Conquest Changes in Game Update 5.9

[Darevsool]

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.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I never complained about how pre 5.8 conquest worked and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

There were a couple threads about people feeling it was unfair for the large guilds to have such HUGE leads in points 30 minutes into the conquest cycle.

 

My response was that in the case of Conquest I didn't mind that. It was a PURE form of PVP, the ONLY form of PVP that I enjoyed in the game. You could take your small guild and merge with other small guilds, go out and recruit, do any number of things to compete against the guilds that had already done that.

 

But, the few people that were complaining about crafting bombs and lockouts convinced Bioware enough that they then made the decision to redo the whole thing instead of JUST fixing those two issues....along with...maybe...the missing rewards issue....

 

which, come to think about it, was the only thing I ever complained about regarding pre 5.8 conquest.

I do have the tickets for that.

[PorsaLindahl]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I never complained about how pre 5.8 conquest worked and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

There were a couple threads about people feeling it was unfair for the large guilds to have such HUGE leads in points 30 minutes into the conquest cycle.

 

My response was that in the case of Conquest I didn't mind that. It was a PURE form of PVP, the ONLY form of PVP that I enjoyed in the game. You could take your small guild and merge with other small guilds, go out and recruit, do any number of things to compete against the guilds that had already done that.

 

But, the few people that were complaining about crafting bombs and lockouts convinced Bioware enough that they then made the decision to redo the whole thing instead of JUST fixing those two issues....along with...maybe...the missing rewards issue....

 

which, come to think about it, was the only thing I ever complained about regarding pre 5.8 conquest.

I do have the tickets for that.

 

May as well try telling all that to a brick wall.

 

But yeah, the simplest solution would've been to put a daily cap on war supplies and invasion forces, per character, instead of a re-write of the entire system. But then BW doesn't seem to understand how to make "surgical" corrections without first totally destroying something and piecing it back together like a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces.

[Damask_Rose]

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.

 

Are you implying that the devs make changes to punish players for complaining? That is sure what it sounds like.

 

Very few people complained about conquest and those few complaints focused on just a couple of aspects on conquests, not the whole. No one was complaining that activities gave too many points. No one was complaining that it was too easy to hit the personal targets. No one was complaining that the personal target could be hit on alts. No one was complaining that some activities were the same from week to week. No one was complaining that they could hit their personal target by playing the activities they enjoy.

 

The changes made were the result of someone over at Bioware deciding to totally change conquests to be very player unfriendly for some unfathomable reason. Clearly the reasons they gave are not the real ones since the changes they made have had the exact opposite effect of what they said they were trying to do. The vast majority of changes made in no way shape or form are the result of player feedback or complaints.

[ShadowGovernator]

These are not the changes we are looking for.

You can go about your Conquest 5.8 roll-back business.

Move along.. Move along..

[olagatonjedi]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I never complained about how pre 5.8 conquest worked and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

There were a couple threads about people feeling it was unfair for the large guilds to have such HUGE leads in points 30 minutes into the conquest cycle.

 

My response was that in the case of Conquest I didn't mind that. It was a PURE form of PVP, the ONLY form of PVP that I enjoyed in the game. You could take your small guild and merge with other small guilds, go out and recruit, do any number of things to compete against the guilds that had already done that.

 

But, the few people that were complaining about crafting bombs and lockouts convinced Bioware enough that they then made the decision to redo the whole thing instead of JUST fixing those two issues....along with...maybe...the missing rewards issue....

 

which, come to think about it, was the only thing I ever complained about regarding pre 5.8 conquest.

I do have the tickets for that.

I remember seeing quite a few posts and in-guild conversations about people farming lockouts, small alt-heavy guilds being able to outperform large guilds because of playtime (not effort), and small guilds complaining they couldn't compete with alt-heavy small guilds, and small guilds complaining about not being able to win any guild conquests because of the large output of larger guilds. I can imagine there were plenty of bug and feedback reports, but I dont have access to those. There was obviously enough feedback to merit a fix, and its obviously debatable whether things are better or worse depending on who you talk to.

 

The change wasn't merited by one small issue, but a lot of issues that were glaringly bad and imbalanced for fair play among all types of players, not just the conquest elite.

[olagatonjedi]

Are you implying that the devs make changes to punish players for complaining? That is sure what it sounds like.

