Muljo_Stpho Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) If that rule was in effect, cutting off at 5-6 medals, I'd get zero conquest points for playing GSF ever. Two is GREAT! I can't remember off-hand if I even have seen 5 or 6! EVAR. Whatever target value they might ask for (which hopefully would be the average per match expected of the average player) It would most definitely NOT actually need to be earned all in the same match. (Though it would certainly be better for you if you can meet and exceed the target each match.) If the baseline GSF conquest objective was medal based instead of the current "complete a match" objective, it would function the same as the 50 medal objective that's added in when they want GSF in the week's theme. Whatever you earn in a match gets added to the counter. You might see 0/50 to start and then 7/50 after one match and 11/50 after the next and 16/50 after the next. Or whatever pace you're earning them at. And then when the total finally reaches 50 it awards the points and continues counting up from 0 again. The objective might say "Earn medals in a Galactic Starfighter match - x/5 - 500 points". (Exact values up to the devs to finalize, of course.) Let's suppose that someone is a newer player or has a bad match and they only earn 3 medals. Now the progress on that objective reads 3/5 and they only need to earn at least 2 medals in the next one. Suppose that the next match goes really well for them and they earn 8 medals. The objective will actually trigger twice then since it goes 3/5 -> 5/5 -> 5/5 -> 1/5 while adding those 8 medals to the count. This is what I think that the GSF objective present in every conquest week ought to look like. And I also think that the warzone objective present every week ought to be set up the same way (with a different target to aim for because of differences in ease of earning medals). Hmmm... One thing though... Perhaps the suggestion could have an added clause that completing the match counts as 1 point on the counter. So you could always increment the counter by 1 no matter what happens and your medals earned count as additional points on top of that. No, wait. Don't say anything special in the objective itself to do that. Just fake it by adding a "participation medal" which everybody earns just by being there when the match ends. And they could take it a step further by adding a "winner's medal" that everyone on the winning team earns when the match ends. So that way everybody is guaranteed to always gain 1 point towards that counter in each match, and those on the winning team get at least 2 points towards the counter. And you can try to earn extra medals on top of that to speed up your progress through the counter. Edited March 7, 2016 by Muljo_Stpho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavaar Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Whatever target value they might ask for (which hopefully would be the average per match expected of the average player) It would most definitely NOT actually need to be earned all in the same match. (Though it would certainly be better for you if you can meet and exceed the target each match.) If the baseline GSF conquest objective was medal based instead of the current "complete a match" objective, it would function the same as the 50 medal objective that's added in when they want GSF in the week's theme. Whatever you earn in a match gets added to the counter. You might see 0/50 to start and then 7/50 after one match and 11/50 after the next and 16/50 after the next. Or whatever pace you're earning them at. And then when the total finally reaches 50 it awards the points and continues counting up from 0 again. The objective might say "Earn medals in a Galactic Starfighter match - x/5 - 500 points". (Exact values up to the devs to finalize, of course.) Let's suppose that someone is a newer player or has a bad match and they only earn 3 medals. Now the progress on that objective reads 3/5 and they only need to earn at least 2 medals in the next one. Suppose that the next match goes really well for them and they earn 8 medals. The objective will actually trigger twice then since it goes 3/5 -> 5/5 -> 5/5 -> 1/5 while adding those 8 medals to the count. This is what I think that the GSF objective present in every conquest week ought to look like. And I also think that the warzone objective present every week ought to be set up the same way (with a different target to aim for because of differences in ease of earning medals). Hmmm... One thing though... Perhaps the suggestion could have an added clause that completing the match counts as 1 point on the counter. So you could always increment the counter by 1 no matter what happens and your medals earned count as additional points on top of that. No, wait. Don't say anything special in the objective itself to do that. Just fake it by adding a "participation medal" which everybody earns just by being there when the match ends. And they could take it a step further by adding a "winner's medal" that everyone on the winning team earns when the match ends. So that way everybody is guaranteed to always gain 1 point towards that counter in each match, and those on the winning team get at least 2 points towards the counter. And you can try to earn extra medals on top of that to speed up your progress through the counter. This is pretty good, I like this. It would also be a way to deal with those blood-sucking conquest farmers. However, I do not believe in a "participation" medal in this model, however, I think that adding in some super easy medals would make up for that, such as "boost for 10k" or "successfully hit an opponent" or "successfully break a missile lock" or easier things like that. There are already quite a few medals which are crazy easy to get, but I would like to avoid participation medals in order to dissuade conquest farmers like the ones on the shadowlands. It won't happen though, I nothing here will change, so instead of making suggestions to the dev's, I am afraid we have to come up with community based solutions as much as possible. To be fair the thread you linked was posted on the forums only like a week or two ago. Ashamam, this only makes it all the more unforgivable that people are still referring to this issue as if it hasn't been solved yet. We should recognize that the developers aren't going to invest in this, it has just been too long now and the focus has clearly shifted. The best we can do is come up with community solutions which can help expand the playerbase, and if that happens we may see an uptick in developer attention here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krixarcs Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) HATE to brake it to you but it aint going to happen bucko. The devs give less of a crap about this game than the players gives a crap about ur guild Edited March 8, 2016 by Krixarcs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomiSotto Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Whatever target value they might ask for (which hopefully would be the average per match expected of the average player) It would most definitely NOT actually need to be earned all in the same match. (Though it would certainly be better for you if you can meet and exceed the target each match.) [etc, for brevity of quoting] My objection still remains, that should I care about the Conquest points, I would simply drop all Deathmatches, and sit the sats in my Razorwire to bulk up the medal count. While the discrepancy exists in how easy it is to get a medal by flying circles around a sat vs literally anything else, you open it up for the pointless farming for the Conquest. Right now I have a choice to try different things and get the same Conquest points and I get more comms for trying different ships. The stronger emphasis on the medals will drive the preference for Sats vs DMs, and Bombers vs Anything Else. Just like in ground PvP folks quit the arenas because they award far less and are harder to play than the 8s. Edited March 8, 2016 by DomiSotto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts