6.1.4 Conquest Feedback

[Stradlin]

You realize that people don't do certain content because they don't like it?

 

.

 

Yeah. People like different things. Any multiplayer content needs..multiple players. Test center doesn't have lots of people. Grand total of three people in imp fleet there at the time of writing this.Test Center doesn't live and function like a normal live server. Stuff like various pops happening via activity finder simply isn't a thing. Less straightforward activities that need other people to happen simply don't happen. Therefore, multiplayer content isn't getting tested or talked about enough.

 

i think the " talked about" bit is actually the reason why 6.1.1 ended up being so broken to begin with - They quite literally just forgot about multiplayer content there. It is dififcult to get involved with it on TC. Therefore, it doesn't generate much talk. " So, I was testing GSF/Ops/FP today on TC and got thinking.." just doesn't happen. Not for a patch like this.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Stradlin

[Eriamea]

Test center doesn't have lots of people. Grand total of three people in imp fleet there at the time of writing this.Test Center doesn't live and function like a normal live server. Stuff like various pops happening via activity finder isn't a thing.

That's because everything announced is not worth downloading and testing. It is just numbers - and we all know the effects - save the event.

[Stradlin]

That's because everything announced is not worth downloading and testing. It is just numbers - and we all know the effects - save the event.

 

Sure. That's how most people prolly see it - There isn't much to test beyond counting them numbers.

 

We talking about a test center patch that is still under construction. Betting you a tauntaun there are some..undocumented features, bugs and broken bits. It'd be nice to get hands dirty. I'd much rather do 10 matches and see how much conq I have than take the relevant listed numbers and multiply by 10.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Stradlin

[JattaGin]

Our Objective balance goal is to bring the points a player can obtain per minute more in line across all Objectives. Unfortunately this means that some of the more accessible and easy to complete objectives had to have their points reduced. One of the main points of feedback regarding point reduction we are seeing is directly related to the Defeat Enemies objectives.

 

This conclusion doesn't speak for a gaming-oriented mindset of yours.

 

At this point, I (wished I) can only laugh about how BW does exactly the same mistakes again and again which they have done in the past and which they had to fix with things like introducing F2P, the cartel market, reversing previous decisions, firing personell and whatnot.

 

They are obviously learning-resistent. Do they really not remember the last time they overhauled and NERFED the previous conquest system? Not only led this to a war on the forum, but it also led to a noticeable loss of players. And it led them to having to overhaul their conquest system AGAIN. Eventually to the state in which it is now. A state, which almost everyone except very few people with complicated personalities like S. or l33t players living in their 1% bubble like R. liked. People enjoyed PLAYING THEIR WAY.

 

The people: playing happily.

 

S.: "Boo to conquest."

 

BW: "Oh no, most people play happily and are quiet, even the forum is peaceful. WE HAVE TO NERF CONQUEST!"

 

The people: "Boo to conquest."

 

S: "Boo to conquest."

 

R: "Awesomesauce."

 

 

That, even though written jokingly, quite shows what group of players they are catering to right now. Wait for the moment when Mr. Staats finds out that this is actually the smallest group of players which isn't funding their cartel market. Now, one could ask: How could he have known that? Well, for example by looking at every time during the last 9 years they tried to move the game into that direction. Good luck with that new direction.

 

I have spent more time playing this game during the last months than during the years before combined. It's due to how the conquest game is working right now. I don't care about the rewards for 50k. I just like getting incentives for doing something, especially something which I already am leaning positively towards to, so the system just makes me enjoy this game, especially playing alts.

 

This is a message to R: Imagine playing something that you like AND getting an incentive on top of it. That causes double the much fun, and double the much good feeling. That's why I love the current conquest system. That's why I played very actively during the last months. Take away the incentives again, and it will be back to before when I maybe logged in or instead chose another game. I haven't played another game during the last months, because Swtor provided me with enough incentives to only play Swtor. That's an easy math to me.

 

Obviously, the way how I play this game and how I ENJOY this game, is WRONG. Because all the nerfs hit me, but almost none of the buffs. I will not join the parts of the game they want me to join, no matter what they do. The reasons are that it's not enough fun and the toxicity of the player base. And for me, the people who are toxic are often people who think they are part of the solution.

