Conquest Changes in Game Update 5.9

[valligurl]

IF Conquest was based on Legacy then completing objectives would apply points to all characters in a legacy NOT to only one they were completed on. Since it is faintly possible (rarely probable) to cap personal conquest objectives on multiple characters your above statement does not hold water.

 

Properly put "The Conquest system is based around the way we want you to play ..."

 

^^^ This. If you are forcing us to have it on legacy then make it actually legacy wide.

[Seelvir]

Guys ... guys ... get a grip on your underpants with your concerns about legacy and alts.

 

They WANT to nerf your ability to hit the conquest target on multiple toons. They want that to be hard. They are all but saying those few simple words. "We want getting alts done to be hard."

 

Why do they want that? You'll have to ask them. I think there are obvious reasons, but there might be less obvious ones too.

[Joonbeams]

Guys ... guys ... get a grip on your underpants with your concerns about legacy and alts.

 

They WANT to nerf your ability to hit the conquest target on multiple toons. They want that to be hard. They are all but saying those few simple words. "We want getting alts done to be hard."

 

Why do they want that? You'll have to ask them. I think there are obvious reasons, but there might be less obvious ones too.

 

I've tried to make this argument myself, on their behalf. But no matter how much I try, I can't escape the invariable conclusion that this will lessen play, lessen grind, decrease activity, and generally make the experience less rewarding for all. Ultimately, this will affect the bottom line. So it's perplexing.

 

See, I don't really do conquest, or anything major here. But I like to have queues that pop and a GTN that's active. So when other players are constantly jumping on different toons and queueing up, selling and buying, etc. it HELPs an uber casual like me have fun for the 30 minutes or so I'm able to log in. This is why I personally care about this issue. Queues have been super slow...

[MacCleoud]

^ This.

 

IF Conquest is "based on Legacy" then Points earned should be applied to ALL Toons on that Legacy.

 

As they are not we MUST conclude that Conquest is Toon Based.

And once we conclude that the only logical follow on is that Per Legacy Lockouts are an error.

 

All The Best

 

Spuds....this is the Interwebs..... No Logic allowed.

 

Following logical progression though..... Drop the scores for the Weekly FP/WZ/GSF back down to 1500 or so, and make them available to all characters not just once per legacy.

[Ibokagain]

^ This.

 

IF Conquest is "based on Legacy" then Points earned should be applied to ALL Toons on that Legacy.

 

As they are not we MUST conclude that Conquest is Toon Based.

And once we conclude that the only logical follow on is that Per Legacy Lockouts are an error.

 

All The Best

 

If legacy only objectives are now your thing then do the above.

[Seelvir]

Joonbeams, I agree with you. Their objective (making alts hard) might be bad for the game. But they are doing a "test-and-learn" to see how bad it'll be. Simple as that.

 

Their primary objective isn't "makes alts hard," but really it's "break up the too-big-to-beat mega guilds." They want to break the strangle hold of the mega guilds and actually make the thing more competitive. Breaking the ability to hit the target on 20 alts per week also means making it hard to hit the target on 1 alt per week. Such is life.

 

Is it a GOOD IDEA? I won't offer an opinion. I don't know what they do. Judging reactions on the forum as a way to gauge actual impact on the game is never a worthwhile activity.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Seelvir

[HKtheindomitable]

I've tried to make this argument myself, on their behalf. But no matter how much I try, I can't escape the invariable conclusion that this will lessen play, lessen grind, decrease activity, and generally make the experience less rewarding for all. Ultimately, this will affect the bottom line. So it's perplexing.

 

See, I don't really do conquest, or anything major here. But I like to have queues that pop and a GTN that's active. So when other players are constantly jumping on different toons and queueing up, selling and buying, etc. it HELPs an uber casual like me have fun for the 30 minutes or so I'm able to log in. This is why I personally care about this issue. Queues have been super slow...

 

WZ/GSF queues, or FP/Uprising queues?

 

I ask because I can't sit for 5 seconds in VM FP queue before it pops. MM is as it always has bee, for a DPS anyway.

