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

[Akevv]

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-

 

You expect us to believe there's more participation? You intend to tell us the sky is pink I suppose as well? I've never read something so out of touch. If you're telling the truth, show us the data. You are telling us to believe you on faith. Our experiences aren't what you're saying, at all.

 

I can -SEE- on my own guild tab. I remove characters after 90 days inactive. I had nearly 700 players pre pub 5.8. The normal remove cycles have been 25 - 35 players. The last removal was 87. Next month, I've already got nearly 50 that have busted the limit. Its a blood bath. You say there's more participation. I call you to prove it. It isn't right to -lie- to people.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Akevv

[Akevv]

I'm just curious what it is you are using to measure "participation."

 

I wouldn't call someone playing a couple warzones or happening to kill 100 NPCs on a planet while they are leveling actual "participation" just because they get a few conquest points. To me, the only real accurate way to measure participation is how many characters are reaching their personal conquest goals. If there are more characters than before reaching their personal goal, then I misjudged these changes and am totally wrong in believing that the changes have been negative. If more characters are reaching their goal now, then there is no reason to pursue changes in 5.9 and beyond.

 

I can only speak for myself that I am less inclined to "participate" now even though I applaud (standing ovation even) the guild (yield) target change. In fact, in the past, when I wanted to "change things up a bit" I would turn to conquest with many characters. This week, I haven't even really done anything at all in the game on any character. Being limited to a particular character in conquest vs watching TV ... and TV has had the edge.

 

You're not wrong. There are FAR fewer characters reaching personal goals. Just from the reduced subscription numbers, there's been an impact. The post was pure hubris. Don't be a sucker. Your eyes aren't lying, the dev is. This is telling us what he wants to be true versus whats actually happening. I've reached personal conquest twice on two characters of 7 in the last four weeks. It is FAR more difficult to achieve the objectives. This week has been an outlier as there are -tons- of objectives that aren't hard to do. My guild, the Ascended has both Imperial and Republic branches. We've gotten the small yield reward -once- since 5.8. We were in the top 10 on both sides for a couple of months prior to 5.8. Pure hubris, and CYA going on here.

[BRKMSN]

You expect us to believe theres more participation? You intend to tell us the sky is pink I suppose as well? I've never read something so out of touch.

 

Honestly, I believe he chose the wrong word. What I would believe is more guilds are getting guild rewards (mainly because of the low yield planets).

 

But if he did mean it the way it sounds, then I have little hope that conquest will ever appeal to me again as a player.

[Akevv]

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.

 

Because a scroll bar for a list view is very, very difficult to implement, apparently. Some of the interface design decisions, are awful. It is literally a checkbox to recompile with a scroll bar for a list view. Apparently, beyond the current capabilities of the team, however.

 

I'm so pissed with this response. It is a misdirection to talk about back end reward system stuff as justification to trash the old system. It was -never mentioned- prior, and its not realistic to believe it now that made the changes necessary. Its a classic misdirection, not a very competent one at all.

 

I think I may just be through. I don't appreciate being pissed on and being told its raining. I had an inkling that things were going to get better. I was foolish.

[Nightblazer]

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.

 

I'm confused by this a bit so I apologize. Are you wanting them to display every single guild on the server as far as where they ranked or where just your guild ranked even if it wasn't in the too 10?

 

They said as long as you make the planet's conquest point objective you will still get rewards even if your not in the top 10. So for Small Yield planets with a goal of 200,000 points if 100 guilds hit the goal, all 100 guilds will get the rewards for small yield even if they are not in the top 10.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Nightblazer

[Exly]

So, I'm a bit confused.

I had already guessed that.

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.

Yes he did, but the changes that he outlined only seemed like a small step in the right direction.

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.

Ok.

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.

From what I have seen, a lot fewer characters are receiving rewards. You can measure results by how many guilds are if you want to, but that is not them measure that I am the most concerned with.

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-

Sure you will, and then you will do something soon™. The only thing is that your efforts are falling short. You need to greatly increase the point awards for completing conquest objectives so that they are comparable to what we had grown to accept prior to your taking a wrecking ball to the old system, and you need to remove the legacy restrictions on repeatable content.