 

I consider the upcoming patch a message from BW to me. Message received. Call me again when you provide NEW CONTENT worth paying for.

[Kraysk]

So now i was actually able to actually play on PTS, not just log in and see things.

With total of 4 people max in Imp fleet i didn got any PvP pop, let alone GSF, of course.

But i played 1 heroic nission on Hutta, a couple dailies on Rishi, dinged "defeat enemies" on Rishi and did 2 missions from new event and renown level up dinged 3 times.

Hit 100k conquest in like 40 minutes.

 

if iI would get GSF pops on PTS, it would be prolly this way:

assuming it pops non-stop i would get 16500 conquest from "Starfighter: Conquer The Sky" x3

assuming i could win one match, it could give me another 9350 conquest points from "Starfighter: Dominate the Stars"

i also could ding "Activity Finder" that gives another 21375 conquest points.

That would be a total of 47225 conquest in 45 minutes*

Not even on personal target. But maybe renown would ding once.

 

Good attempt but no. Not enough.

Doing dailies, heroics etc is still more than 2 times better conquest than doing GSF.

 

*considering the matches popping non-stop like in prime time on DM and the matches being 14 minutes long

[Eriamea]

 

Good attempt but no. Not enough.

Doing dailies, heroics etc is still more than 2 times better conquest than doing GSF.

 

*considering the matches popping non-stop like in prime time on DM and the matches being 14 minutes long

Guess what? most people hate gsf and conquest has nothing to do with it.

[Kraysk]

Guess what? most people hate gsf and conquest has nothing to do with it.

 

Guess what? I hate doing story, heroics and dailies.

But current conquest system FORCES me (and other ppl who are fed up with planetary tourism) to grind em if i want some decent cq points.

Conquest system on PTS, howewer, is slightly better.

But grinding heroics and dailies is still BY FAR the most efficient way to get conquest points.

BY FAR

This is plain BS and your opinion is irrelevant.

[BRKMSN]

 

CZ-198 Daily Area

CZ-198: Defeat Enemies is now worth 750 points (down from 2,000)

CZ-198: Defeat Enemies 2 is now worth 1,650 points (down from 3,000)

CZ-198: Mission Complete is now worth 1,550 points (down from 2,000)

CZ-198: Weekly Mission is now worth 5,850 points (up from 4,000)

 

Total prior to 6.1.4: 11,000 Conquest points

Total with 6.1.4: 9,800 Conquest Points

 

Yavin 4 Daily Area

Yavin 4: Defeat Enemies is now worth 750 points (down from 2,000)

Yavin 4: Defeat Enemies 2 is now worth 1,650 points (down from 3,000)

Yavin 4: Mission Complete is now worth 1,550 points (down from 2,000)

Yavin 4: Weekly Mission is now worth 10,700 points (up from 4,000)

 

Total prior to 6.1.4: 11,000 Conquest points

Total with 6.1.4: 14,650 Conquest points

 

As you can see both Yavin 4 and CZ-198 now offer Conquest rewards more aligned with the time spent to accomplish them.

 

 

I fail to understand why we are tying in the "defeat enemies" objectives and the "complete mission" objective with the "weekly mission" objective.

 

It's not any easier or faster to kill NPCs on CZ 198 than it is on Yavin 4. Completing 1 (or 2) mission(s) takes about the same time pretty much anywhere.

 

If there needs to be an adjustment like you believe here, it only should apply to the weekly. Sure, we will probably complete those along the way to the weekly, but what if we aren't after the weekly? What if we just like replaying a certain area on a character that already completed the weekly?

[ExarSun]

That, even though written jokingly, quite shows what group of players they are catering to right now. Wait for the moment when Mr. Staats finds out that this is actually the smallest group of players which isn't funding their cartel market. Now, one could ask: How could he have known that? Well, for example by looking at every time during the last 9 years they tried to move the game into that direction. Good luck with that new direction.

 

I have had this feeling for a long time now. Not sure whether to laugh or cry about the pure audacity to cater to the lowest number of population in the game and for some years now. Message is clear - rest of the people dont matter and have no place here whatsoever. Play your way, was it?

Edited September 24, 2020 by ExarSun

[casirabit]

Sure. That's how most people prolly see it - There isn't much to test beyond counting them numbers.

