Conquest Feedback and Upcoming Changes

[PennyAnn]

I posted in the other feedback thread, and will post here as well. I'm done giving feedback that is being ignored by all but the trolls. My guild is not going to participate in such a broken system, and will only revisit the issue after 5.9. They want to wait a month or more to fix this? We'll wait a month or more to play it. And probably, the game itself.

 

I realize that it doesn't much matter to anyone but us that my guild is not participating in conquest any longer. But that's at least a dozen people or more formerly pretty heavy conquest players who will likely not be playing the game much at all. For me, it was one of the only things keeping me in a game that sees too little new content to remain interesting, and conquest was the only way all the old content was interesting to me.

 

But it's a dozen more people that won't be queueing for PvP, GSF, or any other Group Finder activities, because the one and only reason we did that (and repeated old content that way) was for conquest.

 

We don't even merit explanation about why the crafting schematics were changed, just a generalization of the crafting being "too good" in their estimation. We don't merit an explanation about why they changed formerly repeatable objectives into once per legacy objectives, but act like they were always that way. They weren't.

 

At this point, they are dangerously close to not meriting my sub money - paid faithfully to them every single month without fail since December 20, 2011.

 

The one thing that was keeping me interested in the game while waiting for new content is ruined. Many in my guild feel the same way and have unsubbed. I can't speak for anybody outside of my circle, but I suspect a lot of guilds are facing similar situations.

 

The most sad part of all of this is that the feedback is all here. It is all laid out right in front of them. And they are not taking any of it. As such, I will quit trying to give it, even though it was asked for, requested, and got my hopes up that it was actually wanted. Fool me once...

 

.

Edited April 3, 2018 by PennyAnn

[Marasai]

If I thought it would make Bioware listen, I would sit here and encourage more guilds to halt participation in conquest. Sadly, they won't. They'll ask for our feedback and suggestions, make minor changes that some will be happy about, but for the most part will ignore us. Most of those who I play this game with have already begun to migrate to another game.

 

While conquest did need some changes, it did not need a complete overhaul and to be turned into a painful grind that causes players to dread logging into the game. Conquest has become frustrating and not enjoyable.

 

Objectives such as a weekly should not be once per legacy. That's just ridiculous. The weekly itself isn't based on legacy, so why is the conquest objective? If a person has the time and will to do the weekly on multiple characters, then both they and their guild deserve the points for their hard work.

 

Crafting weeks were occurring far to often before, and with the changes for war supplies I hope we never see them again. It's just silly. If a guild and it's members are willing to put forth the amount of effort and funds towards making 100,000,000 plus points in order to win a planet, then they deserve that win. With the crafting changes who is going to want to bother? It was expensive before. Now it will be a nightmare. Are you going to lower the cost of white materials and create more resource nodes on lower level planets to help ease that pain?

 

Then there are the guild "rewards". They are horrible. There is absolutely nothing to discourage larger guilds from invading smaller yield planets and nothing to encourage them to grind points in a larger yield. As seen already. Several smaller guilds could have easily made it into the top ten this past week if half the guilds invading the small yield weren't large guilds.

 

There's nothing wrong with admitting that you made a mistake, and then take the steps necessary to fix it. Really, there isn't.

[olagatonjedi]

First, I wasnt referring to the total conquest numbers; everyone knows those are low. Im talking about the guilds pushing conquest is severely low for Satele Shan. Before 5.8, all the boards would be stocked full with guilds conquesting their hearts out who would be well past the min cap.

 

Competition isnt equal now; it gives large guilds the advantage and destroys opportunities for small guilds to even compete.

If points are closer, it usually means its more equal.

[PiiTarr]

If people like the product and/or the activities, they will continue to play regardless of conquest. If not, it allows BW to collect data to know what needs to be improved upon (and not by random people claiming something needs improvement).

 

If not, there will be no data to collect from said people because they won't have participated and generated data, leaving only the absence of said data. While the absence of data can be useful in some situations, it also reduces sample size, thereby making analysis less statistically relevant. Furthermore, they asked players for feedback, that is, they want random people to tell them what needs improvement, in the eyes of those random people.

