TrixxieTriss Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) Rough? We have the exact date. 1th of May. Cool thanks. It’s a shame they didn’t think to hold off for another 3 days and make it a “May the 4th be with you” patch Edited March 31, 2018 by TrixxieTriss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JattaGin Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 After re-reading all the yellow info about the new conquest, I come to the conclusion: No one left at BW played the previous conquest. There is no way that someone who has played the old conquest would write any of those things they wrote or make any of those decisions they made. It makes no sense from a playing point of view. Maybe on the paper, it sounded good, but only in theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keta Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 Cool thanks. It’s a shame they didn’t think to hold off for another 3 days and make it a “May the 4th be with you” patch Patience. It's been delayed once already, the 4th would be literally on time by BW's recent track record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowGovernator Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 After re-reading all the yellow info about the new conquest, I come to the conclusion: No one left at BW played the previous conquest. There is no way that someone who has played the old conquest would write any of those things they wrote or make any of those decisions they made. It makes no sense from a playing point of view. Maybe on the paper, it sounded good, but only in theory. It makes zero sense. They need to roll-back the old conquest system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthSpuds Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 It makes zero sense. They need to roll-back the old conquest system. They actually need to roll-back to the old 2.0 Dev Team. Maybe then we'd get good content. All The Best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhedgehog Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 [*]We are introducing a new Daily Repeatable Objective to “Defeat the Final Boss in an Operation.” Soooo....lockouts. All you had to do was to make sure that you had to beat each boss in an operation to kill lockouts, while ensuring the points went to running the whole operation. It's important to note that certain lockout runners have dropped right off the leader board list since lockouts got nerfed. it might be that they choose not to play the abortion that is conquest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowGovernator Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 They actually need to roll-back to the old 2.0 Dev Team. Maybe then we'd get good content. All The Best Even 3.0 dropped some good content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olagatonjedi Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 I'm starting to believe they are trying to find the best settings to ensure that guilds finish the way they intend. With each update, they are tweaking elements thought to have been a big part of the old broken system. I am starting to see this conquest as a work un progress that they were simply forced to test and tweak on the live server due to its nature. I expect that no matter how much speculation we make, all elements are subject to change for better or worse to achieve the balance the game needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhedgehog Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 The point of these changes was to quell the incentive to mass-farm Conquest on alts, not encourage it. This was a deliberate change, and a good one IMHO. This will discourage players from trying to grind out 200k Conquest a week for their guild across 20 different toons. That said, Eric, what are you guys planning to do about Skank Tanks? the point of this change was to quell the incentive to play. it seems to be working. now if they just make changes to things like adding repairs to pvp, their effort will be complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhedgehog Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 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. could you please link proof of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhedgehog Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 Strange that most people don't PvP considering that SWToR is a PvP-oriented game at its core. proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterceil Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 Here's what should happen: Revert the activities/objectives to the way they were and with their point values at their original base. If you're so overly concerned with crafting, then all you guys had to do was put a daily cap on those items, and then just incorporated your "donate to the war effort". For example: Daily, Per Character (base values without stronghold bonus) Craft 10 War Supplies. 250 points each. Craft 1 Invasion Force. 1000 points.Donate Invasion Force. 1500 points. This would've stemmed a lot of "frontloading" crafting and those explosive jumps in points right out of the gate. Back to your changes coming in 5.too late: These changes need to come long before May. They should be hotfixed within the next week. Quoted for visibility. I recently mentioned a similar idea, but this is more detailed, and I like it : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterceil Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 I'm starting to believe they are trying to find the best settings to ensure that guilds finish the way they intend. With each update, they are tweaking elements thought to have been a big part of the old broken system. I am starting to see this conquest as a work un progress that they were simply forced to test and tweak on the live server due to its nature. I expect that no matter how much speculation we make, all elements are subject to change for better or worse to achieve the balance the game needs. They indeed mentioned in the recent interview with SWTORCentral that while