Not at all. I dont see the changes as a bad thing, personally. I see it as more balanced for the average player and the average guild. So no, I dont feel they are punishing anyone.

 

If you read my statement with less intent on rebuttal and more on understanding it, you may get the gist of it.

 

Very few people complained about conquest and those few complaints focused on just a couple of aspects on conquests, not the whole. No one was complaining that activities gave too many points. No one was complaining that it was too easy to hit the personal targets. No one was complaining that the personal target could be hit on alts. No one was complaining that some activities were the same from week to week. No one was complaining that they could hit their personal target by playing the activities they enjoy.

According to you and your sources.....nobody was complaining. I would say the opposite, and the actions of BW support that people complained enough to throw resources at it to change.

 

The changes made were the result of someone over at Bioware deciding to totally change conquests to be very player unfriendly for some unfathomable reason. Clearly the reasons they gave are not the real ones since the changes they made have had the exact opposite effect of what they said they were trying to do. The vast majority of changes made in no way shape or form are the result of player feedback or complaints.

Someone can tell you the sun is hot until they are blue in the face, but it's up to you to accept the truth or follow your own belief system. That's on you, not them. They told you why changes were made. If you dont believe them, so be it. Doesn't mean they are lying. They have no reason to lie.

[KendraP]

I remember seeing quite a few posts and in-guild conversations about people farming lockouts, small alt-heavy guilds being able to outperform large guilds because of playtime (not effort), and small guilds complaining they couldn't compete with alt-heavy small guilds, and small guilds complaining about not being able to win any guild conquests because of the large output of larger guilds. I can imagine there were plenty of bug and feedback reports, but I dont have access to those. There was obviously enough feedback to merit a fix, and its obviously debatable whether things are better or worse depending on who you talk to.

 

The change wasn't merited by one small issue, but a lot of issues that were glaringly bad and imbalanced for fair play among all types of players, not just the conquest elite.

 

In my humble opinion all comparisons to the old system are moot. For whatever stupid reasom they chose to ****can it.

 

But as an exercise in futility-

Lockout farming: personally i dont see this as an issur, if they did just require players to do the whole op. There is already a limit on how many can be done because once you finish the op you are locked out for the week.

 

Small alt heavy guilds vs large guilds: this was literally the only way we had to compete with medium sized guilds. The BBB and galaxy knights of the galaxy always handily beat us. Again, the large guilds won then (just as now) by pure size. Whereas i had to put in a little bit of effort to accomplish a lesser task. Also, as far as effort, I'd say my playing 10 toons through 20k points required far more effort than 10 people playing 1 toon to 20k. Who put in more effort? I would say me - either doing large one offs on each toon or farming heroics/warzones to cap. Whereas the one guy in a large guild could cap his one toon and be on his merry way. On the degree of alt heaviness- in the old system they could still compete, since it was entirely possible to go well over the cap with points just by spammable objectives. I used to have guildies without alts hitting 100k or more.

 

Small vs large guilds and winning: what exactly has changed here? The large guilds still win every week (and probably always will).

 

Enough feedback to merit a fix, maybe. The only thread i remember reading before the changes were announced were the ones on lockouts. Instead the nerfed the hell out of everything conquest related. I seriously doubt anyone wanted what we got.

 

Putting my tinfoil hat on here- i also think they knew we wouldnt like it. Unlike GC which was pretty well explained beforehand (and terribly received even then) conquest was not. We were made to believe there would be a new interface and 3 planets, with caps for rewards rather than having to make the top 10. This is true, however they did not communicate with us the degree of nerfing they would do (and to date, still have not explained WHY they nerfed the hell out of everything).

 

I've seen maybe 5 people say its better, maybe a dozen that just don't care, and at least 50 of us still posting about how unhappy we are. I ask you where the preponderance of evidence stands.

 

My arguement is that this makes conquest LESS avaliable to everyone. I was hardly the conquest elite before, seeing as i run a small PvP guild. We just happened to be able to mske the board most weeks doing what we enjoy. The same thing for PvE guilds, they could play what they wanted and have a chance. Now? Everyone had to play what we're "supposed" to be playing to get our damn encryptions. Thus, if you refuse to partake in forced fun, conquest is unavaliable to you, and therefore less avaliable to players of all types.

