Conquest Changes in Game Update 5.9

[VirtualMorrigan]

There is a lot of nothing in those as well. Lots of trolling by a few individuals who are attempting to devalue other players experiences, viewpoints and opinions. Maybe they can sort through it.

 

I think that's the whole point of the organised trolling in this thread. Making it completely unreadable.

[PorsaLindahl]

I think that's the whole point of the organised trolling in this thread. Making it completely unreadable.

 

It's not just this thread though. It's worse in the thread that asks for feedback.

[Darevsool]

Crafting mats requirements is TOO HIGH. Revert the schematics. Also, if I am crafting 50 WS, I better get my weekly 3x over.

How about Crafting 20 gets you your 15k weekly. A one time per character objective. that way, people with alts can get their weekly done, like before.

 

That is all the players with alts want. To be able to get their weekly on alts.

 

The way I read that future objective, it doesn't just apply to war supplies.

I got the impression it was craft 50 of anything.

[Stellarcrusade]

GREAT post!!! I don't think many people realized just how much activity Conquests created...even the lopsided crafting. I hope Bioware notices and makes some major adjustments VERY VERY soon...they're only hurting their own revenue with these changes.

 

The issue which has caused all the queues to die is:

1.) Conquest has to be repeatable for PvP, GSF, flashpoints, uprisings EVERY week.

2.) MOST IMPORTANT: The items in #1 above need to be worth doing. Points need to be high enough to be as "worth it" as they were before, which is simple math. The GSF example was with full SH bonus it would take 14 matches to get from 0 to 20000. So now it should be 1071 per match so that 14 matches gets you to 15000. Of course it could be a tish less than that for a weekly GSF payout, but either way total is 14 matches.

 

This is the worst problem in the new conquest system because it is disasterous to the game and ALL players conquest or otherwise. It seems strange that this is also the easiest one to fix. Currently its not even worth participating, I'm not going to play 72 matches to get conquest on an alt. Even planned may bring down to 36 matches, still, no way. Make it 14, and i'm back in the queues all week.

[KendraP]

The issue which has caused all the queues to die is:

1.) Conquest has to be repeatable for PvP, GSF, flashpoints, uprisings EVERY week.

2.) MOST IMPORTANT: The items in #1 above need to be worth doing. Points need to be high enough to be as "worth it" as they were before, which is simple math. The GSF example was with full SH bonus it would take 14 matches to get from 0 to 20000. So now it should be 1071 per match so that 14 matches gets you to 15000. Of course it could be a tish less than that for a weekly GSF payout, but either way total is 14 matches.

 

This is the worst problem in the new conquest system because it is disasterous to the game and ALL players conquest or otherwise. It seems strange that this is also the easiest one to fix. Currently its not even worth participating, I'm not going to play 72 matches to get conquest on an alt. Even planned may bring down to 36 matches, still, no way. Make it 14, and i'm back in the queues all week.

213 pts /match is a joke. 71 matches to cap one toon? Espefially considering the limited number of one off objectives the practical uselessness of the spammable objectives means alts are useless.

 

Seriously Musco did you guys learn nothing from the GC disaster? We want to play how we eant to play, not how you "intend" us to play. People are fundamentally different and enjoy playing differently. Some pvp some do ops some do story... within reason we should all be able to cap.

 

Ive capped 2 toons this week and done all but 2 of the one off objectives.

[robwettengel]

I read the first couple pages of this thread, and it is certainly a noble goal to wish to make Conquest more competitive--and I heartily support that. Larger, active guilds are naturally going to have an advantage in terms of scoring points than smaller rivals and less active guilds no matter their size.

 

Would it be possible to establish a tiered conquest system somewhat quickly? The tiers would be divided by total membership size of a guild. Given that guild memberships fluctuate daily, the number used could not be calculated in real-time. The number would need to be gathered at a set time before the conquest commences. This would likely increase competition within tiers and likely make guilds more popular for everyone to get involved with. My attraction to guilds has been somewhat lukewarm because I'm only interested in conquest (one guild I was in was in the top 10 several times before it broke-up for reasons unknown to me). I have only done two full runs of an op--KP a few years ago.

