Conquest Changes in Game Update 5.9

[Seelvir]

While they "test-and-learn", people are quitting the game. Is it really a good idea to push the game further in that direction right now?

 

They will give these changes like 6 weeks. We're 2 weeks in. Even if people "quit" (lol the most useless threat and debate point on a forum where people are 99% full ofs hit about it), only around 1/12th of the playerbase will actually see their sub run out in the test window.

 

I bet we see a somewhat sensible system in place within just a few more weeks. They can't exactly put this on a test server, because they need the entire population of the game to beta test these conquest changes. Keep gnashing your teeth for the cathartic value of it, if you must, but don't think for a second that your lamentations mean anything substantive to the decision making processes at BWA. The data will tell the tale, and we don't get to see that. They do. I trust they'll have exactly they system they want in place within a few more weeks of iterations.

[Caferal]

We are introducing a new repeatable Objective for “Craft 50 items."

 

This Objective gives another path for crafters to earn points and is also a mechanism for characters of any level to participate. We will monitor the number of items required to craft closely and will make changes in the future if it is too high, or too low.

 

The “Craft 50 Items” Repeatable Objective will be worth 120 points

 

 

 

What are those items exactly? Is it war supplies? And what's the schematic to craft them? Will it include the 100 of thousands mats that we have already gathered (seemingly for nothing) for months now?

 

And I think earning 120 points for this is too low. In old craftings conquest , crafting one item was worth at least 500 points. Crafting 50 would then worth 50*500= 25000,. So in 5.9 we will earn 200 times less points than we were, in previous conquests. In other words, crafting points values has been nerfed by 99.5%. It's too much

 

How is a 99.5% nerf in crafting is going to help small guilds against larger guilds?

Edited March 30, 2018 by Caferal

[PennyAnn]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I don't think you're missing anything here. I think you are scratching your head the same way the rest of us are, and trying to figure out for the life of us why, if making the conquest system more equitable for guilds of all sizes, they would approach it in such a way that it has the opposite effect.

 

If indeed they want us to play alts less, they should just say so. They state one thing as the objective and do the opposite thing to what would actually achieve that objective.

 

They have printed a free pass to mega guilds by limiting the one thing that allowed anyone to give them a run for their money: alts.

 

.

Edited March 30, 2018 by PennyAnn

[BlueWanderer]

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Conquest SHOULD be based on guild. Guilds are faction restricted, so making legacy restrictions is dumb.

Even if I'm only in 2 guilds (pub and imp), it is likely that both of those guilds will want to achieve the guild rewards and even the win-a-planet objectives. If I'm unable to contribute to my imp guild because I did stuff on pub chars, that imp guild will lose out.

[ShadowGovernator]

Here is an idea - how about bringing back the old conquest system?

[Jdast]

They have printed a free pass to mega guilds by limiting the one thing that allowed anyone to give them a run for their money: alts.

.

 

And in so doing introduced the unintended consequence of hurting players like me who don't give a rip about Conquest but benefit by having more people playing -- with the concomitant result of queues popping faster.

 

Dasty

Edited March 30, 2018 by Jdast

[Rheshalea]

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

 

To me, it doesn't even matter. 50 items for 120 points? I can't see how it would be worth it, even if you crafted the absolutely cheapest possible item.

[Seelvir]

So this is where I get stuck - what am I missing?

 

Well, their design goal was the the mega guilds would all compete for the high yield planet, and these changes would allow a bit more competition among the mega guilds, flattening the curve of their power users, and breaking the ability of those guilds to have satellite guilds that also win planets. The legacy restrictions force mega guilds to commit to one guild. For example, on Harby in the past and on Satele Shan now, a certain guild, we'll call them AAA for short, had like 6 guilds, AAA1, AAA2, etc, and those guilds were highly coordinated and nearly impossible to beat for #1 position, even for other mega guilds on Harby/Satele. These changes make #1 more competitive than it was before, for those in the mega guild classification.

 

The problem is that the mega guilds don't HAVE to go for the Large Yield planets, and the disparity in rewards between high, medium, and low yield planets doesn't really motivate anyone. So they'll need to fix that somehow.

 

Then, for literally every other guild on every single server, save the tiny snowflake guilds with like 10 actual players in them, the rest of the conquest system is now wide open for competition.

