Required Conquest point totals seem too high

[LeMage]

Although the numbers you are seeing may still be in flux, the spirit of them is correct. However, not only have the totals been increased, but the Objectives values are being completed by the same multiplier. We are doing this to help balance out the value of objectives vs passive command points a bit.

 

-eric

 

This weeks conquest is a Bee atch enough in a small guild, and I might get 2 through at 15K. At 50K I'll not bother I think.

A game has to have some fun. And why can't it be 'easy'? The big guilds already dominate. Where in the laws of the Game does it say most EVERYTHING has to be un-fun, grindy and time consuming?

 

Not that any Devs actually really care what I think but gotta say it anyway. I don't think I'll like this 50K Crud,

Edited July 26, 2019 by LeMage

[Rolodome]

Is this a universal change to aggro range, or or you just seeing the results of being a lower level (because they dropped the level sync on a few planets? If it is a universal aggro range change, I think that's a bad idea.

Do you remember what a nightmare Makeb used to be to slog through?

 

I get wanting to make mobs closer to your level and eliminate the few places where you get zero XP or CXP because of grey mobs. And not have it where you practically have to drive right over the mob to aggro them.

But its a delicate balance too because you dont want the converse true too where a pack of trash mobs feels like a heroic.

I would think better would be to have you be synced to 2 levels higher, if it's going to be a unified amount across the board. In my top-of-head estimation, that's high enough that you have an advantage, without being so high it nullifies gains entirely. I don't know what they're thinking if they're doing sync to the exact level (I missed the test, so have to go on what other people are saying). Caving to complaints about leveling content being too easy maybe?

 

I'm all for those people getting what they want in some form, but surely there's a way to do it without throwing everyone else under the bus.

[Darev]

Is this a universal change to aggro range, or or you just seeing the results of being a lower level (because they dropped the level sync on a few planets? If it is a universal aggro range change, I think that's a bad idea.

Do you remember what a nightmare Makeb used to be to slog through?

 

I get wanting to make mobs closer to your level and eliminate the few places where you get zero XP or CXP because of grey mobs. And not have it where you practically have to drive right over the mob to aggro them.

But its a delicate balance too because you dont want the converse true too where a pack of trash mobs feels like a heroic.

 

I don't know if it was universal based on what I saw. however, based on what someone else posted, when trying to do cz198 (level sync wasn't changed there) it's universal.

[stumpynat]

Although the numbers you are seeing may still be in flux, the spirit of them is correct. However, not only have the totals been increased, but the Objectives values are being completed by the same multiplier. We are doing this to help balance out the value of objectives vs passive command points a bit.

 

-eric

 

While I understand the need to adjust numbers a bit to reflect increased values, 50k seems way too high for an individual conquest goal. I come from a guild where people love their alts and, once again, instead of encouraging folks to hop around on their alts and play the game more, a higher personal conquest goal would inevitably discourage that. As people have noted in the past, the nature of this game pushes alts with the multiple class stories, but then changes are made to endgame that deter it.

 

I get conquest is tricky to balance with various play styles and all (e.g. solo vs. groups), and rarely will there be a "one size fits all answer," but I'd prefer the error be made on the side of encouraging people to participate in the guild activities, and as such, the game. We've had more people helping with conquest with the last round of changes and it'd be nice to keep that going in 6.0.

[casirabit]

One step forward and then you make two or three steps back. I swear you don't really know what you want and I'm afraid by the time you do people will have stop playing. You want to make conquest a week long progress on one character, well then good luck. I will not just play one character and if that is the choice you want people to make well then forget conquest. Edited July 26, 2019 by casirabit

[IoNonSoEVero]

So the conquest point goal is going up about 350% and PCs are getting aggroed by a lot of mobs? Hmmm. I keep telling myself that "play your way" means that Bioware isn't forgetting solo players, but then something like this makes me think you want to push us all out the door.

 

50,000 points is ridiculous for one character. As others have said, 20 or 25K seems doable, but double that? No way. It's just going to deter people from trying for the goal at all. I know I'm certainly not going to bother with it if it remains at 50K.