 

I agree that 213 points in total for a WZ is unacceptable. Now had it been 213 BASE that the 150% SH bonus brings to 500-something--that would be far more acceptable.

[ThadiusMoor]

Still sucks.

 

Too tired of explaining why it sucks and will never achieve the usefulness of the old system, so meh.

 

You aren't really listening anyways, but oh well.

 

Maybe when the unsubs outnumber the subs and your cash-flow starts hurting, you will be more willing to actually listen. Till then, I'm done trying.

[AlrikFassbauer]

Would it be possible to establish a tiered conquest system somewhat quickly?

 

Long ago I already suggested making sectors of planets available for conquest. On Coruscant, this would almost be a natural thing.

[PennyAnn]

I read the first couple pages of this thread, and it is certainly a noble goal to wish to make Conquest more competitive--and I heartily support that. Larger, active guilds are naturally going to have an advantage in terms of scoring points than smaller rivals and less active guilds no matter their size.

 

Would it be possible to establish a tiered conquest system somewhat quickly? The tiers would be divided by total membership size of a guild. Given that guild memberships fluctuate daily, the number used could not be calculated in real-time. The number would need to be gathered at a set time before the conquest commences. This would likely increase competition within tiers and likely make guilds more popular for everyone to get involved with. My attraction to guilds has been somewhat lukewarm because I'm only interested in conquest (one guild I was in was in the top 10 several times before it broke-up for reasons unknown to me). I have only done two full runs of an op--KP a few years ago.

 

I agree that 213 points in total for a WZ is unacceptable. Now had it been 213 BASE that the 150% SH bonus brings to 500-something--that would be far more acceptable.

 

There are problems with establishing this method:

#1 - Many guilds do not remove players when they become inactive, so you would also have to account for how many people on a guild's roster are actively playing the game (have logged in during the past 7 days, for example). Don't make me remove my friends just because they are taking a break from the game in order to better qualify for the actual size of my guild for conquest.

 

#2 - Not everyone in every guild participates in conquest or even WANTS to participate in conquest. So now you are punishing the people that do want to participate by limiting their targets based on the total number of members in a guild, when it may be a much smaller sub-section of members that actually do conquest or care about it.

 

#3 - That can work in reverse also, and guilds can spam recruitment (many of the mega guilds already do) just to pad their numbers in order to have more targets available to them, even though none of the people they recruited will participate in conquest or even care about it.

 

#4 - Many of the largest guilds already have more than one guild set up for "spill over", and some have a multitude of guilds available that they could use to get around this system entirely, putting just enough in one guild to qualify for small, just enough in another to qualify for medium, and keeping one that qualifies for large. It wouldn't solve the problem at all in that situation, and guilds would only need 2 additional flagships to accomplish this (which are easy to come by and get sold in Trade chat on the fleet all the time as this game shrinks and guilds die off).

 

It's an idea that has too many problems to be practical. Going the route of improving the rewards is a start, but we will see if it is enough to make any difference. It's honestly a problem that likely doesn't have a "clean" solution. A better option would be a guild alliance system that would allow guilds to band together for communal points (if under a certain total member cap so that it also couldn't be abused by larger guilds) in order to conquer medium or large planets. But I'm sure that is something that would require too much work to expect them to undertake.

 

It's a bad situation that doesn't seem to be getting much better anytime soon. And those of us that have been providing feedback are no longer being heard as these threads grow longer and longer (because people are still unhappy with the system, week after week). We did what we could, what we were asked. Now it's up to them I think.

 

.

[streunekatze]

For Flashpoint Havok Flashpoints themself hardly bring anything, to get any points worth something it has to be Master and the bonus boss... how is that FP Havok.

