks where invasions are repeatable are they gonna stay the same or are u eliminating them too? Edited September 22, 2015 by Leen_

[Psychopyro]

So does this mean that u will make it that the singles are once per character or are the gonna stay once per account. And question on the weeks where invasions are repeatable are they gonna stay the same or are u eliminating them too?

 

Guessing with the limitations with the system, war supply will be once per legacy...

 

With this change, I don't really see the point of changing Invasion Force at this point on those 2 events because there will be a lot LOT less war supplies to craft them with, as not every event gives for crafting the specific war supply.

[Salmonleap]

With all due respect BioWare, you guys didn't think this one through at all did you? First you killed the crafting economy with the Cartel Market, greatly increased Basic Commendation rewards, and the weak promise that "you can still craft for conquests." Now you've nuked the barely twitching corpse. Is there any use for any crafting except augments, grenades, and biochem adrenals/stims/medpacks?

 

You could have made it so the small guilds and individual players had some incentive to participate even if they could never generate the "points" needed to conquer a planet or even get anywhere near the leader board. Now even the reduced personal goal is out of reach of anyone except PvPers. There is just no point to bother unless one is in one of the largest three or four guilds on a given server.

 

The stated goal was increase the number of "people" participating needs to be rephrased to eliminate confusion. It appears that you only want PvPers participating since there is no other way to reach the, albeit lowered, individual conquest target. You might as well dump the Jawa junk rewards and just give Warzone Commendations as the Individual rewards. Conquests are just a guild PvP event with some accidental/optional PvE content now.

[harmonichonda]

Silly change to be something that drastic. Farmers and crafters economy being likely one of the larger credit sinks in the game if not the largest will be dead now. How odd to want to push more people towards aspects of the game that have not addressed known speed hacks, win-trading, and an embarrassing lack of new modular changes in a year.

[Big_Ryno]

LOOK best way for conquest to make it fair for all is kind of simple really. MAKE EVERYTHING non reapeaable, except pvp and gsf u can do it til the weekly is reached, this would go for fps an tacticals also. Everything is til weekly is reached. Now every toon can do it, makes it so u have to use all ur toons if u want to continue in conquest. With ops Every boss has to be beat to get credit. This would eliminate gsf from ruling, pvp crafting or op guilds. everyone has the same advantages.