 

We talking about a test center patch that is still under construction. Betting you a tauntaun there are some..undocumented features, bugs and broken bits. It'd be nice to get hands dirty. I'd much rather do 10 matches and see how much conq I have than take the relevant listed numbers and multiply by 10.

 

No matter what there will be bugs when it goes live. Always does and I am normally one that goes to TC to test things but not this time. I can do the math so why waste my time.

[Ramalina]

Make it 8 and you have my vote.

 

I'd settle for 4 medals in GSF. For new players who don't know the objectives, particularly with relatively low geared ships, a goal of 8 medals is a high bar to clear.

 

There's also the potential for knock-on effects. Sure, once you're good at GSF and know what the medal objectives are, it's fairly easy to fly for medals. However, in terms of having the best possible game, racking up medal count has some potential for perverse play incentives. Stay on sat that doesn't need your help to get the next minute worth of defender, or go out and take care of that gunship that someone really needs to do something about if your team doesn't want to lose B and the game?

 

I've seen myself flying aggressively for medals back when I was after GSF legacy achievements, and pushing for a high number of medals is not always beneficial for team oriented play any more than picking your ship based on trying to max out the bonus requisition.

 

I don't insist on any medals at all though if the goal to to prevent AFK participation via a win condition. Whether TDM or DOM being AFK is a serious handicap to the team with the AFKer to the point where it's not a sensible conquest farming strategy.

 

Where an earn medals condition would help is if the matchmaker is being unkind and throwing someone into the losing side of badly imbalanced teams match after match. This happens fairly regularly. In this case going by medals is a way for someone who is participating well to still make progress for conquest, but in a way that doesn't strongly encourage AFK exploitation.

 

Yeah, I realize that with the bar set at four, there's the potential for eight or nine people to be stacked on one sat, and a whole bunch of abandons at the start of any TDM match because of people who just want a sat to huddle under. On the whole though, that might be a lesser evil than frustrating people relatively new to GSF by making it effectively a no conquest activity by putting the medal count outside of their reach.

 

Eh, maybe 5 medals would be ok. More than 6 sounds like too much to me though.

[Stradlin]

I'd settle for 4 medals in GSF. For new players who don't know the objectives, particularly with relatively low geared ships, a goal of 8 medals is a high bar to clear.

 

There's also the potential for knock-on effects. Sure, once you're good at GSF and know what the medal objectives are, it's fairly easy to fly for medals. However, in terms of having the best possible game, racking up medal count has some potential for perverse play incentives. Stay on sat that doesn't need your help to get the next minute worth of defender, or go out and take care of that gunship that someone really needs to do something about if your team doesn't want to lose B and the game?

 

I've seen myself flying aggressively for medals back when I was after GSF legacy achievements, and pushing for a high number of medals is not always beneficial for team oriented play any more than picking your ship based on trying to max out the bonus requisition.

 

I don't insist on any medals at all though if the goal to to prevent AFK participation via a win condition. Whether TDM or DOM being AFK is a serious handicap to the team with the AFKer to the point where it's not a sensible conquest farming strategy.

 

Where an earn medals condition would help is if the matchmaker is being unkind and throwing someone into the losing side of badly imbalanced teams match after match. This happens fairly regularly. In this case going by medals is a way for someone who is participating well to still make progress for conquest, but in a way that doesn't strongly encourage AFK exploitation.

 

Yeah, I realize that with the bar set at four, there's the potential for eight or nine people to be stacked on one sat, and a whole bunch of abandons at the start of any TDM match because of people who just want a sat to huddle under. On the whole though, that might be a lesser evil than frustrating people relatively new to GSF by making it effectively a no conquest activity by putting the medal count outside of their reach.

 

Eh, maybe 5 medals would be ok. More than 6 sounds like too much to me though.

 

 

6 medals combined with a situation where the unfinished x/6 counter don't reset after the match ends maybe. So if it is a one sided stomp or new pilot still figuring things out, they might earn 4 medals during match one and 3 more on second match. Objective would ding and they'd start third match with one medal already in pocket towards a second ding. From pov of a new pilot, It'd still be kinder than infinitely repeatable for winning I think. ..Assuming said pilot is busy trying to do stuff.

....Then again, a half decent pilot would often ding the objective twice in a match. Which frankly doeesn't sound any more gluttonous conq than planetary missions been for half a year now. Maybe it'd make thedifference between new and vet pilots conq haul too big? I dunno.