And even with those Bonus bosses granting points queueing takes forever!

Why not have one time points for some fps and not just one (Battle of Ilum)

Also nothing besides crafting that you can do on your own... this will be another week where I'll only do one char and my small guild is not even attempting to crack the 200k points. (and we used to sometimes place in the top 10 before the change, now almost everyone has lost interest)

[robwettengel]

There are problems with establishing this method:

#1 - Many guilds do not remove players when they become inactive, so you would also have to account for how many people on a guild's roster are actively playing the game (have logged in during the past 7 days, for example). Don't make me remove my friends just because they are taking a break from the game in order to better qualify for the actual size of my guild for conquest.

 

#2 - Not everyone in every guild participates in conquest or even WANTS to participate in conquest. So now you are punishing the people that do want to participate by limiting their targets based on the total number of members in a guild, when it may be a much smaller sub-section of members that actually do conquest or care about it.

 

#3 - That can work in reverse also, and guilds can spam recruitment (many of the mega guilds already do) just to pad their numbers in order to have more targets available to them, even though none of the people they recruited will participate in conquest or even care about it.

 

#4 - Many of the largest guilds already have more than one guild set up for "spill over", and some have a multitude of guilds available that they could use to get around this system entirely, putting just enough in one guild to qualify for small, just enough in another to qualify for medium, and keeping one that qualifies for large. It wouldn't solve the problem at all in that situation, and guilds would only need 2 additional flagships to accomplish this (which are easy to come by and get sold in Trade chat on the fleet all the time as this game shrinks and guilds die off).

 

It's an idea that has too many problems to be practical. Going the route of improving the rewards is a start, but we will see if it is enough to make any difference. It's honestly a problem that likely doesn't have a "clean" solution. A better option would be a guild alliance system that would allow guilds to band together for communal points (if under a certain total member cap so that it also couldn't be abused by larger guilds) in order to conquer medium or large planets. But I'm sure that is something that would require too much work to expect them to undertake.

 

It's a bad situation that doesn't seem to be getting much better anytime soon. And those of us that have been providing feedback are no longer being heard as these threads grow longer and longer (because people are still unhappy with the system, week after week). We did what we could, what we were asked. Now it's up to them I think.

 

.

 

I was painting with too broad of a brush. Your #1 - #3 points are valid and spot-on. My proposal needs to be modified to change the discussion of the entire guild membership to only those who participated within the prior week's Conquest.

 

I am also not certain that anything can be done about the largest guilds. Even if the number of Toons per guild were limited by legacy, that would not stop the creation of guild II or III to circumvent such a restriction. Breaking-up these large guilds is a total non-starter and would likely lead to a mass exodus of players. The only way I could think to mitigate it would be via the creation of additional tiers, but without having any idea of how well the game engine would support such an undertaking, how many new lines of code it would take (and what these changes may break elsewhere in the game), easy solutions are not possible.

[PorsaLindahl]

Is anyone even reading this?

 

Eric?

 

Keith?

 

Anybody?

 

Anybody?

 

Beuller?

 

Beuller?

[Bothan]

I was just looking at the large guild rankings on Satele Shan. Galaxy Knights is in the lead, with nearly 900,000 points. The next nine guilds haven't broken 100,000. BBB isn't even on the list. Edited April 12, 2018 by Bothan

[PennyAnn]

I was just looking at the large guild rankings on Satele Shan. Galaxy Knights is in the lead, with nearly 900,000 points. The next nine guilds haven't broken 100,000. BBB isn't even on the list.

 

That's because you can only see the Republic invasions set for Taris and Balmorra when you are on the Republic side (these planets have two factions each, so you can only see whichever faction you are on currently when you look at the board).

 

In fairness though, there are other large guilds that make the top than just the two you mention. Though among those, Steel Court is the only one I see on the top of the list in the new conquest on the Imperial side, as I think several larger guilds may have stopped participating (Ruinous comes to mind though I'm sure there are others).