[DarthSpuds]

Are you going to lower the cost of white materials and create more resource nodes on lower level planets to help ease that pain?

 

My belief is that Bioware are so out of touch with how this game is played that I'd bet there's not more than two of them who even understood what you just said, or why it is important.

 

All The Best

[Andryah]

First, I wasnt referring to the total conquest numbers; everyone knows those are low. Im talking about the guilds pushing conquest is severely low for Satele Shan. Before 5.8, all the boards would be stocked full with guilds conquesting their hearts out who would be well past the min cap.

 

Competition isnt equal now; it gives large guilds the advantage and destroys opportunities for small guilds to even compete.

 

Honestly.. the low results are at this point in time more about guilds simply choosing not to play Conquests until they see more fixes to it. The data does not make clear how much of what you are seeing is due to "nerfage" directly, vs... a good old fashioned boycott.

[Loadsamonie]

Honestly, I'm fairly happy with the way Conquest is now. I can pretty easily reach my weekly goals just through Warzone/GSF Dailies and the occasional Heroic. I don't see a problem here.

[Andryah]

My belief is that Bioware are so out of touch with how this game is played that I'd bet there's not more than two of them who even understood what you just said, or why it is important.

 

All The Best

 

Such a broad generalization as to be off topic here and kind of pointless really.

 

While I do clearly think they are out of touch on some things.... more often then not it's not out of touch per se.. but more about doing what they feel is best for the game not what special interest groups within the player base think is best for the game. This is always a point of tension with MMO studios and players.... and it's never going to go away. Studios have to do what they feel is best for the widest part of their playerbase and as such will never agree fully with players on changes to be made or adjustments.

 

Note: this is not a defense of their poor handling of Conquests update... but much more about the pragmatics of tension that exists between MMO players and MMO studios.

[ivanhedgehog]

If not, there will be no data to collect from said people because they won't have participated and generated data, leaving only the absence of said data. While the absence of data can be useful in some situations, it also reduces sample size, thereby making analysis less statistically relevant. Furthermore, they asked players for feedback, that is, they want random people to tell them what needs improvement, in the eyes of those random people.

 

they have asked for feedback in the past. they ignored it. see a trend?

[DarthSpuds]

Honestly.. the low results are at this point in time more about guilds simply choosing not to play Conquests until they see more fixes to it. The data does not make clear how much of what you are seeing is due to "nerfage" directly, vs... a good old fashioned boycott.

 

While agree with you entirely, both factors ARE reasons why Bioware need to sort this $&*^ out sooner, rather than later.

 

If sufficient numbers of guilds are boycotting Conquest that it can skew the leaderboard to such an extent the data is next to useless for determining what has been nerfed too far, and what needs buffing then Bioware have an even bigger problem on their hands than they are ready for.

 

For the record, my guild (3 active Conquest players this time round) just hit the Small Planet target this week, we all had to bust our guts to do it, and I think the guild leader ended up "donating" over 250 Invasion Forces as well as using most of her week off work as grind-time, to get us just over the finish line. After which we all decided that unless the reward/effort payout is at least 4 times better than it currently is (which would still be a significant reduction on what it was pre 5.8) we'll not bother with Conquest ever again.

 

All The Best

[masterceil]

While agree with you entirely, both factors ARE reasons why Bioware need to sort this $&*^ out sooner, rather than later.

 

If sufficient numbers of guilds are boycotting Conquest that it can skew the leaderboard to such an extent the data is next to useless for determining what has been nerfed too far, and what needs buffing then Bioware have an even bigger problem on their hands than they are ready for.

 

For the record, my guild (3 active Conquest players this time round) just hit the Small Planet target this week, we all had to bust our guts to do it, and I think the guild leader ended up "donating" over 250 Invasion Forces as well as using most of her week off work as grind-time, to get us just over the finish line. After which we all decided that unless the reward/effort payout is at least 4 times better than it currently is (which would still be a significant reduction on what it was pre 5.8) we'll not bother with Conquest ever again.

