Hi Charles and Keith! Any new information about conquest and 5.9?

[olagatonjedi]

So, I'm a bit confused. Eric went on vacation just two days ago. Before he left, he provided updates about the changes we're making in 5.9 which is scheduled for release on May 1st.

 

We realize some of you are not happy with the changes we made to Conquests and the 5.9 adjustments will help. As we all know, Conquests were broken and preventing players from receiving rewards which caused a lot of unnecessary frustration, extra Engineering work and wasted time for you and Customer Service. It had to be replaced with a newer and maintainable system.

 

Although it'll take a few updates to get it exactly right, we have not had the same issues with rewards, a lot more guilds are receiving rewards, and there is higher participation overall. However, we also acknowledge that it's more difficult for alternate characters to complete their weekly goals which some of the changes in 5.9 will address.

 

We will continue to review the data and your feedback to determine if additional adjustments are needed. I'm not sure that gives you any additional insight, but we need to release 5.9 to identify further changes.

 

--Keith-

Damn it feels good to be a gansta!

[Lhancelot]

So, I'm a bit confused. Eric went on vacation just two days ago. Before he left, he provided updates about the changes we're making in 5.9 which is scheduled for release on May 1st.

 

We realize some of you are not happy with the changes we made to Conquests and the 5.9 adjustments will help. As we all know, Conquests were broken and preventing players from receiving rewards which caused a lot of unnecessary frustration, extra Engineering work and wasted time for you and Customer Service. It had to be replaced with a newer and maintainable system.

 

Although it'll take a few updates to get it exactly right, we have not had the same issues with rewards, a lot more guilds are receiving rewards, and there is higher participation overall. However, we also acknowledge that it's more difficult for alternate characters to complete their weekly goals which some of the changes in 5.9 will address.

 

We will continue to review the data and your feedback to determine if additional adjustments are needed. I'm not sure that gives you any additional insight, but we need to release 5.9 to identify further changes.

 

--Keith-

 

Thank you!

 

Probably not what people want to hear, but this is better than not responding for another week or two, thank you Keith.

[Lhancelot]

Damn it feels good to be a gansta!

 

What is wrong with you? There's nothing noble about rubbing people's noses in changes that are upsetting to them.

 

I struggle to understand your motives, but I have concluded you derive some sadistic pleasure knowing your words only cause anger and more frustration than already exists due to the unwelcoming changes to conquest.

 

P.S. Keith said nothing that verifies anything you have written for the last 3 weeks.

[krosswong]

So, I'm a bit confused. Eric went on vacation just two days ago. Before he left, he provided updates about the changes we're making in 5.9 which is scheduled for release on May 1st.

 

We realize some of you are not happy with the changes we made to Conquests and the 5.9 adjustments will help. As we all know, Conquests were broken and preventing players from receiving rewards which caused a lot of unnecessary frustration, extra Engineering work and wasted time for you and Customer Service. It had to be replaced with a newer and maintainable system.

 

Although it'll take a few updates to get it exactly right, we have not had the same issues with rewards, a lot more guilds are receiving rewards, and there is higher participation overall. However, we also acknowledge that it's more difficult for alternate characters to complete their weekly goals which some of the changes in 5.9 will address.

 

We will continue to review the data and your feedback to determine if additional adjustments are needed. I'm not sure that gives you any additional insight, but we need to release 5.9 to identify further changes.

 

--Keith-

 

First half of your post completely misses the mark.... way to understand your player base.

[NHBabe]

We realize some of you are not happy with the changes we made to Conquests and the 5.9 adjustments will help. As we all know, Conquests were broken and preventing players from receiving rewards which caused a lot of unnecessary frustration, extra Engineering work and wasted time for you and Customer Service. It had to be replaced with a newer and maintainable system.

 

To be quite honest this has nothing to do with the actual conquest objectives but your back-end system being broken. Changing how Conquest works and the objectives and rewards wouldn't have done anything to fix the broken system so while it seems to me you're trying to place the blame of BW not handing out the rewards in a timely manner had to do with the Conquest itself, that in fact isn't true. Please do not try to lump the actual Conquest Activity into a broken back-end that needed to be fixed.

 

Although it'll take a few updates to get it exactly right, we have not had the same issues with rewards, a lot more guilds are receiving rewards, and there is higher participation overall. However, we also acknowledge that it's more difficult for alternate characters to complete their weekly goals which some of the changes in 5.9 will address.

