6.1.4 Conquest Feedback

[Stradlin]

The point is, you're stamping what you believe his point of view is one someone you don't know, have never spoken to, and probably never will. I engage with the guy every week.

 

Short answer? You don't know what the hell you're talking about with this guy.

 

Yeah that's great and all. Its just that this isn't a thread about your guildie.Lets just drop the subject please.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Stradlin

[Decalin]

It would be so nice if devs actually communicated even a little bit. Why are they so slow or unenager to add a generous supplement of daily repeatables for multiplayer content?

 

Agree that it must be a nightmare trying to balance it this way. Honestly, I think the reason we don't see more being added in bulk is the likely over-reaction that it will screw over other playstyles, e.g. when group ranked got that 100k objective.

 

I'm still hopeful GSF and Unranked will receive some buffs, at least for GSF I think some really good and realistic ideas have been put forward, and I like some of the FP ideas that have come up in here yesterday / today also.

 

Hopefully the next patch will have its issues resolved today and we can get a look at the next set of changes

[DarkTergon]

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.

 

 

 

.

 

Because you don't want to elevate anything other than GSF, you have tried to get all non group content nerfed, over and over. Anytime anyone puts up some good advice, you ignore it, and don't listen. If I were to take the same stance as you, and only do CQ on the parts of the game I like, it would take me longer to get to 50 K, then it would for you. I love the stories, it's why I've stayed with the game. I did 3 or 4 chapters on Kotet the other day, and after around 90 mins or so, I had about 13k in CG. One 8k for completing a chapter, the rest came from levelling up, or just doing the missions. Yet every time this is mentioned, you ignore it. People have gone out of their way to explain and help you understand, that you can elevate GSF & pvp without tearing down anything else, there is no more we can do.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

His feedback has been addressed over and over again, some great ideas on how to improve GSF without harming other content was made several times, lots of people have pointed out they can boost the content he likes without nerfing others, but HE has complained over and over to nerf other content, because it doesn't equal his. If I took that stance, me doing class missions, especially Kotet/kotfe gives very little CQ point in comparison to GSF, so should GSF now get a nerf to bring your content in line with mine? Personally I'd think that was unfair, but that's the difference, I don't want others to suffer, I'd ask for my content to be improved, but leave others alone

 

 

 

I'm still hopeful GSF and Unranked will receive some buffs, at least for GSF I think some really good and realistic ideas have been put forward, and I like some of the FP ideas that have come up in here yesterday / today also.

 

And 99% of the people, going back (to all those posts ) around 6.1 agreed that this is what they needed, even those that don't play that content, we've had many threads about it. They only difference is, we don't want to nerf other people's fun. Shame not everyone can be like that

Edited September 28, 2020 by DarkTergon

[DarkTergon]

As a braindead mostly solo / small group player who also pays (a lot) for the game...

 

Thank You! I recognize it is still a nerf but this a step in the right direction by allowing us to continue visiting a variety of planets, which I enjoy.

 

Dasty

 

P.S. There have been some good suggestions in this thread about GSF / medals, FPs etc.. I hope you are still looking at those activities too.

 

I can bet there are more solo players than GSF players

[Decalin]

And 99% of the people, going back (to all those posts ) around 6.1 agreed that this is what they needed, even those that don't play that content, we've had many threads about it. They only difference is, we don't want to nerf other people's fun. Shame not everyone can be like that

 

Neither do I, and honestly I cant say that I have seen Stradlin ask for any nerf's in this thread either, only compare points which can be obtained solo vs in GSF, which IMO is how this should all have been done; solo left as it was and other activities buffed up to the same level.

 

I understand that this may not be the case in all posts/threads going back however long, but I couldn't really care less about that, the Dev's are taking our feedback from here and old rivalries and arguments are only clouding the core issues, which asides from one or two people who are not really contributing in any meaningful way, we all agree on.