[Ibokagain]

I've tried to make this argument myself, on their behalf. But no matter how much I try, I can't escape the invariable conclusion that this will lessen play, lessen grind, decrease activity, and generally make the experience less rewarding for all. Ultimately, this will affect the bottom line. So it's perplexing.

 

See, I don't really do conquest, or anything major here. But I like to have queues that pop and a GTN that's active. So when other players are constantly jumping on different toons and queueing up, selling and buying, etc. it HELPs an uber casual like me have fun for the 30 minutes or so I'm able to log in. This is why I personally care about this issue. Queues have been super slow...

 

^this is why alt playing is important.

[Trlance]

I don't get it why you all time sitting on this cq thing. What you wanna from us to do? .. Doing all time same missions, fp and other objectives what i have done 2 years ago? Half of year almost and zero content, only SINGLE fp coming and 6.0 when? .. Fall? Winter? Summer again nothing? I don't care about cq because i don't see fun doing all time same missions for 2 years. I was everywhere with every class and i so bored from january when i done Copero story. Alerts only 2-3 minutes playing, new bossess on Gods only 1 hour per 2-3 month.

 

Get to junk this cq thing and give me something NEW what will make me busy for weeks (like 6.0) or i don't see reason to stay as sub.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Trlance

[Rion_Starkiller]

Sounds like you Conquest folks need a 2nd legacy account.

 

Coming soon to the Cartel Market: Unlock: Additional Legacy. Buy this fabulous unlock for the low low price of 14,000 cartel coins. What a steal! If you buy it between April 1st and April 1st, we will give you 10% off. That's 12,600 CC!

Edited March 30, 2018 by Rion_Starkiller

[MacCleoud]

I did run the numbers really quickly though, and it looks like you can now achieve your 15k with 7 FP's and 23 WZ's. This doesn't include any of the daily repeatable bonus or wins for FP's or one off's or Ops, or anything like that.

[Ibokagain]

Sounds like you Conquest folks need a 2nd legacy account.

 

Coming soon to the Cartel Market: Unlock: Additional Legacy. Buy this fabulous unlock for the low low price of 14,000 cartel coins. What a steal! If you buy it between April 1st and April 1st, we will give you 10% off.

 

Nah I just do my daily pvp mission on 1-2 toons and then log for the day. I'm actually enjoying playing other games. Maybe they can add a token in the CM for instant queue pops 20k CC's!

[SteveTheCynic]

Guys ... guys ... get a grip on your underpants with your concerns about legacy and alts.

 

They WANT to nerf your ability to hit the conquest target on multiple toons. They want that to be hard. They are all but saying those few simple words. "We want getting alts done to be hard."

 

Why do they want that? You'll have to ask them. I think there are obvious reasons, but there might be less obvious ones too.

It's far from obvious, given the things in the game that clearly favour having alts:

* Limit: One crafting skill per character

* Limit: Three crew skills per character, and if one is crafting, the other two cannot supply all the non-white materials.

* Heroic Moment bar favours having at least one character in every class story.

* The class buffs favour having at least one character in each mirror pair of class stories.

* Eight good class stories.

 

Given all that, why are there "obvious" reasons for Conquest being hard to do on alts?

[Rheshalea]

The Conquest system is based around Legacy, so it looks like this:

• Repeatable - Infinitely repeatable on anyone
  
• Daily Repeatable - Once per day, per Legacy
  
• One-time - Can be completed one time, per Legacy, per Conquest
  

 

But... why? I don't get it. Why is it based around Legacy when Legacy has nothing to do with it? There isn't even a Legacy boost to Conquest points.

The old Conquest was usually difficult enough for me as a solo player who doesn't play WZs often (in fact, I only do it either when I feel 110% energetic or when I 'have' to in order to reach an objective. I never bothered to even try to get more than one character through it.

I was hoping the Revamp would make it feel not only possible, but also enjoyable to reach the personal cap on more than once char.

When too many activities are locked behind Legacy for some obscure reason that hasn't been explained to us players, it essentially makes me feel I have to do things I don't want to. Which in turn means I probably won't bother with Conquest at all - it's not like the rewards are all that gratifying - so, well, meh.

