Conquest Feedback and Upcoming Changes

[masterceil]

🍿

 

/5char

[Lhancelot]

 

Kendra is the passionate one, Andryah is the logical one. It's like Dr. McCoy and Spock... I think. I am not much of a trekkie but those two personalities come to mind here.

 

Anyway, you both are great for the forums and neither of you are really wrong you just have different perspectives.

 

Extend an olive branch and stop using Beetlejuice's name. I notice anytime that name comes up, it sparks a whole separate argument.

 

Sorry I am trying to be the middleman here, don't turn on me Kendra!

[KendraP]

Kendra is the passionate one, Andryah is the logical one. It's like Dr. McCoy and Spock... I think. I am not much of a trekkie but those two personalities come to mind here.

 

Anyway, you both are great for the forums and neither of you are really wrong you just have different perspectives.

 

Extend an olive branch and stop using Beetlejuice's name. I notice anytime that name comes up, it sparks a whole separate argument.

 

Sorry I am trying to be the middleman here, don't turn on me Kendra!

 

I don't think i would ever rampage on you Lhance. Your tone is entirely different and I think you are capable of having a rational discussion even if we did disagree on something.

 

As someone just said on the class forum, in the tanking thread, i learned the theory behind tank gear after someone there made an argument essentially proving me wrong.

 

He made sense so i went asking a guildy theoretician and google and discovered he was right. And became much more knowledgable in the process (this was a while ago now).

 

I genuinely enjoyed that moment because I had a good takeaway. So i ask, rather than go around calling me emotional or illogical (It might be masked in sarcasm but I always make serious points or back opinions in logic) (also not directed at you Lhance), teach me something.

 

If i feel someone is coming from a place of inflated ego or trying to argue my logic with nonsense thats when the figurative bat comes out swinging.

[Lhancelot]

I don't think i would ever rampage on you Lhance. Your tone is entirely different and I think you are capable of having a rational discussion even if we did disagree on something.

 

As someone just said on the class forum, in the tanking thread, i learned the theory behind tank gear after someone there made an argument essentially proving me wrong.

 

He made sense so i went asking a guildy theoretician and google and discovered he was right. And became much more knowledgable in the process (this was a while ago now).

 

I genuinely enjoyed that moment because I had a good takeaway. So i ask, rather than go around calling me emotional or illogical (It might be masked in sarcasm but I always make serious points or back opinions in logic) (also not directed at you Lhance), teach me something.

 

If i feel someone is coming from a place of inflated ego or trying to argue my logic with nonsense thats when the figurative bat comes out swinging.

 

I always view forum interaction as a tool to learn more above all else.

 

I know I am not an elite expert in any facet of this game so I just try to read what everyone says and compare that to my own personal experiences then come to a conclusion on matters I am unsure about.

 

Conquest is one of those things, I never focused on it but feel that if the majority of those who enjoyed it now are unhappy that means the game will suffer and in turn my own enjoyment could suffer. I need people to queue WZs.

 

That's why I support you and others that are disappointed with the changes because the majority are not happy with it. It's not just forumquesters, it's ingame players too. Just ask people in the game if you don't believe it.

 

Discouraging alts in the game is a bad game design. That means less characters are queing for FPs, OPs, WZs, GSF, everything. Less alt-playing also means less cartel coins being spent to gear up the new alt created.

 

There are so many other reasons why punishing alts is counterproductive and if Eric, Keith, Charles really don't want to hurt alt-playing they need to make the appropriate changes and asap.

[KendraP]

I always view forum interaction as a tool to learn more above all else.

 

I know I am not an elite expert in any facet of this game so I just try to read what everyone says and compare that to my own personal experiences then come to a conclusion on matters I am unsure about.

 

Conquest is one of those things, I never focused on it but feel that if the majority of those who enjoyed it now are unhappy that means the game will suffer and in turn my own enjoyment could suffer. I need people to queue WZs.

 

That's why I support you and others that are disappointed with the changes because the majority are not happy with it. It's not just forumquesters, it's ingame players too. Just ask people in the game if you don't believe it.

 

Discouraging alts in the game is a bad game design. That means less characters are queing for FPs, OPs, WZs, GSF, everything. Less alt-playing also means less cartel coins being spent to gear up the new alt created.

 

There are so many other reasons why punishing alts is counterproductive and if Eric, Keith, Charles really don't want to hurt alt-playing they need to make the appropriate changes and asap.

