6.1.4 Conquest Feedback

[casirabit]

I'm playing solo acitivities for conquest, as I got tired of the toxic, braindead bads ruining flashpoints and even gf ops to some extent. At late evenings I raid with nice people I choose to play with, not with the toxic loud crowd who demands nerfs to solo activities imagining that it would force everyone to group up with them and be exposed to their verbal abuse. No thank you.

 

I am paying for this game too, like everyone else who has participated in this discussion. They need to be subs to post here. We are as much paying customers as you are. Besides it's only you and a handful of other haters who don't want solo players to enjoy the game THEY are paying for. What other players do in the game, and get their points from is not your business. If they aren't getting what they want from their favorite activities, they won't join yours either, they will just find another game.

 

So yeah, I'm glad the devs have listened to reason.

 

+10000 Thank you for your post. You posted better than I would have (especially knowing my temper of late with some of these posters)

[DuchessKristania]

+10000 Thank you for your post. You posted better than I would have (especially knowing my temper of late with some of these posters)

 

Yeah, I held back from responding to that post as well. Of course, being a "braindead" solo player I probably just didn't fathom the hidden genius, lol. They need to further roll back the nerfs. If the devs insist on reducing the point value it needs to be a far softer reduction, or the activities need to be repeatable by character rather than legacy. In general, objectives should be repeatable by character. If players can achieve conquest quickly doing what they enjoy they're going to be more interested in putting energy into conquest. At the very least all objectives should be open to being repeated on each side each day.

[casirabit]

Yeah, I held back from responding to that post as well. Of course, being a "braindead" solo player I probably just didn't fathom the hidden genius, lol. They need to further roll back the nerfs. If the devs insist on reducing the point value it needs to be a far softer reduction, or the activities need to be repeatable by character rather than legacy. In general, objectives should be repeatable by character. If players can achieve conquest quickly doing what they enjoy they're going to be more interested in putting energy into conquest. At the very least all objectives should be open to being repeated on each side each day.

 

Lol, braindead makes me laugh actually especially in light of the paper I have to write on intentional torts. I swear I am not sure what these individuals are thinking (if they are thinking lol). Have a good day. Break over got to finish that paper......

[Stradlin]

I

I am paying for this game too, like everyone else who has participated in this discussion. They need to be subs to post here. We are as much paying customers as you are. Besides it's only you and a handful of other haters who don't want solo players to enjoy the game THEY are paying for. What other players do in the game, and get their points from is not your business. If they aren't getting what they want from their favorite activities, they won't join yours either, they will just find another game.

 

 

Its not about " other players". At least it shouldn't be.

It should be about "other playstyles" or " different playstyles" or most importantly, " comparing different playstyles".

 

 

Multiplayer stuff and solo stuff should at least be in same ballpark with one another, when it comes to conquest points earned. And when it comes to how the conq points are distributed. ( =30x 10.000 point missions in 90 mins via planetaries is much better than 1 x 300.000 point mission in 90 mins via Ops or GSF etc. )

 

 

Currently on live server, there is a situation where content that needs no other people entices players away from content that needs other people to even happen. It is ridiculous. That doesn't mean planetaries must be nerfed. But it does mean multiplayer content needs buffs so, so very badly.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Stradlin

[xordevoreaux]

Is this a mtf joke?

You are buffing braindead solo activities YET AGAIN

 

You're screaming bloody murder to the rooftops, practically popping an artery, that EA is somehow buffing something when everyone can read for themselves that's it's anything but.

 

1. You're flat wrong. They're not raising Missions: Heroic up from 1,550 from what they were on live, but up from 850 on PTS. Currently on live, Missions: Heroic awards 10,000 conquest points as a legacy-wide daily repeatable.

You tell me how Missions: Heroic, down from 10,000 conquest points to 1,550, could ever be called a buff.

 

2. Worry about the buffs to the parts of the game that you've been campaigning for, and don't worry about what the hell the rest of us are doing.

