Maintenance: May 10th, 2018

[mrwayn]

Sure the tooltip says daily/legacy and repeatable. I know this and that is why I think it's a bug. Pre-5.9 it was obviously a bug as it was wholly inconsistent. Sometimes they reset, sometimes they didn't (for me anyway). Now it's always, and a simple relog resets the most effective means of repeatable conquest gathering. Bug or no? It's a simple yes or no question that only they have the answer to.

 

Tinfoil hat moment- maybe they're not acknowledging it because, if it is a bug, and they patch it tomorrow, a lot of people are going to be unhappy again...

 

The issue is a lack of communication here- what is a bug and what is intended and why can they not answer a yes or no question that impacts basic decisions I make for my guild.

 

I guess you have your answer. Yes, it was a bug. Yes, they'll fix it.

Goodbye easy conquest, hello grind... I guess? Yeay...

[BlueShiftRecall]

Maybe (HOPEFULLY!) this will also fix the Theron-Problem in Chapter XI

 

I hope so.

[KendraP]

I guess you have your answer. Yes, it was a bug. Yes, they'll fix it.

Goodbye easy conquest, hello grind... I guess? Yeay...

 

Yeah in a nutshell it's going to suck again. Here I thought there was an odd chance they had understood the complaints. So much for new hopes.

[AlainaFlute]

Well, all I can say is I'm done with conquest. Thanks for ruining a good thing. Nobody wants this once per legacy, per day garbage. And ya'll just won't listen. Screw you guys, I'm gonna Netflix and chill. Thnx for not listening to us

[AscendingSky]

Yeah in a nutshell it's going to suck again. Here I thought there was an odd chance they had understood the complaints. So much for new hopes.

 

The only thing that makes EA listen to and understand complaints are a bunch of people unsubscribing and spending less cash on the Cartel Market. Money is all they care about. Losing sub and CM revenue is what it took for Galactic Conquest to be dialed back from it's original total dumpster fire state. Even then they didn't make it good, just somewhat less awful.

 

RIP to the last remaining dregs of conquest participation, to say nothing of players and guilds actually being able to reach their weekly points cap. Fun is not allowed in TOR, only tedious grind. It's like Keith wants this game to fail.

Edited May 9, 2018 by AscendingSky

[aerockyul]

The only thing that makes EA listen to and understand complaints are a bunch of people unsubscribing and spending less cash on the Cartel Market. Money is all they care about. Losing sub and CM revenue is what it took for Galactic Conquest to be dialed back from it's original total dumpster fire state. Even then they didn't make it good, just somewhat less awful.

 

RIP to the last remaining dregs of conquest participation, to say nothing of players and guilds actually being able to reach their weekly points cap. It's like Keith wants this game to fail.

 

I realize how data can be skewed, but what's going on in-game doesn't jive with what a lot of angry forum posters are "seeing" on an anecdotal basis, when Bioware has all of the empirical data. According to their metrics, the changes have been a success because overall participation is up and more guilds are earning rewards than ever before (sorry to the 5% of guilds who had a monopoly on the rewards for the existence of conquest up until the new changes, maybe you're seeing more competition, but that was sort of majorly a big point that Keith brought up a long time ago).

 

I do wish they'd lock out guilds of certain sizes from the lower tiers. It's ridiculous to see the slumming giant guilds take small-yield planets and only a few of them go after their proper tiers. One of their stated goals was for smaller guilds to have a way to earn conquest titles/chievos and that goal has failed spectacularly. It's the same giant 5% of all guilds that are dominating the top spots.

[Rocketmanballs]

By taking away the slayer grinds, you idiots just killed conquest for me. My sub just ended today so you take this game and shove it in your butt. I will never play another EA product again. Not even your may 31st sub rewards of the reskilled astromech droid and S H I T looking speeder can make me spend another $15.00. Edited May 9, 2018 by Rocketmanballs
left something out

[IshtarScorpio]

Wow...just wow.

 

The only thing I can assume at this point is that 1) the devs don't actually play this game. If they do, 2) they have never conquested in a guild.

 

You can't offer points for doing heroics and let someone do ONE HEROIC per day for your entire legacy. If a planet had eight heroics, let us run all eight. Tie the conquest points to completing the daily for the planet and up the points.

 

I hope everyone likes grinding out PvP and flashpoints, because that's the only way to get those points.

 

Are you guys actively trying to kill this game?

[KendraP]

I realize how data can be skewed, but what's going on in-game doesn't jive with what a lot of angry forum posters are "seeing" on an anecdotal basis, when Bioware has all of the empirical data. According to their metrics, the changes have been a success because overall participation is up and more guilds are earning rewards than ever before (sorry to the 5% of guilds who had a monopoly on the rewards for the existence of conquest up until the new changes, maybe you're seeing more competition, but that was sort of majorly a big point that Keith brought up a long time ago).

