Conquest Feedback and Upcoming Changes

[PorsaLindahl]

At the risk of feeding the troll....

 

Incorrect. I'm seeking intelligent and intellectual conversation... /snip

 

This is a feedback thread. No one wants to "converse" with you because you're not bringing anything intelligent, or intellectual, to the thread. You're just creating additional drama.

 

Don't bother responding to this. You matter not one iota and you're counterpoints to what's given as feedback are counterproductive to the thread.

[olagatonjedi]

At the risk of feeding the troll....

 

 

 

This is a feedback thread. No one wants to "converse" with you because you're not bringing anything intelligent, or intellectual, to the thread. You're just creating additional drama.

 

Don't bother responding to this. You matter not one iota and you're counterpoints to what's given as feedback are counterproductive to the thread.

Considering you take the time to respond, and others as well, i would say my part in this feedback discussion is pretty significant, even if people arent directly acknowledging me.

 

Feedback doesnt only have to be negative, especially if someone believes the changes merit positive feedback, and support it within their feedback.

[vaporousmist]

Can you still log into your Alts? They arent gone. Sounds like you are thinking more into it than is needed. The alts are there for people to play and experience, but nothing says they ALL have to be included in conqiest every single week. I don't believe that was intended by bioware.

 

If it "wasn't intended" then it should have nerfed 3 years ago when they release conquests. But what sense does that make?

Bioware man: "I have an idea! Let's make a game based on an alt system and then deliberately construct content that excludes the alt system!"

Other bioware man: "That's a terrific idea! But let's wait 3 years before we narrow down the system to exclude alts."

Bioware man: "I think that is an excellent improvement on my original idea! Go forth and nerf!"

 

I get that there are solo players. cool. bully for them. they like swtor and don't wanna bother w/ people. peachy. that's their choice. they pay their money, they are entitled to play the game the way the find the most enjoyable. same goes for small, medium and big guilds and the players that choose to be a part of those. Their are perks and drawbacks at each level of community interaction. The problem with what they've done to conquest or GC originally (the 2 biggest fubar moments the game has seen in the last year or so) is that the devs have "fixed" the game in a way that specifically and grotesquely contradicts the basic foundation of the game. Not to mention the fact that with the conquest changes, they said they were making changes they though would help smaller guilds. the end of that sentence should have been "to help smaller guilds merge with bigger guilds cuz that's the only way they'll ever get titles ever again." They encourage players to spend their hard earned RL cash on a master datacron or outlander token to quick level an ALT, for nearly 2 years now, and then they nerf conquest (which includes all aspects of both PvP and PvE) to a single achievable toon concept? THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE. "keep spending money on master datacrons and outlander tokens in the cartel market but we're gonna go ahead and remove one of 2 core reasons for having those alts. that'd be greaaaaat. thanks."

 

and while conquest is just a way to encourage people to regurgitate and recycle old content while we wait for the tiniest drip of something new, it was at least something semi-rewarding to get solos and guilds alike moving through content with some semblance of reward. We are not seeing only in black and white. what the community is upset about it all the grey matter that was removed from the game for absolutely no good reason.

[olagatonjedi]

If it "wasn't intended" then it should have nerfed 3 years ago when they release conquests. But what sense does that make?

Bioware man: "I have an idea! Let's make a game based on an alt system and then deliberately construct content that excludes the alt system!"

Other bioware man: "That's a terrific idea! But let's wait 3 years before we narrow down the system to exclude alts."

Bioware man: "I think that is an excellent improvement on my original idea! Go forth and nerf!"

Someone forgot that the people who designed the game 3 years ago arent with BW now. Different regime looking to fix what the old regime messed up.

[TrixxieTriss]

EXACTLY how I feel. It's a good act though...it gets the attention some people crave.

 

+1

 

It’s what I never take anything the says seriously. It will always be the opposite of black even if it’s already white,

[Calar]

Even after the last changes and the changes announced for 5.9, I don't think you are even close to what you wanted to achieve with 5.8. The state before patch 5.8 was closer to what you wanted than what you took live with 5.8.

 

It is still impossible for small guilds to conquer a planet. Only 3 planets to choose from means that all small guilds will go on the lowest tier (maximum the middle). There is an extremely high level of rivals. The Big Guilds, on the other hand, always have a choice of 3 planets.