Edited April 17, 2018 by KendraP

[olagatonjedi]

Small alt heavy guilds vs large guilds: this was literally the only way we had to compete with medium sized guilds. The BBB and galaxy knights of the galaxy always handily beat us. Again, the large guilds won then (just as now) by pure size. Whereas i had to put in a little bit of effort to accomplish a lesser task. Also, as far as effort, I'd say my playing 10 toons through 20k points required far more effort than 10 people playing 1 toon to 20k. Who put in more effort? I would say me - either doing large one offs on each toon or farming heroics/warzones to cap. Whereas the one guy in a large guild could cap his one toon and be on his merry way. On the degree of alt heaviness- in the old system they could still compete, since it was entirely possible to go well over the cap with points just by spammable objectives. I used to have guildies without alts hitting 100k or more.

Was it Effort vs More alts yo choose from vs More playtime? The current system will allow every player (from 0 alts to 50 alts) to put in as much effort as they want on their primary toon to achieve as many points as possible for their primary guild. It's guild vs guild, limited by legacy vs legacy. You can put all your points into one guild via 1 toon on that legacy and increase their chances of success, or you can spread it around to various toons, crippling your ceiling of points, but opening a chance to win in multiple guilds.

 

The reduction of alt-point production accomplishes this.

[Morteistno]

Seriously, guys, you need to stop feeding it! As usual with its species, it doesn't read, it writes.

 

As for the result of these changes, and especially the lack of acknowledgement and comprehension, our guild no longer has any subscribing members. Monitor that.

 

SNy

 

On point 1: agreed added him to ignore a while ago.

 

On point 2: I see a similar trend. Ie overall attendancy is definitely down, From what has been announced in 5.9 (the 'we hear you' you know!) this seems fairly marginal tinkering at best. As another poster already stated Bioware does not seem to realize/care a) how bad it is and b) how many people cared about conquest, ie how urgent it was to fix it. I think that whatever tinkering happens in 5.9 is a case of way too little, way too late.

 

What I absolutely fail to understand is how they still do not seem to realize this. The changes they will do in 5.9 as far as they have been announced fix nothing, and even if they changed them so they did they are way too late. Especially since fixing this mess could have been done with what seems very little effort, Adjust some point valkues, include weeklies every time and get rid of most legacy restrictions. It is probably no more than adjusting some tables and setting some flags. it is by no means a large effort.

[Costello]

If you had no preconceived notions about the two systems, talking about what is fair, if you had a guild with 1 member and a guild with 30 members shouldn't a fair system mean that the guild with more members should win.

 

What might be considered an odd design choice is if you had a system where someone who lives off handouts and can spend far longer in game cycles through their alts is able to compete against a guild with 30 people in it or so.

 

I can't think of many fair systems where 1 person is equal to 30. Even if that person opts to devote their life to cycling through alts is it a good system, is it not a better system where 30 people actively playing the game is better than 1 person sitting in a dark room cycling through alts knocking out war supplies.

[NHBabe]

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.

 

IIRC the biggest complaints were:

 

1) Large Alt guilds had an advantage by farming OPs with the lock-out work-around.

Solution: Make all OP completion legacy wide. That would kill the lock-out work-around for a majority of the players. Yes, there would still be a way to do a lock-out so guilds wouldn't have to run the full OP for all their members, but it still would ease up on the points by not being able to run a person's Alt's through them over-and-over again.

 

2) Crafting weeks and the Large Alt guilds being able to make more than other guilds.

Solution: Remove crafting week all together and make the crafting objectives on the other weeks be a one-time-only objective.

Opinion: I'll admit I was one that was able to take advantage of the crafting weeks and my alt's, but I also put in quite a bit of time and effort into farming all those ingredients for weeks prior to the Crafting conquest weeks. I barely had time to PLAY the game I was so busy farming and crafting the base materials so when the conquest week started, I could concentrate on just crafting what was necessary for that week's conquest objectives. I would've been thrilled if they'd removed crafting only conquest weeks back then as it would've freed up my time to do the things I wanted to do - like PLAY the game.

 

3) Also had to do with crafting, and in reference to the "soon-to-be" mergers of the servers: Many complained that farming nodes were already problematic for high-server populations prior to crafting weeks and by adding more people due to the mergers, farming those materials would be a nightmare. Most only requested that BW place more nodes in the highly populated zones (Yavin, Zakuul, Darvannis). Those three where were most of the node farming for crafting weeks took place in the old conquest system. Rarely did you hear people even bothering to farm nodes on Makeb, though many over the years have begged BW to put more there. Most people were only farming grade 8 & 9 nodes.