 

I do wish they'd lock out guilds of certain sizes from the lower tiers. It's ridiculous to see the slumming giant guilds take small-yield planets and only a few of them go after their proper tiers. One of their stated goals was for smaller guilds to have a way to earn conquest titles/chievos and that goal has failed spectacularly. It's the same giant 5% of all guilds that are dominating the top spots.

 

Ok let's talk empirical evidence. It takes far longer to find a group for ops since the changes and pvp pops take longer as well. And I'm queuing with friends.

 

I couldnt give a flying crap about more competition or getting on the board. I just want the encryptions.

Edited May 9, 2018 by KendraP

[TUXs]

Are you guys actively trying to kill this game?

The sad thing is...this is the ONLY way any of this makes sense to me...they're punishing people for playing too much of their game...I simply can't fathom that...the obvious outcome is people playing other games, which hurts this game...

[Rocketmanballs]

The ONLY thing EA/bioware cares about is money so STOP GIVING THEM MONEY. My sub ended today. Do what I did ... don't resub. Spending my $15 on ESO or something. This game is done. Edited May 9, 2018 by Rocketmanballs
left something out

[Dougcraine]

Well this just made me finally decide that the ridiculousness of forcing us to only play one toon for conquest since many of the repeatable are legacy wide. So they are forcing us to only play one toon per day. I dislike PVP and the flashpoints grind for the points is not viable to people who actually have a work/family life. Time for me to go back and play WOW and let my sub run out and not renew it. Bioware you have been killing this game and lack of quality content on a regular basis and changes to force you to play only one character per day.

[Thaladan]

during a public holiday in EU, the Ascension Day for our lord... and during the afternoon.

 

another good decision BW

Edited May 9, 2018 by Thaladan

[Zerileth]

WHY do people think the developers are idiots? They totally know what they're doing. Keith knows what's wrong with Conquest. They don't need 6 months to analyze the data and tweak the dang thing. When does BW tweak anything?

 

This is deliberate. EA has something in store for SWTOR and it isn't in our interest.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Zerileth

[Marasai]

So, I guess this shows that the feedback thread in regards to the conquest changes they posted was utterly pointless. No one listened at all. If I had known that those behind the scenes cared so little about the only aspect of the game that was keeping me here, I would have cancelled my sub before it renewed last week.

 

I mean, cool, you added a few more objectives. You upped the points rewarded slightly. How nice. Yet you only want us playing one character in conquest. Yeah, no, that doesn't work for me. I liked playing all of my toons, tyvm. If a majority of the objectives listed on the conquest tab are restricted to once per day per legacy then I'll just take my money to a game that wants and encourages it's player base to play and have fun. Grinding crap once per day on one toon isn't fun imo.

[aerockyul]

Ok let's talk empirical evidence. It takes far longer to find a group for ops since the changes and pvp pops take longer as well. And I'm queuing with friends.

 

I couldnt give a flying crap about more competition or getting on the board. I just want the encryptions.

 

Your personal experience and a few friends =/= empirical evidence. It's actually the very definition of anecdotal. Unless you are friends with the entire population on not only yours, but all the other servers.

 

I don't disagree with your point about slower pops--that doesn't actually signal the game is dying if those same people that used to queue are just doing other things in-game--and it doesn't matter what YOU get out of conquest on a personal basis. My point was that Bioware/EA might actually be happy about what's going on due to their empirical metrics that show the opposite of what the sky-is-falling folks are posting here in the forums.

 

I DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE THE CHANGES--but I'm just saying the few people that want to burn down Bioware Austin do not have the actual data on their side that Keith and Co. are going to use to make any further changes, if any.

[Rocketmanballs]

WHY do people think the developers are idiots? They totally know what they're doing. Keith knows what's wrong with Conquest. They don't need 6 months to analyze the data and tweak the dang thing. When does BW tweak anything?

 

This is deliberate. EA has something in store for SWTOR and it isn't in our interest.

 

Seriously? Are you being paid by EA?

[IshtarScorpio]

the few people that want to burn down Bioware Austin do not have the actual data on their side that Keith and Co. are going to use to make any further changes, if any.

 

Wouldn't it be great if they published their data and had transparency with regards to their goals and what they are trying to do.

 

Rules matter, and when you change the rules you change behavior. Every change made creates changes in the player base, intended and UNINTENDED. The problem is that I think they really don't sit down and think about what x change will do because they either don't care or don't know because they don't actually conquest.

 

Here's a thought, why not get some top conquesters out there and ask them what they would like to see done.

 

Sorry, made myself laugh...if they seriously cared about this game they would survey the player base, including the thousands that left, and see what changes they could make to have the game be better.

Edited May 9, 2018 by IshtarScorpio

[UnclePiggy]

Seriously? Are you being paid by EA?

