Conquest Changes in Game Update 5.9

[Lhancelot]

Or doing activities you have never been fond of.

 

People shouldn't be pigeonholed into having so little choices in conquest where they have to do this. ^

 

When you have to do things in a game you "have never been fond of" then it's not fun. I ask you, what is the purpose of logging in to play a game if you are doing activities that you are not fond of?

 

If they want to hold people and attract people to do conquest they have got to widen the activities and also grant rewards that make the efforts worthwhile.

 

They specifically said the changes were to make it more competitive for smaller guilds, and fun. So far the changes instilled have done the opposite of this. Conquest is less fun, and the changes did not help smaller guilds compete.

 

You have to admit many of the changes have been counter-productive to what they were meant to do, by their own description anyway.

[NHBabe]

A not insubstantial part of the feedback was that the changes were so bad, that they killed population and activity so quickly, that slow-walking any changes would grievously harm the health of the game. Sure enough, after a couple of weeks, additional consequences of the Giant Conquest Dumpster Fire became clear. The closest the original rush of feedback came to that was "the queues are going to die," but there's a world of difference between the-sky-is-falling predictions and a description of that actually happening. The original rush of feedback didn't really anticipate "I am pigeonholed into running an op on a specific character only, yet my specific character can't run the op to get the conquest points because the only op in six hours on a weekend night needed a different role" very well at all.

 

It would have been nice to have had that acknowledged. While Eric made a couple of posts in March, they indicated no grasp of the urgency of the situation, and their last known patching schedule indicates that Bioware doesn't really grasp the urgency of the situation at all.

 

By 5.9, the damage to the game is long done.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you - just wanted to state that first.

 

To get around the particular issue you stated there are people doing what they ALWAYS do when BW makes changes that affect the characters they currently play - though you see it more often with class balance changes. They are now making, as an example with healing, a Scoundrel/Operative. This way they can just change specs if necessary while still keeping all conquest points on one character. Unlike the other two Healing Classes, Scoundrel/Operative do at least have a very good DPS they can swap too and would be acceptable in ALL content - Ruffian/Lethality.

 

There are still people that won't accept any Sage/Sorc in an OP unless they're a healer, and I've even seen some people turning away those that play Gunnery/Arsenal. There were few that even bothered with AS/IO before and not many bothered to swap to that when they nerfed Gunnery/Arsenal into the ground. At this point the only way to get around the conquest issue is to change to classes that have multiple uses with their DPS being high enough to be allowed into ALL content. With the Healing class it is pretty much cut and dried since they all level out to be about the same - though some perform slightly better than others depending on the situation - all 3 healing classes can do ALL content easily. It is the DPS choices that may now turn some away from playing them any longer and they may opt to do what the others have done and create a new character under the FOTM - Scoundrel/Operative.

 

I can honestly admit that I have no idea on the Tanks though many times I've seen people complaining about Vanguard Tanks not being nearly as good as the others - how true that is I wouldn't know. I don't play a Tank . But for those that do, they may want to look into whatever Tank spec has the best DPS choice and make a character for that or just use that character as the Conquest one. This way if a Tank isn't needed they can at least know their DPS selection will be accepted. Though for all I know the Tank specs don't have the same DPS issues that the Healing specs have. Someone has to be on the bottom and in this case, BW seems to have put any DPS that shares a spec with healing as the worst in the game.

[olagatonjedi]

People shouldn't be pigeonholed into having so little choices in conquest where they have to do this. ^

 

When you have to do things in a game you "have never been fond of" then it's not fun. I ask you, what is the purpose of logging in to play a game if you are doing activities that you are not fond of?

 

If they want to hold people and attract people to do conquest they have got to widen the activities and also grant rewards that make the efforts worthwhile.

 

They specifically said the changes were to make it more competitive for smaller guilds, and fun. So far the changes instilled have done the opposite of this. Conquest is less fun, and the changes did not help smaller guilds compete.

 

You have to admit many of the changes have been counter-productive to what they were meant to do, by their own description anyway.