 

4) Titles and rewards being handed out. This had been a problem going back in an off-and-on manner for years. At first it mostly only happened when rewards were also being handed out when they were taking the servers down for an update, then for some reason or another that I don't recall Eric ever posting WHAT the actual problem was, it started to happen every week. Guilds would have to have their members submit the server, guild name, character name, planet invaded, and what rank (1-10) they'd achieved to CS - and then it could take weeks to get the actual title (if placed first for the planet) or reward (if they'd made the board at all).

Solution: I'd posted multiple times to CS, to Eric, and even in the threads that they should just hand out the rewards when Conquest ended on Monday's. There was no reason for them to wait the 24 hours until a new week started to then hand out the titles and rewards. Considering most of the server downtimes happen on Tuesday's, and the new conquest weeks start on Tuesday's, and the issues with the titles and rewards being handed out when they also did server maintenace - well...... Kill that problem dead by handing out rewards and titles when the week ends, not when a new week begins. All requests of that nature were, of course, ignored. Never once did Eric or anybody at BW ever come back with an answer as to WHY this solution couldn't be done.

 

If there had been any other complaints than those I listed I honestly can't recall them. The two major ones, my point 1 & 2, could've easily been resolved with my solution and given the smaller guilds a fighting chance while still allowing the larger guilds with Alts to also achieve personal goals on their other characters without running the board. Many people use their Alts for personal conquest when they know their guild will at least make the board so they can get the encryptions to turn into frameworks. I personally was getting 10-12 a week depending on if I used my 2 alts that don't craft at all. Now, with this new system, I'll be lucky if I'd get 2 encryptions. I've received the title for conquering all planets so the only point in my doing conquest still was for the encryptions and for something fun to do with my guild every week. Now, with this system, I'm not bothering. Not only is it not fun, but my ending reward of only 1 or 2 encryptions just isn't worth it. I'm not going to kill myself over doing conquest to then have to wait a year in order to have enough encryptions to turn into a framework that I can then sell on the GTN for 15-20 million. Sorry, I can craft other things that would gain me that amount in a week and not be nearly as frustrating.

 

I also have NO intention of holding all those supplies to make the attachments that are then necessary to make the war supplies that are then necessary to make the invasion forces. Unless BW decides to give us more legacy hold space, then I have no room to hold that many supplies. Since they can't allow us the items we receive that are not Cartel Market items to be pulled from Collections, many of us are forced to hold those legacy-wide cosmetics in our legacy holds to use on our Alts. There just isn't enough room when you've been playing for 5+ years and have stacked up a good amount of cosmetic items to then hold all those supplies as well. They either need to expand the legacy hold space (not likely since people keep complaining about lag and how long it takes to open the current one), or add a Legacy 2 hold that people can purchase that we can open another 6 tabs on. Even my cargo hold for each of my Alt's is full of stuff so holding the items there is not an option either. I have at least 4 alt's for each main profession, and in the case of Biochem I actually have 8. Half are pub, half are imp. This is why it's necessary to hold all those supplies in my legacy hold. I had finally managed to make enough room to hold level 8-10 materials and their bonded/cell attachments but they still take up 3 tabs of my legacy hold as that doesn't count the supplies necessary for synth/fab/universal and etc...

 

Sorry for the rant. I got to typing out what I thought was a reasonable rebuttal and went off on a tangent by the end of it.

[Ibokagain]

Here is my continued feedback that most likely won't get read. I along with many in my guild about 39 Qualifying accts are no longer playing this game. We play about 3 hours max a week now, we all are playing other games. This is because of 5.8 conquest changes that just plain suck. 5.9 changes from what was posted don't seem to fix it either so the time played will only go down from 3 hours a week.

 

Cheers.

[DWho]

Here is my continued feedback that most likely won't get read. I along with many in my guild about 39 Qualifying accts are no longer playing this game. We play about 3 hours max a week now, we all are playing other games. This is because of 5.8 conquest changes that just plain suck. 5.9 changes from what was posted don't seem to fix it either so the time played will only go down from 3 hours a week.

 

Cheers.

 

At least you had 39 left. Between the Server Mergers and the focus on group content I had two guilds with 100 qualifying accounts drop to less than 30 each. Since Conquest I've lost about 10 more from each. A weeknight now means 1 or 2 people online when it used to mean 20-30 pre-merge.