 

As usual Lhance I agree with everything you say 100%.

 

I'm good at one thing in this game- PvP tanking.

Im not bad at dps or PvE tanking, but PvP tanking is where I'm that ******e that just won't die.

 

I have strong opinions om conquest because of my standing as the guild leader of a pretty small (if notorious) PvP guild on SS.

[TrixxieTriss]

Let's go back to the basics.

 

1. Make alts great again!

 

2. Make conquest fun again!

 

I think that's all that needs to be read by Keith, Eric, Charles, and BW / EA.

 

That’s sums it is easily. Plus I have one more to add.

 

3. Go and ask players what they consider fun because Biowares idea of what’s fun is usually fundamentally different to the players ideas.

[Lhancelot]

That’s sums it is easily. Plus I have one more to add.

 

3. Go and ask players what they consider fun because Biowares idea of what’s fun is usually fundamentally different to the players ideas.

 

When Keith is incognito playing on his anni marauder, he should ask total strangers what they think about the new conquest changes.

 

He could also join a guild, hiding the fact he is Keith, and then partake in conquest with a conquest guild to test it out himself. He could also ask the guild members what they think.

 

This would be a great way to gauge people's opinions on the new system.

[Andryah]

When Keith is incognito playing on his anni marauder, he should ask total strangers what they think about the new conquest changes.

 

He could also join a guild, hiding the fact he is Keith, and then partake in conquest with a conquest guild to test it out himself. He could also ask the guild members what they think.

 

This would be a great way to gauge people's opinions on the new system.

 

How do we know that Keith and others at the studio do not indeed do this already? I mean... sure they have to be completely stealth about it..... so the fact that Jack, Jill, and Roger in the forum don't see it happening... does not mean it's not. [i know we have some who will believe nothing that they do not personally see with their own eyes... but that narrow minded approach means nothing really in this context].

 

I know if I ran a studio.. one (of many) data points I would employ would be exactly what you are suggesting. I would not base my final decisions on just that data set.... but I would incorporate it into the total data view aggregated from all sources and assess what to change, how, and when from that total data set.

 

Besides.. it is clear from Keith's most recent post that he knows full well some players are not happy with Conquests as it currently stands. I bet he knows all the key points behind the why too. People like to just assume that if they don't make a change they personally want.. then the studio is not listening, does not understand, yada yada.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Andryah

[TrixxieTriss]

When Keith is incognito playing on his anni marauder, he should ask total strangers what they think about the new conquest changes.

 

He could also join a guild, hiding the fact he is Keith, and then partake in conquest with a conquest guild to test it out himself. He could also ask the guild members what they think.

 

This would be a great way to gauge people's opinions on the new system.

 

He is in a guild. I don’t know which one, but I do know someone, who I won’t out in the forums, who plays with him in a raid group.

But if those people around him like it and he doesn’t ask the wider audience in the game, then he’ll only ever see people praising it in the game.

One would hope that those playing with him are giving him real feed back and not just being “yes” men so they can play with a dev

[silenthc]

Can't imagine a game with a substantial amount of players such as this (it still has), where devs/producers do not have a bunch of chars rolling all sorts of data/tests/(in)direct queries within the gen pop. It's inconceivable to me they wouldn't. Edited April 26, 2018 by silenthc

[TrixxieTriss]

Can't imagine a game with a substantial amount of players such as this (it still has), where devs/producers do not have a bunch of chars rolling all sorts of data/tests/(in)direct queries within the gen pop. It's inconceivable to me they wouldn't.

 

When was the last time anyone saw this happen in this game?

[AlrikFassbauer]

One of my guilds currently has some 800.000 or so on the smallest planet. The planet is the one scheduled for conquer this week. I don't know how BW didn't know that guilds are chosing the planets for the achievements and not by what they yield. Everyone who has played conquest at least once in their life knows that.

 

And then, why are these big guilds very firmly staying away from the big planets ? Is there an achievement for staying away, too ? Cynically put.

[AlrikFassbauer]

My point was that my very big guild is invading (and basically has already won on Tuesday evening due to sheer overpowering member numbers) the lowest planet, because Section X was on our schedule list. We didn't do it to annoy the small guilds

 

Gentrification is also done not to annoy the poorer tenants living in that quarter that is affected.

 

Your reply is the perfect example why there ois in fact a book out there (cited as a title of a music album) called "Architecture And Morality".

And from reading your post I see that you won't understand it.