You still dont have to do anything in this game. You dont even have to play this game. But if you do choose to do or not do something, you may or may not get what you want either.

[KendraP]

You still dont have to do anything in this game. You dont even have to play this game. But if you do choose to do or not do something, you may or may not get what you want either.

 

And they explicitly ask for feedback and we're not supposed to provide it?

My feedback is: new conquest sucks and i have made recommendations to improve it for me. Fundamentally that's all I can do.

[AdrianDmitruk]

I'm not disagreeing with you - just wanted to state that first.

 

To get around the particular issue you stated there are people doing what they ALWAYS do when BW makes changes that affect the characters they currently play - though you see it more often with class balance changes. They are now making, as an example with healing, a Scoundrel/Operative. This way they can just change specs if necessary while still keeping all conquest points on one character. Unlike the other two Healing Classes, Scoundrel/Operative do at least have a very good DPS they can swap too and would be acceptable in ALL content - Ruffian/Lethality.

 

There are still people that won't accept any Sage/Sorc in an OP unless they're a healer, and I've even seen some people turning away those that play Gunnery/Arsenal. There were few that even bothered with AS/IO before and not many bothered to swap to that when they nerfed Gunnery/Arsenal into the ground. At this point the only way to get around the conquest issue is to change to classes that have multiple uses with their DPS being high enough to be allowed into ALL content. With the Healing class it is pretty much cut and dried since they all level out to be about the same - though some perform slightly better than others depending on the situation - all 3 healing classes can do ALL content easily. It is the DPS choices that may now turn some away from playing them any longer and they may opt to do what the others have done and create a new character under the FOTM - Scoundrel/Operative.

 

I can honestly admit that I have no idea on the Tanks though many times I've seen people complaining about Vanguard Tanks not being nearly as good as the others - how true that is I wouldn't know. I don't play a Tank . But for those that do, they may want to look into whatever Tank spec has the best DPS choice and make a character for that or just use that character as the Conquest one. This way if a Tank isn't needed they can at least know their DPS selection will be accepted. Though for all I know the Tank specs don't have the same DPS issues that the Healing specs have. Someone has to be on the bottom and in this case, BW seems to have put any DPS that shares a spec with healing as the worst in the game.

 

I already have some classes that can do this, and have recently made multiple copies of such classes, for the reasons you cite.

 

However, doing so just swaps out one problem for another. Instead of being locked out of content because legacy conquest lockouts killed role flexibility for GF ops, I'm instead locked out of playing certain characters at all. While there's always a particular class that's at the bottom, limiting playtime to characters that can dual spec and be "flexible" eliminates half the characters I could otherwise play. (The only class I'd remotely entertain tanking on is my guardian, as I have some familiarity with tank spec from PVP, but I'm generally not experienced at PVE tanking in this game and that's one area where most groups are NOT willing to suffer inexperience).

 

I do like the proposal of lumping all earned conquest points across the entire legacy into a single, legacy-wide pool, and giving out "personal" rewards in multiples of 15k, and guild rewards in whatever proportion of points earned in eligible guild/15k exists. That would eliminate the conquest "waste" that now results from alting to a character you hadn't intended to play to fill an unanticipated role to get group content going. The only reason why you might still want a 15k reward to "pop" on a specific character would then be for the individual CXP bonus for hitting goal--but it'd also be easier to come back to the intended toon later for the next 15k bonus. Much less un-fun micromanaging that way.

 

If we're going to have to deal with legacy based lockouts, having a legacy based point pool to match is only fair.

Edited April 17, 2018 by AdrianDmitruk

[NHBabe]

I already have some classes that can do this, and have recently made multiple copies of such classes, for the reasons you cite.

 

However, doing so just swaps out one problem for another. Instead of being locked out of content because legacy conquest lockouts killed role flexibility for GF ops, I'm instead locked out of playing certain characters at all.