 

Anyway, I'm still not saying I think these are good goals. I'm just saying that these are the design goals of the new system.

 

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

 

I agree, a straightforward explanation would be better. Players are whiney and entitled and generally completely ignorant of what makes a good game, so straightforward explanations are not always warranted. But sometimes they are, and I think this is one of those times.

[Joonbeams]

And in so doing introduced the unintended consequence of hurting players like me who don't give a rip about Conquest but benefit by having more people playing -- with the concomitant result of queues popping faster.

 

Dasty

 

Bingo. This is my dog in this too. Poor Fido...

[Toraak]

And in so doing introduced the unintended consequence of hurting players like me who don't give a rip about Conquest but benefit by having more people playing -- with the concomitant result of queues popping faster.

 

Dasty

 

Very much this. I suspect your talking more about PvP queu's, but GSF queu's popped far more frequently before these Conquest changes. Now I can sit in queu for 1 1/2 hours during the day time, or even 40-50 mins in prime time some nights. I'm not sure how much these 5.9 changes will help the queu times.

[PennyAnn]

They will give these changes like 6 weeks. We're 2 weeks in. Even if people "quit" (lol the most useless threat and debate point on a forum where people are 99% full ofs hit about it), only around 1/12th of the playerbase will actually see their sub run out in the test window.

 

I bet we see a somewhat sensible system in place within just a few more weeks. They can't exactly put this on a test server, because they need the entire population of the game to beta test these conquest changes. Keep gnashing your teeth for the cathartic value of it, if you must, but don't think for a second that your lamentations mean anything substantive to the decision making processes at BWA. The data will tell the tale, and we don't get to see that. They do. I trust they'll have exactly they system they want in place within a few more weeks of iterations.

 

Most of the people that have left my guild over the conquest changes don't post here. They just up and left. Many, including myself are playing the game much less, since conquest was a big motivator for repeating old content for the umpteen millionth time and now I can choose a single character per day to do that with, instead of even a couple. Instead of even being able to play each faction in conquest per day. Less incentive or motivation to play the game is not good for the health of the overall game no matter how you slice it.

 

So I do post here to try and give the feedback that the developers themselves request (that you so helpfully categorize as gnashing our teeth and lamenting). I'm not over the top about anything I suggest to them, other than to suggest what I consider common sense from a player's standpoint.

 

Why do they ask for feedback if it makes no difference in the decision making process? Just to give false hope that the player base means anything to them and their vision for the game?

 

When they have exactly the system they want in place, if it doesn't measure up to the system that the players want in place it means fewer and fewer will participate, fewer will play the game, and the development time was utterly wasted. You can continue to encourage that if you like, but I'd rather see the game succeed, personally.

 

.

[CaptRogue]

Eric,

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

 

Yes we do, but WHY on earth are you people complaining NOW about Legacy locks, when in the Old Conquest you had the same thing & no one said a word?? They just happily went about it, even if they didnt like it...

[DarthSpuds]

To me, it doesn't even matter. 50 items for 120 points? I can't see how it would be worth it, even if you crafted the absolutely cheapest possible item.

 

^ This.

 

All The Best

[Suprderk]

To me, it doesn't even matter. 50 items for 120 points? I can't see how it would be worth it, even if you crafted the absolutely cheapest possible item.

 

I totally agree. It is way too much work to get enough materials to craft 50 of anything for a tiny amount of conquest points, but it is amplified if I have to have enough materials to make crafting components then use multiples of 5 different components to make something like Holocron of Strategy all for the big reward of 2.4 conquest points.

[PennyAnn]

Yes we do, but WHY on earth are you people complaining NOW about Legacy locks, when in the Old Conquest you had the same thing & no one said a word?? They just happily went about it, even if they didnt like it...

 

It was not the same at all. There were, in any given conquest week, a very small number of once-per-legacy restrictions, and none of them was of the "daily" variety. The only once-per-legacy restrictions applied also to once-per-week, and did far less to keep us from being able to play our alts during a conquest week. They all but tripled the restrictions to legacy in the new system, making it near impossible without spending inordinate amounts of time playing to complete conquest on alts.

[Seelvir]

Why do they ask for feedback if it makes no difference in the decision making process? Just to give false hope that the player base means anything to them and their vision for the game?