 

The points values are all low again this week though, and it indicates what others have been giving unheard feedback about in many threads: Conquest still is not "fixed" and nothing coming in 5.9 will seemingly alleviate the real issues. There are just more baby steps toward actually fixing it, but not enough of them to really add up to a truly better system. Certainly not "fixed".

 

But then again, we don't even clearly know what Bioware's goals for conquest are... the listed "goals" that they have given are not being addressed by the fixes nor are they being met with the current implementation. AKA: It's still a mess and there is still no communication about it.

 

.

Edited April 12, 2018 by PennyAnn

[Kurj]

That's because you can only see the Republic invasions set for Taris and Balmorra when you are on the Republic side (these planets have two factions each, so you can only see whichever faction you are on currently when you look at the board).

 

In fairness though, there are other large guilds that make the top than just the two you mention. Though among those, Steel Court is the only one I see on the top of the list in the new conquest on the Imperial side, as I think several larger guilds may have stopped participating (Ruinous comes to mind though I'm sure there are others).

 

The points values are all low again this week though, and it indicates what others have been giving unheard feedback about in many threads: Conquest still is not "fixed" and nothing coming in 5.9 will seemingly alleviate the real issues. There are just more baby steps toward actually fixing it, but not enough of them to really add up to a truly better system. Certainly not "fixed".

 

But then again, we don't even clearly know what Bioware's goals for conquest are... the listed "goals" that they have given are not being addressed by the fixes nor are they being met with the current implementation. AKA: It's still a mess and there is still no communication about it.

 

.

 

There is no denying that the serious Conquest guilds have taken a huge step back, and we are all experiencing the effects on activity levels throughout the game. It's not unreasonable to conclude that, by removing a large portion of that segment of the game population, the Conquest revamp drained the game of many regular participants in a wide variety of game activities. I am trying to be optimistic that 5.9, with its promise of numerous additional activities that are repeatable across legacies, will remedy that problem.

 

What we can't see, however, is whether the overall Conquest utilization level has increased, because there is no way to tell how many guilds are past the 200,000 points threshold for small yields. According to Keith, there are a lot of new participants in Conquest at that level. Truth, or just a convenient spin that can't be verified? There is no way for us to tell, so I will continue to take his statement at face value.

 

The most frustrating thing for me has been the simple fact that this change is, on the whole, demoralizing, and that effect hasn't been limited to Conquest activities for me. I've never been a "hard core" Conquest player, but there is no denying that the previous synergy between Conquest and PVP increased my overall motivation to play the game. I love PVP, and I liked being able to help my guild out with encryptions, making a push for points, etc. It was just fun, plain and simple, and the two would feed off of each other, to the point that I was consistently playing more as a direct result of that interplay. I'm still waiting for someone to offer me an even remotely convincing explanation of how that was bad for any aspect of the game.

[Haooll]

There are problems with establishing this method:

#1 - Many guilds do not remove players when they become inactive, so you would also have to account for how many people on a guild's roster are actively playing the game (have logged in during the past 7 days, for example). Don't make me remove my friends just because they are taking a break from the game in order to better qualify for the actual size of my guild for conquest.

 

#2 - Not everyone in every guild participates in conquest or even WANTS to participate in conquest. So now you are punishing the people that do want to participate by limiting their targets based on the total number of members in a guild, when it may be a much smaller sub-section of members that actually do conquest or care about it.

 

#3 - That can work in reverse also, and guilds can spam recruitment (many of the mega guilds already do) just to pad their numbers in order to have more targets available to them, even though none of the people they recruited will participate in conquest or even care about it.

