5.9.2: Conquest Objectives will no longer grant repeat completion when changing zones

[TUXs]

Personal Conquest cap of 15k should imo take roughly 20h of playtime for casual player... that would be fair.

20 hours? Oh hell no. Personal conquest should be reachable in 2-3 hours...sure as hell not 20 per character. That's freaking crazy.

[Stellarcrusade]

Personal Conquest cap of 15k should imo take roughly 20h of playtime for casual player... that would be fair.

 

I think he typo'd I think he meant 2h. The only other explanation would be that he is one of the game designers because that is the only group of people that are totally and utterly out of touch with what players want.

[KendraP]

20 hours? Oh hell no. Personal conquest should be reachable in 2-3 hours...sure as hell not 20 per character. That's freaking crazy.

 

Seconded. I hope the 20 hours was a typo... but i honestly wouldn't be surprised at this point.

[Tahana]

I think he typo'd I think he meant 2h. The only other explanation would be that he is one of the game designers because that is the only group of people that are totally and utterly out of touch with what players want.

 

Read on.. He doubled down on that statement.

[TUXs]

I think he typo'd I think he meant 2h. The only other explanation would be that he is one of the game designers because that is the only group of people that are totally and utterly out of touch with what players want.

Let's hope so...because ain't nobody that thinks 20 hours PER toon is reasonable...1,130,000 points for a large planet would take a guild 1,500 player hours to hit the large cap.

[TUXs]

Read on.. He doubled down on that statement.

Well then it's just a foolish statement without any additional thought behind it. 20 hours is so unrealistic that it's funny anyone could possibly believe it.

[AscendingSky]

The MAIN problem about the conquest bug was the fact that if you wanted to compete you were FORCED to exploit it... due to other guilds like stroke my Wookie exploiting it (Darth Malgus) And thats not fun.

 

Personal Conquest cap of 15k should imo take roughly 20h of playtime for casual player... that would be fair.

 

Twenty hours? For one character? Are you insane? Most people who play this game (especially 'casual' players) have jobs and families and social engagements that obviously take precedence over gaming. They are lucky if they have 20 hours total in a week to play this game at all; most can't manage nearly that much, maybe just a few hours once or twice a week to raid or RP with friends. And you think it's reasonable to tell them personal Conquest goals are forever unattainable by them unless they spend every single moment they can spare on this game on a single character doing nothing but grinding repeatable Conquest objectives and even then they might not obtain it because you think TWENTY FRACKING HOURS is a 'fair' time investment to demand from 'casual' players? From ANY kind of player?

 

If EA wanted to tank their subscription numbers, putting reaching personal conquest goals out of the reach of 90% or more of the subscriber base would be a good way to do it. You must really want this game to fail. Either that or you're one of those gamers who hate 'casuals' so much you just want to drive them out of shared gaming spaces. Because TWENTY FLIPPING HOURS PER CHARACTER PER WEEK is not a reasonable expectation.

Edited August 8, 2018 by AscendingSky

[DaemionMoadrin]

If the Conquest system was working properly, then we wouldn't need any exploits.

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=9629066

[Darevsool]

If the Conquest system was working properly, then we wouldn't need any exploits.

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=9629066

 

The *SYSTEM* seems to be working exactly the way the devs want it to work.

They seem to just have different opinions on how it SHOULD work than many of the players caring to comment on it.

[AlrikFassbauer]

No-lifers win EVERY conquest.

[Lhancelot]

The MAIN problem about the conquest bug was the fact that if you wanted to compete you were FORCED to exploit it.

 

My biggest issue with that bug was this. ^

 

I will say that when the rampage exploit was active, I refused to do it and so I started to notice my usual 100-200k conquest points were nothing compared to someone that did rampage exploits for 1-2mil total.

 

Being new in a conquest guild, this discouraged me from doing anything outside my normal playstyle which is predominantly PVP for conquest on weeks where rampage repeats were being ran.

 

On the week people could not do the exploit, I did more PVE activities to contribute to conquest as I could see it actually added a significant contribution to the guilds points.