 

3. It's not your business what anyone but yourself does for conquest. Never was your business.

Edited September 26, 2020 by xordevoreaux

[DuchessKristania]

Its not about " other players". At least it shouldn't be.

It should be about "other playstyles" or " different playstyles" or most importantly, " comparing different playstyles".

 

 

Multiplayer stuff and solo stuff should at least be in same ballpark with one another, when it comes to conquest points earned. And when it comes to how the conq points are distributed. ( =30x 10.000 point missions in 90 mins via planetaries is much better than 1 x 300.000 point mission in 90 mins via Ops or GSF etc. )

 

 

Currently on live server, there is a situation where content that needs no other people entices players away from content that needs other people to even happen. It is ridiculous. That doesn't mean planetaries must be nerfed. But it does mean multiplayer content needs buffs so, so very badly.

 

Yep, multiplayer, and more time consuming content needs a buff. I don't really do much in the way of large multiplayer, but it is more time consuming and should be equal to the solo stuff.

 

I still don't understand why they keep acting like conquest points are tangible items that have to be rationed out. Thinking that way just creates anger and bitterness between playstyles. In turn, that reduces the willingness to actually engage with those other players and try different things. Just add points where needed and leave the rest alone.

[Kraysk]

Alot of solo story players are f2p or preferred. That a fact. Because you don't really need sub to play solo, only a small percentage of solo players subscribe, ever.

Also a fact: 100% of multiplayer people are subscribed, because you can't even play multiplayer content without sub.

But on this forums we got a very vocal, very toxic minority of solo story players who are basically forbidding people who enjoy other content to play and enjoy the game.

For the last 6 months or so their narrative was "Lmao play our way multiplayer peasant or leave".

Now when situation is about to change not in their favour, they forgot their arrogance and trolling towards multiplayer people, they try to sound kind and pretending to be reasonable.

 

Dear devs, please do not pay attention to this screeching. Remember who your playerbase really are.

It's time to actually give people who play multiplayer content the rewards they deserve.

Any other MMO values their actual subscribers more than solo story people who will probably never run 99% of content.

[Darev]

Its not about " other players". At least it shouldn't be.

It should be about "other playstyles" or " different playstyles" or most importantly, " comparing different playstyles".

 

 

Multiplayer stuff and solo stuff should at least be in same ballpark with one another, when it comes to conquest points earned. And when it comes to how the conq points are distributed. ( =30x 10.000 point missions in 90 mins via planetaries is much better than 1 x 300.000 point mission in 90 mins via Ops or GSF etc. )

 

 

Currently on live server, there is a situation where content that needs no other people entices players away from content that needs other people to even happen. It is ridiculous. That doesn't mean planetaries must be nerfed. But it does mean multiplayer content needs buffs so, so very badly.

 

No amount of point buff is going to get me to play GSF.

A massive point buff could get me to queue and take a spot to get points flying around looking at the scenery.

 

No amount of point buff is going to get me to participate in WarZones more than 3-4 times every 6 months.

What will get me to participate in warzones is a massive reduction up "roided" up players jumping around like jackrabbits, going for kills instead of objectives.

 

Sorry if that makes me selfish, wanting to have fun in a way that's fun for me, and causing multiplayer activity to happen less frequently.

[Decalin]

Alot of solo story players are f2p or preferred. That a fact. Because you don't really need sub to play solo, only a small percentage of solo players subscribe, ever.

 

Can you provide any data to back up this fact?

 

From my own experience, most players I know sub, but still play solo most of the time, especially in regards to conquest. I would be interested to see any actual data on this though.

[Stradlin]

No amount of point buff is going to get me to play GSF.

A massive point buff could get me to queue and take a spot to get points flying around looking at the scenery.

 

 

It isn't about luring people who hate GSF to GSF. It'd be counterproductive for match quallity as you point out. Why would anyone do that in current setting anyway? You get massive amounts of conq via touring planetaries. 100 daily missions to grind. You can do this stuff all day long without running out of content. GSF would look like an option only if it gave conquest at a vastly superior rate. Wanna be that will never happen?