 

Since you obviously have no intent to do either of these this, you will continue to be a failure at satisfying those of us that you offended with the changes brought about with patch 5.8.

 

No wonder you are confused, we don't want what you are selling, and you are always right, so how could you be anything but confused.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Exly

[Damask_Rose]

You expect us to believe there's more participation? You intend to tell us the sky is pink I suppose as well? I've never read something so out of touch. If you're telling the truth, show us the data. You are telling us to believe you on faith. Our experiences aren't what you're saying, at all.

 

I can -SEE- on my own guild tab. I remove characters after 90 days inactive. I had nearly 700 players pre pub 5.8. The normal remove cycles have been 25 - 35 players. The last removal was 87. Next month, I've already got nearly 50 that have busted the limit. Its a blood bath. You say there's more participation. I call you to prove it. It isn't right to -lie- to people.

 

I have a theory on that. I think this increased participation is in spikes when there are weeks with easy objectives rather than a sustained increase. Smallish guilds (not really small guilds) can now push to get encryptions on the easy weeks when they had no chance to place top 10 previously, so their members have much more incentive to dip their toes into conquest. The players in bigish guilds that are failing to meet the medium and large yield targets still count as participating even though their guild fails. Similarly, there must be more people in smallish guilds that are hitting their low yield targets than there are people in bigish guilds that are failing to reach theirs for the balance to be in favor of more people receiving rewards.

 

On a tangent, I think it would have been better if each planet were divided into the tiered yields. That way any guild that gets more than 200k points gets the small yield reward, but if they achieve enough points to get a medium or high yield reward, they get that instead. The current method discourages guilds from pushing for the bigger yields because it's an all or nothing scenario. Those smaller guilds aren't going to win top 10 either way, so there is no reason to punish guilds for being ambitious and failing.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Damask_Rose

[olagatonjedi]

read the long paragraph I wrote with questions involving alts, please.

This game has always been incredibly alt friendly. Why are they suddenly problems with 5.0 (backtracked because of the outroar) and now with 5.8.

 

It seems strange that after 5 years alts are suddenly bad to me.

I dont think these devs were here 5 yrs ago

[KendraP]

I dont think these devs were here 5 yrs ago

 

and the relevance is? the game still has 8 stories to explore, legacy building, etc all of which are alt based activities. They were most certainly here pre-4.0 for the DvL event which was a HUGE alt encourager, followed promptly by an alt killer.

[olagatonjedi]

You expect us to believe there's more participation? You intend to tell us the sky is pink I suppose as well? I've never read something so out of touch. If you're telling the truth, show us the data. You are telling us to believe you on faith. Our experiences aren't what you're saying, at all.

 

I can -SEE- on my own guild tab. I remove characters after 90 days inactive. I had nearly 700 players pre pub 5.8. The normal remove cycles have been 25 - 35 players. The last removal was 87. Next month, I've already got nearly 50 that have busted the limit. Its a blood bath. You say there's more participation. I call you to prove it. It isn't right to -lie- to people.

Lol, someone with ALL the data tells you something and you say they dont have a clue......

[olagatonjedi]

and the relevance is? the game still has 8 stories to explore, legacy building, etc all of which are alt based activities. They were most certainly here pre-4.0 for the DvL event which was a HUGE alt encourager, followed promptly by an alt killer.

Im not sure about you, but i can still log into my alts, AND i can still do complete conquest on my main toon. Not quite sure what you mean by alt killer.....

[Lyriel]

I'm just curious what it is you are using to measure "participation."

 

That's my question, too. I mean, I did some Rakghoul event stuff this week because the Agent alt I'm currently working on needed to collect some stuff for her old pal Eckard and so was in the tunnels anyway. Does that count regardless of intent (or lack thereof)? Does it count if your guild invades a planet but doesn't make the number required for rewards and no one participates? Does one person in a guild making their personal goal on a single characater mean the entire guild is counted as participating? Does it count if you do a single PvP match or GF FP (or anything at all that happens to be an objective)?

 

How, exactly, are you measuring participation?