 

A consistent problem regardless of what they've done with the conquest system. This just makes it hurt even more. People are constantly saying on the forums, or in game, when asked which class should be played, "play what you like to play." That is easy to say but when put into action, those that like to play a DPS Sage/Sorc find very quickly that groups don't want them - OP, FP, Uprisings...... BW never thinks things through and when others complain that people keep moving to FOTM, well it is due to these reasons why. In order to be accepted into areas of the game, they are forced into playing classes they normally wouldn't play all for the fact that they wouldn't be allowed certain content if they didn't. I really wish those people would stop throwing stones at those that DO move to the FOTM since it is mostly THEM that forced those players to do so. The class they were playing, and most likely wanted to play the most, was considered the Rudolph of SWTOR and wasn't allowed to play in their reindeer games. So they moved to the class that was accepted. Eventually those people leave the game completely as they don't find it fun playing a class they don't like - and it's all due to BW killing the class they did have fun playing.

 

I do like the proposal of lumping all earned conquest points across the entire legacy into a single, legacy-wide pool, and giving out "personal" rewards in multiples of 15k, and guild rewards in whatever proportion of points earned in eligible guild/15k exists. That would eliminate the conquest "waste" that now results from alting to a character you hadn't intended to play to fill an unanticipated role to get group content going. The only reason why you might still want a 15k reward to "pop" on a specific character would then be for the individual CXP bonus for hitting goal--but it'd also be easier to come back to the intended toon later for the next 15k bonus. Much less un-fun micromanaging that way.

 

If we're going to have to deal with legacy based lockouts, having a legacy based point pool to match is only fair.

 

I can completely agree with this point as well and only wish it had been that way in the old system too. When I actually cared and did conquest consistently on a weekly basis, and my guild always made the board even if we weren't first all the time, I'd like to have at least 10 to 12 characters make the personal conquest target. The personal rewards weren't what made me want to do this, but the GUILD rewards. My guild had a fully unlocked ship so any encryptions I'd get, I'd hold until I had 50 then purchase the framework and sell them on the GTN. It was one of my highest consistent money-makers, which is now lost to me. Instead of getting 10 - 12 encryptions a week, I'd get 1 as it's only one character that could possibly make their personal target in the time frame I can play the game under this new system.

 

Unless there are serious changes to the system, conquest will stay dead to me. I'm not going to continually change how I play the game to accomodate assinine ideas that BW decides to come up with this week. I've jumped through hoop after hoop in other ways to play this game, that it is finally time that I've said enough. Will I miss doing conquest, yes as many times it was fun and gave me something to look forward to. It was nice to set a goal and see it accomplished. However, I already have the title for winning all the planets so at this point, it would just be pure frustration to keep trying to play the game the way BW wants me to play it instead of playing the game the way I want to play it.

[PorsaLindahl]

You still dont have to do anything in this game. You dont even have to play this game. But if you do choose to do or not do something, you may or may not get what you want either.

 

Such sage advice.

[Costello]

This all feels a little bit crazy.

 

I suspect regardless of how people feel about the changes to conquest they will wait it out till 5.9 to see how the changes improve or further wreck things.

 

Then wait further for Eric to come back and in an ideal world collate the data, clearly this can't be done before June cause his not going to be here for much of May and there is no point in collecting data on the pre 5.9 system.

 

Then you have to give time for changes to be made so your looking at July.

 

By which point the devs can look at their metrics, see it is only the vocal malcontents on the forum kicking up a fuss as their figures don't show the mass exit that the changes to conquest have supposedly led to (cause people waited to see what happened) and possibly an increase in subscriptions as people come back to finish the SWTOR story.

 

Equally after 3 months players have probably come to terms with the conquest system and moved onto the next game breaking decision so a change in July or August really wont be necessary other than to stir things up. So they are best off not bothering with reading the feedback and just ignoring the system from 5.9.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Costello

[PorsaLindahl]

This all feels a little bit crazy.

 

I suspect regardless of how people feel about the changes to conquest they will wait it out till 5.9 to see how the changes improve or further wreck things.

 

Then wait further for Eric to come back and in an ideal world collate the data, clearly this can't be done before June cause his not going to be here for much of May and there is no point in collecting data on the pre 5.9 system.