 

The prior conquest system allowed at least 10 guilds per planet, per server, to receive awards. On a week such as this, where there would've been 3 planets to choose from, that would've been 30 guilds per server. Now I could be very wrong but looking over the past few weeks it does not seem that 30 guilds were able to make the numbers to receive the rewards. In fact for the Large and Medium threshold there were just a handful that made the quota.

 

I'm sorry but I just can't take your word for it. Could you provide actual numbers that maybe the community doesn't see that shows: Guild Name, Server, Total Conquest Pts, Threshold they chose (Large, Medium, or Small)?

[masterceil]

Keith:

How are a lot more guilds receiving rewards when only one or two guilds are hitting the required point totals for large and medium guilds? Do you mean that a lot more guilds are hitting only the small yield and therefore getting more rewards than in the previous system? It's confusing to us, too because we look at a scoreboard and see that 8 out of 10 guilds that would have gotten rewards from the previous system will not because they can't hit the points required for large and medium yield planet requirements. So from our vantage point, there are LESS guilds receiving rewards because 8 or more guilds that would have received rewards for two of the available planets are getting nothing.

 

.

 

I've been under the assumption that while only 1-2 guilds are hitting Large goal (on Star Forge pubside, specifically, I don't look at impside or other servers), Flashpoint Havoc was the only week since 5.8a when fewer than 10 guilds hit goals for Medium Yield, and all four weeks in 5.8 (well, five - pubside's board is full of 200k+ for Rakghoul Resurgence on SF) have had more than 10 guilds get the Small Yield reward. Specifically, these are the floors of each of the four weeks for Star Forge pubside:

 

 

• Medium Yield
  
  1. Relics of the Gree 799,067* (-580,933; eight guilds made goal)
     
  2. Total Galactic War 566,963 (+16,963)
     
  3. Death Mark 676,764 (+126,764)
     
  4. Flashpoint Havoc 49,080** (-500,920; six guilds made goal)

  [*]Small Yield

  1. Relics of the Gree 724,936* (+264,936)
     
  2. Total Galactic War 506,676 (+306,676)
     
  3. Death Mark 561,395 (+361,395)
     
  4. Flashpoint Havoc 379,975 (+179,975)

 

* Goals for Medium and Small Yield targets for Relics of the Gree were 1,380,000 and 460,000, respectively. Eight guilds on Star Forge got their Medium Yield rewards that week, and all of them were well above the current 550,000 Medium Yield requirement.

** Even I voiced many complaints that Flashpoint Havoc was very poorly executed, with the vast majority of its points only available to those doing MM FP Bonus Bosses - no points for actual completion of the FPs (outside of the one Weekly objective for doing 3/5), and no points for SM/VM FPs (except Battle of Ilum).

 

All this tells me is that every week since 5.8, there has been a fairly significant gap between the tenth place guild on Small Yield planets and the target value of 200,000 points. I would actually put money on the fact that the number of guilds qualifying for these Small Yield rewards and invading Small Yield targets far outweighs the number of guilds between first or second and tenth place - but under goal - on the Large Yield leaderboard. 180-360k points is more than ample room for 8-9 guilds invading Small Yield to make up for that loss, and it's probably actually a few times that amount.

 

So yes, while Large Yield goals are only being hit by a few guilds, I have no problem taking Keith's word for it that more guilds are getting rewards overall in the new system. By the way, here's the total number of guilds across all three planets that would have received Large Yield rewards had they invaded the Large Yield planet (again, pubside Star Forge view only):

 

 

1. Relics of the Gree 5 (19)*
   
2. Total Galactic War 10
   
3. Death Mark 15
   
4. Flashpoint Havoc 3

 

* Relics of the Gree Large Yield target was 2,530,000 points - here I've listed the number of guilds getting that amount first, followed by the number of guilds that made the new Large Yield target of 1,130,000 in parentheses.

[KeithKanneg]

Is it ok that with new conquest system pvp players cant reach the required minimum for conquest rewards even by playing host of pvp matches? Not mentioning alts...

I believe the changes in 5.9 help address that issue as you'll earn Conquest points each time you participate, not just for winning.