 

As for more guilds getting rewards, I find that very difficult to believe. For example, Total Galactic War had 12 planets available in the old system. That meant 120 guilds per server getting rewards. I'm not going to take your word for it that 120 made it in the new system's version of that without actual evidence. Sorry, but BioWare has long since lost the credibility required for me to extend you the benefit of the doubt.

[MacCleoud]

Here is what I plan on doing in 5.9.

 

Day 1

 

Main - kill 50/100/150 + 5 PVP games

Alt 1 - 5 pvp games

alt 2 - 5 pvp games

alt 3 - 5 pvp games

Then see what i have left

 

Day 2

alt 1 kill 50/100/150 + 5 pvp games

main 5 pvp games

alt 2 5 pvp games

alt 3 5 pvp games

then see what i have left

 

Day 3

Alt 2 kill 50/100/150 + 5 pvp games

main 5 pvp games

alt 1 5 pvp games

alt 3 5 pvp games

 

day 4

Alt 3 kill 50/100/150 + 5 pvp games

main 5 pvp games

alt 1 5 pvp games

alt 3 5 pvp games

 

I have 150% SH bonus. This leaves the one time objectives open for other alts or to make up points on the weekend if I can't get in the 20 PvP games per day that i need to. That i just about what I did in the old conquest. I need to plan it a little better than before, but still just about the same.

 

This is assuming the 50/100/150 is a rampage not a killing fields objective as well.

 

From the FP side....it isn't close to what it used to be, but I am sure they will look at that as they continue to work on it.

[Calar]

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-

 

Just give us the numbers.

Feelled, your statements are wrong.

 

If I look into this forum and compare it with what I see and experience in my small area, it covers what the players say here in the forum. It's not the same as what you say.

 

I'm the leader of a small guild on Tulak Hord. On weekdays we have an average of 5 to 6 people playing in the evenings. On weekends we also crack the 10 players. The whole thing is divided into about 20 accounts. We've always made the top 10. Meanwhile, it looks like we're trying to earn guild points, and that's it. And after that, little or nothing is done. Why? Everyone in the guild is angry and frustrated because they have to do things they don't want the guild to score points. Even with a better reward on the middle and big planets, we wouldn't be in trouble because we would have to do far too many things for these goals that we don't like.

In the past it would and was also possible for us to aim for 1st place at the construction events. It's impossible now. And NO it was never just a simple click and log through. Somewhere the Mats or the credits for the Mats have to come from. And this was done in the weeks (partly months) before. But then we were able to keep up with the big guilds and almost always defeat them. And it felt good. And now? 200,000 points, Big Guild has 5 times our points. Okay, so that's it for us with Conquest Week.

But I have already read that here several times in the forum...

 

Give us the numbers!

Turn the Top 10 list into a list of all guilds that score points on a planet. Then we'll see live and in color how the conquest is going.

From what I see and hear in the game every day, your statement is simply not true.

 

And most importantly. Just give us the information how up to date which conquest event looks like. What are how many points for? How often is it repeatable. etc. Publish it here in the forum.

You get feedback from the people and the people know what to expect. And the most important thing is the feeling that you want to bring the game forward together with us players. At the moment, the feeling is more like "eat or die".

[vadyy]

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.

 

 

Wait?!?! are you a bioware game developer? how do you know what was the causing of their proplems? If my understanding is correct it could have been a proplem with the coding itself.. there for if they had to change the coding they might have to change the whole system! Pesonally I like the new system! On my server there are tones of guilds hitting their goals, so I don't know which server your on but I can see where their coming from. Sit tight and let them get to work, barrading them with doom and gloom doesn't help

[peter_plankskull]

Wait?!?! are you a bioware game developer? how do you know what was the causing of their proplems? If my understanding is correct it could have been a proplem with the coding itself.. there for if they had to change the coding they might have to change the whole system! Pesonally I like the new system! On my server there are tones of guilds hitting their goals, so I don't know which server your on but I can see where their coming from. Sit tight and let them get to work, barrading them with doom and gloom doesn't help

 

Which server?

 

On satale shan only a single guild in the large yield has completed their goal, followed by the top three in medium yield, and ill say a hefty amount of guilds have completed small yield. Not to mention the top medium and small yield guilds have more points than the large. Next top person in high yield is 300k points away, followed by 50k and then 150k in medium yield. This conquest system is broken and borked so hard that I wouldn't mind the previous system, and I disliked it quite a bit.