 

Opposite absolutely does happen though - Situation where planetaries are vastly superior to everything else lures people away -from- multiplayer content.

 

 

Sorry if that makes me selfish, wanting to have fun in a way that's fun for me, .

 

Look at it from my angle:

Let's say I really, really like GSF, am ok with doing FPs or WZs and can tolerate Planetaries just fine. However, I'm also super motivated to get loads of conquest and encryptions for my guild. Not much time to play. I wanna do few GSF matches! However, I also wanna help my guild as much as I can with the little playtime I have today.

Assuming we on live server, which content do you think I'll do? Will I do the thing that I actually..ENJOY DOING? Or shall I do the thing that helps my guild the most? If you love running planetaries more than anything else, you don't have to wonder about such things. If your favorite thing to do is literally anything except planetaries but you also wanna help your guild as much as possible, then you get to wonder about this.

 

If I get lured away from GSF, or Ops, or FPs, or WZs and end up doing Planetaries for vastly superior conq, then I'm removed from the queue pool and stop being a factor for those who would like to keep doing multiplayer content. Instead, game has enticed me to soloing planetaries. Which is an activity that in no way "benefits" from me being there.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Stradlin

[Decalin]

No amount of point buff is going to get me to play GSF.

A massive point buff could get me to queue and take a spot to get points flying around looking at the scenery.

 

No amount of point buff is going to get me to participate in WarZones more than 3-4 times every 6 months.

What will get me to participate in warzones is a massive reduction up "roided" up players jumping around like jackrabbits, going for kills instead of objectives.

 

Sorry if that makes me selfish, wanting to have fun in a way that's fun for me, and causing multiplayer activity to happen less frequently.

 

Nothing wrong with that at all, however I have often seen situations in my small guild where people don't want to go do x activity together because they want to work on conquest, and on live, there really is no point doing anything but the solo-able stuff if you want to be anywhere close to efficient at obtaining the points.

 

Now that's not to say that folk wont just group up and go run those same things together, actually its pretty common in my guild. It also does not at all mean I want solo stuff nerfed, just that it would be nice for the other activities to be on the same playing field, honestly I wish they had left the Heroic/kill quest stuff alone and balanced everything else around that.

 

Honestly, I think this is where most people are coming from, its not about solo vs group, its just about trying to bring other activities into balance with the solo content, at least for my guild, we would have a wider array of content that we could run together for conquest points that as it stands now, we would normally only run occasionally towards the end of the conquest week when everyone has all their alts finished.

[xordevoreaux]

Alot of solo story players are f2p or preferred.

 

Please cite your sources as to the overall distribution of solo versus grouping players who are subbed versus those who are not, as well as those players who are subbed, like myself, who mostly solo.

 

Cite your sources, otherwise, you're just spouting off.

 

Solo players have burned this thread alive protesting 6.1.4, and guess what? To post here, they must be subbed.

Edited September 26, 2020 by xordevoreaux

[xordevoreaux]

However, I'm also super motivated to get loads of conquest and encryptions for my guild

 

Someone "super motivated" to "get loads of conquest" would never have breathed word one about nerfing any aspect of conquest, and unless this is a guild of 1 we're talking about, your efforts have ripped the rug out from anyone who ever solos conquest in your guild.

Edited September 26, 2020 by xordevoreaux

[Darev]

It isn't about luring people who hate GSF to GSF. It'd be counterproductive for match quallity as you point out. Why would anyone do that in current setting anyway? You get massive amounts of conq via touring planetaries. 100 daily missions to grind. You can do this stuff all day long without running out of content. GSF would look like an option only if it gave conquest at a vastly superior rate. Wanna be that will never happen?

 

Opposite absolutely does happen though - Situation where planetaries are vastly superior to everything else lures people away -from- multiplayer content.