 

Then you have to give time for changes to be made so your looking at July.

 

By which point the devs can look at their metrics, see it is only the vocal malcontents on the forum kicking up a fuss as their figures don't show the mass exit that the changes to conquest have supposedly led to (cause people waited to see what happened) and possibly an increase in subscriptions as people come back to finish the SWTOR story.

 

Equally after 3 months players have probably come to terms with the conquest system and moved onto the next game breaking decision so a change in July or August really wont be necessary other than to stir things up. So they are best off not bothering with reading the feedback and just ignoring the system from 5.9.

 

Out of context, but that highlighted part is exactly what's going to happen if they choose to ignore and take 3 months to fix/balance conquest.

[DarthSpuds]

Out of context, but that highlighted part is exactly what's going to happen if they choose to ignore and take 3 months to fix/balance conquest.

 

Oh, that's where I am now,

 

Just subbed to LOTRO for 3 months - even with all its problems, it is still more fun than Conquest.

 

And by the time that runs out Summerset will be released for ESO.

 

Bioware don't even have 3 weeks to fix this (and they'e had that long already) much less 3 months.

 

All The Best

[Rabenschwinge]

There are some promising changes:

 

I particularly like the new 400 point daily[ (600 points incl. my personal two strongholds) goal to complete four out of the five group finder activities, since I will collect it anyway by just playing the way I do. I don't do operations and warzones, but Galactic Starfighter, Flashpoints and Uprisings should not be a problem. Maybe queue times for a uprisings will be a bit shorter.

 

Other things that look good:

1) GSF Matches are now worth 180 instead of 85 points (270 instead of 128 with my 50% stronghold bonus).

2) The daily high objective being increased is also nice (e.g. bonus bosses in a few select flashpoints), though I am not going to repeat doing the same flashpoints everyday.

3) The kill enemies objectives are also quite nice; while it's basically a relatively dull activity, I rarely play more than two flashpoints on a weekday. That does give me something for doing planetary heroics; I realize it's a relatively simple activity, but sometimes I like doing slow stuff. Being constantly on edge is not my thing.

 

I am not so sure about the crafting. It's not a big deal with my Biochem (medpacs, medunits, stims, adrenals) and Cybertech (grenades) to craft 50 items a day (and I have fallen behind schedule on several items anyway), but it's not going to make that big a difference.

 

Addition: Legacy Wide Conquest

I do like the idea of making conquest legacy wide, regardless of what character I play. How to assign the points to guilds is a matter of debate then, but given that so many of the points are either weekly or daily per legacy now, it doesn't make any sense to keep the points per character. Conquest, as it is right now, inhibits my ability to switch characters, for I must take that I do not earn points on character B that I need on character A. That must stop.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Rabenschwinge

[masterceil]

I do like the proposal of lumping all earned conquest points across the entire legacy into a single, legacy-wide pool, and giving out "personal" rewards in multiples of 15k, and guild rewards in whatever proportion of points earned in eligible guild/15k exists. That would eliminate the conquest "waste" that now results from alting to a character you hadn't intended to play to fill an unanticipated role to get group content going. The only reason why you might still want a 15k reward to "pop" on a specific character would then be for the individual CXP bonus for hitting goal--but it'd also be easier to come back to the intended toon later for the next 15k bonus. Much less un-fun micromanaging that way.

 

If we're going to have to deal with legacy based lockouts, having a legacy based point pool to match is only fair.

 

I think this is an excellent idea! Has anyone put it on the Suggestions forum? Musco says they're still monitoring this thread, but it's still a lot of chaff to go through, and I wouldn't want this wheat to be lost

[olagatonjedi]

And they explicitly ask for feedback and we're not supposed to provide it?

My feedback is: new conquest sucks and i have made recommendations to improve it for me. Fundamentally that's all I can do.

Good for you! I'm proud.