 

I hope the change in patch 5.9 allows small guilds to conquer a planet again with preparation. But I dare to doubt it. What really pisses me off is that it is done in such a way that you only have to click a bit for the crafting and you already have many points. That is not the case. In the weeks before, we were farming on different planets, questing for credits to buy mats etc. So it's not click-click and place 1.

 

This week we noticed another point that annoys and frustrates us (last week we were much too annoyed about the current change, as we would have noticed that already). We reached our guild goal (550,000 points) on Friday. We don't stand a chance at number one. We'll definitely get the flagship plans. It doesn't matter if we're still doing anything at all towards conquest. We got the big points. The voltage's out. Depending on the planet, the conquest will only take 2 or 3 days. It's not worth going to the biggest planet. Towards the end of the week, we can't make many points anymore, because the worthwhile goals are only once and the rest just don't provide enough points.

 

In short, small and medium guilds still have a lot harder time than before, and you have achieved just the opposite of what you wanted. And patch 5.9 won't change that.

[ShadowGovernator]

Yea roll-back the conquest system in 5.8 to the old conquest system

[Darevsool]

Im helping people with enlightenment and self growth. And you are wrong, the system affected me similarly to what others have said, but I understand the bigger picture, unlike many here.

 

What, in your mind, is the 'bigger picture'?

 

Here's what Eric stated the goals of the revamp were:

 

 

Conquest Feedback and Upcoming Changes | 03.22.2018, 09:29 PM

Hey folks,

 

In this thread we want to cover a few things about Conquests: our goals for the revamp, the feedback we are hearing from all of you, and what we are changing (and when). I recommend you start by reading our write-up of the changes that were coming to 5.8. Let’s jump in.

 

The Conquest Revamp – Goals

We had a few things in mind that we wanted to address as we moved from the old system into the new one. First and foremost were rewards. This includes ensuring that the new system delivers the rewards you earn, but also increasing the overall rewards for participating in Conquests. Here are is what you receive now when you and your Guild complete a conquest:

A large amount of Credits and CXP via completion of Objectives

Personal rewards, including crafting materials, credits, and more

Invasion rewards, including crafting materials, credits, Encryptions, and more, which is now rewarded to all Guilds who meet the invasion target.

Access to the Fleet vendor which sells special decos and the Master Compendium (Companion Influence boost)

 

Here are some of the other areas we were aiming to address:

Objectives and their points – Conquests are meant to be an activity that someone can work on throughout the week as they play the game. Previously, Conquests were very homogenized in that there was very little diversity among each week. We used this opportunity to spread out what objectives were available in each Conquest.

Crafting - Crafting is a key part of Conquests, and we certainly did not want to remove that. However, we know the use of War Supplies and crafting was contributing too much to the overall competition of Conquests. For that reason, we reduced the overall effectiveness of Crafting, but added new functionality to War Supplies that they can be consumed to add Conquest points. Allowing you to get points out of them twice if you want, or you could craft them on one character and then move them to other characters to gain conquest points.

Yield Targets – Competition among different sized Guilds has always been a problem in Conquests. We introduced yield targets to assist in separating out Guilds by various sizes, as they have differing targets and rewards.

Interface – We gave the interface a facelift (as outlined in the other post) to make it easier to find activities you may want to complete.

 

Your Feedback

We never saw this revamp as being a perfect change out of the gates, but it is a first step for us in crafting an improved Conquest system. Your feedback is incredibly valuable as we can immediately start making changes to get things to a great place. Now that you understand what our goals were, let’s talk about the things we are hearing from you.

 

Changed / Missing Objectives

This feedback was most commonly expressed from PvP’ers who saw a daily objective for winning a Warzone, but not one for participating. Our plan to combat the old system’s homogenization was to spread out all Objectives. This week may not have participation as an Objective, but it isn’t gone, it is just in a different Conquest. However, this information was not clear and breaks too far from the old system.

Plan: We are going to add a repeatable GSF and Warzone Participation Objective into all Conquest weeks. This will go into our next patch (possibly next week).

 

Objective Points Too Low

With the rebalance to Conquest Objectives, there is a general sense that completing your Personal Conquest takes too long and by proxy, Guild Invasions as well.

Plan: We are going to lower the Personal Conquest target to 15,000 per week (down from 20,000). We are also adjusting the Planetary Yield Targets to be:

Small is now 200,000 (down from 460,000)

Medium is now 550,000 (down from 1,380,000)

Large is now 1,130,000 (down from 2,530,000)

This will happen in our next patch (possibly next week).