Edited April 21, 2018 by peter_plankskull

[ShadowGovernator]

SNIP

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. SNIP

 

--Keith-

 

The old conquest system needed a little bit of tweaking at best - if your Engineering people cannot manage that, then they are not professionals.

 

If you really care about not wanting to waste our time why would you introduce a time sink the size of the Titanic in your new Conquest system? Or waste our time by not just rolling it back the moment you knew it was broken?

Here we are waisting our time still not playing conquest because of you.

 

Every time I have contacted customers-service in the past pre 5.8 conquest wise;

They have not been able to help me - just stating through a standard letter bot, that they don't have access to that system to adjust scores etc.

So there must have been very very little drain on their customer-service resources sending out a standard letter.

 

Sending out missing conquest rewards;

This happened not by in-game mail from customer-service, but automatically after maintenance or after a game update.

The missing conquest rewards just popped.

 

So I cannot see how customer-service had anything to do with the new broken conquest system being implemented.

I don't blame them - I blame you.

 

Roll it back to the pre 5.8 version.

Stop messing with it - so far your refusal to roll it back has cost 80 guild members to quit the game in my guild alone.

 

Try monitoring the popping-rate of ques dropping off the cliff until it reaches ZERO - but then it's too late as your game is already dead.

[NHBabe]

Wait?!?! are you a bioware game developer? how do you know what was the causing of their proplems? If my understanding is correct it could have been a proplem with the coding itself.. there for if they had to change the coding they might have to change the whole system! Pesonally I like the new system! On my server there are tones of guilds hitting their goals, so I don't know which server your on but I can see where their coming from. Sit tight and let them get to work, barrading them with doom and gloom doesn't help

 

The issue of BW handing out the rewards on Tuesday's was an intermittent problem that started over a year ago. It normally only happened on the days that the servers were being maintenanced or an update was coming out - which happened to coincide with the rewards being delivered. This didn't happen EVERY TIME, but happened a few times. Those that were affected needed to have CS force those rewards through. The personal conquest rewards had no issue being delivered 99% of the time, but the ending Guild Rewards and Titles started to see problems with the automatic delivery.

 

All of a sudden mid - to - late summer and into the fall of last year it started happening ALL THE TIME. But again it wasn't a persons personal conquest reward that wasn't being delivered, it was the ending Guild Reward and Titles. If it was the conquest objectives that were breaking the reward system than it wouldn't have just affected the ending result - Guild rewards and titles - it would've also affected all the players receiving their personal conquest rewards when their character met the limit (which as I've stated wasn't an issue 99% of the time).

 

Now, in regards to your question my answer is: common sense tells me it had NOTHING to do with the objectives in the conquest activity AT ALL but their back-end sending out those rewards. Otherwise, this issue would've been happening the whole time that conquest system was in place - and it hadn't been. Not only that, but we, the players, could see exactly who the guilds were that won each planet on each server, who made the top 10 for each planet on each server, and those within those guilds could easily see who made their personal goals. Logic tells us that if we can see this information, so can BW, and again it had NOTHING to do with those people completing the actual objectives the conquest week laid out. It had to do with BW handing out those rewards automatically.

 

That is what was broken - the automatic rewarding of the items and titles to the individuals within the guilds that won them.

 

To try to tell any of us that the reward handling issues had anything to do with the conquest objectives themselves for a given week is, IMO, weak and manipulative and them using an excuse to completely break a system that wasn't broken, instead of just tweaking it, and avoiding fixing the actual problem they were having - handing out automatic rewards.

[AdrianDmitruk]

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-

 

I do believe that part of the confusion might originate from the fact that Eric's last posted update about further changes coming in 5.9 spawned another 600+ post feedback megathread. Many of us were wondering whether there is any point in continuing to provide feedback, in the hopes of expediting repairs to conquest to make our alts relevant again. Because of the large volume of feedback saying the planned 5.9 update would not be sufficient, some of us wondered if any of the feedback concerning 5.9 plans could still actually be considered/implemented in 5.9.