 

You did something good by making Conquest easier with Dantooine. Please don't blow it, Bioware.

Edited July 26, 2019 by IoNonSoEVero

[lessandracassidy]

15,000 may be too easy to get now, but I would agree that 50,000 is definitely an overcompensation. You have long since promised to make conquest alt-friendly, and with this change you have finally fulfilled that promise, and a 50,000 goal will set those efforts all back. Playing the game should be an enjoyable versatile experience, and veteran players who have a lot of beloved alts shouldn't be punished for their desire to play many characters by splitting our gameplay into either playing many alts, or grinding conquest on 1 character to achieve rewards. Both should be attainable, and getting up to 10 characters to conquest have been possible in the past, before conquest was revamped, and we are all grateful that it is possible again. It would be disappointing and depressing to lose our incentive and freedom to play alts all over again.

[MorseGod]

I've been playing my way since the last round of changes. Mission accomplished.

 

I would find it odd that the devs now want to ruin that for me, but even in my short 3 years in SWTOR, I've noticed that an overwhelming amount of negative feedback only seems to encourage the devs.

 

Stop tweaking the things that you finally got right. Focus on all the crap that's still broken or in dire need of overhaul.

[Enomars]

For those people who are still struggling to get 15,000 points. What is your stronghold bonus? 6 strongholds with every room unlocked gives you 150 % bonus. (They don't need to be decorated, just all rooms unlocked)

 

 

Really... EVERY ROOM unlocked on SIX strongholds? You are just trolling. It takes Muiti-millions just to buy some of the strongholds. You know good and well that some people actually have a life outside of SWTOR.

[pellejedi]

This is a solution in search of a problem. If the supposed problem is to get more people involved in the game and conquest, it's the wrong solution. I started playing this game not long ago and don't have a big SH bonus and conquest has been something I enjoyed (but skipping all the MM FPs and OPS objectives).

 

If the problem is to give seasoned experienced players more of an incentive, then its probably a great solution. The game might be a very desolate place however.

[sugarnails]

All this will do is punish people in small guilds again. With the current system we're finally able to access the medium and large yield rewards that invite spamming social guilds had falling from the sky like confetti all along. Everybody who meets their personal goal is putting in that effort regardless of guild size. Why should someone's effort be rewarded less because they want to play with their friends?

 

Instead of finite yield goals, make it scale relative to the number of active accounts.

[Beldamon]

Although the numbers you are seeing may still be in flux, the spirit of them is correct. However, not only have the totals been increased, but the Objectives values are being completed by the same multiplier. We are doing this to help balance out the value of objectives vs passive command points a bit.

 

-eric

 

This sounds good in theory. However this does not mesh all that well with the 'play your way' philosophy that you are touting for the new expansion. The great thing about having added the passive conquest points is that you can play your way if the objectives don't really fit activities you care to do, yet still reach your personal conquest cap without too much grinding.

 

Please consider this! I understand that you want the objectives to be more meaningful towards reaching your conquest cap, but realize it could potentially be in conflict with 'play your way'. Thanks!

[TrixxieTriss]

Although the numbers you are seeing may still be in flux, the spirit of them is correct. However, not only have the totals been increased, but the Objectives values are being completed by the same multiplier. We are doing this to help balance out the value of objectives vs passive command points a bit.

 

-eric

 

Can I suggest that you read this thread for some player feed back and reaction to the proposed conquest change

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=966627

[LordAppius]

50K a week , per toon ...wow ,umm you do understand we have jobs and families right ? we cant spend 16h a day playing a video game lol

 

You fail to understand that they have none of that and their aim is to enfuriate players, not appease us

[Sandrosw]

The huge aggro radius is a known issue, in case you missed the post...

 

Hey folks,

 

Below you will find a host of key known issues you may experience during phase 1 of Onslaught PTS.

 

....

 

[*]Aggro radius is larger than intended

 

-eric

 

I suppose that it will end up the same as it is now, so nothing will change for heroics and dailies.