[DarkTergon]

IMO is how this should all have been done; solo left as it was and other activities buffed up to the same level.

 

And this is the opinion most of us had from the very start. Buffs, not nerfs, CQ was improved massively, we want it to continue, but it won't if they nerf it. Buff what needs to be buffed, but don't ruin other content that they've actually finally got right.

[DuchessKristania]

IIrc this is bit how it used to be with rampages. Pre 6.0 I mean. Sadly rampages have never been a thing in GSF or pvp. However, there was something called Galactic Rampage which was more or less universal. No matter where(world, FPs, Ops) you killed mobs, they'd count towards it.

 

I really miss Galactic Rampage. I liked having that tick off as I puttered around the galaxy. I could see how it might be difficult to apply it to PvP at the same scale that it does to PvE, but there must be something they could put there in place of it.

[sharkfishman]

I can bet there are more solo players than GSF players

 

What does this have to do with anything? There are more GSF players than NiM raiders, lol. There are more unranked players vs ranked players. More PVE than PVP, etc. Are you saying population should determine the value of conquest point rewards?

[sharkfishman]

And this is the opinion most of us had from the very start. Buffs, not nerfs, CQ was improved massively, we want it to continue, but it won't if they nerf it. Buff what needs to be buffed, but don't ruin other content that they've actually finally got right.

 

I agree with this completely.

 

Buff GSF match completion so it is worth the huge time investment. Buff PVP matches. Buff OPs. Leave solo content where it's at right now. It still takes time and effort to hit CQ.

 

Also, I would add one HUGE caveat: Buff different types of FPs and OPs individually. Set a baseline for HS, then work upward from there. There's no way that a full Nathema MM and Lost Island MM runtime should reward the same conquest (or tech frags, drops, etc.) as HS's 15-minute runtime. Same with Vet VotMG or Dxun vs. EV. That's one of the biggest problems with current content/time spent.

 

Finally, one more thing I would mention that may be causing problems is that devs should stop balancing what is "appropriate" CQ points using the 150% bonus as baseline. It's supposed to be a BONUS after you've invested tens of millions of credits in unlocking. CQ points should be balanced around 0 SH or 2-3 max.

[xordevoreaux]

There's no way that a full Nathema MM and Lost Island MM runtime should reward the same conquest (or tech frags, drops, etc.) as HS's 15-minute runtime

It is precisely statements like this over the past several months that has lead Ea to nerf things. They don't leave crap alone and then buff the rest. They grab Mr. Nerf Stick and go for it.

 

That should be obvious at this point.

Edited September 28, 2020 by xordevoreaux

[DarkTergon]

What does this have to do with anything? There are more GSF players than NiM raiders, lol. There are more unranked players vs ranked players. More PVE than PVP, etc. Are you saying population should determine the value of conquest point rewards?

 

 

 

I thought you read the thread? If you did, you'd see exactly what it has to do with this

 

 

It is precisely statements like this over the past several months that has lead Ea to nerf things. They don't leave crap alone and then buff the rest. They grab Mr. Nerf Stick and go for it.

 

That should be obvious at this point.

 

For most of us it is, but for some....SMH.

Edited September 28, 2020 by DarkTergon

[sharkfishman]

It is precisely statements like this over the past several months that has lead Ea to nerf things. They don't leave crap alone and then buff the rest. They grab Mr. Nerf Stick and go for it.

 

That should be obvious at this point.

 

Do you have a problem with the reasoning? You believe that increased rewards should be given to things that take less time rather than more?

 

SMH.

[sharkfishman]

I thought you read the thread? If you did, you'd see exactly what it has to do with this

 

You didn't answer the question at all. Nice deflection.

[DarkTergon]

You didn't answer the question at all. Nice deflection.

 

because the question isn't the answer, the comment was an answer from another post. So your question is irrelevant to my comment. If you want to ask it again, outside of the comments prefix, that's fine, but inside the prefix, it doesn't matter

 

 

 

You obviously didn't read the thread fully, I'll show you the relevance

Someone made a snarky <redacted> comment about soloists, which dasty answered with his usual brilliance, and my comment was on that post, a little bit of tongue in check at the snarky comment.

