Conquest Changes in Game Update 5.9

[olagatonjedi]

An example of potential problems with opening legacy up (or the old system)

 

Guild A has 20 hardcore players competing against Guild B with 20 casual players

 

Guild A has 1 player with 20 alts. His 19 other guildmates took the week off to focus on Izax. Player 1 maxed out his main and all 20 alts, so essentially 21 maxed players.

 

Guild B players all have 1 toon each. 1 of their guildies needs to take a break, but the other 19 people are all in and max out their personal conquest.

 

End of week - guild A wins on the effort of 1 person vs efforts of 19 people.

 

Oh yeah, forgot to mention Guild C, who also has 20 alts from Player 1 (hes really hardcore), and they all maxed out too.

 

So order of winning - guild A (from 1 person), Guild C (from that same person), Guild B (from 19 people).

 

There is absolutely something wrong with that scenario. I don't see how anyone believes that 1 person should be able to beat 19 people collectively at anything. If so, we can ask bioware to change ur pvp queues to force you to solo 19 other people.

[aerockyul]

Won't the Operations objective to Kill the Final Boss only encourage MORE lockout runs? I thought we weren't cool with that? Or are we? Those are intended and encouraged?

I'm so confused on why certain changes are being made. Based on comments from these very forum posters, crafting was far too powerful before, and it needed to be nerfed to fix "broken" conquest. It gets changed and suddenly there's this massive 180 that no, it was not broken, you shouldn't have touched it.

I thought there were rumblings that lockout runs were hurting "broken" conquest before and giving certain guilds unfair advantages. Now it's cool, they seem to be the only activity being run in fleet anymore and this new objective will pretty much increase and justify this practice. I see a very near future, if it's not already here, of everyone forgetting how to beat all bosses except the last one in each operation. Why not take the next logical step and kill all operations and put the final boss in its own instance a la Toborro's Courtyard and the Event Bosses? Come on, make it easier than it already is to game the system!

 

*quietly and sheepishly recedes to a corner*

[Euphrosyne]

There is absolutely something wrong with that scenario. I don't see how anyone believes that 1 person should be able to beat 19 people collectively at anything. If so, we can ask bioware to change ur pvp queues to force you to solo 19 other people.

> runs one flashpoint

> currently has more cq points than 19 people who didn't log in this week

> game broken biovar pls fix

 

Your example is nonsense.

[NomadFifteen]

The conquest update seems like it was written by Rian Johnson.

 

Promises it will be the next great thing and revitalize everything.

 

Instead we get: Epic disappointment, lack of understanding of what was wanted, and complete denial it is a bad as it is.

 

Eric and Keith, don't make us do a Harrison Ford and exit early because we can see the disaster of the sequel (5.9) on the horizon.

[Loadsamonie]

Discouraging players from playing the game is a good thing? I suppose that's certainly a perspective to have.

 

Discouraging players from abusing a broken system is a good thing. It was never intended that a single player be able to farm as much Conquest as they used to be able to.

[IshtarScorpio]

An example of potential problems with opening legacy up (or the old system)

 

Guild A has 20 hardcore players competing against Guild B with 20 casual players

 

Guild A has 1 player with 20 alts. His 19 other guildmates took the week off to focus on Izax. Player 1 maxed out his main and all 20 alts, so essentially 21 maxed players.

 

Guild B players all have 1 toon each. 1 of their guildies needs to take a break, but the other 19 people are all in and max out their personal conquest.

 

End of week - guild A wins on the effort of 1 person vs efforts of 19 people.

 

Oh yeah, forgot to mention Guild C, who also has 20 alts from Player 1 (hes really hardcore), and they all maxed out too.

 

So order of winning - guild A (from 1 person), Guild C (from that same person), Guild B (from 19 people).

 

There is absolutely something wrong with that scenario. I don't see how anyone believes that 1 person should be able to beat 19 people collectively at anything. If so, we can ask bioware to change ur pvp queues to force you to solo 19 other people.

 

You're correct. Casual players shouldn't be the focus on how the game is changed.

 

You don't put in the effort and get beat by one person peeing in a jar all week, you don't deserve to win conquest.

 

Take your participation trophy and move on.

Edited March 30, 2018 by IshtarScorpio

[Exly]

An example of potential problems with opening legacy up (or the old system)

 

Guild A has 20 hardcore players competing against Guild B with 20 casual players

 

Guild A has 1 player with 20 alts. His 19 other guildmates took the week off to focus on Izax. Player 1 maxed out his main and all 20 alts, so essentially 21 maxed players.