 

I just couldn't get into doing that rampage repeatable though, regardless how effective it was at gaining points for conquest. If that's the only way I can contribute for conquest, then I would just not participate and my paltry 100-200k from PVP would be all I'd have to offer.

[Tahana]

I will say that when the rampage exploit was active, I refused to do it and so I started to notice my usual 100-200k conquest points were nothing compared to someone that did rampage exploits for 1-2mil total.

 

I would propose that if someone was getting 1-2 MILLION points from rampages alone they had to have been botting. . 1-2M points at 4563 (I believe that is the total with the 150% buff, 1000 for R1, 1500 for R2 and 2063 for R3) means they'd have to run 438.3 rampages. Let's say it takes at least 30 minutes for those 4k points (I'm being generous here), it would take 9.13 days playing 24 hours a day for 2M points or 4.56 days at 24 hours a day for 1M points.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Tahana

[Lhancelot]

I would propose that if someone was getting 1-2 MILLION points from rampages alone they had to have been botting. . 1-2M points at 4563 (I believe that is the total with the 150% buff, 1000 for R1, 1500 for R2 and 2063 for R3) means they'd have to run 438.3 rampages. Let's say it takes at least 30 minutes for those 4k points (I'm being generous here), it would take 9.13 days playing 24 hours a day for 2M points or 4.56 days at 24 hours a day for 1M points.

 

I honestly have no idea how people accrued 500k to over 1mil points but it was happening. I assumed it was from the rampage repeats because during the week this exploit was not available, people's points were much lower.

 

IMO it doesn't really matter if people got 500k or 1mil points, because one fact remains and that is the only way you can compete with people running rampage repeatables is to run rampage repeatables, period. That means using an exploit, a break in the system.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Lhancelot

[Darevsool]

I honestly have no idea how people accrued 500k to over 1mil points but it was happening. I assumed it was from the rampage repeats because during the week this exploit was not available, people's points were much lower.

 

IMO it doesn't really matter if people got 500k or 1mil points, because one fact remains and that is the only way you can compete with people running rampage repeatables is to run rampage repeatables, period. That means using an exploit, a break in the system.

 

I saw a guild on Star Forge get a 20+ group together and farm one location on Yavin in the middle of a heroic/quest area. Just like the groups that level via "bug hunting" they stayed in one location, didn't move much, and camped there for HOURS.

[PennyAnn]

It is very telling that on Satele Shan the bug fix has quite obviously crashed conquest. We have returned to only one guild having met the 200k mark for lowest tier planet and the rest of the top 10 being well below the threshold much less on the larger tier planets. Conquest, in Bioware's vision, when done without bugs or exploits just plain doesn't work!

 

The same guild that conquers the largest tier planet will conquer it again this week, and the other guild that always takes the medium and lowest tier planets (one with their imp guild and one with their pub guild) are only not managing that due to not spreading out this week. So nothing has changed there, either.

 

New conquest does nothing but ensure that only the largest mega-guilds will ever earn conqueror titles, and the rest will have to struggle to even make the point requirement for rewards due to legacy restrictions.

 

And where is Bioware? Still ignoring this.

 

I'm grateful for not trying to struggle with this any longer since I've quit playing SWTOR, but feel very bad for those that are. One thing is for certain, I keep waiting for signs that I should renew my sub when it runs out... and I'm getting nothing.

 

.

[IshtarScorpio]

The *SYSTEM* seems to be working exactly the way the devs want it to work.

They seem to just have different opinions on how it SHOULD work than many of the players caring to comment on it.

 

Quite true. I know I pick restaurants by what the chef tells me I need to eat.

Edited August 9, 2018 by IshtarScorpio

[IshtarScorpio]

I would propose that if someone was getting 1-2 MILLION points from rampages alone they had to have been botting. . 1-2M points at 4563 (I believe that is the total with the 150% buff, 1000 for R1, 1500 for R2 and 2063 for R3) means they'd have to run 438.3 rampages. Let's say it takes at least 30 minutes for those 4k points (I'm being generous here), it would take 9.13 days playing 24 hours a day for 2M points or 4.56 days at 24 hours a day for 1M points.