 

If the objectives are tripled or quadrupled and the rest of the points stay same, it will make the objectives relevant again (if completing ops objective would give 25 000 instead of 7 500, so it is still 50% of personal conquest goal). Currently the objectives really don't matter, which is what this change is probably trying to address. Doing conquest objectives can take longer now than just running quick heroics and dailies, which kinda beats the purpose of the specific objectives and different conquest weeks.

 

However I also agree that it would be nice to have some more objectives, or more repeatable current objectives. Dantooine week seems to me like a step in the right direction - the main event objectives were repeatable (there are only so many of them available every day anyway, so they are capped), unlike for example Gree event, which does not encourage running all daily quests in one day on the same character. The repeatable heroic missions were also great to quickly finish the conquest goal when I missed 2-3k on a character, or when leveling a new alt.

 

A foot note about repeatable heroics - I started playing before the conquest changes. I think every conquest had at least one, if not more, planet with inifinitely repeatable heroics. They were not worth much if they were not on invaded planet, but still they added points and most importantly were a good source of credits both for completing the quests and from heroic crates (and I did not sell the gifts from the crates, which would make good money too). Those credits I then used to buy more strongholds and open up rooms in them, which in turn allowed me to complete conquest faster, so I could then run it on more alts, which brought in more rewards and credits to unlock more rooms...

 

So bringing back the repeatable heroics with Dantooine event was a bit of nostalgia and a lot of joy and a small hope that maybe with some patch (ideally 6.0) we would get infinitely repeatable heroics or dailies for each of the 3 planets. Or perhaps some additional repeatable objectives in weeks heavily focused on one activity that would complement it in some way thematically, like for example adding repeatable for running a PvE space missions on Clash in Hyperspace week (worth less than GSF, as they are easier and not a main focus of the week, but it would be a space combat mission in hyperspace, would not involve pvp for the pve-only players so they would not feel excluded from conquest). I suppose we all could come up with some nice additions to conquest and I hope devs will come up with some great ideas too and implement them into game.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Sandrosw

[Shirvington]

There are two problems with the PTS Conquest caps at the moment:

 

1. Personal goal is too high

2. Guild goals also increased, and Personal rewards are ultimately tied to the achieved Guild yield (even though many of the Conquest Objs don't require a guild group to perform)

 

BW can fix this mess in a couple ways. I suggest a mix and match of the following:

 

A. Lowering the PTS caps in half (25k personal, 2.5m large yield guild)

 

B. Making EVERY Conquest Objective available every week but increasing the point values for specific Objs to reflect the theme for the week (Flashpoint week? triple the base point values for FP objs. WZ week? Triple the base point values for WZ objs. But make them all available every week with some base point value).

 

C. Along B's lines, making Conquest Objs available daily or infinitely instead of once per legacy per week and altering the point structure

 

D. Untie Personal rewards from Guild rewards--give Personal Conquest rewards on a tiered system as people achieve points (at the end of the week, each individual toon would get a reward when it hits 20k, you'd get medium if you hit 40k, or you'd get large if you hit 60k REGARDLESS of what your guild's point total). Then make Guild rewards something different; keep the titles, maybe give boosts to next weeks' conquest for getting a certain Guild tier.. idk, lots of options for Guild specfic rewards that are untied to Personal Rewards.

[TrixxieTriss]

There are two problems with the PTS Conquest caps at the moment:

 

1. Personal goal is too high

2. Guild goals also increased, and Personal rewards are ultimately tied to the achieved Guild yield (even though many of the Conquest Objs don't require a guild group to perform)

 

BW can fix this mess in a couple ways. I suggest a mix and match of the following:

 

A. Lowering the PTS caps in half (25k personal, 2.5m large yield guild)

 

B. Making EVERY Conquest Objective available every week but increasing the point values for specific Objs to reflect the theme for the week (Flashpoint week? triple the base point values for FP objs. WZ week? Triple the base point values for WZ objs. But make them all available every week with some base point value).