 

Still, thanks for listening to the feedback. These upcoming changes are a good start, although I personally think the rewards still seem low. But that may just be me, the lonewolf.

[Suprderk]

^ This.

 

IF Conquest is "based on Legacy" then Points earned should be applied to ALL Toons on that Legacy.

 

As they are not we MUST conclude that Conquest is Toon Based.

And once we conclude that the only logical follow on is that Per Legacy Lockouts are an error.

 

All The Best

 

Totally agree and I might add that if an objective is legacy bound, then each character in the legacy should get the rewards.

[PennyAnn]

Joonbeams, I agree with you. Their objective (making alts hard) might be bad for the game. But they are doing a "test-and-learn" to see how bad it'll be. Simple as that.

 

Their primary objective isn't "makes alts hard," but really it's "break up the too-big-to-beat mega guilds." They want to break the strangle hold of the mega guilds and actually make the thing more competitive. Breaking the ability to hit the target on 20 alts per week also means making it hard to hit the target on 1 alt per week. Such is life.

 

Is it a GOOD IDEA? I won't offer an opinion. I don't know what they do. Judging reactions on the forum as a way to gauge actual impact on the game is never a worthwhile activity.

 

While they "test-and-learn", people are quitting the game. Is it really a good idea to push the game further in that direction right now? When they see "how bad it'll be" and it's too late, when they could have listened to some feedback from folks who have given them a multitude of rationale, numerical comparison, and well reasoned requests - will you be glad that we held onto our underpants while the game struggles (and for no good reason, really)?

 

If their primary objective is to "break up the too-big-to-beat mega guilds" then they are going about it the wrong way. Mega guilds have tons more legacies among their population. Making things "once per legacy" only hurts those who were trying to compete with mega guilds. Completely backwards.

 

Completing conquest on more than a single alt (be it 10, 20, or whatever) was the only way anyone could possibly offer competition to mega guilds. So instead of breaking them up, they have ensured there is no competition for them any longer.

 

No matter what you think their intention is, the execution is ensuring the opposite result.

 

.

[PorsaLindahl]

IF Conquest was based on Legacy then completing objectives would apply points to all characters in a legacy NOT to only one they were completed on. Since it is faintly possible (rarely probable) to cap personal conquest objectives on multiple characters your above statement does not hold water.

 

Properly put "The Conquest system is based around the way we want you to play ..."

 

Completely agree. If it's going to based on Legacy, then if I earn 3000 points doing CZ-198 on one character, then every character in my legacy should get 3000 points towards conquest. If that were to happen, I'd agree that it was legacy based.

 

And bringing this up:

Hey everyone,

 

Conquest Revamp:

• We have all enjoyed receiving our rewards each week! Ok, in reality, we’ve had our fair share of issues this past year, but going forward, we want Conquests to be a consistently fun activity for Guilds and individual participants.
  
• As a result, we’ve made substantial improvements to the Conquest system including a new interface, new daily objectives, new missions, and more. Most importantly, we have rewritten the backend system to ensure you benefit from your weekly efforts. Look for details in an upcoming blog or forum post.
  
• A new Conquest Vendor will appear for those who complete their personal conquests each week. It’ll initially have Decorations and a new Companion boost called the Commander’s Compendium which will increase your active companion to influence level 50. More on this below.
  

 

 

We look forward to expanding more on what you can expect in 5.8, 5.9, and beyond! As often as we can, we will be around in the thread to answer your many questions about those updates. Looking forward to having some good discussions.

 

--- Keith

 

 

So far I've seen only a decrease in fun, and an increase in grind, which causes a severe lack of benefits for participating in conquest, especially with alts.

 

And discussions are a 2-way street. Most people, I'm sure, feel like they're talking to a brick wall most of the time because you guys won't give us answers, and when you do give answers, they tend to be vague at best. It's like trying to drag information from a child. We shouldn't have to ask the same question 20 different ways to get the answer we were looking for, and then when we do get a straight answer it's a rare occurrence.

Edited March 30, 2018 by PorsaLindahl

[Seelvir]

Totally agree and I might add that if an objective is legacy bound, then each character in the legacy should get the rewards.