 

 

 

 

Look at it from my angle:

Let's say I really, really like GSF, am ok with doing FPs or WZs and can tolerate Planetaries just fine. However, I'm also super motivated to get loads of conquest and encryptions for my guild. Not much time to play. I wanna do few GSF matches! However, I also wanna help my guild as much as I can with the little playtime I have today.

Assuming we on live server, which content do you think I'll do? Do I do the thing that I actually..LIKE DOING? Do I do the thing that helps my guild the most? If you love running planetaries more than anything else, you don't have to wonder about such things. If your favorite thing to do is literally anything except planetaries but you also wanna help your guild as much as possible, then you get to wonder about this.

 

If I get lured away from GSF, or Ops, or FPs, or WZs and end up doing Planetaries for vastly superior conq, then I'm removed from the queue pool and stop being a factor for those who would like to keep doing multiplayer content. Instead, game has enticed me to soloing planetaries. Which is an activity that in no way "benefits" from me being there.

 

If I were in your shoes I would be doing everything I could to point out how GSF could be improved.

You, historically, want to focus on the amount of points other playstyles rake in. That puts the spotlight on those playstyles and the imbalance between the two types.

 

What you should have listened to, from the previous threads over the last 1.5 years, is the players who have been around long enough to know that the easiest thing to do to balance the multiple types is to lower the higher point playstyles down to the lower point playstyles.

 

You don't have to actively say "Nerf the planetary points". That's the default dev solution.

Some of us know that

Maybe this is the first time anyone has flat out just said it, instead of hinting around it.

 

You want people to actually play / enjoy GSF, find out why people don't like it, offer suggestions to the devs on how to make it better.

If you want to leave it as is, and just want more points, ask for that. There's a valid (in my mind) case for it.

 

Shouting "how fair is it that I can get 50k points in 10 minutes" yet it takes longer than 90 minutes for the same points strictly in GSF doesn't improve GSF, but it does wind up nerfing planetaries...as the devs proved with the PTS patch.

[Decalin]

I like the idea of having the weekly rewards reflect how many "dings" a person hit. Granted, this is all theoretical since if this ever happened it wouldn't be likely to happen this go round. But they're going to continue to struggle to find a way to make conquest good for solo/group and large/small guilds as long as they keep trying to apply the same logic to the different styles.

 

Very True.

 

Perhaps they could put these ideas towards Conquest... I was going to say 2.0, but I forget how many revisions it has already had! ^_^

 

Dev's; just to throw this is here for the sake of it; you could also apply a similar style of objective to the conquering of planets rather than the top 10, which are almost always the same guilds now making the whole thing kind of pointless.

 

Have all planets made available for conquest to add more variety, and have different tiers of conquest available to be completed by each guild individually, not pre selected as the small, med, large are now. Points required for each tier/planet could be randomized within set bands to give any guild a fair shot at obtaining the max tier and achievements, which would add a new objective that most guilds just don't bother with now given the advent of the mega guilds.

 

Though hopefully if you do look at reworking it to this extent you will let us know, as probably ideas out there way more thought through than this!

[xordevoreaux]

Shouting "how fair is it that I can get 50k points in 10 minutes" yet it takes longer than 90 minutes for the same points strictly in GSF doesn't improve GSF, but it does wind up nerfing planetaries...as the devs proved with the PTS patch.

 

So painfully true. His entire months-long campaign didn't spur the kind of changes to the degree that he wanted, but he sure damn well succeeded in ruining the enjoyment of conquest for everyone else not adhering to his precious play style.

[Stradlin]

If I were in your shoes I would be doing everything I could to point out how GSF could be improved.

You, historically, want to focus on the amount of points other playstyles rake in. That puts the spotlight on those playstyles and the imbalance between the two types.

 

 

Is a pretty bold statement considering my posts on this thread for example. Nice how you managed to make -most- of your post about what we discuss instead of about me though. It is a rare thing when disagreeing with somebody on these forums.