 

 

It is bit tragic how so many GSF objectives, one about gathering medals included, are already in game in some form or another. Just that they are locked behind a borderline extinct conquest event that happens maybe twice a year. Clash in Hyperspace objectives should be just made available each week. Chasing daily repeatable dings is pretty fun imo. Its too bad that GSF has only two, even now.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Stradlin

[OOOYYY]

These changes make me sad. Instead of upscaling the more time-consuming content, these changes heavily downscale the shorter content. Plus, restricting qualifying heroics and rampages will make conquest super-grindy and repetitive. So the overall effect is having to slog through content I don't like before turning to activities I do like. Most likely, I won't be able to make conquest on my alts, so they'll be ejected from guilds that require conquest and go inactive.

 

I don't see who asked for conquest to take more time or who benefits from this system. So many of us were having fun with the current system. In my time in the game, this is the first proposed change that I have been sad about.

[Balameb]

Hi all!

 

First and foremost thank you all for the feedback!

 

Here are some of the major points of feedback I am seeing:

 

• Feedback regarding locking Planetary Heroic Objectives to their planet being an available planet to invade. You would like to see these available at all times.
  
• Feedback regarding locking Planetary Defeat Enemies to their planet being an available planet to invade. You would like to see these available at all times.
  
• Feedback regarding solo based Objectives being overly reduced.

 

Our goal with locking Heroic and Defeat Enemy objectives to their planets was two fold; we wanted to create some variability to Conquests from week to week, while also working to streamline the increasing number of Objectives a 71+ player has.

 

Our Objective balance goal is to bring the points a player can obtain per minute more in line across all Objectives. Unfortunately this means that some of the more accessible and easy to complete objectives had to have their points reduced. One of the main points of feedback regarding point reduction we are seeing is directly related to the Defeat Enemies objectives.

You can balance with just adding points to those objectives that need more, no need to also lower or remove(lvl gate) other objectives.

You can easy upgrade points for group activities and encourage weekly conquest planets / events by allowing the repetition of those objectives. Currently, planetary missions and defeat enemies is limited per day to two missions and up to 75 enemies per planet, is not like one player can stay with all its toons in the same place and do nothing else. And forcing to go to current conquest planets or event creates caos because you refuse to solve concurrency/respawn time issues.

I just don't see why adding points to completing FPs(and other group content) means planetary need to be nerfed. Is some group content still getting less per/minute? Then add even more. For example, If you can add in large to over 200k (with 150% bonus) to team ranked weekly i don't see why you can't make finishing a vet FP 15k + GF points both repetable.

[Stradlin]

So now i was actually able to actually play on PTS, not just log in and see things.

With total of 4 people max in Imp fleet i didn got any PvP pop, let alone GSF, of course.

But i played 1 heroic nission on Hutta, a couple dailies on Rishi, dinged "defeat enemies" on Rishi and did 2 missions from new event and renown level up dinged 3 times.

Hit 100k conquest in like 40 minutes.

 

if iI would get GSF pops on PTS, it would be prolly this way:

assuming it pops non-stop i would get 16500 conquest from "Starfighter: Conquer The Sky" x3

assuming i could win one match, it could give me another 9350 conquest points from "Starfighter: Dominate the Stars"

i also could ding "Activity Finder" that gives another 21375 conquest points.

That would be a total of 47225 conquest in 45 minutes*

Not even on personal target. But maybe renown would ding once.

 

Good attempt but no. Not enough.

Doing dailies, heroics etc is still more than 2 times better conquest than doing GSF.

 

*considering the matches popping non-stop like in prime time on DM and the matches being 14 minutes long

 

We should really try to organize a GSF tourney there. One can prolly calculate the points quite accurately like you just did. But tis test center so it'd be nice to test and get hands dirty.

[TinaLovesHan]

CQ was finally in a good spot. Our tiny guild could actually do invasions. We could get cq but still do alts and play story. Play how we wanted and still feel like we were included in the bigger stuff of the game. We're only 10 members. Friends for years that just like to play in the limited amount of time we have. It once again feels like small guilds and casual players with limited time are getting the short end of the stick.