Which is why it wasn't a deflection, your question wasn't relevant in this instance

Edited September 28, 2020 by DarkTergon

[casirabit]

What does this have to do with anything? There are more GSF players than NiM raiders, lol. There are more unranked players vs ranked players. More PVE than PVP, etc. Are you saying population should determine the value of conquest point rewards?

 

Simple answer: Because we had some raiders/pvp player that started the argument that there was more of them and that all solo players are not subscribers and the only ones that sub are pvp and/or raiders which is false. That was the post that started the argument.

[Darev]

Devs

 

Logged back on to PTS.

Still getting CQ points, on level 75 toons, from the selling trash objective.

The objective isn't listed, but it's still active.

Getting 9120 CQ for every renown level. The guild perks for renown bonuses are going to be very useful now. There are a couple for GSF, there was a 9% renown bonus for flashpoints. Coupled with the renown bonus consumables..that may be a not so hidden gem with everything that stacks.

and it's good for ALL playstyles.

[xordevoreaux]

Do you have a problem with the reasoning? You believe that increased rewards should be given to things that take less time rather than more?

 

SMH.

 

I believe that the same existing rewards on live for the easier things should continue as they have, and buffs applied to PVP, GSF, and other group activities.

 

That, therefore, is not an increase for the easier things, simply maintaining the status quo for them, which several people in this thread have suggested.

[Darkbloom]

Getting 9120 CQ for every renown level. The guild perks for renown bonuses are going to be very useful now. There are a couple for GSF, there was a 9% renown bonus for flashpoints. Coupled with the renown bonus consumables..that may be a not so hidden gem with everything that stacks.

and it's good for ALL playstyles.

 

Now see this is interesting...this seems like the type of change they need to make! Only problem is, it might not get noticed by players.

 

Anyway, Hi Bioware,

 

Can you help me understand something? Is there a programming issue that makes it hard for Conquest objectives to have "or" in them?

 

Because what I mean is that, you could, instead of nerfing, change Heroic Mission to: Do any heroic mission, or weekly mission, or a pvp match, or a fp, or an uprising, or an operation, or a gsf match, or a KotET/KotFE chapter, or a Star Fortress, etc...

 

Change "Sell junk" to: sell junk, or pay a repair bill, or use a medpack in pvp/gsf, or, etc...

 

Change Bonus Mission to: Do a bonus mission, or kill a boss in a fp, uprising, op, or kill an enemy in pvp, etc...

 

You could do this with every single "easy" objective. These are only once per day, per legacy objectives. They can't be exploited. You'd just essentially be giving people once per day an easy set of conquest points, no matter what they did.

 

Almost like the login bonus you get in basically every mobile game on the market. Might be a smart thing to do, given what's coming with your competitors. Might help you keep hold of players who otherwise would stop logging in at all. And it wouldn't favor one play-style over the others.

****

If you combined that with the idea hinted at here by a lot of posters, eliminating the "kill x enemies" for each planet and replacing it with various tiers of galactic rampage, where enemies from any operation, fp or planet would count, then you wouldn't even have to nerf the conquest from most planets. And yes, eliminating the two tiers of kill enemies for each planet is still a nerf. But you're only nerfing one thing instead of a whole bunch of things.

 

People would not get as upset. Many would still be unhappy, don't get me wrong. But I think it would be minimized.

 

At that point, you would have completely eliminated the advantage of doing planetary heroics over and over again compared to doing other activities (as long as you buff the other activities. A few of them do need more buffs than they have gotten so far.) You would eliminate the possibility that people are doing heroics even if they don't like them, just because it's such good conquest.

 

You could also easily fine-tune how much conquest people get from various planets, just like you can fine-tune it to give people more conquest from the harder fps than they get from Hammer Station.