 

In general, if you want GSF, or any other multiplayer aspect improved, ofc you have to -compare- it to planetaries, since planetaries are the gold standard now. "I can make 50k conq in 90 mins via GSF!" doesn't mean anything, unless you point out how good or bad that 50k is by comparsion. You can't make these suggestions in a vacuum. How would you even go about it? "Buff GSF! I earn 50k conq in 90 mins and I want more. I want more because more is better!"

 

 

What you should have listened to, from the previous threads over the last 1.5 years, is the players who have been around long enough to know that the easiest thing to do to balance the multiple types is to lower the higher point playstyles down to the lower point playstyles.

 

Daily repeatables are a very controlled environment. You ding them..once a day and get a fixed amount of points for it. Even a normal player, without any fancy server side tools can count with great precision how much conq is attainable via X amount of daily repeatables. Is why I keep asking why they couldn't add 100 daily repeatables for multiplayer content, like they did for solo stuiff.Is quite easy to balance.

 

 

 

If you want to leave it as is, and just want more points, ask for that. There's a valid (in my mind) case for it.

 

Well, that's great! "Elevate all multiplayer contrent to same level with planetaries" is what I've said or asked like dozens of times. What's the point of asking or expecting GSF to be some special snowflake among multiplayer content, that gets accepted to this pantheon of great conq all by itself?

 

Shouting "how fair is it that I can get 50k points in 10 minutes yet it takes longer than 90 minutes for the same points strictly in GSF" doesn't improve GSF, but it does wind up nerfing planetaries...as the devs proved with the PTS patch.

Heh. You recon this is some great secret, that is for players to have and keep away from devs? They see this stuff just fine without any players pointing it out. And like I mentioned, it is pretty pointless to try to talk about conquest of one playstyle in a vacuum. If you want all playstyles to be somewhat balanced, of course you need to compare things.

 

When things are every bit as unfair and borked as you yourself stated.("how fair is it that I can get 50k points in 10 minutes yet it takes longer than 90 minutes for the same points strictly in GSF") . one should then be hush hush about it,? To make sure things stay broken? Cause they broken in way you like them to be broken?

 

I'm not sure if we even disagree about some fundamentals here that much. You just have this odd notion that devs rely on players to provide these numbers. Anyone with some understanding of this game doesn't even have to get hands dirty: conquest mission log tells all one needs to kow about current situatiuon. Imagne how much more accurate the picture if you are a dev with some sauron's eye tools to watch our conq farming with..

 

 

@xordevoreaux,

Could you keep your..creative and exciting accusations etc etc in general discussion's conq thread? People are postign star trek memes there now, its really nice. I think this thread should be left for...actual talk about conquest. Maybe head to general discussion's thread to talk about what you actually seem to wanna talk about.(Me!)

Edited September 26, 2020 by Stradlin

[Darev]

You know what.

 

Here is your entire post history.

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/search.php?searchid=1323344

Anyone who wants to judge for themselves can read just your posts from that list, or click on them and get taken to the thread for a larger context.

 

From what I've seen, from ALL of your conquest related posts, you're not interested in taking advice.

 

 

Here is MY post history...same thing...although some of my posts are on a different account, MOST of them are on this one.

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/search.php?searchid=1323345

 

 

I'm not going to do *** for tat posts with you, but I will say this.

Of course the devs know where all of the conquest points are coming from. They can poll the data, sort it however they want. The question they need to ask is how many people are doing this ONLY to get conquest points vs. how many people are doing this because they like it....and like the conquest points.

 

 

This works for ANY type of gamestyle, not just Heroics.

 

I think you presume the majority of the people doing "braindead" solo activities (admittedly not your post, but your sentimentality) are doing it ONLY because it's the fastest way to make conquest.

 

I don't believe that's the case.

 

They could make GSF the fastest/easiest way to get conquest tomorrow and I think you'd be surprised at how many people still stayed away.

Or just crashed it and ruined the matches, which doesn't do the GSF crowd any good.

 

Some people like Heroics

Some people like farming mobs

Some people like GSF

Some people like Operations

 

The goal should be to elevate them all to a similar level

Not to take away from one to give the appearance of balance.