 

Crafting Changes Too Harsh

Crafting in Conquests was just too good prior to 5.8. There is a feeling though that we cut a bit too deep on its overall impact to Conquests. The War Supply schematics were combined which made them harder to craft, and their point contribution went down, even with the added functionality of being able to consume them.

Plan: We are going to give it some time and monitor the impact of these changes, and then we will make any needed adjustments in 5.9 or beyond.

 

Large Yield Target Rewards Aren’t Good Enough

We are seeing concerns that the Large (and possibly Medium) Yield rewards simply aren’t good enough to warrant the extra points required. That this may cause most Guilds to simply filter down into Small Yields, which is counter-productive to the goal of getting Guilds to split a bit by Guild size.

Plan: This is something we are sensitive to but without seeing actual participation data around Conquests, we are hesitant to make changes just yet. We will monitor in the coming weeks and make any needed changes in 5.9 and beyond.

 

New UI Confusion

There definitely is some confusion around the iconography in the new UI, especially for Objectives. For quick reference right now, Yellow icon means infinitely repeatable, Blue means daily repeatable, no icon means once per week.

Plan: With 5.9 we will be adjusting some text along with adding tooltips to ensure that is a bit clearer. We’re also going to be swapping the yellow/blue to be consistent with the rest of the game. In addition, we’ll be adding some additional fly text for Conquest Objective completion.

 

Punishing to Alts // Legacy

With the rebalance of Objective points and the reclassification of some Objective types, there is some concern over the ability for a player with multiple characters in a Legacy to be competitive in Conquests. Additionally, there are similar concerns for folks with characters within a Legacy in more than one Guild.

Plan: One initial step to resolve this is the lowering of the Conquest targets as highlighted above. Also, by adding more repeatable Objectives (like PvP participation) as noted, this should give players more ways to gain points and make it easier to achieve targets. Beyond that we will continue to monitor data and your feedback to seek other possible changes in 5.9 and beyond.

 

That is most of the major points of feedback we have seen coming in regarding the Conquest revamp, but we know it isn’t everything. Let us know your thoughts on the changes we have planned. Also, even after these changes are out the door please keep your feedback coming. We are committed to getting Conquests to be enjoyable, challenging, and rewarding.

 

Thanks everyone!

 

-eric

 

 

From my perspective the two biggest complaints, from the players, as seen in the forum starting about a month before the changes (coincidentally enough) were large guilds running lockouts and 'pre-loading' crafting done the Sunday/Monday night before a crafting week, now being referred to as a "crafting bomb."

 

Another complaint was that smaller guilds had it more difficult in competing for the top 10 spots so it was much more difficult/expensive to expand their guild ships.

 

All that really needed to be done to fix these three things was to implement two changes.

1. Implement the invasion Yield Targets as they did. No more worrying about needing to make the leader board to get your weekly encryption.

2. Create a system similar to what's in place for reputation, only make it per toon and not per legacy. Once a toon gets their personal goal for the week, the points stop coming. You can use alts to get more points, but once any toon gets to 20k (or 25k or 50k for those weeks) that's it, no more points for that toon.

 

You can argue that some people have more alts than others, yes, that's true. I'm one of them. Between two accounts the most I've ever ran up to the personal goal in a single week is around 40 (20 per account).

 

These changes wouldn't have taken away the competition aspect of it because if a guild was falling short, they could have recruited more people. Ultimately, no matter WHICH system is in place, the guild with the largest number of active players is going to win the top spot and the title.

[BullitClub]

Even after the last changes and the changes announced for 5.9, I don't think you are even close to what you wanted to achieve with 5.8. The state before patch 5.8 was closer to what you wanted than what you took live with 5.8.

 

It is still impossible for small guilds to conquer a planet. Only 3 planets to choose from means that all small guilds will go on the lowest tier (maximum the middle). There is an extremely high level of rivals. The Big Guilds, on the other hand, always have a choice of 3 planets.

 

I hope the change in patch 5.9 allows small guilds to conquer a planet again with preparation. But I dare to doubt it. What really pisses me off is that it is done in such a way that you only have to click a bit for the crafting and you already have many points. That is not the case. In the weeks before, we were farming on different planets, questing for credits to buy mats etc. So it's not click-click and place 1.