 

Guild B players all have 1 toon each. 1 of their guildies needs to take a break, but the other 19 people are all in and max out their personal conquest.

 

End of week - guild A wins on the effort of 1 person vs efforts of 19 people.

 

Oh yeah, forgot to mention Guild C, who also has 20 alts from Player 1 (hes really hardcore), and they all maxed out too.

 

So order of winning - guild A (from 1 person), Guild C (from that same person), Guild B (from 19 people).

 

There is absolutely something wrong with that scenario. I don't see how anyone believes that 1 person should be able to beat 19 people collectively at anything. If so, we can ask bioware to change ur pvp queues to force you to solo 19 other people.

 

I see nothing wrong with that scenario. If one person wants to put in that kind of effort, then of course they should be able to benefit from it.

[Lhancelot]

> runs one flashpoint

> currently has more cq points than 19 people who didn't log in this week

> game broken biovar pls fix

 

Your example is nonsense.

 

He's a troll.

 

I pointed out the same thing. If one person out works 19 people I don't see the problem with the one man guild winning. This reminds me of the capitalism versus communism argument.

[MacCleoud]

Based off the added objectives they are putting in, you can easily get 6 toons to conquest by simply completing 20 WZ's and getting the daily 50/100/150 each day on one of said 6 toons. That isn't including any of the LO's they are dropping in, or any of the other pieces that you can do. depending on what the planetary bonus was for the week, it took 20 WZ's to get your weekly before. Less if your planet had the bonus for wz's. That number doesn't assume any wins, but does assume 150% SH bonus.

[DarthSpuds]

Based off the added objectives they are putting in, you can easily get 6 toons to conquest by simply completing 20 WZ's

 

Well that works if you PvP.

 

I don't and I used to be able to hit target.

 

All The Best

[Loadsamonie]

Well that works if you PvP.

 

I don't and I used to be able to hit target.

 

All The Best

 

Strange that most people don't PvP considering that SWToR is a PvP-oriented game at its core.

[MacCleoud]

Well that works if you PvP.

 

I don't and I used to be able to hit target.

 

All The Best

 

Yeah...the new points and the Critical missions being legacy based now instead of toon based, you have to do the 50/100/150 and then 10 FP's and you are sill 125 points short (assuming 150% SH bonus) That is getting the 50/100/150 kills, the 3/5 GF activities, and 10 FP's (assuming the GF activities don't reset each day........and are tied to toon, not legacy.....)

 

EDIT::

and the weekly criticals need to be put back in the "per toon" category not per legacy. maybe drop it to 1000 points again, but still per toon.

Edited March 30, 2018 by MacCleoud

[Darevsool]

Next week, Death Mark, is a Nar Shaddaa heroic conquest week.

Pre 5.8 each NS heroic got you 500 conquest points before any bonuses.

8 of them would get you 4000 points and takes, depending on circumstances, anywhere from 30-60 minutes.

If you chose the planet that gave you the NS invasion bonus, and had a 150% Stronghold bonus, you'd get 18k points out of your 20k total. If you happened to hit your 250 kill count conquest objective, that would put you over the top for that hour's worth of game play.

 

Then, you could switch to a different toon, start one of the war supplies (armored vehicle for example) and do a 2nd set of heroics. When you were done with the heroics, and the crafting was complete, toon #2 had the 20k goal met.

 

Then, you could craft an invasion force, do a 3rd round of NS heroics, and get a 3rd toon to the goal.

 

This is because the NS heroics were based on a "Per TOON" basis and not a "per legacy" basis.

Just like the Ilum heroic for the Gree conquest week as originally. Even though you could only do the Ilum heroic once per week (it was never updated to be switched to a daily) you used to be able to get points for it on every single alt in your legacy that you wanted to do it on. In the new system, it was once per legacy.

 

So now, that's the question I have, which will be answered on Tuesday.

 

Will the Nar Shadaa heroics, in the POST 5.8 system, be once per legacy? Will they be once per day per legacy? Or will they be once per toon per day, as they were in the past?

 

I won't pretend to speak for anyone else, but I personally want them to stay once per toon per day, as they always have been.

 

Change the points however you want, that's really not what people are bickering about, at least I'm not.

[Kurj]

He's a troll.

 

I pointed out the same thing. If one person out works 19 people I don't see the problem with the one man guild winning. This reminds me of the capitalism versus communism argument.

 

That point of view is understandable, but not if you’re a business owner who uses a per-account billing system. 1 person who paid you $15 < 19 people who pay you $15 each. That’s why they are leveling the playing field. They want to engage more paying customers by reducing the potential point spread in order to foster competition.