 

#4 - Many of the largest guilds already have more than one guild set up for "spill over", and some have a multitude of guilds available that they could use to get around this system entirely, putting just enough in one guild to qualify for small, just enough in another to qualify for medium, and keeping one that qualifies for large. It wouldn't solve the problem at all in that situation, and guilds would only need 2 additional flagships to accomplish this (which are easy to come by and get sold in Trade chat on the fleet all the time as this game shrinks and guilds die off).

 

It's an idea that has too many problems to be practical. Going the route of improving the rewards is a start, but we will see if it is enough to make any difference. It's honestly a problem that likely doesn't have a "clean" solution. A better option would be a guild alliance system that would allow guilds to band together for communal points (if under a certain total member cap so that it also couldn't be abused by larger guilds) in order to conquer medium or large planets. But I'm sure that is something that would require too much work to expect them to undertake.

 

It's a bad situation that doesn't seem to be getting much better anytime soon. And those of us that have been providing feedback are no longer being heard as these threads grow longer and longer (because people are still unhappy with the system, week after week). We did what we could, what we were asked. Now it's up to them I think.

 

.

 

1) I've posted a couple of times a possible solution to numbers 1, 2 and 3 and that is the target tier(s) available for a guild to invade are determined by the number of alts (not legacies ALTS) that participated in conquest the week before (i.e. loads of alts only large target, medium number -> medium and large, small number all tiers available). This effectively would account for inactive members (they wouldn't be counted), you're not punishing those that want to participate by penalising them for the non-participation of other guild members and guilds that spam recruitment in order to gain more targets wouldn't need to (see 3 below).

 

2) Getting the data for this should be relatively simple ... they already check who has done what for conquest guild wise in order to determine whether or not to award the guild rewards (although I suspect it is just did alt X get personal goal did guild Y get guild target) ... all that is needed is a counter for numbers of alt X (whether personal goal achieved or not) in guild which is then used to determine the tier level the guild has available for it's conquest the week after.

 

3) In order to make all planets available for the Galactic Conqueror achievement, all plants cycle though the small medium and large target tiers.

 

They do have all of 1 whole day to do this calculation (conquest end monday to conquest start tuesday), if they're not careful they'll be able to do it manually using their fingers and toes.

 

Hopefully that makes a bit of sense and I can see where you're coming from from the points of view of not wanting to boot friends from a guild because they're on sabatical

[Darev]

My problem with locking guilds to specific choices they can do each week, instead of giving them the choice, is if the guild is going for a title.

 

The titles are locked. Some titles are large only, some are medium only, the others are small only.

If the large guilds could only ever compete in the large planet invasion, they'd be missing 2/3 of the titles.

[masterceil]

The points values are all low again this week though, and it indicates what others have been giving unheard feedback about in many threads: Conquest still is not "fixed" and nothing coming in 5.9 will seemingly alleviate the real issues. There are just more baby steps toward actually fixing it, but not enough of them to really add up to a truly better system. Certainly not "fixed".

.

 

This is the worst week to date under New Conquest. Almost all of the points to be gained can be acquired solely through Master Mode Flashpoint Bonus Bosses. The previous three events made it much easier to get points almost passively:

 

 

• Relics of the Gree
  
  • There was of course the bug with Surgok'k and Gravak'k
    
  • Gree dailies, that many players do just for fun, were an objective
    
  • Hoth and Ilum Rampages, the latter easily hit while doing the Gree dailies aforementioned

  [*]Total Galactic War

  • Almost all the Weeklies in the game - again, even when not done for Conquest, a lot of players just do them for XP
    
  • GSF and Warzone Weeklies also got points

  [*]Death Mark

  • Nar Shaddaa Heroics, crappily as it was done
    
  • Nar Shaddaa and Tatooine Rampages, the former done with just a few of the right heroics
    
  • Group Finder Flashpoints and Uprisings

 

New Conquest, as we all know, is not perfect, but this week is easily the worst week for Conquest since 5.8

[PennyAnn]

1) I've posted a couple of times a possible solution to numbers 1, 2 and 3 and that is the target tier(s) available for a guild to invade are determined by the number of alts (not legacies ALTS) that participated in conquest the week before (i.e. loads of alts only large target, medium number -> medium and large, small number all tiers available). This effectively would account for inactive members (they wouldn't be counted), you're not punishing those that want to participate by penalising them for the non-participation of other guild members and guilds that spam recruitment in order to gain more targets wouldn't need to (see 3 below).