 

All The Best

 

So you literally got 200k points from three players in about two hours... and still you complain?

 

Edit: Unless you meant last week, which is of course something different entirely and far more understandable : )

Edited April 3, 2018 by masterceil

[PiiTarr]

So you literally got 200k points from three players in about two hours... and still you complain?

 

Edit: Unless you meant last week, which is of course something different entirely and far more understandable : )

They meant last week, as this week's conquest is still two minutes away from starting as of the time I'm typing this.

[Lhancelot]

Honestly, I'm fairly happy with the way Conquest is now. I can pretty easily reach my weekly goals just through Warzone/GSF Dailies and the occasional Heroic. I don't see a problem here.

 

Is it safe to say you don't focus your gameplay on conquest? From your posts it seems you ar PVP focused like me, so whereas the conquest system changes has little effect on our personal play styles it has had monumental effects on those who focus their gameplay around conquest.

 

Honestly speaking, I never realized just how indepth conquest went. I have learned a ton about the old conquest system just by reading the criticisms and comparisons of that to the new system.

 

One thing that is clear is that by gimping the conquest system, making it less fun for the majority of players who enjoyed conquest they are also affecting my gaming experience because PVP pops will be less frequent with less participants who did PVP for conquest. I imagine PVE ops are affected too.

[Joonbeams]

...

 

One thing that is clear is that by gimping the conquest system, making it less fun for the majority of players who enjoyed conquest they are also affecting my gaming experience because PVP pops will be less frequent with less participants who did PVP for conquest. I imagine PVE ops are affected too.

 

This cannot be said enough.

[masterceil]

They meant last week, as this week's conquest is still two minutes away from starting as of the time I'm typing this.

 

Ah, gotcha thanks. DST offset still messin' with me - thought Conquest started earlier ><

[Master_Morak]

They meant last week, as this week's conquest is still two minutes away from starting as of the time I'm typing this.

 

The conquest this week is a joke.

 

One Heroic Mission on Nar Shadaa per Day and Legacy - what dev-troll has this decided? In the old conquest System you could do every day all heroic with all Charcters.

Also the crafting is still unchanged.

 

Update: 825 Conquest Points for 500.000 Credits in a daily objekctiv? - What idiot has this designed, your are crazy, indeed.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Master_Morak

[Loadsamonie]

Is it safe to say you don't focus your gameplay on conquest? From your posts it seems you ar PVP focused like me, so whereas the conquest system changes has little effect on our personal play styles it has had monumental effects on those who focus their gameplay around conquest.

 

Honestly speaking, I never realized just how indepth conquest went. I have learned a ton about the old conquest system just by reading the criticisms and comparisons of that to the new system.

 

One thing that is clear is that by gimping the conquest system, making it less fun for the majority of players who enjoyed conquest they are also affecting my gaming experience because PVP pops will be less frequent with less participants who did PVP for conquest. I imagine PVE ops are affected too.

 

I haven't had an issue with 70 Warzone pops, they're still plentiful and abundant. And I get all the conquest I need from PvP; maybe that's why it doesn't affect me so much.

 

I also don't play eight different toons.

[masterceil]

The conquest this week is a joke.

 

One Heroic Mission on Nar Shadaa per Day and Legacy - what dev-troll has this decided? In the old conquest System you could do every day all heroic with all Charcters.

Also the crafting is still unchanged.

 

Uff, I didn't notice with Relics of the Gree because there's just the one heroic, but yeah, that was Once Per Day, too. That's pretty messed up indeed -.-

[Hautamacky]

eric at death seal conquest are not weeklys with in the conquest.

[olagatonjedi]

If not, there will be no data to collect from said people because they won't have participated and generated data, leaving only the absence of said data. While the absence of data can be useful in some situations, it also reduces sample size, thereby making analysis less statistically relevant. Furthermore, they asked players for feedback, that is, they want random people to tell them what needs improvement, in the eyes of those random people.