 

Keith---

[Joonbeams]

So, I'm a bit confused. Eric went on vacation just two days ago. Before he left, he provided updates about the changes we're making in 5.9 which is scheduled for release on May 1st.

 

We realize some of you are not happy with the changes we made to Conquests and the 5.9 adjustments will help. As we all know, Conquests were broken and preventing players from receiving rewards which caused a lot of unnecessary frustration, extra Engineering work and wasted time for you and Customer Service. It had to be replaced with a newer and maintainable system.

 

Although it'll take a few updates to get it exactly right, we have not had the same issues with rewards, a lot more guilds are receiving rewards, and there is higher participation overall. However, we also acknowledge that it's more difficult for alternate characters to complete their weekly goals which some of the changes in 5.9 will address.

 

We will continue to review the data and your feedback to determine if additional adjustments are needed. I'm not sure that gives you any additional insight, but we need to release 5.9 to identify further changes.

 

--Keith-

 

Thanks for responding. Obviously, you're frustrated Keith as is clear from the tone of this response. But please keep in mind, most (not all) of the feedback and questions here are from long-time supporters who LOVE your game. Please don't get frustrated with us - we just want to play, enjoy, and pay for your game, our game.

 

For reference, this is the genesis of this thread which I believe was made because the feedback thread was hijacked:

 

Hello Charles and Keith! Since Eric has been gone, we have not had any news on what is happening with 5.9 or if any new changes were being considered after so much feedback was given by the players here on the forums.

 

Are there any plans to remove the heavy-handed legacy restrictions that are forcing players to have to play only one character to maximize the conquest gains? Will the value points be bumped up regarding conquests completed?

 

Prior to 5.8, players had much more flexibility and could work on conquest with alts freely which created much more activity in WZs, FPs, as well as OPs because the player was not punished by having to choose what character to gain conquest on.

 

...

Please let us know what is going on regarding conquest, and thank you for your time.

 

Summary/Paraphrase

QUESTIONS: Are there any NEW changes being considered for 5.9 in light of the feedback (admittedly drowned out in other threads):

• Specifically, are there plans to remove the legacy restrictions?
  
• Will conquest point values be bumped up?
  

CONCERNS: the alt-restricting changes are leading to decreased overall activity in "WZs, FPs, as well as OPs"

 

Many, many people have posted about their experiences with the changes leading to less overall game activity, more grind, and less fun. Some have attempted to offer the data they have (we obviously have a limited data set). So again, what people are looking for is:

• Was that feedback heard? Is it helpful?
  
• If so, are there changes planned to address this (e.g. beyond 5.9)?
  
• If not, is there other data that we don't have that proves we are wrong/misunderstanding things?
  

 

I understand that there have been a few posts and even a livestream from you guys on this - and 5.9 isn't out the door yet. But many people are trying to offer feedback IN ADVANCE of the development and release of 5.9, perhaps with the hope that there is still time to influence choices there. But if that's not possible, or not happening (which from the above sounds like the case), we'd also like to know that too.

 

I'll finish with a note that some (not all) of the intensity of the comments is ratcheted up by posters who are clearly intending to rile people up and stifle meaningful discussion, which only makes people talk LOUDER. Please don't read too much into that. A better number of people have posted thoughtful, reasoned analyses, backed up with the data available to them. Thanks again for weighing in - it means a lot! Cheers...

[Joonbeams]

What is wrong with you? There's nothing noble about rubbing people's noses in changes that are upsetting to them.

 

I struggle to understand your motives, but I have concluded you derive some sadistic pleasure knowing your words only cause anger and more frustration than already exists due to the unwelcoming changes to conquest.

 

P.S. Keith said nothing that verifies anything you have written for the last 3 weeks.

 

Just proves what we all know about him...

[commanderwar]

So, I'm a bit confused. Eric went on vacation just two days ago. Before he left, he provided updates about the changes we're making in 5.9 which is scheduled for release on May 1st.

 

We realize some of you are not happy with the changes we made to Conquests and the 5.9 adjustments will help. As we all know, Conquests were broken and preventing players from receiving rewards which caused a lot of unnecessary frustration, extra Engineering work and wasted time for you and Customer Service. It had to be replaced with a newer and maintainable system.

 

Although it'll take a few updates to get it exactly right, we have not had the same issues with rewards, a lot more guilds are receiving rewards, and there is higher participation overall. However, we also acknowledge that it's more difficult for alternate characters to complete their weekly goals which some of the changes in 5.9 will address.