 

[/(and basically has already won on Tuesday evening due to sheer overpowering member numbers)QUOTE]

 

I never understood where this "bigger is better" comes from -> leading into Monopoly.

Monopoly is inherently good for those who own the Monopoly, but bad for everyone else. But it is therefore still a good thing to go for - for those who profit from it.

 

Unlimited growth ... I remember a doctor writing "in body science, there is a term for unlimited growth. It's called cancer."

Edited April 26, 2018 by AlrikFassbauer

[Elliraen]

And then, why are these big guilds very firmly staying away from the big planets ? Is there an achievement for staying away, too ? Cynically put.

 

Primary reason: It's so their members can get the "Conqueror of <insert planet>" title.

Secondary reason: They're doing it to show how messed up the system is because large guilds will always trump small ones, especially with the legacy limitations.

[AlrikFassbauer]

Primary reason: It's so their members can get the "Conqueror of <insert planet>" title.

Secondary reason: They're doing it to show how messed up the system is because large guilds will always trump small ones, especially with the legacy limitations.

 

I see that there is no ethics behind that, no morality.

 

In the end, this is ultimatively anti-social,

because in a social state the big ones would protect the weak ones.

 

We are now in a state in which the big ones plunder the weak ones,

which is inherently anti-social.

 

"Because we can."

[AscendingSky]

Primary reason: It's so their members can get the "Conqueror of <insert planet>" title.

Secondary reason: They're doing it to show how messed up the system is because large guilds will always trump small ones, especially with the legacy limitations.

 

I think the primary reason is most prominent. For example, one of the planets available for conquest this week is Section X. From what my friends have said, this hasn't been available since last summer. So big guilds with a lot of members who don't have the achievement for conquering Section X will naturally target that planet, even though it's a Small yield one.

 

This is one of the major flaws of the current conquest system. Only 3 planets available every week (unlike conquest in the past where often several more planets were available) which pretty much makes it impossible for a medium or small guild to try to achieve that planet title, but if people in large guilds need a title, they're going to target a planet whether or not it's a Small, Medium, or Large yield.

Edited April 26, 2018 by AscendingSky

[Elliraen]

I see that there is no ethics behind that, no morality.

 

In the end, this is ultimatively anti-social,

because in a social state the big ones would protect the weak ones.

 

We are now in a state in which the big ones plunder the weak ones,

which is inherently anti-social.

 

"Because we can."

 

Ethics and morality in a video game? That's a novel idea. Oh wait, that's almost like dark vs. light, even though no matter how ethical or moral you are (light) you're still killing, killing, killing to advance.

 

The "Bigs" (more powerful or numerous) have always preyed on the the "Weak" (less powerful or numerous). That's nothing new in video games, or RL. If you were a hungry shark, would you go after a seal, or other defenseless fish, or attack another shark?

 

But this is getting off-topic, so I'll let it go at that.

[olagatonjedi]

He is in a guild. I don’t know which one, but I do know someone, who I won’t out in the forums, who plays with him in a raid group.

But if those people around him like it and he doesn’t ask the wider audience in the game, then he’ll only ever see people praising it in the game.

One would hope that those playing with him are giving him real feed back and not just being “yes” men so they can play with a dev

Or 50% of them could be fine with the changes and 50% not, and they are expressing emotional reasoning for their dislikes, rather than looking at overall data.

[silenthc]

When was the last time anyone saw this happen in this game?

 

Why would they possibly tell us?

[olagatonjedi]

I think the primary reason is most prominent. For example, one of the planets available for conquest this week is Section X. From what my friends have said, this hasn't been available since last summer. So big guilds with a lot of members who don't have the achievement for conquering Section X will naturally target that planet, even though it's a Small yield one.

 

This is one of the major flaws of the current conquest system. Only 3 planets available every week (unlike conquest in the past where often several more planets were available) which pretty much makes it impossible for a medium or small guild to try to achieve that planet title, but if people in large guilds need a title, they're going to target a planet whether or not it's a Small, Medium, or Large yield.

I dont recall the conquerer title as being one of the major issues with the old system, so there was likely no need to address it. They changed things so more guilds get rewarded for their effort. Thats been accomplished.

 

Bigger guilds going sfter small planet conquest achievements is not a broken system. They are choosing to give up large yield rewards for the achievement, just as your guild is choosing to stay small for whatever convenient luxury it sffords you. People make choices how to interact, in a system that doesnt just give away achievements. It doesnt mean the system is the problem.