 

2) Getting the data for this should be relatively simple ... they already check who has done what for conquest guild wise in order to determine whether or not to award the guild rewards (although I suspect it is just did alt X get personal goal did guild Y get guild target) ... all that is needed is a counter for numbers of alt X (whether personal goal achieved or not) in guild which is then used to determine the tier level the guild has available for it's conquest the week after.

 

3) In order to make all planets available for the Galactic Conqueror achievement, all plants cycle though the small medium and large target tiers.

 

They do have all of 1 whole day to do this calculation (conquest end monday to conquest start tuesday), if they're not careful they'll be able to do it manually using their fingers and toes.

 

Hopefully that makes a bit of sense and I can see where you're coming from from the points of view of not wanting to boot friends from a guild because they're on sabatical

 

Yes, this makes sense to me as a way to do it. If only someone who could make this happen would read this thread and take the suggestions here, we'd be in business!

 

.

[PennyAnn]

My problem with locking guilds to specific choices they can do each week, instead of giving them the choice, is if the guild is going for a title.

 

The titles are locked. Some titles are large only, some are medium only, the others are small only.

If the large guilds could only ever compete in the large planet invasion, they'd be missing 2/3 of the titles.

 

That is why Hanooll's suggestion includes rotating planets through each yield category, sometimes they appear in the large category, next time they are medium yield targets, and then small yield - so that every planet will appear in every category eventually. Makes the wait for Galactic Conqueror longer for small guilds, but keeps in the realm of possibility if they have access to it on small yield AND if mega guilds are barred from competing for it and knocking them out.

 

.

[PennyAnn]

This is the worst week to date under New Conquest. Almost all of the points to be gained can be acquired solely through Master Mode Flashpoint Bonus Bosses. The previous three events made it much easier to get points almost passively:

 

 

• Relics of the Gree
  
  • There was of course the bug with Surgok'k and Gravak'k
    
  • Gree dailies, that many players do just for fun, were an objective
    
  • Hoth and Ilum Rampages, the latter easily hit while doing the Gree dailies aforementioned

  [*]Total Galactic War

  • Almost all the Weeklies in the game - again, even when not done for Conquest, a lot of players just do them for XP
    
  • GSF and Warzone Weeklies also got points

  [*]Death Mark

  • Nar Shaddaa Heroics, crappily as it was done
    
  • Nar Shaddaa and Tatooine Rampages, the former done with just a few of the right heroics
    
  • Group Finder Flashpoints and Uprisings

 

New Conquest, as we all know, is not perfect, but this week is easily the worst week for Conquest since 5.8

 

I know you are trying to find the bright side, but there has been absolutely no week of the new conquest where points were easy to get passively. The dailies and weeklies that you mention were once per legacy (either per day or per week). Now, many did continue to do the Gree daily missions without getting conquest points for them for the mob kill points and to participate in the event.

 

I do however agree that this week seems like it has been the worst, but I am not participating and haven't been since the week after Total Galactic War. We may, as a guild, participate after 5.9 if it becomes a whole lot more worthwhile, but so far it doesn't look like it will - if they only implement what they have announced we will likely continue to play other things and enjoy our time elsewhere. For us though (and I know it isn't that way for everybody), Conquest was a big reason we were still playing the game. Without it, the drive to even log in is pretty greatly diminished.

 

.