 

We will continue to review the data and your feedback to determine if additional adjustments are needed. I'm not sure that gives you any additional insight, but we need to release 5.9 to identify further changes.

 

--Keith-

 

Cool thanks keith for replying to the thread. also will you have a live stream for 5.9?

[KendraP]

Thank you!

 

Probably not what people want to hear, but this is better than not responding for another week or two, thank you Keith.

 

First and foremost, as Lhance says here, we appreciate hearing anything at all. Despite the frustration I sense behind the post, it's good to see anything gold on these forums. That is what this thread was intended to request.

 

Now on to the substance of the post:

On paragraph 1:

Yes, Musco told us what was being planned for 5.9. A post followed by days or weeks of virtual silence as the rage ensues ensures a rather pissed off fan base. Many of us are of the opinion this is not going to go far enough, and assuming we can expect the rate of future chsnges to be like they were with GC, it would help if we knew why you considered killing alt usage in conquest necessary. This leads to...

 

Paragraph 2:

Maybe i am blissfully ignorant but this sounds like a backend problem. What does nerfing the stuffing out of alts and point generation in general have to do with the not receiving reward problem? It would seem a simple fix to that would have been easier than revamping a decent system into a total diaaster.

 

If I'm way off base please enlighten me, i admit my area of expertise is neither game design or coding, and ergo maybe it was easier to totally revamp than to fix the backend issue.

 

Also... could conquest break every week? All the toons i have in guild would mean I could get my guildship and go back to having actual fun how I want to do it. Not how i am told I should be having fun.

 

Paragraph 3:

As i mentioned earlier the nearly pathetic buffs being planned for 5.9 barely help my issue. You cut points for repeatable content by over half for those of us who had full SH bonuses and have only cut the cap by 1/4 (5k/20k). Basic arithmetic would seem to imply this is going to be more difficult especially since with the sudden realization conquest is a "legacy activity" many formerly repeatable activities are now shoehorned into dailies that are not doable for alts. Which you say is a problem you understand; however the proposed changes do not entirely repair.

 

Thus I must ask: do you see alts as a problem? If so, why? And furthermore, why would this game consistently encourage alting until 5.0 just to be killed off by GC, then actively encouraged due to uproar and a (painfully slow btw) repair, just to kill them off again in 5.8?

 

Seriously I did the full DvL event as someone who had upwards of 30 toons, then 5.0 dropped. I still have 7 of the 8 new toons.

 

Paragraph 4:

My request is that the rate of change and responses be a bit quicker than GC or, if that is impossible, tell us why. Basically, as Lhance said when he created this thread, all we want is two way discussion and not the figurstive yelling at a brick wall.

 

In fact i think if more comminication was around, much of the negativity and nsmecalling would be improved as rather than hypothesizing what you were thinking or planning we would know.

 

Random is not fun; being in the dark is not fun; feeling ignored and unappreciated or even taken advantage of is not fun. I feel all of these things with 5.8.

 

Do note: I ame not trying to be an ******e. I sincerly appreciate responses of any kind. I simply wish we didn't have to piss you off to get them.

 

We all (I think) want the best for swtor and for us to continue spending money on it - so lets talk! Its that simple, Mr. Kanning.

Edited April 20, 2018 by KendraP

[masterceil]

Summary/Paraphrase

QUESTIONS: Are there any NEW changes being considered for 5.9 in light of the feedback (admittedly drowned out in other threads):

• Specifically, are there plans to remove the legacy restrictions?
  
• Will conquest point values be bumped up?
  

CONCERNS: the alt-restricting changes are leading to decreased overall activity in "WZs, FPs, as well as OPs"

 

They have specifically stated that Legacy objectives, as a concept, are not going to be removed from Conquest. They have made no statement regarding particular objectives' status as Once Daily per Legacy (e.g. Heroics or Daily missions or Warzone wins), but I think it's safe to assume that no such adjustments are being made.