 

I think you may need to re-read what he wrote if you think that was a defense of EA

[IshtarScorpio]

You know it's a good sign when there is a change and all your guildies are talking to each other about what games are good to play instead.

[Shadran]

Ok, I usually don't post on the forums, but I have to chime in here: I do not like to harp on BW or the game too much because I do very much enjoy the game. That being said, I REALLY loved doing conquest. I have 36 toons, and on a good week I could get MAYYYYYYYBE 10-12 to hit their conquest goal. That's 1/3 of my characters. Granted, they were all in the guild I had started with my RL buddies, so it was really just us grinding away trying to place in the top 10 so we could get encryptions to unlock our guild ship. I get BW not wanting larger guilds rotating characters as such and running up their score, but I don't believe these changes will really show any reflection of these super guilds losing their stranglehold on the conquest leaderboards.

 

When I first heard that now you merely need to meet a certain threshold with your guild to get the encryptions, I thought GREAT, this means we can unlock our guildship, but the glaring problem is clearly the repeatable conquest objectives. Nerfing the points is fine, limiting the amount of times you can do something daily on a toon is fine, doing BOTH is crippling to smaller guilds in my opinion. I personally have seen no changes in the larger guilds having a presence in the leaderboards, because quite simply, they have the numbers to continually be in the top and produce points to compete. For smaller guilds, the limitations implemented make it that much harder for them to at the very least meet the threshold. Especially for smaller guilds like mine, where it's me and my buds.

 

I would ask that BW reassess this and what exactly they are trying to accomplish by doing this. If you are going to limit how many times a toon can do something a day, then at the very least increase the point payout, or vice versa, keep points for objectives low but let us do them repeatedly. I know with repeatable objectives I am more likely to log on and remain logged in for much longer than logging on and doing what I'm limited to do on ONE character.

 

I agree with the sentiments of a lot of others in this thread when I say this is not a good move, and it is counter productive to letting players enjoy the game as they would like to: By doing their own thing at their own pace, be it grinding for hours and hopping alts, or doing a little bit a day on their main character.

 

Introducing a threshold requirement was great, and there as aspects of this conquest revamp I really enjoy and agree with, but I do believe points and repeatable objectives (like heroics....only 1 a day per legacy? That's silly) really need to be assessed again for the players who do like to play heroics or flashpoints, but not ops so much. The crazy thing is this system isn't too far off from being REALLY good, but as it currently stands, it's fundamentally flawed for much smaller guilds, which I thought the intent was to keep them in mind.

 

Sorry for the wall of text, but I really had to chime in and get this off my chest, I loved doing conquest and was so excited for the introduction of a threshold to make guild conquest goal, but these changes aren't quite what I feel where they need to be to make conquest fun.

[Sareeph]

I realize how data can be skewed, but what's going on in-game doesn't jive with what a lot of angry forum posters are "seeing" on an anecdotal basis, when Bioware has all of the empirical data. According to their metrics, the changes have been a success because overall participation is up and more guilds are earning rewards than ever before (sorry to the 5% of guilds who had a monopoly on the rewards for the existence of conquest up until the new changes, maybe you're seeing more competition, but that was sort of majorly a big point that Keith brought up a long time ago).

 

I do wish they'd lock out guilds of certain sizes from the lower tiers. It's ridiculous to see the slumming giant guilds take small-yield planets and only a few of them go after their proper tiers. One of their stated goals was for smaller guilds to have a way to earn conquest titles/chievos and that goal has failed spectacularly. It's the same giant 5% of all guilds that are dominating the top spots.

 

Unless the devs make it so that all planets have 3 yield sizes, you will continue to see the slumming giants go after small yield planets to get achievements for particular planets. Not all guilds select planets based off of size or reward yields.

[AscendingSky]

I realize how data can be skewed, but what's going on in-game doesn't jive with what a lot of angry forum posters are "seeing" on an anecdotal basis, when Bioware has all of the empirical data. According to their metrics, the changes have been a success because overall participation is up and more guilds are earning rewards than ever before (sorry to the 5% of guilds who had a monopoly on the rewards for the existence of conquest up until the new changes, maybe you're seeing more competition, but that was sort of majorly a big point that Keith brought up a long time ago).

 

I do wish they'd lock out guilds of certain sizes from the lower tiers. It's ridiculous to see the slumming giant guilds take small-yield planets and only a few of them go after their proper tiers. One of their stated goals was for smaller guilds to have a way to earn conquest titles/chievos and that goal has failed spectacularly. It's the same giant 5% of all guilds that are dominating the top spots.

 

Just because EA claims participation is up doesn't make it true. We don't know what their mythical metrics actually look like. We don't even know how they define 'participation'. It could mean anything. That makes EA's claims unverifiable and therefore unreliable. EA has also lied to the player base of this game multiple times in the past, changed their mind on what they were going to do with the game without warning, and failed to disclose changes they were going to make to the game in patch notes and otherwise.