 

Basically, yes. They ask for feedback to give feedback-giving folks the idea that their feedback matters. Forum feedback only has a single real utility for a game developer with an MMO: it gives flavor and context to the data they have on the backend. So if suddenly everyone gives up on conquest and the game loses players, and the devs can't figure out why, then your lamentations will color their interpretation of their own data. But if you guys could see how many times the forum-base trumpeted the end of all things and massive waves of cancelled subs against the number of times those waves actually happened ... /shrug

 

When they have exactly the system they want in place, if it doesn't measure up to the system that the players want in place it means fewer and fewer will participate, fewer will play the game, and the development time was utterly wasted.

 

Do you remember the Galactic Command system? BWA is no stranger to wasted development time. Just because I offer an explanation for the changes does not mean I endorse them. Also, you'll forgive me, I hope, if I take your "my guild is dead because of conquest changes" statement with a grain of salt.

[Rheshalea]

Conquest SHOULD be based on guild. Guilds are faction restricted, so making legacy restrictions is dumb.

Even if I'm only in 2 guilds (pub and imp), it is likely that both of those guilds will want to achieve the guild rewards and even the win-a-planet objectives. If I'm unable to contribute to my imp guild because I did stuff on pub chars, that imp guild will lose out.

 

Guild based would make more sense, indeed.

[AdrianDmitruk]

Yes we do, but WHY on earth are you people complaining NOW about Legacy locks, when in the Old Conquest you had the same thing & no one said a word?? They just happily went about it, even if they didnt like it...

 

Won't speak for others, but I'm complaining about this very thing now, instead of before, because objectives that were previously repeatable for every alt, like PVP and flashpoint weeklies, are now once per legacy.

 

Having the "infinitely" repeatable objectives gated behind the fact that they were weeklies and thus could only be done once per character was fine. But I guess Bioware doesn't want us to play alts anymore...

[Damask_Rose]

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

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

 

Dear Eric,

 

The old conquest system was not about legacy. (You know, the conquest system that only needed slight tweaking. The one players enjoyed playing. The one that encouraged players to play more every day and queue more every day.) All of the changes you are making are ignoring the central problem with the new conquest system. Legacy restrictions suck! They aren't fun! They reduce the drive to play more and queue more! The changes you have done and the ones you are proposing are like patching little leaks on the Titanic while ignoring the huge gaping hole in the middle of the hull. If you guys seriously managed to filter through 160+ pages of feedback and did not take away the central fact that YOUR PLAYERBASE HATES LEGACY RESTRICTIONS, then you are really turning a deaf ear to feedback.

 

Buy the guy who is married to the idea of turning conquest into a legacy system a beer and let him cry into it. Change it back to being alt friendly. Let players achieve conquest doing the activities they like instead of trying to force players into activities they don't like. That doesn't work! It just makes people mad and leave. You keep claiming your goal is to make this more fun and inclusive, but you are studiously ignoring that no one finds these changes to be fun. They are anti-fun. Do not let the ego of one person hurt this game more than it already has!

 

Yes we do, but WHY on earth are you people complaining NOW about Legacy locks, when in the Old Conquest you had the same thing & no one said a word?? They just happily went about it, even if they didnt like it...

 

We are complaining now because there are significantly more legacy restrictions than there were. They took away many per alt activities and turned them into per legacy. For example, this week we had all of those planetary weeklies be per legacy, which before were per alt. Planetary weeklies happen to be one of the objectives I enjoy doing and I usually cap several alts when those are available. This week I caped one because they were non-repeatable. So they took a mildly irritating flaw in the old conquest system and turned it into the central feature of the new one.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Damask_Rose

[Joonbeams]

Well, their design goal was the the mega guilds would all compete for the high yield planet, and these changes would allow a bit more competition among the mega guilds, flattening the curve of their power users, and breaking the ability of those guilds to have satellite guilds that also win planets. The legacy restrictions force mega guilds to commit to one guild. For example, on Harby in the past and on Satele Shan now, a certain guild, we'll call them AAA for short, had like 6 guilds, AAA1, AAA2, etc, and those guilds were highly coordinated and nearly impossible to beat for #1 position, even for other mega guilds on Harby/Satele. These changes make #1 more competitive than it was before, for those in the mega guild classification.