 

There was a bug within the bug. From time to time, when you reset the rampage and returned to the planet, the rampages would all be set with only 50 kills needed for each category. There were times when you could go 7-10 bugs in a row. So for 500 kills you would get 45000 points.

[Stellarcrusade]

What gets me perhaps the most is, EVERY player wants the daily by-legacy restriction to instead be by-character. I've read hundreds of posts affirming this. There aren't even any white-knights that think it is good the way it is now. And BW just ignores the posts because if they address it they have to answer "are you going to change it?" and that question they do not want to answer. It gives the opinion that they are completely out of touch with the players. This game is for the players, the best video games throughout gaming history are those that are best suited for what the players like. In this case, we like alts. We like doing conquest with alts. Points are soooooo pathetically low on the infinate repeatables that no-one would ever do any of those for points anyhow.

[Darevsool]

There was a bug within the bug. From time to time, when you reset the rampage and returned to the planet, the rampages would all be set with only 50 kills needed for each category. There were times when you could go 7-10 bugs in a row. So for 500 kills you would get 45000 points.

 

Wow, I never knew about that bug. I generally stopped when I met that toon's personal goal and that sounds like it wouldn't have been enough to trigger this scenario.

[olagatonjedi]

What gets me perhaps the most is, EVERY player wants the daily by-legacy restriction to instead be by-character. I've read hundreds of posts affirming this. There aren't even any white-knights that think it is good the way it is now. And BW just ignores the posts because if they address it they have to answer "are you going to change it?" and that question they do not want to answer. It gives the opinion that they are completely out of touch with the players. This game is for the players, the best video games throughout gaming history are those that are best suited for what the players like. In this case, we like alts. We like doing conquest with alts. Points are soooooo pathetically low on the infinate repeatables that no-one would ever do any of those for points anyhow.

Im no white knight, but i believe the legacy restriction is needed, to maintain balance within conquest. Personally, i have 30 toons that i could benefit from removal of the restriction, but i understand that not every player has 30 toons to benefit from either. I suppose it depends on what the goal of conquest is. Most of the people fighting for removal of legacy resteixtion seem to be under the impression that conquest was solely made to be the incentive to play and a way to easily accumulate massive amounts of useful rewards. While i dont believe that completely, i believe that BW wants conquest to remain as relatively balanced as other content in the game, which either means reducing rewards (they wont do this because incentive will actually decrease) or reduce the amount of overall completions (which doesnt truly restrict anyone from anything).

 

Clarify why you believe the legacy restriction is bad. It doesnt prevent you from alting, and it doesnt inherently decentivize playing rhe game, unless conquest was the ONLY reason you play in the first place, and that would be a minority stance

[Darevsool]

Im no white knight, but i believe the legacy restriction is needed, to maintain balance within conquest. Personally, i have 30 toons that i could benefit from removal of the restriction, but i understand that not every player has 30 toons to benefit from either. I suppose it depends on what the goal of conquest is. Most of the people fighting for removal of legacy resteixtion seem to be under the impression that conquest was solely made to be the incentive to play and a way to easily accumulate massive amounts of useful rewards. While i dont believe that completely, i believe that BW wants conquest to remain as relatively balanced as other content in the game, which either means reducing rewards (they wont do this because incentive will actually decrease) or reduce the amount of overall completions (which doesnt truly restrict anyone from anything).

 

Clarify why you believe the legacy restriction is bad. It doesnt prevent you from alting, and it doesnt inherently decentivize playing rhe game, unless conquest was the ONLY reason you play in the first place, and that would be a minority stance

 

Conquest is as much of an incentive to play as pvp is an incentive to play. Conquest is also a reward for people who may not enjoy pvp, but will do it in order to get conquest points.