 

The thread detailing 5.9 changes (that I know you're aware of, because you post in it) has specifically outlined an increase in points earned across the board for both Daily and Repeatable objectives. To wit:

 

Repeatable

• Low is now 120, up from 85
  
• Medium is now 180, up from 130
  
• High is now 290, up from 205
  

 

Daily

• Low is now 400, up from 330
  
• Medium is now 600, up from 500
  
• High is now 825, up from 750
  

 

Values for Warzone, GSF, and Flashpoint objectives, specifically, will be increased outside of these values:

 

Repeatable Objective Changes

• Complete a Warzone Objective is now worth 180, up from 85
  
• Complete a GSF Match Objective is now worth 180, up from 85
  
• Complete a FP or Uprising is now worth 290, up from 130
  

 

And a plethora of new objectives that seem to be specifically aimed at helping alt play become more palatable:

 

New Objectives

• The “Kill 50 enemies” Daily Objective will be worth 400 points
  
• The “Kill 100 enemies” Daily Objective will be worth 600 points
  
• The “Kill 150 enemies” Daily Objective will be worth 825 points
  
• The “Complete 3 Activity Finder Activities” Daily Objective will be worth 400 points
  
• The “Complete 5 Activity Finder Activities” Daily Objective will be worth 825 points

 

So to be honest, I'm in full understanding of Keith's stated confusion in his first response to this thread. All of these issues have been addressed, and people are still wondering if feedback has been heard and if the dev team is going to do anything about it. The short answer is yes, feedback has been heard, and in a week and a half, these changes will go into effect.

 

Obviously, they want to see what kind of effect these new changes have before they start planning more for 5.10 and beyond.

Edited April 20, 2018 by masterceil

[Lhancelot]

Keith, do you guys have any ideas as to how to make the new conquest system more alt-friendly?

 

That's a major concern and we understand you guys are now aware of that issue, however we just want to know if you have any ideas on how to improve upon that problem.

[benmas]

will we getting season 9 rewards or even the teaser with 5.9??

 

we've waited long enough just release them already!

[KendraP]

They have specifically stated that Legacy objectives, as a concept, are not going to be removed from Conquest. They have made no statement regarding particular objectives' status as Once Daily per Legacy (e.g. Heroics or Daily missions or Warzone wins), but I think it's safe to assume that no such adjustments are being made.

 

The thread detailing 5.9 changes (that I know you're aware of, because you post in it) has specifically outlined an increase in points earned across the board for both Daily and Repeatable objectives. To wit:

 

 

 

Values for Warzone, GSF, and Flashpoint objectives, specifically, will be increased outside of these values:

 

 

 

And a plethora of new objectives that seem to be specifically aimed at helping alt play become more palatable:

 

 

 

So to be honest, I'm in full understanding of Keith's stated confusion in his first response to this thread. All of these issues have been addressed, and people are still wondering if feedback has been heard and if the dev team is going to do anything about it. The short answer is yes, feedback has been heard, and in a week and a half, these changes will go into effect.

 

Obviously, they want to see what kind of effect these new changes have before they start planning more for 5.10 and beyond.

 

Arithmetic time:

 

15000/300=150/3=50

 

Im supposed to do something 50 times to cap one toon and this is "alt friendly?" Thats so absurd its almost insulting.

 

We provide feedback on proposed changes, like mine stating doing 50 of something is still too much to be alt friendly, then get ignored or at best told wait and see.

 

I don't need to wait. I know doing 50 battle of ilums is barely more practical than doing 70 (or whatever I said it was on the other thread).

 

Hell I wouldnt do 20 ilums. 20 warzones sure. 20 ilums though?

 

And thats the issue I feel the proposed chsnges do not address. The absolutely pathetic rate of return.

[Joonbeams]

...

So to be honest, I'm in full understanding of Keith's stated confusion in his first response to this thread. All of these issues have been addressed, and people are still wondering if feedback has been heard and if the dev team is going to do anything about it. The short answer is yes, feedback has been heard, and in a week and a half, these changes will go into effect.

 

...

 

All fair I suppose. I could (and normally would) take issue with this, but I got a bit deflated myself by the post from Keith and frankly, it's Friday and I'm off to happy hour so I don't feel like expending the energy (plus, unlike others, you always seem sincere, so I don't want to be quibbling with ppl like that). Just a couple minor clarifications:

 

...They have made no statement regarding particular objectives' status as Once Daily per Legacy (e.g. Heroics or Daily missions or Warzone wins), but I think it's safe to assume that no such adjustments are being made.

 

...