[masterceil]

There are some promising changes:

 

I particularly like the new 400 point daily[ (600 points incl. my personal two strongholds) goal to complete four out of the five group finder activities, since I will collect it anyway by just playing the way I do. I don't do operations and warzones, but Galactic Starfighter, Flashpoints and Uprisings should not be a problem. Maybe queue times for a uprisings will be a bit shorter.

 

Other things that look good:

1) GSF Matches are now worth 180 instead of 85 points (270 instead of 128 with my 50% stronghold bonus).

2) The daily high objective being increased is also nice (e.g. bonus bosses in a few select flashpoints), though I am not going to repeat doing the same flashpoints everyday.

3) The kill enemies objectives are also quite nice; while it's basically a relatively dull activity, I rarely play more than two flashpoints on a weekday. That does give me something for doing planetary heroics; I realize it's a relatively simple activity, but sometimes I like doing slow stuff. Being constantly on edge is not my thing.

 

I am not so sure about the crafting. It's not a big deal with my Biochem (medpacs, medunits, stims, adrenals) and Cybertech (grenades) to craft 50 items a day (and I have fallen behind schedule on several items anyway), but it's not going to make that big a difference.

 

Addition: Legacy Wide Conquest

I do like the idea of making conquest legacy wide, regardless of what character I play. How to assign the points to guilds is a matter of debate then, but given that so many of the points are either weekly or daily per legacy now, it doesn't make any sense to keep the points per character. Conquest, as it is right now, inhibits my ability to switch characters, for I must take that I do not earn points on character B that I need on character A. That must stop.

 

Agreed, my breath is pretty bated for the 5.9 point and objective adjustments. Only one that gives me pause is the Craft 50 repeatable - 300 points with a full bonus does seem like it won't give crafting the insane advantage they had in Old Conquest, so that'll probably be okay. And "Kill Soa et al" being a once-daily will let people do last-boss kills with guildies for more points, but not farm the crap out of them on alts, so I can live with that, too.

 

Completing a GSF match for 450 points in my case (SH 150% numbers used throughout this post) is pretty nice - I'm not one to farm 33 matches of any activity, but 450 is a lot better than 213. Of course, I can also get 3,063 more points per day with the 3-5 Activity Finder objectives, dropping about six matches from the amount needed on participation points alone each day I queue for five. 4,563 points from 150 kills while doing heroics between pops will also be nice.

 

Haven't actually done this math before (and that's not even counting points for GSF wins or the weekly, when applicable), but 5.9 looks like it'll have some good changes that can't come soon enough : )

[olagatonjedi]

Such sage advice.

Oddly enough, it's like people dont realize it. It needed to be said.

[Darevsool]

Oddly enough, it's like people dont realize it. It needed to be said.

 

If I go to a restaurant because I like the way they prepare their steak, THAT's why I go there. If they suddenly change it (and for this hypothetical situation) and won't prepare it the way I like it, I stop going there.

 

You're trying to frame it that we, the players, the customers, are WRONG for complaining when they change something that, honestly, they haven't convinced anyone that it needed changing in the first place.

We, the players, are the customers. Our money is the reason this game is up and running.

We, the people posting, WANT to still play the game.

In my case, conquest is about 80% of everything I USED to do.

The other 20% is enough to keep me for a little while, but not for very long.

I've already played more matches of a 15+ year old game in the last two weeks than I have in the last two years.

You know why? That game is still fun.

[olagatonjedi]

If I go to a restaurant because I like the way they prepare their steak, THAT's why I go there. If they suddenly change it (and for this hypothetical situation) and won't prepare it the way I like it, I stop going there.

If you go to a restaurant because of their steak, but the customers say they dont cook the meat enough for well-done, the chef will change the way he cooks it to ensure no pink is left inside. The result could be that you enjoy it, it's overcooked in other areas, or it still needs to be cooked more. The result isn't a guarantee that you will enjoy the newly prepared steak, but no change would've been made if the original complaints weren't there in the first place. We live and die with the decisions we make. Sometimes the grass isn't greener ...