 

The problem is that the mega guilds don't HAVE to go for the Large Yield planets, and the disparity in rewards between high, medium, and low yield planets doesn't really motivate anyone. So they'll need to fix that somehow.

 

Then, for literally every other guild on every single server, save the tiny snowflake guilds with like 10 actual players in them, the rest of the conquest system is now wide open for competition.

 

Anyway, I'm still not saying I think these are good goals. I'm just saying that these are the design goals of the new system.

 

 

 

I agree, a straightforward explanation would be better. Players are whiney and entitled and generally completely ignorant of what makes a good game, so straightforward explanations are not always warranted. But sometimes they are, and I think this is one of those times.

 

Again, your post is really smart and helpful. Especially the part about the mega-guilds, having satellite guilds. I didn't even realize this was a thing! Again, I would still support that overall for the good of the game, but I get it.

 

Still rather than limiting dailies to once/legacy, wouldn't the way to handle this be to limit points to one guild per legacy? Or make the player pick a guild to conquest for rather than a specific toon? Just thinking out loud.

[Mdgshorty]

It was not the same at all. There were, in any given conquest week, a very small number of once-per-legacy restrictions, and none of them was of the "daily" variety. The only once-per-legacy restrictions applied also to once-per-week, and did far less to keep us from being able to play our alts during a conquest week. They all but tripled the restrictions to legacy in the new system, making it near impossible without spending inordinate amounts of time playing to complete conquest on alts.

 

Thank you Well said. I could not say it any better than that.

 

In the old system, I could get more than 2 characters capped in conquest. Right now, I am lucky to get two capped in the new system.

[PennyAnn]

Well, their design goal was the the mega guilds would all compete for the high yield planet, and these changes would allow a bit more competition among the mega guilds, flattening the curve of their power users, and breaking the ability of those guilds to have satellite guilds that also win planets. The legacy restrictions force mega guilds to commit to one guild. For example, on Harby in the past and on Satele Shan now, a certain guild, we'll call them AAA for short, had like 6 guilds, AAA1, AAA2, etc, and those guilds were highly coordinated and nearly impossible to beat for #1 position, even for other mega guilds on Harby/Satele. These changes make #1 more competitive than it was before, for those in the mega guild classification.

 

For all intents and purposes, I ran that guild at it's height. I know the inner workings that resulted in conquering every planet, every week. I know the effort it took, and the amount of coordination, recruitment, and sheer game play time required to make that happen. I would argue that few know better than I do.

 

Nothing about the new conquest system combats this. The guild that you refer to imploded, seeing myself and those that worked hardest to make it a success at that time leave. That is why they no longer do anything but invade with a single guild on the Imperial Side and a single guild on the Republic side, and rarely win planets any longer. Nothing about the new system would have changed us conquering every planet every week, if we were still there.

 

For us, it had a lot less to do with alts than it did with sheer numbers. Now that everyone else is restricted in their use of alts against sheer numbers, any competition that could have threatened mega guilds is nullified.

 

If they don't restrict medium and small planets, then it just assures the opposite of what you suspect is their aim with these changes.

 

I've been inside the mega guild. I ran it. I know what it takes to be what it was. This new conquest system will have zero impact on mega guilds except to encourage them to continue to recruit more and more individuals - which will be made all the easier by winning conquest every week as a recruitment feather in the cap.

[Caferal]

To me, it doesn't even matter. 50 items for 120 points? I can't see how it would be worth it, even if you crafted the absolutely cheapest possible item.

 

It's like telling pvpers that from now on, they only get 120 conquest points, once they complete 50 warzones.

 

It's like telling pveers that from now on, they only get 120 conquest points, once they complete 25 flashpoints.

 

How would that work out for the game?

[TUXs]

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

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

It's the "per Legacy" that is at the heart of the hatred of this new Conquest system Eric...I thought you guys were 'monitoring' it? Have you not understood every single complaint about the new system yet?

 

Come on...your game ENCOURAGES alts, yet you've done nothing but punish them lately...what the heck?

[WYMAS]

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

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

The Only Way My Seventeen Man Guild Even Placed On The Leaderboard!

Was By Using My Alts, Six Of Them, Back To Back, One After An Other

MayHaps Abit Of Luck? But Now, That Is Not Even Possible

Nor Will Be Obtaining, Personal Conquest Goals On Multiple Alt!

Please Do Not Do This To Us!