[Darev]

apparently the post history search only goes back 20 pages.

Didn't know that, I thought it would do ALL of it.

[Sarfux]

Glad the complainers and whiners will NOT get their way! What BioWare did this last conquest overhaul is absolutely fantastic! All they have to do is make some adjustments here and there. They don't have to make restrictions or anything at all. They just have to fine tune it with a screwdriver, not whack it with a big hammer! I'm glad they listened to the majority of us instead of just the vocal minority!

 

Ty for listening bioware and NOT going through with the changes!! :D

[Stradlin]

You know what.

 

The goal should be to elevate them all to a similar level

Not to take away from one to give the appearance of balance.

 

It is absolutely hillarious how we agree on this base foundation. Yet, we just have to argue!

I guess at no point did it feel like an iffy or weird idea to bring POST HISTORY of another player to table when giving feedback about conquest, lol.

 

The question they need to ask is how many people are doing this ONLY to get conquest points vs. how many people are doing this because they like it....and like the conquest points.

 

It is easier to start with questons that have very accurate answers readily available. Like "Omg just how good conquest are planetaries right now when compared to all else?!" When balancing conquest, popularity of content is a major factor only if they'd somehow ran out of coquest points to hand over to people and needed to figure out where the few they have to spare are deserved or needed the most.

 

Argument could be made on how less popular content should be made more enticing than popular content:: Unpopular content never done by most people would always be very fresh content to most people. I'm not sure if conquest is the right carrot for that though. I'm quite sure game/players would benefit if uprisings were turned into bit better gear and conquest than bottom eight age old vanilla FPs, for example.

 

 

They gave planetary mission toruism 100 daily repeatables that are always there. Bioware, please give another 100 scattered across o all multiplayer content as well.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Stradlin

[sharkfishman]

So painfully true. His entire months-long campaign didn't spur the kind of changes to the degree that he wanted, but he sure damn well succeeded in ruining the enjoyment of conquest for everyone else not adhering to his precious play style.

Whew, I finally am subbed and can respond to these posts, lol.

 

As someone who loves GSF, I have to say that attacking someone in this thread and others instead of actually address his feedback doesn't lend much credence to your viewpoint. Are you suggesting that people who play GSF instead of spam Hammer Station or run heroics or spam a bunch of adds at the beginning of an operation should have to choose less conquest points because of it?

 

All I see is someone asking for all activities in the game to be equally rewarding for the time investment, which I believe is the point of these conquest changes, correct? As in, if I run MM Lost Island, it should give me more conquest than running MM HS because it takes like 10 times as long.

 

Are you against this type of balance?

 

As to your second point, that 1 person's "month's long campaign" can somehow cause these devs to make deep changes to the game is ludicris. The devs will do what they want after looking at the metrics, evaluating the playing habits of the player base as a whole and deciding how they want the player base to react.

 

I'm fairly certain GSF won't get much love in the CQ points department, not because it isn't fun, but because it's free. This latest round of changes seems more geared towards motivating subscribers to stay subbed during a major content drought (yet again) by prioritizing activities that only subs can do.

[xordevoreaux]

Whew, I finally am subbed and can respond to these posts, lol.

 

As someone who loves GSF, I have to say that attacking someone in this thread and others instead of actually address his feedback doesn't lend much credence to your viewpoint. Are you suggesting that people who play GSF instead of spam Hammer Station or run heroics or spam a bunch of adds at the beginning of an operation should have to choose less conquest points because of it?

 

All I see is someone asking for all activities in the game to be equally rewarding for the time investment, which I believe is the point of these conquest changes, correct? As in, if I run MM Lost Island, it should give me more conquest than running MM HS because it takes like 10 times as long.

 

Are you against this type of balance?

 

As to your second point, that 1 person's "month's long campaign" can somehow cause these devs to make deep changes to the game is ludicris. The devs will do what they want after looking at the metrics, evaluating the playing habits of the player base as a whole and deciding how they want the player base to react.