 

From what I see, the majority of the people who want the once per day per legacy category significantly reduced, are players who participated in conquest pre 5.8 when you could get 1500 points per NS heroic IF you had 150% SH bonus and IF your guild invaded the correct planet. Otherwise, you got 500 points per NS heroic that week.

 

As long as you've been posting your counter views I find it impossible that you don't at least "see" the viewpoint of the majority that are posting in these threads. Not agreeing with us is one thing, but if you don't actually "see" that there is an opposing viewpoint and how the 5.8 changes negatively affected our gameplay...that would boggle my mind.

 

Or maybe, in this case, you just wanted that one poster's opinion.

[TUXs]

It is very telling that on Satele Shan the bug fix has quite obviously crashed conquest. We have returned to only one guild having met the 200k mark for lowest tier planet and the rest of the top 10 being well below the threshold much less on the larger tier planets. Conquest, in Bioware's vision, when done without bugs or exploits just plain doesn't work!

 

The same guild that conquers the largest tier planet will conquer it again this week, and the other guild that always takes the medium and lowest tier planets (one with their imp guild and one with their pub guild) are only not managing that due to not spreading out this week. So nothing has changed there, either.

 

New conquest does nothing but ensure that only the largest mega-guilds will ever earn conqueror titles, and the rest will have to struggle to even make the point requirement for rewards due to legacy restrictions.

 

And where is Bioware? Still ignoring this.

 

I'm grateful for not trying to struggle with this any longer since I've quit playing SWTOR, but feel very bad for those that are. One thing is for certain, I keep waiting for signs that I should renew my sub when it runs out... and I'm getting nothing.

 

.

It's frustrating isn't it...I just don't get their indifference and inaction on this...

[TUXs]

Conquest is as much of an incentive to play as pvp is an incentive to play. Conquest is also a reward for people who may not enjoy pvp, but will do it in order to get conquest points.

 

From what I see, the majority of the people who want the once per day per legacy category significantly reduced, are players who participated in conquest pre 5.8 when you could get 1500 points per NS heroic IF you had 150% SH bonus and IF your guild invaded the correct planet. Otherwise, you got 500 points per NS heroic that week.

 

As long as you've been posting your counter views I find it impossible that you don't at least "see" the viewpoint of the majority that are posting in these threads. Not agreeing with us is one thing, but if you don't actually "see" that there is an opposing viewpoint and how the 5.8 changes negatively affected our gameplay...that would boggle my mind.

 

Or maybe, in this case, you just wanted that one poster's opinion.

I was going to reply to him myself, but you've said it far better than I was going to.

 

Players like being rewarded for doing stuff - it's as simple as that. Nobody that I run Ops with needs more 236 gear from the drops, but "Conquest" points was a good enough reason to run stupid little things like KP or EV again.

 

The Legacy restrictions on Ops are my main issue - Ops are already restricted by the weekly lockouts...the "per Legacy" restriction is a great way to have players just log off after running a singular Operation. My guild used to run Ops on alts that none of us had any business being on, we played for HOURS running the same Ops over and over and over again on different toons...now it's a 45min effort for 8 lucky people and done. 7 of the 8 usually log off after that one run...they go off to play other games...eventually, they stop logging in for their 45 min of fun here too.

 

The "per Legacy" restriction must go. It literally harms the game.

[Stellarcrusade]

Im no white knight, but i believe the legacy restriction is needed, to maintain balance within conquest. Personally, i have 30 toons that i could benefit from removal of the restriction, but i understand that not every player has 30 toons to benefit from either. I suppose it depends on what the goal of conquest is. Most of the people fighting for removal of legacy resteixtion seem to be under the impression that conquest was solely made to be the incentive to play and a way to easily accumulate massive amounts of useful rewards. While i dont believe that completely, i believe that BW wants conquest to remain as relatively balanced as other content in the game, which either means reducing rewards (they wont do this because incentive will actually decrease) or reduce the amount of overall completions (which doesnt truly restrict anyone from anything).