 

Yes. This is the question. Keep in mind, I haven't seen any reason to believe that decisions were fixed in stone and weren't open to further community feedback (I assumed, wrongly it seems, the opposite).

 

...

 

Values for Warzone, GSF, and Flashpoint objectives, specifically, will be increased outside of these values:

...

plethora of new objectives that seem to be specifically aimed at helping alt play become more palatable:

 

 

Noted. Again, same comments. People have since offered feedback that these values are still quite low and alt-limiting. We understand 5.9 is a step, we were hoping to have some impact on that. I don't think the devs even think 5.9 will be the fix (Keith has admitted). So I take that (again, probably incorrectly) as an invitation for more ongoing feedback. But again, it looks more and more like they won't do anything further until they see what happens from 5.9...

[KendraP]

Noted. Again, same comments. People have since offered feedback that these values are still quite low and alt-limiting. We understand 5.9 is a step, we were hoping to have some impact on that. I don't think the devs even think 5.9 will be the fix (Keith has admitted). So I take that (again, probably incorrectly) as an invitation for more ongoing feedback. But again, it looks more and more like they won't do anything further until they see what happens from 5.9...

 

And this is 99.9999% of my issue: he seems frustrated with us for being unhappy despite proposed changes... that we are not happy about and are providing requests for more adjustments to before it goes live 1 May.

 

Unless they think we are collectively stupid or are trying to force a change in playstyle why would they not at least pretend to listen to feedback (especially when it overwhelmingly points in one direction).

[Darev]

RE: More guilds getting rewards in the system.

The only way I see that happening is in the low tier. If there are 11, or 50, guilds qualifying for the weekly reward, we'll only ever see the top 10.

 

RE: Point values for repeatable objectives.

My suggestion is to revert them to the BASE value from pre 5.8. Unranked WZ = 250 (participation) & 500 for the win....etc.

 

Keep, or reintroduce, the objective that were the same every week for the same base points. They're still in-line with what appears to be your objective point targets from what I can see.

 

Even in Musco's post where he detailed the 5.9 changes, he stated the "standard" disclaimer that the details as he posted could change. Why not take this time and actually change them upward? There are many eloquent posts from people, not myself, stating reasons, providing examples, of why it's needed (primarily for multiple alt toon participation).

 

The listed 5.9 changes are a known SMALL step in the right direction. You've already received feedback stating it isn't enough to incorporate goals, so why wait until after 5.9 drops to do what you already see needs to be done?

Edited April 20, 2018 by Darev

[KendraP]

Even in Musco's post where he detailed the 5.9 changes, he stated the "standard" disclaimer that the details as he posted could change. Why not take this time and actually change them upward? There are many eloquent posts from people, not myself, stating reasons, providing examples, of why it's needed (primarily for multiple alt toon participation).

 

The listed 5.9 changes are a known SMALL step in the right direction. You've already received feedback stating it isn't enough to incorporate goals, so why wait until after 5.9 drops to do what you already see needs to be done?

 

Paragraph 1: exactly

Paragraph 2: its literally the rp walk of changes. Like a virtual tiptoe pace.

[masterceil]

Arithmetic time:

 

15000/300=150/3=50

 

Im supposed to do something 50 times to cap one toon and this is "alt friendly?" Thats so absurd its almost insulting.

 

We provide feedback on proposed changes, like mine stating doing 50 of something is still too much to be alt friendly, then get ignored or at best told wait and see.

 

I don't need to wait. I know doing 50 battle of ilums is barely more practical than doing 70 (or whatever I said it was on the other thread).

 

Hell I wouldnt do 20 ilums. 20 warzones sure. 20 ilums though?

 

And thats the issue I feel the proposed chsnges do not address. The absolutely pathetic rate of return.

 

Where is the number 300 even listed in my post?

 

Anyway, I've recently done the math for GSF, but the numbers should be the same for Warzones. TL;DR is you can make 15,000 points doing 30 matches when the Weekly is not an objective (five matches per day, six days) - but if you have full 150% SH bonus, it's over 40,000 points for that many Warzones. With said bonus, you'd only need to do five matches per day for three days to hit goal.