 

This week we noticed another point that annoys and frustrates us (last week we were much too annoyed about the current change, as we would have noticed that already). We reached our guild goal (550,000 points) on Friday. We don't stand a chance at number one. We'll definitely get the flagship plans. It doesn't matter if we're still doing anything at all towards conquest. We got the big points. The voltage's out. Depending on the planet, the conquest will only take 2 or 3 days. It's not worth going to the biggest planet. Towards the end of the week, we can't make many points anymore, because the worthwhile goals are only once and the rest just don't provide enough points.

 

In short, small and medium guilds still have a lot harder time than before, and you have achieved just the opposite of what you wanted. And patch 5.9 won't change that.

 

And the big guilds still choosing small planets because rewards for medium and large is nowhere near the effort factor.

 

Leaderboard for the small planet has a guild that doubled the requirement they needed for the large reward. You have to get down to around #8 before the guild wouldn't have enough to pick medium. So the stated reason for the change has failed.

Edited April 1, 2018 by BullitClub

[JediJoy]

SNIP

Ultimately, no matter WHICH system is in place, the guild with the largest number of active players is going to win the top spot and the title.

 

I disagree with the mass majority of your post.... However this part here really pissed me off. In pre 5.8, a small guild (such as mine) could and DID win first place during crafting conquest weeks. In fact my SMALL guild was soo successful at crafting, that we won all planets that popped up during crafting weeks. The only planets left for our galaxy conqueror titles were the rare ones that were never included in the crafting weeks.

 

Now we have ZERO chance at winning EVER! When 5.8 was released, we had to grind our butts off just to achieve the min points needed to get our guild rewards. After that, 95% of my guild unsubbed and stopped playing completely.

 

Those crafting bombs that everyone complained about were mostly from small crafting guilds trying our hardest to get enough lead on the first day to deter large guilds from going after us. We worked hard, saving every green bit and every credit. It was a HUGE morale boost for the guild. It actually enticed members who did nothing but solo content to become more active in the guild.

 

Crafting wasnt broken. Crafting did NOT need the mega ninja nerf it got.

[Sareeph]

And the big guilds still choosing small planets because rewards for medium and large is nowhere near the effort factor.

 

Leaderboard for the small planet has a guild that doubled the requirement they needed for the large reward. You have to get down to around #8 before the guild wouldn't have enough to pick medium. So the stated reason for the change has failed.

 

Reward size and effort factor are not always considered when selecting conquest planets. A guild wanting to conquer a particular planet for it's members will still put in massive effort to ensure they are the victors over a particular planet regardless of yield size. Don't forget, the achievements are still coveted by many. As for rewards, a guild with a completely unlocked ship and guild members that have 100+ of the various deco's given would find a further increase to reward size little incentive to solely target larger yield planets based on their guilds size. Now if they added unique rewards for each yield size there might be incentive, but then we would see arguments flare as to fairness of being able to get these new rewards being out of reach for smaller guilds. Personally I think they really need to have more than 3 planets per conquest.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Sareeph

[JediJoy]

ENOUGH!

 

Please, lets get this post back to constructive opinions and advice about Conquest!

 

What are your impressions of the upcoming changes? Good? Bad? Why?

 

What would you like to see added? Planets? Objectives?

 

What would you like to see changed? Points? Crafting? Objectives?

 

What would you like see removed?

 

I know that the majority want them to just roll back to before 5.8; but lets face a bit of reality, the dev's arent going to do that. Its now our job as test subjects to give them the data that they are "monitoring". If you want changes, be constructive, include as much logic, detail and data as possible. "It sucks, roll it back" doesnt help anyone.

[ShadowGovernator]

The only thing that will work is for the new Conquest system to be rolled back to the old Conquest system.

 

Continue to monitoring the current state of the game does not work.

- pop times are off the roof

- players are leaving the game

 

Putting a small bandage on a big mortal wound is futile.

They shot off the head of the patient!

 

Rolling it back to pre 5.8 is the only way.

And be quick about it before it's too late.

[AlrikFassbauer]

HUGE guilds are still taking away small and middle planets away from small guilds - it's an exact mirror of RL economy right now !

[Ghost_Spectre]

HUGE guilds are still taking away small and middle planets away from small guilds - it's an exact mirror of RL economy right now !

 

I saw that happening last week. I didn't even bother moving either our guild's ships to participate. Not worth the hassle.

[PorsaLindahl]

All of you need to take your little argument to PM's. That subject has absolutely no business on these forums, let alone a conquest feedback thread.