There is a difference between "the changes are bad because im not having fun and "the changes are bad because the amount of points for event A gives twice as many points in half the time as Event B." If BW goal was to find out how many people were having fun, example A would be great! But it wouldn't help solve anything of purpose. Example B could be looked into with data to see if it needed fixing. These threads are littered with example A.

 

And in regards to less participants, I think if BW sees people arent willing to play certain content even with the new conquest system, I would guess it to be a flaw in the content, not the conquest system. The content should be engaging even without an adequate conquest system. If people are getting wrapped up in the conquest as their reason, it's likely they weren't enjoying the content in the first place, or they would be doing it anyways.

[khamseen_air]

Logged in to see this week's conquest objectives and can understand why this thread has grown by half a dozen pages since I checked it a couple of hours ago.

[Lhancelot]

I haven't had an issue with 70 Warzone pops, they're still plentiful and abundant. And I get all the conquest I need from PvP; maybe that's why it doesn't affect me so much.

 

I also don't play eight different toons.

 

Yeah, most people upset by the conquest changes are people that are focused on conquest as their main activity in the game as well as players who play alts.

 

I also find 70s PVP pops just fine, but if you ever queued for lower brackets you'd see just how bad they are now.

 

Conquest at least gave some incentive for people to PVP in all tiers now there simply is no reason to queue for lower level PVP brackets.

 

Over time, if people leave the game and new players come and find zero incentive to queue for lowbies I believe this can only have a negative impact not just for PVP but for the game overall.

 

I don't think discouraging alt playing is productive, which is what direction it seems SWTOR has been going for the last couple years starting with the 5.0 gearing system, which made me quit not long after that was dropped.

 

Since coming back, I see they have made improvements to the RNG crate system, but honestly speaking it's still crap compared to the old gearing system where we could easily gear alts playing any toons we wanted 100% via PVP.

 

I suspect they will do the same with conquest. They will make slight alterations over a years time, losing many players in the process all the while keeping a subpar, inferior conquest system even after a years worth of changes being added.

[Darevsool]

So...yeah.

NS heroic: ONE heroic per day per legacy. 825 points (w/150% SH bonus)

 

New objective, buy something from a vendor for 500K and take it to Outlaws Den as a present to a hutt npc. 825 points. Also once per day per toon. I did that once as an experiment, will never do that again.

which, by the way, presents opportunity for massive unexpected pvp. I was half expecting a cloaked player to attack me as I was turning it in.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Darevsool

[olagatonjedi]

Is it safe to say you don't focus your gameplay on conquest? From your posts it seems you ar PVP focused like me, so whereas the conquest system changes has little effect on our personal play styles it has had monumental effects on those who focus their gameplay around conquest.

 

Honestly speaking, I never realized just how indepth conquest went. I have learned a ton about the old conquest system just by reading the criticisms and comparisons of that to the new system.

 

One thing that is clear is that by gimping the conquest system, making it less fun for the majority of players who enjoyed conquest they are also affecting my gaming experience because PVP pops will be less frequent with less participants who did PVP for conquest. I imagine PVE ops are affected too.

More double speak examples.

 

The person you responded said they completed their conquest rather easily with pvp and some heroics.

 

You responded that he must not be conquest focused.

 

Put 2 and 2 together to realize what you alluded to:

 

You likely arent conquest focused, but you still met your personal weekly conquest fairly easily.

 

No wonder BW has no reliable feedback.

[PiiTarr]

Ah, gotcha thanks. DST offset still messin' with me - thought Conquest started earlier ><

 

Yeah, I'm still not used to the time change either.

 

Also, the BBA event now starts at the same time as conquest instead of at server reset and the Republic Nar Shaddaa Heroic bug has returned, so the weekly for the heroics auto-completes as soon as you pick it up (at least from the solo activities window, not sure about the terminal, but suspect it's the same).