 

If you really are doing absolutely nothing but Warzones and trying to get 15,000 points with no SH bonus, it's 180 points for completion and another 180 for each win for Repeatable objective Unranked Warzones: Total Domination (which may also go up - right now it's a "Medium" point value in Repeatable; participation points are going from "Small" to "Medium", and there's a chance that the win points may go "Medium" to "Large", but of course that's just hope on my part). If you win half your matches, it'd be 270 points per match, or 56 matches to complete (weekly objective notwithstanding). With 150% SH bonus, it's 675 per match, for 23 matches to complete.

 

Again, this is just with the small values for just the two Repeatable objectives. There are also Daily objectives for both participation and winning a Warzone, and when those are in place, that's an extra 330/825 points. When the Weekly is in play, one character will get a nice fat 3,000/7,500 point payout (yes, half the total goal with full SH bonus), leaving you with more time to do more matches on alts.

 

Now, let's look at some more overall numbers. I'm going to quote Eric again, with inline notes as to the point value increase for Repeatable, Daily, Warzone, GSF, and FP objectives that we're looking at:

 

Repeatable

• Low is now 120, up from 85 (+41.2%)
  
• Medium is now 180, up from 130 (+38.5%)
  
• High is now 290, up from 205 (+41.5%)
  

 

Daily

• Low is now 400, up from 330 (+21.2%)
  
• Medium is now 600, up from 500 (+20.0%)
  
• High is now 825, up from 750 (+10%)
  

 

Repeatable Objective Changes

• Complete a Warzone Objective is now worth 180, up from 85 (+111.8%)
  
• Complete a GSF Match Objective is now worth 180, up from 85 (+111.8%)
  
• Complete a FP or Uprising is now worth 290, up from 130 (+123.1%)
  

 

Now, you may be looking at the raw numbers and thinking "120 Conquest Points is still pretty small", or "400 Conquest Points is still trash for a Heroic". But you need to look at the overall percent increase in point values to understand their effect in the aggregate. You'll be getting about 40% more Conquest Points for each and every single Repeatable objective you do, and 10-20% more points for each Daily. Warzones, GSF matches, and Flashpoints will be worth more than double what they are right now.

 

Without SH or planetary bonus, Warzones, to go back to that example, were worth 250 each. In Old Conquest, that was 80 matches with just the baseline point value and just the completion points to hit that 20,000 point goal. The same objective on 1 May will be worth 1/84th of the new goal of 15,000 points. So yes, a handful of extra matches. But it's much easier now to get the 150% SH bonus (no more spamming chairs). With said bonus, Old Conquest had Warzone participation at 625 per, needing 32 matches to hit goal; New Conquest will have them at 450 per, needing 34. It's pretty on par with what we had before.

 

Really, though, I think we need to reserve judgement on the increased point values until the patch actually drops and we can see and feel these changes firsthand.

[masterceil]

And this is 99.9999% of my issue: he seems frustrated with us for being unhappy despite proposed changes... that we are not happy about and are providing requests for more adjustments to before it goes live 1 May.

 

Unless they think we are collectively stupid or are trying to force a change in playstyle why would they not at least pretend to listen to feedback (especially when it overwhelmingly points in one direction).

 

As a Data Analyst that works with real-world numbers (I'm not a theoretician - I need to see effects to pass judgement on efficacy), I'm with Keith. We need to see these changes live before any real inferences can be made as to whether or not the changes will be sufficient. Until 5.9 drops and the changes go into effect, you're just screaming into the wind. No developer is going to make further changes without the hard data that can only be gathered once the current set of changes goes live.

[Asmodesu]

As a Data Analyst that works with real-world numbers (I'm not a theoretician - I need to see effects to pass judgement on efficacy), I'm with Keith. We need to see these changes live before any real inferences can be made as to whether or not the changes will be sufficient. Until 5.9 drops and the changes go into effect, you're just screaming into the wind. No developer is going to make further changes without the hard data that can only be gathered once the current set of changes goes live.

 

And from everything I read in his post. This is exactly what Kieth was trying to say. Constant asking for more info before the announced changes have even dropped ye,t which he needs to happen before being able to give more info then already is given, is confusing to him.

[NHBabe]

As a Data Analyst that works with real-world numbers (I'm not a theoretician - I need to see effects to pass judgement on efficacy), I'm with Keith. We need to see these changes live before any real inferences can be made as to whether or not the changes will be sufficient. Until 5.9 drops and the changes go into effect, you're just screaming into the wind. No developer is going to make further changes without the hard data that can only be gathered once the current set of changes goes live.