 

C. Along B's lines, making Conquest Objs available daily or infinitely instead of once per legacy per week and altering the point structure

 

D. Untie Personal rewards from Guild rewards--give Personal Conquest rewards on a tiered system as people achieve points (at the end of the week, each individual toon would get a reward when it hits 20k, you'd get medium if you hit 40k, or you'd get large if you hit 60k REGARDLESS of what your guild's point total). Then make Guild rewards something different; keep the titles, maybe give boosts to next weeks' conquest for getting a certain Guild tier.. idk, lots of options for Guild specfic rewards that are untied to Personal Rewards.

 

They would also need to balance those conquest activities so it doesn’t just focus on one type of guild size or player ability.

 

I’ll use this week’s conquest as an example. It’s heavily focused on Master Mode flash points. So if you aren’t good enough for them or only run a small guild or even play solo in your private guild, you will not be able to gain enough conquest points under the proposed changes. The only reason we can reach conquest this week is because we can get enough points from XP,

 

Ideally, if they are going to have a Flash Point theme, they need to split it so that veteran flash points are available in the same numbers or make the activities say Master mode or veteran flash points.

Also, if they have a Operations focused week, they could add some extra planetary rampages to help people who can’t do Operations. Usually the time involved to do the rampages can be just as long as completing an operation.

Edited July 29, 2019 by TrixxieTriss

[TrixxieTriss]

"play your way"

“Play your way”, may end up a MEME that means playing another game from another developer.

 

I wonder if Bioware have consider what this sort of “play your way” might mean for the health of the game.

[CelynthePhoenix]

GM of a small guild of casual players here, with most of them currently on a break until 6.0. We don't care about competing for titles and I will never force my guildies into content they don't want to do, all we want is to expand our guild ships to decorate them.

 

Since the Dantooine update, this is the first time we manage to consistently reach the small yield objective every week (both factions every week but one so far) because people can help with conquest by playing the way they want.

 

I had just started enjoying and participating in conquest again because unlocking more rooms on the guilds ships finally feels achievable. Those changes will put an end to that and considerably decrease my playing time, especially considering how expensive and/or time-consuming getting the plans through crafting is.

Edited July 30, 2019 by CelynthePhoenix
fixed a typo

[TrixxieTriss]

Although the numbers you are seeing may still be in flux, the spirit of them is correct. However, not only have the totals been increased, but the Objectives values are being completed by the same multiplier. We are doing this to help balance out the value of objectives vs passive command points a bit.

 

-eric

 

Some feed back regarding these proposed changes.

 

I will say that this week’s conquest (Dantooine) is more enjoyable because there are more objective activities for everyone of any play type or character level.

 

There are also more planets to invade to allow guilds to have a better chance at reaching the top 10 (if that’s their thing).

 

The multiple planets also allow for extra planetary rampages and the dedicated heroic mission for each one is appreciated.

 

If conquest was setup like this every week and with the same amount of planets and activities we have, then upping the conquest totals wouldn’t be an issue for small guilds and probably not solo players.

 

It only becomes a problem when we have conquests that aren’t inclusive enough for all players or mainly focus of one content type or you have to grind like hell to get it.

I refer to last week’s conquest that was heavily focused on Master Mode flash points and didn’t have any planetary rampages.

 

If Bioware were to make more planets available each week and we have the activities with the right amount of conquest points rewards to them, then I will concede that upping the weekly and personal totals is needed to compensate.

 

What has myself and I’m sure other people worried is Bioware didn’t put that part on the PTS and has not announced they will be making the necessary changes to make the increased totals viable.

 

If we had some two way communication from them on what they plan to do, some of this anxiety might be relieved and we could have a proper discussion on what totals they need to tweet.

 

As it stands, all we know is they intend to increase the totals in a way that small guild and solo players will be worse off than now and will probably not bother with conquest if they change it.

Which is totally detrimental to the game and would just be another Bioware mistake to drive off players because they remove fun from the game for grind.

[Darev]

So just a couple quick conquest observations after playing the new 1.5 build on PTS.

 

4 heroics on Hutta & 7 heroics on Balmorra

2 levels of Balmorra rampage

NO GALACTIC RAMPAGE (it's gone / no longer an objective)

Ended up with a little over 28k conquest points.