 

So I guess what I'm wondering is, is there something stopping you from making the "easy" conquest objectives applicable to all play-styles?

[xordevoreaux]

 

Can you help me understand something? Is there a programming issue that makes it hard for Conquest objectives to have "or" in them?

 

Because what I mean is that, you could, instead of nerfing, change Heroic Mission to: Do any heroic mission, or weekly mission, or a pvp match, or a fp, or an uprising, or an operation, or a gsf match, or a KotET/KotFE chapter, or a Star Fortress, etc...

 

Change "Sell junk" to: sell junk, or pay a repair bill, or use a medpack in pvp/gsf, or, etc...

 

Change Bonus Mission to: Do a bonus mission, or kill a boss in a fp, uprising, op, or kill an enemy in pvp, etc...

 

You could do this with every single "easy" objective. These are only once per day, per legacy objectives.

 

The only way --or-- would work out is if choosing A from A, B, C, D still left B, C, D on the table for that day.

 

Otherwise, that suggestion absolutely obliterates the play style of soloers wanting to run their alts every day through conquest, because choosing one item from a set of items using --or--- logic means that the rest of the items are now unavailable until the next day's conquest objective reset.

 

Leave everything on the table, for any number of alts to pull what they want off the menu, for however many alts players want to send to the buffet that day.

Edited September 29, 2020 by xordevoreaux

[Darkbloom]

The only way --or-- would work out is if choosing A from A, B, C, D still left B, C, D on the table for that day.

 

Otherwise, that suggestion absolutely obliterates the play style of soloers wanting to run their alts every day through conquest, because choosing one item from a set of items using --or--- logic means that the rest of the items are now unavailable until the next day's conquest objective reset.

 

Leave everything on the table, for any number of alts to pull what they want off the menu, for however many alts players want to send to the buffet that day.

 

I don't understand your response.

 

Let's just pick one example. Currently, Heroic Mission rewards 4k Conquest points (before SH bonuses. After the 150% SH bonus it's 10k.)

 

Right now you get that objective by finishing any Heroic Mission. I suggest changing that specific Conquest objective to: Finish any Heroic Mission, or any flashpoint, or any warzone, or any Chapter, etc.

 

How does that change anything for any "soloer?" Right now they can only get the Heroic Mission conquest objective once per day, per legacy. They still get it once per day, per legacy. It's just that now anyone else can get the same Conquest objective once per day, per legacy.

[xordevoreaux]

I don't understand your response.

 

Let's just pick one example. Currently, Heroic Mission rewards 4k Conquest points (before SH bonuses. After the 150% SH bonus it's 10k.)

 

Right now you get that objective by finishing any Heroic Mission. I suggest changing that specific Conquest objective to: Finish any Heroic Mission, or any flashpoint, or any warzone, or any Chapter, etc.

 

How does that change anything for any "soloer?" Right now they can only get the Heroic Mission conquest objective once per day, per legacy. They still get it once per day, per legacy. It's just that now anyone else can get the same Conquest objective once per day, per legacy.

 

If A, B, and C collectively represent a single conquest objective for the day, and to satisfy that conquest objective you can pick activity A or B or C, then picking any of the three eliminates the other two for the day because the objective has been satisfied.

 

Instead of:

 

Conquest Objective: Pick A, B, or C

 

it needs to be:

 

Conquest Objective A

Conquest Objective B

Conquest Objective C

 

as it exists in the current list on live.

 

Stacking multiple conquest activities to satisfy a single objective isn't a good idea.

[Darkbloom]

If A, B, and C collectively represent a single conquest objective for the day, and to satisfy that conquest objective you can pick activity A or B or C, then picking any of the three eliminates the other two for the day because the objective has been satisfied.

 

Instead of:

 

Conquest Objective: Pick A, B, or C

 

it needs to be:

 

Conquest Objective A

Conquest Objective B

Conquest Objective C

 

as it exists in the current list on live.