[masterceil]

All of you need to take your little argument to PM's. That subject has absolutely no business on these forums, let alone a conquest feedback thread.

 

This. I was about one post away from reporting the conversation. This isn't really the appropriate venue for that discussion. Let's keep this civil, and on the topic at hand.

 

For instance, I like the changes brought with 5.8a and look forward to 5.9. My opinion's an unpopular one, but I hope they keep LO/Craft farms crippled. I'm not worried about them rolling back Conquest in general to pre-5.8 status, but I really hope they don't roll back these particular changes.

[Darevsool]

I disagree with the mass majority of your post.... However this part here really pissed me off. In pre 5.8, a small guild (such as mine) could and DID win first place during crafting conquest weeks. In fact my SMALL guild was soo successful at crafting, that we won all planets that popped up during crafting weeks. The only planets left for our galaxy conqueror titles were the rare ones that were never included in the crafting weeks.

 

Now we have ZERO chance at winning EVER! When 5.8 was released, we had to grind our butts off just to achieve the min points needed to get our guild rewards. After that, 95% of my guild unsubbed and stopped playing completely.

 

Those crafting bombs that everyone complained about were mostly from small crafting guilds trying our hardest to get enough lead on the first day to deter large guilds from going after us. We worked hard, saving every green bit and every credit. It was a HUGE morale boost for the guild. It actually enticed members who did nothing but solo content to become more active in the guild.

 

Crafting wasnt broken. Crafting did NOT need the mega ninja nerf it got.

 

How many active players in your "small" guild?

How many put up points during pre 5.8 crafting weeks?

 

Before, or after the recent server merges?

 

I have a private guild that I've had for years. Pre server merge I was able to craft, with just two accounts, enough to get on the leaderboard and even win some conquest weeks.

 

I did that for a couple years before the server merge until some of the other guilds with 20+ people on started doing conquest stuff again.

My two active accounts - a small guild by my definition - in no way could keep up with 20 active accounts participating in conquest.

 

 

That being said, I agree with you, it wasn't broken, it didn't need fixing.

Since they seemed inclined to fix something regardless, I offered (hindsight is 20/20) some ways it could have been done that wouldn't have included changing something that wasn't broken.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Darevsool

[Darevsool]

derailing the thread will get it locked.

 

then we'll have to start ANOTHER one that will get to 80+ pages.

[KendraP]

All of you need to take your little argument to PM's. That subject has absolutely no business on these forums, let alone a conquest feedback thread.

 

This. I came here going *** are we talking about now and what does it have to do with conquest?

 

And on topic - the 5.8 changes are nice. They do not go far enough, however. I request you reconsider the daily per legacy category, because, being honest it feels like it was added strictly to limit alts.

 

Part 2 - timeline. I will wait for major changes, but could we have maybe some small adjustments before may? I dont really want to wait a month for further changes that will probably still need readjusting. Seriously did you guys learn anything from the GC debacle?

Edited April 2, 2018 by KendraP

[PorsaLindahl]

This. I was about one post away from reporting the conversation. This isn't really the appropriate venue for that discussion. Let's keep this civil, and on the topic at hand.

 

For instance, I like the changes brought with 5.8a and look forward to 5.9. My opinion's an unpopular one, but I hope they keep LO/Craft farms crippled. I'm not worried about them rolling back Conquest in general to pre-5.8 status, but I really hope they don't roll back these particular changes.

 

I hope they all get a ban. This is ridiculous.

 

Back to the topic. The changes with 5.(2L)8a were a step in the right direction. A very small step. I guess they need to learn to walk again after shooting both of their feet off with this. The proposed 5.9 changes are still too little and will be too late for many.

 

It's bad business practice to utilize the live servers to beta test new systems.

 

Another thing comes to mind. Eric says "They're monitoring the data." I'm pretty sure that the data from each server won't match up with what's being done on the other servers. If one server has a lot of players that "dig in" and try to make the best of these changes, while the others say "screw this" then they're going to look at that one that "dug in" and say "Hey, it worked! We're not changing a thing. On second thought, let's make everything legacy restrictive."

[masterceil]

I hope they all get a ban. This is ridiculous.

 

Back to the topic. The changes with 5.(2L)8a were a step in the right direction. A very small step. I guess they need to learn to walk again after shooting both of their feet off with this. The proposed 5.9 changes are still too little and will be too late for many.