 

As far as the changes to conquest, I think it is fair to say they went way overboard. They could have either reduced the points for crafting objectives or made them more expensive. Instead they chose to do both which made crafting a non-viable objective for conquest.

 

The changes fit very well into the focus on group content now (which I suppose they always should have been if you took Conquest as a "group" activity instead of a "guild" activity) since unless you do group content you have basically no chance to get to your personal goal much less your guild goal.

 

Now I log on to do one of the weeklies on four characters I am trying to get to GC 300 and then don't play the rest of the week (EVE Online is a much better investment of my time now, at least there I feel like I am accomplishing something by playing). Post KotET content isn't worth playing and I have maxed out character slots on my main server so repeating the vanilla story means going to a different server (or deleting characters and all their bound equipment) which at this point is just a hassle.

 

2018 is looking more like the beginning of the end than it did just a year ago. I hope the game survives but it seems increasingly unlikely that I will be around to see it close.

[olagatonjedi]

If you had no preconceived notions about the two systems, talking about what is fair, if you had a guild with 1 member and a guild with 30 members shouldn't a fair system mean that the guild with more members should win.

 

What might be considered an odd design choice is if you had a system where someone who lives off handouts and can spend far longer in game cycles through their alts is able to compete against a guild with 30 people in it or so.

 

I can't think of many fair systems where 1 person is equal to 30. Even if that person opts to devote their life to cycling through alts is it a good system, is it not a better system where 30 people actively playing the game is better than 1 person sitting in a dark room cycling through alts knocking out war supplies.

The only people i can see in favor of this type of system are those that have the massive number of alts and those that have time to commit to those alts.

 

I wonder if they see dps or healing as the same. The average player parses 5k, but they want their toon to be able to put out 150k because they put the time and effort in. Yeah, that's not a broken system at all.

[KendraP]

Was it Effort vs More alts yo choose from vs More playtime? The current system will allow every player (from 0 alts to 50 alts) to put in as much effort as they want on their primary toon to achieve as many points as possible for their primary guild. It's guild vs guild, limited by legacy vs legacy. You can put all your points into one guild via 1 toon on that legacy and increase their chances of success, or you can spread it around to various toons, crippling your ceiling of points, but opening a chance to win in multiple guilds.

 

The reduction of alt-point production accomplishes this.

 

all my toons are in my guild. I'm a loyal person. I don't go running off to the biggest baddest thing in town. I have my friends and I play with them. If we win, it's as a team. Not because I was futless and ran off to the big guilds. Thus capping my alts doesn't limit our ceiling, because they're all in the same guild.

 

I don't understand the original question. Just as larger guilds = better chance of winning; more playtime = more toons capped or points gained ASSUMING you put the effort in.

 

So now the goal of alt limitations isn't to keep individuals who took the time and effort to level and equip them from "exploiting," but to keep people from contributing to multiple guilds eh.

 

I find it an expression of desire to achieve easily over desire to be loyal to the guild personally, but if people cap multiple toons in different guilds, again, it's not hurting your efforts in any way.

 

The only people i can see in favor of this type of system are those that have the massive number of alts and those that have time to commit to those alts.

 

I wonder if they see dps or healing as the same. The average player parses 5k, but they want their toon to be able to put out 150k because they put the time and effort in. Yeah, that's not a broken system at all.

 

he was referencing guild size, not alts. it's actually EASIER if you have more accounts because then you get the same amount of points for less effort per person.

 

What are you even getting at with point 2? are we trying to compare dps numbers with conquest caps? dps is damage done PER SECOND. Why don't we try to compute conquest points done per second of playtime? This is just a completely illogical point.

[PennyAnn]

If you had no preconceived notions about the two systems, talking about what is fair, if you had a guild with 1 member and a guild with 30 members shouldn't a fair system mean that the guild with more members should win.

 

What might be considered an odd design choice is if you had a system where someone who lives off handouts and can spend far longer in game cycles through their alts is able to compete against a guild with 30 people in it or so.

 

I can't think of many fair systems where 1 person is equal to 30. Even if that person opts to devote their life to cycling through alts is it a good system, is it not a better system where 30 people actively playing the game is better than 1 person sitting in a dark room cycling through alts knocking out war supplies.