 

I'm not going to say good or bad.

But here are some additional details.

 

level sync is still changed. I suspect they're keeping it.

that means each heroic takes longer if you solo them.

they are NOT tuned for "super easy mode" but maybe now "marginally easy mode"

 

Toxic Bombs, for example (imp side balmorra) with full top of the line gear from the PTS vendors and a level 30 companion healing...as a sniper (engineering) I had to heal up a bit between each pair of npc's in that encounter.

The "spray and pray" AOE attack that snipers have doesn't kill the golds in one burst, or even two. Three or more bursts coupled with the flaming AOE attack. (I suck at learning/remembering attack names...sorry).

 

It's doable, it just takes two or three times as long. And that's a super fast heroic usually.

 

I did the one where bug hunt used to be. Aggroing too many of those will kill you now.

[Darev]

Oh, some of the point values on PTS

 

Planetary Rampage

Level 1 = 3250

Level 2 = 4875

Level 3 = 6688

 

Critical Missions: Black Hole = 9750

Dantooine Critical Mission = 16250

 

Craft 50 items = 1000 (this is actually the same, proportionally, as it is now. For biochem it's still 13 rounds/sets of 8 companions crafting stims - so no real change there)

[Pirana]

Oh, some of the point values on PTS

 

Planetary Rampage

Level 1 = 3250

Level 2 = 4875

Level 3 = 6688

 

Critical Missions: Black Hole = 9750

Dantooine Critical Mission = 16250

 

Craft 50 items = 1000 (this is actually the same, proportionally, as it is now. For biochem it's still 13 rounds/sets of 8 companions crafting stims - so no real change there)

 

This is why I'm not too concerned with the changes that are coming and why I haven't commented on the Nuke the Conquest thread in the General forums. I wouldn't doubt they might have made some changes after reading players concerns, but they're not going to completely blow up Conquest and make it near impossible as some players would have you believe to achieve your 'goal' and 'yield' for the week in a timely manner. They may tune it down a bit compared to Live right now, which is way too easy, but they're not gonna kill it.

[Balameb]

Oh, some of the point values on PTS

 

Planetary Rampage

Level 1 = 3250

Level 2 = 4875

Level 3 = 6688

 

Critical Missions: Black Hole = 9750

Dantooine Critical Mission = 16250

 

Craft 50 items = 1000 (this is actually the same, proportionally, as it is now. For biochem it's still 13 rounds/sets of 8 companions crafting stims - so no real change there)

First of all, thank you for providing the info, very valuable.

 

From what i see, they basically updated the objective points in the same proportion as personal conquest goal. That is fine.

But for me the problem is that the benefit from conquest points from EXP gets diluded a lot.

It is clear that with the current system doing specifics conquest objectives gets you personal goal really fast. But if you do not follow the objectes, AKA you like to Play Your Way™, is not that fast. And incresing goal to 50k will either kill the willing of some to hit the goal or ALTs playtime.

 

Also, this particular conquest week is a strange one. It provides lots of alternatives, several infinitely repeteable objectives and on top of that massive points in those. And lets not forget that Dantooine is still very new so is a very popular choice as an activity. Back to the massive points, with double exp week someone with 150% bonus hits personal conquest just by doing the dantooine patrol (6 dailies).

But if we compare for example to last week pure MM FP objectives and full of legacy locks we get a very different picture.

 

I personally love the conquest from EXP. When i don't feel or like the week objectives i just go doing whatever i want and can still contribute to conquest. Sure, is not as fast as doing particular objectives, but is something and i can switch to watever toon i feel like and not feel punished.

Before that i practically needed an schedule and even be carefull to stop playing some toons in order to not complete an objective because i would need the points more in a different toon. I hated that, and i was playing less and less.

[casirabit]

“Play your way”, may end up a MEME that means playing another game from another developer.

 

I wonder if Bioware have consider what this sort of “play your way” might mean for the health of the game.

 

Trix,

 

I am beginning to believe everytime they say "Play your way" they actually mean "Play their way" .