 

Stop buying all corporate spin without question. You're basically accusing everyone who posts about how they have fewer pops, fewer toons able to reach their goal, guilds dying off as people quit, etc. of lying about their experiences, based solely on a single comment made by a dev who barely communicates with us. That's fairly insulting.

Edited May 9, 2018 by AscendingSky

[KendraP]

Your personal experience and a few friends =/= empirical evidence. It's actually the very definition of anecdotal. Unless you are friends with the entire population on not only yours, but all the other servers.

 

I don't disagree with your point about slower pops--that doesn't actually signal the game is dying if those same people that used to queue are just doing other things in-game--and it doesn't matter what YOU get out of conquest on a personal basis. My point was that Bioware/EA might actually be happy about what's going on due to their empirical metrics that show the opposite of what the sky-is-falling folks are posting here in the forums.

 

I DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE THE CHANGES--but I'm just saying the few people that want to burn down Bioware Austin do not have the actual data on their side that Keith and Co. are going to use to make any further changes, if any.

 

The very definition of empirical is based on experiment or observation. I am basing my opinion on my experience and observation rather than any theory or hard data because I don't have any. And because in general I believe that experience trumps any theory.

 

And where have I said the game is dying? In fact I've said swtor will be around as long as it's the only star wars mmo. It lives on the IP.

 

As far as data, they can come on here and say anything, how is the data collected? How are they computing participation? I'd love to see numbers but at this point their data is just as ambiguous as my experience.

Edited May 9, 2018 by KendraP

[Joonbeams]

Ok, I usually don't post on the forums, but I have to chime in here: I do not like to harp on BW or the game too much because I do very much enjoy the game. That being said, I REALLY loved doing conquest. I have 36 toons, and on a good week I could get MAYYYYYYYBE 10-12 to hit their conquest goal. That's 1/3 of my characters. Granted, they were all in the guild I had started with my RL buddies, so it was really just us grinding away trying to place in the top 10 so we could get encryptions to unlock our guild ship. I get BW not wanting larger guilds rotating characters as such and running up their score, but I don't believe these changes will really show any reflection of these super guilds losing their stranglehold on the conquest leaderboards.

 

When I first heard that now you merely need to meet a certain threshold with your guild to get the encryptions, I thought GREAT, this means we can unlock our guildship, but the glaring problem is clearly the repeatable conquest objectives. Nerfing the points is fine, limiting the amount of times you can do something daily on a toon is fine, doing BOTH is crippling to smaller guilds in my opinion. I personally have seen no changes in the larger guilds having a presence in the leaderboards, because quite simply, they have the numbers to continually be in the top and produce points to compete. For smaller guilds, the limitations implemented make it that much harder for them to at the very least meet the threshold. Especially for smaller guilds like mine, where it's me and my buds.

 

I would ask that BW reassess this and what exactly they are trying to accomplish by doing this. If you are going to limit how many times a toon can do something a day, then at the very least increase the point payout, or vice versa, keep points for objectives low but let us do them repeatedly. I know with repeatable objectives I am more likely to log on and remain logged in for much longer than logging on and doing what I'm limited to do on ONE character.

 

I agree with the sentiments of a lot of others in this thread when I say this is not a good move, and it is counter productive to letting players enjoy the game as they would like to: By doing their own thing at their own pace, be it grinding for hours and hopping alts, or doing a little bit a day on their main character.

 

Introducing a threshold requirement was great, and there as aspects of this conquest revamp I really enjoy and agree with, but I do believe points and repeatable objectives (like heroics....only 1 a day per legacy? That's silly) really need to be assessed again for the players who do like to play heroics or flashpoints, but not ops so much. The crazy thing is this system isn't too far off from being REALLY good, but as it currently stands, it's fundamentally flawed for much smaller guilds, which I thought the intent was to keep them in mind.

 

Sorry for the wall of text, but I really had to chime in and get this off my chest, I loved doing conquest and was so excited for the introduction of a threshold to make guild conquest goal, but these changes aren't quite what I feel where they need to be to make conquest fun.

 

Very well said. Nothing further to add to your points.

 

Sadly, many have made these same points - many offering the same form of dispassionate, constructive feedback as you have. And typically coming from the viewpoint of loving the game and wanting to play it even more. It was all cast aside. Simply put, BW will do what it's going to do regardless - you will either have to take it or leave. Don't expect any bi-directional engagement or explanations from the studio. Don't expect anything other than cryptic "we have data and you don't" messages. On the rare chances, something like that happens - enjoy it as a pleasant surprise. It's beyond frustrating at first. But once you come to grips with this reality, it becomes much easier to just enjoy the game for what it is -- for me, still a fun game worth subbing for -- and not what it could or should be...