 

You are making a whole lot of assumptions here, and are pretty much dead wrong about what playing alts looks like. If people are putting in the effort to play that many characters, how is it unfair? Just because you don't have as many alts? If you put the time and effort into leveling them and equipping them and getting them to the point they are able to contribute to conquest (especially crafting, which includes leveling companions) then you should absolutely be able to make use of the work you put into accomplishing that. I wouldn't stop anyone else from being able to do that because I could do it myself. You just choose not to, but that's not anybody else's fault but your own. It's not anybody else's choice but your own. But you are looking to punish people for the choices that YOU made. If you want to talk about unfair, THAT is unfair.

 

I would explain it to you, but like another in this thread (who many have on ignore), you are determined that you know what is right and can't be persuaded by facts.

 

Even so, here's a FACT for you: We had whole groups of people playing alts to win planets for our small guild. It was the only way to compete. We sat in well lit rooms, with our families, laughing, having a good time and PLAYING THE GAME. We played it a lot. We loved it. We supported the game with multiple accounts, cartel purchases, and felt it was well worth our investment. But not anymore.

 

Why do you care how much we play the game? Frankly it's none of your business. But do you know whose business it is? Bioware's. At least is WAS their business. Now that business is elsewhere paying OTHER companies our money to enjoy playing a game together.

 

Great new system, indeed.

 

.

Edited April 18, 2018 by PennyAnn

[Sundown]

Just some feedback on this week's conquest, as there are two planets available for conquest which I have not yet conquered, so I am interested (the weeks before I just didn't even bother with conquest anymore, as I was never in it for the rewards anyway).

 

I want to beat the individual limit on 2 chars (rep and imp side), and I really need to plan my activities, because the "legacy linked" one-time activities are the ones that make sure you can beat the cap. By adding some "daily repeatable activities per legacy" (which definitely is a crap system in the first place) I may be able to guarantee that both sides will make it.

 

By doing just the repeatable tasks (some of which are also limited to once per day due to the link with group finder reward e.g.) it will be a grind galore.

 

So bottom line: right now conquest feels like a chore more than fun, which never should be the case in a game. And that is at 150% bonus! Ridiculous.

[cyrusramsey]

You know... personally I would not have made any noise about the alt-nerfing if it wasn't a direct time vs reward nerf.

 

I sometimes spent a lot of time on conquest. Not every week, never through crafting, but knocking out 30 to 50 personal goals in one week was something that I did 10 to 15 times per year. Why? Because the rewards felt worth the time I put into it. If I put 30 times the work into it (well, more, because of one-off objectives, but still), I'd get 30 times the reward, and if the reward felt worth the time once, then the reward felt, to me, worth all the time I could put in without going mad.

 

Right now.. the rewards are largely the same, but the time required to finish a single character has been drastically increased. I don't partake in every activity in the game. Maybe this is a factor. Maybe it would be the same as one character in the old system if I did everything, but I will only do the things I enjoy. Because of this, I will not finish ANY goals anymore, unless completely by accident, because the rewards are just not worth the extra time. The rewards were worth it when it took very little time, and 30x the rewards was worth a lot of time, to me, but working for a single personal goal for a week? It's just not that good a reward..

 

On top of that.. I believe the poor rewards are also what's preventing the 'yields' from working in allowing smaller guilds to have something to play for. The rewards for all three yields are so poor, that there's virtually no benefit in going for a higher-yield planet, unless it happens to be a planet you wish to conquer.

[Costello]

You are making a whole lot of assumptions here, and are pretty much dead wrong about what playing alts looks like. If people are putting in the effort to play that many characters, how is it unfair? Just because you don't have as many alts? If you put the time and effort into leveling them and equipping them and getting them to the point they are able to contribute to conquest (especially crafting, which includes leveling companions) then you should absolutely be able to make use of the work you put into accomplishing that. I wouldn't stop anyone else from being able to do that because I could do it myself. You just choose not to, but that's not anybody else's fault but your own. It's not anybody else's choice but your own. But you are looking to punish people for the choices that YOU made. If you want to talk about unfair, THAT is unfair.

 

I would explain it to you, but like another in this thread (who many have on ignore), you are determined that you know what is right and can't be persuaded by facts.

 

Even so, here's a FACT for you: We had whole groups of people playing alts to win planets for our small guild. It was the only way to compete. We sat in well lit rooms, with our families, laughing, having a good time and PLAYING THE GAME. We played it a lot. We loved it. We supported the game with multiple accounts, cartel purchases, and felt it was well worth our investment. But not anymore.