 

I'm fairly certain GSF won't get much love in the CQ points department, not because it isn't fun, but because it's free. This latest round of changes seems more geared towards motivating subscribers to stay subbed during a major content drought (yet again) by prioritizing activities that only subs can do.

 

Hello.

 

Feel free to believe what you want. Many of us here have a bit of a history across the course of this year responding to him many, many times. Nonsensical, spurious flak was all he ever retorted with.

 

Again, believe what you want, but the fact remains that the devs are indeed acting on the words of very few regarding these changes. There was never any great chorus on the forums bellyaching about the imbalance between achievable conquest points between PvP and PvE. No. Two people. Maybe five, tops, if that.

 

And no, going from 10,000 conquest points for Mission: Heroics daily repeatable down to 1,550 points is not balance, not in any way, shape, or form. It's a total freaking nerf. And that's just the first of them.

 

At least EA heard our complaints that funneling all the players to a restricted set of conquest objectives was asinine, and they reversed that decision. Why it took players to ship that feedback to them in surround sound 7.2 stereo is the true mystery. EA should have shot that idea down before it ever left the whiteboard. But no. The player base had to explain that stroke of stupidity.

 

And finally, rather than bolster the conquest points for such things as GSF and PvP to be in accordance with the PvE activities, a small amount was added to GSF and PvP, and massive chunks of conquest points were taken out of PvE, leaving those who prefer to solo conquest in a steep lurch, and anyone who can do 8th grade math can see the result: life for conquest soloers, especially altaholics, will supremely suck when 6.1.4 comes out.

 

And you think these forums are noisy now? Just wait until the subscribers who have no clue 6.1.4 is even coming down the pike get wind of the 6.1.4 patch notes.

 

The moment 6.1.4 hits, a bunch of conquest soloers will suddenly realize they're walking through glue to get to the same point that they were before. Unless there's significant, and I mean truly significant, reversal of the solo nerfs, the forums will. catch. on. fire.

Edited September 27, 2020 by xordevoreaux

[Stradlin]

Whew, I finally am subbed and can respond to these posts, lol.

 

As someone who loves GSF, I have to say that attacking someone in this thread and others instead of actually address his feedback doesn't lend much credence to your viewpoint. Are you suggesting that people who play GSF instead of spam Hammer Station or run heroics or spam a bunch of adds at the beginning of an operation should have to choose less conquest points because of it?

 

All I see is someone asking for all activities in the game to be equally rewarding for the time investment, which I believe is the point of these conquest changes, correct? As in, if I run MM Lost Island, it should give me more conquest than running MM HS because it takes like 10 times as long.

 

Are you against this type of balance?

 

As to your second point, that 1 person's "month's long campaign" can somehow cause these devs to make deep changes to the game is ludicris. The devs will do what they want after looking at the metrics, evaluating the playing habits of the player base as a whole and deciding how they want the player base to react.

 

I'm fairly certain GSF won't get much love in the CQ points department, not because it isn't fun, but because it's free. This latest round of changes seems more geared towards motivating subscribers to stay subbed during a major content drought (yet again) by prioritizing activities that only subs can do.

 

o7

Nice to see somebody interested in conquest feedback show up in Conquest Feedback thread!

I hope the ridiculous ad hominem garbage you already got to see would stay in general discussion more and leak here less.

 

I think looking at time invested is if not only, then at least the best way to approach balancing conquest. You can count conquest points. You can measure time. These are pretty much only concrete numbers one gets to play with. You also have difficulty and magnitude of effort, but I think these are ofc much more complex to quantify. Like..how much conquest should soloing a master mode KOTET chapter bring?

 

That said, I think GSF and PvP should have some/most conquest dings in place that are gated behind effort. Just to ensure people won't show up there to AFK their way to great conquest. Towards the beginning of this thread, there is lots of pretty good constructive discussion about what would or wouldn't make good daily objectives for GSF. I think meatiest infinitely repeatable should be about winning or (preferably) medals, not for participation. It can be difficult to do this..I mean.. translating " good effort by pilot of any skill level" into numbers isn't easy.