 

It's bad business practice to utilize the live servers to beta test new systems.

 

Another thing comes to mind. Eric says "They're monitoring the data." I'm pretty sure that the data from each server won't match up with what's being done on the other servers. If one server has a lot of players that "dig in" and try to make the best of these changes, while the others say "screw this" then they're going to look at that one that "dug in" and say "Hey, it worked! We're not changing a thing. On second thought, let's make everything legacy restrictive."

 

Agreed that 5.9 won't be perfect, but I still feel it's another step in the right direction. I just hope it's not their final step - there is still a ways to go to refine this thing. Mostly indeed revolving around Character/Legacy distinctions. 5.8 was indeed a blow to the population, no doubt, but perhaps future changes can bring some of those people back. Of course, it'd help if the game were marketed at all to bring in new blood. I doubt I'll see a SWTOR ad when I go see Solo

 

As for testing, I understand why they had to push Conquest live for proper testing - this isn't the sort of thing you can work kinks out with a few dozen players on a PTS. However, they could have been much more transparent about their proposed changes before pushing them live. Let us know exactly what their plans were, so we could point out these issues, and maybe could have had 5.9's changes be the starting point instead of dumping 5.8 on people and leaving some wildly unpopular changes in place for a month and a half. Any player here could have told them that 85 points for GSF/WZ is ludicrous, and that having those Win objectives be once/day/Legacy was a Bad Thing. You need to test part of the system live because of the sheer scale of this particular activity, but the planning and implementation could have been a lot better.

 

I'm monitoring Conquest on Star Forge m'self for these first few weeks - taking snapshots of the leaderboards of all three planets and the points earned by players in my guild to see how things go. In hindsight, I should have started tracking such things when changes to Conquest were initially announced for proper before/after glances, but I naively thought they were going to improve Conquest out the gate and that it wouldn't be as bad as it was

 

BW, of course, do have access to global trends in Conquest scoring (or should, if they're managing and storing data properly). Any half-decent data analyst should be able to look at the before/after in aggregate and see what's really going on behind the scenes, at the player, guild, and server levels. This being BioWare, though, that's not a sure thing

[JediJoy]

How many active players in your "small" guild?

How many put up points during pre 5.8 crafting weeks?

 

Before, or after the recent server merges?

 

I have a private guild that I've had for years. Pre server merge I was able to craft, with just two accounts, enough to get on the leaderboard and even win some conquest weeks.

 

I did that for a couple years before the server merge until some of the other guilds with 20+ people on started doing conquest stuff again.

My two active accounts - a small guild by my definition - in no way could keep up with 20 active accounts participating in conquest.

 

 

That being said, I agree with you, it wasn't broken, it didn't need fixing.

Since they seemed inclined to fix something regardless, I offered (hindsight is 20/20) some ways it could have been done that wouldn't have included changing something that wasn't broken.

 

Our small guild is on the larger side of what some consider small, however not large enough to qualify to be considered medium. We have anywhere between 5 to 15 active players who are super alt friendly. Only a small handful of aprox 6-8 actually crafted anything and only 3 that produced the large number of points. We have been able to win before and after the server merges. Speaking of, I agree, I wasnt happy about the server merges either but I understand why they did it. We were already on a very active server (Harbinger) so the server merge during crafting conquest weeks didnt phase us.

[Lhancelot]

Another thing comes to mind. Eric says "They're monitoring the data." I'm pretty sure that the data from each server won't match up with what's being done on the other servers. If one server has a lot of players that "dig in" and try to make the best of these changes, while the others say "screw this" then they're going to look at that one that "dug in" and say "Hey, it worked! We're not changing a thing. On second thought, let's make everything legacy restrictive."

 

 

I hope Eric let's us know what exactly "monitoring the data" actually is. This is a good point, and falls on what most people complain about which is a failure to communicate.

 

People might have good feedback for them to follow if they are monitoring situations that won't garner accurate information.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Lhancelot

[ShadowGovernator]

I hope Eric let's us know what exactly "monitoring the data" actually is. This is a good point, and falls on what most people complain about which is a failure to communicate.

 

People might have good feedback for them to follow if they are monitoring situations that won't garner accurate information.

 

Well they are not exactly known for the best communication - quite the opposite.

 

They should not monitor the conquest leader boards from guilds that are no longer invading planets.

As those leader boards do not get wiped clean for old conquest data - so monitoring those will give a wrong view.

It's a bug thing.