 

While I can agree with you that passing judgement before seeing all the changes take affect, there are SOME cases where we'll already know the outcome, as BW has provided the numbers we'll be seeing. As an example of this:

 

Planetary Heroics - in this case Corellia. I'm gonna compare old system but with new points (5.9 now) and not include any SH bonus (not everyone has the same one so base numbers are best.) This is per character.

Both Republic and Empire have 4 Heroics.

Old system = 4 heroics * 400 pts = 1,600 pts per day or 9,600 pts per conquest week.

New system = 1 heroic * 400 pts = 400 pts per day or 2,400 pts per conquest week.

That is a loss of 7,200 points for just this particular week when it comes around in the future.

 

What happens when Nar Shaddaa comes around? Both factions have 8 heroics

Old system = 8 heroics * 400 pts = 3,200 pts per day or 19,200 per conquest week.

New system = 1 heroic * 400 pts = 400 pts per day or 2,400 per conquest week.

That is a loss of 16,800 pts - a whole character's conquest participation requirement.

 

In this case the difference due to their changes are substantial. You'd hear less complaining from the fanbase if at least the Heroics weren't ONE a day per character but for ALL heroics for the planet listed. At least this way those that are trying to have more than 1 character meet their conquest goals would be able to do so much easier. This is most likely the reason why they made the change, but it is a bad change, IMHO.

[PennyAnn]

As a Data Analyst that works with real-world numbers (I'm not a theoretician - I need to see effects to pass judgement on efficacy), I'm with Keith. We need to see these changes live before any real inferences can be made as to whether or not the changes will be sufficient. Until 5.9 drops and the changes go into effect, you're just screaming into the wind. No developer is going to make further changes without the hard data that can only be gathered once the current set of changes goes live.

 

And that's fine with regard to increasing points values. Waiting to see the effects of change is understandable. What is NOT understandable is why they are not answering questions that have nothing to do with this, like:

 

 

[*] What is the goal of the New Conquest?

(It is quite obvious to any of us who participated in the old conquest system that the goal was to encourage players to interact with and complete older content and have reasons to continue doing so while new content was being designed and implemented. It also provided a means for guilds to acquire the large amount of Flagship Encryptions that are required to unlock Guild Flagships. Both of these goals for Conquest were drastically impacted by the changes to the system that now result in neither of those goals being met. WHY?).

 

 

[*] Why, if the only problem you've identified as needing to be fixed was rewards going out, did you rework the entire system to fix that one problem? If there were other problems you wanted to address with the new system, what were they?

 

 

[*] Is it the intent of the developers that fewer alts be able to reach conquest goal? If so, how many is the target number per week?

 

 

Giving us feedback about their design goals helps us improve our feedback to them about all changes because we know where the ship is heading. Right now there is nothing but confusion and frustration, compounded by lack of communication from them about anything, much less the details and answers we want to know to benefit the feedback we give them.

 

His confusion is being met with our confusion because there is not enough communication and response to the feedback that they asked for themselves.

 

Add to this the impression that feedback was going to play a part in the changes "not being final" and subject to revision, and our side becomes more clear. As indicated by Eric in the original post for 5.9:

 

{SNIP}

 

As always, keep your feedback coming! We will continue to monitor the state of Conquests and make changes as needed. Thanks everyone.

 

-eric

 

Perhaps they meant keep the feedback coming and they will continue to monitor and make changes as needed AFTER 5.9. But they didn't say that. So what isn't more clear is their side of this process. Thus, we keep asking for that so that we are all on the same page.

 

.

Edited April 21, 2018 by PennyAnn

[Damask_Rose]

Without SH or planetary bonus, Warzones, to go back to that example, were worth 250 each. In Old Conquest, that was 80 matches with just the baseline point value and just the completion points to hit that 20,000 point goal.

 

I think that the lack of planetary bonus contributes to the perception that the proposed changes are too small. While it is great that after 5.9 each warzone will be proportionately close to what they were pre-5.8, the lack of planetary bonuses makes a huge difference. My first conquest guild was also a pvp guild. There wasn't a week that went by that we didn't target the planet that had the best pvp planetary bonus. That doubled or tripled the base value of each pvp match. So while at least some activities will be getting close to their pre-5.8 base values, they are still going to be a long way off from their pre-5.8 base + planetary bonus values.