 

Why do you care how much we play the game? Frankly it's none of your business. But do you know whose business it is? Bioware's. At least is WAS their business. Now that business is elsewhere paying OTHER companies our money to enjoy playing a game together.

 

Great new system, indeed.

 

.

 

You really seem to have a chip on your shoulder.

 

I never said how people played the game, you seem to have decided that people with alts sit alone and miserable in a dark room and that your guild were the exception where you were in a lit room with their family laughing. So you are the one that is making assumptions not I.

 

Nor did I say that people can't play how they want.

 

What I questioned in the notion is that one person with 30 alts should be able to compete with a guild with 30 people. You wouldn't go into a game with open PvP and take on 30 people with one and then complain that because you have 30 alts and can't play them all at once, the system is unfair. You don't try and take on a NIM operation alone and then complain that its not fair because you have 7 alts but can't play them all at once. But in conquest its fair that one person with 30 alts should be able to compete with a guild?

 

Clearly Bioware didn't feel this was right, so they changed it. And I find that making it more about players participating in game activities such as the rakghoul even and content, is a fairer system than one person with lots of alts knocking out crafting supplies or sitting afk in PvP/GSF. The new system is about players and content over alts which seems better and fairer at least imho.

 

But it appears that you refuse to see any point of view that is different from your own. You liked to use alts and thats fine you come back from a hard day at work and like to chil out with your family cycling through alts knocking out crafting supplies. Thats up to you, but that doesn't mean I think that one person with lots of alts should be considered better than one where players are the focus.

 

You have also suggesting that other people have put me on their ignore list hence no one responding. How many people give a damn enough to tell you that they put me on their ignore list, or did you just make that up?

[PorsaLindahl]

My major gripe(s) about it right now are:

 

1. Once per day, per legacy.
   
2. Points so low that it's become a grind.
   
3. Having to schedule which character(s) I play because of the legacy locks. Not being able to do what I want to do with alts because it may interfere with my character(s) that I've "assigned" for conquest.
   
4. Weeklies should not be legacy locked. If I have the time, and put for the effort to complete those weekly missions, then each and every character that I complete them with should get credit, not just "the first one across the finish line."
   
5. Heroics - one mission from the list per day/per legacy. These need to be reverted back to all missions/daily for all characters.
   

 

I have 37 characters. There were some weeks that I had some extra time and completed 8 characters. I never did more than 10, and only did 10 on one occasion. I never had to worry about if playing character 18 would interfere with character 5.

 

I used to PvP with 6 characters, and played whichever depending on my mood. Now it's down to 1 character if I can even be bothered to even log in and play anymore.

[PorsaLindahl]

You really seem to have a chip on your shoulder.

 

I never said how people played the game, you seem to have decided that people with alts sit alone and miserable in a dark room and that your guild were the exception where you were in a lit room with their family laughing. So you are the one that is making assumptions not I.

 

I can't think of many fair systems where 1 person is equal to 30. Even if that person opts to devote their life to cycling through alts is it a good system, is it not a better system where 30 people actively playing the game is better than 1 person sitting in a dark room cycling through alts knocking out war supplies.

You did insinuate it.

But it appears that you refuse to see any point of view that is different from your own.

 

Don't expect someone to accept your opinion if you won't accept theirs. Don't become like He Who Won't Be Mentioned and criticize others opinions and views. Their feedback is just as valid as yours whether you agree with it or not. Somewhere there has to be a middle ground where most can be satisfied.

Edited April 18, 2018 by PorsaLindahl

[Rabenschwinge]

The rewards for the heroics were a bit silly. To obtain a load of points that any level 70 character can sleepwalk their way through should not have such great impact on conquest.

 

That said, the upcoming changes will make doing planetary heroics a bit more rewarding. There is the "Kill X enemies" bonus improving, which remains daily per account but used to be weekly per account. So if I got that right, if you do planetary heroics you will be able to collect the kill objectives en passant, meaning you get:

 

400 (planetary heroic)

400 (50 enemies)

600 (100 enemies)

825 (150 enemies)

= 2225 points before stronghold bonus

 

on the extreme outside, with 150% stronghold bonus, that makes it 5563 points. If you do that thrice you have one character through just by doing planetary heroics and nothing else.