[Lhancelot]

They changed things so more guilds get rewarded for their effort. Thats been accomplished.

 

If only Eric, Keith, Charles, even a random dev posted this, then I'd nod my head in agreement.

 

The initial message from Eric, Keith, and Charles was "we want to give smaller guilds a better chance to compete."

 

If I am wrong, by all means I'd love for someone to post what is written above; this statement, except back it with yellow writing so it actually holds water.

 

Show in writing from someone that is credible where their intentions was to give participation awards for conquest, I'd like to see that honestly speaking because I must have missed it.

 

Honestly it doesn't really matter why they changed it, what does matter is what they changed and how it's impacting gameplay for the players.

 

I just find it humorous when people put words in the studio's mouth with absolutely no credibility.

 

Unless you are writing in yellow or provide a quote of someone that writes in yellow you can't pretend to be BW/EA's personal liaison with the responsibility of telling other players what their intentions are with their changes.

 

Pretty sure that's Eric and Keith's job.

[olagatonjedi]

If only Eric, Keith, Charles, even a random dev posted this, then I'd nod my head in agreement.

 

The initial message from Eric, Keith, and Charles was "we want to give smaller guilds a better chance to compete."

 

If I am wrong, by all means I'd love for someone to post what is written above; this statement, except back it with yellow writing so it actually holds water.

 

Show in writing from someone that is credible where their intentions was to give participation awards for conquest, I'd like to see that honestly speaking because I must have missed it.

 

Honestly it doesn't really matter why they changed it, what does matter is what they changed and how it's impacting gameplay for the players.

 

I just find it humorous when people put words in the studio's mouth with absolutely no credibility.

 

Unless you are writing in yellow or provide a quote of someone that writes in yellow you can't pretend to be BW/EA's personal liaison with the responsibility of telling other players what their intentions are with their changes.

 

Pretty sure that's Eric and Keith's job.

It hasnt been said in one direct quote, but it can be deduced from the focus of their multiple posts that it was one of the goals.

 

That said, i dont recall them ever mentioning the conquerer title as one of the reasons changes were made.

Edited April 26, 2018 by olagatonjedi

[Darevsool]

There wasn't ever anything wrong with the Galaxy Conqueror title.

One of the official reasons for looking at pre 5.8 conquest was that rewards/titles were glitchy and didn't go out automatically 100% of the time when your guild won. Based on what we've seen in the past 3 weeks, that one problem has been fixed.

 

As for big guilds going after the small planets, that's not going to ever change in post 5.8 conquest because one of the primary reasons any particular planet is chosen to invade is NOT what new group it's in, but whether or not guild members need that invasion title.

 

In my opinion, no amount of rewards is going to change that.

[Elliraen]

If only Eric, Keith, Charles, even a random dev posted this, then I'd nod my head in agreement.

 

The initial message from Eric, Keith, and Charles was "we want to give smaller guilds a better chance to compete."

 

If I am wrong, by all means I'd love for someone to post what is written above; this statement, except back it with yellow writing so it actually holds water.

 

Show in writing from someone that is credible where their intentions was to give participation awards for conquest, I'd like to see that honestly speaking because I must have missed it.

 

Honestly it doesn't really matter why they changed it, what does matter is what they changed and how it's impacting gameplay for the players.

 

I just find it humorous when people put words in the studio's mouth with absolutely no credibility.

 

Unless you are writing in yellow or provide a quote of someone that writes in yellow you can't pretend to be BW/EA's personal liaison with the responsibility of telling other players what their intentions are with their changes.

 

Pretty sure that's Eric and Keith's job.

 

As much as I hate to agree with that person (although he's changed his tune on that part since he was proven wrong repeatedly. So I guess he's now agreeing with others), the very first post in this very thread states their goals for the changes.

 

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)
  

 

Thanks everyone!

 

-eric

 

Edit:

I stand corrected.

It hasnt been said in one direct quote, but it can be deduced from the focus of their multiple posts that it was one of the goals.

It HAS been said and doesn't have to be deduced.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Elliraen

[olagatonjedi]

As much as I hate to agree with that person (although he's changed his tune on that part since he was proven wrong repeatedly. So I guess he's now agreeing with others), the very first post in this very thread states their goals for the changes.

 

 

 

Edit:

I stand corrected.

 

It HAS been said and doesn't have to be deduced.

Wonderful! I didnt wanna go back and look through a bunch of posts.