[KendraP]

If you go to a restaurant because of their steak, but the customers say they dont cook the meat enough for well-done, the chef will change the way he cooks it to ensure no pink is left inside. The result could be that you enjoy it, it's overcooked in other areas, or it still needs to be cooked more. The result isn't a guarantee that you will enjoy the newly prepared steak, but no change would've been made if the original complaints weren't there in the first place. We live and die with the decisions we make. Sometimes the grass isn't greener ...

 

His point is simple: they fix his steak or he stops going there.

[Darevsool]

If you go to a restaurant because of their steak, but the customers say they dont cook the meat enough for well-done, the chef will change the way he cooks it to ensure no pink is left inside. The result could be that you enjoy it, it's overcooked in other areas, or it still needs to be cooked more. The result isn't a guarantee that you will enjoy the newly prepared steak, but no change would've been made if the original complaints weren't there in the first place. We live and die with the decisions we make. Sometimes the grass isn't greener ...

 

If I were the only person complaining then it wouldn't be a big deal. If I were the only person complaining there wouldn't be three different VERY large threads (one already closed due to "size").

 

Going back to the case of the fictional restaurant, how many people does it take before they lose enough business to either revert their decision, or close down?

 

Who is going to wait 3-6 months while the managers "figure it out" and eventually put it back the way it was instead of driving an extra 10 minutes to go to a different restaurant.

 

I may like steak (this game) a lot, but I also like fish and chicken.

 

That's one thing you're right about, I don't HAVE to play this game.

I want to.

Or I used to anyway.

I want to want to again.

[PorsaLindahl]

His point is simple: they fix his steak or he stops going there.

 

I guess if he went to a restaurant, ordered a steak, but was served buffalo chips, he'd just go ahead and chow down on it and say "It's all good."

[traxxmusic]

If I go to a restaurant because I like the way they prepare their steak, THAT's why I go there. If they suddenly change it (and for this hypothetical situation) and won't prepare it the way I like it, I stop going there.

 

You're trying to frame it that we, the players, the customers, are WRONG for complaining when they change something that, honestly, they haven't convinced anyone that it needed changing in the first place.

We, the players, are the customers. Our money is the reason this game is up and running.

We, the people posting, WANT to still play the game.

In my case, conquest is about 80% of everything I USED to do.

The other 20% is enough to keep me for a little while, but not for very long.

I've already played more matches of a 15+ year old game in the last two weeks than I have in the last two years.

You know why? That game is still fun.

 

Well said!!!! I would still stay if they would roll the thing back to when it DID work. If it "ain't" broke, don't fix it. I am waiting no longer, my steak is not correctly prepared anymore (been going downhill for quite some time). I will be changing restaurants when my sub expires in about a month. Tired of waiting around until everyone accepts the changes, and get tired of complaining - can see that happening already as this thread goes on. Exactly what happened with the cxp mess. They will drag it on with promises until the customers become compliant yet again. I am seeing more and more posts of compromise now as this thread grows. Compromise my a**. I'm done compromising - it is my money!!!!

 

New ssd is on order. As soon as it is added to my gaming system, the new os installed, and all drivers - first thing being installed will be Elder Scrolls. It HAS been fun here - shame it could not remain so.

[Darevsool]

I guess if he went to a restaurant, ordered a steak, but was served buffalo chips, he'd just go ahead and chow down on it and say "It's all good."

 

C'mon....at least use something like Lamb Fries.

[olagatonjedi]

His point is simple: they fix his steak or he stops going there.

His analogy needed correction to fit the conquest situation. He requested a change to his "perfect" steak.

[Darevsool]

His analogy needed correction to fit the conquest situation. He requested a change to his "perfect" steak.

 

I requested a change BACK to my "perfect steak"

along with many other people

[olagatonjedi]

How soon people forget that they complained about the old system, and prompted a change.

 

Had they never complained in the first place, they would still have the old system they are now asking for.

 

Hell, even now, the current 5.8 complaining could lead to even worse conquest because more changes may be made.

 

History is destined to repeat itself because some people never learn from their mistakes.

Edited April 17, 2018 by olagatonjedi