 

Clarify why you believe the legacy restriction is bad. It doesnt prevent you from alting, and it doesnt inherently decentivize playing rhe game, unless conquest was the ONLY reason you play in the first place, and that would be a minority stance

 

What balance does the legacy restriction maintain? The top 3 guilds have never had it easier to win planets, there is no competion there. So really the only point to conquest for most every guild is simply to hit a planetary minimum, and try to get as many chars to conquest as possible for the rewards. The legacy restriction makes the list of guilds that can actually get to the minimum drop drastically, and people who were used to getting 7-10 alts to conquest each week now pretty much only try for 1, maybe 2.

 

The real value the conquest system has, is to increase participation. With the legacy restriction people log in, do a couple of legacy restricted things, and log out. With it being by character people would repeat and play many more hours. More quieue pops for all, more population, more communication, everything and everyone in the game benefits. I think the "balance" you think they should maintain is that you dont want too many people playing so it is easier for you to finish heroics???? (I'm just guessing here)

 

Anyhow, its nice to know there is 1 person who wants it to stay as it is, and that is the real point. If "nearly" everyone wants it to be improved, then they should improve it.

[Damask_Rose]

Im no white knight, but i believe the legacy restriction is needed, to maintain balance within conquest. Personally, i have 30 toons that i could benefit from removal of the restriction, but i understand that not every player has 30 toons to benefit from either. I suppose it depends on what the goal of conquest is. Most of the people fighting for removal of legacy resteixtion seem to be under the impression that conquest was solely made to be the incentive to play and a way to easily accumulate massive amounts of useful rewards. While i dont believe that completely, i believe that BW wants conquest to remain as relatively balanced as other content in the game, which either means reducing rewards (they wont do this because incentive will actually decrease) or reduce the amount of overall completions (which doesnt truly restrict anyone from anything).

 

Clarify why you believe the legacy restriction is bad. It doesnt prevent you from alting, and it doesnt inherently decentivize playing rhe game, unless conquest was the ONLY reason you play in the first place, and that would be a minority stance

 

You have brought up "balance" before, but you have failed to explain exactly what you mean by that. I take it from your comment about 30 characters, and comments along those lines in the past, that you feel a person with only one character should have access to the same rewards as a person with multiple characters. I am not following your logic as to why conquest should be balanced around only one character. So let's look at this a little closer.

 

- Every subscriber has access to 24 character slots.

- Extra character slots are sold on the CM and resold on the GTN. Bioware wants to make money, so selling slots is to their benefit.

- Leveling characters if very fast, plus Bioware also sells level boosts on the GTN.

- Reaching conquest goals takes the same amount of time for each character.

 

So with the above in mind, why should conquest throttle how many characters a player can achieve conquest with? Let's say on average it takes 4 hours to achieve the personal target. If I want to spend 20 hours of my free time to reach the target on 5 characters, why should I not be allowed to? If I want to spend 40 hours of my free time to reach the target on 10 characters, why should I not be allowed to? If another player only wants to spend 4 hours to achieve the target with only 1 character, that is their choice.

 

You have also mentioned balancing the rewards of different types of content. Currently, none of the content rewards are balanced against each other, so balancing conquest with other content would be impossible. Let's look a little closer.

 

- The only conquest rewards worth mentioning is the craft material loot box and the encryption. You have to chose between one or the other.

- The pvp daily and weekly also have material loot boxes. There are 3 different dailies and 3 different weeklies. The matches needed for the dailies also count for the weeklies. So in one week one dedicated player on one character can earn 21 daily reward loot boxes and 3 weekly reward loot boxes.

- Conquest rewards are in addition to other rewards, not instead of.

 

So currently 1 player on 1 character who decides to do nothing but pvp with their time can earn 24 crafting loot boxes in 1 week, they would also likely make their conquest goals on that character and earn a 25th box. How do you propose to balance that?

 

And for the last part of your post. No conquest doesn't prevent alting. However, the old conquest encouraged alting, where as the new conquest does not. Alting for conquest actively encouraged players to play more and to play more group content. Without that encouragement, many players just don't bother to play as much and to play as much group content. Removing an encouragement has the same effect as adding a disincentive.