 

I played on the pts last night and did what I normally do to get cq (granted with only 25% SH bonus instead of 100%) and when finished I still needed 12k. Maybe the 75% would make a difference, but it still makes cq feel pretty grindy now.

[Stradlin]

 

I played on the pts last night and did what I normally do to get cq (granted with only 25% SH bonus instead of 100%) and when finished I still needed 12k. Maybe the 75% would make a difference, but it still makes cq feel pretty grindy now.

 

Yeah, maybe it would..

Max is 150% btw, not 100%. It is 100% free to unlock all SHs on Test Center.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Stradlin

[TinaLovesHan]

Yeah, maybe it would..

Max is 150% btw, not 100%. It is 100% free to unlock all SHs on Test Center.

 

Whoops, thought I typed 150. Sorry

 

Yes, I know it's free but my time was limited and that was the only one I had claimed. It was my first time on the pts and I spent some time doing the feast stuff as well.

 

My point stands. Solo/casual players and tiny guilds once again getting the short end of the stick.

[Darkbloom]

Yeah it is knda strange. Itts not like EA needs to physically and literally mine conquest points from an actual real world mine and then figure out how to distirbute this rare resource to people as fairly as possible.

 

On live servers, disparity between planetary missions and multiplayer content is utterly obscene when it comes to conq. Still, there is no reason why multiplayer stuff getting some URGENTLY needed love should happen at the cost of planetaries.

 

If they considered " too much conq points!" an issue, the conq patch of last spring wouldn't have happened at all.

 

Hi Stradlin,

 

It's because this has very little to do with buffing rewards for multiplayer content. If that was what they cared about, they'd just do it and leave everything else alone.

 

You have to look at this in the context of all the other weird changes that have suddenly started coming down the pike.

 

You notice how every single change is about pushing people to play ANY content other than planetary missions and heroics? Some of the content they are pushing is solo or soloable. It's not about multiplayer.

 

That should give you all the hints you need as to what's really going on.

 

The problem is that trying to punish players for doing planetary missions and heroics will not result in the changes Bioware seeks. People will not stop doing heroics and start doing KotET chapters, Uprisings or GSF. No. They'll stop doing heroics and play WoW.

 

This is the worst case scenario for Bioware, and the fact that they're even risking it should suggest what's actually going on with these changes.

 

***

 

Anyway, the best thing you did in this thread is ask people to come up with suggestions for how Bioware might encourage people to try the content that is currently being ignored. (Besides buffing conquest, which they are gonna do but which won't cause people to change their habits if they are happy with the conquest they are currently getting.)

 

I'm really glad you asked that, because if Bioware doesn't get some good ideas here they may feel forced to go through with these nerfs and it's going to suck for everybody.

 

I wish people had responded more to your question. I, unfortunately, don't have great answers. But here are some ideas. Let's start with Uprisings, since they are not all that different from FP. So it shouldn't be that hard to get players to try them.

 

Maybe Bioware could have, like, rotating "try content you haven't tried yet this week" in-game promotions with rewards that are just totally separate from Conquest. The rewards might be things like we got with the old Dark vs Light event. Things like BoP cartel packs. Or maybe cartel certificates, like we got for the Nightlife event.

 

Anyway, they could specifically promote that the idea is for people to play content they haven't tried yet. So you'd get points towards the BoP cartel packs (let's say) just for finishing any Uprising on any difficulty level. And maybe a lot more points for finishing any five different Uprisings. And so on.

 

Maybe people might find that, with all the other rewards you get from Uprisings, plus improved conquest, that they like doing Uprisings. And then maybe they'd start doing them regularly.

 

Now something like GSF is going to be a lot harder, because it's so different from what the vast majority of the player base plays. But it could still be possible.

 

There are so many groups that try to keep GSF up and running, and try to teach newbies. Maybe Bioware could do, I don't know, some kind of social media campaign when it's GSF's turn promoting those groups. Something to help the people who know how to play GSF set up informal events where they teach new players.

 

I mean it's a tall order. But punishing people who have never tried GSF for playing what they enjoy playing isn't going to encourage them to try GSF. And a declining player base doesn't help anyone.

 

Anyway, that's the best I can do for now. Maybe I'll come up with some other ideas later.

[Stradlin]

Hi Stradlin,

 

You notice how every single change is about pushing people to play ANY content other than planetary missions and heroics? Some of the content they are pushing is solo or soloable. It's not about multiplayer.