[Stellarcrusade]

1) I've posted a couple of times a possible solution to numbers 1, 2 and 3 and that is the target tier(s) available for a guild to invade are determined by the number of alts (not legacies ALTS) that participated in conquest the week before (i.e. loads of alts only large target, medium number -> medium and large, small number all tiers available). This effectively would account for inactive members (they wouldn't be counted), you're not punishing those that want to participate by penalising them for the non-participation of other guild members and guilds that spam recruitment in order to gain more targets wouldn't need to (see 3 below).

 

Your plan would have exactly the opposite effect as you want. Huge guilds can have "only mains" in the "main guild", because they are all active you'd have hundreds of mains, getting millions of conquest points, no alts. So this would be on a small planet. Whereas the poor small/medium guilds need to use a boatload of alts to try to keep pace with the guilds who have actual members.

 

Best thing is to make ALL planets small planets and do like they did with the top10, make the value for taking the planet a fixed value. So under the current points rewards levels it would be 300k and you take the planet, 200k and you get top10. Doesn't matter that more than one guild would take the planet each week, think of it as working together to overthrow the planet.

 

You'll never get rid of the big guilds unfair advantage unless you take away the competition.

[PorsaLindahl]

You'll never get rid of the big guilds unfair advantage unless you take away the competition.

 

I need to ask this: What's unfair about large guilds having more members? Yeah, it's an advantage, but it's not necessarily an unfair advantage.

 

I noticed last week that several that went for the "Large" planet didn't make the cut-off points. Talk about wasted effort.

 

I think they need to change their "yields" to something along these lines.

 

Rewards based on points instead of being determined by what planet is conquered:

To qualify for the low yield rewards: 200k points.

To qualify for the medium yield rewards: 500k points.

To qualify for the high yield rewards: 1 mil points.

 

Small guilds probably still wouldn't stand a chance to get the conqueror titles, but that should be something that takes more than just a few people to achieve.

[Haooll]

Your plan would have exactly the opposite effect as you want. Huge guilds can have "only mains" in the "main guild", because they are all active you'd have hundreds of mains, getting millions of conquest points, no alts. So this would be on a small planet. Whereas the poor small/medium guilds need to use a boatload of alts to try to keep pace with the guilds who have actual members.

 

Best thing is to make ALL planets small planets and do like they did with the top10, make the value for taking the planet a fixed value. So under the current points rewards levels it would be 300k and you take the planet, 200k and you get top10. Doesn't matter that more than one guild would take the planet each week, think of it as working together to overthrow the planet.

 

You'll never get rid of the big guilds unfair advantage unless you take away the competition.

 

I think you've missed a fairly vital point ... a "main" as you call it counts as an "alt" ... so hundreds of "mains" means hundreds of "alts" my system still works ... so guild 1 with 50 active conquest members who each play 10 alts (main + 9 others) will have a total of 500 alts that took part in conquest, guild 2 that had 5 active conquest players who each play 10 alts (main + 9 others) only has 50 ... with the correct tier brackets you can make it so that guild 1 has to decide how many alts to use in order to widen their choice for the next week ...

 

I agree you will never be able to get rid of the big guilds unfair advantage, and your idea that having a set amount of points to get the planetary target and a higher number also gets you the conqueror title is a good way of enabling people to get the galactic conqueror achievement without having to join one of the big guilds.

[Sundown]

I agree you will never be able to get rid of the big guilds unfair advantage

I will never understand why it is considered "unfair"?! In the end it boils down to how many people will dedicate how much time/effort to work on conquest goals. Is it also unfair if a guild has members with limited time? Or interest in conquest? Or whatever?

You want to do NiM, you join a group you think can do it. You want to successfully PvP, you join a group that you think is good. You want to just play with your friends in a small and family like guild? Then probably you will not win conquest. How is that unfair?

, and your idea that having a set amount of points to get the planetary target and a higher number also gets you the conqueror title is a good way of enabling people to get the galactic conqueror achievement without having to join one of the big guilds.

I like that idea, just that the competitive aspect is gone of course. It is more like an "act of will" to beat the limit...