[DarthSpuds]

Strange that most people don't PvP considering that SWToR is a PvP-oriented game at its core.

 

No it isn't.

Star Wars is a Story Oriented game.

 

My main did just enough PvP to get the Companion in FE/ET and that was it.

 

All The Best

[Loadsamonie]

No it isn't.

Star Wars is a Story Oriented game.

 

My main did just enough PvP to get the Companion in FE/ET and that was it.

 

All The Best

 

When I first played this game, I didn't give a goddamn about the storylines. I played it exclusively for the PvP, the Warzones.

 

I still do. Galactic Starfighter only made it better.

[DarthSpuds]

When I first played this game, I didn't give a gosh darn about the storylines. I played it exclusively for the PvP, the Warzones.

 

I still do. Galactic Starfighter only made it better.

 

Well that's you.

 

But THE GAME was never PvP orientated - the key selling point was Story Led, Voice Acted, Class Quest Arcs.

 

All The Best

[Ibokagain]

Discouraging players from playing the game is a good thing? I suppose that's certainly a perspective to have.

 

That and playing the game much less. I am one of many in my guild that have many alts however we no longer participate in conquest. So that means less times that we queue for group pvp, pve fps, mm, uprisings, operations that we would bring in Random people to. Now it's we play 1-2 toons maybe for less than one hour and log of the game for the day.

 

We play and spend more money on other games now. I guess all in all it's a good change.

[eartharioch]

Eric, can we get a comment on the changes to the costs of conquest schematics, including the dark project change that has made our exotic isotope stabilizers worthless for conquest? (Materials that people may have obtained from jawa junk from cartel packs, I hasten to add.)

 

Yeah, tbh, this was the most annoying change to Conquest (followed by the change to the other schematics)...there was no warning this was on the horizon.

[Ibokagain]

An example of potential problems with opening legacy up (or the old system)

 

Guild A has 20 hardcore players competing against Guild B with 20 casual players

 

Guild A has 1 player with 20 alts. His 19 other guildmates took the week off to focus on Izax. Player 1 maxed out his main and all 20 alts, so essentially 21 maxed players.

 

Guild B players all have 1 toon each. 1 of their guildies needs to take a break, but the other 19 people are all in and max out their personal conquest.

 

End of week - guild A wins on the effort of 1 person vs efforts of 19 people.

 

Oh yeah, forgot to mention Guild C, who also has 20 alts from Player 1 (hes really hardcore), and they all maxed out too.

 

So order of winning - guild A (from 1 person), Guild C (from that same person), Guild B (from 19 people).

 

There is absolutely something wrong with that scenario. I don't see how anyone believes that 1 person should be able to beat 19 people collectively at anything. If so, we can ask bioware to change ur pvp queues to force you to solo 19 other people.

 

LOL I'm so glad I ignored you however the above is just to funny to think this could actually be a logical example. The only way this scenario would work in the old system is for it to be a crafting week in which case that one person clearly worked their butts off to craft on 40 toons in which case I see nothing wrong with it.

 

So in old system if the cap was 20k then these would be the totals (math is hard).

 

Guild A 420,000

 

Guild B 380,000

 

Guild C 420,000

 

Now clearly I doubt any of those guilds would hit the top 10 in conquest at all let alone a normal person capping 40 toons (so much exaggeration and clearly showing you are nothing more than a troll but lets keep it going.)

 

 

Guild B if all those 19 players only decided to cap 1 toon each that's on them. The whole point of the old system is easy man it's not a Grind it's not rewarding. It (conquest) was created to encourage players to play old content. It rewarded large guilds and players that wanted to play on however many alts (high doubt 40 in a non crafting week). However if someone wants to spend 28 hours a day capping 100 toons feel free more power to you.

 

This new system is a joke they (whoever decided conquest should be this way) clearly didn't look at the old objectives vs the new ones.

 

See here>

Now, this could mean that when we reshuffled, we ended up with too many Objectives which had Legacy restrictions. That would hamper the viability of alts which definitely seems to be the feedback we are hearing. We can continue to address that by adding more Objectives which can be infinitely repeated. This would directly mirror the alt viability of the pre-5.8 system, which was separated only by repeatable and once per Legacy.

-eric

 

Did you watch the twitch stream that Eric and Charles were on, Eric admitted twice that they messed up on these conquest changes. Clearly you didn't so here > https://www.twitch.tv/events/w0MxKfOBQPWWeAattCXDHA

 

So all in all your example is trash b/c first off in the old system you could play the game the way you want to, now you clearly can't you have to play the game the way they want you to. I'm sure you'll post some belting remark to my post that really has no merit like always, I'll be glad when you get banned from these forums soon.