 

Hi Blooms o7

 

Yeah I think this makes a ton of sense actually. No matter what you enjoy doing in this game, 6.1.1 made touring some planetaries look really, really enticing. Want a path to bringing something like 30 characters to conq target? It simply isn't there without doing a ton of planetaries. (with crafting prolly being some notable exception here) When it comes to any other major playstyle, everything else was quite literally just pushed aside or forgotten in 6.1.1. I think it is absolutely vital to have a patch that gives a ton of love to everything else except planetaries. That still don't necessarily mean planetaries should be nerfed.

 

People will not stop doing heroics and start doing KotET chapters, Uprisings or GSF. No. They'll stop doing heroics and play WoW.

 

Yep, I bet you are right. . Only major shifts would involve some people moving away from planetaries and back to content they actually enjoy farming for conquest. Also, some people are prolly hungry for a change. I mean..folks been running 10 year old planetaries for awesome conquest for almost half a year now. Some might actually wanna get busy with something else. Just for the sake of variety and novelty. But yeah, hopefully it doesn't make anyone who hates GSF to do GSF. etc.

 

Uprisings are some kind of an exception here imo.. I mean..in terms of gameplay, they feel like more modern, more spammable and more repeatable replacements of old FPs in every sense. I wonder if only thing keeping folks away has been awful loot and awful conquest. I can't think of a reason why somebody would love to do FPs for conq and hate Uprisings for conq. (assuming legit normal 4 man grp wanting to do a full run, no cheesing or stealth farming etc)

 

 

Anyway, the best thing you did in this thread is ask people to come up with suggestions for how Bioware might encourage people to try the content that is currently being ignored. (Besides buffing conquest, which they are gonna do but which won't cause people to change their habits if they are happy with the conquest they are currently getting.)

 

I'm really glad you asked that, because if Bioware doesn't get some good ideas here they may feel forced to go through with these nerfs and it's going to suck for everybody.

 

I wish people had responded more to your question. I, unfortunately, don't have great answers. But here are some ideas. Let's start with Uprisings, since they are not all that different from FP. So it shouldn't be that hard to get players to try them.

 

Maybe Bioware could have, like, rotating "try content you haven't tried yet this week" in-game promotions with rewards that are just totally separate from Conquest. The rewards might be things like we got with the old Dark vs Light event. Things like BoP cartel packs. Or maybe cartel certificates, like we got for the Nightlife event.

 

Anyway, they could specifically promote that the idea is for people to play content they haven't tried yet. So you'd get points towards the BoP cartel packs (let's say) just for finishing any Uprising on any difficulty level. And maybe a lot more points for finishing any five different Uprisings. And so on.

 

Yeah something like that would be fun! I think old conquest kinda pushed just that. Pre 6.1.1 optimal, natural and " satisfying" path had one doing pretty diverse mix. You'd always lean heavily on current conq. week and kinda keep orbiting whatever it was about. Now, such niceties aren't really encouraged for most part. In practice, every conquest week is just a planetary theme week now. Been that way for half a year now almost. And the thing is..half a year is too long: People have gotten too used to it. Giving 100 dailies that are there each week(!!!?!) for six months and then taking them away would get pretty ugly. People would hate it. So I hope they just throw another 100 objectives there, like 20 for each multiplayer activity. Stuff that is there each week. Like planetary missions are.

 

Back when command crates were a thing, I guess people did pay attention to which activity game rewards that day. Same bonus rotation is still ticking with renown of course. Its just that nobody cares about renown. Making renown more enticing combined with daily rotating bonus to it could be a solution and close to what you suggest? They should throw something interesting in those crates. Not gear pls god no more gear. Nor crafting mats. But I dunno..legacy titles, cosmetic stuff, GSF cosmetics, cartel cubes..emotes. something. Higher the renown lvl, fancier the " something".

 

There are so many groups that try to keep GSF up and running, and try to teach newbies. Maybe Bioware could do, I don't know, some kind of social media campaign when it's GSF's turn promoting those groups. Something to help the people who know how to play GSF set up informal events where they teach new players.

 

I mean it's a tall order. But punishing people who have never tried GSF for playing what they enjoy playing isn't going to encourage them to try GSF. And a declining player base doesn't help anyone.