 

Stacking multiple conquest activities to satisfy a single objective isn't a good idea.

 

No that is not how it exists on live at all! Right now there is no equivalent objective for other play styles. That is precisely why Bioware has come to the correct conclusion that they are inadvertently herding players into doing planetary heroics, basically forcing them to do heroics at the expense of other activities.

 

Again, please stick with a specific example, because I do not understand how NOT NERFING a play style, in any way shape or form, harms that play style!

 

Let's take the conquest objective Heroic Mission.

 

I am not discussing ANY other objectives. Just that one.

 

Currently, there is only one way to get this objective: Do a heroic mission.

 

Why not just change it to, basically, do anything? Do a flashpoint, or an uprising, or whatever.

 

No Conquest objectives are eliminated. You just make it so that all players can achieve that objective, instead of herding them towards a single style of play. Everyone is happy, because now everyone can get their "easy" Conquest points once per day.

 

Why would you have a problem with other people getting to enjoy the same easy conquest points you enjoy?

[xordevoreaux]

No that is not how it exists on live at all! Right now there is no equivalent objective for other play styles. That is precisely why Bioware has come to the correct conclusion that they are inadvertently herding players into doing planetary heroics, basically forcing them to do heroics at the expense of other activities.

 

Again, please stick with a specific example, because I do not understand how NOT NERFING a play style, in any way shape or form, harms that play style!

 

Let's take the conquest objective Heroic Mission.

 

I am not discussing ANY other objectives. Just that one.

 

Currently, there is only one way to get this objective: Do a heroic mission.

 

Why not just change it to, basically, do anything? Do a flashpoint, or an uprising, or whatever.

 

No Conquest objectives are eliminated. You just make it so that all players can achieve that objective, instead of herding them towards a single style of play. Everyone is happy, because now everyone can get their "easy" Conquest points once per day.

 

Why would you have a problem with other people getting to enjoy the same easy conquest points you enjoy?

 

On live, if I pick Missions: Heroic, nothing else is touched. Everything in the list is still sitting there to be done.

 

 

From what I am understanding you're trying to suggest with your --or-- logic, you're suggesting that a single conquest objective should be satisfied by selecting any among a list of conquest activities under that one conquest objective.

 

Doing so would eliminate all the other items in that group for the day because you've satisfied the conquest objective. Not good.

Edited September 29, 2020 by xordevoreaux

[Darkbloom]

On live, if I pick Missions: Heroic, nothing else is touched. Everything in the list is still sitting there to be done.

 

 

From what I am understanding you're trying to suggest with your --or-- logic, you're suggesting that a single conquest objective should be satisfied by selecting any among a list of conquest activities under that one conquest objective.

 

Doing so would eliminate all the other items in that group for the day because you've satisfied the conquest objective. Not good.

 

If,

 

Right now, on live, doing Heroic Mission eliminates all other items in that group because you've satisfied the conquest objective! So why don't you have a problem with the way it is now?

Edited September 29, 2020 by Darkbloom

[xordevoreaux]

Right now, on live, doing Heroic Mission eliminates all other items in that group because you've satisfied the conquest objective! So why don't you have a problem with the way it is now?

 

There is no grouping of activities whatsoever on live. I don't see how you believe that there are. Completing one doesn't eliminate any others.

 

I don't see anything on here: https://i.imgur.com/igEuWlj.png

where there's any sort of linkage or connection or gate. I do them all individually. Defeat enemies must be done in order, but I can still do them both.

 

This is what I'm visualizing with your suggestion:

 

Conquest Objective: Housing, Decorations, and Companions

1. Decorate your stronghold 5 times

OR

2. Increase your companion by a level

OR

3. Open up another area of a stronghold

 

Doing any of the three, from what I'm understanding you're suggesting, would satisfy that one conquest objective, and in satisfying it, the rest are now not available because they were attached to that one and only objective.