 

For some of us, the population for group content feels like it is declining faster than the game can sustain at the current development schedule. After this experience trying to get the character I needed conquest on into GF ops, for example, I felt pretty dispirited. While there is some vague acknowledgment that the current implementation of conquest is alt-unfriendly, I still see nothing in the planned 5.9 changes that would address role flexibility so I could switch to the needed role to run ops without slitting myself in the throat as far as reaching my personal conquest goals is concerned. The only realistic solution I see in the near to medium term is to limit my play to my guardian (so I can tank or DPS if needed...though I hardly ever tank), or my scoundrel healers (so I can heal or DPS).

 

Note that any character that cannot dual role (AND be viable in both roles) is severely limited for conquest purposes in the current system. Note that "be viable in both roles" excludes PT tanking, might soon exclude sin tanking (don't have a 70 sin anyway), sage DPS, and to a lesser extent, merc DPS. Granted, that's a class balance issue, but class balance is interacting with New Conquest here in what could best be described as a prescription drug interaction/conflict gone horribly wrong. I would be reduced to trying to limit my play to jack-of-all-trades characters to maximize my chance of getting into a dwindling supply of operations, because switching to another character for role reasons would perma-screw the character I had been trying to play under the more punishing legacy lockout system.

 

As far as the "participation in conquest is up!" claim, there is precisely ONE measurement where I could see this happening:

 

Guild conquest goals met, expressed as a percentage of total guilds

 

because all the guilds go after the small yield, and we players can't see the tail end. But I expect that the metrics will soon be measuring a rapidly declining population, if they haven't already. As for myself, I haven't found the motivation to log into the game and play in about nine days.

 

Other metrics to consider:

 

-Total active population?

-Total hours played?

-Total hours spent playing group content, such as ops, FPs, pvp, things that are generally reliant upon healthy population?

-Percentage of people completing their personal targets?

-Of those that do reach personal targets, how many characters are they able to do it on? (I wouldn't be surprised if fewer encryptions are awarded, even if more guilds reach the 200k goal, simply because each individual guild member will probably be earning far fewer encryptions on far fewer toons than from before 5.8.)

 

Above all, compare these metrics to before 5.8, and consider absolute numbers in addition to percentages, because percentages can be heavily skewed by a declining population.

 

TL: DR: I sense some dev frustration in the dev post. Why won't the ungrateful plebes accept that changes are coming Soon?™ Players are frustrated too, at the lack of a sense of urgency on the part of the devs to fix what they broke (deploying Eric's list of 5.9 changes into a 5.8b patch the next maintenance after he posted them would have been reasonable), and a failure to be sensitive to rapidly declining populations. There might not be anyone left to play the game if conquest is fixed at the same speed that galactic command was addressed.

Edited April 21, 2018 by AdrianDmitruk

[Master_Morak]

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.

--Keith-

 

Thats a joke, Keith.

 

In the old System each planet has 10 guilds which recieve rewards - in the new System we have only 3 planets each week. The great yield is beaten by 1or 2 guilds, the medium yield is beaten by 2 or 3 guilds.

 

Every Player I talked in my guild, in befriended guilds or in rnd Groups stated the same, the new System is bad and less Players of their guild are partizipating.

 

I wonder were you take your numbers to say there were a higher partizipation.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Master_Morak

[omaan]

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---

 

Well i hope so but i have my doubts because most of my games in tr/sr/regs are wins but still by the end of the week i had somewhere near 11-12 k conquest which was pretty strange since i played pvp every day i came after work, and had like 20 matches per day... something tells me that the issue isn't in participation problem

[Master_Morak]

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.

 

You replace a fine working system with a bugged and broken System while your super developers are not able to fix a Problem with the delivery of the conquest rewards (should I laugh or cry?) and then you are confused that your customers don't want to wait a whole month for fixing it.

 

In which world are you living?

 

If our IT Department would bring something live like you with the new conquest system, the responsible project manager would get fire from our Management until it is fixed in hours or days.

 

It is not acceaptable that a adjustment of reward Points would take weeks to implement and deliver, there is something wrong in your whole development process.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Master_Morak

[Lhancelot]

Keith, one big concern it seems besides the numbers for conquest gained being far too low is the mechanism in the new conquest that punishes people if they play alts.