 

You might well be onto something when it comes to Free2Play<->Subscriber line of thinking being a thing for devs here; it kinda makes sense. Flipside: those 100 daily repeatables orbiting planetary missions does make one colossal counterpoint to this. I mean, giving F2P a massive amount of easily attainable conq was clearly least of their worries last spring with 6.1.1.. Doing planetary missions is just about the most f2p friendly activity one can do in TOR. By the looks of it, it'll remain an excellent/superior path to conq after this patch too. Maybe devs feell the rather low character slot count available for Preferred/F2P is enough of a wall between them and too huge a wealth of conq rewards.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Stradlin

[JattaGin]

Alot of solo story players are f2p or preferred. That a fact. Because you don't really need sub to play solo, only a small percentage of solo players subscribe, ever.

 

You don't know what you're talking about. BW has stated several times before that the majority of money comes in from this target group.

 

Also a fact: 100% of multiplayer people are subscribed, because you can't even play multiplayer content without sub.

 

Yes, and now tell me: Why do they try so badly to get more players to play multiplayer content? Because that group isn't big enough. Do you understand the issue better now?

 

Majority: solo, story, casual, including some lightweight MMO stuff

 

Minority: serious MMO people

 

BW: tries to shift this game towards serious MMO content since Mr. Kanneg took over.

 

Result: The majority gets vocal, because wrong decisions are being made too often. We've been there plenty of times before, and every time BW eventually had to admit (more or less openly) that what they had intended didn't occur, and they needed to revamp something they revamped. Conquest is the perfect example for this. However, you would't know, since you didn't play this game yet back then.

 

But on this forums we got a very vocal, very toxic minority of solo story players who are basically forbidding people who enjoy other content to play and enjoy the game.

 

Yes, every solo story player forbids you to enjoy playing a raid or doing some PvP. That's what happens. /s

 

Dear devs, please do not pay attention to this screeching. Remember who your playerbase really are.

 

I'm sure BW can tell the difference between people having funded this game constantly from the beginning and someone who joined in 2018 with a forum ID of over 21 million.

 

It's time to actually give people who play multiplayer content the rewards they deserve.

 

Literally EVERYONE in all the threads here agrees with that.

 

You tell me why at the same time, solo activities have to be nerfed though? Because that's the issue.

 

Any other MMO values their actual subscribers more than solo story people who will probably never run 99% of content.

 

Am I not an actual subscriber, because I almost exclusively play solo these days? Am I not someone who beta tested this game, and funded it during the years with a 4 digit sum? Constantly, without a break? Yes, I am. Are you?

 

You mentioned in another thread that you consider others here racist and nazist. So just for the record: Judging by your character names, we're from the same area.

 

I'm not going to do *** for tat posts with you, but I will say this.

Of course the devs know where all of the conquest points are coming from. They can poll the data, sort it however they want. The question they need to ask is how many people are doing this ONLY to get conquest points vs. how many people are doing this because they like it....and like the conquest points.

 

This works for ANY type of gamestyle, not just Heroics.

 

I think you presume the majority of the people doing "braindead" solo activities (admittedly not your post, but your sentimentality) are doing it ONLY because it's the fastest way to make conquest.

 

I don't believe that's the case.

 

Very well written. During the last months I've played the stuff I like and I enjoyed it more than for many years. And I played a lot, because Conquest gives me an extra incentive = good feeling about it. And I'm all for giving such a good feeling to ALL players for ALL the activities they like to play.

 

The solution would be so simple: Zero nerfs to the current live state, but a lot of buffs to underrated activities. I don't see the problem here. If you get 100.000 for ranked or whatever, great. But why do I at the same time get so much less for a heroic? Why can't it remain the same? I would be happy. The ranked PvPer would be happy. Forum would be quiet. Everyone would play peacefully.

Edited September 27, 2020 by JattaGin