[Sundown]

If Bioware is unable to program a well balanced, bug-free conquest-system, you might aswell use it to your advantage...

Thanks a lot for the hint, but quite frankly: I consider that an exploit and don't want to go down that path (I knew the "login-reset"-bug).

 

And the legitimate way of getting points to finish conquest on a char IS a chore and requires planning and thought on which task to do when with which char, which in my book is a disgrace. So like the previous poster (@PorsaLindahl) also explained: it should always only be an exception that me playing char1 has an impact on char2. So the "once per day per legacy" is crap.

 

Or make it all really legacy based, but then any mission on any alt would contribute, and I have no clue how to determine guild results in case you have characters in several guilds (which for imp<->rep is obviously naturally the case).

[masterceil]

My major gripe(s) about it right now are:

 

1. Once per day, per legacy.
   
2. Points so low that it's become a grind.
   
3. Having to schedule which character(s) I play because of the legacy locks. Not being able to do what I want to do with alts because it may interfere with my character(s) that I've "assigned" for conquest.
   
4. Weeklies should not be legacy locked. If I have the time, and put for the effort to complete those weekly missions, then each and every character that I complete them with should get credit, not just "the first one across the finish line."
   
5. Heroics - one mission from the list per day/per legacy. These need to be reverted back to all missions/daily for all characters.
   

 

I have 37 characters. There were some weeks that I had some extra time and completed 8 characters. I never did more than 10, and only did 10 on one occasion. I never had to worry about if playing character 18 would interfere with character 5.

 

I used to PvP with 6 characters, and played whichever depending on my mood. Now it's down to 1 character if I can even be bothered to even log in and play anymore.

 

Totally agree on Heroics and Weeklies. You and others in this thread know how much I've defended New Conquest, but Weeklies, at the very least, should be Daily Conquest Objectives, but preferably Repeatable. I think Heroics should also either be Repeatable (with point values lowered to that few-hundred point range), or the Daily requirement should be to do all of the Heroics on a planet (e.g. clear the 'Solo' entry from Activity Finder) for a full 3k pre-SH bonus.

 

PvP should get easier with 5.9 - participation and win objectives every week, I believe, and vastly increased point values. Participation alone should bring it from a 71-match requirement solely for participation objective completion down to 33 matches, minus what you get from wins and Weekly. We'll have to wait for 5.9 to drop to see how that feels, but it's a vast improvement from where we're at now. You want Warzones to be viable, I want GSF - we'll both see what's up in May.

[Rabenschwinge]

Or make it all really legacy based, but then any mission on any alt would contribute, and I have no clue how to determine guild results in case you have characters in several guilds (which for imp<->rep is obviously naturally the case).

 

I would prefer such a system:

 

Conquest is calculated per legacy, not per character. If a player does complete the conquest goal multiple times, they get the reward multiple times. The reward is put into the cartel market queue and can be claimed with any character.

 

As far as guilds are concerned, everything remains as it is, conquest points are awarded as guilded characters earn them, points earned by unguilded characters are lost in the guild contest. I realise that this still imposes some limitations, but I don't think there is a way around this that isn't prone to abuse.

 

I would also like to suggest the following feature:

Any guild officer may create an ops group with a double conquest feature. Let's call it "Conquest Platoon". Any guild conquest for the creating guild in that group is double if the following conditions are met:

1) The group must composed of at least four player characters.

2) At least four must be within the assigned guild.

3) At least half of the ops group's total members must be in the assigned guild.

4) The group's leader must remain an officer of the assigned guild.

5) Conquest for the guild is doubled only for members of that guild.

6) Guild conquest is doubled if the action they took to complete the conquest goal was performed in a way that the leader of the group would also have qualified for XP, if applicable. Meaning, they must have been involved in the same fight, they cannot spread over the entire planet and fight separately, but they do not necessarily have to complete it at the same time. If that rule is to complicated maybe it might be simplified to "must be within 150m of the group leader".

 

Additional Suggestion

For crafting: There is a 20% guild conquest bonus for creating invasion forces out of war supplies created by characters of different accounts, but the same guild. This bonus is accumulative per different account, meaning, the guild gets 100% bonus on the creation of an invasion force, if the character who assembles it creates them out of war supplies create by five characters belonging to five different accounts (other than that of the assembling character him- or herself), but to the same guild.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Rabenschwinge