 

With these restrictions, players are pigeonholed into having to push conquest on one character.

 

This removes the players options of playing other characters.

 

Example: When a healer is needed for an OPs, but everyone is working conquest on their DPS/tanks, no one is willing to switch to their healer due to them needing the points on their dps/tanks.

 

The question many people have is how are you guys gauging participation in conquest?

 

The majority of players that focus their gameplay around conquest seem to feel that they have lost guild mates due to conquest being changed. It seems overall conquest participation has taken a huge hit.

 

 

 

TL;DR

 

-Keith, please address the problem of alts being punished if played, players have provided tons of feedback explaining how and why this is bad.

 

-Keith, how are you guys getting numbers that show more people are participating in conquest? This statement you made has people really baffled because judging by the eye-test, this is not what we as the players are seeing.

[Ghost_Spectre]

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.

 

Are you still planning on nerfing the tank disciplines based on erroneous data from the combined Skank & pure Tank's damage output? Which you and I both know allowing the damage output from the Skank Tanks skewed the damage output. For years the tank's average damage output is between 2.5k to 3k DPS and some how that is an issue.

 

Meanwhile, your changes in the tank discipline do not address the issue of the Skank tanks. These nerfs, especially for the PT/VG, will more than likely put them to replace all their mods with DPS mods further exacerbating the Skank tank issue. What then will you do about that? Just 'monitor' and let things go for 6 months or more before a massive nerf hammer comes crashing down...again?

 

This is what I, as a player that mains a pure tank (all disciplines) want to know. I'm sure my fellow pure tank players would like to hear exactly what you have to say about this issue.

[NHBabe]

Posted this in the other thread but in case Keith decides to read this thread again, maybe he'll provide an answer? Yeah, I know.... not likely.

 

Vulkk: When can we expect the conquest system to be friendly for alts?

 

Musco: Honestly? I think it will be pretty close by the end of 5.9. When 5.9 goes out the door, I think, we'll be pretty close. Because the one thing that, to be perfectly honest, there were some things about the old conquest that were unintended and / or exploitable, that we need to be cautious of, right? So, I know there was a lot of easy ways for people to get points. War supplies and crafting was amazing. We want crafting to be good, but not the sole thing that you do, entirely. And we know people doing lockout trading for quick and easy points for operations. We want you to get points from the operation by playing the operation, not by doing things that are clearly not intended.

 

What truly amazes me is that Eric, and the rest of the team, believe that the OP lock-out will stop, or has been stopped. It hasn't. In fact it helps larger guilds while punishing smaller-medium and smaller guilds completely.

 

Just an example: Large guild does an OP run in the morning hours and at the last boss someone drops. Another member enters and they complete that run. Later on there are 50-60 guild members online. The person that dropped that morning gets 7 people into the last boss, drops, and a person replaces them. They then start another OP last boss run, drop, and someone replaces them. When they are then down to the last few people that need the run, the person that dropped stays in the OP and finishes the last boss run.

 

Now the Larger guild is able to have more members complete the Operation and in a much quicker time period as the majority only have to fight the last boss and are able to move onto other Conquest Objectives and complete those as well. Binding behind legacy isn't hurting the Larger guilds whatsoever. Sure, they are in the same position as the rest of the guilds that they can't do these things on their Alts, but the fact that they just have, in general, more members will always keep them a step ahead and continue to use what Eric has now, all of sudden and out of the blue, decided was an "exploit". If it was truly an "EXPLOIT" then they would've done something to the Operations to not allow someone to drop and the Operation to then be completed by a member with a different legacy name. Or hey, why not just REMOVE Operations from the Conquests completely????

 

To claim something now, after years, as "not intended" or an "exploit" is just incredibly insulting.

 

Smaller-medium or small guilds themselves??? They had to rely on Alts as they didn't have that many members either online at the same time, or in general in the guild. They may have, at most, 20-30 members on throughout the day. That forces these guilds to do the full Operation, which can take hours, leaving them less time to work on the other Conquest Objectives.

 

So Eric and team, what will you do to stop the Larger Guilds from being able to still use this "not intended" and "exploit" going forward? My guess; nothing. You'll do nothing.