 

Anyway, that's the best I can do for now. Maybe I'll come up with some other ideas later.

 

That would go hand in hand real nicely with incoming release of Squadrons. Every single Stawa title so far has gotten little some in game promotion from TOR's part. Wonder if this makes an exception to the rule.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Stradlin

[DuchessKristania]

See, the thing is, I enjoy heroics. I have favorites and I also cycle through different heroics as favorites at different times for different reasons. What the current iteration of conquest has done is make it possible for me to both hit conquest and play what I enjoy. It also really helped my tiny guild get more of our ship opened up in a timely manner.

 

I fully support and encourage the development team to expand that flexibility to the players as a whole. People who like to do PvP and group PvE should have the exact same level of flexibility to do what they like and to hit conquest. My issue with the first PTS build is that it feels more like they are swinging the pendulum rather than fixing the problem.

 

However, I watched the livestream and it provided some encouragement that the team is taking that into account and listening to that concern. I'm eager to test out the next build. I understand that there will be changes and probably reductions to what I can currently earn. That's okay, I'm okay with having to do a few more things to hit conquest as long as I can do the things I enjoy doing, and am able to do without hindering other players with my poor vision and need for extra patience. I mean, obviously my preference would be that they would balance by buffing the areas that need it and leave the rest alone, but that isn't likely to happen.

 

I really like the suggestion of adding extra rewards at different times to try new play styles. It's a honey, rather than vinegar approach. Though, I'm actually open to and enjoy trying new stuff. I just have to find ways to do it that don't screw up anyone else. Still really want to try running ops, I have a feeling I'd enjoy the challenge. One of these days I'll just have to find a way to run it with people who are willing to teach and patient with my visual disability.

[Sarfux]

im testing it out now, and please remember to keep "play your way" and don't go through with the big nerf to things like heroics that can be done ANYWHERE at any time. If you guys seriously change it to ONLY heroics will matter on the 3 planets that you invade count towards conquest and things like that, THAT will be utterly terrible

[Sarfux]

Also, you guys should really think about seriously bringing back taking down commanders, and "defeat republic/empire guards". because people were starting to get together in the open world and attack outposts throughout the galaxy on different planets! there should be "defeat imperial/republic guards" every single week! it would encourage people to get together in big open world raid groups and get their conquest points by attacking enemy outposts! THAT was VERY VERY fun to do!

 

Please bring that back!

[DarthEndonae]

I like that Operations are providing more conquest points, though it seems that Team Ranked was providing more points when these changes were initially announced so I'm not sure if this is a typo. I think that the hardest content should offer the most points since it requires the most knowledge and skill and failure rate does not adequately factor that in. Also, if I recall correctly, Operation: Completion is the reward for doing all the bosses in a raid, so with your current setup an SM raid is gonna net you only 8k fewer points than someone who completes the same raid in MM. All of the time spent learning how to play your class and learn the fight is completely unaccounted for. Operation: Completion should exist for each difficulty. I do like that the incentive is on completing the whole op though, rather than just using LBLO and I do like the overall direction that you've been taking with Conquest.

 

There are still some major gaps though in terms of Conquest. First, you don't really get conquest points for progression raiding. It is hard to do this for older and easier content without making it abusable. Someone progging on SM deserves conquest points just as much as they do on MM, but I do think that you should have objectives where possible. Right now, Dxun MM bosses and probably GOTM MM as well should have individual boss kills award a massive amount of Conquest points in addition to the other ops objectives. Second, getting good takes time. You have to spend time on the dummy if you're gonna get good at DPS and I think that conquest points should be awarded for killing the dummy (alone) within a specified amount of time that matches DPS expectations for raids. There could even be a daily/weekly mission associated with this if it's needed for tracking (there are already timed missions).

[Carba]

The ease of Conquest objectives cannot be analyzed properly in isolation. Conquest has become a major source of mats and credits for crafted gear and for guild perks. The markets for both are supported by players running 15-20 toons for the mats. If that is reduced by half, then the flow of mats will be cut in half, and the prices will spike. Currently, there is a steady demand for crafted gear and stable pricing for mats. If you alter that, please have a reason related to getting more people to play your game. A good starting point for your analysis is what equilibrium prices do you want to see?