they're interested in putting more things on the PTS going forward, Conquest isn't really something you can test for in that environment. Very few people get involved with the PTS, and Conquest, by its nature, requires hundreds or thousands of active participants to measure viability of changes applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traxxmusic Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 As a repeater from most posters I just say Legacy, legacy, Legacy - GET RID OF THE LEGACY BIND!!!!!!!!. 98% of all my alts are in the same legacy - a few different guilds (some of which require/need you to be active in cq), but all in same legacy. I can not possibly help all my guilds, much less reap the rewards from multiple alts. Here is a good estimate for you to consider. I WAS spending about 50 to 70 hrs a week just doing cq (yes retired, lol), not including other activities in-game. That is a lot of game time and a lot of inter-active grouping for heroics, fp's, and ops. Since 5.8 patch, I am lucky if I logged on 15 hrs total for my own pleasure. I pulled my now retired brother into this game recently, so have logged on a lot just to help him. If not for that, my time in-game would have been only those 15 hrs in 2 weeks. If it is your hopes to encourage gameplay with these changes, you sure are going in the wrong direction for me. You killed serious ops, you lost some of the best pvp players, we'll not even talk of the command fiasco, now you wanna kill cq as well. Not much left to kill - no, wait -------- you are inventive, I'm sure you will destroy something else soon. PS: if I missed something in this thread, sry - read the first 4 pages and it just seemed like a repeat of last weeks. Skipped to end and posted my 2 cents yet again. Kinda funny, most all (including myself), are still saying the same things - at least ditch legacy - a lot of us would like a total roll-back. How many times must it be stated? When I am done getting my brother's feet wet in-game, you will see me on VERY infrequently. Thanx team for all your help!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olagatonjedi Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 As a repeater from most posters I just say Legacy, legacy, Legacy - GET RID OF THE LEGACY BIND!!!!!!!!. 98% of all my alts are in the same legacy - a few different guilds (some of which require/need you to be active in cq), but all in same legacy. I can not possibly help all my guilds, much less reap the rewards from multiple alts. Here is a good estimate for you to consider. I surmise this is a big reason why legacy based conquest helps the system. You have to choose which guild you want to help, so it will both hinder and help various other guilds and allow more like-sized guilds to win the conquest. Perhaps not every week, but that's also the point of spreading wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curulz Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 I surmise this is a big reason why legacy based conquest helps the system. You have to choose which guild you want to help, so it will both hinder and help various other guilds and allow more like-sized guilds to win the conquest. Perhaps not every week, but that's also the point of spreading wealth. More likely you'll see it consolidate the wealth rather than spreading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olagatonjedi Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 More likely you'll see it consolidate the wealth rather than spreading it. Expand on your thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curulz Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 Expand on your thoughts I have toons in guild A and B. If I can only cap 1 toon, guild B is more likely to hit the goal than guide A, so I cap my toon in guild B. So guild A would have less points. If it happened enough, could see big guilds increase and smaller guilds decrease in points. Theoretical of course, but you already see some guild hopping for titles, so not a big stretch to see it done for the rewards (even as meager as I believe they are). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) I have toons in guild A and B. If I can only cap 1 toon, guild B is more likely to hit the goal than guide A, so I cap my toon in guild B. So guild A would have less points. If it happened enough, could see big guilds increase and smaller guilds decrease in points. Theoretical of course, but you already see some guild hopping for titles, so not a big stretch to see it done for the rewards (even as meager as I believe they are). You assumption is that smaller guilds are focused on Conquests to the exclusion of everything else. I very much doubt it.. and there is no way for you to prove this fundamental point in your assumption. For that matter, the same goes for larger guilds. Guilds are diverse in their interests and focus, so yeah.. some will walk away from Conquests until it is tuned to their liking (if ever) but it is just as likely said guilds simply pull Conquests from their roster of guild activities and move on with other things. Single player guilds... I could care less as that is a convenient but exploitative use of what guilds exist for. Edited March 31, 2018 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaytram Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 The planned system for conquest is just as bad as the existing system. The 5.8 system took away the rewards that enticed people to play their alts, the alts that BW had us create for DvL. Prior to 5.8 I looked forward to seeing how many of my toons I could get to the weekly conquest target. Now, I struggle to get 4 toons to the target and almost eliminate play time on my other characters. This is not a good system, the planned fixes do nothing to help. Locking down rewards to once per day per legacy is just stupid. The thing that drives people to play MMOs is the frequent rewards. If I end up playing and not getting the rewards expected then i'm going to play less. Maybe that is what BW wants though. Maybe it is the goal