[Ibokagain]

He's a troll.

 

I pointed out the same thing. If one person out works 19 people I don't see the problem with the one man guild winning. This reminds me of the capitalism versus communism argument.

 

Exactly maybe we should start a go fund me so we can send him a participation trophy.

[Ibokagain]

Next week, Death Mark, is a Nar Shaddaa heroic conquest week.

Pre 5.8 each NS heroic got you 500 conquest points before any bonuses.

8 of them would get you 4000 points and takes, depending on circumstances, anywhere from 30-60 minutes.

If you chose the planet that gave you the NS invasion bonus, and had a 150% Stronghold bonus, you'd get 18k points out of your 20k total. If you happened to hit your 250 kill count conquest objective, that would put you over the top for that hour's worth of game play.

 

Then, you could switch to a different toon, start one of the war supplies (armored vehicle for example) and do a 2nd set of heroics. When you were done with the heroics, and the crafting was complete, toon #2 had the 20k goal met.

 

Then, you could craft an invasion force, do a 3rd round of NS heroics, and get a 3rd toon to the goal.

 

This is because the NS heroics were based on a "Per TOON" basis and not a "per legacy" basis.

Just like the Ilum heroic for the Gree conquest week as originally. Even though you could only do the Ilum heroic once per week (it was never updated to be switched to a daily) you used to be able to get points for it on every single alt in your legacy that you wanted to do it on. In the new system, it was once per legacy.

 

So now, that's the question I have, which will be answered on Tuesday.

 

Will the Nar Shadaa heroics, in the POST 5.8 system, be once per legacy? Will they be once per day per legacy? Or will they be once per toon per day, as they were in the past?

 

I won't pretend to speak for anyone else, but I personally want them to stay once per toon per day, as they always have been.

 

Change the points however you want, that's really not what people are bickering about, at least I'm not.

 

I would assume they are "legacy" because clearly everything in this game is now legacy meaning you can only play one toon. So if that's the case how do I get all the buffs I only have 1?

[Ibokagain]

That point of view is understandable, but not if you’re a business owner who uses a per-account billing system. 1 person who paid you $15 < 19 people who pay you $15 each. That’s why they are leveling the playing field. They want to engage more paying customers by reducing the potential point spread in order to foster competition.

 

Wrong wrong worng...

Fostering competition would reward the person doing 1 million conquest points not the 19 kids who did enough to hit 20k and decided to log for the day.

[Ibokagain]

When I first played this game, I didn't give a gosh darn about the storylines. I played it exclusively for the PvP, the Warzones.

 

I still do. Galactic Starfighter only made it better.

 

Clearly you didn't watch the stream pvp isn't in the top 3 just like operation players aren't for swtor players...

[DmdShiva]

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

 

The problem for conquest itself wasn't that you could hit your personal conquest goal on a bunch of different alts in a week, but that you could produce hundreds of thousands of points past your personal conquest goal on a bunch of different alts in a week. Time you put into spreading your conquest earnings out among several characters is the same, as far as earning points toward conquering a planet goes, as earning all those points on one character. Except for crafting war supplies -- earning 100,000 conquest points on one character is the same as earning 100,000 conquest points total over five alts. During a crafting week, though, you could stack up as much crafting as eight companions could grind out, then move to the next character. Unfortunately, because the time and/or credits spent to acquire the mats for these crafts happens with no way for the devs to readily measure it with the log tools they have, the devs are unable to see how much time or credits go into the preparation; all they see is 'log in, kick off crafting, log out, repeat', and that scheduling crafting weeks every other week for two months wasn't able to drain the resources of people who'd built up materials reserves over a long period of time or could afford to buy mats from people who weren't crafting.

 

Where the difference between earning all your conquest points on one character and spreading them out among several alts lies is in the rewards; clearly, being able to reach personal conquest on five characters earns you a better reward than earning all those points on one character. And that's where Bioware has fallen down in this revamp; they were so fixated on the 'many alts earning hundreds of thousands of conquest points' issue that they gutted the 'reaching personal conquest goal on several alts' target of the players; by making it impossible for each alt to run hogwild with completing conquest goals, they handicapped the guilds with fewer legacies -- and making the Medium and Large invasion goals a geometrically higher cost for a linearly higher reward, they encouraged the large guilds to participate in the Small invasion targets, handicapping the small guilds even further.