 

Guys, this is an asinine request, stop embarrassing yourselves by asking. If it worked this way, then my 37-alt legacy would be worth more than your 25-alt legacy, and less than Keith's 1,000,001-alt legacy.

[olagatonjedi]

I feel like a broken record sometimes, and still nobody seems to understand how the game works, it's weaknesses, and how balance is obtained. Thank you for the update Musco, as always, swell job!

[Suprderk]

Also a question. Craft 50 items, does that mean we can craft anything we want or will there be a certain item each conquest that we have to craft 50 of? If we are only getting 2.4 conquest points per item it would be nice to not have to have to use lots of materials to craft them.

[GrimTheGlutt]

So I will not be crafting Invasion forces at their current mat cost. They require far too many mats now.

 

You also obviously DO NOT get the point that over 100 pages on multiple threads are pointing out to you - People want to play Alts. They want to play alts how they want - Not how you want!

 

Punishing them for playing a game style they like and want to play is extremely counter-productive to the point it defies logic.

 

So whatever imbecile is coming up with these grand ideas... sack them now, and listen to the players instead - your game might actually flourish if you did.

[Mdgshorty]

Eric,

The daily repeatable should not be per legacy, but should be per character. You guys are locking to much behind legacy. Some people like running their alts through conquest.

[PennyAnn]

Guys, this is an asinine request, stop embarrassing yourselves by asking. If it worked this way, then my 37-alt legacy would be worth more than your 25-alt legacy, and less than Keith's 1,000,001-alt legacy.

 

I don't think anyone is seriously requesting this, but rather pointing out the absurdity in Eric's statement.

 

Conquest is not legacy based. It is legacy restricted. That's not the same thing.

 

.

Edited March 30, 2018 by PennyAnn

[Joonbeams]

Joonbeams, I agree with you. Their objective (making alts hard) might be bad for the game. But they are doing a "test-and-learn" to see how bad it'll be. Simple as that.

 

Their primary objective isn't "makes alts hard," but really it's "break up the too-big-to-beat mega guilds." They want to break the strangle hold of the mega guilds and actually make the thing more competitive. Breaking the ability to hit the target on 20 alts per week also means making it hard to hit the target on 1 alt per week. Such is life.

 

Is it a GOOD IDEA? I won't offer an opinion. I don't know what they do. Judging reactions on the forum as a way to gauge actual impact on the game is never a worthwhile activity.

 

You're right. I'm sure this is why it's being done. Let's just accept though the flawed (IMO) assumption that mega-guilds are bad for the game (I'm on the other extreme, happily in a trivial, mostly-inactive guild, that will never rank in conquest). Let's accept this and work through where it necessarily leads. For "mega guilds" to dominate the previous system, they used both numbers of legacies AND alts per legacy to do so.

 

The alts-per-legacy piece meant that after maxing a toon, these hardcore players would roll another toon and queue pvp, do crafting, run FPs, etc. again and so on. That activity means that other players, from hardcore to casual, get to experience an active MMO environment. This is, in the abstract a good thing. None of this is controversial (I hope).

 

Now, the "price" for this, allegedly is that smaller guilds couldn't compete due to the (alts/legacy)*(legacy numbers) disadvantage. So the equation is: (alts/legacy)*(number of legacies) = total conquest capacity. This was presumably the bad thing that needed fixing. The solution put forth now removes one of the inputs, leaving us with: (number of legacies) = total conquest capacity. Without getting overly esoteric, it's hard to see (upfront, even before trying this) how it's not clear that mega-guilds will still have essentially the same advantage (maybe even more so, but that's in the weeds). So this is where I get stuck - what am I missing?

 

And remember, we still have to weigh this change with the cost of dropping activity generally. So yeah, I just wish I could get a clear explanation from the devs, cuz I honestly cannot see it on my own...

[PorsaLindahl]

Guys, this is an asinine request, stop embarrassing yourselves by asking. If it worked this way, then my 37-alt legacy would be worth more than your 25-alt legacy, and less than Keith's 1,000,001-alt legacy.

 

Of course it's asinine. That's the point. They say it's legacy based, but it's not. It's Legacy Restrictive.