to reduce server loads so that more more server consolidation can be done resources can be given to other projects and speed up the process of unwinding SWTOR to make room for Anthem servers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sareeph Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 You assumption is that smaller guilds are focused on Conquests to the exclusion of everything else. I very much doubt it.. and there is no way for you to prove this fundamental point in your assumption. For that matter, the same goes for larger guilds. Guilds are diverse in their interests and focus, so yeah.. some will walk away from Conquests until it is tuned to their liking (if ever) but it is just as likely said guilds simply pull Conquests from their roster of guild activities and move on with other things. Single player guilds... I could care less as that is a convenient but exploitative use of what guilds exist for. You missed his/her point. What was said was that people will tend to cap in the guild with the best chances of achieving goals. Since larger guilds have a better chance at that than smaller ones with this alt unfriendly CQ, it is conceivable that people will tend to focus their capping in the larger guilds. This could widen the gulf for smaller guilds and NOT make it smaller guild friendly. Yes, guilds have differing goals but the ones that are serious about CQ is what all this hubbub is about. The ones that dabble or ignore it aren't an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olagatonjedi Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 I have toons in guild A and B. If I can only cap 1 toon, guild B is more likely to hit the goal than guide A, so I cap my toon in guild B. So guild A would have less points. If it happened enough, could see big guilds increase and smaller guilds decrease in points. Theoretical of course, but you already see some guild hopping for titles, so not a big stretch to see it done for the rewards (even as meager as I believe they are). And it is my belief that forcing people to decide which guild is their focus each week helps reduce the fluff points by overachiever, and puts most of the competition into a "our active members vs your active members" competition. There are people who have toons in both large and small guilds, myself included, so each is put into an equal, balanced situation of deciding which guild is more important to focus on each week. We each live and die by decisions we make every day, even in the game (i.e. choosing to spend time point vs raiding vs guild vs fps vs etc.) We choose our activity in hopes to gain something we really want (the personal interest), but having to choose which activity (or which guild, in the case of weekly conquest) we spend the majority of our time is a vested interest that affects others as well, something people dont fully understand the magnitude with regards to MMOs. Every action, and every non-action, affects someone else's experience. Conquest is now more aligned with that sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olagatonjedi Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) You missed his/her point. What was said was that people will tend to cap in the guild with the best chances of achieving goals. Since larger guilds have a better chance at that than smaller ones with this alt unfriendly CQ, it is conceivable that people will tend to focus their capping in the larger guilds. This could widen the gulf for smaller guilds and NOT make it smaller guild friendly. Yes, guilds have differing goals but the ones that are serious about CQ is what all this hubbub is about. The ones that dabble or ignore it aren't an issue. By choosing the guilds with the best chance to win, the player must live with their decision and run the risk of their other guild kicking them for not being active enough, or falling apart, among other things. I believe this is intended for the system to be balanced. It's now player vs player, not player and alts vs player and alts People can skate through this game (hell, and the forums), without being accountable for their actions and decisions. If given enough time to see the system pan out, I think you will be surprised with the number of players who are more fond of the relationships built in small guilds than the planetary success of conquest, and also those who are more willing to forego their issues with Large guilds in order to increase their chance for planetary conquest. Either way, personal growth and some maturity is taking place by all making a decision they will be accountable for. Edited March 31, 2018 by olagatonjedi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sareeph Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 By choosing the guilds with the best chance to win, the player must live with their decision and run the risk of their other guild kicking them for not being active enough, or falling apart, among other things. I believe this is intended for the system to be balanced. It's now player vs player, not player and alts vs player and alts People can skate through this game (hell, and the forums), without being accountable for their actions and decisions. If given enough time to see the system pan out, I think you will be surprised with the number of players who are more fond of the relationships built in small guilds than the planetary success of conquest, and also those who are more willing to forego their issues with Large guilds in order to increase their chance for planetary conquest. Either way, personal growth and some maturity is taking place by all making a decision they will be accountable for. Of the ones remaining... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olagatonjedi Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) Of the ones remaining... Personally, I'm not worried about that, and it looks like BW is focusing more on a quality, integrity-based, and balanced product over their concerns of diminishing playerbase. Edited March 31, 2018 by olagatonjedi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts